I agree with the title of this editorial but in the last few paragraphs Mr. Huebscher ERRONEOUSLY characterizes Carol Olson and Mike O'Brien who were at the helm of the BOE during this fiasco (and Carol was a key player in the stupid, arrogant and unethical actions) as "volunteers" and therefore only Klaus should be held accountable. WRONG!! For a person whose professional life is words and communication, I think Mr. Huebscher has failed to do his job with this kind of soft-pedaling the actions of elected officials.
Volunteers sell hot dogs at concession stands, collect money for band trips and shelve library books to help teachers, staff and students. I daresay, most volunteers do their tasks with a greater amount of care and dedication than Olson and O'Brien who cavalierly ignored ethics and good board practice with the disastrous effects we have seen over the last several months. No, Mr. Huebscher, Olson and O'Brien are elected officials who chose to run for office and take on the responsibility of serving taxpayers and our community. Deciding to run for office requires that you know and obey the LAWS that govern everything from campaign expenses, Roberts Rules of Order, Open Meeting Laws and Conflict of Interest issues.
'Nuff said. Let's move forward and shake the crap of this mess off of our shoes and leave Klaus, Olson, O'Brien, Butler, Leary, Kling, and Iverson alone with their consciences and their little group of friends who will continue to tell them that the king is wearing fabulous clothes instead of standing butt-naked in front of the world.
Maria
Updated: 8/11/2008 6:17:02 PM
Secretive route was no way to amend contract
The issue: Bill Klaus' attorney claims his client is a "political scapegoat."
Our view: Amending a contract in such a manner can't go unpunished ... period.
If Bill Klaus challenges the severity of the suspension given to him last week by the Eau Claire school board, things could get even more interesting and/or ugly than they've been up to this point - and that's saying something.
Klaus, the former superintendent, was suspended without pay by the board for 10 months and had the length of his contract shortened by two years, from 2012 to 2010. The penalty is the result of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend starting at age 53 instead of 55 and directing (through his secretary) former school board President Carol Olson to sign and backdate a memo authorizing the early stipend payments. (Olson was board president when Klaus' contract was revised to reflect his move from superintendent to Northstar Middle School principal, but she no longer was on the board when she signed and backdated the memo.)
If this ends up in court, Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, may set out to prove that a faction of the school board - presumably board members Carol Craig, Trish Cummins and Brent Wogahn - were out to get Klaus. They are the three board members who said the board never discussed nor voted on the early stipend payments. Three other board members at the time - Olson, JoAnne Evans and Michael O'Brien - said it was their recollection the payments were approved. The seventh board member, Mary Kneer, told police investigators she couldn't remember either way.
"This is about the board using Bill as a political scapegoat and posturing for the citizens of Eau Claire," Guelzow told Leader-Telegram reporter Julian Emerson after the suspension was announced.
In an interview with police, Klaus said at the meeting when the stipend issue was discussed, "there were a number of (school board) members who were not getting along, having side debates and making side comments."
It might be interesting to put everyone under oath in open court and let attorneys from both sides have at them to see if memories can be jogged to determine which version is closer to the truth.
But even if it could be proved that Craig, Cummins and Wogahn somehow had it in for Klaus, there's still one big issue nagging at school district taxpayers: What is the proper way to straighten out an oversight or mere confusion involving a superintendent's contract? Should all parties be brought together to hash it out? Or should the superintendent arrange to have the former school board president stop by the office to sign and backdate a memo and say nothing to other board members?
To answer that question, administrators from other school districts should be put on the stand to testify how such things are handled in their districts. Maybe administrators from cities and counties could testify as well about how their contracts are handled.
Sure, Olson didn't have to sign the memo, and certainly in hindsight she wished she hadn't, but Olson and all school board members are essentially volunteers. The reason the superintendent of the Eau Claire public school system is the highest-paid administrator in the region is because we expect that person to be knowledgeable on a range of topics to ensure public trust and confidence, including the proper way to handle contracts.
Based on what came out of the 400-page police investigation, it will be very difficult for Guelzow to make the case that Klaus is simply the victim of a vindictive segment of the school board, then or now.
Legal experts may have to sort out whether the board has the authority to unilaterally trim two years off Klaus' contract and whether such a long-term deal was legal in the first place. If it wasn't, again it should be the responsibility of the administration, not the volunteer school board, to know such a thing.
- Don Huebscher, editor11008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've been thinking about how to classify school board members as a class compared to other local elected local officials and I don't know if "volunteer" fits or not but they do have some unique characteristics.
Because of the wider base of voters, the name recognition needed for election is difficult and can be expensive involving newspaper ads, yard signs, etc. The other position that comes close is the at large council position, but that covers less territory.
Once elected name recognition needed in case a board member wishes to run again or run for another elected position is limited to a small
concerned very critical audience consisting mainly of parents and parent groups, and the better a board member does the less public exposure the member gets in the press.
A good example of the problem is seen by the failure of Roberta Rasmsus school board president of Chippewa Falls who ran and lost for election to the state legislature several years ago. By almost any criteria she was well qualified for the job and would have been an excellent legislator. But her success as a school board president didn't
provide a good base.
It will be interesting to see how the Altoona board member running for state assembly does this year
and how that base will help her. I wonder, for example, if some voters won't recognize her accomplishments in Altoona but just get turned off by the general negative local coverage of school issues in Eau Claire.
All things considered I think school board members come closer to my definition of "volunteer" than any other local office. The job is mainly thankless,
difficult (if done right) and all rewards internal.
Post a Comment