opinion

Letter to the editor: Not transparent on Glass

Posted 3/13/19

On March 7 the Jeffco School Board met and once again violated their obligation to transparency. The agenda contained an extension to Superintendent Glass’s contract. The contract had not been …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Username
Password
Log in

Don't have an ID?


Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.

Non-subscribers

Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.

If you made a voluntary contribution of $25 or more in Nov. 2018-2019, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access Includes access to all websites


Our print publications are advertiser supported. For those wishing to access our content online, we have implemented a small charge so we may continue to provide our valued readers and community with unique, high quality local content. Thank you for supporting your local newspaper.
opinion

Letter to the editor: Not transparent on Glass

Posted

On March 7 the Jeffco School Board met and once again violated their obligation to transparency. The agenda contained an extension to Superintendent Glass’s contract. The contract had not been published in the March 7, 2019 board documents; also, a new agenda item is not supposed to be voted on the first time it is discussed. The board had discussed the extension of the contract in an executive session (read…secret meeting). They considered this the first discussion. As many of us that would like to see some metrics in the contract for student improvement, we would wish to comment on it. Why was this opportunity denied to the public?
Instead of a real discussion the board had a little lovefest conversation about how happy they were with the way things are going and stated the vote would be the same a month from now. Why is that grounds not to give the concerned public time to comment on the contract? Why does this fly in the face of some declining scores?
Apparently, the board does not understand Roberts Rules of Order. They had a motion and could not figure out how to postpone the vote until the next month, even though a couple of board members had these concerns. Have they not heard of withdrawing a motion?
To add insult to injury, the contract contains automatic extensions. Is this transparency?Wouldn’t postponing the vote for one month of public comment have been in everyone’s best interest?
William Hineser,
Arvada

Comments

Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.