June 22- Released tapes and candidates

Greetings all,

Jackie Vialpando has asked if I had any comment related to the release of the Executive session material from February (http://kentclawson.com/node/33#comment-87), and anyone who knows me knows that I always have a comment and so I will add it to the discourse.

Context helps, is not critical in this matter, but I will supply some to help understand from where I am coming. First of all these contract matters are an annual occurrence and for one reason or the other we feel it necessary to bring contracts forward 4-5 months before the end of the fiscal year. I can appreciate this position as it relates to teachers as this is the time that those who may be available for the upcoming year (new teachers, nonrenewals, etc.) are searching. Though it seems well within line that we could approve other individuals later in the year, we have chose to do this with all of our staff members and in this case we were discussing it in February.

These ultimately coincided with the eventual release of Grant Schmidt as superintendent of Falcon D-49 approximately one week after we participated in the meetings in question. Additionally at this time the budget concerns were coming to a head and we were in the process of realigning a budget after the State informed us that they were going to be taking approximately $600,000 from a budget that was already 60% (as it should be in February). So it was under these circumstances that then acting superintendent Paugh sought to confer with the Board under what all deemed as legitimate circumstances. We were delivered the names of the individuals who would not be non-renewed and the rational. The Board also discussed the performance of other unit heads and requested information to address what were perceived operational deficiencies. While a number of these individuals did fall into the Executive Session privilege, the information provided on the agenda only mentioned Central Administration personnel. In theory this should have put all in the Central Admin on notice. Unfortunately, we also spoke about other groups and individuals. It is this technicality that has caused us to ultimately conceded the release of these tapes and transcripts.

From my perspective it is unfortunate that we have traveled down this road or allowed it to come to the level of uproar that the Gazette felt necessary. I am saddened by the fact that by not being satisfied with the redacted copy, which only redacted the names of the district personnel, the Gazette has placed the professional credibility of certain individuals in jeopardy. In this day of Google and real time information, it is easily conceivable that an employer could use a search engine such as Google to find information about a potential candidate and use that information against them. These were private conversations related to their performance in what was thought to secure environment. If these comments had been made in an openly public setting the same information may have been shared, but in a more measured way. It is my opinion that our legal counsel has acted in good faith throughout this matter. It is when he started to dig down into the weeds that the technicality was finally recognized. Additionally the tendency to unrelated sidebar discussions, or comments that are more lighthearted than in a regular portion of the meeting also made this more difficult to defend, since the standard is that any matter outside of the announced executive session is potentially an opportunity that would require the release of the materials. This was all considered in light of the news last week that Memorial Hospital paid $85,000 to defend an executive session. I felt that this was not a sword worth falling on as Legal Counsel felt that it could be defended, but it would be difficult. In these times I would be justly criticized for those kind of potential outcomes.

In the future I will be more scrupulous in the use of Executive Session privilege to ensure that this trust is not violated on a technicality.

In the end I do apologize to all who were discussed in this matter, not for what was said, but for allowing this technicality to cause the release of these materials into the public domain in this format.

To the other topic that Jackie requested information, my perspective on the Superintendent candidates that I had voiced support for on Thursday the 18th, Bentley Rayburn and Michael Poore. I feel inclined to remind any who might read this that these are simply my perspectives and do not represent the Board's position. Additionally, with the additional information that have related to confidential discussions with personnel, site visits, and otherwise, I will probably frustrate some people as I work to keep that trust secure and will ultimately focus more on the positives that each brings while keeping the negatives closer to the vest.

I will start with Mr. Poore since Poore comes first alphabetically and for no other reason.

From what I have found and observed Mr. Poore is an obvious superintendent finalist in this field that we have. He has been through trying times such as having to close a number of schools in the D-11 system, bringing success to Mitchell High School at a time when it was imperative that he do so, and being sought after for various state levels assignments/ tasks. He has an admirable understanding about D-49 and many of our opportunities and hindrances. I have seen strong support from many in the community and staff.

Now to Mr Rayburn. First of all in full disclosure I have known Bentley for a couple of years when we both atteneded a leadership program in Denver in 2006. I was also contacted by Mr. Rayburn about that position, and I encouraged him the same as I do any others who meet the requirements to apply. I told him that I can not guarantee anything, but if he wanted take a shot the he was encouraged to do so.

That said, strengths that I see in Mr. Rayburn are his obvious accomplishments a military leader, the ability to bring about strong results in a short time frame, and build consensus on seemingly divergent topics and interests. What many would deem as a limitation, I see as a strength, and that is being a nontraditional candidate. He can question what many may deem as sacred cows, or actions that have their roots more in routine than necessity. Similarly I have received numerous emails extolling his virtues and their perceptions of the likely positive impact that he would bring to D-49.

Though I said that I would speak only about the positive attributes that I see with each person, I do want to address one continuing matter that keeps coming up against Mr. Rayburn. I do this not for his benefit, but instead because there are Central Administrators that are being smeared as people work to discredit a Rayburn superintendency. I was willing to let this pass until this weekend the Board received a number of the same email, sent from different senders, criticizing the abilities of our Administration.

Mr. Rayburn would be a successful candidate because he has strong people to support him in the administration that are exceptional at what they do. Even with the departure of John Weisharr and Eric Paugh, we are still left with a strong foundation to work from. Granted these two individuals will be missed and I believe that their impacts will be felt for a very long time in D-49, but hopefully nobody in this system is indispensable because we are not immune to tragedies and transitions. Mr. Rayburn would be supported by Becky Carter, Chris Trask, Jolene Shocky, Dave Bond, Cindy Hardin, Mariam Null, and many many others. I wish John and Eric continued good fortune and believe that they are very deserving of such great blessings. I also know that they have not left behind a plaque that states they were here, instead they have left behind systems that will be allowed to perpetuate and grow. We are focused on building systems that will continue to succeed regardless of when people move on.

Finally in conclusion, I know that my input was not requested solely to quell a piece of curiosity and that my words will more than likely be used against me. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. The reason that I continue to put myself out on this limb is so that others can know where I stand on various issues.

I do find it interesting that it is I who have been targeted for recall for being "non-transparent". I also find it interesting that related to the Superintendent search, it is only Dave Martin and I that have come down supporting their chosen candidate. The ironic part about this is that everyone, including other the Board members, question our intentions because of the recall effort. Such is the game in which we are involved.

Non-transparently,

Kent Clawson

PS The comment section is back online and they should appear shortly after you submit them.