My somewhat truncated take on the decision not to renew the contract of Billings Public Schools Superintendent Rod Svee can be found here. It's hard to squeeze in much reporting on production day.
I should add that two board members who did not immediately return my phone calls eventually did: Karen Moses and Katharin Kelker. Mary Jo Fox indicates on a comment on the story that she would have talked to me but did not get my message.
I still haven't talked to Moses or Kelker (I'm out of the office a lot these days), but I did talk to Svee on Wednesday. As in all of dealings with him, dating back to when he was superintendent in Hardin and I was covering the Indian beat for the Gazette, he was courteous, patient and candid.
He said the board's action took him by surprise.
"I had no clue that they were going to do it," he said. "It was obvious that something had been talked about, and something had been planned. I just wasn't privy to it." (I didn't see the meeting, but others who have said the board's action appeared to be orchestrated.)
He said that he feels good about his tenure as superintendent and believes that the district is running well. He defended his emphasis on delegating and building the district from within rather than publicly touting the district's achievements.
"You can't sell a product if the people don't believe it," he said.
He said that he would have been willing to accept a one-year contract without the nonrenewal provision. That would have been true even if the contract had noted philosophical differences with the board and called for an end to his tenure, with no further evaluation, if those differences could not be resolved. But he wouldn't accept a "lame duck" contract.
What about the notion that superintendent really isn't a viable job anymore?
"If they [the board] functioned, and let the administration do its job, like most school districts, rather than run it all through the board, it might work just fine."
He noted that one board goal when he was hired was to calm the waters following the teachers' strike. Now the board seems to want a superintendent who will be more activist and stir things up.
Now what do they do, he asked, when they need someone to calm the waters again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"It was obvious that something had been talked about, and something had been planned. I just wasn't privy to it." (I didn't see the meeting, but others who have said the board's action appeared to be orchestrated.)"
Sounds like yet another violation of the State open meeting law.
If you called board members Tuesday night around 7 p.m. as he says, that happened to be the second night of the board meeting this week. All board members except for Dale Getz were at Lincoln Center. You should have stopped by. It would have saved you several phone calls.
Interesting, too, that you quote Mr. Svee making an accusation of orchestration without sharing any any evidence for it, yet then quote unnamed sources who say it must be true. This isn't good journalism. You are fostering innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations without any basis in fact. Should the board now be expected to prove a negative?
Anonymous 804,
I started calling board members around 1 p.m. I called Mary Jo Fox late because I wasn't sure whether she could take calls at work. I try to avoid calling unpaid public officials at their real jobs unless I'm pretty sure it won't cause them a problem.
Unfortunately, going to the meeting wasn't an option. Tuesday is production day, frequently an all-night affair, and taking even an hour or two off to flesh out a story just isn't feasible. But I am literally at the office until the very wee hours, so I can take return calls anytime.
I am making no allegation here, substantiated or otherwise, about orchestration. Mr. Svee's quote is worth reporting whether or not it accurately reflects what happened. I included the other comment only because it so closely mirrored his own observation and because it came from someone who has watched the district closely for a number of years. I would not have included it in a news story, but the blog is a bit different animal.
I don't expect the board to prove there was no orchestration prior to the meeting, but I would hope that board members answer any questions about that fully and openly.
anonymous, why not give your name? are you a board member with the initials MJF? i have no doubt that conversations took place away from the boardroom. it has been happening for years, and a couple recently replaced board members have confirmed it. funny how the union is never caught by surprise either.
Dear Anonymous posting at 8:04 pm,
Anyone who observes the board for even a short time can see that strategy sessions are sometimes held before crucial meetings.
During the strike board members sympathetic to the BEA orchestrated an attempt to end the strike that included the cooperation of a theoretically impartial mediator.
During the same strike the superintendent kept critical information from four of the board members. She shared that information with the five members that opposed the union.
Those incidents caused local pundits to call for a more united school board. Oh do be careful what you ask for.
Sunday's Gazette editorial is the first cogent assestment of the school board relationship with the superintendent, or lack thereof.
It's helpful to hear from someone who actually follows the action of the board regularly and doesn't presume to know everything about a subject without ever covering the process firsthand.
Ed Kemmick's column was also enjoyable. He stuck to a humorous tack and didn't pretend to know the intricacies of the school district.
While I haven't covered the district in over a year, my knowledge of the dynamics of the strike comes from intense first-hand reporting. I not only attended nearly every board meeting, but sat through hours of negotiations. I spent many hours as well, interviewing individuals and reading lawsuits and depositions.
While the Gazette's coverage of the strike was excellent, we often scooped them.
I was still covering the board when Mr. Svee came on board. He and the chairman simply did not agree on what their respective roles were.
When you look at all the open leadership positions in Billings one conclusion is that it is hard to work for a board, any board.
There is probably some interaction between board members outside of the meetings but as long as it is one on one, I doubt that it is illegal. Secret meetings are another issue. bonnie
I think Todd nailed it, Anonymous 804 sounds a lot like Trustee MJF. However, she has really raised a fuss in the past about anonymous posters so it probably isn't her. BUT it sure reads like MJF's writing, I guess we'll never know. She wouldn't be that hypocritical would she?
I would not have included it in a news story, but the blog is a bit different animal.
funny that a journalism teacher would feel the need to turn journalistic ethics off and on like flipping a switch. Aren't those ethics based on fairness? Why not apply them all the time, everywhere, especially if you know them and teach them?
Anonymous 1253, Please clarify what ethical issue this raises. Journalists use anonymous sources all the time. I probably would not have included this one in the Outpost because I had no way of verifying for readers its factual validity. But it represents the honest opinion of an honest person.
A blog, almost by definition, is a place where people float speculation and observations in hopes that truth will emerge. Let's face it: Anybody who wants to can come on here and post anonymously or under another name. There's just a lower standard of evidence all the way around.
The anonymous source I used was, in fact, far better vetted than most blog comments because I know the person directly and I know that the person has knowledge of the board and how it operates. I rarely know that much about anyone else who posts here, including you.
Doesn't the Washington Post require at least two corroborating unnamed sources before reporting something? I think that's what WP did to break the Watergate story. I also believe it requires more substance than a speculative comment. But then again the Star and Enquirer use the "close pal sez" comments all the time to bolster their stories, so why shouldn't you?
David, judging from the reaction of anonymous 804, 1253, and 915, I would say your speculation about an orchestrated meeting is dead on. I really don't think the comment deserves the lecture on journalisitc ethics. Like Watergate, the crime wasn't nearly as bad as the coverup, maybe this is the beginning of Sveegate. A board coming to a meeting with a predefined plan technically doesn't violate the open meeting laws, but trying to deny that happened is immature and discredits discerning adults who witnessed the meeting. When someone (like Rod Svee)comments on the obvious and the reaction is "PROVE IT!", I get a little nervous.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Anonymous 915, You are right about the Post, from what I've heard. I don't know anything about the Star, but I understand that the Enquirer has quite a rigorous fact-checking apparatus. It dates back to the big Carol Burnett libel judgment, from what I understand.
But in all of the above cases, we are talking about factual assertions pertaining to serious allegations involving potential wrongdoing. Nothing so grand is at stake here, unless the board is up to something far worse than I have had reason to suspect so far. Here are we just talking about the observations of a seasoned board watcher discussing the impression left by a single board meeting. Neither the observer, nor I, has alleged any wrongdoing.
Unless I'm missing something pretty major, this isn't in the same league as the stuff the Post's policy applies to.
Your original comment in your first post "(I didn't see the meeting, but others who have said the board's action appeared to be orchestrated.)" Later it appears that you, David, are talking about only one person supporting Svee's contention. So at the very least, couldn't we expect you to be consistent even in your blogs?
The insinuation of collusion or an orchestrated meeting is a serious charge to level against 9 individuals who probably value their reputations. If the allegation were true, it would be illegal, not to mention unethical. Is fairness only a factor when it has a major implication for a nation, or even when only one person's integrity is in question?
There is a solution guys - go get the forms, collect 20 signatures, and put your name on the ballot.
Then you'll find out how many people want to get their hooks into you!
Post a Comment