By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, September 12 at 7:36 PM
The St. Louis Board of Education tonight voted to make Dr. Diana Bourisaw the permanent superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools.
By a vote of 4-2 (board member Ron Jackson walked out of the meeting) the board voted in a closed meeting to drop the title of "interim".
"After viewing first-hand the abilities of Dr. Bourisaw, the board felt there was no need to look further for a new superintendent," said Board President Veronica O'Brien in press release handed out later at the regular administrative meeting, which was open to the public.
"We have the perfect leader right in front of us," said O'Brien.
Check back later for video from tonight's meeting.
UPDATE: School Board President Veronica O'Brien told reporters after the meeting that the board dropped the "interim" title so the superintendent could apply for grants for the district.
"We can't apply for some of the grants that she can go in and get with the name 'interim' on it," she said.
O'Brien also said that making Dr. Bourisaw the permanent superintendent helps provide stability for the district, which helps to attract higher quality staff.
"We did what was in the best interest of the district and I think were following the guidelines of what [State Education Commissioner] Kent King and the task force want us to do," she said.
27 Comments:
I cannot believe how Archibald and Jackson are acting. How childish to walk out of meetings orleave early, just because they don't get to run things completely anymore. Try being a team player, guys. Was the power more important to you than the kids? I can't believe I voted for them the first time around.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 8:48:00 PM
I agree, anon. They are behaving like spoiled children. Don't they ever have to cooperate at their jobs? Maybe if Archibald would learn to collaborate with others, his agency wouldn't be running a deficit while he pays himself a six-figure salary.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:07:00 PM
The Post still has the vote wrong on its website. Nice reporting, Antonio.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:17:00 PM
is the state going to take over still?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:59:00 AM
It has officially occurred, the new board majority has become what they most hated...Looks like the talking heads can change, but the 'arrogance' remains.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47:00 AM
Previous anonymous, what exactly is your definition of "arrogance?" Are the rest of us missing something?
The majority is working hard to recoup all that has been lost in the past four years.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:50:00 AM
I apologize. I assumed when the term was applied to Williams and the old majority it was understood by all involved?!?!? What I understood it to mean was they didn't consult with stackholders, they didn't feel like they had to report to anyone, since they obviously knew what was best...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Yes, I did feel some of that under Williams and the old majority, and yes, I am feeling much the same now. So I stick to my first post..."the talking heads change, but the arrogance remains...."
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:54:00 AM
Last night's board meeting was the first where I've seen the board light-hearted and mostly smiling. The four left-most members--Jones, Purdy, Downs, and O'Brien--were smiling most of the evening, and cracks of smiles came across the face of Member Fowler. The two right most members--Archibald and Jackson--kept a grimace on their faces all night long, except when making petulant, private comments between each other.
This scene reminded me very much of school, where most of the students were having fun with the task at hand, or as much as they could, while a small group found no enjoyment in the job they should be doing, but rather in making life less enjoyable for the others. This all was topped off when Member Jackson, much like a student began leaving before the vote on adjournment was complete, before even he had cast his vote.
So, if those right most two members who are up for election in April do not wish to be on the board and serve their fellow St. Louisans, I urge them to not run again for the position.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:47:00 AM
Obviously, there's a double standard on how posters to the board believe board members should behave. Jackson and Archibald are held accountable, but O'Brien and Downs are not. I have overheard O'Brien talking to people after board meetings and she resorts to calling Jackson all kinds of names. She gavelled down Archibald at a recent meeting when he tried to ask a question, telling him he had to address the chair before speaking. He was addressing the chair, he said "Madame Chair" and she gavelled him down.
Downs is still taking potshots at Jackson in his sls watch emails.
Both sides are "behaving like spoiled children." Posters here shouldn't turn a blind eye to the way Downs and O'Brien and other board members act and then jump all over Archibald and Jackson.
There's a word for that: hypocracy.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:36:00 AM
I'm the first anony posting, and in response to the one just above this--you are right, there shouldn't be hypocrisy. But I'm not just referring to now--I'm referring back even to when Archibald was comfortably in the majority and would walk out/leave (however you choose to view it) Board meetings before they were over. That's not taking his fiduciary responsibility very seriously, and to me showed that he wasn't there to be a thinking, independent voice--he was just there to vote the way he was supposed to.
If O'Brien has acted as you report, she needs to stop it and act professionally as well. I haven't seen Downs take potshots in the SLSWatch--I've seen him note their behavior. He did take a potshot at the Mayor with the George Wallace comment, and he shouldn't have done that. But at least these two are showing up, they listen to parents and come to meetings parents hold, and hear our concerns. Archibald and Jackson have never done that.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:27:00 AM
Travis---I was wondering about the next election. Are the two disenchanted members the only ones who will be defending their membership?
If so, that means the current 4 members will maintain the majority no matter how much "other interests" spend to re-elect those two---and if suitable opponents are found, it could make the board even more stable for the long term.
A state takeover must be very very high on the list of musts for Mayor Slay---because a fair election has and will continue to do him no good.
There are reasons why the membership changed last election---I wonder how well the losers will get saying how important it is to keep the diviseive members on the board.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:38:00 AM
What was the process for hiring the new superintendent? In the past, the previous boards (emphasis plural) always had a public process to find a superintendent. Even when the previous board (singular) hired Alverez and Marcel, there was a community advisory committee that included community folks that recommended the hire.
Another question, why wasn't the issue of hiring a permanent superintendent on the agenda? http://slswatch.pubdef.net/2006/09/board-meeting-on-912.html It would seem that a public body making this type of decission would look for some community imput before it made a decission of this magnitude.
How much will she be paid as permanent sup?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:21:00 AM
I don't understand this feeling that the entire community needs to be involved with every decision made in the SLPS. We elect a Board to do the job, and they hire a Superintendent to do his/her job, and so on. If the public doesn't approve of the job being done, we vote the Board members out--we obviously can and have. The Board should absolutely listen to community concerns, but community control over personnel decisions seems over the top. Is there a school district anywhere else around where the public demands this kind of micro-involvement? That's not rhetorical, I really want to know if someone has that information.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:06:00 PM
The issue here is that in the past the present majority was so adamant about just this very issue (Community Input)"....valuing community input, ....the need for community input, ....promising to seek community input on major issues" And this was often their 'stick' (to criticize the old majority and Supt.) and 'mantra' (to persuade voters). This was a change they promised to make. "Things were going to be done differently now." No one is saying the 'old' majority was very good at this either. I, however, am disappointed that the 'new' majority is not proving any better.
I also don't believe hiring the supt. for the largest public school district in the State of Missouri is just a simple 'personnel decision.' Even if you believe in some conspiracy theory such as Williams having been choosen by the board before they sought community input...the old majority at the very least afforded the community the appearance of some input into the process.
Do stakeholders in other districts demand input into the district's business? Although I have no specific examples, I believe so or we would not read or hear about this or that district sponsoring this or that community forum to seek input. Perhaps the difference is, here it seems we have to demand it...while in other districts they actively seek it.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:54:00 PM
The reason you don't see this Board majority publicly seeking community input is because they already have the relationships with interested parties so they get it without having to have a "community forum" held at 6pm on a school night with 1-2 days notice to parents (at best) when the note comes home in your kid's backpack.
Community issues are things like closing schools, curriculum, bussing problems. There are Board members who have listened to parents on these issues. Hiring the superintendent is not a community issue. Of course it's a personnel decision. I didn't fault the last Board for hiring one without the approval of the entire residency of the City, and I don't fault this Board for doing it. That's what we voted them in to do.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:06:00 PM
Major correction to one of the anonymous writers. There was absolutely no (N O) input from the community when William Roberti was appointed superintendent.
Some of you aren't taking time to read what really transpired. They only removed the word "interim" in order to facilitate opportunities to apply for grants. Nothing else was changed. She wasn't hired last night; she was allowed to sign off as superintendent, which Floyd Crues did when he was appointed interim (without any input from community or stakeholders).
She is bringing continuity and stability to the district along with a no nonsense approach to improving academic achievement.
It would be nice if the one accusing them of arrogance used his or her name and showed how in the past he or she spoke out against the arrogance of the previous board.
This isn't arrogance. It's leadership and it's leadership trying to make up for lost time and severe hardships unwisely thrust upon the district by inappropriate decision making where the children were not the focus but rather profit for a few.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:54:00 PM
philo-teknos,
Although there was no substantive public input when Roberti was hired, there was at least token. On a Friday in May 2003 [perhaps 3rd Friday], a committee that included Schoemehl, Jackson, head of Energizer, Hilgemann, Curtis Royston and a few others interviewed MJLM and Alvarez and Marsal. I do not believe that there was a public notice posted, however.
I attended the MJLM presentation and part of discussion at end of day.
However, I do believe that the decision to hire Alvarez and Marsal occurred before the interviews took place.
CP
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:30:00 PM
on kmov's website, you can see video interviews with Bourisaw and Archibald.
Archibald makes a remarkable observation---elections are not a good way to choose school boards. It is a nation-wide problem.
I guess you just cannot trust the citizens who are being served to choose who serves them.
What a surprise he now thinks that to be true.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:38:00 PM
Wow, so much to answer out here. Every time Bob Archibald opens his mouth he proves how little he understands public education. If elections are not the way to choose school boards what does he recommend? Mayoral appointments? What about mayors? Should they be elected or appointed by governors? What about Governors? Should they be elected or appointed by the President? Wouldn't that be great? President Bush could appoint our school board members. How much do you want to bet they would be the same son-of-a b-----s who create our piece of crap reading programs and then force us to buy them? Sorry if I am offending anyone but damn...wake up people!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:38:00 PM
the people are not fully awake---but they were not sleepy enough to have the mayor choose the board members in the last election.
That has been pretty much what the whining has been all about. They did not like the results of the election, which led to Williams being called to account for things he could previously blow off.
Kind of scary that an elected official would say elections are a bad thing.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:34:00 AM
Previous Anonymous said
"The reason you don't see this Board majority publicly seeking community input is because they already have the relationships with interested parties so they get it without having to have a "community forum"
Now, this comment really scares me.....
Wasn't this part of the problem before? 'Interested Parties, Inner Circles' !? Was that not what people were hollering about...no one listening to them...
My true disappointment is that I did work to get this board elected, and I am fully awake...earlier than usual since school started, trust me on that one....but I feel like this board is becoming what we worked so hard to change.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:34:00 PM
To above, the interested parties I'm talking about are the parents, not private business entities and politicians whose kids don't attend SLPS. It shouldn't scare you that the "little people" who are the ones whose children are the recipients of decisions the Board makes are the ones the Board is listening to. Send them your comments and see if you get a response. Then decide if it's a secret little club or if they are listening to the community. I'm a nobody, just a parent, no political power, and they have responded to me when I have concerns.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:32:00 PM
Here, Here above anon, I wholeheartedly agree. They are listening to the "little people". As a matter of fact, several of them were once the "little people" too! By the way, the only divisive person I see lately is MR JACKSON. He's making a spectacle of himself and if he keeps it up, he'll be booted out with the rest of the divisive people no longer on the board! The people of St Louis are getting sick and tired of board members acting this way and their actions making media attention.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:19:00 PM
Spiro:
In response to your first post, after mine that is, you are correct that the only two seats up for election will be those currently held by Bob Archibald and Ron Jackson, which does mean that no matter who is elected to their seats--them, opponents, replacements--the current majority will retain control over the board. That being said, it is still very important to replace both Bob Archibald and Ron Jackson for the same reasons I've mentioned for months now.
Not only do these two show little interest in actually performing their duties as members, but Bob Archibald is all talk about fiscal responsibility with no follow-through. When given the chance to support fiscal responsibility, both Bob Archibald and Ron Jackson voted to not review spending in the central administration.
Further Bob Archibald made the comment that after the former Superintendent's staff reduced the deficit spending budget by roughly $7 million to provide a roughly $4 million positive cash-flow, that the previously negative budget of around $3 million was not much different than the current positive $4 million. Either the man cannot do math or wants to see the schools fail. Any parent can tell you that if they are over on their monthly budget by $30, reducing spending to a budget with a positive $40 in the bank is a good thing.
As for Ron Jackson, he leaves before meetings conclude, and when he is there he is either asleep or looks uterly bored. We need to free the man up to pursue activities that are more interesting to him.
So, it is clear that we must replace these two.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29:00 PM
why does she look so mean
Monday, September 18, 2006 11:59:00 PM
Wow! Some of the posts here sound as if they should have input on every move the board makes. Where were you when the old board was voting yes on EVERYTHING with little to no discussion at all. I'm wondering how many one on one conversations you've had with members of the previous board or this board for that matter. I've had many and it is obvious we made the right choice in April when we elected Peter Downs and Donna Jones to the board. To expect a district to be problem free is ludicrous but as a parent and an employee I must say, this was the smoothest start to a school year I've seen in many, many, years. I'd also like to know how much of your information is heresay and how much is first hand information.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:42:00 PM
Anon at 8:42:45, I have to say, I've been reading this thread and thinking everything that you just said. I just wish I could have put it into words the way you did. I, too, still feel good about voting for Donna and Peter. I just don't know how people who have been involved in any way can have been duped by the Williams regime into believing that things were going well. Why don't they realize what a mess things were? I wish I could understand what they are thinking, because every year I worked in the SLPS aftet Dr. Hammonds left, it has been sliding downhill. I have been an educator since 1978, and I have seen it all, but nothing has caused as many problems for our children as the "Mayor's Slate". It would be the equivalent of me as a math teacher believing that I should be in charge of the Federal Reserve rather than economic advisors.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:06:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home