When he sat in the August 16 Special-Called Board Meeting and witnessed the discussion about a motion that Manning was going to make to seek legal advice, but had heard the legal advice given during the meeting and knew there was an understanding that he could proceed with legal action (lawsuit) if Manning's motion passed, he should have informed the board that they were wrong to handle it that way.
Wasn't he worried that it might backfire on him? Just as it has?
The superintendent is an employee of THE DISTRICT. He doesn't work for Holmes, Manning, Caution-Parker and McKie.
The superintendent must know the rules for executive sessions and what can take place therein. He would have had to know that what they were doing was wrong. Very wrong.
Even though his employment seems shockproof (it takes five to fire him), it's not. As superintendent, he has a fiduciary duty to The District, his employer.
Will "the Four" (the cabal; The Squad) have the integrity to acknowledge their error and discipline the superintendent for his complicity by not further considering any changes in his employment contract at this time? And how should they discipline, criticize, punish, sanction themselves? They knew better, too.
I'm really struggling with using the word "integrity" in the same sentence as "the Four". But I'll leave it there as a lofty goal.
Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden absolutely clear the high bar, when it comes to Integrity.
There's a song running through my mind now. I wonder why.
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7pxUgjLz0
No comments:
Post a Comment