Horton used this town, this District, & his position of authority to the benefit of himself and his friends. He abused his power because he knew he could. His boss was the Board of Education and he knew what that meant: no oversight; total carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted because he knew he could get away …
Horton used this town, this District, & his position of authority to the benefit of himself and his friends. He abused his power because he knew he could. His boss was the Board of Education and he knew what that meant: no oversight; total carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted because he knew he could get away with it. He played this town & this Board like a fiddle.
So, now we find out through your good work, Tom, that the Admin and the BoE found out that these mind blowing personal charges were made—taken from the coffers of a public school district — and this Board has said nothing, to this day, to its constituents (us) about this very serious finding and about their remedial actions in response. Nor did they immediately call for that 360 degree audit of everything and anything related to finances and this district —to determine what if anything else Horton has taken from the kids of district 65. My stomach turns at the idea of what would be unearthed.
Bottom line is this: they should all resign immediately, they should call for the state to come in, and if they had a shred of integrity they would demand this a comprehensive full audit—immediately. But they won’t and back on the hamster wheel we will go…
The Board still won't even say his name in public when budgets come up. It's always "Previous Administrations" and so on. I get it that it's always been broken, but like, Goren wasn't using the P-Card to buy himself $250 dinners at Longhorn Steakhouses in Georgia after he quit.
Is there any law or policy that prohibits discussion of specific personnel in meetings like that? I wasn't sure when I heard them allude to discussing personnel in closed session.
It's the reverse of what you describe. They can talk about these things in public or they can talk about them in closed session. There's probably some need to discuss certain issues like litigation or personnel issues in closed session - and they are allowed to do so under the OMA. But there is nothing specifically preventing them from discussing this topic in public.
What an outrage!!
Horton used this town, this District, & his position of authority to the benefit of himself and his friends. He abused his power because he knew he could. His boss was the Board of Education and he knew what that meant: no oversight; total carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted because he knew he could get away with it. He played this town & this Board like a fiddle.
So, now we find out through your good work, Tom, that the Admin and the BoE found out that these mind blowing personal charges were made—taken from the coffers of a public school district — and this Board has said nothing, to this day, to its constituents (us) about this very serious finding and about their remedial actions in response. Nor did they immediately call for that 360 degree audit of everything and anything related to finances and this district —to determine what if anything else Horton has taken from the kids of district 65. My stomach turns at the idea of what would be unearthed.
Bottom line is this: they should all resign immediately, they should call for the state to come in, and if they had a shred of integrity they would demand this a comprehensive full audit—immediately. But they won’t and back on the hamster wheel we will go…
The Board still won't even say his name in public when budgets come up. It's always "Previous Administrations" and so on. I get it that it's always been broken, but like, Goren wasn't using the P-Card to buy himself $250 dinners at Longhorn Steakhouses in Georgia after he quit.
Is there any law or policy that prohibits discussion of specific personnel in meetings like that? I wasn't sure when I heard them allude to discussing personnel in closed session.
It's the reverse of what you describe. They can talk about these things in public or they can talk about them in closed session. There's probably some need to discuss certain issues like litigation or personnel issues in closed session - and they are allowed to do so under the OMA. But there is nothing specifically preventing them from discussing this topic in public.
Previous superintendents brought their own lunches to work. Think about that. Sigh.