New gig for MacHale

Strawberry Park principal filling superintendent role in Dolores

Advertisement

— For Mark MacHale, being a superintendent has always been in the back of his mind.

So when the opportunity presented itself in the right community and school district, MacHale jumped at the opportunity.

MacHale, who replaced John DeVincentis as Strawberry Park's principal, will leave the school district when his contract runs out at the end of the year to become the superintendent in Dolores.

"It's a small district that will allow me to use my skills as an instructional leader," MacHale said. "I'll be working with teachers and principals."

While MacHale's excited for the new opportunity, he called the move bittersweet.

"It's going to be tough," he said. "I have a lot of friends and I love the kids, the staff and my parents. Steamboat Springs is a great place. I have mixed feeling. I'm definitely going to miss the area and the people."

While MacHale hasn't signed a contract yet, he said both sides have agreed to the outlines of one. MacHale will finish out his contract in Steamboat before reporting to Dolores the first week of July.

Before working as Strawberry Park's principal, MacHale held the same title at a middle school and elementary school in the Garfield County RE-2 school district.

Comments

blahblah 7 years, 4 months ago

Glad to see the paper has standards regarding the posting of personal attacks, that is, unless they relate to Dr. D.

0

reallocal 7 years, 4 months ago

It is the superintendant's job, but what happens when she cannot get the board to approve anything? These contracts were narrowly approved this year, and, you guessed it, DeVincentis was the most vocal opponent of approving the contracts (basically the same ones he was under during his service as principle at SSE). Can't say I blame McHale for looking elsewhere for a board that supports the district staff, and a better position while he's at it. What a loss for our students.

0

neighbor 7 years, 4 months ago

I can comment on why those comments were removed, as I asked for their removal. The first comment was a fabrication of accusations which were unfounded. The second and the third (which was mine) were in support of MacHale. Both of these contained unacceptable slams on the comment writer. (Not that the first comment writer did not deserve it) All in all - not really fit for public eyes....more name calling and Jr. High antics of which I am not proud as they belong in the back alley after school.

So sorry Steamboat Springs-

0

Scott Stanford 7 years, 4 months ago

Neighbor, et al:

The problem with the second and third posts was that, even in defense of MacHale, they repeated the unsubstantiated personal attacks posted in the first...

Scott Stanford Editor

0

sbspowderhound 7 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps it was MacHale calling the newspaper and pretending he was a cop!

0

reallocal 7 years, 4 months ago

Wow, talk about smear campaigns...you guys have unsubstantiated, vindictive, unethically attacked two people in the short space of five comments (dw's didn't count). It's a record! I'm sorry to see him go...wonder what sort of internal politics motivated him to look outside our district (as if it's not obvious).

0

Magpie 7 years, 4 months ago

OK, back to the point. Whether you like MacHale or not, part of the reason he was looking for something else is because he was not notified if his job would be renewed for next year until late March (none of the principals were). By letting that process get so late in the school year, the district is just opening itself up to losing administrators who decide to look elsewhere "just in case" they are not renewed and end up finding a better position. I hope the district (as I understand it, this is the superintendent's work, not the board's) changes this process so the principals know earlier (like in January) if they will be renewed or not so it will inhibit their desire to look elsewhere (or hasten it and allow our district to look for a replacement earlier if that is the district's desire). Either way, all the district did was screw itself (and therefore the SPE students and Staff) by letting this process get so late. Now it is May and the district needs to find a principal for SPE for next year. Hope there are some good ones left.

And, personally, I think MacHale was doing a fine job at SPE.

0

reallocal 7 years, 4 months ago

The reason a multi-year contract is not offered to principles is a result of DeVincentis' behavior during his last years as principal of Strawberry Park Elementary. Because of his unprofessional public attacks against Simms and his inability to compromise with the board and work toward a viable solution, the board decided to move to yearly contracts in order to protect the district from a principle that could potentially undermine the well-being of the district for years.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 4 months ago

Reallocal- Where did you find that tidbit? It now seems that you are blaming all the world's woes on Dr. D., and I think it's starting to lessen any or your own credibility, if you cannot provide where that info came from.

Heresay is just another rumor mill. When was the contract for Principals changed? Who initiated the change of contract policy and where are the transcripts of this change that are readily available for all to see to support what you say? I've tried the School District's site and can't find copies of anything pertaining to that change.

0

reallocal 7 years, 4 months ago

This is not heresay, Matt (by the way, Matt or Matthew?). This policy change was initiated in 2005 following the public battle with Simms by the board to insure that they would have the option to not renew or buy out a contract if such a volitile and harmful situation ever arose again. You can pick up copies of minutes at the district's office (that pesky public records policy again). On the district's site, you can go to the administration's page and administrative policies. All of the policies that reflect a pay-for-performace bonus were also changed at this time. The BOE would not state that he specifically was the reason for these changes (executive meetings for personnel issues, remember?), but do you think this is really a coincidence? I'm sure that, if it were not unethical and at DeVincentis' expense for them to do so, many members of that board would confirm that his behavior was the motivating factor behind these changes.

While I am certainly not saying that DeVincentis is culpable for "all the world's woes," (or even all of them in the district), I think that it is important that people are aware of the extent of his effect on the district. His influence within the district has cost thousands of taxpayer dollars, qualified and dedicated employees, and countless hours that should have been spent focusing on the education of our children. He has been the common denominator in nearly every volitile public (and private) problem that the district has experienced in the past few years. This is information that the public should have.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.