By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, June 14 at 10:09 AM
The school board voted last night to ask Superintendent Creg Williams to take another look at the district's administrative structure and see if there isn't any more fat to trim.
School board member Peter Downs said he made the motion in light of the district's current budget woes, which were again spelled out Tuesday by Williams and Cedric Lewis, the acting chief financial officer.
Earlier in the evening, the superintendent delivered a passionate defense of his administration after board member Bill Purdy brought attention to several items in the superintendent's budget which caught his eye.
Williams said that no amount of cuts to the administrative budget will save the district from the $50 million crisis that he said will hit SLPS next year. "These are problems that this district has and we need to face them once and for all and stop pointing the finger at one another!" said Williams.
The board passed the motion 4-3 with board members Ron Jackson, Bob Archibald and Flint Fowler voting against it.
3 Comments:
Agian, members Archibald and Jackson talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when they have an opportunity to vote for reduction in spending, they shy away. We need more members of the board who are willing to work with the community and are willing to tighten the district's spending habits.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:00:00 PM
The following is from an email I received today. The opinions expressed in the email are those of the author. I am merely forwarding the content to this forum for discussion. I have not edited or modified the content or format in anyway (just a cut and paste job). Likewise, I have done not fact checking on the statements made.
---
An Open Letter
by Percy Green, II
June 13, 2006
Re: Creg Williams Must Go!
It is my observation that the “New Board Majority” of the St. Louis Board of Education should NOT renew the contract of school board superintendent Creg Williams in the interest of spending taxpayers money wisely, establishing common-sense decision making, and exemplifying competence in the St. Louis Public school system.
The new majority should not continue to pay for ineffectiveness, even if it is the superintendent. Our public school youths can learn good decision making by examples set by the new board majority.
However, Williams is attempting to keep his overpaid position for at least another year by publicly praising new board president, Veronica O’Brien, for her vote. I think that she is too intelligent to fall for that, although there are voices in the community to the contrary. When she was only a minority voice on the board, just a few months ago, Williams would ignore her request for information and had nothing but bad things to say about her.
In addition, Williams’ unprovoked attack on the teachers’ attendance demonstrates his lack of experience and understanding. Unless he was seeking revenge; the teachers overwhelming supported the two parent candidates successful election to the board, thereby causing a new board majority. If that was his motive, then that becomes even more reason for him not to be retained.
However, the board change did in fact remove the “blank check” rule that the old Mayor Francis Slay’s board majority had given Williams. However, this concept of demolition “absolutism” by the old board was first granted to the five million-dollar man, William Roberti, a New York consultant of a turnaround firm, to wreck our public school system. The intent here I think was to make charter schools and the voucher programs more attractive.
Nonetheless, I do not think that the new board majority would have ever considered hiring Creg Williams in the first place. Although a good “snake oil” salesperson, Williams’ superintendent certification seems in question. He has no prior experience in officiating a public school district, which means there is no established record of accomplishment to assess the likelihood of success. These few, yet important, shortcomings alone should have prevented him from “winning” this important position.
It has been reported that the ousted old board majority agreed to pay Williams a whopping annual salary of $300,000, plus perks. If true, how can a knowledgeable board justify paying an intern or probate superintendent this kind of salary when many well- known, experienced, and certified superintendents, with equal responsibilities, are NOT making that salary. This is taxpayers’ money! It would be like the St. Louis Cardinals paying a young, minor league first baseman a salary that exceeds that of the existing first baseman, Alberto Pujols, who has an established performance record. It does not make good sense.
Of course, I place no blame on Williams for applying for the job. In fact, here he was smart. Williams had to know what chumps the old board majority was from reading prior news accounts regarding this group’s hiring of superintendents. Why not throw your hat in the ring? The fault was with the old board majority that hired him knowing that he was NOT qualified, or the least qualified among the other candidates.
Out of desperation and incompetence, the old majority advocated for and hired Williams. They had previously hired three other superintendents in a three-year span beginning with Roberti in the spring of 2003.
Prior to the hiring of Williams, the old board majority had jumped through many hoops in an effort to hire Rudy Crew, a highly known superintendent, for a reported annual salary of $450,000, plus many perks. While a consultant to Roberti, Crew apparently recognized how inept the old board was by its inability to make rational decisions. As a result, Crew refused their big offer. Instead, he decided to take a lesser paying offer from the Miami school district.
Moreover, with egg on their face and no other back-up choices, the old majority went into a frenzy to hire a superintendent and started the search process once again. Of the seven candidates who responded, Williams was the least qualified.
To conclude, if the new board majority renews Williams’ contract, knowing what it now knows, then they would bring their own credibility into question. Neither the public nor I will see the difference between the new board and the old one, which would be most unfortunate for the public school children in the St. Louis community, and the future of everyone who live and learn in this community.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:07:00 PM
Travis, please forward my blog response to "Creg Williams Must Go!" on to Mr. Green please.
I admire Percy Green tremendously for what he represents in St. Louis. Unfortunately on this point, I have to disagree. Only because as a fellow St. Louisan born and raised, I know how we respond to change. Especially if its mind blowing change. To me, Dr. Williams is an obvious agent for change...period. Sure, all of our ruffles have been featherd by the board and every single member. The point is...I believe that Dr. Williams is truly and honestly for the students. Yes, I agree that we have paid other leaders more money and what did they do to us?...Well, they are gone now, but if Percy feels so strongly I don't think Dr. Williams leaving is going to help matters. As a matter of fact, it will further hurt an existing wound even further. I think Percy will agree that sometimes big things come out of tiny or seemingly non-qualified packages...as Percy himself may have been looked at the same way in the beginning at McDonnell Douglas. We must help and support Dr. Williams. Another Superintendent leaving within a five year period puts St. Louis credibility on the line yet again, but not concerning the leader this time...concerning why St. Louis can't seem to work with or even support the leaders we pick, directly or indirectly. I think we have a chance here to do right, and the fact that Dr. Williams does not have all the ribbons and whistles of past Superintendent accomplishements leaves him open to hear and consider what St. Louis has to say. The Board will change with every new election, but Dr. Williams must be constant in his mission long term. Lets all start thinking long term and not on the constant changes of the board.
Thank you for reading Mr. Green and do have a pleasant rest of the day.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:39:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home