INK ARTICLE CONCERNING PROCTOR FORCING AN ISSUE:
Bill Proctor and Terry Huckaby were appalled that the Superintendent was giving administrators two year contracts after he had just laid off 300+ teachers. They also did not want the matter discussed at the "Work Study" meeting but instead they wanted it discussed in a full and open regular board meeting where the public would be involved.
If one reads all of this article and the comments, one can see that at first everyone was supportive of the courageous act that they took. But then the spin doctors entered the mix, and all of a sudden Proctor and Huckaby were being criticized.
People are really dumb to let these KISD yokels, who would support murder if they thought it would buy them a pat on the back from the superintendent or their kid a place on the football team, spin the truth like they did in this instance.
This is a good object lesson concerning what elected board members who want to do the right thing are up against with these people. I know. I've been there.
COMPILED FROM NEWS REPORTS · MARCH 20, 2012 · 232 COMMENTS
What promised to be a routine Monday night work study session for the Katy ISD Board of Trustees instead provided moments of high drama as the school board struggled to maintain a quorum after two trustees walked out in protest of Superintendent Alton Frailey’s plan to give two-year contracts to district administrators.
Trustees Terry Huckaby and Dr. Bill Proctor left as the open portion of the meeting was about to begin rather than vote on Frailey’s recommendation to grant the two-year contracts to what they described as a “select number” of upper level administrators.
The administrative positions involved were not publicly discussed and not immediately available.
The two trustees objected to the contracts being placed on a work study session agenda rather than a regular board meeting. They also said such contracts were designed to protect upper-level administrators while leaving classroom teachers, who work under one-year contracts, vulnerable to layoffs.
In a statement directed to Frailey, Huckaby called the move a “hidden agenda item” and that a work study session was “not the time or place for this issue.”
“This is another example of your lack of professionalism and clear disdain for the classroom teacher of this district,” Huckaby said. “What makes this item so significant is that you plan to protect certain administrators of this district at the expense of the classroom teacher.”
He also called the move “evil” and “sinister” on Frailey’s part.
Proctor also said pushing for approval of the two-year contracts at a work study session was inappropriate.
“This agenda item should not be acted upon until the board has had a full policy discussion of the ramifications of this action and the taxpayers, teachers and other members of the KISD community are fully aware of the consequences of this item,” Proctor said.
He also said Frailey’s action “establishes administrators as a protected class during uncertain fiscal times.”
Rather than remain and vote on the contracts, both Huckaby and Proctor walked out of the meeting in protest as trustees emerged from the closed-door executive session and were about to reconvene for the open public portion of the meeting.
Since two other trustees – Henry Dibrell and Robert Shaw – were absent from the meeting, Huckaby and Proctor’s departure left the board without a quorum to conduct business. Dibrell is in Africa on a business trip and Shaw is recuperating from a major illness.
As Huckaby and Proctor left, Adams, Fox and Howard, along with the superintendent, briefly took their seats at the board table. When it was clear the two other trustees were not going to return, the remaining board members adjourned back into a private area in the superintendent’s suite of offices.
No announcement was made, leaving many in the audience uncertain what was occurring.
Shortly after 7 p.m., more than 30 minutes after the public session of the meeting was scheduled to begin, Adams, Fox, Howard and Frailey again returned to the board table. Moments later, a frail and haggard Shaw entered the board room. As Shaw slowly walked in, Howard got up and assisted him to his seat.
With the quorum re-established, Adams convened the meeting in open session. When the item related to the two-year contracts was announced, Fox immediately made a motion to approve Frailey’s recommendation to grant the two-year contracts. The motion was seconded by Howard and approved on a 4-0 vote without further discussion.
The reason for the two trustees’ departure was not announced other than a statement from Adams that “Mr. Huckaby and Mr. Proctor have left the building.”
Before their departure, both Huckaby and Proctor provided InstantNewsKaty with statements.
Huckaby’s remarks were directed to Frailey and were follows:
“Mr. Frailey your demand to give two-year contracts to a certain group of administrators during a work study meeting is an unspeakable insult to the classroom teachers of this school district and to the taxpayers of Katy ISD.
“This is just another example of what Bill (Proctor) and I have been talking about for the last three months about hidden agenda items and opportunistic last minutes changes. It is just another attempt to load the agenda in order to try to push unpopular items through by attaching them to other less conspicuous items. You know good and well a work study meeting is not the time or place for this issue. This is another example of your lack of professionalism and clear distain for the classroom teacher of this district. “What makes this item so significant is that you plan to protect the certain administrators of this district at the expense of the classroom teacher. The last time I looked, administrators are not the ones in the classroom teaching our students, teachers are. The other issue is you are creating is a deficit that the district cannot correct because of the obligation you are creating with this contract. If the two year contract is approved it will extend the contract through the first year of the 2013 – 2015 legislative budget biennium. I believe this is just an attempt to protect certain administrators during uncertain fiscal times. As I stated before we need to invest in our teachers not administrators. Administrators don’t teach our students, teachers do!
“Last month, you asked for a policy that permits another Reduction in Force policy for the end of this school term that could have another devastating impact upon the morale of our teachers, (and now) you are asking to protect and insulate your immediate administrative staff by giving them two year contracts. It is evil, sinister public policy to even consider it this year under these circumstances.
“It was a year ago to the date that you, Alton Frailey, the board of trustees and this administration created a nationwide media circus with the inhumane and incompetent method of notifying teacher that they were fired. Your thoughtless and careless attitude of how you treated the teachers and employees of this district is still fresh in the minds of everyone. Still today everyone remembers the teachers crying in front of their students it was done so pathetically and with such contempt for human dignity. The children recognized what you did not – the unjust and cruel nature of your decision.
“Many elected officials and others taxpayers tried to tell this superintendent and board that the projected budget shortfall was not going to be anywhere near what you and Mr. Moore had projected. But you still charged forward with your false numbers and created what was to be the biggest disaster this district has ever suffered. You, Mr. Frailey, the board of trustees and the administration chose to put this district in the national media spotlight with you irresponsible display of poor leadership.
“Now, one year later, this administration has come to this board armed with another RIF policy. The legislature will not even meet until 2013, and we have a proposal before us to give two year contracts to a class of employees that would extend into the second year of a biennium of a legislature that has not yet met. We have no idea what the financial condition of Texas will be at that time. This is another example of the lack of professional leadership skills that this superintendent, entrenched board of trustees and administration have exemplified over the last few years.
“Give me a break. Give the taxpayers a break. Give the classroom teachers a break.
“If there are principals, central administrators or administrative staff members who will become so embittered about getting a one-year contract this year, then let them take their skills into the open market just like the teacher who were fired and see if they can find another school district who will give them a two-year contract.
“If the employees in question are not grateful to the taxpayers of Katy ISD in these harsh economic times to have a contract for one year, then let them go to the open market and seek employment elsewhere. We have plenty of qualified people to step into less grateful administrators positions. This will also lower our administrator salary cost.
“As a taxpayer, it makes no sense to give two-year contracts this year. There are no pros in this decision, only cons. As a board member I feel this is just another slap in the face of the teachers who tirelessly teach our children every day. When is enough going to be enough? It makes no sense to prepare for financial difficulties on the backs of classroom teachers while rewarding loyalty to a superintendent by giving his administrative team protection.”
Proctor’s statement was as follows:
“This meeting has been advertised for over a week as ‘a work study meeting of the KISD Board of Trustees.’ Generally, these meetings are to familiarize the board with items that will appear on the next regular monthly meeting of the board. In some instances, however, we do take action at these meetings, especially on items discussed in the closed session prior to the open portion of the meeting.
“A significant personnel and budget policy decision is scheduled to be made on item seven on this agenda. This agenda item should not be acted upon until the board has had a full policy discussion on the ramifications of this action and the taxpayers, teachers and other members of the KISD community are fully aware of the consequences of this item.
“The superintendent’s recommendation on item seven is to approve two-year contracts for administrators and selected district staff. What makes this item so significant, because this board has approved two year contracts of this type in the past, is that these specific contracts extend employment through the first year of the 2013-1015 legislative budget biennium. I believe that this is an affront to the taxpayers, teachers and students of Katy ISD. It establishes administrators as a protected class during uncertain times.
“Last month, the board approved a Reduction in Force Policy due to the nature of the uncertain fiscal atmosphere in our state, which is currently the case for the 2013-2015 biennial budget. The attempt to protect and insulate the administrative staff by giving them two-year contracts clearly demonstrates that the highest priority for this administration in the area of personnel is not the classroom teacher.
“Almost one year to the date, this superintendent, his administration and that board were involved in the initial stages of an insensitive and inhuman reduction in force process that left classroom teachers crying in front of their students.
“Despite my urging and that of other concerned taxpayers, the superintendent and the board used the uncertainty of the fiscal situation to justify insensitivity towards our classroom teachers. Many of us pointed out on numerous occasions that the fiscal situation of the state was not as bleak as was portrayed to the staff and to the public.
“This district’s reserves and realistic numbers coming from the state gave enough justification to be more cautious and more ethical than the reduction in force process used last year.
“The legislature will not even meet until 2013 and yet we have a proposal before us to give two-year contracts to a class of employees that would extend into the first year of the next biennial budget cycle. I don’t understand where the conservative approach to the budget that was used last year has gone.
“From a taxpayer standpoint, it makes no sense to give two-year contracts this year. There is no advantage because those on a two-year contract are free to seek other employment any time during their contract period without any penalty.
“From a human relations and employee relations standpoint, it makes no sense to prepare for financial difficulties one month and give a certain class of employees preferential treatment the next month. These comments are in no way intended to reflect negatively on those persons recommended for two-year contracts. I believe that we have a very dedicated faculty and staff at KISD and all of our employees should be treated with equal respect and dignity.”
somethingfishieMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:24 AMThere’s absolutely nothing wrong with walking out of a meeting to deny a quorum for a vote that could easily be rescheduled. It isn’t just a protest – it’s a means to force further discussion, which is not a bad thing.
Instead of Proctor and Huckaby being labeled grandstanders and cowards, my view is that they be congratulated for trying to force discussion and debate on a highly-sensitive issue with the few means open to them, ESPECIALLY given what the district teachers went through last spring.
Perhaps it’s time for a broad questionnaire based on current events to be offered to all the candidates, then published as a voting guide. I’d certainly like to see the candidates’ answers to this issue the Board took up, and where they would all fall on contract extensions of administrators.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 10:56 PM“I’d certainly like to see the candidates’ answers to this issue the Board took up, and where they would all fall on contract extensions of administrators.”
Let me ask you a question – and bear with me because I may not have all of the details.
Are the documents that were to be voted on, including all of the details of those involved available to the general public? And if they are, where might they be for viewing?
My assumption – and I could be wrong here – is that the documents are private and not public instruments for distribution. If that is accurate how in the heck could anyone take a position of any substance on hearsay? And another question, why would anyone cast their vote for someone who would take a public position, on a flash-point issue, without privy to all of the information?
Darcy KahrhoffMARCH 21, 2012 AT 12:40 PMIt is sad that the administration and the long-term board members do not see why this would be an upsetting vote after what happened last spring (the inhumane firing of 500 teachers). What is sadder is that they feel the need to hold these votes during a work study meeting when most people do not come and no one can make a public comment. The saddest part is that no discussion was allowed to happen prior to a vote being called on the agenda.
Although I agree that public officials walking out of public meeting is generally bad practice and normally a democrat/left tactic, we are living in a time when conservatives are going to have to employ those same Alinsky tactics in order to make a point and make a change!
somethingfishieMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:03 PMTEA Snapshot of KISD – scroll down to see how the teacher/non-teacher ratio looks:
http://americansforprosperity.org/files/KatyISD.pdfThe DoctorMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:08 PMI have read several comments on here praising Blackman and Majors for responding on this forum. I would NEVER vote for a politician that aired their questions through a comment section or message board. I have much more respect for people that go through the proper, official, routes to acquire information rather than indulge in a bunch of hearsay malarkey. These questions should either be emailed to the proper individuals or addressed in a proper debate. I equate this with an attorney using the media instead of a courtroom to try a case. I would never indulge them.
My vote stands with GRIFFIN and MICHALSKY
James YaklinMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:14 PMOh, I see. So you prefer back room communications and whisper campaigns over open communications.
Cynthia Blackman and Terri Majors are using EVERY avenue available to them to communicate with the voters. This is how a campaign should be run.
Of course, we could continue to have the same type of communication we get from the Katy Kowards. Oh, wait we don’t get ANY communication from the Katy Kowards.
Your issue is a non-starter and you are either the same or yet another anonymous surrogate for Griffin and Michalsky. Do they have any surrogates with enough stones to have a discussion using their actual names?
tbdMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:39 PMMr. Yaklin
You wrote,
“Do they have any surrogates with enough stones to have a discussion using their actual names?”
I won’t be casting any stones. I just want to thank you and others for having the courage to put your name on your opinions.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:46 PMMy name is Elizabeth.
westsidebillMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:47 PM“Doc:”
Try as you may to ignore the progress of technology, these boards are an excellent place to reach potential voters – and they don’t create the trashy clutter of the flood of cheap political signs you see on every street corner and most neighborhoods. Candidates that post here are PUTTING IN WRITING what they believe – unlike those that go to a forum or two and give the same vague ideas/goals that they list IN WRITING on their websites and possibly through email. So if you don’t like what they write – then don’t vote for them, no problem from me!
However, if you are basing your opinion only upon HOW they choose to spread their message vs. actually having a poor platform of ideas, then it’s YOU who are failing to recognize/realize/accept the “new” way to campaign. If you remove the internet, message boards, and other open communication tools like this from politics, then John McCain is running for re-election this year. If you ignore the unchanging messages simply because of the delivery, you will be making an ignorant vote(s) in the upcoming election in May and possibly November.
Personally, I wasn’t thrilled with this method when it came about a few years ago; HOWEVER, when you compared it to the ridiculously scripted debates and canned responses from political candidates at all levels, this is probably a more honest venue for candidates to use – and if they change their minds later, you can ALWAYS use it “against them” because it’s in writing. If Blackman/Majors change their minds, then they can’t hide from it. If Michalsky/Griffin change theirs, will anyone know the difference?
The DoctorMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:29 PMI just don’t see this as a legitimate way to contact anyone, especially voters. It’s only a place to post opinions. I would post the same under my real name as well but don’t feel the need to in this setting.
I do not prefer “back room” anything; I am all for open communications. I am just simply saying that this is not the appropriate place, in my opinion.
Mary McGarrMARCH 21, 2012 AT 3:58 PMTD,
So tell us what place you prefer and what the “proper official routes” are. The public has few and rare opportunities to discuss public matters. Public discussion in Katy ISD has ALWAYS been through letters to the editor and now blogs.
At a school board meeting (and only the Regular School Board Meeting) Joe Adams will give a citizen 3 minutes or less, dependiing on his whim, if they’re lucky, to speak of their concerns. And if they say the same thing twice in two months running, off with their heads!
The Katy Times used to be where citizens could write letters. Now, they’ve cut off anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their scrapbook fodder weekly newspaper. They even threw the Times to everyone in my neighborhood for free last week–that’s how desperate they are for subscribers and readers.
Please, tell us where you want us to congregate to voice our opinions.
And right before you do that, you might want to read the First Amendment again. Perhaps you have forgotten exactly what your rights are:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
I’m thinking Instant New Katy is a good place to speak, “assemble” and petition for redress of grievances” however virtual it may be.
The DoctorMARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:10 AMWOW — Thanks so much for posting an excerpt from the US Constitutional Amendments. I have been in America since birth now and had no clue! [/sarcasm]. Really? As much as I advocate message boards (and I DO enjoy message boards and freedom of speech), I would be the last one to tell anyone they can’t post. All I am saying is that everyone on here is getting wound up for what, exposure to twenty people? Oh I know, those twenty people must have a friend or two that they can rant to.
I have learned over the years that message board posts and blogs are only opinion driven and really hold no factual merit. As for another location, I have no idea; perhaps some sort of general online forum dedicated specifically to candidate Q&A?
Let me see if I understand this correctly – There are several factors involved here, a superintendent that wants to run the show, a couple of board members that support the superintendent, a couple of board members that want to try to make a difference but can’t muster the support, one guy that is quite ill and really needs to be left alone to recover, and one guy that doesn’t really know which side is up. Does that sum it up properly? If so, then wouldn’t it be more beneficial to vote candidates in that are willing to help bridge the communication gap? I am quite opposed to handing any one side “all of the power.” A board should be about communication, debate, and negotiations. If this is not what is happening now, perhaps it will if the right candidates are elected. I don’t see it happening if the ladies are elected. I see the power flipping sides but nothing happening to improve communications.
I’m still not convinced that I need to change my stance.
I have learned over the years that message board posts and blogs are only opinion driven and really hold no factual merit. As for another location, I have no idea; perhaps some sort of general online forum dedicated specifically to candidate Q&A?
The DoctorMARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:13 AMThat’s a nice repeat paragragh there; cut and paste has it’s ups and downs apparently.
Mary McGarrMARCH 26, 2012 AT 9:00 AMYour manufactured “communication gap” is bogus. There’s no communication gap other than that there isn’t any communication on real issues between the superintendent, the president of the board and four of the other board members with the public. They all just vote “YES” on whatever the superintendent puts in front of them. Ask any of them to tell you how many times they ever voted “NO” in all the years they’ve been sitting there.
There’s all kinds of “communication” coming from Proctor and Huckaby. We Conservative Republicans out here appreciate that they are telling us the truth about what is transpiring between them and the superintendent.
If they weren’t telling us, no one would know. That’s the point here.
You portrayed the logistics of the situation accurately. Unfortunately your solution to the problem hinges on the wrong two people. How can you possibly think that two people recruited by the superintendent would be able to change anything? They’ll just be more puppets for the show. No one ever heard of them before. There are about five people on this blog supporting them. Their platforms are pap. They have no viable interest in public education. They will just be more of the same.
Let’s talk here about real issues, not personalities. It doesn’t matter where one lives or what one does for a living.
As for your comment about twenty people reading this blog–you’re very mistaken. There are thousands looking at this blog. Frailey knows that. Why do you think he’s falling all over himself to send messages to the public, the staff and who knows who else in an effort to do damage control after his blunderous Work/Study meeting?
sshermMARCH 21, 2012 AT 4:53 PMFrailey has to go. This is more evidence of cronyism at the expense of our kids’ education. District benchmarks continue to erode under his regime, as our taxes are squandered.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 5:38 PMWhere did the rest of this thread go? Hmmm…
Ross RaymondMARCH 21, 2012 AT 5:59 PMbabytiger look to the left of the “Leave a Comment” line and you will find “Older Comments” hit it and you will be back on track.
Question for anyone and everyone. Would someone mind posting any web sites they have for ALL the candidates? I found a couple but would like to see the rest.
Thanks,
R
HonestopinionMARCH 21, 2012 AT 8:18 PMRoss she is not that smart. She thinks she is well informed but the fact that she can’t figure that demonstrates her IQ.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 9:50 PMIs the SHE, me?
babytigerMARCH 23, 2012 AT 9:36 AMNever said I was smart, but then again, you’re removing all doubt about yourself.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 9:52 PMThanks for the tip…
somethingfishieMARCH 21, 2012 AT 7:13 PMDoc, every forum is an opportunity to reach people, potential voters. James is correct, it makes for an even better public record. So does recording board meetings, which I *thought* we were going to begin doing in this district, but that hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps we taxpayers will have to begin doing it ourselves.
Also, I want to be really clear that though I have a screen name in all my posts, I’m very happy to let people know who I am. I’m Felicia Cravens, former GOP precinct chair of 509 and continued interested party in Katy politics. And a parent of a child in the KISD system.
If others don’t want to publish their names, that’s fine and perfectly acceptable, but people draw their own conclusions based on that fact. It’s just the way it is.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 9:47 PMSimply that any person who is serious about working with other people as a team, not just the BOT but anywhere in life, must evaluate – on an individual basis – the pros and cons of each of the team members. It’s simply an issue of communication. If you don’t talk about an issue you can’t know what position the rest of your teammates might have on the issue – then you speculate and make decisions based on half-truths or incomplete data.
When you have the opportunity to sit down and hear what each team member has to say you would be foolish not to take that opportunity to better understand their positions. I’m not saying you have to agree with them but, in most if not all cases, a person isn’t 100% wrong – just like they’re not 100% right.
My point is, meeting with Mr. Frailey or meeting with Dr. Proctor both have merit if for no other reason than one would gain additional insight into what each person might think on an issue. Knowing the pros and cons helps one make decisions based on information and not on personal feelings or animosity.
Does that help?
tbdMARCH 21, 2012 AT 10:17 PMbabytiger,
While I think it was a smart and probably well-intentioned move to reach out to Dr. Proctor, this does not guarantee that the candidate will support stopping the shenanigans that have been carried on by Mr. Frailey and the BOT for the last few years and the meeting with Mr. Frailey and Mr. Frailey’s apparent support for the candidate is problematic. It is perfectly possible for a smart, good, honorable, well-meaning person to be duped by a political machine and that is a concern here. From the reformers point of view, there is little room for error.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 10:31 PMLikewise, meeting with Mr. Frailey doesn’t mean that Mr. Michalsky or Mr. Griffin have sold their souls to the devil and you only speculate that their courtesy is a sign of partnership with the administration. Just like some speculate they might be well funded by vendor dollars or they are just puppets to be played with.
It’s also possible for a smart, good, honorable, well-meaning person to be exactly that – smart, good, honorable, well-meaning. Would you not agree. Some paint them as 100% bad and some do the same for Proctor and Huckaby. I would submit that a label of 100% one way or the other is not correct.
tbdMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:29 PMbabytiger,
Like it or not, the meeting with Mr. Frailey gives a very clear indication of specialness, if not out and out partnership with the administration and it is a very good reason for reform-minded people to be concerned.
The speculation about vendor dollars will end when the campaign finance reports begin to come out and it will be the confirmation of who the administration is supporting.
I personally have no reason to believe that Mr. Griffin and Mr. Michalsky are anything other than good, smart and well-meaning people, but that does not automatically mean that they are reform-minded or that they would disagree with anything that has happened in the last two years.
We know that Blackman and Majors do not endorse all the actions taken by the superintendent and the BOT leadership because they have been upfront and transparent about this.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:44 PMWhen you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
My understanding is that they are funded by their friends and family but you probably could send them a note and ask them about that to be sure. I’d be curious as to their reply.
tbdMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:50 PMbabytiger,
When you’re a nail everything feels like a hammer.
If they want to announce that they are not accepting money from vendors I would like that.
If not, then I am okay waiting for the campaign finance reports.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:58 PMFine by me, either way. Are you saying that Proctor/Huckaby/Dribell (sp) didn’t have any type of vendor funding – what so ever?
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:23 AMbabytiger:
To catch you up on the past umpteen years of KISD politics (again):
1. “New” BOT candidates that have never served on the BOT before that had special meetings with the Superintendent directly after filing for election ended up being vendor and Superintendent lackeys going at least as far as Merrell that I can verify (it probably started before that). In fact, though previously I said ALMOST (which you noted later on) every “special” vetting candidate was eventually elected, I can’t think of any that were NOT elected.
2. Proctor and Huckaby did NOT accept any vendor money in last year’s election; they also are quite obviously not puppets either. ( I can’t recall, but last year I believe we even had a 3rd candidate, Kurt Gross, not take vendor money.) I believe that Dibrell DID take some vendor money, which was a red flag. However, considering he was in the same race as another longtime BOT puppet, voters decided to take a chance on him anyway – and we clearly got burned (hey it’s politics = it happens!). Majors and Blackman, to this point, have pledged to NOT accept vendor money either. If either of them reneged, that would be a tremendous red flag to me and others regardless of whether or not they also did/did not receive a special vetting. As far as Michalsky/Griffin go, we have generic websites and no specifics about them – EXCEPT that they got special vetting with Big Al (which has been discussed previously and above). Oh yeah, and you telling us to email them.
3. Meeting with all team members is fine, but honestly, they could have done that well before they filed for the election if they were truly concerned about personality/professionalism issues. The only meeting of significance there is the one with Big Al.
4. As far as these “flashpoint” issues that you believe the candidates have nothing to gain by taking a position on either side, you apparently haven’t paid much attention to politics at ANY level the past 40 years of American politics. You can’t honestly believe that can you? Usually, “flashpoint” issues like this guaranteed contracts thing, the tax services issue, the banning of repeat speakers at BOT meetings, etc. are simply symptoms of larger, deep-rooted systemic problems. So yeah, it’s important to a number of voters to know where candidates stand on these issues. To willfully ignore them or treat them as isolated or rare, to refuse to connect the dots on the page that are easy to follow with some time and patience, is ignorant – and dangerous to the long-term health of our school district if/when you choose to elect candidates (with historical similarities to other current/former lackey BOT members). Witless, moronic, naive = whatever term you’d like to choose = is what a vote for candidates that sidle up to vendors and the Superintendent would be.
Actually, I half-expect Frailey to now call in Majors and Blackman just to “throw off” the facts of our discussion about the special vettings of his future pets. Of course, the other half of my expectation is that Big Al is to egomaniacal to think that he even needs to bother doing so because he’s so overly arrogant that he believes he’s still the all-powerful being not only in KISD but the entire realm of public education in this country.
Darcy KahrhoffMARCH 21, 2012 AT 10:28 PMBabytiger –
No other candidates for the BOT have been invited to meet with the Superintendent. To my knowledge, no other candidates other than the “inside” candidates have ever been invited to meet with Mr. Frailey. If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Frailey has yet to meet one on one with Dr. Proctor or Mr. Huckaby. To me, that is very concerning that Michalsky and Griffin were invited. I don’t know either men, and their motives could be pure. But when you want to play and you don’t know the rules of the game, it is not going to end well.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 10:44 PMHonestly, from just the stuff I’ve read and heard, I wouldn’t be inclined to spend much time with them either – if I were Mr. Frailey. They do seem to be adversarial and human nature would keep them at arms length don’t you think?
Hey, they probably have reason to be adversarial but in a team environment you must put your feelings aside and get your job done. Both sides must compromise and when you are the minority you have to do it more than not. Leadership and negotiation skills are very important in this environment. Can you say this has been exhibited by any of the camps?
Look, if Mr. Frailey was fired tomorrow I don’t think that would be a bad thing, however, this entire BOT has failed to: 1) Set his direction, 2) Evaluate his progress and 3) Hold Mr. Frailey accountable for his performance, or lack thereof. I’m not seeing a lot of success here on the working together front.
I believe Michalsky and Griffin can bring a lot to the table in the areas of leadership, transparency and communications.
ciri93MARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:08 PMSo BT,
You only see Proctor and Huckaby as being confrontational? You don’t see Adams and Frailey as being confrontational or underhanded in their actions? Hmmmm…
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:13 PMNo, I said “from Mr. Frailey’s point of view” I can see why he would be hesitant to meet. None of them work together – as far as I’ve been able to tell.
Which part of “all of them” do you know understand? I’m not being rude or anything but, dang, don’t cherry pick my comments without taking the entire thought into play.
Who IS NOT confrontational in this crowd?
ciri93MARCH 22, 2012 AT 9:41 PMWasn’t being confrontational at all. Was just asking a question.
babytigerMARCH 23, 2012 AT 9:46 AMciri93, not you, the board members, they are all confrontational…
tbdMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:15 PMbabytiger,
You really do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation.
We have a board that is run by the superintendent, not the other way around as some think it should be. There is no hint of real collaboration. There is no evidence of any desire on the part of the superintendent or the BOT leadership to change their ways. To be a “team player” in this environment means to do what the superintendent and the board president say. The environment does not encourage independent critical thought.
There seems to be no negotiation involved whatsoever and the misinformation is disturbing.
Why didn’t they separate out the different aspects of the contracts at the workstudy? Why wouldn’t they agree to have the discussion and vote at the actual board meeting? Why didn’t they agree to reconsider or at least discuss and explain their errant rezoning decision? Why was the public led to believe that the district could not request an opinion from the attorney general only to have the district do it a few weeks later? Why was the 2010 bond overinflated? Why was there obfuscation over the no-contact clause? How would you negotiate with someone who seems to have a “my way or the highway” attitude along with the votes to back it up? I could go on and on, but I will stop for now.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but broad past experience does not support your faith.
Read all the stuff at http://www.georgescottreports if you really want to learn something about what is going on. It is not pleasant, but it has the virtue of being the truth.
Mr. Frailey will not be fired tomorrow and Mr. Frailey almost certainly will not be required to follow any direction set by the board or be held accountable in any way if the candidates he supports are elected.
The smartest bets for a change in the current dismal state of affairs are Blackman and Majors.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:36 PMOh, I think I do. You have the Admin wanting to run the show. One group who lets him and one group who tries to stop him. None of the groups are doing the people’s business and the majority gets their way while the minority tries to slow them down.
The minority wants to get more people like them in so they find like minded individuals to support for the two open spots. The majority wants to keep the minority from taking control and pushing issues down their throat. I get it.
I don’t subscribe to either camp. I subscribe to the thought that camp A and camp B need to work together to support the students, parents, teachers, taxpayers, community and then the administration. In that order. Maybe what they need is a camp C that can go whichever way is the right way and the right thing to do for the people of the district.
You’re asking “inside baseball” questions that neither of us have the answer to or the information available to form a solid conclusion. One answer I can give you is that all of those problem issues are from a board that is dysfunctional.
I have read Mr. Scotts page and, frankly, find it to be filled with very little that is constructive or productive to the issues at hand. I don’t need him to tell me things are all screwed up, I can read it everywhere else.
I still believe in the standards and professional qualities that both Michalsky and Griffin can bring to the table and I have more faith that they will do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s a gotcha point.
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:37 AMOK, it’s pretty clear now. As it clearly stands, you are completely unwilling to ignore facts about your favored candidates. You claim to not care for either side, but when a number of well-informed people (yes, many of those who don’t like Frailey or the ACTIONS of the majority of the current BOT) have tried numerous times in numerous ways to explain/describe/discuss various candidate, district, superintendent, financial, etc. issues (current and historical) and you still absolutely refuse to accept/understand/consider the FACTS as given = it’s clear you’re either truly a neophytic simpleton or a district plant. Your penchant for diverting your responses, criticizing the critics, or just inane movie quotes/zingers falls right in line with the previous district plants……so which are you?
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 9:22 AMOkay, thesecond sentence was MEANT to read: You are completely WILLING to ignore facts about your favored candidates from a historical perspective.
ThreeTigersMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:21 PMDarcy:
Let me introduce you to Charles Griffin, his website is saying he is a third generation graduate of KISD, I knew his father graduated from Katy High School, but, wasn’t sure about a grandfather and/or grandmother. Both of my kids graduated with his kids, one in 2009 and one in 2011, they are either 3rd or 4th generation. My point is, he and his family have invested more in this community and in this school district than any other know it all that has given their two cents on this thread. When Charles attended Katy High School, he like all kids had tough decisions to make about drinking, drugs and all things typical to us all. The decision he made was to finish in the top 10 of his class (I believe 3rd) and then graduated and attend the Air Force Academy. He then served his country for 20 years as both active duty and reserve in the Air Force. He then returned to Katy and has worked hard for Continental now United Airlines as a Pilot, one of the most responsible jobs I can think of. His son graduated from KHS in 2009 3rd in his class and his oldest daughter graduated Salutatorian in 2011. As a bible believing Christian, I rate this very important, when selecting church leaders the New Testament says choose leaders who demonstrate they lead their household well, that applies to public office in my book as well.
Vote for who you want to vote for, that is your right and your civic duty. But, Charles Griffin is one of this communities best and brightest. He is a shining example of what any parent in this School District would dream for their KISD student to emulate. Nothing and I repeat NOTHING in his past experience has demonstrated any reason to doubt that he would take the easy road and just become a puppet of an administration and rubber stamp anything and everything they decided.
I have no problem with him being invited to meet with Mr. Frailey, I would hope that a native son, with an excellent academic record, two decades of military service and an excellent parent whose children have excelled in the classrooms and made KISD proud, would be the first person that Mr. Frailey would meet with.
Each of these candidate come in with an agenda…Charles’ agenda is that he’s walked the halls of KISD, like his father and his children do currently and he wants what is best for the district that is his home and has been for generations. The other candidate IMHO and several of the current board, have personal agendas beyond the business of KISD and have just chose KISD to be the canvas for their broader ambitions.
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 9:02 AMthreetigers:
So unless you’re a 3rd-4th generation KISD taxpayer/resident then you’re just a “know-it-all” on the boards with nothing to offer.
For someone who seems to be a longtime KISD resident yourself, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do on the specifics of the operations and procedures in our district the past 30+ years. Nobody has outright said that Mr. Griffin is going to be a 100% lackey if elected, but to ignore history will lead us to repeat it = which is exactly what some of us are trying hard NOT to do (at least, if we want a viable, effective, reputable school district as a going concern). Mr. Griffin (or Mr. Michalsky) might be the best board members EVER if elected – but other than an occasional post or two about these two candidates (babytiger’s apparently running one of the campaigns) the ONLY thing people know for sure is their resumes – and their special vetting with Big Al. So please do this one favor for a know-it-all = check the history of the BOT here with special vettings of BOT candidates and follow them through their time on the board and how their votes went. If you refuse to acknowledge what concerns voters in public, repeated formats then it only fuels the fires. Majors and Blackman have clearly spoke out against some of KISD’s actions – nobody knows much of anything about the other two except what an occasional post gives their opinion (which is fine, but facts – in WRITING – from/about the candidates carry actual validity).
Your turn. I truly do look forward to finding out more about Mr. Michalsky and Mr. Griffin – the election is a ways off and no votes have been cast by anyone no matter what has been written here.
mndannen@aol.comMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:49 PMA.D. Muller says
ThreeTigers, babytiger, littletiger,
Are you‘all really that worried about Katy High School may be redistricted, thus hurting the Katy Tiger’s football team? What a reason to field a candidate so one can play on the same team as his father.
babytigerMARCH 21, 2012 AT 11:56 PMHa, that’s funny. How many times has KHS been rezoned? How many times has that made a difference? Rezone them down to 4A and they’ll just have some of those trophies too.
Michalsky has children who go to SLHS. What does that do to your theory?
mndannen@aol.comMARCH 22, 2012 AT 12:13 AMNo one is worried about SLHS football team.
babytigerMARCH 22, 2012 AT 12:19 AMWell, technically there are no worries about ANY of the teams. So, what’s your point? What school do you support? I don’t see this election as a KHS issue as much as I see it as a KIDS issue.
Put your fishing pole up because that won’t catch a thing.
babytigerMARCH 22, 2012 AT 12:20 AMOK, KIDS could work too but I meant to type KISD.
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 9:13 AM“Well, technically there are no worries about ANY of the teams.”
That’s 98% untrue. I’ve been here a long time and the rezoning – and potential weakening – of KHS an by extension the Tiger football program has absolutely been a consideration whenever rezoning is involved in this district. Yes, it’s unwritten and not directly spoken, but it’s absolutely been a consideration whenever zoning around KHS or talk of district-wide rezoning has been discussed. To believe otherwise is dumb.
babytigerMARCH 22, 2012 AT 5:58 PMYou’re right, rezoning has never effected KHS. Tell that to the families who live in all of the areas that once were zoned to KHS and now are not. Like me.
westsidebillMARCH 23, 2012 AT 9:31 AMbabytiger:
Please show me where I said KHS has never been affected by rezoning. You can’t because I have never written that statement because it’s completely untrue. OF COURSE KHS has been affected by rezoning like every other campus. HOWEVER, what was written is that when it comes to rezoning anything near KHS, it’s always VERY carefully considered – in contrast to the flip-flopping we just saw last week.
babytigerMARCH 23, 2012 AT 9:44 AMWell, all rezoning issues should be well thought out and every point considered. Why do you feel this discussion needs to go down the rezoning path? It’s not even a current issue. Is it something you think will stir up people just like walking out of a meeting?
Do you want to know my personal feelings about rezoning?
westsidebillMARCH 22, 2012 AT 9:28 AMI agree. The rezoning of KHS will not be a direct issue in THIS election, as rezoning to the northwest is not impending this year but will come up in the next 2-3 years.
Just Wondering2MARCH 22, 2012 AT 1:49 PMWhere do we send the money for the signs?
I understand your new principal is a wonderful lady and you will be happy with her. I also understand she was not the choice of the teachers/staff/ and parents at Exley, seems you let that one get away.
Even so you should be better off. Good luck.
katydad1MARCH 22, 2012 AT 4:01 PMWell I wanted to add something to my original post but can’t seem to find any edit button. I can manage a bank but can’t edit a post…..can anyone help?
westsidebillMARCH 24, 2012 AT 7:01 PMHAAA!!!! I know who you are now katydad1! You said you manage a bank, and we ALL know there’s only ONE bank in the whole Katy area! You just outed yourself!
mndannen@aol.comMARCH 24, 2012 AT 3:48 PMA.D. Muller says
Baby Tiger
I am told that Coach Joseph sent out a letter to the Katy High School Booster club last October regarding the potential rezoning of the school. There are current School Board members that want to rezone all the schools. Maybe they want to vote on this issue without public input. (Sound familiar?) Terri Majors and Cynthia Blackman believe in the parent’s right to determine their own child’s destination. Not Frailey, Fox, Adam’s and Howard.
babytigerMARCH 24, 2012 AT 6:33 PMHe sent a letter in December. When a school district grows like KISD has, zoning is always a planning issue. The letter stated that he thought the process would be fair and equitable for all involved, that people would have a chance to be heard and that he had been misinformed last Spring regarding the topic.
I don’t know what the process is, how it works or anything else about it other than it’s something that is part of a growing school district.
Continue to jump to conclusions in your quest to get Frailey ousted and while you guys go on your witch hunt I’ll continue to tell my friends about Griffin and Michalsky.
mndannen@aol.comMARCH 24, 2012 AT 5:49 PMA.D. Muller says
An earlier blogger asked “Why has Frailey thrown Neil Howard under the bus?” An insider tells me that Frailey is concerned with how horrible the last election came out with Snyder and Crockett, There is a belief that Howard is even a worse candidate, than Judy Synder and Chris Crockett. I am told that Frailey personally vetted Griffin and Michalsky while ignoring Howard. The current ethics scandal with Snyder may spread to others who ran before.
babytigerMARCH 24, 2012 AT 6:34 PMI vetted them too.
westsidebillMARCH 24, 2012 AT 7:04 PMJohn Pape, what is the record for comments on a single story?