home | contact | faq

action items

At the November 23, 2004 board meeting there were noticeable changes in the demeanor of board members compared to other recent meetings. Questions were being asked of presenters. The words "public" and "parents" came up frequently in exchanges. At one point it was noted that the post-construction transition in our district would be guided in part by input from parents.

Then, during the open public comment time, there was a catharsis of sorts.

Former board member Kim Coombs spoke and was critical of the efforts of this website and the people behind it. She was especially incensed at a recent flyer that was mailed out to residents which included a cartoon of a marionette labeled "BOE".  Another stakeholder--we apologize for missing her name--also spoke to the same effect. 

Other parents and residents spoke about financial, special education, and procedural issues.  The editor of this website spoke about the roles of the board and the Superintendent in creating and implementing policy and the dire need for improved community relations.

Throughout this night, there was a difference. Board members spoke their mind and even admitted mistakes. They expressed their irritation and anger at being poked and prodded by this website and they cried foul on particular assertions published here. Here a some specifics in that regard:

Board member Mark Berry took exception to some of the specifics mentioned here in regard to newly-hired Principal Johanna Ruburto's job search in another district. He called this website "inciteful", by which he probably meant "inciting" and not "insightful".  It was a heated moment. The specifics mentioned on this website have been clarified, Mark.  The original point remains, however: whatever the circumstances that led Johanna to participate in a job search elsewhere, why would she be looking anywhere else after only two months on the job?  Is that not indicative of a problem?

Board Member Bill Weber, in his relaxed and soothing style, also wished to express dissatisfaction with items published here. For one thing, he noted that the board does do a self- evaluation each year. That is excellent news, and it is duly noted here. However, how would members of the public know this and why is the evaluation not published as it is in other districts?

Bill also clarified the question of the criteria by which our Superintendent is evaluated. In spite of what was given to readingtonparents.org in reply to an OPRA request, Bill insisted that the written criteria does exist, but that they do not consider it a public document. It is important to understand that this was not communicated in the OPRA request.  The actual evaluations are a personnel matter and are rightfully kept private. However, is not the written criteria, just like the job description, a generic document that rightly belongs under the category of "public"?  Perhaps it will take a trip to the Government Records Council to find out, but the Board could make such a trip unnecessary.

In all, the stakeholders attending this meeting were able to express some simmering concerns.  Board members were able to blow off some steam about being a target of a poison pen, and they recognized some genuine problems in the "venom".  Guess what?  This is much closer to the way the process should work. Those who have studied American history know that democracy isn't pretty.  But, it seems to work.  As Kim Coombs mentioned, we all need to put our cards on the table. Maybe now we will have that table. Time will tell.