6 Responses to “School Board Term Limits, Appointed Superintendent Proposals Advancing”

1. David Huie Green on December 20th, 2017 12:02 am

   REGARDING:
   “The school board is extremely weak with an elected superintendent. Example-when all five of us wanted to keep the behavioral Dean at our two largest middle schools (Ransom and Bailey) just as they were, and the elected superintendent wanted to move them from that position to a third Asst. Principal”

   Restated: The school board wants more power and tried to take over the superintendent’s job of making day-to-day decisions rather than theirs of setting policy.

   “I requested documents I needed to do my job and formulate policy, 1 superintendent gave me what I needed, the other unlawfully withheld the documents.”

   If he broke the law, he’s in prison right now, yes? No?
   Possibly compliance would have been lawful in one case but not the other.

   “”It is too much power for one person to have unfettered access to–and that is why this structure is going extinct.”

   It may go extinct, but giving the power to five people is no guarantee against abuses.
   In fact, since boards often split 3-2, one person often is STILL the deciding vote. The difference being whether the superintendent answers to all of us or just three of them.

   “Or, to put it in more stark terms, let’s put it into a football analogy:”

   Better yet, let’s NOT,
   especially since they are so different and football is so often fraught with scandal and corruption.

   “Hire the #1 guy from a nationwide search and end the politicization of this position.”

   Has to be a GUY?

   With 15,500 school districts already doing it, hasn’t that GUY already been taken? That’s the danger of deciding locals aren’t good enough — others have no ties, may not even know state laws — like Sunshine Law. Plus, IT’S STILL political, just with fewer voters.

   David for thoughtful caution

2. Jeff Bergosh on December 17th, 2017 9:16 am

   Imagine if the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team needed a new coach and wanted to hire the very best coach to maintain their team’s excellent performance. Imagine if they could only hire from a pool of coaches in Tuscaloosa County (population 285,000)? I’m sure they could find some very capable football coaches in that county that could coach that team, right? Heck, they would probably still win some games. But they don’t do that, right, because they don’t just want a good coach running their team for excellent performance—they want the #1 best guy they can find in the country running their team, they want to compensate him well, and they want to ensure he runs the program they way they want it run or else they want the ability to replace him when necessary. This sounds like the smarter way to hire the best coach right–rather than self-limiting the search to one county. This is what I want to do for Escambia County’s schools. Hire the #1 guy from a nationwide search and end the politicization of this position.

3. Jeff Bergosh on December 17th, 2017 8:54 am

   Serving 10 years with two elected superintendents as a school board member, I saw things that made me question this structure as compared to the 99.4% of the rest of our nation’s 15,500 school districts that empower an elected board to hire superintendents (from a nationwide vice a countywide pool) of talented candidates. #1 The school board is extremely weak with an elected superintendent. Example-when all five of us wanted to keep the behavioral Dean at our two largest middle schools (Ransom and Bailey) just as they were, and the elected superintendent wanted to move them from that position to a third Asst. Principal to do paperwork, etc.– guess what happened? The five of us lost, and the elected superintendent did it anyway. I could give other examples. There were times I attempted to add important discussion items onto the board’s agenda–and the items were not added, times I requested documents I needed to do my job and formulate policy, 1 superintendent gave me what I needed, the other unlawfully withheld the documents. What about policy? Under our current antiquated, throwback model–what happens if the elected board wants to go one direction, policy-wise, and the elected superintendent wanted to go another way? Who wins that tug of war? Let me tell you who, the elected superintendent does. So if the last two states in the union that still embrace this model want so desperately to perpetuate this dysfunctional structure–save the money and don’t have boards of education in districts where there are elected superintendents of school. And I could go on and on about the other big issues that DEMAND that we move from this system (deliberate withholding of information to avoid nasty headlines in an election year from the board a la Newpoint, non-rotating selection committee that doles out millions in contracts yearly with the same four person structure [Supt. and three appointees of the supt. that serve him on 1 year contracts], infusion of politics into the position (fundraising and campaigning), etc. etc. The Escambia County School District is one of the largest employers in the county, has a budget that is as big as the county and the city combined, and is run by one man who has incredible power. It is too much power for one person to have unfettered acces to–and that is why this structure is going extinct. Setting aside the fact that the 10 lowest performing school districts in the state of Florida are operated by elected not appointed superintendents and that this model is extremely unusual—-why would we want this office to be so political? I believe ( and most of the rest of the developed world) believe the office of superintendent should be a professional position, not an appointed one. Or, to put it in more stark terms, let’s put it into a football analogy: Imagine if the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team needed a new coach and wanted to hire the very best coach to maintain their team’s excellent performance. Imagine if they could only hire from a pool of coaches in Tuscaloosa County (population 285,000)? I’m sure they could find some very capable football coaches in that county that could coach that team, right? Heck, they would probably still win some games. But they don’t do that, right, because they don’t just want a good coach running their team for excellent performance—they want the #1 best guy they can find in the country running their team, they want to compensate him well, and they want to ensure he runs the program they way they want it run or else they want the ability to replace him when necessary. This sounds like the smarter way to hire the best coach right–rather than self-limiting the search to one county. This is what I want to do for Escambia County’s schools. Hire the #1 guy from a nationwide search and end the politicization of this position.

4. Mark on December 15th, 2017 5:28 pm

   There should be a race for the school superintendent, but he should be able to hold the office as long as everyone votes for him. Why not let someone who is going an incredible job stay in office?

5. Bob C. on December 15th, 2017 1:45 pm

   @ Willis

   Having spent MANY years with the Escambia County School District and working for many Superintendents — most really great and doing good things for kids — and a couple that were shell-shocked at the reality of it all, I am Totally Opposed to an Appointed Supt.
   I’ve seen too many school board members that are just loose cannons and others who are in office only to press forward their own agendas and some in whom I would have no trust at all.
   ELECT the Superintendent of schools.

6. Willis on December 15th, 2017 9:58 am

   I like the idea of Electing the Superintendent.
   Not having him appointed he’s too at risk that way.