We get why the Scott County School Board wants to keep their July 8, 2014 unanimous and glowing evaluation of their Superintendent quiet.
Yep, it was just two summers ago that the 2012 School Board put this community in an uproar when they gave the same Super a $19,740 annual raise. No wonder the 2014 iteration made no mention at this past meeting that they were going into executive session to conduct a summative (final) evaluation of their Superintendent. And no surprise that afterward they purposely left that fact out from their “Board Meeting Summary”, published just after that meeting and still findable under the “more district news” tab on the district’s website. And then, as if to cover themselves after we exposed that little omission in our last post, they laughably stuck mention of the evaluation deep in an unrelated article posted on the district’s homepage. That article has now mysteriously disappeared (even from the archives).
But what explains our local News Graphic newspaper failing to mention the evaluation, now nine editions later? Neither of two separate articles concerning the July 8 School Board meeting published by the newspaper made mention of the evaluation or the executive session that produced it. Folks, our School Board commands a $54 million annual budget (second only to Toyota and almost the sum of both county and city government) and an additional $100 million of bonding capacity that is not being held accountable. In any other community, this is the job of the local newspaper. For whatever reason, that simply is not happening in Scott County. More on this in a future post.
But there may be another reason to hide this particular evaluation. You see, it comes on the heels of Superintendent Patricia Putty’s finding that her recent Director of Transportation hire did not violate school board policy when he discussed and drew a penis in a bus driver training session (see our previous posts titled “NUMB”, “THE PRINCE WHO WOULD BE KING” and ”NO VIOLATION OF POLICY”). Not that he didn’t discuss and draw the penis, mind you - those facts remain uncontested - but that doing so didn’t violate policy. It did.
Let’s see? Didn’t a Scott County Middle School teacher just begin serving a jail term for sexually engaging with a female student? Hmmm. And didn’t an indictment just come down on a Scott County High School teacher for sexually engaging with a student. Neither should come as a surprise with the message sent by this latest evaluation.
Implicit in the Board’s evaluation is an endorsement that it is OK for Scott County Schools department heads to subject subordinates to sexually explicit discussions and drawings. Implicit in their evaluation is that it is OK for their Superintendent to ignore board policy. School Board - you hide your evaluation because of your shame. Your evaluation adds insult to the injury of 28 brave school bus drivers who finally found the courage to say “enough is enough” and file grievance against the artist administrator. Can you imagine the hell that would be paid should a superior of Board Member Jo Anna Fryman subject her to the same at Georgetown College?
The 2012 School Board earned the Morehead News “Knucklehead Award” when they gave the same Superintendent the unprecedented 15% raise. The message this evaluation sends eclipses that absurdity and earns each member of the 2014 Scott School Board membership on Team Penis.
Shame be on each and every member of the 2014 Scott County School Board.