Disappointed in board

EDITOR:

After attending the school board meeting on Aug.13, I have to admit that I am disappointed. Whether or not I agree with the outcomes, my disappointment lies directly with the Douglas County School District Board of Trustees.

I'm especially disappointed with a school board member who rolled eyes, tossed hair, threw down a pen, left the proceedings to carry on a sidebar conversation, and accepted a note from the superintendent during discussion of the superintendent's performance. These behaviors lacked the professionalism we expect of our school board members.

I'm especially disappointed with board members who ignored the plight of 15 or more district employees who filed statements of non-support of the superintendent. Some board members took the time to find out what those legitimate concerns were, but for the most part, the concerns were ignored. It was stated by a board member that there have been many instances of this type of discord over the past 31 years. Does this mean that the concerns of district employees should be ignored?

I'm especially disappointed with the school board member who justified not speaking to these employees after discussing the situation with the superintendent, and the two who came to the conclusion that by ignoring the employees and their concerns, they couldn't be accused of retribution. (Huh?)

I'm especially disappointed with school board members that tried to lay blame for all of the district woes at the feet of district employees, stating that they weren't giving the superintendent a chance. Three years seems to be a reasonable amount of time to forge bonds between a new superintendent and employees at every level.

But then some of the board surprised me. They took responsibility for the lack of direction to the superintendent. These school board members went on record to blame the entire school board for not doing their duty. According to them, the school board failed to give the superintendent a firm course of action for running the school district.

My initial reaction was that the admissions were to misdirect the debate in a more favorable direction. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe there truly was a lack of direction from the board for the last three years. If that is the case, I expect that those school board members who admitted to not providing the proper leadership to the superintendent and consequently our school district will not run for re-election when their terms expire. Their lack of action is a dereliction of duty.

Nancy Hamlett

Minden