REBUTTAL TO MARTINI’S ANSWER

REBUTTAL TO MARTINI’S ANSWER
On June 2, 2009, Carolyn Martini filed her answer to the Notice if Intent to Recall with the Napa County Election Department. The very first paragraph of Mrs. Martini’s answer states that the Board “has addressed challenges head-on” and “considered the voices of the community.” If this were actually the case, the Board would not be in the predicament it currently faces.
What Mrs. Martini does not seem to appreciate is that actions do in fact speak louder than words. If, as Mrs. Martini states, the Board approaches tough issues directly and listens to the community, then why did the Board decide that a search for a suitable superintendent candidate would be too difficult at this time and that it would just be easier to hire an in house candidate? Is this addressing a challenge “head-on”? Further, when several people of our community suggested that the Board offer Dr. Haley an interim or short term superintendent position, the Board ignored the community’s concerns and awarded Dr. Haley a contract that contains an automatic renewal provision that could keep Dr. Haley in place for many years to come. Is this the way in which Mrs. Martini and her fellow Board members “consider the voices of the community”?
Does the Board “address challenges head-on” and “consider the voices of the community” when the Board has adopted a standard policy at Board meetings that Board members are to refrain from interacting and speaking with members of the community in open session with respect to comments made during the public comment period? This policy is not a legal requirement; the Board has simply chosen to conduct its meetings this way. That means that there is absolutely no give and take between the Board and the community during Board meetings. How is the community to have a productive discussion with the entire Board when the most that the public can do is speak out at a meeting with silence as the Board’s response?
Mrs. Martini’s answer goes on to list some of the accomplishments of the Board. There is no question that the Board has recently implemented some valuable projects and programs and it should be commended for its work in that regard. But keep in mind that much of what the Board has accomplished would not be possible without the generous financial and logistical support of our community, and the dedication of the staff and teachers at each of our schools.
In her answer, Mrs. Martini also states that “[g]ood management is not an accident.” This may be a true statement, but it assumes that good management is currently in place within our School Board. Does “good management” include awarding high salaries to our executive administrators while teachers are told to be extremely conservative in ordering instructional materials? Does “good management” include maintaining so many lucrative executive administrative positions and implementing early retirement packages that now must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits to just two individuals? If, as Mrs. Martini states, “every penny we get is used to protect and provide for our kids,” then why has the School District made choices that deprive our kids of educational resources and programs and award handsome salaries and retirement packages to administrators?
If, as Mrs. Martini concludes, “[t]his is the way it is supposed to work,” then there is something fundamentally wrong with how business is currently conducted at the School Board level. Directing as much of our school resources as possible toward educating our kids is the way it is supposed to work. Mrs. Martini appears to have lost sight of that