There was a time, not long ago, when the moderator of this blog was the only one reading board policies. It was September 26, 2007 when we first drew attention to the fact that Board Policy 1260 posed a problem for Gary Noble. It was September 27, 2007 when we described just how much influence Kay Noble had on important decisions like building a new Lynnwood High School.On October 4, 2007 the District's legal team drafted a rebuttal to the claims this blog was making. In fact, it was Duncan Fobes who specifically stated "the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Noble falls squarely within an exception under Washington State law".
On October 7, 2007 the blog raised the question regarding Board Policy 6810 that states, "No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent."
On April 23, 2008 State Auditor completed their evaluation of the blog's assertions and agreed with our position, specifically recommending that "the most stringent policy be followed or policies be revised".
My question now is, if the District's legal team clearly demonstrated that the relationship between the Nobles fell "squarely within an exception under Washington State law", why would there be a need to revise board policies?
Blog: For themselves. By themselves.
6 comments:
Simple answer: Duncan's response was b.s. and we all knew it. He just thought we were dumb enough to accept it.
The board needs to step down....
Would any of the board members be able to comprehend a collective bargaining agreement? You people have no concern or regard for the welfare of the district, which begins with hard working employees. I can't help it if some evergreen state grad still can't balance a checkbook or a budget, and runs the district into the ground. Take a look at what is going on around you.
If the Board is considering "revisions", what are those "revisions"? How do we even know what the revisions say?
I don't understand the issue. The board was already in compliance with state law. Now they are clarifying their policies as suggested by the auditor.
Comparison: both federal and states have minimun wage laws. Most states rate is higher than the federal rate. The lower government rate (the state) is the one enforced.
The district has (had) a stricter policy than the state; the lower government rule is the one that is enforced.
Either you follow the applicable rules or you should not serve. Changing the rules to fit your own situation is morally, if not legally, wrong. Leaders who behave in this manner are a poor example for students in the schools. Don't think for a moment that they don't notice.
Post a Comment