In her own Words
D11 recall organizers use the firing of ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas as one of the reasons that they are pushing for a recall. They claim that Thomas was fired for no legitimate reason other than personal vendettas against her by some of the Board members.
During the superintendent evaluation process, Thomas had an opportunity to rate herself. Based on what the recall supporters have been saying, Thomas must have given herself an A+, right?. Keep in mind that Thomas received a salary of $170,000 per year, plus benefits that drove her cost up to $262,000 per year. With that in mind, let's look at how Thomas rated her own performance. The following documents were created by Thomas. They show Thomas's self evaluation with her self-rating included. Thomas had 21 areas on which to grade herself. Of those 21 rated areas, Thomas rated herself "Progressing," which is "below average," in 9 of those 21 areas. Thomas only rated herself "Proficient" or above 58% of the time. (The handwritten notes that are included on the following documents are my "notes to self" as I reviewed her ratings).
Thomas supporters claim that she was never given any direction. Under her major assumptions above, bullet #2, Thomas says that "mission, vision and goals were established ...prior to my arrival." Further, she states, "These documents reflect major organizational direction and were developed within the CQI framework." Thomas destroys her own argument that she never had any direction.
On the next page, Thomas gave herself a "Progressing" on accountability to ensure that schools were self-assessing for imprvement. This below average self-assessment includes such important areas as department and division goal setting, school improvement plans, and reporting and collecting data. All of these are major areas when it comes to tracking performance.
Goal 2.2 above relates to goal setting and creating school improvement plans. Thomas says that she is below average in these areas. It is hard to have employees meet or excede goals when the leader does not require them to set goals or to align them with the district. Goal 2.3 above relates further to goals, and Thomas again grades herself below average. A pattern quickly developed wherein Thomas never set goals for herself and never required district employees to set goals. It is impossible for people to "achieve" if they are not held to any standard. Again, this is Thomas grading herself. These ratings are not the work of the big-bad reformers.
Goal 5.1 above relates to rewarding performance. Thomas admits that she was below average in that field. She states that she "attends" certain events or meetings, but that does not speak to what was actually accomplished by her attendance. Goal 5.3 relates to developing a training program to help staff accomplish goals. Thomas probably rated herself below average in this area because she never required anyone to have goals to which she could then train them. Goal 5.4 required Thomas to actively seek staff feedback. She felt that she did not accomplish this task to standard.
To summarize, the recall organizers wish to remove board members who gave the superintendent a below average evaluation. It turns out that this very superintendent also gave herself a below average evaluation. This superintendent was a high paid chief executive who oversaw a 1/2 billion dollar school district. This superintendent claimed to be able to "hit the ground running" since she was a long time D11 employee. This superintendent cost the district $262,000 per year in salary and benefits, plus she took with her a $400,000 golden parachute that was advocated by the very people who are orchestrating the recall effort. This superintendent could only rate herself "above average" on 58% of her goals, and the recall organizers are up in arms over her firing?
It really clears up any doubt that the recall organizers do not have the interests of the D11 taxpayers in mind. As Mary Ellen McNally said clearly: It's all about politics.
I end this entry with a copy of an email that I sent to fellow board members after we received this self-eval. This provides my summary of her overall self-evaluation.
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 4:20:53 -0600
From: craigcox@adelphia.net
To: Board
Subject: Supe input
I have been looking over the superintendent's input for her evaluation and have made some observations. The first observation is that despite her letter that came with the 27 pages wherein she complains about not knowing what the evaluation tool really is, she lists as an assumption that the goals and measures were based on the CQI eval tool and that the district mission and goals were already in place for her to adopt. Where is the problem?
Thomas gave herself a rating on 21 subtopics. Of these 21, even she had to give herself a below average mark (Progressing) on 9 of them. Pretty sad for a $170K annual salary employee. Under 1.1, she admits that the goals were already set, but I note that she does not say what she has done in an attempt to meet those goals, nor has she given her vision of how to meet those goals. She takes credit for the CAAP, but Norm created that last year. She takes credit for requiring the Edison schools to have SIPs, but state law mandates that. She takes credit for giving recommendations for the Mil money, but she only gave a broad list of possibilities with no specific recommendations. Besides, I don't see this stuff at the bottom of page 2 as fitting under setting mission, vision, and goals. The remainder of that list of stuff is stuff that was begun by others.
On page 3, she gives a litany of speeches that she gave about achievment. Based on the initial CSAP result, she will miss that 7% increase goal anyway. Besides, so what if she gave the same speech to different groups? What was the result? At the bottom of the page, she admits waiting until Jan 31st to talk about her goals for this year. It boils down to growing admin. She then lists some talking points about having a great district on pg 4, but never suggests a plan to get there. At the bottom of page 4, she begins a laundry list of meetings that she might attend. According to her Outlook and her phone bills, she rarely attends any of these groups.
Pg 5 shows a list of possible meetings - her Outlook does not reflect any of this. She then lists a list of outside activities, but does not express the goal of attending these events. Again, they are not reflected in her official schedule. Pg 6 continues pg 5, and then she tells of all the input she has collected. My question is what she has done with the input. Pg 7 is another laundry list of stuff that does not specify goals or results - just a list. On pg 9 she talks of an accountability system in place but does not show or state how she is holding anyone accountable for anything. On page 10 she talks of meeting with stakeholder groups but does not enlighten us as to what she did with the feedback from these groups. On pg 11, she informs us that she collects data but does not say what she does with it. The bottom of page 11 is simply false (relations with stakeholders). Ditto pg 12.
All the IT stuff on pg 13 was already in place before her arrival. What has she done to improve this? She doesn't say. On pg 14 she claims to model a team approach; again, false. On pg 15, she simply refers us to other pages. Page 16 becomes fantasy stuff. She takes credit for last years modest gains under 7.2, and then claims to have Satisfactory relations with this Board. On pg 17 she uses the term, "given the circumstances..." What does she mean by this? The remainder of the stuff that she includes is just that list of meetings that she attends. What are the results of these meetings? We have seen her division head and cabinet agendas. They are random and do not address any of the district goals or strategic plan issues. What is striking in all of this is a total lack of a plan for anything. In her memo excusing the flat reading CSAP scores, Thomas claims that our ESL population is rising, causing the flat scores. OK, fine. If we accept that, then her next response ought to be to tell us what her plan is to address this issue. No plan exists.
Once again, in her memo, Thomas complains that she is still learning the district and has not had time to do anything. If she was going to be on a "ride along" program for the first year on this job, we should have been told up front. She is basically claiming a student superintendent status and should have been paid accordingly. At the least she is making the case that she should be considered on a probationary status. We never gave her permission to take the first year off and still get paid $170K. Before we worry too much about having to pay her to just leave (and I hate to give her a dime), we need to remember what past Boards have done repeatedly. The best example is the employee who sexually harassed/assaulted his own staff member and had a sex toy in his elementary school. The BOE paid him over $250K to leave. They did not fire him outright, they paid him 6 figures to leave. This is only 1 of many cases like that. Why didn't these... women (Fornander, Peterson, etc) scream and hollar about that?
Craig W. Cox
D-11 School Board
219-0032
During the superintendent evaluation process, Thomas had an opportunity to rate herself. Based on what the recall supporters have been saying, Thomas must have given herself an A+, right?. Keep in mind that Thomas received a salary of $170,000 per year, plus benefits that drove her cost up to $262,000 per year. With that in mind, let's look at how Thomas rated her own performance. The following documents were created by Thomas. They show Thomas's self evaluation with her self-rating included. Thomas had 21 areas on which to grade herself. Of those 21 rated areas, Thomas rated herself "Progressing," which is "below average," in 9 of those 21 areas. Thomas only rated herself "Proficient" or above 58% of the time. (The handwritten notes that are included on the following documents are my "notes to self" as I reviewed her ratings).
Thomas supporters claim that she was never given any direction. Under her major assumptions above, bullet #2, Thomas says that "mission, vision and goals were established ...prior to my arrival." Further, she states, "These documents reflect major organizational direction and were developed within the CQI framework." Thomas destroys her own argument that she never had any direction.
On the next page, Thomas gave herself a "Progressing" on accountability to ensure that schools were self-assessing for imprvement. This below average self-assessment includes such important areas as department and division goal setting, school improvement plans, and reporting and collecting data. All of these are major areas when it comes to tracking performance.
Goal 2.2 above relates to goal setting and creating school improvement plans. Thomas says that she is below average in these areas. It is hard to have employees meet or excede goals when the leader does not require them to set goals or to align them with the district. Goal 2.3 above relates further to goals, and Thomas again grades herself below average. A pattern quickly developed wherein Thomas never set goals for herself and never required district employees to set goals. It is impossible for people to "achieve" if they are not held to any standard. Again, this is Thomas grading herself. These ratings are not the work of the big-bad reformers.
Goal 5.1 above relates to rewarding performance. Thomas admits that she was below average in that field. She states that she "attends" certain events or meetings, but that does not speak to what was actually accomplished by her attendance. Goal 5.3 relates to developing a training program to help staff accomplish goals. Thomas probably rated herself below average in this area because she never required anyone to have goals to which she could then train them. Goal 5.4 required Thomas to actively seek staff feedback. She felt that she did not accomplish this task to standard.
To summarize, the recall organizers wish to remove board members who gave the superintendent a below average evaluation. It turns out that this very superintendent also gave herself a below average evaluation. This superintendent was a high paid chief executive who oversaw a 1/2 billion dollar school district. This superintendent claimed to be able to "hit the ground running" since she was a long time D11 employee. This superintendent cost the district $262,000 per year in salary and benefits, plus she took with her a $400,000 golden parachute that was advocated by the very people who are orchestrating the recall effort. This superintendent could only rate herself "above average" on 58% of her goals, and the recall organizers are up in arms over her firing?
It really clears up any doubt that the recall organizers do not have the interests of the D11 taxpayers in mind. As Mary Ellen McNally said clearly: It's all about politics.
I end this entry with a copy of an email that I sent to fellow board members after we received this self-eval. This provides my summary of her overall self-evaluation.
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 4:20:53 -0600
From: craigcox@adelphia.net
To: Board
Subject: Supe input
I have been looking over the superintendent's input for her evaluation and have made some observations. The first observation is that despite her letter that came with the 27 pages wherein she complains about not knowing what the evaluation tool really is, she lists as an assumption that the goals and measures were based on the CQI eval tool and that the district mission and goals were already in place for her to adopt. Where is the problem?
Thomas gave herself a rating on 21 subtopics. Of these 21, even she had to give herself a below average mark (Progressing) on 9 of them. Pretty sad for a $170K annual salary employee. Under 1.1, she admits that the goals were already set, but I note that she does not say what she has done in an attempt to meet those goals, nor has she given her vision of how to meet those goals. She takes credit for the CAAP, but Norm created that last year. She takes credit for requiring the Edison schools to have SIPs, but state law mandates that. She takes credit for giving recommendations for the Mil money, but she only gave a broad list of possibilities with no specific recommendations. Besides, I don't see this stuff at the bottom of page 2 as fitting under setting mission, vision, and goals. The remainder of that list of stuff is stuff that was begun by others.
On page 3, she gives a litany of speeches that she gave about achievment. Based on the initial CSAP result, she will miss that 7% increase goal anyway. Besides, so what if she gave the same speech to different groups? What was the result? At the bottom of the page, she admits waiting until Jan 31st to talk about her goals for this year. It boils down to growing admin. She then lists some talking points about having a great district on pg 4, but never suggests a plan to get there. At the bottom of page 4, she begins a laundry list of meetings that she might attend. According to her Outlook and her phone bills, she rarely attends any of these groups.
Pg 5 shows a list of possible meetings - her Outlook does not reflect any of this. She then lists a list of outside activities, but does not express the goal of attending these events. Again, they are not reflected in her official schedule. Pg 6 continues pg 5, and then she tells of all the input she has collected. My question is what she has done with the input. Pg 7 is another laundry list of stuff that does not specify goals or results - just a list. On pg 9 she talks of an accountability system in place but does not show or state how she is holding anyone accountable for anything. On page 10 she talks of meeting with stakeholder groups but does not enlighten us as to what she did with the feedback from these groups. On pg 11, she informs us that she collects data but does not say what she does with it. The bottom of page 11 is simply false (relations with stakeholders). Ditto pg 12.
All the IT stuff on pg 13 was already in place before her arrival. What has she done to improve this? She doesn't say. On pg 14 she claims to model a team approach; again, false. On pg 15, she simply refers us to other pages. Page 16 becomes fantasy stuff. She takes credit for last years modest gains under 7.2, and then claims to have Satisfactory relations with this Board. On pg 17 she uses the term, "given the circumstances..." What does she mean by this? The remainder of the stuff that she includes is just that list of meetings that she attends. What are the results of these meetings? We have seen her division head and cabinet agendas. They are random and do not address any of the district goals or strategic plan issues. What is striking in all of this is a total lack of a plan for anything. In her memo excusing the flat reading CSAP scores, Thomas claims that our ESL population is rising, causing the flat scores. OK, fine. If we accept that, then her next response ought to be to tell us what her plan is to address this issue. No plan exists.
Once again, in her memo, Thomas complains that she is still learning the district and has not had time to do anything. If she was going to be on a "ride along" program for the first year on this job, we should have been told up front. She is basically claiming a student superintendent status and should have been paid accordingly. At the least she is making the case that she should be considered on a probationary status. We never gave her permission to take the first year off and still get paid $170K. Before we worry too much about having to pay her to just leave (and I hate to give her a dime), we need to remember what past Boards have done repeatedly. The best example is the employee who sexually harassed/assaulted his own staff member and had a sex toy in his elementary school. The BOE paid him over $250K to leave. They did not fire him outright, they paid him 6 figures to leave. This is only 1 of many cases like that. Why didn't these... women (Fornander, Peterson, etc) scream and hollar about that?
Craig W. Cox
D-11 School Board
219-0032
posted by Craig Cox | 2:14 PM
2 Comments:
Did this payoff happen on your watch? If so, why? Have there been other blatant wastes of our taxmonies for this sort of thing?
Why the need to pay off someone if they aren't measuring up? Am I so naive that I am missing something here?
I think I am right when I say that in the real working world if you don't do what you were hired to do, it's over, if the manager/supervisor is doing their job. Would explain why fast food goes through so many people on a continuous basis: you didn't do the job and there was someone waiting to take your job.
Please help us understand why the employee groups were so determined to keep Dr. Thomas; why they thought she was an asset to the district?
For the life of me, I can't figure it out.
Thomas was given her golden parachute while I was on the board, but I did not vote for it, nor did Eric Christen or Willie Breazell. Ex-board members Karen Teja and Dave Linebaugh "negotiated" this atrocity into her contract. Some of us were willing to fire Thomas "for cause," which would have meant that she would not have been given any money upon her termination. We could not get 4 votes to do that. If you look at my earlier post on this topic, I explain her contract and remind you that Thomas is an attorney. Our attorney pointed out to us that her contract was designed to give her a lot of D11 money whether she was fired for cause or not. He felt that she would cost us over $600,000 if she was fired for cause because she would have filed a lawsuit to get her money plus damages and attorney's fees. In her contract, "cause" was not defined by performance. The only place that performance came into the contract was in bonus pay. This is why I was so opposed to her contract in the first place. When the board majority gave her this contract, they removed over $750,000 from the D11 General Fund and placed it in a reserve fund to create the golden parachute.
Yes, D11 makes payoffs like this over and over again, as do other public agencies. My view, which I have expressed before, is that if we do not begin to fight these things, people will continue to sue and demand settlements, knowing that we are nothing but a bottomless pit of public money from which they can make their fortune. Most recently, the board majority (with me opposed) entered a settlement with a D1 support employee who clearly and blatantly violated district policy and procedure. This settlement ended up costing you, the taxpayer, more than the Thomas departure. Due to the fact that John Gudvangen and Tami Hasling voted for this settlement, the recall leaders failed to make this into an issue.
You are right that in the "real world" leaders hold people accountable and do not allow them to steal from the company when they are fired. Truth be told, however, there are plenty of examples in private industry where "ex-employees" drain the budget of their ex-employer by filing a lawsuit. It is way too easy to sue these days.
The employee groups were not anxious to keep Thomas. Thomas would orchestrate the appearance of employees at board meetings to speak on her behalf. According to employees, Thomas would spend more time planning who would speak at board meetings than she would planning on how to improve the district. The facts prove that to be true.
The employees who had to work closest to Thomas were thrilled to see her go. Employees felt that she was dragging the district back to the Burnley era, which is a place where most never wanted to return. The only people who are saying that the employees loved and adored Thomas are the recall organizers. We would agree that these people have quite an agenda which has nothing to do with making D11 great.
Post a Comment
<< Home