I find Mr. Reynoso to be very unprofessional. Who cares where the superintedent is sitting. Mr. Reynoso claims he wants the community to know this detail and that detail but it is all mostly irrevelent in my opinion. He is trying to micromanage the school district. Some of the simple voting procedures during the meeting that should have been taken care of in a few mintues becomes a 10 minute ordeal because of Reynoso.

The diffcult job this year is similar to last year, make the cuts that is necessary due to the budget cuts. All the easy reduction have already been made. Now the reductions will very much affect the students. Everyone is trying to protect their piece of the pie that is shrinking drasticlly.

I believe I heard during the meeting that the distric is loosing approximately $800 per sutdent. Maybe the parents should consider paying out of their own pockets, $66.66 per month.

The teacher’s union rep knows where the some of the cost reduction will be coming from and she is not happy about it.

Lots of difficult choices will need to made by the board memebers.

Well, must I assume that HEA lacks interest in anything I have to say and as consequence the effort goes into ‘the trash? ? If that assumption is correct, then I beg answer to this question?

Why is HEA not part of the problem?

In regards to the process of deliberation, I speak as one of the applicants apparently benefiting from the “charity” exhibited by the Trustees. I feel it would have been more respectful to the applicants, as well as the community, had there been some discussion involved in this appointment. After my own interview, I was allowed to stay in the room and hear from the other applicants. I was very impressed by what I heard. I was not embarrassed for any applicant based on the motivating factor that brought each one of us there that day! Every single one of us was there to offer our time and our best efforts to improve this District. We all knew what we were in for going through a public interview process. I find it a bit patronizing to hear that some believe it was simply an effort to spare our pride that caused the Trustees to move directly to an appointment. There are ways to move through such a process with tact and grace. I do not disagree that Mr. Armas is qualified for this seat. I do wish that the conflict had been more clearly addressed (and yes, I do believe it may be an issue). However, Mr. Armas was not the only qualified applicant and if you were to witness the “deliberation” that might be what you felt walking away.

There is a statement above that desire of some applicants might exceed the qualifications. Desire should never be underestimated. This quote from Michel de Montaigne says something of desire … “Desire and hope will push us on toward the future”. Let’s hope it is that desire we find in all of our Trustees.

Were you there during the interviews with prospective replacements to board of trustees?

I don’t think so! The person to whom I addressed the remark (“O’bama neww age”) is obstinate in her insistence that after listening to 10 applicants, run on for quite a while in their opening remarks, then after each trustee asked a single question and heard some pretty poor responses, permitted closing remarks by each applicant.

O’Bama new age insists that a propere procedure would have been to debate the qualities of each before, (after completion of interviewa,) making a descision.

That idea was based on O’bama’ new age idea that her concept of propcedure was only fair….. thus denying the charitable act that trustees performed by going straight to the appointment of Mr. Armas.

O’bama new age fails to see how embarassing that would have been when discussing the weaknesses in self expression as well as knowledge of Trustee reponsibility, (or on the cusp, limited strengths of at least seven).

Part of the respect you pay an applicant whose desire to be of service is that their desire often exceeds qualifications, especially in areas involvintg public speaking and / or personal inability in analysis of their own qualifications.

In short Trustees exhibited ‘charity’ by avoiding exposition of candidate wweakness…..an inevitable result of the action which O’Bama new age espoused.

O’bama new age suffers from the problem which would have denied her own access to the board had she applied. Motor mouthing complaints, as a stand alone talent, is something which I choose to avoid. Thus my abrupt remark deemed necessary to break off further exchange with that person.

You do not get paid to do that with your students! Quite the contrary, they are too young and immature to handle that!

I hear as well as reAD what you say and respect your classroom experience as well as leadership within the peer group. However you freighten me with thoughts that you feed upon your own experience a bit too much.

Fo that reason, if, as and when a Town hall Meeting is ever held I would prefer anyone employed by HUSD, whether living within the district or not, would avoid direct involvment in that event. Attend the activity if you must, but limit your involvment to observation of the flow in the action. There is solid rationale for that if you care to explore it further.

I do think I imentioned the point in one of my Month of March submissions.

Or if you prefer I could address that problem in a general letter to HEA where A READ OF communications from the ‘outside’ are permitted members. Right?

Take a look under the heading of “Learn More” and select “School Board Leadership:The role and function of California’s Schools Boards.

By the way, John Kyle, you get to tell the story, but you don’t get to dictate what people take away from it. I didn’t “miss the point” entirely, I mediated what I read through the lense of my experience. That’s how communication works.

i GET STARTED AND THE WORDS FLOW POORLY SPELLED AND TOO LENGTHY…. BUT COPY AND PASTE IS FAR FEOM MY MIND. 20 MINUTES LATER I HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME TO DO IT RIGHT!