When C. J. Huff was hired as Joplin R-8 superintendent in 2008, we were told he was hired because he had a track record of improving graduation rates at Eldon. When he was fired, make that when he retired, in 2015, we were not given any reason, at least not any that made any sense.
Even worse, Huff walked away with a settlement that paid him his full salary for another year and a half or approximately $270,000, a $50,000 consulting fee so he could help the district with the lawsuits he had a role in causing, and expenses for him to attend a national convention for school public relations.
Plus, he was allowed to write his reference letter, which talked about how downtrodden Joplin was when he got here and how Huff rescued us, and it was stipulated that no board member could say anything bad about him.
We had a good idea of why Huff was gone. After all, his financial misadventures and incredibly high teacher turnover had been detailed with backing documents in the Turner Report, his last few months were filled with misogynistic behavior toward board candidates and board members and his continuing presence as the head of the school district had become a joke in the community.
It would have been nice if the board could have told the Joplin community the simple, unvarnished truth about the reasons for C. J. Huff's, but we had a good idea (except for the Joplin Globe and Joplin Regional Business Journal, which were shocked by the dismissal of such a wonderful man and successful leader).
That brings us to the latest Jasper County superintendent to be shown the door.
The Carthage R-9 Board of Education and Superintendent Sean Smith issued a joint statement Monday telling district patrons their honeymoon was over because their "goals were no longer mutually aligned."
Smith's resignation was effective two weeks ago, according to the Carthage Press, and it was just announced Monday.
Any time a joint statement of that nature is issued, that means the decision was made and then it was turned over to the lawyers.
As for the public's right to know, too bad.
We can be sure that the lawyers hammered out an agreement that calls for neither side to say anything negative about the other. If the board fails to live up to that, Smith can sue. If Smith is the one who breaks the agreement, he won't receive his $220,000 cash payout.
It is obvious that the statement, just like the nonsense that was issued by the Joplin R-8 District when Huff was given the heave ho, is a work of fiction.
If their "goals are no longer mutually aligned," the board certainly had the power to bring them into alignment. Smith was their employee. All the board members had to do was hold a closed session, turn to Smith and say, "Sean, you had better bring your goals into alignment with ours, or we are going to fire you."
Smith could have aligned his goals with the board goals and found himself another job.
It has only been a few months since the board held its annual review of the superintendent's contract, something all school districts do. Did his goals shift in the mean time.
Even worse, was Sean Smith hiding his goals from the board members?
In other words, the statement was a bunch of nonsense.
School boards shove these meaningless words down our throats because that is what the experts at the Missouri School Boards Association tells them to do. Everything has to be done in such a way that the board (and the district) do not open themselves to even the possibility of legal action.
While we certainly do not want our school districts to be sued, it should be remembered that these are public school districts.
How can taxpayers determine if the board members are truly representing their best interests when they make decisions behind closed doors and then issue a contrived statement that does not bear any resemblance to the truth?
When it comes time to decide whether to re-elect these board members, how can district patrons make an educated choice?
Board President Mike Diggs told the Joplin Globe that Smith did not do anything illegal or immoral.
If he did not do anything illegal or immoral, then what on earth could be bad enough to spend $220,000 of taxpayer money to get rid of him.
The public has the right to know.
4 comments:
We knew you couldn't write an article about another Superintendent without digging up CJ again....
Maybe he was Barlass-ing?
Class sizes were going up.
The state legislature needs to intervene if at all possible and make it to where a school board cannot issue more then a 1 year contract to any administrator. Also, no administrator that resigns should be compensated in any fashion. To many administrators are caught in illegal situations and to many boards are afraid to get any egg on their face because they hired a dud (a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless). Currently administrators who screw up merely move on down the road and many times do the same thing at another school district and they walk away with more tax dollars. This is ridiculous and needs to be stopped. There are a few honest and decent administrators but there are a lot of unscrupulous ones too.
Post a Comment