Report Inappropriate Comments

Dave first of all...you made my point for me in your argument. You are right that the School Committee had no interest in renewing Horoshak's contract, so then why wouldn't they let the last few months run out? The answer is because that would mean they'd have a harder time getting "their guy" in. Anyone who looks at those events could see the committee was going with D'agastino all along. 3 out of 5 committee members were at that meeting. Are you telling me that a vote removing a Superintendent of schools shouldn't have every single school committee member there to know what's going on? Even after D'agastino was named an Superintendent, the committee renewed his contract. At that time Beth Furtado said the search for a new Superintendent would begin in the Fall/Winter of this year. Have you heard any report on a search being conducted? No! So now we'll get to the end of D'agastino's contract in July, and the School Committee will act to move Bushell or Mullen (likely Mullen) in his place. What a joke!

As far as the Long Term Committee goes, there's nothing long-term about a 2 year plan. I never said the middle school model could be achieved by just saying the city should do it. If I remember correctly when it came to Gorton, the problem you and others had was that the plan didn't look far ahead enough for the district. Now a "long-term" plan without any commitment for all day kindergarten, or the middle school model has your support? Fitting that you blame unions for those items not being in the plan, as it just shows how political some on the LTFPC and the School Admin really are. I never said we needed 1,000 copies handed out to everyone for it to be transparent. We do have a local paper however, and it would've been nice if the plan had been distributed for print in the Beacon. Declining enrollment would suggest an older population...not too many older folks are going to hop on the internet, click on 4 different links, just to find a report.

I never said that consolidating at the Admin level would give us the equivalent savings we'd get from consolidating schools. Once again you have put words in my mouth. I just think if we're talking about laying-off teachers, secretary's and custodians that make $30,000 a year than perhaps we should look at 6 figure Admin salaries that haven't been touched. Since you asked...you could replace the Dir of Secondary Ed and Dir of Elementary Ed with an Asst Superintendent. 2 jobs into 1. Nevermind the fact we have a Budget Director who couldn't even answer where the savings went last time we closed 4 elementary schools. The LTFPC didn't even look at these issues. Instead they went with the easiest form of saving money, school closure. This districts answer to being cash-strapped CANNOT be "close another school" all the time. They mayor also cannot be exempt from criticism. He has tried to have it both ways, but level funding schools CANNOT be his answer to everything either.

I didn't have a dog in this fight. I looked at this issue objectively, and all along didn't think it was wise to have an in-house committee decide the fate of our schools. EVERYBODY on the committee had local ties, and while I respect what you tried to do for the district I just do not see how you could've given a fair opinion. It's laughable that people said objection to this plan was based on emotion. So how is it that everyone who opposed this deal did so based solely on emotion, yet we are to believe everybody on the LTFPC was acting in the districts best interest. A new set of eyes was needed badly. It needed people who deal with these topics professionally, not folks who go through a year of on the job training on how to be a consolidation expert.

From: Committee tables school plan

Please explain the inappropriate content below.