Warwick School Committee member Karen Bachus said last week that she did not vote in a closed meeting of the committee on April 14 to remove William McCaffrey, director of the Warwick Area Career and …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
Warwick School Committee member Karen Bachus said last week that she did not vote in a closed meeting of the committee on April 14 to remove William McCaffrey, director of the Warwick Area Career and Technical Center, from the list of candidates for school superintendent.
In a story appearing in the May 21, Committee Chair Jennifer Ahearn said the vote was 5-0 to remove McCaffrey from the list. A vote was not disclosed, as required by state law, when the meeting reopened. Bachus said she never would have voted to eliminate McCaffrey from the running, as she thought he was the best qualified for the job.
Ahearn has not disclosed how many candidates are still in the running, but two names have surfaced. Incumbent Superintendent Richard D’Agostino is a known candidate and Anthony Pope of Marlborough, Mass. is thought to be in the running. A date for the selection of a superintendent hasn’t been announced.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
richardcorrente
I have met Karen and have developed a true respect for her. She is smart, honest and refreshingly out-spoken. Even if she didn't support William McCaffrey as her first choice, I don't think she would have opposed him as a candidate. But as she has him as her top choice the unanimous vote to remove him is even more puzzling. In an age of growing transparency, why was there a closed meeting in the first place? Why aren't ALL candidates published so that taxpayers can weigh in with their School Board representatives?
Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Report this
jackiemama63
She's like a five year-old. "It wasn't me! It wasn't me!" Own it Karen. If the Committee votes in the affirmative or negative then you own it. It's the way Committee work "works," whether you agree with the outcome of the vote or not. Just as Beth Furtado and Terry Medieros had to "own" the tabling of a vote to not consider the LTFPC recommendations in December of 2013, just as YOU need to own abstaining from votes that made you uncomfortable. WSC is an elected body that acts as One. You don't get to go all "willy-nilly" every time things get difficult.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Report this
jackiemama63
She's like a five year-old. "It wasn't me! It wasn't me!" Own it Karen. If the Committee votes in the affirmative or negative then you own it. It's the way Committee work "works," whether you agree with the outcome of the vote or not. Just as Beth Furtado and Terry Medieros had to "own" the tabling of a vote to not consider the LTFPC recommendations in December of 2013, just as YOU need to own abstaining from votes that made you uncomfortable. WSC is an elected body that acts as One. You don't get to go all "willy-nilly" every time things get difficult.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Report this
markyc
It's no wonder the Mayor & City Council don't trust the School Committee when it comes to the School budget & school issues. We discover an incident at Gorton from an outside indictment; the Superintendent "choice' appears to be from a hidden(pre-decided?) process(School Committee members aren't voicing their opinions as a unified body; HOW can the City Council & Mayor trust/believe them?); & the school consolidation process appears to be a postponed, last minute process. On top of that, the School Committee makes a $ 7 million higher request for the next year's school budget(maintenance requests/Chromebooks/technology requests). The increase would increase the annual school budget which couldn't be reduced in the future. Study Cranston's School Budget; similar sized community & student population operating on a smaller budget. If Warwick wants to provide a better education for its students, it needs to close some schools to allow for this. A three school option would provide no transportation savings, would delay secondary & elementary school closings(the $ 142 million bond issue/process will further delay the overall consolidation) , &, more than likely, result in a higher cost & longer process. Outsiders would see the delayed, mismanaged operation & the overall student population wouldn't increase because families wouldn't likely want to move to Warwick; who could blame them?
Before you ask for additional funding, how about showing Warwick taxpayers you can efficiently manage what you already have?
Thursday, June 4, 2015 Report this
jackiemama63
It's exhausting.
Thursday, June 4, 2015 Report this