Monday, June 19, 2006
Huntley School Board Member Applies for Chief Operating Officer Job
Wonder of wonders.
Rumor has it that Huntley District 158 School Board member Glen Stewart wants the job of Chief Operations Officer “to oversee transportation, food service, technology and maintenance,” this job description compliments of the Northwest Herald. I understand the person will also be in charge of health services and volunteers.
The Assistant Superintendent being replaced--Mike Kortemeyer--earned $97,253 in 2005, according to The Champion.org. But, he was only working 4 out of 5 days, so his annualized salary would well over $100,000.
With a school district that has just hired a secretary (albeit with a recent master’s degree), who would want to give odds against the board hiring a fellow board member for an over a $100,000 job?
I wonder where Stewart is working now.
Rumor has it that Huntley District 158 School Board member Glen Stewart wants the job of Chief Operations Officer “to oversee transportation, food service, technology and maintenance,” this job description compliments of the Northwest Herald. I understand the person will also be in charge of health services and volunteers.
The Assistant Superintendent being replaced--Mike Kortemeyer--earned $97,253 in 2005, according to The Champion.org. But, he was only working 4 out of 5 days, so his annualized salary would well over $100,000.
With a school district that has just hired a secretary (albeit with a recent master’s degree), who would want to give odds against the board hiring a fellow board member for an over a $100,000 job?
I wonder where Stewart is working now.
Comments:
<< Home
Golly! Calculating the odds here will be pretty tough. (cough)
1. The board majority belonged to or supported the former Yes-to- the-tax-increase referendum**, political action committee known as BEST (now "just" a committee).
Mr. Stewart's board member candidate form before the election included "Active member of BEST".
(**fiasco referendum sold to the voters with "inaccurate" information.)
2. "Vocal member of the community informing residents of BEST & School Board issues" - was another comment. Umm - so - since he's been on the board, I think he voted to stifle items being put on meeting agendas by an outspoken, financial and management truth seeking board member. I don't recall him correcting meeting minutes that seem to be inaccurate or slanted in a certain way. And, etc.
3. The words "Future board credibility" are there too. Some people, after viewing a few meetings - or even just one - are of the opinion that he and five others (for a total of 6 out of 7)have already decided on their united vote before showing up. The reasons for that opinion suggest they don't want to discuss this or that. Don't want to listen. Tolerate input and then just call for a vote. And there's a whole lot of "All is Beautiful" being dished out. So, his idea of "board credibility" is apparently something different than what I or my friends have in mind.....
4. From a NWH candidate piece re Mr. Stewart "The board has done a good job in making tough choices with regard to priorities for budget attainment and not overspending expected income." Well, what has come out in the media since he was elected seems to contradict that comment.
5. While it is reasonable for a board member's spouse to work for the district, Mr. Stewart (whose spouse works for D158) refusing to or opting not to discuss questions about the district's policy re perhaps TOO excellent benefits afforded to part or full time support staff troubles me. (ex.) "600 hours per year receive 14 paid sick leave days per year." is something many would find outrageous. Also, if there is even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest - many would suggest he shouldn't be involved in that discussion or vote at all.
6. The board president was the board liaison to the BEST committee.
So taking all of the above into consideration, a recent "interesting" hiring or two, allowing the continued employment of "nice" team players whose administrative performance I find severely lacking.........
Odds would imply there is actually a question on the table.....
Post a Comment
1. The board majority belonged to or supported the former Yes-to- the-tax-increase referendum**, political action committee known as BEST (now "just" a committee).
Mr. Stewart's board member candidate form before the election included "Active member of BEST".
(**fiasco referendum sold to the voters with "inaccurate" information.)
2. "Vocal member of the community informing residents of BEST & School Board issues" - was another comment. Umm - so - since he's been on the board, I think he voted to stifle items being put on meeting agendas by an outspoken, financial and management truth seeking board member. I don't recall him correcting meeting minutes that seem to be inaccurate or slanted in a certain way. And, etc.
3. The words "Future board credibility" are there too. Some people, after viewing a few meetings - or even just one - are of the opinion that he and five others (for a total of 6 out of 7)have already decided on their united vote before showing up. The reasons for that opinion suggest they don't want to discuss this or that. Don't want to listen. Tolerate input and then just call for a vote. And there's a whole lot of "All is Beautiful" being dished out. So, his idea of "board credibility" is apparently something different than what I or my friends have in mind.....
4. From a NWH candidate piece re Mr. Stewart "The board has done a good job in making tough choices with regard to priorities for budget attainment and not overspending expected income." Well, what has come out in the media since he was elected seems to contradict that comment.
5. While it is reasonable for a board member's spouse to work for the district, Mr. Stewart (whose spouse works for D158) refusing to or opting not to discuss questions about the district's policy re perhaps TOO excellent benefits afforded to part or full time support staff troubles me. (ex.) "600 hours per year receive 14 paid sick leave days per year." is something many would find outrageous. Also, if there is even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest - many would suggest he shouldn't be involved in that discussion or vote at all.
6. The board president was the board liaison to the BEST committee.
So taking all of the above into consideration, a recent "interesting" hiring or two, allowing the continued employment of "nice" team players whose administrative performance I find severely lacking.........
Odds would imply there is actually a question on the table.....
<< Home
