There is a group of people in Oxford that thinks that it’s okay to go after anyone they disagree with. Right now, they’ve decided they don’t like the Superintendent of Schools. As far as I can tell she’s the most popular superintendent we’ve had since we’ve been living here (1991).

Somehow, they keep stating that it’s a political attack on the board. It’s the Democrats. When it’s pointed out that there are Republicans who are against what they are doing, they claim that those Republicans are working for Democrats. The fact that these Republicans have been active in Republican Town politics since before many of them were born isn’t relevant. They’ve attacked my wife and I by name because we got involved. Had they asked, I would have told them that I’ve voted both for Republican and Democrat candidates over the years here. But, I’m a political hack!

The whole concept of participation without partisanship seems inconceivable. They think that FOI rules are technicalities that they get to interpret according to what’s convenient. They’ve stated that they don’t take petitions seriously because anyone will sign whatever their friends put in front of them, even though that is how Town Meeting government works.

As soon as word got around that people would be coming to a scheduled meeting that had been included an audience of citizens, they announced that they could not pull together enough of a quorum to hold the meeting and canceled it. Here’s a hint, people: when you run for an office and are elected, you are expected to attend meetings. I wonder how the absence record of the current Superintendent compares to the record of the current BOE Chair?

What could we possibly be objecting to? Let’s see:

  • Having been in office since November, and told the Superintendent that her existing goals were fine to go by, they have now decided to produce new goals AFTER they voted to void her contract for a review that should have taken place months ago;
  • Are adopting a new review form that she has never seen to perform that review;
  • Made no attempt to correct whatever problems exist in the contract before voiding it;
  • Which they did in an Executive Session, claiming that Attorney/Client Privilege prevented them from telling the public why they were doing it (which they can specifically waive);

What could possibly be wrong? How could anyone think the whole goal was to find a way out of a contract?

How is it political to object to someone receiving fair treatment? Creating new goals now at the end of a school year? Surely they can’t think it’s fair to tell someone that existing goals are fine and then change them?

In comments of Facebook, one of these people has now taken to calling me Mr. Nancy! What are we, in THIRD GRADE????

Folks, this is about fairness. I happen to think she’s a great superintendent. But trying to pull the rug out without simply correcting specific problems, forgetting to set new goals until it’s too late to do anything about them, canceling meetings that people are known to be planning on attending, and then claiming that objections to this witch hunt are partisan is crazy, regardless of what you think of the individual.

I’m headed out to the rally that has been organized to support Dr. Palmer. I hope to see every citizen of Oxford who is concerned with fairness there.

Comments are closed.