Superintendent’s Report Card

report cardWhat does it take to get “less than high marks?”

Isn’t it ironic that Superintendent Bruce Thomas got high marks on his annual review by the school board?  I would think the main goal for Bruce Thomas was to get the school bond issue approved. We all know that the school bond issue was resoundingly rejected in last fall’s election by the taxpayers of ISD 318.
This was the main reason Bruce Thomas was hired and he failed in epic proportions.  How much money was spent by the proponents of the school bonding bill?  What were the money sources?  How many man-hours were wasted on this effort?  Could there have been a more effective use of this time?
This issue drove a huge wedge between the school board and its constituents. It will take years for the wedge to fade away.
I’ve been involved in receiving and giving annual reviews.  The first thing to be considered is the status of the annual goals? Were the individual goals achieved? It would be helpful to know the goals for current year and the previous year.  Did the school board set his annual goals?
An annual review is a key item in evaluating a professional’s performance.  If there is no constructive criticism and key goals are failed to be addressed, the person undergoing a performance review is being handed a dis-service.   If you are an elected official executing this type of performance review, you have also failed your constituents.

Question(s) of the Week: Read On

Questions to Ponder for the “Grand Gathering”.

1. Is the process to pick a city or county administrator flawed by vendor input and sponsorships to the League of Minnesota Cities or Association of Minnesota Counties?

2. Should the County and Blandin Foundation stop funding the IEDC? Are they aware of any influence pedaling to other sponsors? Has IEDC improved the economics of the area?

3. Should the County of Itasca put the choice of Elected Executive on the ballot as the form of County government?

4. With the highest unemployment in the state and the lowest average wage has the Blandin Foundation been a detriment to the area?

Taxpayers irate over $3 million Cloquet schools blunder

Vote NO on the November 3 bond referendum.

1000px-No_sign2.svg[1]

Vote NO on the November 3 bond referendum.
Because the Board has NO Plan to solve the many problems facing the school except to build new schools.
The board has No Facts to support its position.
The board has No Concerns about the existing imminent tax burdens of school district tax payers.
There have been No Answers to questions raised by the voters.
Board has No Dialogue with the taxpayers on alternatives to spending $80,000,000.
There is No Guarantee that academic performance will improve.
The Board has No Clue on how to proceed.
Just vote NO on Nov. 3