adammclane.com

Our superintendent, Joe Beck, did a great job during this meeting. (Over all I’d give him an A for his work tonight.) In particular, I felt he did a great job answering a ladies question about a school bus issue. The lady is asking for him to answer in public things that he doesn’t know or have expertise. He went to length to share how this lady could meet with him and the people in charge of that area. I was proud of this professional response and wish that others would applaud that as well.

I know I’ve been pigeon-holed as “anti-Mrs. Hier” and “anti-Mr. Beck.” That’s just not true. It’s a shame that by asking questions and occasionally taking a position… such as the Sinking Fund issue… that I’m anti one side and pro another. Tonight was a classic example. There were some issues where I disagreed with the opinions of those whom I generally agree. What I’d like to see more of is exactly what Mr. Chesney mentioned repeatedly. The board has to find a ways to agree.

Amen to that.
Here’s a quick rundown of what happened with the issue:

- Sue Hier was not in attendance. A letter from her was read proclaiming her innocence in the matter. As a point of clarification, she has never said she didn’t say the things… she is just saying she didn’t act on behalf of the board at that moment.

- Mr. Chesney did a good job of walking the public through the procedure of what was to come. It was clear that they couldn’t force Mrs. Hier to resign. But it was important to go through the steps. The first vote was something like, “”Were Mrs. Hier’s actions appropriate according to board policies?” That failed 3-3. (Insert audible gasp from the audience… 3 people went on record with a vote that is appropriate to slander someone!) There was then a vote for the board to ask for her resignation. That failed 3-3. Then there was a motion to ask her to remove her as board president. That failed 3-3. Finally, there was a motion to censure Mrs. Hier. That passed 4-2. (The flip-flop there by one board member contradicted her previous three votes. Mrs. Wilson voted that Mrs. Hier did nothing wrong, then voted to punish her for doing something wrong. Boy, if I could get a clarification from her about that I’d love it.

I think what was interesting is that the lines were clearly drawn for the public to see. On one side of the argument the losing minority felt as though the board president represented the school district in calling Mrs. Lerchen’s employer. On the other side the majority successfully argued that the board president said those things privately and not representing the board. With elections not too far off, this decisive moment will come up again.

Interestingly, later in the meeting, Mrs. Wreford repeatedly made the point that the board president represents the board to the community. My head spun with that contradiction. So, in letters to the editor it’s OK for the board president to represent the board without their prior knowledge of what she will say on their behalf… but yet when she (admittedly) called Mrs. Lerchen’s employer to talk about school board issues she wasn’t acting on behalf of the school board. Huh?

Let’s see if I’m the only one to pick up on that.

Share and Enjoy: