Okay people, Scott, pay attention. This is the third time I've tried to tell you and this is important stuff. Dr. Howell directed the retrieval and timely release of the Devincentis emails. And she did it to save her own skin, not out of any obligation to the public. I believe that printing them was justifiable for the greater public good but it is undeniable that ethical boundaries do not exist in this administration or school board. Judging by the date of their retrieval (5/05), the emails were kept until they were needed. If that were not the case, they would have been released when they were discovered and this wart would have been nipped when it first emerged. What other dirt has been collected and stored for future use? It IS possible to recognize exceptionally unethical and unacceptable behavior on both sides of this personal battle. The system needs an extreme makeover not just a wart removal.
reallocal, in response to your request: Donna is, seriously, paranoid. Her close associates are those who follow blindly and all others are systematically replaced. The previous Board was in her pocket and she in theirs. Not altogether bad until they hastily re-negotiate her contract for protection against a potentially unfriendly Board. To further arm herself, she raids Dr. Devincentis' computer for "insurance" and then makes sure the policies are in place well in advance of needing them. Apparently, she decided the time had come to play her ace. Was that her last card? I'm guessing yes and one that will win the game:but at what cost?
Four things come to mind after reading the venomous, vitriolic emails in Friday's paper: 1) Dr. D is an unbalanced, hateful person who has no business in public office; 2) He has met his match in the paranoid Dr. Howell who A) is clearly responsible for supplying the newspaper with the emails, and B) who has found new lows for "winning" her personal battles; 3) The newspaper has crossed ethical boundaries by printing such a lengthy, inflammatory article about a relatively uninvolved Dr. Simms AND her family; 4) Where are the friends/family/confidants/advisors who have influence over these three factors and may have kept things from getting so wildly out of control?
If you have any doubts about Dr. Howell's involvement, consider the following timeline: March 2005 Dr. D was considering running for School Board after retirement April 2005 the acting school board made 2 significant amendments to Dr. Howell's contract: 1) the dates were changed from 7/1/046/30/07 to 7/1/046/30/09 and 2) the terms of Unilateral Termination were changed from a payment of "twelve months salary" to " the full amount of the remaining months of salary" May 2005 emails were retrieved from Devincentis' computer June 2005 Dr. Devincentis retired (not in May FYI) November 2005 Dr. Devincentis was elected to the School Board December 2005 2 new email policies were adopted, NNP-38 and NNP-38-R Coincidence? Unlikely.
To Dr. D: seriously, resign:in fact, move. There is no recovery from this.
To the School Board: Seize this opportunity to re-negotiate Dr. Howell's contract. She has flown under the protection of a five-year contract long enough. She is in violation of at least 2 provisions of her contract (Conflicts of Interest & Confidentiality) as well as board policies EL-4, EL-7, and EL-14. Just imagine what could be accomplished if she were forced to be 100% focused on her job in order to keep it:there's a lot to do.
DeVincentis issues apology for e-mails
Okay people, Scott, pay attention. This is the third time I've tried to tell you and this is important stuff. Dr. Howell directed the retrieval and timely release of the Devincentis emails. And she did it to save her own skin, not out of any obligation to the public. I believe that printing them was justifiable for the greater public good but it is undeniable that ethical boundaries do not exist in this administration or school board. Judging by the date of their retrieval (5/05), the emails were kept until they were needed. If that were not the case, they would have been released when they were discovered and this wart would have been nipped when it first emerged. What other dirt has been collected and stored for future use? It IS possible to recognize exceptionally unethical and unacceptable behavior on both sides of this personal battle. The system needs an extreme makeover not just a wart removal.
April 8, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gleason: Recall funding, effort in place
So, reallocal, would you take Dr. Howell off your speed-dial if you discovered she was "Boatthroat?"
April 7, 2007 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gleason: Recall funding, effort in place
reallocal, in response to your request:
Donna is, seriously, paranoid. Her close associates are those who follow blindly and all others are systematically replaced. The previous Board was in her pocket and she in theirs. Not altogether bad until they hastily re-negotiate her contract for protection against a potentially unfriendly Board. To further arm herself, she raids Dr. Devincentis' computer for "insurance" and then makes sure the policies are in place well in advance of needing them. Apparently, she decided the time had come to play her ace. Was that her last card? I'm guessing yes and one that will win the game:but at what cost?
April 7, 2007 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gleason: Recall funding, effort in place
Four things come to mind after reading the venomous, vitriolic emails in Friday's paper:
1) Dr. D is an unbalanced, hateful person who has no business in public office;
2) He has met his match in the paranoid Dr. Howell who
A) is clearly responsible for supplying the newspaper with the emails, and
B) who has found new lows for "winning" her personal battles;
3) The newspaper has crossed ethical boundaries by printing such a lengthy, inflammatory article about a relatively uninvolved Dr. Simms AND her family;
4) Where are the friends/family/confidants/advisors who have influence over these three factors and may have kept things from getting so wildly out of control?
If you have any doubts about Dr. Howell's involvement, consider the following timeline:
March 2005 Dr. D was considering running for School Board after retirement
April 2005 the acting school board made 2 significant amendments to Dr. Howell's contract:
1) the dates were changed from 7/1/046/30/07 to 7/1/046/30/09 and
2) the terms of Unilateral Termination were changed from a payment of "twelve months salary" to " the full amount of the remaining months of salary"
May 2005 emails were retrieved from Devincentis' computer
June 2005 Dr. Devincentis retired (not in May FYI)
November 2005 Dr. Devincentis was elected to the School Board
December 2005 2 new email policies were adopted, NNP-38 and NNP-38-R
Coincidence? Unlikely.
To Dr. D: seriously, resign:in fact, move. There is no recovery from this.
To the School Board: Seize this opportunity to re-negotiate Dr. Howell's contract. She has flown under the protection of a five-year contract long enough. She is in violation of at least 2 provisions of her contract (Conflicts of Interest & Confidentiality) as well as board policies EL-4, EL-7, and EL-14. Just imagine what could be accomplished if she were forced to be 100% focused on her job in order to keep it:there's a lot to do.
April 7, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )