STATEMENT I MADE WHEN I VOTED AGAINST HIRING LEONARD MERRELL:

Some of the media stories of Merrell’s selection did not state my opposition. I take no comfort in having been correct in my assessment of Leonard Merrell. He is, after all, a person with a family. But he has done the children of the Katy schools no favors. His lack of educational leadership, his inability to follow the dictates at the time of his hiring, his constant effort to control who his bosses on the Board are, his spreading of the bond money wealth among non-Katy businesses and dumping the businesses who had served this school district so well for many years, his apparent involvement in setting up the Xpediant front company and allowing those employees to soak this school district, his closing of the KISD print shop, his bringing in of “outsiders” for administrative positions when KISD had plenty of qualified employees who could have been promoted to do that work just as well, his obvious patronizing of those whose wealth could curry favor for him with the public, his endless opportunistic efforts to garner photo-ops for himself, and his placement of a curriculum in our midst that fails children on every front is inexcusable and shameful, in my opinion.

Leonard Merrell had an agenda of his own when he came to Katy in 1995 that became clear to me over time; that he was able to implement it so successfully and quickly is a testament to a Board of seven people who have been asleep at the wheel. Here is a copy of my prepared remarks in March 1995, the day the School Board voted 6 to 1 to bring Leonard Merrell to Katy ISD:

 “As a member of this board, I was very pleased when we began this process of finding a new superintendent because we set out in a methodical way to give ourselves plenty of time, to involve the public in a very real way, and to look for the proper search consultant to guide us. We went through the process proceeding just as we had planned. The public was receptive and turned out in large numbers to make themselves heard. I listened to what they said, and what I heard was that we should be looking for a good communicator who liked children and who was knowledgeable about  curriculum issues and who could implement in our schools the beliefs that are held by this board and this community.

I was expecting candidates who were from districts similar to ours, and whose test scores indicated a high level of achievement and real progress and whose curriculum practices revealed at least a hint of originality and individualism. Instead we were presented [by Bob Thompson] with four candidates from districts very much unlike ours and who either denied knowledge of, or claimed ignorance with regard to, current curriculum and methodology issues that are important to our community. I saw no shining stars from outstanding school districts. I saw no rising stars from school districts on the move. What we were presented were four superintendents from mediocre school districts who for one reason or another were looking to bail out and move to greener pastures. And those, gentlemen, are not good reasons for us to hire them. Any of them.

I feel that we allowed the consultant to drive our activities in a way that precluded our receiving all the information that we requested in a timely manner, and rushed us so that we did not have time to make thoughtful and measured decisions. I could not be at my best when I had to spend six hours a day reading their material, one hour socializing with the candidates, and three hours in an interview for four days in a row. When we finished on a Thursday night at 11 PM, and then met at 7 AM the next morning, we did not have the time or the energy to discuss credentials and to compare candidates. We met simply to “pick one.” The process was in my opinion very flawed. Believe it or not, our district is a state-wide trendsetter, and when we do not have the proper candidates from whom to select our superintendent, we have allowed ourselves to be placed in the position of perpetuating the status quo with regard to superintendent selection in this state. If a high profile school district such as ours holds out for a truly qualified candidate who is opposed to the educational stuff that the federal government is trying to force on states and local school districts, the shock waves throughout the state might offer courage to a lot of other school boards. However, the educational establishment, because of job protection wants to maintain the status quo. The agenda here is to keep us from doing what is proper. It is a state-wide agenda, and I will not be a part of it.

I cannot vote for this candidate. Because I care so much about this school district, with all my heart, I hope I am wrong, but the curriculum this candidate has directed and placed in his current district and his resume tell me I am not.”