Does Hinojosa Need Board Permission to RIF?
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 06:50.
According to the way I'm reading the Texas Education Code, it appears Hinojosa doesn't really need permission to proceed forward with firing teachers.
All that's needed is a declaration of financial exigency--which has been done.
That being said, do you think he will (or is) defying the Board in spirit by starting to dump people?
Now can we find out about Anderson?
After watching the exposee on the TV last nite about the Stonewall Jackson Elem. science teacher who was named as part of the RIF, how much bearing would Eric Anderson's side of the equation in regards to the shortfall have on the School Boards decision making?
We all know that there are always two sides to every story and that to date we have only heard one side. I for one would have liked to know Anderson's side of the story in all this before and after Hinojosa and Lowe made their very sad and heartwrenching appeal for public support!
I am left to wonder how it is that someone in Anderson's position with the district has been totally silent, or silenced by the district, in a way meant to convince the public that he did not or was not doing his job!
I am also amazed that the School Board, in light of this mess, did not possess the good sense to ask Mr. Anderson to take part in an exit interview, in private, to ascertain the entirety of the situation, instead of accepting a carefully orchestrated and scripted response from the Supt. and the Pres. of the school board as fact rather than a taylored account of fact.
Was Andersons contract bought out? If so are there conditions to the buyout that don't allow him to speak out in his defense? Is Anderson the muted scapegoat for things that went on and took place that were out of his control? Did he tell Mikey about out of control audit problems and financial problems only to be ignored and shrugged off?
Now take special note of this tidbit. Anderson gets canned and all of a sudden Mike and the Mayor form up a posse to find 23,000 drop outs and get them back into the classroom. You have to believe it wasnt very successfull, didnt hear anything much about it. But around two weeks ago the District enrollment figures exceeded expectations. How do you have 23,000 dropouts and 2 weeks later have a total enrollment of about the same as last year, AND EXCEED EXPECTATIONS? It appears some one in the district is still practicing so new found rithmetism that I cant cypher and Anderson isnt here to catch the blame!
Allen Gwinn knows full well that I'm not a fan of Andersons. But there is an important issue here in regards to Andersons silence. Andersons resume had some red flags before joining the district. I'm not saying he wasn't qualified and or couldn't fill his position and do the job. He might have in fact performed the duties to the best of anyones ability considering what there was (the district) to work with. What bothers me about all this is the effect, of being pointed as the fallguy for a $64-$148 million dollar episode, will have on ones resume and the ability to earn a living in the future. There is no future ability to match the income level you had before becoming that big a scapegoat!
That is why I find Andersons silence absolutely DEAFONING!Lowe and Hinojosa have deflected most of the fallout by running Anderson off without explanation or details of contractual obligations. Hinojosa claims he didnt get the info in the format he wanted it in. Am I supposed to believe he didnt ask, What did it mean, at the time? Hardly! And now I am expected to believe that Anderson was not only an idiot, but wasnt supplying the district with the results of information recquired of his position? NOT EVEN HARDLY!
On a lighter side, if Lowe has already given him a job, I guess we'll never find out what Anderson knows!
Anderson's silence
Jim,
As a settlee with the fabulous DISD, I guarantee you that part of his exit package was a complete silence clause that sealed any and all arrangements regarding his buyout. Additionally, he has probably signed a "no tell" disclaimer that basically allows the district to blame him while he sits and takes it. Such is the cost of doing business with Hinojosa et. al. They are a dirty bunch who retain high dollar legal firms to craft such settlements. The ironic part is that they don't hold to their end, but they fully hold you to yours. What I take total comfort in is that Karma was, is and will always be a total biotch! The unfolding of the Broad Toad take-down is worth everything I have been forced to pay....except the dismantling of the educational lives of innocent children who will always be the ones to pay in the end. Welcome to Urban Education in the Big City...it has NOTHING to do with kids.
interpretation
I think you are interpreting the declaration correctly and the board did declare the exigency however; based on information from AFT, I believe that the manner of firings under a RIF has to be handled much differently than the normal DISD way of: I'll keep my two friends, and let your friends keep two friends... and so on and so on... Like Collier, the board has "been to the rodeo before" and I'm sure they just want to make sure they each get to keep two friends too. To heck with everybody else.