Questions Julie McKnight needs to answer before Nov. 4.
In : Uncategorized, Posted by Tim on Oct.10, 2008
(Oct. 27, 2008) – As an incumbent and chair of the Farmington school board, Julie McKnight bears added responsibilities in this campaign to tell us what she plans to do on two important issues we can expect board action on after the election, but before January (when the new board is seated).
Why this timing?
It will spare McKnight from making unpopular votes before the election and it will let the current board take away those decisions from the next board.
The two issues are renewing the superintendent’s contract and selling bonds and raising taxes to fund those bonds.
McKnight shouldn’t get a pass on these important issues. Voters deserve to know now, before the election, how she’ll vote and what she’ll do. We should hear from McKnight on these issues before the election in order to better judge her fitness for reelection.
1. The superintendent’s contract – After giving the superintendent high marks in his recent evaluation, it now seems likely that the current board will approve a contract renewal for the superintendent before the end of 2008. This action would deny the new board an opportunity to review the superintendent’s performance and perhaps not renew him or at least negotiate a contract that is more transparent and clear about the superintendent’s compensation.
There’s no rush to renew the superintendent’s contract before the end of the year. His current contract doesn’t expire until the end of next August. The only reason to do the contract before the end of the year is to deny the next board that decision.
If McKnight wins reelection, the issue is moot as the board would retain a favorable majority towards the superintendent and timing of the renewal would be immaterial. But if McKnight loses, would her parting shot be to thumb her nose at voters and sign the superintendent to a new three year contact on her way out the door?
That’s why that question needs to be asked and answered before the election.
2. Tax increases – The board is considering a bond sale of up to $12 million to fund future retiree health insurance. If the board wants to do that next year, it has to raise taxes next year and that vote has to be taken before the end of December.
But there’s no reason the bond sale decision needs to be made this year (or at all). Better that decision is left to the new board to consider. If it turns out to be the right decision (I don’t think it is), doing it next year is not too late.
Julie McKnight needs to tell us before the election, will she sell bonds and will she raise our taxes and make life harder for us in this floundering economy or spare us this insult.
These are answers Farmington voters deserve to hear before the election. Send McKnight an email (jmcknight@farmington.k12.mn.us) and ask her.
Oct.10.2008, 01:17:22
Tim,
I am far less concerned about Julie’s actions concerning Dr. Meeks’ contract than I am with completely new board members participating in such a critically important activity. How can new members who have never worked on a regular basis with Dr. Meeks make an informed decision?
Arguably one of the most important tasks of a school board is the positioning and maintenance of the district’s superintendent. Hinting or suggesting that the superintendent might need to be replaced is a big time issue. This is not an area for experimentation or the exploitation of personal agendas. The sensitivity of this topic and the future of our educational community demands a deliberate and thoughtful handling of this topic.
As a voting member of the community, I need to know what your plans are for Dr. Meeks. If a candidate is harboring a negative opinion towards Dr. Meeks, I need to know why and what their intention is if they are elected to a board position. I was disappointed that this was not brought up at the first candidate forum and can only hope that it will be discussed at Thursday evening’s forum.
Thanks, Craig Davis
Oct.10.2008, 02:30:24
Craig,
You seem to think that I would have some magical power if elected. I would be one of six and it would take three others agreeing with me to do anything about Meeks, or anything else for that matter. There will be three carry over board members who have worked with Meeks to guide the new members with their experience.
As for experience with Meeks, I have more experience with him than any of the board members who hired him six years ago had. What did they know about him after a couple of interviews and a reception? Were you one of them? Did you really have enough experience with Meeks to make that decision?
But to answer your question directly about what I would do with Meeks if left to my own devices, I would give it some time. I would learn about his philosophies and how he might propose to work with the new board differently than he did with the current board. I would look to make a decision about whether I would vote to renew him by about mid-year.
If the decision were taken to not renew, if that decision were taken, I understand that would leave almost no time to search for and hire a new superintendent for the new school year, but I think we have three or four current staff members with superintendents licenses who could serve as interim superintendent and give us the time to consider what direction we’d want to go for the next superintendent.
If the decision was to renew Meeks, I would want to have the opportunity to negotiate a completely different looking contract than is currently in place. I am in favor or having the superintendent’s (and other administrators’) contracts more closely follow the level of benefits for other work groups, particularly the teachers’ contract. Whatever the board wanted to pay him should substantially be reflected in the base salary.
Tim