Report Inappropriate Comments

Scal1024

I'm not so sure that there would've been any significant pressure from the district to appoint a search committee, but on that we'll never know. I may surprise you here but I agree that there should have been a search committee formed. I'm a fan of bringing in Superintendents from out of the district though people would point to Horoschak as an argument against that. As far as who's "connected" and who isn't , I don't know how to respond to that. If you think I'm somehow "connected" then, while I'm flattered, it's just not true. And, those rumors about Horoschak were floating after his first year here, all you had to do was listen. I'm all for a respectful back and forth but when you write that I might have learned about those rumors while "..sitting around with your 'connected buddies' on the LTFPC" you're not living up to that. That's a cheap shot. None of the parent members on that Committee are, as you say, "connected" but I don't think you'll ever believe that anyway.

I'm not going to explain the 5 year plan thing again but I think it's all but guaranteed that all day K wiill happen in the next couple of years. And, the LTFPC recommendation was a facilities plan and as such, recommended a facilities plan that offered the structure to deal with all day K and middle school while simultaneously dealing with declining enrollment.

Yes, I did run for SC - twice to be exact but beyond that I have no idea what point you're trying to make or what you're talking about. Frankly, I really don't appreciate the characterization that your putting forward here. I should've used words other than "had a hand in" and on that I'll plead guilty but don't make the leap that I'm somehow blaming the union for it. I thought the further explanation regarding the contractual language kind of spelled out the point I was trying to make.

Regarding Transparency you mentioned it in the context of the LTFPC presentation of its recommendation to the School Committee and I replied to that. Now your moving the goal posts by bringing up the issue in the context of a search for a new Super. Again, I'd support a search for a new Super but that's up to the School Committee to decide. As far as Bushell or Mullen filling the position, I have no idea if either of them would make a good Super but if you have a search committee you'll, by definition, gave a bigger talent pool from which to choose. Have you written, emailed or called the School Committee asking them about this issue?

Warwick us no more top heavy than many other districts. Look around and you'll find that in every city and town the Super makes more than the Mayor.

The LTFPC was a facilities committee. It had no say in personnel issues, nor can it because if a school closes, the contract language will determine layoffs. And personnel issues are an Administration function. When the consultant issues their report, I think it'll be silent on what positions are eliminated.

From: Committee tables school plan

Please explain the inappropriate content below.