For those of you who care to know, I have just posted a new Administrator Salary and Benefits and I have also posted the cost for Attorneys from July 2009 to July 2010.

Everyone should take a look at these two factual documents. Received them from the New Treasurer.

http://www.whizzards.net/levies

There is other information people may want to look at also. Really check out that Teachers Union Contract.

Martin Fleming

Well Streetsboro was short a postion for the Special needs students and they may have felt that Mrs. Longstreth was not right for a job that would wear two hats. They released her from her contract and put Ms. Shannon in there to wear the two hats. In the end, you pay a little more to the individual but you have two positions filled in the end.

There is a possibility they wanted to save money, they may have kept from renewing his contract to bring in a new person at a lower rate. Much lower than giving him a paycut would save.

It could be he was just not the right fit for them.

Either way, he has moved on and now has a job with our district. Maybe he will fit in here maybe he won't.

There are going to be many changes in this district and some will work while others will be just throwing our funds away.

Did anyone think that maybe HE asked that his contract not be renewed and they followed his wishes?

As factualinfo stated his contact doesn't know of any descrepancies that stand out. His contact doesn't know if there is anything good. Doesn't make this person out to be a bad person or a good person. As stated time will tell.

Fact is we need a principal at Campus and he is willing to take on the position.

The odd thing is that many of these folks who have taken the position all have heard good things about the district that makes them want to come here. They are told this is a wonderful district to work in.

If many want to come here to work, what is prompting some of them to leave?

The AD was a great addition (Johnson), but they didn't want him to stay and even though he could have generated a lot of money for the district, something didn't sit right with the board that made them release him.

It was like sacrificing your chess piece when you know that in the next move you could have checkmated your opponent with that piece.

He was enegetic, he was going to raise funds, and the fact that he was going to do it without any community public funds was quite impressive. Nothing said that all the money he could raise had to go into sports. He could have really helped out this community? It was an opportunity to get funding by advertisers and I don't know of any place in the rules that says he couldn't do what he wanted to do. We will never get another person like that here. What a shame.

Decisions like those are ruining our district. This is why it is necessary we have the state come in and monitor our district and they should really do it before we reach fiscal caution.

Martin Fleming

First, let me say that the truth is that most information about potential problems of an employee will not be disclosed from a prior employer in most fields.

Second, I personally know one of the Lake Local School board members and was basically told that they had no comment or information on Mr. Daulbaugh. His position was not eliminated, they chose not to renew his contract. Details of why were not disclosed and I'm sure won't be disclosed.

I will tell you that if this person I know from the Lake board felt that there was any danger or inappropriate worries that would need to be faced by our district, they would have told me.

So, my interpretation is that while Mr. Daulbaugh was not an employee the Lake district chose to keep, he is not a danger to our district. Is he going to be a good principle? Time will tell. Sometimes, different situations, different learned experiences can shape someone into a better employee. Hopefully that will prove to be the truth.

Did he neglect info on his resume or was that info not passed on to the group interviewing him??? Only Mrs. Keller knows this for sure and I bet she isn't going to tell us.

I have to agree with knowledgeispower. It just states he wasn't renewed. It is most likely they did eliminate that position.

Since we didn't renew Ms. Longstreth, does that mean she was fired? I don't think so.

Rather than post speculation and try to put two and two together, there should be some type of documentation or a quote from someone (either the Super or Board), that states his performance was less than favorable.

It just might be they decided not to renew for they eliminated the position and maybe that district is having financial troubles.

People have been coming and going out of this district like it's a rest stop. Let's put it like this "it seems to be the standard norm now a days".

Unless someone has something really solid to go on these assumption and speculation do nothing more than cloud the waters.

Martin Fleming

I'm not going to say that any of the previous comments are wrong and I'm not trying to kick up dust here, but there's a fair amount of supposition in both these posts that I'm hoping the commenters can clarify.

In reviewing subsequent BOE minutes from Lake Schools, I didn't see where the position that Mr. Daulbaugh was non-renewed in has been filled. Is there the possibility that the position was completely eliminated? If so, does that change the perception of being "non-renewed"?

I haven't seen the employement application so I don't know if there was a specific question about leaving a prior position and the circumstances surrounding it. If someone has more direct knowledge about the application submitted, I'd be happy to hear about it.

I would be careful about the leaps that you are making in your comments here. The initial post makes a number of inferences without presenting a basis in fact. 1) We don't know what was on the application. 2) We don't know why the non-renewal ocurred. 3) We don't know what Mrs. Keller did or did not disclose.

The follow-up post jumps right into the assumption that the indivdual in question was "fired" and that there was a "bad track record". And, if I'm not mistaken, the principal at Campus resigned which opened up the position filled by Mr. Daulbaugh. The same with the high school and Defer Intermediate. If those weren't the "layoffs" referred to in post #1, then please clarify. I'm curious about what 3 "good administrators" were lost to layoffs.

The link provided above refers to the new hire for Campus Elementary principal, Mike Daulbaugh.

On the Streetsboro School website, Mrs. Keller is quoted as saying "Mike's (Daulbaugh) positive previous experiences as building principal and district-wide Central Office administrator were recognized by the interview panel, which included five parents, two support staff, four teachers and two principals." I would hope that this quote means that Mrs. Keller DID check references on this candidate, to verify those "positive previous experiences."

Did the applicant falsify the application documents? If so, there should be a penalty for that.

Did the superintendent know that the applicant had been non-renewed (fired) by the previous board? If so, the public deserves to know her reasons for hiring a person with a bad track record to be around our 2nd and 3rd grade youngsters.

Did the superintendent fail to check the references of the applicant? If so, there should be a penalty for that.

Did the Board know of the firing of the candidate yet hire him anyway, without a plan to see that whatever went wrong before would not happen here? If so, there should be a penalty for that.

Any way you answer these questions, the bottom line here is that the penalty is being forced upon the innocent teachers and students. Those students and teachers should not have to work under the leadership of a person who has been fired from another position, without some very good reasons for that situation. Especially since the district just lost 3 good administrators to lay-offs.

Out with the good and in with the bad?