I Had Informed You Thusly

Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

I had long since given up my efforts to effect the change needed to improve the quality of education being provided in the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District.  For as long as Carol Woodbury is at the helm of this district, I knew there was absolutely no hope.  Our school district would continue to fail.  Our taxes would continue to rise.  Fewer students would attend their home district and we would continue to pay disproportionately high out of school sending tuition (sixth highest in the state of Massachusetts again this year, almost $2.2m and beat out only by Springfield, Worcester, Pittsfield, Fitchburg and Greenfield – fine company to keep, eh?).  Taxpayers would continue to be deceived and manipulated.  The School Committee would continue to drink up every lie that Carol Woodbury poured for them.

As long as the current School Committee members continue to show the astounding level of complete ineptitude, incompetence and ignorance that led them to sentence our district to another six years of imprisonment with Carol Woodbury as the Warden – I knew there was no more point in continuing any efforts to shine a light on the dirty little secrets this superintendent has kept.

Woodbury has been hiding situations from the public (and from her own School Committee) for as long as she been on the job here.  Does anyone remember when the former Director of Finance proffered his resignation with several months’ notice, but she kept it a secret during one of the most financially turbulent times in recent history until days before he left?  Does anyone remember the Finance Subcommittee being formed on the QT and outside the purview of the open meeting law?  Does anyone remember the secretive, sudden and undisclosed meeting to offer an unprecedented six-year contract to the superintendent?  Does anyone remember the many political finance law violations committed by this superintendent and acknowledged by the Attorney General?  The list truly goes on and on.

Woodbury has consistently stooped to any level to cover up, deceive, obfuscate or misrepresent any truth which may threaten yet another Prop 2.5 override

What now do we say to the parents of vulnerable young girls who are justifiably concerned that some lecherous, disgusting, immoral and unethical teacher will prey on their child?  I know Woodbury well enough to know that she will meekly hide behind the fact that, in this instance, the victim was 16 and therefore it is considered consensual (are we back in the days when victims are victimized all over again by the perpetrators who say they asked for it or they deserve it?).  Will that comfort the parents of the victim of Mr. Tierney or of other girls who may fall prey to other dishonorable teachers who are, as a matter of policy, openly permitted to take advantage of and abuse their positions of authority with students?

It wouldn’t comfort me.

This superintendent has been protecting teachers who are the most unscrupulous, most abusive and who believe they are above policies, rules and laws since the sad, fateful day that she was hired to protect the best interests of our children.  That Carol Woodbury places her own interests and protecting her own hide well before any modicum of thought about protecting the children in her charge is nothing less than criminal.  There are plenty of great teachers in the district and we are lucky to have them.  But even those teachers, if they dare to speak against Woodbury, are not safe from her lack of scruples.  Unfortunately, it seems that the only teachers she protects are the ones who deserve it the least.  The rest have to bear the burden of being associated with Carol Woodbury and her ilk.

She counts on parents getting so worn down from fighting her that they finally just give up and take their children elsewhere (hence the high out-of-school sending tuition paid to other public schools).  She knows that students are only in the district for a certain number of years and that if she can wear their parents down enough, their children will either leave or graduate out of the district and the parents will not have the fortitude to continue the fight.  She has a very nasty and underhanded group of followers (Support Our Schools, DY Schools are Great, to name a few) who will stop at nothing to shut up the voices of anyone brave enough to stand up against her.  These people have been known to go so far as to reach out to the employers of someone who spoke out about the miserable performance of the district in an effort to impact that person’s livelihood.  They stop at nothing and it is at Carol Woodbury’s bidding.

I know this because I am one of those parents.  I did my research.  I found facts upon which I based my opinions.  And then I spoke out and I spoke out loudly.  I made waves.  I fought the good fight.  I utilized every means available to me to get my findings known to the public – from speaking at school committee meetings and town meetings, to publishing this blog, to having letters to the editor of the Cape Cod Times published, to supporting qualified candidates for the school committee.

I have always said that the truth stands on its own and will, in good time, show to be true north on the compass.

How far does this superintendent have to go in the abuse, neglect, victimization, exploitation and indifference of the children who are unfortunate enough to be in her charge before she is forced to pay for her deceit and injustice?

And what of the School Committee member who is related to the perpetrator of what any decent citizen will consider to be a crime? The law may consider it consensual, and if this were between a nineteen-year-old boy and this sixteen-year-old student, we’d all probably agree. But when a teacher of any age takes advantage of his student and doesn’t have the sense God gave a billy-goat to stop from crossing this line, it may not be punishable by law but it certainly should not have been rewarded with protection and pay and more opportunity. Are we to believe that School Committee Member Tierney knew nothing of his family member’s situation? It seems reasonable to assume that he and Woodbury were in cahoots in this cover-up.

To the School Committee members who adamantly support this horrible woman, I again say, “Shame on you.  Shame.  On.  You.”  You’d better hope none of your children or grandchildren are destined to do time under Warden Woodbury.  How well do you all sleep at night knowing what you’ve done to the taxpayers of Dennis and Yarmouth?

To parents in these two towns, I implore you to find a way to place your beloved children in better care than leaving them at the doorstep of an abuser who cares no more for their well-being than Woodbury does for the truth.

To the parents of the victim of this particular incident, I’m profoundly sorry that you were so egregiously failed by a teacher, administrators, a superintendent, a long-unneeded union, elected officials and an environment of corruption which not only tolerates such atrocities but celebrates them with smug satisfaction.

Carol Woodbury has been reaping the profit of her over-inflated salary for the last decade and she will undoubtedly retire reaping the benefit of her undeserved and excessive pension for the rest of her life.  Next to the infliction of pain and unwarranted shame she has exacted on the parents of Mr. Tierney’s victim – this is perhaps the biggest injustice of all.

To Carol Woodbury, since you know that your feeble-minded school committee members do not have the backbone, the fortitude, the gumption to publicly admit that they have wronged the communities who elected them to serve, is there any hope that you will dig deep – or perhaps as is a more feasible option, look outside of yourself to someone with scruples and ethics to role model, and resign?  Is it too much to hope that you have finally sated your bottomless hunger for the destruction and deterioration of the fiber of education and the well-being of the children in Dennis and Yarmouth?

Those were rhetorical questions.  I know the answers and maintain appropriately low expectations.

Where is the leadership?

The measurable results of the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District under the current school district “regime” and the current Superintendent’s reign (since 2005) are:

• Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District is categorized as the only Level 3 district on Cape Cod.
• 12% of the population of students (443 out of a possible 3,642) elect to attend charter or other better performing public school districts – a steady annual increase since 2005.
• Over half of the students who exit our district do so at the high school level, a clear indicator of concerns over performance and safety.
• The district’s budget has increased each year, with the exception of one year of level funding – for which the voters fought long and hard.
• This district performs worse than competing districts in 13 out of 21 categories of measurable performance indicators.
• This district pays almost $2 million in school choice tuition and over $1.5 million in charter school tuition.
• This district has significantly worse out of school suspension statistics than neighboring districts.

The Superintendent will attempt to refute these facts with a plethora of manipulated data which is difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce.  She consistently states that facts do not tell the whole story or that the vast amount of fact-based data which can be readily retrieved from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (“DESE”) website ( http://www.doe.mass.edu/ ) are not accurate, change continuously or misrepresent the truth.  The Superintendent presents data which is partially redacted, selectively chosen and manipulated to her advantage.  Managing and manipulating the data may be to her advantage, but it is not to our students’ advantage!  Again, I say that the truth should be good enough and, if it isn’t, then take action to make it better.

First and foremost, if we are to believe that the DESE’s data is somehow an inaccurate depiction of the true state of our district, then surely the same must be true for every other district – so we must conclude that the DESE’s data shows meaningful comparisons.  And perhaps more importantly, we must not forget that the DESE does not make these numbers up on its own.  The DESE compiles its data from the information reported to it by this district’s administration.

The School Committee prefers to believe what the Superintendent presents, without question.  I have to wonder if any of them have ever taken the time to go to the DESE website and see for themselves that all is not as it is being presented.  At what point does the leadership of this district begin to face facts?  You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge.  It is the responsibility of the Superintendent of our schools to acknowledge the truth about the problems in this district.  Failure is no accident.  It is the responsibility of the Superintendent to set a plan into action that will change the outcome because awareness without action is worthless.

It is the responsibility of the School Committee to hold the Superintendent accountable for the failing trends of the district.

Henry Kissinger said, “The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.”

Ross Perot said, “Lead and inspire people. Don’t try to manage and manipulate people. Inventories can be managed but people must be led.”

Where is our leadership?

“Here she comes”

This is what Superintendent Carol Woodbury whispered to Chairman Jim Dykeman as I approached the microphone.  Her comment was most definitely not meant for public consumption; however, if one was watching the televised broadcast of last night’s School Committee meeting, her comment was clearly audible.  This just goes to show how much preparation the Superintendent puts into refuting the few courageous citizens who would dare to confront her with facts and truths to make sure their comments will not be heard.

I’m sorry to disappoint the Superintendent, but I’m nothing if not a fast learner.  I have long since learned that School Committee meetings are exactly the LAST place anyone should go to make open comments unless those comments fall entirely in line with the Superintendent’s way of thinking.  Take, for instance, the comments of one of our Yarmouth neighbors who was openly harassed and harangued when she attempted to address the severely deficient performance in this district.  Anyone who chooses to believe that performance is not related to the budget is suffering from advanced dementia!  The fact that our district underperforms in so many categories (and, in fact, we have the dubious honor of qualifying as a Level 3 district!) is directly and specifically related to the vast percentage of our students who choose to attend other schools and that means that we are losing more and more revenue every year.

The public comment period (Let’s be honest, shall we?  There is no real “public comment period”.  There is only a period within which citizens will be allowed to speak if they are going to say exactly what the Superintendent and most of the School Committee wish to hear.  Anyone who dares to challenge what the Superintendent presents is mightily quashed, immediately.) began with a very large group of citizens, led by Wayne Bergeron (one of the Dennis Selectmen), approaching the microphone.  Mr. Bergeron proceeded to lecture the audience about how everyone should be civil and respectful and how it is okay to disagree but not to be disagreeable.  Such a nice, kind, compassionate concept, isn’t it?  Well, it seemed like a great idea until a citizen from Yarmouth took the seat at the microphone and dared to point out the trends in declining revenues, increasing expenses and failing performance.  At this point, the Superintendent interrupted the citizen with a snide and immature comment “Thank you for denigrating the district publicly . . .” which brought about a supportive but ugly mob response from all over the room as they booed and yelled out against this woman’s comments!  So much for civility and compassion.  I sat behind one [thug] individual (he sat in the second seat of the third row on the stage side of the room – you know who you are) and I witnessed this supposed grown man acting like no more than a playground bully.  The ugliness was palpable and disgusting.  I have never before witnessed such a disgusting, outrageous and immature display of disrespect.

It isn’t a surprise to me that the Chairman would do absolutely nothing to stop the imbeciles who had taken over the meeting, nor would he call the Superintendent “out of order” (which she absolutely was – she did not have the floor and she was not asked a question) because the only time he ever speaks up against anyone is when someone says something that refutes or challenges the Superintendent’s position.  It was blatantly obvious that the Superintendent had primed the Chairman prior to the meeting that she did not want anyone to be allowed to say anything she wouldn’t like (hence, her whispering to him “here she comes” as I approached the microphone).

One might think that all of these truths are getting to her.

The injustice that is done (yet again) is that the public is NOT allowed to speak to the issues that plague this district.  A school district cannot separate performance from the budget.  They are profoundly linked.

The public is again forced to swallow the bitter taste of the Superintendent’s hypocrisy at a public meeting.  The first half hour of the public hearing on the proposed budget was spent listening to the Superintendent go on and on about the district’s performance (and again, her “presentation” was NOT on the agenda)!!!!!

I guess what’s good for the goose is most definitely NOT good for the gander here at DY.

The fact of the matter is that the truth should be good enough.  If the truth were good enough and if there was nothing to hide, the Superintendent would welcome open discussion about the areas where our district is failing and how those failures continue to cost our taxpayers more money while the children in our towns are robbed of a competitive education.

The public comment period at School Committee meetings is a tasteless joke!  Citizens are required to speak only to issues which are on the agenda for that meeting and, if they wish to have something placed on the agenda for discussion, they must go through “proper channels” to have it so placed.  I requested that an item be placed on the agenda for discussion nearly six months ago, and it still has not been addressed.  I’m sure it is no coincidence that it is because I wish to discuss the public comment period!  Hmmm.  No accident, I’m thinking.

Contradictions and Reality

At the School Committee meeting Wednesday night (1/19/11) with the Selectman and Finance Committees of Dennis and Yarmouth, Superintendent Woodbury spent a great deal of time espousing all of the phenomenal achievements of the DY district.  She told everyone how great our students scored on SATs (better than state and national averages) and she showed MCAS scores that have steadily increased nearly every year since inception.

Today, I decided to do a little research of my own.  The DESE website shows different numbers for Grade 10 MCAS results than Ms. Woodbury stated.  The DESE reported that students who scored Proficient or Advanced on English Language Arts was 84 – not 86, as Ms. Woodbury reported.  DESE reported that students who scored Proficient or Advanced on Math was 79 – not 83, as Ms. Woodbury reported.  DESE reported that students who scored Proficient or Advanced on Science was 82 – not 84, as Ms. Woodbury reported.

I haven’t been able to locate the 2010 SAT scores for our district because the DESE only shows the 2009 scores.  Interestingly, the 2009 scores are significantly lower than the 2010 scores (Reading was 488 in ’09, compared to 516 in ’10; Math was 480 in ’09, compared to 529 in ’10; and Writing was 501 in ’09, compared to 507 in ’10) – so apparently, during the year that our district dropped to a Level 3 district, our SAT scores show a meteoric and remarkable improvement!  I cannot contest the numbers because 2010 average scores are not reported yet; however, given the discrepancies I continuously find in Ms. Woodbury’s reported numbers, it does give me pause.

After Ms. Woodbury finished her presentation, Mr. Edwards asked her to clarify what it means to be a “Level 3” school.  Contrary to all of the information she had just shared about the multitude of ways in which the district is outperforming state and national averages – she said that the district is Level 3 because our schools haven’t performed well enough for state standards [I’m paraphrasing here] and that, as a result, the DESE – or actually the DSAC (District and School Assistance Center) are now “our best friends”.

Again, this is concrete evidence of the district’s inability to meet (and certainly to exceed) the state’s thresholds for performance.

I have put together the following list of measurable performance indicators which I found most interesting.  Only Harwich and Provincetown have lower graduation rates than DY.  Only Mashpee and Provincetown have higher drop-out rates, and DY is tied with Provincetown for the worst attendance rates on the Cape.  Given all of this, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that DY has the lowest matriculation rate to 4-year colleges.  We are worse than state averages in EACH category.

	Graduation Rate	Drop-Out Rate	Attendance Rate	Matriculation to 4-yr College
STATE AVERAGE	81.5	9.3	94.6	57%
Barnstable	81.6	8.3	93.6	52%
Bourne	84	7.4	94.4	61%
Chatham	87.9	8.6	95.2	59%
Dennis-Yarmouth	78	10.3	93.1	48%
Falmouth	81.8	7.8	93.8	57%
Harwich	77.6	10.3	94	61%
Mashpee	79.5	15.4	95.1	57%
Nauset	89.4	3	93.2	60%
Provincetown	71	16.1	93.1	59%
Sandwich	92.3	3.3	95.1	68%

Oftentimes, when Superintendent Woodbury is questioned about such indicators, she points out that Yarmouth is not like other communities on the Cape.  She points to the district’s high free and reduced lunch program students (aka, low-income students).  This has always fascinated me.  In a time when our unemployment rate is over 9% and more and more families likely qualify for free or reduced lunch programs – is it really fair and realistic to assume that children whose families qualify for free or reduced lunch are just plain “uneducable” or less able to perform because their parents earn less?  I challenge Ms. Woodbury to look in the eyes of parents who have lost their jobs (often professional people who heretofore made ample livings) and tell them that now that they qualify for free or reduced lunch, their children are about to get really stupid.  This is obviously an absurd concept, but it is the statistic which is most often blamed for poor measurable performance indicators.

The reality is that this district is dying.  The increase in school sending numbers tells the story.  Ms. Woodbury would have the public believe that this is a very complicated issue and almost impossible to nail down any concrete, reliable numbers.  Well, since the district pays tuition to the charter schools and the other public schools to which our students transfer, and those tuition figures are based on actual concrete numbers (tuition which nears the $2 million mark, by the way) — forgive me for my naiveté, but it really isn’t that complicated.  The reality is that the Superintendent doesn’t like to address those concrete numbers publicly because they are not flattering.  However unflattering though, they tell the whole story.

I have gathered some rather extensive research on this subject and am including a spreadsheet which shows what I’ve learned.  There are two districts from whom I am still awaiting the information, so I will update the spreadsheet as I receive it.  The table below may be easier to view here:  Out of School Sending

Sending District	# of Students Enrolled	# to Charters	# to Public Districts	Total # Sending	# Receiving	Net # Sending	Net % Sending	# of High School	% of High School
Barnstable  Bourne	4,153  2,302	103  43	74  30	177  73	78  42	99  31	2.38%  1.35%		0.00%  0.00%
Chatham	691	9	55	64	203	-139	-20.12%	41	64.06%
Dennis Yarmouth	3,199	139	304	443	70	373	11.66%	225	50.79%
Falmouth	3,710	59	24	83	35	48	1.29%	19	22.89%
Harwich	1,333	33	195	228	147	81	6.08%	86	37.72%
Mashpee	1,767	26	46	72	4	68	3.85%	18	25.00%
Nauset	1,526	92	34	126	240	-114	-7.47%	26	20.63%
Provincetown	125	9	43	52	25	27	21.60%	20	38.46%
Sandwich	3,432	53	39	92	21	71	2.07%	23	25.00%
Wareham	3,084	20	31	51	46	5	0.16%	15	29.41%

The first column shows the total number of students enrolled in each district.  The second column shows the number of each district’s students who choose to attend a charter school.  The third column shows the number of each district’s students who choose to attend a different public school district.  I then added those two numbers together to get the total number of students each district sends to other schools (and these numbers do NOT include those who choose to attend private schools).  I showed the number of students each district receives from other districts and then showed the net, by subtracting that number from the total number of out-of-school sent students.  For an accurate perspective, I quantify that number in percentage figures.

The final two columns were very interesting – and the most difficult to track down.  I called each school district to get the number of high school students in their district who choose to attend another public district high school and added that number to the number of charter high school students.  The final column shows the percentage of out-of-school sent students who transferred at the high school level.

The only district (so far) with a higher percentage loss of high school students is Chatham and that also speaks to my theory.  Chatham’s inability to provide a sound education at the high school level is the primary reason for their regionalizing with Harwich and it is no coincidence that 37 of the 41 high school, school choice students left Chatham to attend Nauset.

The reason I feel this is relevant is that, I believe, the primary motivation for a parent to place their child in a different high school is based on the performance of the sending school.  Surely, there are some other reasons, but many of those reasons would have likely existed in elementary and middle schools.  Colleges look at high school performance only when considering whether or not to accept incoming freshmen.  Parents who expect their children to excel and/or to attend a 4-year college are more apt to opt to transfer their child to a higher performing school when it matters – at the high school level.

Irrefutable fact: Sturgis has been approved for a 400-student expansion and has obtained property to open a second campus (see the article printed on the front page of the Cape Cod Times today, Sturgis Charter School set to expand ).  At this time, DY has 54 students wait-listed to attend Sturgis.  Now that Sturgis has obtained a location to open a second campus, that number will surely grow.  Sturgis Charter School is a high-performing school with very stringent requirements.  I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to assume that the students from DY who choose to attend Sturgis are high-achieving students.

Likewise, we lose a large number of our high school students to Nauset – another better-achieving high school than DY.

By losing so many of our highest achieving students, all of our measurable performance indicators are negatively affected.  There are far fewer high scores to offset the low scores.  High achievers tend to miss school less and are tardy less often.  Their graduation rates and drop-out rates are obviously dramatically better than other students and, it stands to reason, their matriculation to 4-year schools is much higher than their lower-achieving counterparts.

Bottom line is that the majority of the students we are losing to other districts and to charter schools are leaving at the high school level – which, it can be assumed, means that a large percentage of the students we are losing, are high achievers.

As we lose more and more high achieving students, it means that a disproportionate percentage of our budget is spent on special education and English language learning students – which looks fairly attractive to parents of special needs and English language learning children – so the district becomes, each year, more of a magnet for those students.  In turn, we continue to find it more difficult to meet state thresholds for performance.  Hence, the Level 3 status of our district.   DY is the only district on the Cape with a Level 3 status.  This is NOT an accident, it is NOT because we have the most free/reduced lunch or low-income families.

It is also reasonable to assume that when Sturgis opens its second campus, our out-of-school sending numbers will see a dramatic increase.  Ms. Woodbury made a very valid point (although she made the point in an effort to convince the Yarmouth Selectmen that they need to authorize her to apply for funds from the state to renovate Mattacheese Middle School) Wednesday night when she stated, “If you build it, they will come”, referring to the regionalization of Chatham and Harwich and the new high school which will be built to house the Chatham/Harwich students.  Even she knows that we are likely to lose a number of our students to the new high school.  Sadly, since DY is the newest school on the Cape and just saw a huge renovation in the past few years – but also continues to see increasing out-of-school sending numbers – I’m not sure one can truly conclude that parents move their children at the high school level to the newest school around!

The Superintendent is proposing that the best way to address the Level 3 status of this district is to hire “coaches” (teachers to teach our teachers how to teach).  Yet, she has often pointed out that we have the highest qualified teachers on the Cape.  Something doesn’t add up.  What does add up, is an increase in the budget to pay salaries for more teachers when we have fewer students to teach.

It is my strong conviction that change needs to take place immediately if there is any hope of revitalizing the DY district.

First and foremost, there are two School Committee positions up for election in May.  We need to find candidates who are courageous, who are not “seducable” (those who run on a strong platform for change, but join the Committee and immediately begin to drink the Superintendent’s Kool-Aid of conformity) and who are willing to take a stand for what is truly best for the children of Dennis and Yarmouth.  We need candidates who are willing to address the district’s overspending and the impact it has on the towns; the lack of attention to the curriculum; the continuing outflow of students to other schools; the lack of receptiveness to hearing public opinion and the arrogance toward the will of the voters.

The next step that I am convinced needs to occur is that,  in July, when Ms. Woodbury’s contract is up for renewal – this district needs to find a new Superintendent who is similarly courageous enough and who has the vision to recognize that our district is dying and who is equipped and qualified to revitalize it and make the changes necessary to the old “status quo” to lure back the high achieving students we are currently losing and make our district’s schools safe environments for learning.  We need a Superintendent who believes that every child is capable of learning and that we have a responsibility to teach them.

Those two important steps are crucial to implementing the third: this district must renegotiate the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the MTA to put an end to teacher professional status (aka, tenure) and to implement merit-based pay for all employees.  It is time to take advantage of the increasing momentum in the country right now to creatively rework the teachers’ contract so that the benefits (15 sick days in a 184-day year, for instance) our towns must pay for don’t bankrupt our towns and put the final nail in the coffin of our school district once and for all.

We’ve all heard the expression, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” and every voter, every Town Selectman, every Finance Committee member, every parent and every School Committee member needs to remember that the next time they sit through a gruelingly long presentation by Carol Woodbury, when the contents of that presentation are nothing more than “putting lipstick on a pig.”

The secret resignation of the Director of Finance and Operations

Last night’s School Committee meeting went relatively as I expected it would with a couple notable exceptions.  The first item on the agenda was to approve the appointment of an interim Director of Finance and Operations.  You see, unbeknownst to the School Committee or to the public, the former Director had proffered his letter of resignation and his last day of employment was Friday, July 30th.  I know this because I called the Director’s office with a request for more detailed financials at the end of July and when I called on Monday, August 2nd to follow up on my request, I was told that Mr. Cucinotta was no longer working there and that Friday, July 30th was his last day.  I was also told that an interim Director had been appointed.

A call to Carol Woodbury’s office confirmed that, in fact, the Superintendent had appointed an interim Director and that she apparently has the unilateral authority to do so.  I have requested a copy of Mr. Cucinotta’s resignation letter and employment contract.

This brought up a lot of questions in my mind because I have read the Minutes of the School Committee meetings in 2010 and there was no mention of Mr. Cucinotta’s resignation.

For such a vital position, I assumed there must be exit provisions in the employment contract.  What is the required amount of notice that must be given?

How much notice did Mr. Cucinotta give?

When was the School Committee notified of his resignation?

Why was a permanent replacement not sought rather than appointing an interim Director until a permanent replacement is hired – and who made that decision?

At a time when the entire district’s level of transparency and accountability is being called into question with great fervor and in the midst of a hotly debated budget battle, why would Superintendent Woodbury make the unilateral decision to withhold such pertinent information from the School Committee and from the public?

I asked the questions.

Woodbury “believes” (but wouldn’t say for certain without having the contract with her, lest she misspeak) that the Director must give 60 days’ notice.

Mr. Cucinotta gave “about” three months’ notice.

The School Committee was notified “recently.”  When pressed for a more specific answer [and why does one always have to press her for more specificity?], she indicated it was within the last couple of weeks.  Since Mr. Cucinotta’s last day was exactly 12 days ago, the Committee was notified on or about his last day of employment – after giving ample three months’ notice!

I expressed my distress over the fact that the Superintendent made a unilateral decision which is, in my opinion, detrimental to the entire district.  I believe that the district would be far better served had she used that three months to hire a permanent replacement who might have had the benefit of working with Mr. Cucinotta for some period of time and which would have guaranteed more continuity and a smooth transition, rather than now – right when budget negotiations are peaking – bring in an interim Director and then transition again to whoever is hired as the next Director of Finance and Operations.  And it is no accident, I am sure, that not appointing an interim Director until Mr. Cucinotta’s last day will guarantee further delays in doing more work on the budget as the interim Director familiarizes himself with it.  He’ll probably just have to take the word of the Superintendent on a lot of what he sees.  What a shame.

I hope that my questions have at least shed a bit of light on exactly the type of hiding and withholding of information that goes on regularly by the Superintendent.  Again, she seems to forget that the School Committee, and conversely the entire voting public, are her employers – not the other way around.

It is unconscionable that the Superintendent is permitted to orchestrate, manipulate and control the actions of the School Committee.