When Board President Jeff Koch, Debbie Fort, and Jennifer Martucci made the point that they wanted Jim Kimbrough to take the seat vacated when former Joplin Police Chief Lane Roberts resigned, they cited his nine years of board experience.
Banwart talked about change and said that if board experience was the primary requirement for the replacement, then why did they not vote for either Ashley Micklethwaite or Anne Sharp, both of whom were among the original applicants for the post.
What was the difference between those two and Kimbrough, Banwart asked.
For one thing, Lynda, Anne Sharp couldn't collect 300 notarized signatures on a petition if she handed out candy and led taxpayers in the wave. And considering that Micklethwaite was the board president after the tornado when the keys to the treasury were handed over to Superintendent C. J. Huff, it is unlikely that she could get that many signatures either.
As Martucci pointed out, the voters who elected her, Koch, and Lane Roberts were the same ones who were signing the petitions.
When the educational experience of Kimbrough, a former teacher and principal in the R-8 School District was brought up, Banwart let it be known that there was already one board member who had worked for the district, Debbie Fort, and it has become quite apparent over the last two regular board meetings that Banwart does not have much use for Fort.
So Kimbrough fell one vote short of receiving the four necessary, with Koch, Fort, and Martucci supporting him, and Mike Landis and Banwart voting against him. Randy Steele, who voted against Kimbrough at the May 12 special meeting, was absent.
The other two finalists for the position, Empire District Electric Company attorney Sharrock Dermott and Missouri Southern State University professor Marsi Archer, each fell two votes short with Landis and Banwart supporting them and Koch, Fort, and Martucci voting against.
Koch said he was voting for Kimbrough, but hoped that both Dermott and Archer would run next April, noting that he, Martucci, and Roberts all applied for the seat left open when Dawn Sticklen resigned, were all passed over, and were all three elected in April.
The decision was tabled until the next meeting.
25 comments:
Ms. Banwart kept harping about the "change" that voters are demanding. Well, Ms. Banwart, so far you, in your position of a new, changed face on the Board, have voted purely with CJ Huff and his agenda, so new does not guarantee change. I hope you don't plan to run again, because you have shown no evidence of "light bulb" moments. Just sheer stubborness, as well as using your influence to promote your children and to protect private interests.
Please don't run again,
"For the kids"
Strange that Steele would schedule a vacation around Missouri at this crucial time. Is he trying to avoid the vote? He will be feeling the pressure now. The public clearly, despite Landis' disparaging remarks about the public, wants Kimbrough. Not one person from the crowd or the public supported CJ Huff's friend, Dermott. Archer and Kimbrough received support, but Kimbrough seems to have the most.
What are you scared of, Michael Landis, if Jim should be put back on the Board? You said he already had nine years and isn't the face of change. Well, sir, you have more years than that, so by your own standard, you should step down now. You've had way too much time to prove that you will do ANYTHING to keep CJ in place. So, once again, what are you afraid of, Michael? The truth getting out? You should be very afraid of that.
This is a joke. The Huff crew are going to do everything they can to hold on. They are doing great damage to the district and it is time for them to go. This has become unacceptable. The district is the laughingstock of the area. It is time to force change.
Could Landis be any more disrespectful in tone and action? He's awful. And he was swigging that water bottle like it was 100 proof.
Nervous much, Mikey?
I thought Cj was going to break his bottle during that whole conversation. I wonder what was bothering him. Hmm.
Oh for Pete's sake! Just put a warm body in that vacant chair and do the work that needs to be done!
Why was the 3-2 vote insufficient to choose Kimbrough? Didn't Koch, Martucci and Fort avoid a meeting so that a fair president of the board could be chosen? What's the difference between that vote and this one?
It takes a majority of the six members..that would be four votes.
Well then.
I guess this isn't over yet.
Buck up new blood! You have them worried and on the run as evidenced by their actions.
Do some of these people actually believe what they are saying, or do they just expect others to buy it?
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a voter, taxpayer, homeowner and have children all in the R-8 district. I voted for Fort last year, Martucci and Koch plus (the Oregon mercenary) Lane Roberts this year. I am no fan of CJ! I would love to see him sent packing, actually. I also attended tonight's meeting. I also know Dr. Archer personally.
Now, though I do respect the man, Jim Kimbrough has NO chance of getting on this board until the April '16 election. Sorry, though I would be fine with it, it's just the way it is. Sharrock Dermott, besides being a serious potential CJ yes-man, has NO chance of getting on this board until the '16 election (not if I can help it).
Have any of you bothered to view Dr. Archer's questionnaire for the Joplin NEA? Her views and platforms mirror Kimbrough's! That is why I find it SO surprising that Landis and Banwart are backing her and that neither Fort, Martucci or Koch will. I also think that most of you would find her a fabulous choice.
So, this tells me that this board(all of them) is more concerned with politics and vendetta than the concerns and business of the taxpayers and the kids of R-8. I feel that this board will be content to drag this out til the election with the PEOPLE'S seat, remaining empty. ABSURD!
I'm starting to think that I have supported, campaigned and voted for, three political fools for the past two years! I feel that my support for Ms. Martucci is waning quickly. Why does she still seem sooooo clueless in these meetings? Cancel a spa day or two dear, and spend it with administration, learning these proposals. GOOD LORD! Thanks for reading and thanks Randy, for all you do!
I hope the three in support of Kimbrough stand firm. I see nothing wrong in Mr. Kimbrough returning to the board for the next 10 months. Then have a clean election next spring. I appreciate that Mr. Kimbrough admitted that, while giving free reign to CJ in the aftermath of the tornado, a mistake was made when the board did not take that back control from CJ when they should have. I believe Mr. Kimbrough recognizes that sometimes you have to change course. I don't think Annie Sharp could ever do that. That's why "Awesome Annie" shouldn't be there.
I've watched the BOE meetings and I have yet to see Mike Landis act in a professional manner or make a single constructive comment. The comments he does make are rude and snarky. And his time is spent rocking back and forth, waving his arms in the air and swigging water, not to mention the side comments and giggling with CJ. Mr. Landis - If you are that unhappy, why don't you just resign and get out of the way. He could be replaced with Dr. Archer and the other seat with Mr. Kimbrough and you'd have a working BOE for the next 10 months.
I don't know what to think of Mrs. Banwart. I think her intentions are good, but after her comment that board members (specifically Dr. Fort) shouldn't hurt CJ's feelings, she seems more of an obstructionist. The will of the citizenry has been made clear. Mrs. Banwart needs to accept that and move forward.
Was the individual next to Mrs. Banwart the attorney for the school district? If so, yikes! He spent his time staring up at the ceiling, or with his head bent down like he was planning on taking a nap and then just looking down at his crotch. Was he responsible for looking over the contract that allowed inclusion of the FT home as collateral for the loan contract?
@11:05 I agree with you completely. I also attended the meeting and was disgusted by the Board's lack of ability to make a decision about the 7th member. Dr. Archer would be a solid choice in the best interest of the EDUCATION of our children, but the Board members were too busy digging in their heels and hating each other to do anything productive. It's only a year (now 10 month, and by the NEXT time they vote, 9 month) position! Yes, I realize putting Kimbrough in means that Dr. Huff would lose his job and that would be a plus for our district. But Landis, Steele, and Banwart realize that, too, and that's why Kimbrough will not be picked. I was hopeful that things would begin to change for the better with the new Board members, but the meetings have just grown disgraceful. Martucci and Fort seem to question everything like it's all a big conspiracy, and Landis is just nasty and defensive. It's awkward to watch, and an embarrassing representation of our district. Board members - put the focus back on providing our kids with a good education! Put Dr. Archer on the Board and be done with it.
You have to wonder what Banwart's motivation is for being on the Board, other than making sure her kids got special treatment. My kids didn't get schedule changes in October, or special parking spaces after surgery, or their grades changed. My child had to hobble up from the parking lot like the rest of the kids, and stick it out through classes they struggled in, and settle for the grades they got, fair or not. Life is like that for "just folks." They might as well learn that. But not for the kids of the affluent. She's not there for "our" kids now anymore than she was all year. She votes straight for CJ's agenda. She's out to protect her interests, or hubby's. I will campaign against our "lightbulb" princess if she runs again.
Have any of you bothered to view Dr. Archer's questionnaire for the Joplin NEA? Her views and platforms mirror Kimbrough's!
That doesn't matter if the anti-Huff 3 believe there's a high enough chance that Dr. Archer will vote with the pro-Huff 3.
These "political fools" got a clear mandate from the voters to stop the Huff regime's awful actions. If they were to approve a pro-Huff tiebreaker they would loose all their power but that held by the anti-Huff board president (setting the agenda, running the meetings), and if the then pro-Huff 4 board majority could get away with it, I'm sure they'd vote 4-3 to replace him. We didn't overwhelmingly vote for Lane, Koch and Martuchi to surrender to Huff for another year.
But you're right about the 2016 election, unless Randy Steele eventually gets a clue and turns against the faction he's currently part of, since it's clear Landis and Banwart aren't going to change their position any time soon, if ever, and the anti-Huff 3 sure look like they aren't going to stop their opposition to Huff. Until we have a super-majority of anti-Huff board members, my support of "Ms. Martucci" depends on only one thing, how she votes. And she if continues to stands firm against all the garbage that's been and being thrown at her and her family, I'll vote for her reelection in April; that sort of character counts a lot more than whatever deficiencies you and others perceive in her.
Isn't the position they are trying to fill the seat of Lane Roberts? Did he have previous Joplin school board experience? Seems to me they are trying to fill a seat of someone who didn't have any board experience, like Martucci and Koch. They aren'y trying to fill a seat of someone who had experience. I don't care who gets in the seat, but the argument for someone with previous experience seems kind of strange when if Lane Roberts had filled his seat he would have no experience. As Sherlock Holmes would say...food for thought.
Note to 11:05: your comment about Jennifer Martucci is stupid. Ask her why she asks so many questions. Could it be the Administration refuses to provide her with adequate information prior to the meetings and she wants to be better informed before voting on the items that have been blindly granted in the past? Good grief....when did being informed become a crime? She shows interest in making good decisions for the District. Isn't that why she was elected in the first place? Banwart, Landis and Steele appear to attend meetings only to act as staunch soldiers of the Huff Cause. They have no clue. They need to go.
I thought last night's meeting was the best BoE meeting I have watched in years and years. Yes, lots of questions were asked, but I didn't perceive it as looking for conspiracy, but looking to make an informed decision rather than just rubber stamping Huff's agenda. Koch isn't doing anything wrong by setting the agenda and running the meeting tightly. That's what BoE presidents are supposed to do. We just haven't seen that since Huff came along. You will notice how quiet Huff was last night. His comments were what they should have been all along as a superintendent in the BoE meeting.
Are they perfect? No, of course not. They are humans. Are they trying to do what the public asked of them? It sure looks like they are off to a start. They will never make 100% of the people happy. That would be impossible. All they can do is get information, look at the data at hand, and try to make informed decisions. I feel more hopeful today than I have in a while.
Martucci gets the same information everyone else on the board does. Ever scince she was elected she has been clueless. There is only one middle ground and that is for Dr. Archer. The pro-Huff side will not give in to let Kimbrough on the board. The anti-Huff side will not give in to allow Dermott on the board. The only solution is to put Dr. Archer on the board. Actually, there is one other solution, waiting until next election and keep postponing the appointment until the spot is up for election. (Which seems what the anit-Huff side wants.
Landis Steele and ban wort need to go. If they don't believe it wait and see. Of course Baneort won't do what's right for kids and our community, she can't make a decision without Huff telling her what to do. Such a mistake for her to get on that board. Mike landis you've been on that board more than nine years and have done nothing at all but cause this town and school issues by supporting Huff. Mike landis needs to be off the board!!!!!
Actually, there is one other solution, waiting until next election and keep postponing the appointment until the spot is up for election. (Which seems what the anit-Huff side wants.
Why would this be bad? Why is it so important to fill it right now?
What evidence do you have that Dr. Archer is the "middle ground" instead of very possibly being another vote for whatever Huff wants?
It sounds to me like Marsi Archer is packing Turner's blog just like she tried to pack the Board room last night. Debbie Fort, Jennifer Martucci, and Jeff Koch are doing the right thing. Why would Mike Landis who HATES Debbie, Jennifer, and Jeff's idea's be leading the charge for somebody who "mirrors" their views? Kimbrough has done his due diligence in Joplin, spent many years as an educator, and still works with students. Marsi Archer works with college chemistry students, limiting much? I say Banwart needs to "SUCK IT UP" and quit playing the "I'M CHANGE" card!
While I am sure Ms. Archer has her heart in the right place, Mr. Kimbrough does as well. He know exactly what it means to "be in the trenches" at public schools everyday throughout the many years he worked as both a teacher and as an administrator in the Joplin school district. He knows which policies will help Joplin's school teachers do the best job they can so that all students can learn effectively. Mr Kimbrough can also offer the perspective of the disadvantaged student who is not necessarily college-bound and is already familiar with the state/federal laws concerning education and the board policies with our district.
I encourage Ms. Archer to run in next year's election and to spend the time between then and now to truly understand what it means to be a public school teacher. Teaching post-secondary chemistry to paying students who want to be in a class is much different than teaching basic science concepts to students who don't pay for the class, often do not want to take it, and sometimes have learning deficits that prevent them from comprehending the curriculum.
And finally, a piece of advice to Mr. Landis: actions often speak louder than words but in your case, your words and your actions are equally despicable as an elected official of a school district. Please realize that you serve the patrons of this district and not your own, or even Dr. Huff's, interests. It is probably too late for you to "redeem" yourself totally in the eyes of the public but you can start making some in-roads by putting the public's desires above your own self interests. Vote for Mr. Kimbrough to serve on the board and please, DO NOT run again for office.
What "changes" has Jim Kimbrough made on the BOE during his tenure?
Why do we think that "anti-Huff" means fire him? Why couldn't it mean you're just going to make sure he actually does what he's paid to do and do it with some class and integrity?
7:51 PM: Because Huff is completely lacking in class and integrity? And many of the his subordinates are reliably reported to be as well?
Nothing good will come from trying to "make" him be what he isn't, which appears to also include competence at, well, anything besides a vulgar sort of self-promotion, the sort that gets him $8,000 per vacuous speech but doesn't enable him to get a new job.
Post a Comment