Mike Johnson: The entire story

Advertisement

Here is a simple fact to consider: When school boards give a directive to a superintendent, it must be done in a public meeting. A directive cannot be given to a superintendent in executive session - secret session, as the Pilot & Today likes to say. A school board may discuss a directive in executive session, but there must be a school board vote, held in a public forum, regarding any official directive that is to be given to a superintendent.

There is no public record of a former school board, or the current board, voting to direct Donna Howell to provide any of those boards with the DeVincentis e-mails. Howell has said that she does not know anything about how the DeVincentis e-mails got to the Pilot & Today. Here are some questions to consider:

1. Who made the decision to retrieve the DeVincentis e-mails off the server, and why was that decision made? As superintendent of the school district, does Howell know anything about who went into the e-mail server and retrieved the DeVincentis e-mails? As superintendent of the school district, shouldn't she be aware of this type of activity?

2. Are our children's personal records safe from prying eyes? How much of our children's and their families' information is contained in computer files on district computers? Does our district outsource or contract outside the district any services that place personal information in insecure computer databases? Are the personnel records of school district employees safe from prying eyes?

3. Did Pat Gleason tell any district employees to go into the e-mail server to retrieve the DeVincentis e-mails? This is not likely, as a district employee would not likely do this unless directed by a supervisor. Did Gleason go into the server and retrieve the e-mails himself? This is not likely either, as the average board member does not possess the skill set to access e-mails from the district server nor would a board member have access to the district's e-mail server under normal board member duties, responsibilities or privileges.

4. Did any former School Board members direct Howell to retrieve the e-mails? Did any former School Board members direct any district employees to retrieve the e-mails? District employees are not likely to follow such a directive if it did not come from a supervisor. Did any former School Board members retrieve the e-mails?

5. Who made the decision to tell someone to retrieve the DeVincentis e-mails? Why were those e-mails retrieved? When were they retrieved?

6. Have any other district employees' e-mails been retrieved? Wouldn't you like to have these questions answered? Wouldn't you like to know the rest of this story? Is the Pilot & Today providing you with the entire story?

Mike Johnson

Steamboat Springs

Comments

another_local 7 years, 7 months ago

Some interesting points that I would like to see answered. However, none of them change the fact that Dr D is unsuitable for an elected position of responsibility and must go.

0

Books 7 years, 7 months ago

Another

On Dr. D. I have known Dr. D. for at least ten years now and I haven't seen any reason to agree with you. I think that's why he still has so many supporters. Many people have just never seen this man to be the evil monster described in the newspaper. He has made some mistakes as we all have, but I just don't see a good enough reason to get rid of him.

0

mom 7 years, 7 months ago

Mike brings up the questions I also have. I do not feel the Pilot will cover the entire story, as it rarely does when it comes to the board or Dr. D. I have not known Dr. D as long as Books, but I do know him and support him. He does not need to go nor does the current board. The old board needs to move on.

0

JQPUBLIC 7 years, 7 months ago

Everyone is concerned about someone retrieving emails from the server, it's not impossible that these emails were already in hard copy from the time they were written. Either way, they're out there, quit trying to kill the messenger and deal with the messages.

0

dogd 7 years, 7 months ago

JQ: Some of us can't and won't get over the fact that the "messenger" was a crook, at least in the ethical sense, and the ethical outrage being paraded by the committee of midgets is a tempest in a teapot. Banish these strident fools when they demand your signature. JQ, I don't deal with crooks.

0

another_local 7 years, 7 months ago

You must not know the folks who are working on this. Whether you agree or dissagree, "crooks", "fools" and "midgets" they are not. In case you are interested, (an to respond to questions posted elsewhere) I am not someone working on this or related to any interested party. I did sign the petition the first chance I got.

Books, Dr D may still have you as a supporter, but his most effective supporters from the past are now leading this effort. What does that say to you? They knew him then but they don't now?

0

elkwatch 7 years, 7 months ago

another_local, my mistake on thinking you were someone else. It just looked that way for a minute. I did look at other comments of yours as you suggested and could see that clearly. But it certainly looks like some of the folks involved in the recall have in fact acted as "crooks" in the way they a)got the e-mails without following the proper procedure, b)saved them for two years and didn't tell the current board, and c)gave them to the paper, violating district rules. It looks like a vendetta (and attempted coup) of their own.

As far as Dr. D's former supporters, JIm Swiggart does not represent the Parents for Dr. D. committee. There were about twenty in that group and I know quite a few who are against the recall. I only read that maybe 3 or 4 wanted him to resign. Swiggart is the only one helping to "lead" the recall.

The way I see it, people are divided on this depending on their basic reaction to the e-mails. Some just can't get beyond what he wrote and think he has to go. Others see it as not such a big deal, angry, joking things that were not good but should have stayed private. I admit I fall into the second category but I respect that others see it differently. The crowning factor for me is the sleazy methods of Gleason and crew who tried to force their way by using the e-mails as a weapon. Those tactics just should not win.

0

Books 7 years, 7 months ago

Another

Three or four supporters out of twenty. I have spoken to several of them and they still support Dr. D. It looks more to me like the lynch mob bunch is using a few former supporters to try to gain some credibility. As for signing the recall, I signed it four times already!

Also I am searching for the proper word to describe a man who stabbed his fellow board members in the back, delivered sensitive school district documents to the newspaper without authorization, all in a strange attempt smear a fellow board member who didn't agree with him, then delivered his own picture to the paper and proclaimed himself a hero. What do we call him? I like "St. Patrick".

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.