Sunday, October 07, 2007

Please explain ESD Policy 6810.

Well, I nearly spilled my Cheerios when I started reading ESD Policy 6810. Apparently, the Board thought to insert some redundancy in their policies - for the many lawyers and misguided public employees that can rebuke only one policy at a time. The meaningful portion of the policy reads:

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.

If you don't do your homework, you won't pass the test.

19 comments: said...

So, there is no impropriety with Gary Noble sitting on the Board. The impropriety is with Kay Noble working for the Edmonds School District. She must resign.

Anonymous said...

I think I see Gary's picture getting darker.

Anonymous said...

These people will cut the legs off a pig and call it a snake.

This policy seems less ambiguous than the other. I wonder which RCWs they will use to get out of this one.

Anonymous said...

I would be of the opinion that BP6810 does not go far enough to protect employees of the district. I believe I was hired on for maybe a couple of reasons. I was qualified, and I work hard. More than I can say for the Chair Warmers, in this new management era. Maybe you should buy stock in FOX. Just what do you do? Keep up the good work! said...

Suggestions for the lawyers:

1. Prove that Kay Noble is not a "person" but rather an incredibly evolved Homo Erectus.
2. Prove Kay Noble is a volunteer driving to work via Yuma, AZ and those paychecks are actually mileage reimbursements.
3. Prove that their minister was not licensed to perform marriages.
4. Prove that "member" of the Board is not the same as "district director".
5. Prove that Kay Noble has an identical twin with the same name and social security number.

Anonymous said...

Just think how much money the district is paying lawyers for their "professional interpretation" and here you are, just a regular guy (not charging $350 per hour - money that could be spent in the classroom) who can read plain english!

Once again, Marla, Nick, and the school board have shown their incompetence. What is it going to take for them to admit they aren't qualified to run a school district?

Anonymous said...

Using redundancy in a system is an engineering practice to insert a safeguard to prevent failure. The repetition of the first part of BP1260 in BP6810 clearly communicates the intent of the policy. I recind my position that Gary needs to recuse himself from voting on any issues related to LHS. I now propose that Kay Nobel needs to resign.

Anonymous said...

If the District paid these lawyers $350 an hour, they should ask for a refund.

Anonymous said...

I find it intriguing that only negative comments are posted. Either everyone who reads this is mentally handicapped, or the moderator does not post anything that tells the truth about issues like a new LHS building. The writers reflect little if any knowledge of how many years Gary Noble has been actively involved as a parent at LHS. I have known him for over 15 years and his integrity puts all of these posts to shame. Naysayers have a right to naysay. You should all get in a rubber raft and row out to one of the San Juan Islands! There you could live together in your egalitarian mind set away from intelligent citizens!

Anonymous said...

Lawyers don't give refunds. Especially if they see a consistent source of billable hours from a client that keeps doing the same stupid and unethical things over and over. said...

Thanks for reading the blog.

I know for a fact that LHS is not in great condition and needs to be replaced. If you have been reading the blog, you would know that I question Gary Noble's objective review of facts, not the outcome.

Here at the blog, we value every comment. I am just glad there are people who still care enough to read important documents - like this blog and board policies.

Anonymous said...

In case you haven't noticed, Gary Noble is violating board policy, at least twice.

I think there is a stronger argument for mental disability among board members who cannot read the rules they put in place and then agree to uphold. Duh.

Anonymous said...

"Actively involved" does not always mean positively or constructively involved.

His "integrity puts all of these posts to shame" is an interesting use of language. His integrity is inversely proportionate to the shamefulness of these posts. In other words, it is a shame that he has no integrity.

Anonymous said...

To 10/8:

As a consistent contributor to the blog, thank you for noticing I am not an elitist. My egalitarian public education has afforded me the “ability to judge what will secure or endanger my freedom” (Jefferson). Integrity in my book is “the firm adherence to a code.” The code Gary took an oath to uphold is the Board Policy. Where is his integrity in following it?

I prefer my “Big Brother” as a laughable B-rated summer TV show. Not as a local politician making poor decisions with my tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

Any person that knowingly violates a board policy but thinks he's above it, is not my definition of an ethical leader.

Board Policy 6810 (and the other one) make good business sense. It is too easy for a conflict of interest to arise when a spouse (or dependent) of a director works for the school district.

There has already been one example posted on this blog of improprieties.

If you think Ms. Noble isn't getting preferential treatment, or Gary Noble doesn'tinfluence decisions on or about LHS, I suggest you change the color of your glasses.

Anonymous said...

To 1008731...I guess when I feel the administration is cleaned up, and then better able to police themselves, I can begin to share some of the good stories in the district. We are miles away from that point. I've never met Gary Noble. I do know right from wrong. He is holding his position against his own Board Policy. I'm sorry that this might be somebody you care about. He was not drafted onto the school board. This was a choice of his. I don't know that I would defend a friend of mine in the same position. These are risks one takes when he or she climbs on board. And I would expect that person to not only be held to a higher standard, but the highest standard. Let's be honest about people that enter the world of politics at this level. What is a next step for a successful school board member? Congress? How about mayor of a small town? These people should be under constant scrutiny and evaluation. I would encourage people to follow my career, and challenge it. Well, if I was honest, right?
You mean to tell me that Gary Noble had no idea where he stood in his position? C'mon! There are plenty of people in my life holding similar positions, and you know what, if they don't like All of the attention, or being a target, don't get involved.
This is why my spouse does not work in the school district. This is why I might shy away from being a PTA president, and just position myself in a spot where I can be most hands on effective.
Sorry, easy for me to say. I'm not arrogant,conceited, or bent on a position like that. However as an employee,resident,taxpayer,with children the system, you better behave. If I have to babysit, I will.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Gary Nobel thinks that some rules are not as important as others. If he judges a rule like the one barring his wife from working in the same district as trivial and therefore easy to ignore, then what other rules are fit to be ignored? Where is the list of rules that do not apply to him? What does he think a rule like that is in place for in the first place? Is he above the board policy?

Anonymous said...

When a retail business owner bars couples or married people from working together it's usually justified to avoid shrinkage. Two people of the same family can sometimes plot to steal from a business or become at least keepers of secrets. The issue with Gary and Kay working in the same district is one of risk avoidance. One can not be sure that policy makers are objective when those policy makers are told what to do by a spouse in the evening. In short, Gary could use his influence to redirect the districts money to Kay and her department. Just think of Marla and her many examples of cronyism and you begin to see what I mean. Rules are rules. Gary or Kay: resign.

Anonymous said...

The Top Ten Signs You have a bad board...

10) Mr. Noble proposes the creation of a daily ten minute break for all married employees for "smooching".

9) Board members are seen moving bedroom furniture into district office spaces and heard saying "We can pay rent by donation."

8) Marla bursts into the room with her croonies demanding her sports memoribilia back.

9) No number nine, writer was constructivly terminated.

8) Marla invades another school district with no exit strategy.

7) When hundreds of teachers are laid off Marla can be heard saying "Hey at least we still have all those pianos."

6) The new school slogan for 2008 is "No Croonie left behind."

5) No number five, writer too distrught over Doctor Bruce Williams resigning.

4) During a board meeting Gary suggests changing the rules so that they don't apply to board members unless it is in the members best interests.

3) Doctor Bruce Williams has a restraining order put on himself.

2) Marla dresses up for Halloween as the Queen of England.

And the number one sign you have a bad board...

1) District auditor and Marla are secret lovers.

from D.C.