I guess that's the problem with being the fall guy. You get to take the fall.
The board always had it within their power to make motions on this, to be seconded and to ask their board attorney questions. Publicly, that is not what was seen from the cheap seats. We saw the Super take the lead.
Absolving him of this single item, on the basis of political ignorance, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of his leadership skills. I would agree with you here that in hindsight (and this is my characterization) he was only the patsy:
I've changed that bullet point.Originally Posted by Bob Solak
- It was Gordon who denied a Glen Ellyn District 41 School Board President access to the school budget.
- It was Gordon that allowed his non-political neutrality to be lost by being the public face of a failed partisan effort to remove the Glen Ellyn District 41 school board president by asking lawyers to write policy that was in violation of state law.
- It was Gordon that denied a D41 President access to the School Board's legal counsel.
- It was Gordon that ordered staff to refuse a board member request to display a simple image at a board meeting.
- It was Gordon that denied multiple board member requests to view and listen to the school board's own archival records of their own meetings.
- And it was Gordon that allowed school resources, grounds and education funding to be diverted to Union use for electioneering in a school board race - and then denied and stonewalled the FOIA that brought it to light until forced to follow the law by a judge in a court case he lost using still more education funds.
Last edited by jombl; 01-17-2019 at 11:47 AM.
In case you missed it, someone from Hazzard, Young, Attea & Associates (a school administrative search firm) told their friend (who shared on facebook) that D41 is conducting a search for a new super. However, someone else contacted the director of the company and they didn't substantiate the claim, except to say they haven't been approached about it. Whatever the case, I can't imagine the big wigs at HYA are happy about one of their associates gossiping (whether true or not) about school districts. This company already has some questionable press as it is.
Didn't an outgoing board hire Gordon to begin with? So a majority of the people that hired him, never worked with him. That's how boards work. There is a change every few years, but the entire board doesn't turn over at once. They have to continue to make decisions. What if Gordon announced he was leaving the district for a new position? Would you tell the board to wait until after the election to conduct a search? Then they'd have to find someone to fill in for a year.
We all know that Gordon has been interviewing for a few years. That signals to me that he wants out of D41. All this talk about “vindictiveness” of the board seems silly since we don’t know when he started looking for a new job. Was he looking before or after his proposals weren’t being rubber stamped by the board? When that happened, Gordon had a choice to make as the superintendent. He often chose to obstruct instead of comply with the board members’ requests. That was his choice to delay and obstruct.
When I think about backroom shenanigans, these come to mind: (1) what about the $10 million shortfall that he announced in advance of the referendum vote in 2017? Later a shortfall became a surplus; was he thinking about his resume then? Or (2) what about answering a limited FOIA request from Forward 41, with every D41 parents’ name and email address, also in advance of the referendum vote? Again, he made choices. What’s the best way to sum up those examples? Poor judgment? Simple mistakes? The end justifies the means? Resume building? Is this the guy that we want to lead our school district?
My prediction is this will all be moot come Monday night.
Bingo.
The exact thing was said in early 2013 when the search for Dr. Riebock's replacement started.
When the outgoing board hired Gordon, they started early in the school year trying to find a replacement; the current board majority, which has had it in for Gordon since being elected*, could have voted on the non-renewal much earlier, and been looking for a candidate. Beginning a search at the beginning of February is like looking for a house in November - you get the leftovers.
*”had it in for Gordon” in the same way that Ackerman has had it in for Gordon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.facebook.com/notes/d41-4...8540377215942/
“July 21, 2012 - October 29, 2012 - 7 OPEN MEETINGS about the Search” for Riebock’s successor.
I anticipate this Board won’t seek public input at all.
AGENDA
GLEN ELLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT 41 BOARD OF EDUCATION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2019 - 5:00 PM
C. Action Items
1. Non-Renewal of Superintendent Contract
2. Selection of Superintendent Search Firm
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/Publ...&fn=agenda.pdf
[QUOTE=Wm. Schumacher;47416]When the outgoing board hired Gordon, they started early in the school year trying to find a replacement; the current board majority, which has had it in for Gordon since being elected*, could have voted on the non-renewal much earlier, and been looking for a candidate. Beginning a search at the beginning of February is like looking for a house in November - you get the leftovers.
*”had it in for Gordon” in the same way that Ackerman has had it in for Gordon
There have been enough reasons given on here over the years to justify looking for a new superintendent. And, we've known for a couple years that he has been out looking for new employment. The only reason that he's still here is that he's looking for positions that are over his perceived abilities by the districts that he has applied at. Simple deduction, or he'd be somewhere else already. So, your 'had it in for' comments are just silly. In private business, without his contract, he'd have been gone a long time ago.
Schumacher, you don't think that any of what he has perpetrated is an issue. I know at least one judge and 4 board members that disagree.
Last edited by ackerman; 01-18-2019 at 03:24 PM.
I love when “his search for a new job” is given as a reason to get rid of him. If he feels that the board is going to dump him at the end of his contract, he’s stupid not to look. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“We’re going to fire you.”
“I’d better start looking.”
“You’re looking, so we’re going to fire you.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference being Dr Riebock announced her intention to retire. That is not the case here.
Should not have to wait until the election if you just renew his contract. He has been great for this District and our community as a whole.
Again, the only low marks on the survey come when you start asking about Board conduct, not student achievement and certainly not Super performance.
Only FOUR board members?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To quote my good friend from another arena, "Hearsay!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote