Board members will review applications, appoint a member and swear that member in and then accept the resignations of board members Randy Steele and Mike Landis, according to the agenda.
A. Call to Order
1. Roll Call
B. Approve Agenda - Action
C. Review BOE Member Applicants
D. Appoint New Board Member - Action
E. Accept BOE Members Letters of Resignation - Action
F. Board Member Oath of Office - Action
G. Adjourn
22 comments:
So as suggested in a comment to a previous posting, they are going to avoid the chaos of throwing this into a, or both county commissions by finishing the old business of replacing the position "won" by Lane Roberts before accepting the new resignations.
This will give them some time to see how the replacement acts and votes before moving on to more replacements; in the meantime the "anti-Huff 3", who've shown they are a solid and reasonably wise voting bloc, can get on with the urgent business of properly replacing Huff.
Well lets hope the BOE can continue to stay sharp and focused. Be assured recent resignations/retirement were a political agenda for what end time will tell. So good job Koch on deflecting this round and keep the gloves up. Let's hope Bartosh and Co. Pick wisely and put an end to this nonsense and the board can get to work fixing the mess that was left behind.
Waste of time...it will still take 4 votes to fill the vacancy. The anti-Huff 3 will continue to push a candidate and Lynda will say no. Like it or not the county commissioners are going to make these appointments.
Unless said candidate is Dr. Archer (Banwart's first and the "bloc of 3's", second choice behind Jim K ,at least at the very first selection meeting). Though I don't know if she would or would not secure a 4th vote for him?
Banwart's have a close family friend on the county commission.
Since the school district is in two counties, its not clear exactly what would happen if it gets thrown to one or both of them. Maybe both commissions could agree to do it together?
I note that if the board hasn't accepted the resignations of Steele and Landis, either or both could show up to the meeting and vote.
I suppose if Banwart continues to be intransigent, the "anti-Huff 3" could accept only Steele's resignation, and then they'd have enough votes. But Banwart could respond to that by leaving the meeting, prevent the board from having a quorum.
Koam reports that Bartosh stated that the commission would make the decisions....jumping the gun, aren't we?
Part, but not all, of the school district is in Jasper County. If the board cannot seat one new member, the decision may need to go to the state, especially if there is a conflict of interest on the Jasper County board. I would not trust an overeager county commissioner to choose a member of our BoE.
I would say that Landis resigning was in fact to shift the decision to the county commission. Whatever the rationale behind it. If the 4 remaining board members can fill Robert's seat it would thwart their scheme at least in part. Fortunately in their zealous move to leave the board high and dry, it will only prove that no one is irreplaceable.
Trust me on this one, you do not want who the commissioner will give you .
A good Captain goes down with his ship, Rats jump off! It is a sad state that this has become a political game to those chosen to educate our children.
Will this meeting be televised on Jet 14?
Here is a take on the motivations for at least Mike's resignation, if not Steele's. Some commenters have touched on this already, so I know others are seeing it. Look at it this way. Mike says he's resigning because of what he claims is the political agenda on the other side. However, he is also claiming right off the bat that the commissioners will get to choose his replacement, as well as the other two. Now, Banwart's family's best friend is the county commissioner. Isn't that a little convenient? It would seem that if the commissioner picks the new members, that they are in the process of putting in a bloc of people who will stymie the progress the voters wanted when they elected Koch, Martucci, and Fort. With Banwart's vote, they would control the selection and the actions of the new superintendent. They could, ostensibly, even put Huff back in, which could be why he is stressing that he isn't leaving town.
So, voters, be aware of this dirty political ploy by Banwart, Landis, et al. The most we can hope for is a compromise, and that would be the election of Archer, and then hope that Archer would pay attention to those voters who signed petitions for Jim Kimbrough, and she would help to bring him back.
So, who is the most guilty of dirty politics? CJ's little pocket pal, Mike Landis, along with the Light Bulb Princess, Lynda Banwart. We don't need JPAC and CART people on the Joplin Schools Board of Education again. Make sure you let her know how you feel today.
Banwart will throw a wrench in it.
Banwart is nothing but a puppet. She will throw a tantrum if things don't go her way. The only way to stop this type of "bullying" is to seat Kimbrough first, then Archer, then go back to the list of applicants, because certainly Banwart's choice, Dermott, is not qualified in any way to be seated on the Board. Come on Jeff Koch...man up and make this happen. You can do it, and as one of the most recent choices of the people...do what they have asked you to do...seat Kimbrough, then go on to making things happen in a positive way. In fact, the 3-2 vote for Kimbrough at the last meeting should stand, as it was legal. He should be immediately seated. If Lynda Banwart is, as she states in her own words, "a mediator", then let's see some movement from her towards a settlement.
4 votes people....it will always take 4 votes. thats the way the law is written.
@11:18 Please enlighten us as to how Dermott is not qualified for the board but Martucci and Koch were?
11:42 AM: What law would that be?
The best I've been able to find, and I'm sure there's case law covering this in more detail, or perhaps rewriting it (our "Missouri Plan" judges often don't care what the law or the state constitution says), is Section 162.301.1 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, specifically this bit:
3. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, but no contract shall be let, person employed, bill approved or warrant ordered unless a majority of the whole board votes therefor.
That implies to me that 4 votes are indeed needed, even if appointing a new member doesn't seem to quite fit into any of those enumerated actions based on my lack of knowledge about this area of law. And it confirms that Banwart can stop the board from acting by leaving, 4 members are required to make a quorum.
Game of Thrones Joplin style.
Since the main irritation is gone, (Huff and Landis) Kimbrough would be a good board member to install. That would also guarantee that the board can then select and vote for the additional members. That would put an end to little Landis' attempt to keep his tiny fingers in the pie.
I would suggest the county commissioner be careful and listen to who the public is backing. They are in an elected position and can be voted out also.
I was at the BOE meeting when Dermott interviewed. I was struck by how bland he was and how he really didn't know anything about anything ... The perfect choice for Landis . One of the weakest candidates who interviewed .
Would you like a copy of my notes?
Thank you, 7:26, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Post a Comment