aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Not the point. The KCMOSD played games with Independence SD concerning the door locks, building access, and so on. Both could fight it out all they want to in the courts but no matter what KCMOSD was not going to keep the buildings so give up the buildings and devote KCMOSD staff time to educating its students and maintaining the buildings it retains.
Giving away all of your leverage doesn't exactly make for a very effective bargaining position.
If somone wants to buy your car, do you hand them the keys and title before you sit down to talk about price and payment?
Last edited by LenexatoKCMO on Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Not the point. The KCMOSD played games with Independence SD concerning the door locks, building access, and so on. Both could fight it out all they want to in the courts but no matter what KCMOSD was not going to keep the buildings so give up the buildings and devote KCMOSD staff time to educating its students and maintaining the buildings it retains.
But the trouble is that does not apply in this situation. They were losing the buildings no matter what. What would they do with them if they retained ownership? Bus KCMOSD students to the ISD schools? The matter was already in the courts, possession would not matter nor affect the monetary award.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
The matter was already in the courts, possession would not matter nor affect the monetary award.
Apparently you haven't ever had to collect on many court judgements. The ruling is only half the battle. In order to get possession, the Court ordered Indep to escrow the difference. Had KCMO prevailed and the escrow wasn't in place, there may well have been years of struggle to get indep to ever pay on the judgement.
Personally, as a KCMO district resident, I am glad to see that they faught for their interests on this. Even thought it might not be successful, had they just rolled over, it would have been one more sign of the district being asleep at the wheel and aiming for the minimal effort. I just wish their PR folks would have been a bit more aggressive and effective.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
But the trouble is that does not apply in this situation. They were losing the buildings no matter what. What would they do with them if they retained ownership? Bus KCMOSD students to the ISD schools? The matter was already in the courts, possession would not matter nor affect the monetary award.
They were working a settlement. What incentive would there have been to settle with a more favorable outcome to the KCMOSD if they were already allowed possession of the buildings?
Evidently you are not familiar with government units paying judgements.
No matter what the KCMOSD fought a battle that did not have to be fought the way it was. Cooperating with the ISD would have meant KCMOSD employees would have had more time to work on the problems (and there are many) facing the SD in the upcoming school year.
It is a matter of establishing priorities and focusing your efforts on accomplishing your goals, which in this case would be educating the children in the KCMOSD.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Evidently you are not familiar with government units paying judgements.
Nothing would be preferable to escrow.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Cooperating with the ISD would have meant KCMOSD employees would have had more time to work on the problems (and there are many) facing the SD in the upcoming school year.
Were the district lawyers going to go decorate the bulletin board in Ms. Smith's 3rd grade classroom if they didn't have something else to work on?
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
It is a matter of establishing priorities and focusing your efforts on accomplishing your goals, which in this case would be educating the children in the KCMOSD.
Explain how negotiating a settlement for their property has any effect on educating the children remaining in the KCMOSD or in any way destracted from that goal.
When this topic was started there was all of the hassle about the KCMOSD restricting access to the buildings to the ISD. That is what my discussion was about, not about the lawyers.
At the same time those lawyers, though, are receiving instructions from the KCMOSD staff and that staff has time spent on updates and so on. So, while those staff members are in a two hour meeting with the lawyers they are not able to devote time to addressing the problems of the remaining buildings in the SD.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
I agree with AKP on this one. KCMOSD playing hide the key with ISD wasn't in the least bit productive and probably harmful to them in the eyes of the Judge. Not to mention potentially detrimental to the students in the ISD.
This district is a total joke. My wife went back to work here for the first time in a few years and she, nor I, could have imagined at how bad this district has gotten. It was bad 2 years ago the last time she quit, now, it's a total disgrace and she wants out and will never return to the district in its current state.
The KCMOSD now has to be one of the smallest and most underperforming big city districts in the nation.
It's time to dissolve this district. Independence took part of it and I think they will be ok, so let’s break it up and abolish the KCMOSD now. Just get rid of it. Fire every single person at that ridiculous HQ building. Get rid of every single principle and teacher in the district and start over under a new district or districts.
This is long overdue. There is nothing left to this district but the overpaid and arrogant people that run it and the bottom of the barrel demographics children that still attend it. It's nothing but a mess of politics and racial tension.
Dissolve the district into all the MO districts (JoCo will vastly benefit by not being involved, but we don't have a choice).
Have some friends working in the ISD and they can sure tell some stories about those buildings transferred to that district and a few other things thrown in. KCMOSD is one screwed up mess.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
This time the Kansas City school board has chosen a superintendent by a unanimous 9-0 vote.
This time the board’s choice isn’t dogged by unhappy endings in other districts.
The school board president in the Alabama district where John Covington got his first superintendent job says Kansas City has struck gold.
“It could well be the most fortunate day for Kansas City,” said Steve Foster of Fort Deposit, Ala.
And Stephanie Garcia, Covington’s current school board president in Pueblo, Colo., said her district did not want to see him go.
Stephanie Garcia should not worry, he's likely to be back in about 3-4 years.
Key line in the article: Covington would become Kansas City’s 26th superintendent since 1969 — a list that includes 13 acting or interim superintendents, two who served as co-leaders, and one who served twice.
Some people familiar with Covington’s work said he could sometimes be too forceful. He is demanding.
Even if you ignore the 13 interim superintendents, that's still 13 legitimate superintedents in 40 years (actually less than 40 years because the 13 interim superintendents led for some portion of that time), that's 3-4 years per superintendent on average. Little wonder the district cannot get its feet on the ground. The last statement, "some people think he can be too forceful" sets the stage for Covington's downfall with the hyper politically correct school board.
The Pitch has an article this week showing how the KCMO SD managed to drastically cut drop out rates this year. Apparently their old system of tracking students was from the 17th century, so students that had long ago left the district, or missing files were counted as "drop outs". They upgraded the system to reflect the district more accurately, and it shows the drop out rate is really like 10% rather than 40%.
