MY COMMENTS UPON THE HIRING OF LEONARD MERRELL:
Did we find somebody who filled the bill?
I did not believe that we did, and when
the Board voted in March 1995 to accept Leonard Merrell as our superintendent, I voted
against his being selected.
I think I have been justified in my
appraisal of this employee.
Although I gave a prepared statement at
the special Board meeting (in March) before we voted and handed a copy to the board secretary asking out loud
that it be included in the minutes, I neglected to say WHICH minutes, and so my remarks
were put off until everyone had forgotten my “no” vote.
My comments appeared in the August 1995 Board minutes five months later.
Here is a copy of my prepared remarks:
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 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 up from
doing what is proper. It is a state-wide
agenda, and I will not be a part of it.
I can not 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.