This letter was sent to the Cape Cod Times by 7 current and former School Committee members, including 3 former Committee Chairs.
To the Cape Cod Times:
Your editorial of last Saturday, (Time to Move On) regarding the superintendent of the Sandwich public schools was as ridiculous as it was misleading.
To claim that when 16% of voters go to the polls, and less than 9% elect critics of the Superintendent, that a “mandate” for change was “loud” and “clear” is silly and unsupportable.
While we agree that a court fight would be messy, expensive and unnecessary; we believe Dr. Johnson does and should have a right to file claims to defend her contractual rights and her good name. In fact, we find the Superintendents’ claim to have a valid contract reasonable, fact-based and compelling.
We believe that the Cape and Islands' District Attorney's office never opined on the validity of Dr. Johnson’s contract but instead expressed an opinion as to the status of Open Meeting laws.
Likewise, we understand that the town's attorney said that the open meeting law may have been broken but, like the District Attorney, did not express an opinion on the validity of the voted and executed contact.
Your editorial suggested that an individual (the Superintendent) loses or should relinquish their rights under contract law if “schools would be deeply wounded.” We ask: since when? And: why? Apparently, the editorial board of the Times thinks it is right and proper to deny certain select individuals rights and remedies granted to them by our constitution – we disagree.
Lastly, you ask “what about her commitment to the kids?” Our answer: Dr. Johnson is a great Superintendent and despite lots of politically motivated nonsense has always remained focused on what’s best for our schools and our kids.
Robert Guerin, former Chairman Sandwich School Committee
Robert Simmons, former Chairman Sandwich School Committee
Dana Barrette, former Chairman Sandwich School CommitteeTrish Lubold, former member Sandwich School Committee
Aleta Barton, former member Sandwich School Committee
Shaun Cahill, member Sandwich School Committee
Andrea Killion member Sandwich School Committee
Barbara Susko, member Sandwich School Committee
15 comments:
Excellent and sensible. Thank you very much for this strong statement.
The Truth Maker recognizes the truth in the above comments and wonders if in fact will they publish it and respond to the outlandish publishing of such a biased evaluation of DR> Johnson? It is, perhaps for me, great to see those who signed this responce. Keep them smiling.
Could it be a coincidence that all members of the prior three school committees (except Marshall & Linehan) support the Superintendent?
Could it be a coincidence that Linehan's husband is a union leader and has always been very loudly opposed to the Superintendent making changes and holding people accountable?
Could it be a coincidence that Marshall was the Chair of the last Superintendent Search Committee -- the one that was "unable" to come up with a real candidate?
Enough!
This would be funny -- if I didn't have a kid in the schools -- or if I was able to sell my house and move away from the idiots who elected these fools. (Yes, I was one of the few that showed up to vote -- not that it did any good.)
Sign me up for a recall. I don't care what the "the powers that be say," its all we've got.
Enough said
once again not all facts told. Marshall was co-chair of that search committee. Any idea who the other one was.
Bob
Small point I don't believe Mr. Barrette worked with the super and 2nd of all he is the chair of the selectment see any conflict of interest or any way the selectment and sc can work together after he puts his name to such a response.
I ask the question again If the meeting was illegal how can any business that was conducted be legal
Anon 5:48 --
Dana was Chairman of the School Committee that hired Dr. J. and he worked with her as Director of Curriculum and later worked with her on budgetary issues when he became a Selectmen and she became the Superintendent.
I can't imagine how actually working with somebody could possibly be a conflict. A second selectman has also submitted a letter and I would not be surprised to see support from soem other BOS members.
Sherry was the SC's appointee to Chair the Search Committee -- she was the only one that ever reported back to the School Committee.
AMEN!!!!!!! I love this statement....I could not have worded it better myself!!!!!!
To enough!!!!
You forgot one more thing....could it be a coincidence that Crossman is an employee of the Community school and did not disclose this fact at the last meeting when she had the chance??? Just wondering
Thank you to Bob Guerin and the seven community leaders.
Leadership is about the sharing of information and reasoning behind decisions and actions.
Thank you for putting yourselves out there to continue to simply be the voice of reason.
Anon 8/9/10 9:28pm
Mrs. Crossman has been very open about her job at the Community School. She went before the Board of Selectmen before the election to disclose this and then again after she won to get a waiver. The BOS voted to grant the waiver.
With regard to the letter:
I really hope that the full School Committee seeks a judge's opinion about the Superintendent's contract. I also feel that regardless of who was elected, the teacher's union needs to understand that they need to make some concessions in order for this district to move forward.
8:56 poster, it has been explained many times on this blog. so again, D.A. only gave an opinion that meeting was a violation. School counsel said the S.C. could accept or reject that opinion. D.A. and present school board are not contract/open government lawyers or judges, so can't nullify the contract no matter how hard they wish upon a star!
Best course of Action the S.C. should consider now:
1. Direct Town attorney to file with a contract judge for review/ruling on validity of Dr. J's contract. (Maybe S.C. are afraid the judge will rule contract valid? thus the refusal to file?)
2. Skip the risk of ruling against them and buy Dr. J out of three year contract for 450,000.much cheaper than option #3
3. Continue to ignore, dig your heels in deeper and get a much bigger check ready for contract violation and defamation of Dr. J's reputation. Time for S.C. to pick their poison.
But ... I don't recall her mentioning she was a Community School employee at the last meeting when they were discussing pool operating costs.
Even if she didn't recuse herself from the conversation, she probably should have said she was a CS employee -- which I think is required by law.
I deleted the 6:46 post and several subsequent ones that were related to it. There was nothing particularly egregious or libelous -- but the initial comment was tough to follow and the subsequent comments (including my own) were getting repetitive:
"yes you are"
"no, I'm not -- you're a #$%^&"
"You're a bigger &^&%$^, and your sister .... (well, you know)"
In was getting bored. And since I do own the delete key ...
People are welcome to make accusations -- but be specific, mix some verifiable facts in with the usual rhetoric, generalities and BS!
OK, resume bickering ...
Post a Comment