For those who are interested, this item appears on the agenda for the June 19th SB meeting. I believe this meeting was originally scheduled for June 23rd.
The item can be found on page 68 of the agenda packet and includes adding another year to the term of the contract and reads as follows:
"I recommend that the contract of Thomas E. Bailey, Superintendent of Oak Ridge Schools, be renewed until June 30, 2012, commencing July 1, 2008. This adds one additional year to the term of the contract."
Who is "I?"
I would think one of the SB members. Is that correct Netmom?
I bet that it is the text for a motion which will be made by a School Board member.
I hope there isn't a fight over who gets to make the motion.
I wonder if they would allow a satisfied cowboy to make the motion from the floor?
Cowboy:
Go for it, I'll second!!!
My crystal ball shows four more years of turmoil for the OR schools. Not even all my mystic powers will help. Perhaps we deserve it.
I'm believing that maybe they should let him run down his contract a bit before they up it again. Yes Merlin I will have to agree.
Merlin and Superbee,
Why do you dislike the super? Do you have kids in the school system that are not getting what they need?
I don't dislike the super, WP, just his management by crisis style. Beginning with the Oak Leaf debacle and ending with the Fellner fiasco and a number of other decisions in between including the bussing mess, I don't recall anything in the administrations of Smallridge or McCoy that approached giving OR schools the bad publicity that has taken place on his watch.
But if people approve of that, so be it.
Now I've got some spells to cast..... Back to my boiling cauldrons!
If the voting process has changed for something as simple as the YAB, why are we not considering making a change in evaluation and extension of contracts on other boards? It stands to reason if a small number of people are to vote or evaluate thier superior then said superior will know which vote was cast against him.
Whether this refers to the Super, the Mayor, the City Manager, or any one else, this doe's not seem a fair way to do business. In the working world, a raise or promotion is rewarded based on performance evaluations by that persons manager. They also look at what that person has accomplished over the past year. Was the number of "issues" considered prior to making this recommendation?