Members of the Board and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,
It has been pointed out to me, not by anyone on the board, that I missed Page 2 of the revision to Policy KE on the 3/8/22 Agenda.
Isn't this the first time that a policy revision has ever been shown on a following page, instead of below the existing parts of a Policy to be removed?
The revision is a blatant attempt to strengthen the superintendent's control over complaints. This board will never vote to over-ride a decision by this superintendent, but the new board in November 2022 might. Of course, they can always change the Policy back.
Why should the superintendent not be accountable to the board? Why shouldn't the board HAVE to hear a complaint against the superintendent's decision?
The statement about employees' feeling defamed should be removed. Any employee already has the legal right to challege defamation.
The false statement in proposed KE that the superintendent's decision is final should be removed. His decision is NOT finale. You have heard of courts; right?
Perhaps you should add that any person (ex., community member) who is defamed, libeled or slandered by any District Department or any person associated with the school system (ex., Board Chair, Board Vice-Chair) may be subject to legal action.
I suggest you keep KE exactly as it is.
Gus Philpott
