This week's Disingenuous Moron Awards go to Nancy Crossman and Marie Kangas for refusing to vote to extend Dr. Canfield's contract -- despite giving him an excellent evaluation. They claim they wanted to leave the decision for the "new" Committee to decide.
Sure, that makes sense ... work with somebody for two years, give him an excellent job review .... and then let somebody else decide whether or not to give him a new contract.
Are they really that F'n stupid?
Of course they are.
In reality, this latest charade is only a very lame attempt to support their arguments from three years ago when they complained about the outgoing Committee doing its job by evaluating the Superintendent's job performance and renewing her contract. -- regardless of the fact that good business practice would be for compensation to be based on performance and despite the fact that The Mass. Association of School Committees has made it clear that the outgoing Committee is obligated to handle the evaluation and related contract renewal.
But, its not the MASC that's bogged down in a very expensive lawsuit.
Enough! Please cast a single ballot today for Sean Rausch. It's time to return one of these idiots to their village!
7 comments:
Done! Unbelievable! What shameful political theater!
I hate voting for the lesser of three evils -- but "not as bad" is certainly better than "nuthin'" --- so I held my nose and voted.
The Truth Maker would say given the present lack of voters at the election this time, no wonder we find ourselfes in such a fix. Everey one has given up and have removed themselves from the process.
Where else except in Sandwich, do we hedge our bets and not announce to the citizens that had the vote at the polls passed , that another town meeting may have been held to change the vote at the first town meeting. You will also note that the way the the ballot question was worded[it did not include the anount of money] violates the principals of 2.5 override laws.It clearly states that a number needs to be fixed.
Am I understanding this correctly, is my question??
If it is so, we indeed do have some serious trust issues that need to be brought out going forward.
The law allows the ballot question to ask the voters if the town can exceed the restrictions of prop 2 1/2 and the reason for the override. Unlike State ballot questions, these ballot questions do not have a "No Vote" or "Yes Vote" summary. The town may choose to use this summary which I hope they will do with future ballot questions. It’s a simple step to help ensure the public is making a clear decision one way or the other. I certainly do not think there is any fowl play or intent to mislead but I do agree they should have taken the extra step to ensure there is no confusion.
"fowl play" --- is that the same as playing with a duck?
I'm just duckin' around ...
I don't think there was any confusion over the ballot question -- the results seemed pretty clear.
Pretty clear message last nights school committee meeting.
Very good choice on both the chair and co chair positions.
It would appear that the union rep went on an early vacation and did not speak at public forum last night, she must have been chiding someone in her class room.
Post a Comment