Wow! Talk about a tempest in a teapot!
As I read my e-mails early last week, I was convinced that The
Dispatch editorial board might place an emergency call to Cynthia
Walker so she could deliver broadswords to the paper for the Ed
Board to perform a
”
repel borders
”
evolution of angry school principals.
Wow! Talk about a tempest in a teapot!
As I read my e-mails early last week, I was convinced that The Dispatch editorial board might place an emergency call to Cynthia Walker so she could deliver broadswords to the paper for the Ed Board to perform a “repel borders” evolution of angry school principals.
Thankfully, it didn’t happen. What, you might ask, was the genesis of all this anger? Well, the Dispatch used the term “lame duck” to describe Superintendent Edwin Diaz, who is leaving the district mid-contract to take over the helm of a district in the southland.
To my mind, that makes Edwin Diaz a “lame duck.” He’s going, and of course, his interests are now turning elsewhere, for much the same reason he came here, the new employer threw a lot of money at him. It’s capitalism at work, and I approve of that. I also believe that the term, as used, was not pejorative, nor was it intended to be.
Some of you faithful readers may remember back right after the David Alvarez debacle when Mr. Diaz was coyly saying that he didn’t want to leave his job in San Jose because he liked it, and all the other platitudes that candidates mouth.
I said at the time that Edwin was a local boy, educated here, lived here, and had a strong concern for the community, and if the board wanted him, of course he’d come here, all they had to do was throw money at him. Lo and behold, they did, and then he did. This dynamic should surprise no one.
A final word on the principal’s letter to the editor. I’m sure it was not their intent, but when I received the screed by e-mail, my first question was not whether or not the term “lame duck” was pejorative. It was “Why do 15 of the principals at our school district apparently have time on the taxpayers money to pen such a letter?” I’m assuming, since all 15 signed on, that the letter was e-mailed to all, comments were accepted, and it was edited before being submitted to the editor. So, I ask: don’t you highly paid education professionals have anything better to do with your time than write letters defending your boss? And if not, why not?
On to a related subject, the search for the new fish when Edwin bails out. As the same editorial mentioned above discusses, the pool from which to choose the new educrat is a small one if traditional candidates are considered. So, maybe it’s time to expand the thinking, and perhaps consider an MBA or similar person who has enjoyed success in the business community.
My reasoning is fairly simple. Schools are infrastructure, and a business. While test scores here have improved, they’re still nothing to write home about. However, I don’t see the district’s biggest problem coming down the pike as tests scores. It is, rather, finding a place to put new students generated by home construction slated in town.
GUSD has been sadly lacking in the planning department for at least a decade. To my knowledge, no representative from the district was involved in the last Residential Development Ordinance enacted by the City Council. Add to that the recent debacle with Glen Loma Group, in which the district took title to a Glen Loma property by eminent domain and then began construction on it without knowing what the price would be, and it appears that a business person would probably be able to find steady work. In private industry, an executive who made the Glen Loma decision would probably be described in the next employee newsletter as “leaving the company to pursue other interests.”
So, if a business person is not selected as superintendent, there at least needs to be such a person hired in stead of the many in district management staff who are moving on of late. Urban planning and real estate acquisition skills would be a definite plus.
Congratulations to the new School Board Trustees Denise Apuzzo, Francisco Dominguez, and returnees Tom Bundros and Javier Aguirre. Newbies, take note: When I was on Council, the School Board and the City Council scheduled a joint meeting once every quarter. Usually, all Council members attended; Trustee attendance was annoyingly lackadaisical. You need these people. Remember the “First Rule of Politics:” Attend the meetings.
Bob Dillon is a former Gilroy city councilman and a longtime scribe. His column is published each Thursday. Reach him at rt******@****ic.com
