Did anyone else catch this? Sure seems like executive committee is taking direct cues from the Superintendent, and I am not quite sure what he is up to, but seems fishy. I know its a long watch, but something doesn't smell right (starting at 1:07+)
Post Reply
1 of 1
2/17 CSISD Board Meeting heated discussion
1,866 Views |
10 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by EliteElectric
I am going to discuss the behavior I witnessed in the video. This is the impression I received as a voter and taxpayer from watching this video.
The memo was sent out at least 6-8 weeks before the vote that was scheduled in February. It seems there was no communication from three members (McAdams, Field, and Martindale) about their objections until the public session of the meeting. The changes were highlighted in red in the memo, so if you read it it would be easy to see. It appears to be an orchestrated ambush instead of the three dissenters having a professional dialogue among the entire board to the memo when it was sent. The 6-8 weeks prior is the time when you discuss why you had issues with the proposed rule change and give your reasons why you disagreed. It's called collaborative discussions. Field obviously researched his opinion and it could have been discussed with the Executive committee prior to the meeting AND in open session if he felt like that was necessary instead of springing it on the rest of the board on the fly.
I also witnessed Martindale defame Paine by saying you remember things to your benefit when he stated he had a similar request when Martindale was superintendent. All this video does is highlight the obvious creation of the appearance of dysfunction by some trustees on the board.
The memo was sent out at least 6-8 weeks before the vote that was scheduled in February. It seems there was no communication from three members (McAdams, Field, and Martindale) about their objections until the public session of the meeting. The changes were highlighted in red in the memo, so if you read it it would be easy to see. It appears to be an orchestrated ambush instead of the three dissenters having a professional dialogue among the entire board to the memo when it was sent. The 6-8 weeks prior is the time when you discuss why you had issues with the proposed rule change and give your reasons why you disagreed. It's called collaborative discussions. Field obviously researched his opinion and it could have been discussed with the Executive committee prior to the meeting AND in open session if he felt like that was necessary instead of springing it on the rest of the board on the fly.
I also witnessed Martindale defame Paine by saying you remember things to your benefit when he stated he had a similar request when Martindale was superintendent. All this video does is highlight the obvious creation of the appearance of dysfunction by some trustees on the board.
TAMU1990 said:
The 6-8 weeks prior is the time when you discuss why you had issues with the proposed rule change and give your reasons why you disagreed.
Isn't that prohibited by the Open Meetings Act?
But they had a January 20th meeting as well. Why couldn't they discuss it then? Why not go into executive or closed session?
School board members can email each other as long as the emails aren't establishing a quorum. I think an individual could email his or her thoughts back to the sender.
School board members can email each other as long as the emails aren't establishing a quorum. I think an individual could email his or her thoughts back to the sender.
TAMU1990 said:
I am going to discuss the behavior I witnessed in the video. This is the impression I received as a voter and taxpayer from watching this video.
The memo was sent out at least 6-8 weeks before the vote that was scheduled in February. It seems there was no communication from three members (McAdams, Field, and Martindale) about their objections until the public session of the meeting. The changes were highlighted in red in the memo, so if you read it it would be easy to see. It appears to be an orchestrated ambush instead of the three dissenters having a professional dialogue among the entire board to the memo when it was sent. The 6-8 weeks prior is the time when you discuss why you had issues with the proposed rule change and give your reasons why you disagreed. It's called collaborative discussions. Field obviously researched his opinion and it could have been discussed with the Executive committee prior to the meeting AND in open session if he felt like that was necessary instead of springing it on the rest of the board on the fly.
I also witnessed Martindale defame Paine by saying you remember things to your benefit when he stated he had a similar request when Martindale was superintendent. All this video does is highlight the obvious creation of the appearance of dysfunction by some trustees on the board.
Why hide the change in executive committee if it's non-controversial? How is the full board discussing a policy that limits board members' behavior an "ambush"? As another voter/taxpayer, it looked like the superintendent is trying to lock out certain board members.
[You can give your opinion but we are not going to allow vulgar insults on this forum. -Staff]
Elect and hire communists, get communist behavior. Not shocking.
I'm sure there was political gamesmanship to waiting until that moment to bring it up, but the point is still valid that not discussing that change in policy openly and trying to cram it in during executive session just to satisfy the superintendent is shady as can be.
And I also think the policy language is ridiculous. Just a power play by Harkrider pure and simple.
Further, any principal who would get 'uncomfortable' by having advanced notice and approval authority to meet with a board member or have them on campus for something should not be a principal in the first place.
And I also think the policy language is ridiculous. Just a power play by Harkrider pure and simple.
Further, any principal who would get 'uncomfortable' by having advanced notice and approval authority to meet with a board member or have them on campus for something should not be a principal in the first place.
I went to a ton of school districts in Texas board rules. It is a pretty standard language with the exception that it is to be accompanied. Most have the Superintendent's office as the point of contact and they would contact the principal.
The term "grandstanding" comes to mind.
Bunk Moreland said:
Further, any principal who would get 'uncomfortable' by having advanced notice and approval authority to meet with a board member or have them on campus for something should not be a principal in the first place.
This times a brazillion. Also the vague "I know of at least one time" stuff sounds so made up. "I had a supermodel girlfriend in high school, she lived in Idaho so none of you ever got to meet her." If you are going to bring up "evidence" to support a position it needs to be documented not hearsay.