A couple of weeks ago a comment was made at a GC meeting which incorrectly characterized a situation involving the Director of the CLC, Chris Mahoney. The speaker also characterized the superintendent, and I believe the Board, as acting with some degree of malice in their handling of the situation.
(additional commentary appended 2/19/2011 17:46)
The claim was simple: the superintendent and the Board were deliberately holding up acting on a raise for Chris which the GC approved a couple of months ago. This was attributed, in part, to malice on the part of the superintendent, Craig Baker, towards Chris (the exact words described Craig’s purported actions as an example of persecution, as I recall).
Here is what I can share about the situation. It is not the totality of what I know because some aspects were discussed in closed session as a personnel matter and hence may not be described in public without the approval of a majority of both the GC and the Board.
Chris’ salary adjustment was sent to the District for approval by the Board, as is required for all similar personnel decisions, including hires and terminations. Several conversations between one or more GC members and the superintendent took place. I’m not sure that I can describe those conversations, given the confidentiality issues I mentioned earlier, and in any event I was not privy to them. I merely know that they took place. The one thing I do know is that the request was not rejected, which is hardly surprising given that the superintendent does not have the authority to reject requests like this, which are solely a Board responsibility.
Those GC members involved in submitting the action item themselves, or the GC itself (I’m not sure which) then decided to either withdraw the action item, or put it on hold.
At no time did the District or the Board say they would not act on the request. Speaking for myself, I am ready, willing and able to act on the request as soon as the GC submits or releases it.
I hope this clarifies the situation, and limits whatever damage may have been caused by the well-intentioned but erroneous comments made at the earlier GC meeting.
Addendum: someone from CLC wrote to complain that this posting implies the GC doesn’t support Chris. I don’t see that based on what I wrote, but I don’t mind clarifying the point.
I have no insight into the degree to which the GC does or does not support Chris, except in so far as approving a raise for him and submitting it to the Board indicates that at least a majority of the GC supports the action and hence his performance as Director. But, not having attended the GC meetings when it was discussed and approved I don’t know any details, or even know what the final vote was. That information is presumably available on the CLC website in the GC minutes.