If they want to “renew” those executives’ contracts at, or prior to, their expiration in 2013 the board must be presented with new and valid contracts to vote on.

Then, only after a new and valid contract has been approved by open session vote, should any of the board’s signatures go on the new contracts.

I think everyone in question at the Dent level, and a couple very savvy board members, know that NOW, and I think that is why there are no “corrected” and “signed” contracts currently available.

“Board Comment
Dick Allen said that he could not support the plan for the same reasons he could not support the three year contract renewals. He said to that he wanted to wait for the new superintendent. He also stated that he wanted to be clear that he supported the administrators but wanted to wait until the new superintendent came aboard.

Paul Strange shared that restructuring before the new superintendent takes office, even though it does not take effect until July 2009, is important due to the financial status, and budget reductions already done. He stated that when doing the budget reductions, the need to restructure was discussed. He said that the restructure is an extension of the budget reductions and that the administrative positions were being presented to the public with new roles and different classifications. He stated that this core team of administrators provides the key support services for the children in the district.

Sherry Whitmarsh reported that she had received emails about the reorganization asking why now or why at this time. Sherry said that it did not matter when it was presented, that the Board needed to be transparent. She said that this plan is part of the previous approved budget reductions.

Linda Mayo shared that she would not support the reorganization at this time as she had concerns regarding the timing and being able to provide the new superintendent the most flexible process. She said that delaying this decision one to four months would not be inappropriate.

Gary Eberhart said that he worked on this plan and supported bringing it forward at this time. He said that if the district were to lose any one of these individuals, it would cost the district more to have to backfill a position at the current market rate value. He said that he agreed that the timing doesn’t look good but that it is better to be up front and defend the expenses.

Member (Sherry Whitmarsh) moved, Member (Paul Strange) seconded to approve the reorganization plan as presented. The motion CARRIED 3 – 2 – 0 (Allen, Mayo – No).”

Here’s the link to the minutes: http://www.mdusd.org/boe/Documents/minutes/0910/11-17-09.pdf

Now that Eberhart and Whitmarsh will be gone, the new board could certainly revisit that reorganization and the pay increase. In fact, I have heard that many MDUSD administrator salaries are far above what the same positions make in other districts. Perhaps FCMAT could study that and see what “most districts” are paying.

What has been the excuse for not having those signed contracts to you when first requested? (how long ago was that?). This is what this administration depends on; stall / delay and give excuses instead of answers and just hope the parent, reporter, teacher, etc. will just forget and go away.

Regarding no response to your questions on whether the board reviewed and approved the response by Rolen, it would appear that is your answer. It is a yes or no question – there is no gray area. So to me, no response to that question equals “no”.

Perhaps separating all questions / document requests into separate emails (one subject per email) will help get answers more quickly, or at least make it easier to track how long it takes for them to come up with excuses instead of answering the questions / requests.