Report Inappropriate Comments

Dave, my point is that if the committee let Horoschak's contract just expire, than there would've been pressure from the district to conduct a REAL search. By removing Horoschak from office, the committee made it seem as if they had to hire in district when searching for an interim superintendent because they were in a panic. According to the minutes from that meeting only 3 members voted. One (Friel) was absent and the other ( I believe Medeiros) was late to the meeting. While your sarcasm is appreciated, you don't have to be well connected to see how this district operates. The entire school committee is a buddy system, and has been for the last few years. Also, clearly I'm not as well connected as you, because I have never heard any of the "rumors" that surrounded Horoschak's removal. Perhaps you found that out while sitting around with your other "connected buddies" on the LTFPC while the rest of us "common folk" were trying to get REAL answers for his departure.

The LTFPC WAS a 2 year recommendation. You even say closure of Vets in 2014, Closure of Gorton and Aldrich in 2015, then you say "which allows" the move to middle school...which is just as good as wishing it were so. There was nothing concrete that said all day K and middle school model would be implemented in 2016 and 2017. Which basically makes it a 2 year plan. As far as you being political, you have run for SC and have spoke against unions in the past, have you not? It doesn't take a rocket scientist (that's what you said to me last post) to see where you stood on these issues. I may have misread your last statement on unions, however i thought it was odd that you cited unions "having a hand in" as a reason the middle school model isn't being implemented currently.

To say that my argument on transparency is weak, that's laughable. Here's an example: When will the search for a new Superintendent start? I can cite multiple articles from the Beacon asking for answers to Horoschak's dismissal. Even more articles asking how the committee would move forward in the search for a new Superintendent. Nobody had an answer. Than one fine day, the SC just decides that D'Agostino is the guy they want on an interim basis and they appoint him. Soon after, the committee named him as "acting" Superintendent. That was just supposed to fill time for them to find the next guy. Once again surprise, surprise the committee not only named him Superintendent, they EXTENDED his contract to July '14. Not a bad payday for their buddy. All of this for a guy that was supposed to be hired on an interim basis. Cmte. member Ahearn asked for an outside search to be conducted when filling the job, that request went nowhere. Chairwoman Furtado said that the search to find a superintendent will take months to conduct. So if D'Agostino's contract is up in July '14, and the search to replace him will take months...than why is it we have heard nothing about this?? That is NOT transparency Dave. Will you ask that an outside search be conducted for the next Superintendent??? What do you think of Mullen or Bushell being hired for that position? Do you believe that is the best thing for the district?

You can call it populism all you want, but this district is so top heavy with salaries it's ridiculous. Why should the Superintendent of schools make more than the mayor? Also what was the LTFPC plan for layoffs? How would that have broken down by school? Clearly you guys saw no need to curb anything on the Administrative side, so why is that? I would appreciate answers to the questions I have asked in this post. Especially when it comes to the hiring/interview of a new Superintendent. This back and forth has been respectful, and i hope it continues to be as we continue this debate

From: Committee tables school plan

Please explain the inappropriate content below.