1. Isn’t it amazing that after the chairman made it clear that the motion to move into executive session must include a description of the litigation, (eg: Goncalves vs Toensing) that that description would not have been part of the motion if not for a prompt from the chairman! It happens to be a FOI violation not to do so! This concern was brought to the attention of the previous Board who ignored the law, despite mandatory attendance at several FOI workshops that explained this regulation among many others! I hope that folks will go to the link mentioned above. At least anyone interested can follow the course of the case and where it seems to stand to date. It’s no wonder that Ms Goncalves is trying, presumably, for the second time, the first being in October, to seek a monetary settlement before the judicial system settles the case! I certainly hope that the Board’s lack of action after the executive session is an indicator that they’re not interested in such an offer, if indeed that was the content of the executive session. The Board’s next step comes in the spring of 2015 when they should decline to renew both the assistant superintendent and the superintent’s contract.

  2. Hi Marshall, wish I could take credit for that comment but I didn’t write it. As a professional writer, my personal policy is always to sign whatever I write. ~~ Gale Courey Toensing

  3. Wait! WHAT? Someone came out to check if you were listening to the exec session with your ear to the keyhole or a glass against the wall? And they actually told you that? That’s hilarious! The only people who would even think that are people who would do that themselves. BTW, were you able to retrieve the recorder taped under the conference table?
    ~~Gale Courey Toensing

Leave a Reply