gargantua wrote:When somebody screws up, is embarrassed about the screwup, and tries to deflect questions about whether or not there was a screwup and who is responsible, I wouldn't call it arrogance.
But isn't it arrogant to insist that we not review the process but, instead, celebrate the positives of the remaining candidate?
Far too many "electeds" believe they're also thought leaders. They are not.
Agreed. This is bad juju, man. Out of a "nationwide" search completed by an Iowa-based headhunter we get a choice of the current superintendent of Springfield and the Chief of Instruction of Chicago Schools? Oh wait, the super from Springfield is kind of a crook but Springfield Schools can’t fire him without a hefty contract buyout?
I can just imagine that phone call to Springfield Public Schools:
“Hi! This is Rich from “Super-Rad Superintendents,” where we specialize in finding Superintendents! Is this the Springfield Public School District?”
“Great! So we hear that you’d like to unload your current superintendent for a newer model with less mob debts. Well I’ve got good news, I have a motivated buyer on the line from Madison, Wisconsin, for a small fee we’d be more than willing to handle all the details of polishing this turd and convincing them to buy in! Sound good?”
“Great! So we’ve go a deal! We’ll send over all the necessary paperwork, and be sure not to answer any specific questions about the super when Madison comes a calling about references. Have great day!”
Maybe we should keep taking resumes.