Search
District voters may cast more than aspersions in Fairchild decision
By GERIANNE WRIGHT
Staff Writer
I think the Plattsburgh City School Board made an egregious error in its recent denial of tenure to Principal John Fairchild, a decision that may well turn around and bite them on their collective rears.
Previously, my interest in who served in that office was professional – as a reporter covering education – and as a taxpayer. As a professional, my viewpoint has always been to view both administrators and board members as conduits to news stories, good and bad, about their schools and educational topics. As long as he or she is forthcoming with information, I’ve never had a problem with any school administrator or board member.
As a taxpayer, however, I resent a board, elected by the district residents, that so overwhelmingly ignores its constituents’ common voice; the voice of the superintendent, whom it hired to run the district; and the voice of the students, for whom the whole educational system is in place.
When Superintendent Jake Short says after the vote that he recommended tenure as “a vehicle through which boards receive topics for discussion and debate," I view that as highly suspect. I’ve covered many school boards where tenure was not recommended, and there was plenty of discussion and debate. Something’s not right.
I certainly object as a taxpayer to the board’s hidden agenda that will create a costly, time-consuming and disruptive search for a replacement. However, as the mother of a daughter about to enter ninth grade, I now have a vested interest as a parent – one who has heard the collective voices of parents throughout the district who demanded Mr. Fairchild be given tenure.
As board members, surely you must realize you’ve shot yourselves in the collective foot if you have any hope or inclination of running again and winning a seat on that board. Surely you realize any political future is dim. Memories are long, my friends.
Seniors at PHS are old enough to vote should they become eligible by district rules to cast theirs. And there are going to be some pretty disappointed seniors receiving their diplomas from a stranger in June, seniors who may have had their entire high school career salvaged by Fairchild’s intervention.
Don’t forget, you also have a budget coming up for vote, and while I would never recommend such a punitive measure as to vote it down, be prepared. Others in the district may not be as generous.
Comments
The recent second vote by Plattsburgh city school board has me wondering the legality of it at all. The fact that it was held as a legal right of Mr. Fairchilds I have to say the meeting seemed unfocussed and simply put unfair .What is the point of having it if the outcome could turn out as a tie vote. Why not answer present , or not present .The final vote at the second meeting of the school board proves that the not present voters equalled the first vote . Aren't THE BOARD MEMBERS proving that point by voiding the second vote with a tie vote . "When the non present board member enabled the tie" to carry the nights decicision. I would say the first vote was also void based on the fact that the second vote was unfair. I would also surmise that if people were present during both votes The board members count should have been nine present and eight present
Posted by: woops present | May 5, 2009 6:18 PM
The board can verify a decision to deny tenure absent any public acknowledgement as to why. Well to verify their own vote on an absent board member suggest to me the boards first vote is tied 4 present 4 not present and one presently not present ,count me here but next vote I will be absent I think that says the same thing absent is absent . Absent any credibility of the first vote Absent minded, absolutely not fair .completely dishonest.
Posted by: absent | May 5, 2009 6:49 PM
I congratulate the BOE on staying the course and not bending to a vocal minority of persons . I thank them for representing the silent majority . I thank them for not bowing to an uninformed populace. We need more public representatives that will do the right thing and not the easy thing. Let us not forget , unlike those who protested, they were the only group that was truely informed. Unfortunately , by law, the rest of us will never know .... the rest of the story. You correctly point out that those voting no did so at their own peril. Makes me think they must have been pretty sure they were doing the right thing.
Posted by: john | May 5, 2009 9:48 PM
I think 'the rest of the story should read ,The silent majority of the BOE silenced the majority of the taxpayers resulting in disqualification of tenure. Absent any reason for the hidden silence.Unfortunately we know now that a whole lotta nothing was so privy that a silent few. Excuse themselves as the reason for remaining not presently silent. But better and more aware than the rest of us . Two wrongs don't make a right . BOE is silently protecting their own interest not the taxpayers.
Posted by: ABSENT | May 6, 2009 11:20 AM
Yeah! I think the majority of Plattsburghs taxpayers would like to Know how The BOE CAN allow a silent minority of persons to get away with stepping on a good persons employment rights. The populace is not as uninformed as the BOE official count suggest. I say they are tied. If they are tied what have they accomplished other than ruining someones good name. What was the second votes intended purpose . FAIRNESS OR NOT.
Posted by: WOOPS PRESENT | May 6, 2009 1:34 PM