Nothing illegal about Gundlach’s being hired
Well, well, well, there’s plenty of egg on people’s faces this morning, as we learn from the State Ethics Board exactly what some of us had already publicly stated, that there would have been nothing illegal about having a school superintendent whose wife was also employed by the same district.
According to this article in the Oshkosh Northwestern not only would it not have been illegal, the situation of both of them being employed by the same district would have been manageable. Perhaps that will help quell the uproar we’ve heard in the last few days from the naysayers in our little community. Let’s hope it also teaches some people a few valuable lessons so they won’t shoot their mouths off so prematurely again. Given past behaviors of certain individuals I doubt that will happen, but hey, hope springs eternal.
While I’m on the subject of naysayers, someone emailed me a copy of Kent Monte’s (you remember him, don’t you?) latest rant in which he challenges what I wrote in my last blog posting. As usual, Kent is focusing on minutia instead of the real issues. I don’t have time to waste on him or his “gagging on gnats” commentary, which really speaks for itself anyway, and most people with half a brain and common-sense can see that. Besides, if he’d actually read what’s written instead of what he chooses to see, all his questions would be answered.
But I do have to address one point and that is this: I was under the impression when Mr. Monte stated in March that he was not going to mention my name anymore on his blog or allow anyone else to do so that he meant it, especially when he told me to feel free to monitor. Since he’s now broken that “rule” and is back-peddling, I can only assume that either he didn’t really mean what he said or he’s forgotten something else he stated publicly. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
As far as Dan Becker’s comments in today’s Northwestern article that are meant to somehow support his actions in calling the state AG’s office and the State Ethics Board, I maintain that he or anyone else had the right to ask questions, however, his timing and the manner in which he did it were inappropriate and should not be tolerated, regardless of his “reasoning.” One of his quotes to the Northwestern – which should be thanked for contacting the State Ethics Board – was “It was clear the remainder of the board had no interest in exploring this.” He has no way of knowing whether the rest of the board would have explored the conflict issue or not. He never gave them or the district attorneys the chance. Again, his actions were premature, inappropriate and resemble those of a bully. Perhaps it’s time the voters tell Mr. Becker he’s no longer welcome on our playground.
According to this article in the Oshkosh Northwestern not only would it not have been illegal, the situation of both of them being employed by the same district would have been manageable. Perhaps that will help quell the uproar we’ve heard in the last few days from the naysayers in our little community. Let’s hope it also teaches some people a few valuable lessons so they won’t shoot their mouths off so prematurely again. Given past behaviors of certain individuals I doubt that will happen, but hey, hope springs eternal.
While I’m on the subject of naysayers, someone emailed me a copy of Kent Monte’s (you remember him, don’t you?) latest rant in which he challenges what I wrote in my last blog posting. As usual, Kent is focusing on minutia instead of the real issues. I don’t have time to waste on him or his “gagging on gnats” commentary, which really speaks for itself anyway, and most people with half a brain and common-sense can see that. Besides, if he’d actually read what’s written instead of what he chooses to see, all his questions would be answered.
But I do have to address one point and that is this: I was under the impression when Mr. Monte stated in March that he was not going to mention my name anymore on his blog or allow anyone else to do so that he meant it, especially when he told me to feel free to monitor. Since he’s now broken that “rule” and is back-peddling, I can only assume that either he didn’t really mean what he said or he’s forgotten something else he stated publicly. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
As far as Dan Becker’s comments in today’s Northwestern article that are meant to somehow support his actions in calling the state AG’s office and the State Ethics Board, I maintain that he or anyone else had the right to ask questions, however, his timing and the manner in which he did it were inappropriate and should not be tolerated, regardless of his “reasoning.” One of his quotes to the Northwestern – which should be thanked for contacting the State Ethics Board – was “It was clear the remainder of the board had no interest in exploring this.” He has no way of knowing whether the rest of the board would have explored the conflict issue or not. He never gave them or the district attorneys the chance. Again, his actions were premature, inappropriate and resemble those of a bully. Perhaps it’s time the voters tell Mr. Becker he’s no longer welcome on our playground.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 5:27 AM
2 Comments:
I have heard of some districts where the superintendent has hired his spouse as bookkeeper, teacher, his children as custodians, and his relatives for other posts.
It is not ethical when others in the community are seeking employment.
Of course, the Borgias, the Medici and other Popes hired their children, made some elector as cardinals. Is there something wrong or unethical with that.
Thanks for the comment, Bernie. Again, it's fine to question things; but this was about timing and the way it was done. And still, even with an opinion from the State Ethics Board and other entities, some refuse to hear. Maybe those of us who actually get this should stop wasting time trying to make the few who are not just negative, but nasty as well, understand. After all, only the great and powerful Oz can give brains or a heart where none exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home