Our selected Superintendent search firm, HYA, stated last night that a good candidate will want to see parent/community buy-in and a Board of Ed that is not at odds with each other.  If we don’t have these things in place, the Beacon City School District will have difficulty appealing to the best possible candidates.

At the same meeting, Anthony White announced that BOE Member Frank Garnot has resigned as of August 1st.  We believe that our last two resignations are completely irresponsible and very poorly timed, to say the least.  These Board Members were asked time and time again up until our last election if they planned on staying on this Board, to which they replied that they were dedicated to continue their service.  We believe that this clear lack of commitment to the board, especially the seemingly intentional timing of Jose Munoz's resignation in June, are indicative of the serious issues our school district has been facing - an appalling absence of dedication to the best interests of Beacon's children.  With your help, ABS is working hard to rectify these issues once and for all.  The district now has to make the decision on whether or not to spend more money on a special election to fill these positions. A special election is estimated to cost our school district approximately $13,000.

Our options are as follows:
1) Hold a special election to fill the 2 vacant seats
2) Allow the BOE to enact a board appointment for the 2 vacant seats
3) Leave the seats vacant until the next election (May 2017), which would then be an election to fill 5 BOE seats
4) Vote to remain a 7-member Board from now on. This would require a change in BOE by-laws, which would be determined by public vote. If we had a 7-member BOE, then 4 votes would be required to reach a majority, rather than 5, which is what we currently have with a 9-member Board.

​

Notes from Presentation of Superintendent Search Firm, HYA

​Phase One
Public will have a major chance to tell the Board what they want

• Focus group meetings:  Begin Last week in August through first few weeks of Sept.
  
  • Board will assign people to be in the focus groups
    
    • School Board Members
      
    • Central Office
      
    • Administration & Teachers
      
    • Parents
      
    • Any other groups decided upon: clergy, business owners, arts leaders, non-profits, students, clerical union etc.
      
    • Community at Large will have an evening dedicated to them (forum)
      
• Online Survey
  
  • English & Spanish
    
• Creation of an FPR
  
  • Extremely important document
    
  • Document created to compare all candidates against
    
• Timeline Decided
  

Phase Two

• Search firm will bring vetted candidates to the Board
  
  • Run a soft background check at this time
    
  • They use the FPR created in Phase One
    
• Date for when the Search Firm will bring slate of candidates decided in Phase One
  
• Round of Interviews with the slate of candidates
  
  • Run these interviews as close to each other as possible
    
• 3rd party background check with final candidate
  

Phase Three
Transition Plan with Board Expectations

• What are your Three Objectives as a Board
  
• Contract Negotiations and Hiring
  
• What is your Vision
  
• What are your expectations?
  
  • You want to know these expectations so that you can evaluate the Superintendent against those expectations
    

Board Questions:

-The Board is working on a vision should they have a good idea of the vision first?
    Vision would be a plus but for time reasons come to a consensus on 2-3 things to start.
-When should we have the Superintendent start?
    Preferably (his opinion) before the school year starts.  A July 1st start would be best and the pool of candidates would be larger.
    However, you can make a good case to have them start mid-year but Board would have to be clear on their expectations.

-Question on Superintendent coming from a first year contract somewhere else?
    He would be leery about  people who are moving in the 1st year of their contracts from somewhere else.

-Is the pool of candidates dry?
    There is definitely a smaller pool of candidates.  The expect to receive 25-30 applications.  This may be due to the extra pressures of the job.  They will contact 14-15 and bring a slate of about 5 candidates to the Board.  If a candidate doesn’t fit the criteria that is outlined in Phase One then you don’t want them.

-Do finalists meet the community
    Depends on the deliberations in Phase One.  Sometimes the Board will take the finalist out to dinner.  Sometimes a tour of the school where they will meet staff, students, and parents.
However, the best candidates are those that are doing well in their current jobs.  So, you want to protect their anonymity.

-Aside from advertising how do you go about finding candidates?

• contacts with a city consultant
  
• contacts with Boces and National and State level associations
  
• use of other consultants they can reach out to that may know worthy candidates that were not right for their particular searches
  
• large pool of contacts and resources.
  

-What do you do if candidate leaves in 1st Year?
    We do search again free guaranteed. In the 2nd year, if the majority of the Board is still in place they will do the search again for free guaranteed.

Public Questions

-What if the Super doesn’t stay because the Board pushes them out for example?
    No matter what the reason for leaving is they will redo the search.

-Will your search be dedicated to 1st year superintendents as well as experienced?
    He doesn’t know because it depends on the information the community gives back and feeds to the firm.  Sometimes you may have a candidate in a deputy superintendent role that would be a perfect fit.  You won’t know until the search begins.

-We had a discussion in January where BOCES said that it would take 9 months to find a Superintendent.  Beacon needs to get it right.  We have many contracts that will be negotiated this year.  Is the 4-5 month timeline enough time?
    He disagrees with the 9 month timeline.  If it were that long it would be hard to keep the district focused on the search.  It takes about 16 weeks.  Which is different in the fall and spring because of number of candidates, but they are determined to get it right.

-During the transitional period you spoke of a lost candidate.  Was that because of compensation?  When does that get decided?
    The Ads will not have compensation and will just need to state that salary is competitive.

-You spoke on your Methodology regarding focus groups.  How set is it?  She is concerned about internal groupings and how can they be candid if they don’t have trust within their grouping?
    The treatment of these groups will be decided in Phase One.  If the board foresees a problem within a group then their may be a special group that needs to be formed.  The groups would need to come to the Board with their concerns.

-Your company will need to be an ambassador for Beacon even with our battered history.  What is the sales pitch for Beacon?
    This is a major part of our job and sum of merits.  There is no reason we can’t sell a community.  However, the candidate will need parent/community buy in and a Board that is not at odds with each other.  If they don’t have these things the district will be a hard sell.

-There seems to be so much work to be done.  Do you think we should have a special election for new Board members?
    Anthony White cuts this question off to announce the resignation of Frank Garnot.  
(no answer to the original question)

By Jeff Simms for The Highlands Current

After considering five proposals from search firms who presented strategies to find a new superintendent for the Beacon City School District, the Board of Education has chosen Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA), a firm based in Illinois with offices in Jersey City.  full article

By Jeff Simms for The Highlands Current

Moments after being sworn in on July 5, the three new members of the Beacon Board of Education wasted little time in reshuffling the deck.
Meredith Heuer, Michael Rutkoske and Antony Tseng each received applause from audience members — a number of whom were armed with signs with phrases like  “New Board New Beginning” and “Yes We Can.” The trio replaced former members Melissa Thompson, Christine Galbo and Tracy Antalek Everett. The board must still fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Jose Munoz at its last meeting.  full article

by Jeff Simms for The Highlands Current 

Six years into his crusade, Beacon resident James F. “Frank” Bugg isn’t losing any steam.
A 1961 graduate of Beacon High School, Bugg, now 73, returned to the area after retiring in 1996. Around 2010, he recalls casually looking at the Beacon City School District website.
“I just happened to see some data on there that in 2010 the city of Beacon had 266 instructional staff, and that only five of them were minorities,” says Bugg, who is African-American. “That riled me then and it still does.”
Looking further, he says that he found more data showing that just over 53 percent of the district’s roughly 3,000 students were non-white. Bugg says that he went immediately to a Board of Education meeting to address the lack of diversity, which he called simply “carelessness.” full article

- Craig Wolf

It was one of those moves that was shocking even though it was unsurprising.

Monday, Beacon Board of Education Vice-president Bill Zopf tried to get the defeated Tracy Antalek Everett back onto the board for another year.

News came at Monday's meeting that trustee Jose Munoz had sent an email resigning, effective immediately. The announcement was made by the board president, Melissa Thompson. With a vacancy having opened suddenly, as the drawn-out board meeting neared midnight, Zopf suggested naming Everett to fill the slot.

Uproar ensued, with nearly everyone in the audience voicing their objection loudly, though none had the floor at that point. People got up and moved in a swarm to sit in the front rows to be closer to the action. Most of them were activists in the Advocates for Beacon Schools movement, whose members had often speculated on a potential attempt by some board members to engineer a resignation at a time that would allow them to hand-pick someone.

The move had been preceded by a question raised by trustee Anthony White directed at the board, asking who else had been advised of Munoz' resignation. Zopf said he had. So White said, "Why isn't that shared? Why should you have more information than others?"
White later brought up the vacancy and reviewed a district policy about filling openings.
Zopf said there are three options. One is to do nothing, which would mean the opening would not be filled until next May's election. Second, hold a special election, which takes time and costs money. Third, appoint someone. That's when he moved to appoint Everett, and Frank Garnot seconded the motion.

White challenged Zopf again, saying that he'd seen Zopf have a private conversation with Munoz, suggesting that he had advance knowledge of the pending resignation. Zopf appeared to shake it off. Zopf offered reasons for Everett. "I respect people who actually ran," he said. Also, continuity is important for a board, which is why only three openings occur each year on the nine-member board.

Munoz has missed most meetings and been excused by Thompson repeatedly. He is reportedly dealing with a family illness. Speculation has been rampant for months about whether he would resign and when. A resignation well before elections would have allowed more insurgent candidates to run, joining the three who swept the board elections in May. A delayed resignation had the political effect of keeping the board majority, the one that had supported now-resigned controversial Superintendent Barbara Walkley, in power. Appointment of Everett could have extended that majority. The newly elected trustees will not take their seats until July 1. Their first board meeting will be the annual reorganization meeting, set for July 5 at Beacon High School.

Trustee Christine Galbo moved to table the appointment motion. Georgia Patchen seconded. The motion failed to get five votes, with Thompson as chair casting the last vote, opposed, and remarking that the vacancy hampers the board. This was an apparent reference to numerous votes that have fallen one short. White blamed Thompson for this dilemma, having excused Munoz for many meetings.

"This is disgusting," said White. "The back-door politics that takes place on this board is disgusting."

With the appointment motion back on the floor, there was a debate over whether Munoz' reported email notice was sufficient. Board attorney Michael Lambert opined that it was and takes effect immediately upon receipt. White argued that only 400 people had voted for Everett while many more favored the other three, Meredith Heuer, Michael Rutkoske and Antony Tseng. The public has spoken, White said.

On roll call, the Everett motion failed to get five votes. So, she ends her term at the end of June.
​
There are no more meetings scheduled until the new trustees come in on July 5. The vacancy would logically be on that agenda, with a split board trying to figure out how to fill it.


​Se trató de una de esas jugadas que impactan, aunque no fuera una sorpresa.
 
El lunes, el vicepresidente de la Junta Educativa de Beacon, Bill Zopf, trató de traer de vuelta a la junta a Tracy Antalek Everett, quien perdiera las últimas elecciones, por un año más.
 
Durante la reunión del lunes, nos enteramos de que José Muñoz había enviado un correo electrónico con su renuncia esa misma mañana. El anuncio lo hizo la presidenta de la Junta, Melissa Thompson. Dada la repentina aparición de una vacante, cuando la prolongada reunión de la Junta llegaba casi hasta la medianoche, Zopf propuso nombrar a Everett para llenarla.
 
De inmediato se levantó un tumulto: casi la totalidad del público alzó la voz para expresar su disenso, aunque ya nadie tenía el derecho a la palabra. La gente se levantó en pleno para sentarse en las primeras filas y estar más cerca de la acción. La mayoría eran activistas del movimiento Advocates for Beacon Schools, cuyos miembros habían especulado con frecuencia acerca de un posible intento por parte de algunos miembros de la Junta de digitar una renuncia en un momento en el que les fuera posible elegir al o a la reemplazante.
 
La jugada había sido precedida por la pregunta planteada a la totalidad de la junta por Anthony White, uno de sus miembros, acerca de quién más sabía de la renuncia. Zopf dijo que él lo sabía. Entonces White acotó: "¿Por qué no se compartió la información? ¿Por qué tú tienes más información que los demás?"
 
White luego planteó la cuestión de la vacante, y resumió la política del distrito vinculada con su llenado. Zopf, por su parte, dijo que había tres opciones: no hacer nada, que significaría que la vacante quedaría abierta hasta la siguiente elección, en mayo del próximo año; llamar a una elección especial, lo cual lleva tiempo y cuesta dinero; o nombrar a alguien. Fue ahí que planteó la moción de nombrar a Everett, y Frank Garnot la apoyó.
 
White volvió a cuestionar a Zopf, diciendo que él había visto a Zopf en conversación privada con Muñoz, lo cual sugería que sabía de la renuncia con anticipación. Zopf pareció zafar de la respuesta, y dio sus razones para nombrar a Everett: "Respeto a la gente que se presentó a elecciones", afirmó. "Además, la continuidad es importante para una junta, y es por eso que solo se abren tres vacantes por año".
 
Muñoz faltó a la mayoría de las reuniones, y Thompson lo excusó en repetidas ocasiones. Según nuestra información, tiene que ocuparse de un familiar enfermo. Desde hace meses que se especula con la posibilidad de su renuncia. Si hubiera renunciado antes de las elecciones, otros candidatos insurgentes habrían podido presentarse junto a los tres que arrasaron en la elección de mayo. Una renuncia retardada tuvo el efecto político de conservar la mayoría en la junta, la misma mayoría que apoyó a la controvertida superintendente que renunció recientemente, Barbara Walkley, para que se mantuviera en el poder. El nombramiento de Everett habría permitido conservar esa mayoría. Los nuevos miembros no inician su tarea hasta el primero de julio. Su primera reunión de la junta será la reunión anual de reorganización, planeada para el 5 de julio en el Beacon High School.
 
Christine Galbo presentó la moción de posponer la moción de nombramiento, y Georgia Patchen la apoyó. Sin embargo, la nueva moción no logró los cinco votos necesarios: Thompson, la presidenta, votó última, oponiéndose a posponerla con el argumento de que la vacante obstaculiza la tarea de la junta. Este comentario fue, aparentemente, en referencia a varias votaciones para las que había faltado un voto. White culpó a Thompson por este problema, ya que aquella había excusado a Muñoz en muchas reuniones.
 
"Esto es un asco", afirmó White. "La política encubierta que se maneja en esta junta es un asco".
 
Con la moción del nombramiento nuevamente abierta, surgió un debate acerca de si la notificación de Muñoz vía correo electrónico era suficiente para considerar válida su renuncia. El abogado de la junta, Michael Lambert, opinó que sí, y que la renuncia era efectiva apenas recibida.
 
White arguyó que solo 400 personas habían votado por Everett, mientras que más de mil lo habían hecho por los otros tres candidatos, Meredith Heuer, Michael Rutkoske y Antony Tseng. El público se pronunció, dijo White.
 
Cuando se llamó a cada miembro para votar, la moción de nombrar a Everett no logró los cinco votos necesarios, con lo cual su mandato termina a fin de mes.
 
No hay más reuniones planificadas hasta la incorporación de los nuevos miembros el 5 de julio. La vacante, lógicamente, será tema de agenda para ese día, con una junta dividida que deberá tratar de definir cómo llenarla.

We have submitted the following letter to incumbent Ms. Antalek Everett:
Dear Ms. Antalek Everett,

At the May 11, 2016 "Meet The Candidates Night" hosted by the BCSD PTO Collaborative, stakeholders were invited to submit questions to candidates via the emails provided in the brochure. Since you could not attend, we would like to submit the following six questions to you. We feel these questions are important in regards to your voting history and your candidacy to represent us on the Board of Education:

Question 1:
​
You were not present at the August 10, 2015 Board of Education meeting where after the months-long battle for accountability culminated in a crowded school board meeting, where outraged teachers, tearful students, and parents demanding answers were all met with terse responses from our superintendent. At issue was Dr. Walkley’s involuntary transfer of at least 27 high-performing teachers, many of whom had been in their positions for years. Although this was not recommended by the state, and no evidence was presented to justify the move, the superintendent insisted it was in the district’s best interest.

The public repeatedly asked why teachers were taken from schools where they had so much success, and how BCSD would maintain the high standards set by those teachers in their absence. In response to these often emotional pleas, Dr. Walkley remained vague, saying she put strong teachers where they were needed and couldn’t comment on individual personnel. When parents asked for elaboration, they were told it was not their turn to speak.

Your first public comment after the August 10th meeting was on October 13, 2015. Your comment did not mention the teacher transfers, but that you were in full support of Dr. Walkley. Have you gone back to listen to the comments on August 10th, 2015? Have you read the petition that was signed by over 350 stakeholders? Has your position regarding the teacher transfers changed now that so much new information has come to light?

Question 2:

The January 11, 2016 Board Meeting was cancelled because a quorum was not present. According to the NY State School Board Association: “If a quorum is not present, no official business can be conducted until more members arrive. Informal discussion can, however, legally take place, or the meeting can be adjourned (less than a quorum may adjourn).” The BOE President, Melissa Thompson, chose to adjourn the meeting.
Over 350+ parents, teachers, students, and stakeholders remained in the auditorium. Board Members Anthony White and Bill Zopf remained in attendance along with Deputy Superintendent Ann Marie Quartironi.
Nearly 400 parents, teachers and concerned citizens packed the Seeger Auditorium at Beacon High School on Monday, January 11, 2016 criticizing a perceived lack of responsiveness from the school board and calling for the dismissal of Superintendent Barbara Walkley. Why do you think so many parents, teachers, community members and even local politicians came to this meeting? Are you pleased to see so much interest in what is going on in our school district?

Question 3:

If re-elected how will you learn from the past mistakes made during superintendent searches (and non-searches), and what specific actions will you take to ensure stakeholder involvement? We would like to make it clear that the following is not the type of community involvement we would like to see in the current Superintendent search:
At the March 28, 2016 Board of Education Meeting in response to the public asking for stakeholder involvement, you said to the public “I’m not really sure where this is all coming from; the community was involved in the last process; the community was involved in the process before that; the community was involved in the process before that.”

However, this is not what the public has witnessed. On February 23, 2015, Dr. Barbara Walkley was hired permanently. Her appointment was made during a BOE meeting following a discussion in a closed executive session. There was no resume, employment recommendations, or input from the community. The sole dissenting board member, Anthony White, expressed concern that the BOE was “blindsiding the public and the school community… making a rash decision without having all of the important information.” For Mr. White’s full comment please see here: 
http://www.advocates12508.com/…/appointment-of-bw-as-superi…

Mr. White attempted to get the Board’s explanation for this. He continued: I am asking the Board of Ed members to explain their point of view and to justify how they came to this decision so the community has a full and complete understanding of the decision being made. Some might say the Board has done its due diligence by evaluating the “body of work” that has been done while in the interim position. If this is the rationale I would ask my fellow board members what they are referring to with regard to the “body of work?”
Less than three seconds following this statement and with no response to Mr. White’s questions or concerns the Beacon Board of Ed. President called for a vote. Mr. White was the only member to vote ‘No’ on the immediate appointment.

Board Members were again questioned at the October 13, 2015 Board of Education Meeting regarding the decision to not have a search before hiring Dr. Walkley. Your response was the following:

(Video 2:23:17) “So, I just want to echo some of the things Kenya and Georgia said. I think people are somehow under the impression that we are just up here because we have nothing else to do on a Monday night. And we all care about kids almost every one of us has a kid in the district or recently graduated or a grandchild in the district so we all are stakeholders in this we all care. We’ve all given up countless Monday nights, other hours, other meetings, and umm it’s really disheartening that some of you would even feel the need to say that, but anyway. (Video 2:24:00) So yes, I also opted to not do a full blown search. I like Georgia was a part of one search directly and one search indirectly. I, like Kenya, sat in the audience for a year to a year and a half before I got involved. I got this seat because, oh by the way, the year this election happened no one wanted to run. There was no candidate for this seat. I really didn’t want this seat to be perfectly honest. So, umm, I felt at the time very strongly about it, I still do. I fully support Dr. Walkley I think she is by far and away the best candidate we’ve had in the three searches that I know about and I feel really badly that we are treating her so badly, thank you”.

For the search for Superintendent Dorward the then interim Superintendent Dr. Walkley held one forum. Audience members were allowed to say ONE WORD at a time (about a quality they wanted in the next superintendent). There was also a "stakeholder" committee comprised of district employees along with Dr. Walkley and the former BTA President, Ms. Pilla, a few administrators, and BOE members. This committee was about 10-12 people. The group met a few times and the process was run by SMART objectives. They went around the room, starting with words and statements that we would like to see in a new superintendent, they gradually got more specific. By the end they had a few 'firm' qualities that the group wanted in a new superintendent. The phrase 'community involvement' is very misrepresented, as there were only one or two non employees.

Question 4:

At the October 10, 2015 meeting you stated that “There was no candidate for this seat. I really didn’t want this seat to be perfectly honest.” This was in regards to your position on the Board of Education. We now have three candidates that do want a seat on the Board. What has changed for you, after this year of district turmoil, that now makes you want to run again?

Question 5:

At the November 23, 2015 Board of Education Meeting, board member Christine Galbo introduced a resolution calling on the state legislature to "review and redesign New York's Annual Professional Performance Review system," which she called "flawed" and leading to "redundancies, over testing of students and unfunded mandates."
You along with Bill Zopf voted ‘No’ to the resolution and it therefore failed at this meeting. Why did you vote against this resolution? What was your reasoning for voting ‘No’ on this resolution? Do you not agree with Christine Galbo’s assessment of the APPR?

Question 6:

After months of stakeholders requesting the BOE to take action, board member Anthony White made a motion at the April 26, 2016 board meeting (Video 2:31:49) to request an RFP for competitive bids for our board attorney. He stated that he believes it would be a good practice, that it would not hurt, and that it would be good knowledge to have.
This vote was to add an item to the agenda, in order for it to be discussed by the board. You, along with Mr. Zopf voted ‘No’ to adding the discussion to the agenda, and it therefore failed.

Again, at the the May 9, 2016 (video: 1:08:31) Board Member, Anthony White introduced a motion for the Board to have a discussion in regards to a Request for Proposal for legal services. You along with board members Kenya Gadsden, Bill Zopf, Georgia Patchen, and Frank Garnot voted ‘No’ to adding the discussion to the agenda.
Christine Galbo tried to clarify that this was only to add the item to the agenda in order to have a discussion. Because of your vote this motion again failed. Why do you continually refuse to have a discussion for a request for a competitive bid for legal representation?

We look forward to any answers you may be able to provide prior to the election.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Beacon Schools

Parents Want Involvement in Beacon Superintendent Search
by Jeff Simms for the Highland Current

“What is called for now is true stakeholder involvement and a shared comprehensive vision for our district,” said Rebecca Correllus, who spoke on behalf of the Advocates for Beacon Schools (ABS). “The stakeholders are here and we are ready to cultivate that vision.” full article

Specific school aid figures have been published by the state.

Beacon gets a 3.01 percent overall boost in aid.  State aid is a hugely important part of our district's finances, with the total for 16-17 to stand at $27,314,853. Of that, $17,897,853 is for the major component, basic "Foundation Aid," and there are others like transportation and building.

This total includes the effect of the final, at long last, elimination of the infamous "Gap Elimination Adjustment" clawback, or GEA.  That dates to the 2009-2010 school year when state legislators and the governor were looking for a way to fill a gap in the state's overall budget, which had been blamed largely on the fiscal effects of the Great Recession. It remained, over widespread objections from schools, even after those effects had ended.

In the previous fiscal year, Beacon lost $344,896 due to GEA.  The current year shows there is no cut.

The overall effect of ending GEA and raising other aid is that we get an added $798,292 this year, comparing to the 15-16 total.

These results are significantly better than what Cuomo proposed in his executive budget, which contained an increase. The Legislature pushed for a larger boost in aid.

At the last Beacon school board meeting, Interim Superintendent Anne Marie Quartironi, was operating with the preliminary numbers in developing the budget and was hoping that the Senate and Assembly would provide more.  They did. The enacted budget is $502,635 above the level stated in the proposed executive (governor's) budget.

Good Evening, my name is Rebecca Correllus, parent and taxpayer, and I am speaking tonight on behalf of Advocates for Beacon Schools, or ABS.

I would like to read a petition that is written as a letter to the Board of Education for the Beacon City School District.

The title of the Petition is,
Let Us In: Beacon stakeholders call for a seat at the table with School District

Its purpose is:
TO: CREATE A COMMITTEE OF COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE SAKE OF OUR KIDS, OUR SCHOOLS, OUR TEACHERS AND OUR COMMUNITY

We, the undersigned, care about our schools, our kids, our teachers and our community.
We urge the Board of Education to adopt a way of moving forward that engages the community and creates a culture of transparency and cooperation between the board and community stakeholders.

We support the creation of a committee of stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators, which, along with BOE members will be empowered to conduct a candidate search for a new superintendent of the Beacon School District.
As of now, this petition has _____216______ signatures and is growing rapidly. 

I will remind the BOE of the words that I spoke for ABS at the Feb 22 BOE meeting: ‘What is called for now is true stakeholder involvement and a shared comprehensive vision for our district. The stakeholders are here and we are ready to cultivate that vision. “ 

Although we have heard general agreement with this premise from the current BOE, the latest actions of our elected Board Members speak louder and are very concerning to us. In the March 28th issue of Plilipstown.info , the current BOE President, Ms. Thompson is quoted as saying, “We have so many invested stakeholders right now, and we’ve spent so many years trying to improve,” she said. “But we’re not where we want to be. We need to get this search underway quickly.”

In the same article, the BOE states that it intends to give the district’s attorney, Mr. Michael Lambert, the go-ahead to find a professional search firm to identify candidates for the job. The board is expected to give Lambert the feedback he needs on March 28, to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to find a search firm. 

So, the essential question from Advocates for Beacon Schools is, What’s the rush? And why is one individual, who is associated with the controversies of the former superintendent, and whose contract is also up for renewal, along with 3 seats on the Board, being given the job of drafting this RFP? If you really want to harness those invested stakeholders, wouldn’t it make sense to establish a stakeholder group to identify the overarching needs and VISION of our District in order to include this Vision in the RFP? In fact, one Board Member, Mr. White has been voicing this request since January, when our former Superintendent resigned. 

In looking for a possible solution, Spakenkill School District, also in the process of finding a new Superintendent of Schools, has posted on their District Website, a 9 month timeline for their current Superintendent search, for all to see. This website also includes a “SurveyMonkey” for the purpose of gathering community input early on in the process. Both the District’s Mission Statement and Vision Statement are included in their brochure inviting applicants to apply for the job. 

I would like to quote ABS member, Kristan Flynn from the same Philipstown article, which speaks to the process of community involvement. “If you ask people [in the community], they actually have something to say and share,” she said. “But they have to be encouraged — that you want to hear it, and that something might come of it.”

216 signatures and growing - Let us in! 

Before the end of this meeting tonight, we hope to see a concrete move toward a truly collaborative effort moving forward. 

Thank you for your time.