We're slowly building up a list of suspects in the possible chain of authorization at the Worcester Public Schools, as of this morning's latest article in the paper.
Yesterday, they mentioned the Human Resources Manager, Stacey DeBoise Luster, for a second time, and whose previous quotes in the Sunday article certainly were supportive of the decision to make this hire... quite effusively defensive, in fact. But in yesterday's mention of her, she was suddenly unavailable for comment.
Today, we have the Interim Superintendent Deirdre Loughlin, whose quotes in the paper appear to be designed to take her somewhat out of the suspicious category. They imply that the Interim Superintendent's signature isn't required as the ultimate OK in "the process" of hiring completely unqualified personnel, and overpaying them by nearly 100%. And Mrs. Loughlin did say, “I was the one who brought her over..." to the next link in the chain, a Mr. Mark T. Brophy, the district’s staffing/mentor coordinator.
Mrs. Loughlin has also offered up the last link (apparently) in the chain: "Both the human resources department and the principal of Chandler Elementary Community School, Mark Berthiaume, would have had a role in Mrs. Byrnes’ hiring, Mrs. Loughlin said."
The question that needs to answered here is who was it? Who had the ultimate authority to accept or reject this staffing decision? Who made the final decision that put Mrs. Byrnes on the payroll?
I can tell you without any slightest doubt who DIDN'T have the final authority to fill this position: Donna C. Byrnes. She certainly didn't hire herself, now, did she?
And, frankly, if the guilty party in all of this had simply approved Mrs. Byrnes position at the starting rate of $40,378, where would this whole thing be right now? Would the whole city be up in arms over this? Would Mrs. Byrnes now be looking at Friday as her last day of employment?
That she's now going to be thrown out on the street after 15 years of employment with the city says to me that she's definitely being heartily crucified in order to take the heat off the real problem in all of this.
That problem is squarely in the Mayor's lap at this point, in my view. Responsible political leadership would not be allowing this scapegoat to be tarred and feathered while the REAL guilty party gets to remain in the Worcester Public School system and continue in a position of authority to waste taxpayer money like this.
Every day that passes in this present course of making Mrs. Byrnes the fall guy pushes the stink of corruption closer and closer to the Mayor's office. If the highest elected official in this city can't effectively excise this stench of corruption in the city, then who can?
Link to pt 1.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a tough one, Jeff, for the simple reason that no one person hires a teacher anymore.
The Ed Reform act moved a lot of responsibilities down to the level of the principal. But because things in Worcester are so big, and are governed by things like seniority, there's input from central administration. You add to that an additional layer of supervision for special ed, and it really ISN'T that clear.
It does seem pretty clear that the superintendent was amazingly involved in this decision. The School Committee, from what I understand, would have received notice of the hiring, but they don't have approval power. And, as has been noted by me and others elsewhere, the School Committee is accustomed (for better or worse) to the actual vetting of a candidate (and the following of state and federal regs) being done by admin before it reaches them.
Real Ed reform would abolish political patronage that is rooted deep in many city departments throughout city hall. Any referrals that come from any elected official or city employee should automatically be avoided. Too many positions at the WPS, WPD, WFD and administrative jobs in city hall, have been influenced politically.
The schools had a shortage of special ed teachers for decades. Why is that not a story? Where was the leadership all these years, why wasn't there more of an effort to prioritize to meet that need in a legitimate way? Instead we've been told how great the system is. I remember being begged, as substitute teaching 30 years ago, to become a SE teacher. The pay was so low, and the children were so demanding and rough to handle that I laughed it off and ran like hell.
Set the politics aside, at least Brynes had degree that didn't stretch too far from dealing psychologically with special needs children. This is a classic pass the buck story if ever there was one. Someone in the treasury, human resources, principals, School department, school committee, signed off on it. To stop her from getting the job would have been like stop the hundreds of others that got there jobs the same way.
Post a Comment