[LCSD] Process Question

LT notes why the board is going into executive session at the next meeting:

Then the board will adjourn into executive session to consider the applications that they have received and consider who will receive an interview.

If the board has already decided to make the candidate interviews for interim superintendent public, then why don’t they make the process they use to select who gets interviewed public?

This is not a rhetorical question.  While I think there are good reasons to make the hiring process somewhat private, given past statements made and actions taken by the board, I would appreciate an explanation, even a brief one, for this choice.  Any discrepancy in the board’s decision regarding who to interview could probably be explained by simply having this part of the process made public.

Explore posts in the same categories: LCSD


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

5 Comments on “[LCSD] Process Question”

  1. anonymous Says:

    The board agreed to do the interviews in public. That doesn’t mean they can’t do some of this in private. I can think of several things a possible employee may not want to be made public, and the board can look into it in executive session. The laws agree to that also, or executive session would not be allowed. Would you want EVERYTHING you have done employment wise be totally public information? I’d be OK, but I can see some scenarios where it isn’t appropriate. Plus, to do interviews or decision making on 11 people seems very daunting. I think the board winnowing it down to the most promising 4 or 5 is a good idea. When the district hires a new principal, the first levels of screenings are done privately, and the best move forward to public sessions.

  2. rhetoricalwasteland Says:

    I should have been clearer: I actually think it is perfectly reasonable to conduct the first round in private. But given a) the recent history of the district, and b) the board’s decision to hold the interviews in public, I would like to see the board explain the decision to move this part to executive session.

    Like I said, I think there are good reasons to do that. Anon @ 12:14 gets at them quite well. But I want to know which reasons the board is using. After all, when there are questions of credibility, openness and transparency are often the best answers.

  3. anonymous Says:

    ORS 192.660–which allows executive session also states:

    7) d) Executive Session does NOT apply to the hiring of the CEO, other public officers, employees and staff members of a public body UNLESS:
    A) the public body has advertised the vacancy
    B) …has adopted regular hiring practices
    C) in the case of an officer….
    D) In the case of a CEO, the governing body has [1] adopted hiring standards, [2] criteria, [3] and policy directives in meetings open to the public and where the public has been able to comment on those three subjects.

    The Chairman is to state which portion of the ORS is being used to allow the executive session–in the public meeting prior to moving into ES.
    There are to be written minutes of the meeting which are reviewed and signed by the Chairman which are kept in the DO under confidential papers.
    Representatives of the press shall be allowed in executive session. They may give a general but not specific report.
    Designated staff members (unclear who this is in the Lebanon Policy/established procedures) shall be allowed to attend.
    There are to be no votes/final decisions made in the ES.

    The Board may withdraw into ES, but it is covered by the guidelines of this ORS.

    I am not sure the meetings already held meet those specific requirements stated at the beginning of this comment.
    Has the Board done those specific steps and set in place those specific requirements?
    I hope they have learned not to ignore the law…..

  4. anonymous Says:

    Anon @ 3:49, you evidently are not going to the board meetings, as that was all discussed. The board is specifically doing all three just in case anything needs to be done in executive session. They plan on doing almost all, if not all, in public, but they are covering their bases. They have advertised the position, and accepted public comment. The last meeting, they adopted a timeline with public comment. Wednesday night the agenda says they will Adopt the Qualities and Qualifications for Interim Superintendent and the district website has a list of all the public comments on qualifications. They then, according to the agenda, will adjourn into executive session.

  5. anonymous Says:

    anonymous @ October 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm
    I hope for this District to move into a period of success for all stakeholders and want to make sure the Board is crossing their t’s and dotting their i’s.
    There are so many existing policies that directly deal with and/or refer to the Superintendent’s job description. Since that was a regular point of contention between the Board and the last Superintendent I am concerned that this area is very specific and as tight as they can humanly make it.
    My specific concern is if the Board has actually looked at the existing Board policies on the superintendent’s qualifications and have also adopted hiring standards for the superintendent as well as receiving public input on what they would like to see in a Superintendent.

    And yes, I regularly go to Board meetings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: