Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 1 comment Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
School board should better analyze contracts
Published Wednesday, March 3, 2010
I attended a Chesapeake School Board meeting on Feb. 17, 2010, during which was discussed an error on the contract of our school superintendent.
The area of concern being the amount of vacation time established and agreed upon by the former board of education. The contract was signed by Chesapeake board president, treasurer and the superintendent, at which time it became legally binding.
There was an apparent typographical error in which the vacation time states 90 (ninety) days per year rather than the 30 (thirty) days per year that was agreed upon.
This error could have potentially cost the school system $150,000 over the five-year contract. All parties involved failed to read the contract before it was signed, thus creating this situation.
This contract does not go into effect until August 2010, and all parties have agreed to correct the error, so the issue is being resolved.
It is my understanding that the superintendent was aware of the error two weeks prior to this meeting but failed to notify the board. If that had been done, this controversy would have been avoided.
It was stated in the newspaper article that I agreed with a statement made in the meeting, that this was petty politics being played out, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.
I feel that proper consideration of the contract was not taken. I also feel the people who signed the contract would not have signed a contract in their own personal businesses or personal life without reading it, and therefore the same consideration should have been taken in the business interest of the Chesapeake Board of Education. The main focus of the board should be the children and providing the best education possible.
I applaud Mr. Jerry Osborne for taking the time to review the contract and, in doing so, identifying the error. It brings to attention the fact that no one who signed the contract read it.
It also appears that the issue of the contract was not given the consideration of time that it is required in such a serious matter.
Mike Curry
Chesapeake
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Chescitizen (anonymous) on March 3, 2010 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am in total agreement with Mr. Curry.
If the contract was allowed as written the amount of vacation time could legally have to be paid after it went into effect.
The community was in disagreement with the five year contract to begin with. That is why Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Curry probably didn't run again as they knew they wouldn't be re-elected.
From voter imput I predict that that the two incumbent Doctors won't be re-elected. Especially if some former board members choose to run again next time.
Mr. Howard stated one time that when the community didn't want him any longer, he would leave. With the election, as in Massachusetts, the community has spoken.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)