I would like to address the “breaking news” reported today by The Joplin Globe concerning, as the Globe called it, my “move to swear in a member for the Joplin Schools Board of Education’s empty seat.”
Did I request the board secretary to swear in Jim Kimbrough to fill the vacant seat? Yes. Was it done with deceptive intention? No. It was done intentionally, after much consultation and discussion with advisors, in an effort to resolve our current impasse and keep selection of the remaining board members in the board’s hands. Did I make a mistake? In process, yes. In the decision, no.
Let me explain. Since the Board’s meeting on May 26th there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about whether the majority vote in favor of Jim Kimbrough (3-2) should have passed. Board policy BDDF-1 governs this issue and states the following: “A motion shall pass if a majority of those members present vote in favor of the motion, provided that a quorum is present, unless otherwise prescribed by law or policy. An affirmative vote of the majority of the whole Board is required to enter into a contract, employ a person, approve a bill or issue a warrant.” At the time of the meeting, there was conflicting guidance that led us to believe a majority of the entire board, whether present or not, was required . . . that meant we thought we needed 4 votes (of the 6 sitting members) to pass a motion.
This issue has grown in significance due to the recent resignations of two board members, the increasing possibility of the appointment decision falling to the commissioner’s office and the conflicts of interest between the county commissioner’s office and a sitting board member, as well as our board attorney. We are in an extremely difficult and unusual situation and I have been in constant communication with the MSBA, the state parliamentarian, our board attorney, and other legal advisors familiar with school board issues and state statutes . . . all in a sincere effort to find a resolution. Based on those discussions and multiple reviews of state statutes, applicable case law, and our own policy, it was determined that the 3-2 majority vote of those members present and forming a quorum was sufficient to carry the motion and it should have passed. This item was originally to be discussed at our meeting on June 23rd. However, when I was informed Friday that the Jasper County Commissioners would be discussing the appointment matter at their meeting on Tuesday, I decided action was needed.
Unfortunately, I misunderstood how to remedy the situation. According to MSBA “you simply recognize that at least one of these seats was filled in the past, the Board erroneously called it as not passing, and amend the minutes to reflect that. Minutes can be amended with a majority of the quorum. ”
I apologize if my action today gave the appearance of deception or “not playing by the rules.” I was in fact, trying to follow the rules already in place, but had to first determine which statues and policies applied. Though my intent for taking action quickly was sincere, my understanding of the correction process was lacking and for that, I apologize. MSBA has given advice on how to correct the minutes and I intend to do so at the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 23rd. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
***
Available now!
38 comments:
What? He's trying to do something by the rules? We'll have none of THAT!
Attorney Rouse should be fired on the spot. He apparently is under the impression that he works for CJ Huff and not the Board. Whoever called the Globe should be right out the door behind him.
And isn't it just like the Globe to provide one side of the story and not talk to Koch? His explanation is the only thing that has made sense from the time the bloc of three (Banwart, Landis, and Steele) decided to usurp the will of the people last week.
How nice if the Globe had included this in their faux news report. It sounds as though Kimbrough should be seated immediately and as though Koch, as usual, did his homework and within legal rights.
Welcome back Kimbrough! Thrilled at this "scandal "and pray you will accept the appointment to the board.
What "advisers"? Who are they?
You know, while the obstructionist bloc is holding the Board captive, the rest of us who work for R8 are left not knowing if we will have a raise or step next year, or whether we will have stipends. So, if you in the country club set wouldn't mind, could you please set aside your fears of being exposed for your duplicity over the last four years and let the business of education continue? I have yet to hear a one of them express a genuine concern about how students wlll learn or how teachers and staff will be paid. It's all about them, not about the district. This is the most shameful display of selfishness ever portrayed for the patrons, students, and staff of a district that it is, truly, unprecedented.
You're going to be exposed, anyway, for your morally corrupt actions. What you are doing right now is just sealing your own fate. Would you mind, too terribly much, not taking the rest of us down with you?
Who cares? I don't think this demands to cite a source only that facts are what they are.
Who cares? No source citation needed.
You will all see now who the "obstructionist bloc" is going forward.
Well put. This is more important. Much more than petty nonsense. Real character and priorities are showing through.
It's a nice sentiment but they really don't care if they take us down with them.
Koch is a like a deer in the headlights.
That's a slippery slope. So now anytime 2 members are absent from a meeting then 3 board members can decide and vote on anything they want.
Another way Jim K is trying to weasel is way onto the board. Really read in between the lines people. Jim k comes with an agenda. Koch, whos your advisors??? Oh yes forgot the people who tell you what you want to hear!.
That's a slippery slope. So now anytime 2 members are absent from a meeting then 3 board members can decide and vote on anything they want.
Not "anything", since 4 votes are required to "enter into a contract, employ a person, approve a bill or issue a warrant". And if the other 2 members don't like a vote on a topic not covered by those requirements, they can leave the meeting and deny the 3 remaining a quorum.
The whole thing makes me ill. I worry for my kids. I know their teachers are good teachers, but that's about the extent of my confidence in our school system. I would JUST like to see some progress in getting things back to something resembling normalcy! There are things to do besides bicker people!
Making an honest attempt to follow the LAW is not "bickering". It is the forward leaning Board members obviously seeking COMPETENT counsel who are trying to get a job done. It is because of the direction of a flawed Board attorney that they find it has become necessary to go outside for legal advice. Kudos to Mr. Koch, Mrs. Martucci and Dr. Fort for having the wherewithal to go the second mile to accomplish this task.
8:21 AM: This is progress. A year ago Huff was sitting high and mighty with a board with a board that rubber stamped his insanely expensive push to open the high school before it was ready, and let's not forget ridiculous things like the ribbon or almost $100,000 to replace the gym's seats because, while attractive, they weren't the perfect color.
Huff is now out, and unless and until the old crowd manages to replace the 3 vacant seats with their cronies, the "anti-Huff 3" can at least keep excess spending in check. As they did by denying that consulting firm another $100,000 contract. If they eventually lose, well, the situation should start getting firmly fixed after the next election.
The current mess might be viewed "bickering", but to those of us who "voted the bums out" in the last two elections, that's what we voted for, an end to "business as usual" of the Huff era.
Note, I focused on money in the above simply because it's the clearest example of how bad things are. But we've got reliable reports that the teachers you like are not able to do their jobs well because of an administration that don't support them or class discipline, that takes them out of the classroom for too many days of "professional development", and fires them at the drop of a hat for any disagreement they have with the administration.
There has been a lack of normalcy for the last seven years.
Why not call a special election for three new board members. That seems to be a fair solution. I sure don't want special interest groups forcing their will upon our family.
How so?
Really? Sounds like the Globe is telling YOU what to say.
Well, 8:21, why don't you direct your comments toward Banwart, her cozy friend Darieus Adams, and the now suspect Dean Dankelson? There is the problem. Let them hear from you.
Hmmm, disappointing Mr. Koch. Where was the transparency in that maneuver?
10:36 AM: Can you tell us exactly how this was opaque or otherwise obscured? I'm not not seeing it, so to speak.
The Joplin City council passes actions all the time without the full council being present. A simple majority of those present is enough. There may be exceptions to this when it comes to road paving contracts, hiring city managers and such, but there are many votes taken with council members absent.
This was such a shady move. Koch and martucci knew exactly what they were doing. Shame on them. Where are decent and honorable people to help this school district?
1:37 p.m. Pot meet kettle - Koch's move isn't shady, it's in the right direction and needed to be done, when you talk honor, how honorable are Landis, Steele or Banwart?
If Mr. Koch had been seeking counsel from advisors actually assigned to help the school district, this might not have been such a cluster. It seems to have been such an issue because he did not communicate with anyone prior, including Mr. Rouse, creating confusion and more drama than necessary. I feel bad for those poor people trying to run a school district and deal with this circus. Instead, he sought his "counsel" from a group of outside voices that provide opinion supporting his own, which is convenient. I don't doubt Jeff is a nice guy interested in helping our kids in some way, but no matter what he says, yesterday came off as a sneaky, sly attempt to get his way in the name of "progress". I'm amazed that more people are not vocally upset about this.
I dont get the globe. ...just commen sense.
Oh pa leaze.
I feel bad for those poor people trying to run a school district....
Which shows you're feeling bad for the wrong people, seeing as these are Huff's minions who've been helping him ruin the school district. I hope and, in good time, expect a large fraction of them will, like Huff, be spending more time with their families.
Me, I "feel bad" for the students and teachers stuck in this abomination. I feel good that Koch has realized exactly what sort of game he's found himself in and is willing to try less above board, but still ethical tactics to win it, and improve things for those students and teachers. And us taxpayers, who will have to make good on the expenditures Huff and company don't have covered.
Yeah...common sense. Still sounds like you only say what someone else tells you.
We won the last election, we will win the next. The tax paying citizens are tired of the mismanagement that the Huff crew has inflicted.
Sure acting secretly to get someone on the board isn't shady. Youre so blind. Its wrong and that's why it didn't go through. That's not the type of leader we need for this new board.
And why are you bringing Landis, steele, and Banwart into this. Did I say I they were honorable? That's my point. The same type of people are on this new board. Lacking honor and the ability to work with people.
9:05 PM: If they lack "the ability to work with people" who don't have the school district's best interests in mind, that's fine with me. That's why we voted to put them in office, and will be putting more people like them in the next election (3, now, plus Martucci's 1 year seat will be also voted on).
That Koch wants Kimbrough on the board is no secret. That his "anti-Huff 3" faction wants Kimbrough to replace Lane so that this doesn't go to the county commissioners, who are ignoring clear conflicts of interest in their rush to take over this process is not secret. To call this maneuver to swear in Kimbrough before the commissioners can act dishonorable is quite a stretch. I'd call it more of a surprise than "acting secretly", we wouldn't know about it at all if it was done, vs. prepared for, in secret.
Repeating the bottom line for what the last two elections suggests is most of us: this is what we put the "anti-Huff 3" in office to do. As long as their methods are ethical, we don't care if they use tools like tactical surprise and not "working with people" who they shouldn't roll over for.
Finally, the voice of reason!
Sigh, you are so blind to what you've become. Using words such as "we" to label your faction. You sound like town people of Salem during 1692. This is not about your agenda its abut the betterment of our schools and the future of our children. You might view these new board member is the right step to better our schools (it might still be, too early to tell), but I've seen nothing to tell me this board is anything but political like the last board and serving nothing but self agendas.
Not a giant supporter of the last board, but if Sharp, Landis, or Steele tried that "tactic" anti-huff supporters would be in a tizzy. You know that is true.
Not all change is progress.
Post a Comment