Sam, if you are elected, would you buy that there were only 12 applicants for the top job at one of the top districts in the country? Or, do you think they were just going through the motions with this expensive process and already knew what they were going to do? Don't you think the taxpayers deserve to know what really happened?

How about what's best for the children? They are the most overlooked in this process, I must say.

Offhand, I believe the last three board turnovers or so have been parents. They're the ones who brought us such standouts as Stewart Weinberg, David Benson, and the current panel of administrators who have performed questionably on a number of subjects. What grades are your children in?

I think the last new member is a former teacher and college professor who taught education. Personally, I thought Benson did a great job of balancing the budget. He was able to reach out to taxpayers who have opposed the past few tax increases and get them to support a bond issue, something his protege who replaced him did not do. I was disappointed when he left. The short vesting period for Superintendents is a problem with the game of musical chairs we see in many districts. Once you qualify for a pension in one state, it is possible to qualify for another pension in another state and double, or even triple dip. Great for the Supt., not good for continuity. If I were on the board, I would find the best possible candidate. Vet them thoroughly and sign them to a long term contract with penalties for leaving early. I agree with Sam that until the parents get back involved, this board will continue down its merry path. The parents have been galvanized into a voting block that is controlled by the administration. While we have over 20,000 voters, given the historical voting numbers, and strategic election scheduling (like the last one that was scheduled while most private schools were on spring break), it is difficult for anyone not blessed by the school industrial complex to win. I think the past year has shown the district is out of control and many parents are no longer drinking the kool-aid. We need more board members who bring business experience to balance the teachers.

Flyoverland, I am a parent and take offense to your comment that "the parents have been galvanized into a voting block that is controlled by the administration". I am an intelligent person who makes my own decisions about my children, their education, and am able to decide how I vote based on my beliefs and what I see may or may not be the right direction for the district that I live in. Just because I choose to send my children to public school does not mean that I am controlled by the administration.

I am not sure why you are offended as I didn't say every parent votes in the block, I only said that the block exists. Certainly, you cannot be a parent and not be aware of the efforts that have been made to organize parents to win tax increase elections since they lost in 2004.

Ashley
are you aware of the number of committees and other ostensibly open opportunities where people of capable abilities have applied to volunteer their time and been told that their input was not needed. Those who have been chosen for these blue ribbon committees are hand picked district favorites who feel that the administration can do no wrong...this is beginning to wear thin on the public as witnessed by the varying response to proposed bond issues. While it was likely smart to purchase back Westminster Christian, but to not be able to operate it shows the extent of the planning and indecision.
It is my understanding that Dr Weinberg was a compromise candidate after the better candidates got away. This time the board is over compensating and making a knee jerk reaction, again a mistake.

ps
my guess is Lamberson read the writing on the wall and decided to pass. Interesting that he would, after being vetted into the final group, change his mind over scheduling issues. Either questions his motives and abilities, or his perception......

Flyoverland, of course there are efforts to organize parents/district supporters just as there are efforts to organize all of the anti public school supporters to vote no, no matter what the issue is. Jumpin Jack, Dr. Lamberson had many issues in his current district - do a search on him and read about the controversy - even parents of that district encouraging each other to contact the Ladue School Board about their concerns. He also would have been double dipping - receiving his pension in IL and a salary here. I am happy he dropped out of the race.

"If I were on the board, I would find the best possible candidate. Vet them thoroughly and sign them to a long term contract with penalties for leaving early."

Flyoverland - Would you sign such a contract that bound you to an employer, yet at the same time, didn't pay you absolute top dollar? Didn't think so. You can't have it both ways - get someone on the cheap, yet bind them to the district should a better opportunity come along.

Also, anyone who thinks the parents of this district are controlled by the board or the administration or the teachers obviously has no idea what goes on in the district. Try looking into what happened when parents saw what was going to happen with the Westminster property and an absolute parent rebellion forced the whole direction of the project to shift 180 degrees. Contributed mightily to a board member losing her seat when she stood in the way, too.

The parents of the district are not sheep, and anyone who thinks so takes them on at their peril.

to second CreveCoeurDad's point, flyoverland, I don't think you understand the parents of kids who actually go to Ladue. You don't have a student at Ladue and as a result, are more concerned with how much money your going to have to pay. Last year one of the cuts Ladue was scheduled to make was getting rid of one of the two college counselors. This decision would have been awful for the students at Ladue as both college counselors are amazing at what they do. The parents of Ladue students quickly went after the district for suggesting the cut and as a result, neither of the counselors was let go. Again, the parents aren't aimlessly following this board.

Not only did I sign a long-term contract with my employer, I honored it. At the time, I was in the lowest quadrant of CEO's in STL in terms of salary. My board, which was made up of shareholders, not butt-kissers, demanded its CEO take a low salary and take his upside in stock. If they won, I won. Best thing I ever did. How else would I be able to afford to come here every day and irritate you? By the way, who said anything about paying a low salary? I would be willing to pay a higher salary if we could find someone who was more financially astute. "At my peril?" What's that supposed to mean?

And there you have it - you had an upside in exchange for a low salary. How is the district supposed to do that? They can't exactly offer stock options. Give him a percentage of every dollar he cuts? Then the goal is to cut the budget, not provide a quality education. Move ACT scores higher in exchange for a bonus? A fool's errand when the district is already #1 or #2 in the state. When you come up with something viable, let us know.

One would assume that any superintendent was "financially astute". It's kind of in the job description. We shouldn't hire them if they aren't.

The "peril" comment was directed at the board and the administration, not you. Sheesh, what an ego!

So, you believe that one of the top districts in the U.S. advertises its plum, six-figure job, in the middle of a recession and we only got 12 people interested and that the two top candidates (other than our local applicant) were from a rural Missouri district and a working class Chicago district? i find that unbelievable. Maybe these guys are great, I have no idea. However, neither district seems to have much in common with Ladue, at least from what I can see? I care about whether this was a process that was pre-ordained and whether the board was just going through the motions, as so many seem to believe? I have no problem with the board deciding to hire whomever it wants. I would have a problem with a board that is constantly preaching the poor mouth spending tens of thousands of dollars if it had already made up its mind to create positive optics. The board still has not come clean about what happened with its former Supt. The attempt its president gave to Elliot Davis was not very informative, in my opinion.

Curious! So the timeframes set up by the board (by their announcement dates, due dates, etc.) made it difficult for anyone out of state to have even applied in the first place? Were they aware of this, or was it not a concern? Questions that will probably not be answered.

So, Bill, let's just say that the Headmaster of Phillips Academy Andover tossed his hat in the ring. Now, he's living in Mass. but here's a chance to get the leader of one of the top five schools in the country. Are you telling me the people of Ladue would not have enough juice to move a few bureaucrats in Jefferson City? Calls would be made and whatever red tape was in the way would be summarily cut. If you are doing a good job of vetting your candidate, you would not worry whether they had their Missouri papers in hand, you would already know all the requirements were met and you would hire the person contingent on receipt. There is no reason we need to rush just because the former Supt took a hat. We have an interim person in the office and from what I see the schools are open every day. A new person could start say June 1st which would be plenty of time even if the clerks issuing permits don't respond quicker than the time frame you describe. If this is the mindset of the board and you may be correct this is how they think, I think this is a clear example of why we need more creative people on the board who understand how to make things happen and not just accept "that's the way we've always done it."

So, you agree this seems hasty?