School Board Referendum

I'm still trying to understand the union puppet thing. Giving me all kinds of giggles at the thought of it. Man, this superintendent election has had some weird stuff come out as reasons for voting no!

Ok Bob Hudson, JDarg, JP Nettles, Teachers Aide, AndyA, WaltonParent, the gigs up, Seaducer is onto us. One of the few things I may agree with some of you on and we got caught by a novice. Where did we go wrong, oh where?

I have a name for you Seaducer, so if you would like to find out what it is lets meet.

Something jumped out at me when I read our list of names- the diversity of the supporters of the referendum. It is a reflection of the supporters in this race- all kinds of people, political idealogies, backgrounds. United in doing what is best for the kids, and hoping we can do what 99% of other districts do- and they hire superintendents for lots of reasons- two important ones are performance and widening the pool of talent for a candidate search.

If you mean, do I pay buttloads of property and sales tax in Walton, then yes.

If you mean, do I like anyone in office, or even know their phone numbers, or have
even an ounce of influence with them?, then once again it's a blatant lie told by
lazy simple minded people who can't rationalize the opposite opinion they hold.
face it just because you have been hand fed this pablum by the WCEA
doesn't mean anyone not eating it is somehow misunderstanding the issue

the vote is to expand the power of the union to appoint a super, nothing more

Oh, BS!!! I agree with what you say 90% of the time, Seaducer, but on this issue you are flat wrong! Like I've said many times I've live both sides of the coin. The election of the school superintendent is a means to keep the political control of the schools in the hands of a limited few. There are other flawed reasons but that is a main one. I am certainly not a "union man". It is my very strong opinion, being both a retired state employee and a military retiree, that unions have no place in those offering public service. We weren't unionized in Oklahoma and were not hurt one bit because we weren't.

Would a hired superintendent, for example, be harder to get rid of? I'm thinking teachers unions/tenure /etc.

Hired Supers have higher pay scales which include a benefit package, career development and/or other perks. Canceling a contract could result in severance and leave pay. Additional costs could include fees for search and hiring. Paying out severance/leave packages could be very costly in addition to paying another hired Super.

What jumps out at me is that the No people think that the Walton County political machine and the few states that even allow election of school district superintendents are right and the rest of the country is wrong. I doubt that Walton County and the other counties in the state that elect superintendents are the gold standard for public education. Politics has corrupted public education.

Hired Supers have higher pay scales which include a benefit package, career development and/or other perks. Canceling a contract could result in severance and leave pay. Additional costs could include fees for search and hiring. Paying out severance/leave packages could be very costly in addition to paying another hired Super.

P.S. beachrob

Adding in costs for Superintendent searches, buyout packages and benefits is what makes the voters I've talked to say it makes more economic sense to keep the Superintendent position elected.

The problem with your argument is that it's entirely hypothetical. Could, might, etc.

How about some hard actual facts?

Sometimes hired superintendents are worth the higher pay. Are our children getting a bargain education with hiring more entry level teachers and getting rid of more experienced teachers with graduate degrees? My daughter graduated from a school where the superintendent was hired from another state. He held a doctorate and was an outstanding educator and manager. My son graduated from South Walton High. My daughter got a better deal and was better prepared for college.

The problem with your argument is that it's entirely hypothetical. Could, might, etc.

How about some hard actual facts?

Do tell....what's hypothetical about it? The board decides they don't like who they hired and here comes the severance pay and perks in addition to hiring another Super. It's happened in Florida.

I will grant you that this clip is from an article written in 2010. However, education costs have increased so it can only get worse.

Indian River spent $56,626 on its superintendent search in 2007 and $38,000 in 2003, St. Lucie spent about $21,000 in 2003.
The cost involved when an appointed superintendent leaves a district also can be high.
Indian River paid Roger Dearing about $73,358 in unused sick and vacation time when he resigned in 2003 as schools superintendent to take a position in Manatee County. Indian River paid Tom Maher about $374,438 for 18 months of salary and benefits when the school board fired him in 2005. St. Lucie gave Schools Superintendent Michael Lannon about $115,000 in accrued sick and vacation time when he retired in 2009. He was rehired 30 days later at the same base pay of $175,000.

That is just one instance...do your own research LOCAL.

Just because the Indian River school board and others obviously have a stupid school board with obviously very poor adminstrative assistance, doesn't mean a thing or supports not hiring a superintendent in Walton County.

She knows that the legislature resolved the issue of "termination without cause" after all of the cases she states. If a elected supt is terminated for cause they get no severance pay.


She also knows that any employee is paid for ALL accrued but unused vacation and sick leave when they leave regardless of whether they were fired, retired or resigned.

That same thing will happen when the current "elected" superintendent "retires" in two years.

That brings up a question. I wonder what the "retirement" of the present superintendent is going to cost the county?

I will grant you that this clip is from an article written in 2010. However, education costs have increased so it can only get worse.



That is just one instance...do your own research LOCAL.

Where are you finding this? This is the second time someone has posted this, but upon googling it you find that the Superintendent also stayed on pro bono for 3 years following his retirement.

Those are the facts they "forget" to post as they destroy their argument.

Those are the facts they "forget" to post as they destroy their argument.

Bob I have no issues posting the info or where I found it. No where in the article I read did it say the Super stayed on pro bono for 3 years.

Who don't you respond to post #38 in this thread.

Assuming is the mother of all screw ups Mr. Hudson. You assume I knew that as well. Again, that information was not contained in the articles I read.

You keep insisting this will save the taxpayers money but that has not proven to be the case in several Florida Counties

And one again you are wrong !

Please review the tape of the WCSB meeting where I asked that the item be placed on the August ballot. I specifically stated that the change would cost money in the short run and most likely save money in the future.

All of your data on that is valid in the past - but you never noted the changes that have been made since. That is the exact "objection" that I made concerning the "buy out - termination" of Greg Kisela by the BCC which was also reported in the media.

That information about legislative limits and benefits has been posted here, on the Wings website and was a part of the presentations I made at different public forums and meetings.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Hired Supers have higher pay scales which include a benefit package, career development and/or other perks. Canceling a contract could result in severance and leave pay. Additional costs could include fees for search and hiring. Paying out severance/leave packages could be very costly in addition to paying another hired Super.

Some of what you say is true. Other things are true, but overdramatize the issue. True: On average appointed supers make more. Also true: On average they also have more administrative experience and better credentials than elected. True: a super might ask for career development money in his/her contract. Also true: career development is continuing education. I think I am okay with someone in a leadership role asking for career development/training. True: There could be a severance package cost if the contract is terminated at the board's pleasure. Also true: Most contracts have non-performance clauses that vitiate payouts based upon certain actions. This seems a better alternative than waiting 4 years until the next election, or waiting on a governor to fire a super. True: When a super leaves, you may have to pay for accrued leave. Also true: Elected or appointed, leave is currently accrued. Also true: Easily solved the way many companies do it, put in a Use it or lose it policy. Also true, to get a clean audit, the school system already accrues for the cost of leave that would have to be paid out. This is standard accounting. Nothing earth shattering. True: the super would have a benefits package. Also true: school system employees already have good benefits that cost the system.

True: recruitment will cost money. Also true: recruitment is currently known as campaign contributions. Usually from cronies who want the school district to buy their land, etc.
It seems to me that every concern that is brought up by the NO vote are really easy issues that businesses address every day. A board with experienced business professionals could handle all of these things.

True: recruitment is a potential cost that would be bore by the school system. Also true: Recruitment is currently bring paid for by a few cronies who call it campaign contributions.

Eddins is deeply indebted to his campaign contributors as is Catalano to the Jones camp. Voting for either of these 2 will buy this County a heap more problems regardless of whether or not its hired or elected. Some are obviously happy with Kirby's political connections and have donated accordingly. In my personal opinion Kirby has always been a "yes man"(woman) for the politicos in DFS.

That means to me there are 2 current school board members and of the 2 the only one I trust to keep his word and do what he says he will do is Mark Davis.

Campanella ? How would he be indebted - he's not a candidate . Isn't he the guy you made all the negative comments about ? How he was a "pretty boy" and how he wore a "fancy" sweater, etc. before he dropped out. I think your wrong again !

Sorry...mis-typed Should have read Jason Catalano.

All fixed just for you Bob.

Campanella ? How would he be indebted - he's not a candidate . Isn't he the guy you made all the negative comments about ? How he was a "pretty boy" and how he wore a "fancy" sweater, etc. before he dropped out. I think your wrong again !
View attachment 37500

Let's see whose laughing after the 26th, shall we?

Anyone else notice that Misty did not challenge one word I wrote when I wrote about "also true"? I don't think it is because of lack of ability to intellectually engage. I think it is because there is no intellectually honest response. The NO crowd's message is...." We elect jackasses to serve on the school board. Since voted for them, but can't trust them, we want to make sure we get the same opportunity to vote for as many other jackasses for as many county offices as possible. Don't take away our right to elect jackasses, the more jackasses we elect, the more jackasses we can blame for Walton County failures."