Editor:
The new Board of Education has barely begun its term and already there is reason to be concerned about their decision-making and the impact that may have on Langley school district – its students and staff.
Firing the superintendent, and this most certainly was a firing, makes absolutely no sense. Why incur unnecessary expense at a time when finances are already tight? Where is the money coming from to pay out the superintendent at this stage in her contract? Why change leadership and upset the apple cart at a time when the district is on a steady course, moving ahead despite severe challenges? Why create unnecessary turmoil? Most puzzling of all, why fire a superintendent who has improved student achievement and has had the vision, strength and courage to make much needed changes, despite tremendous obstacles? A superintendent who has brought three new schools to the growing Willoughby slope? Board Chair Wendy Johnson doesn’t appear to have an explanation, which begs the question as to what she is hoping to achieve with this move.
It’s no secret that Ms. Johnson has wanted the superintendent gone ever since they clashed over the Stafford reconfiguration. She’s finally achieved that goal, but what now? Are we going to have the Board Chair, a former employee of the district, running the show? A Board Chair who absolutely controls the Board majority - all are part of her “slate.” Will she run the district through a tightly controlled Board and a handpicked, compliant superintendent?
Unions backed all five trustees making this decision. Are we going to have leadership dictated by the teacher’s union? The LTA is already rubbing their hands with glee – remember the Beaumont burgers? Will the never-ending power struggle between the Ministry of Education (both Liberal and NDP) and the BCTF come to our district? There is cause for concern.
I have always supported Langley school district – proud that I and my children graduated from Langley schools and proud to have served the district as a school trustee, but I am very concerned for the health of the district now.
Hattie Hogeterp, Aldergrove
Editor:
Although it comes as no surprise , I find it reprehensible and inexcusable that the trustees who promised transparency and financial responsibility are the same five that fired Superintendent Cheryle Beamont and then tried to hide that fact. This is their idea of transparency and financial resposibility?
In my letter of January 5, I questioned if this would be one of the directions of this new board. I also questioned if delaying the deficit repayment plan would be brought forward. Instead of paying down the deficit quickly and efficiently so that our district may move forward as we have been, will these five decide to slow down the process so that our fully enrolled schools can pay it off for a longer period of time? Firing our superintendent and having to pay a severace package will certainly slow the process.
Trustee Wendy Johnston went so far as to imply it had been a decision made by Ms Beaumont herself. That information was not true and therefore was a blatant lie. I wonder if these five had ever intended that the truth behind this decision would ever be revealed.
I find it frightening that trustees who have less than eight years amongst them are qualified to make such a decision so quickly after the election. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Mcfarlane each have a total of three years experience, Ms. Reekie has a year and a half and Ms Ashdown and Dykeman have no experience what so ever and their first job of their term is to fire our Superintendent?
This is the Superintendent who has delivered us with new schools, increased student achievement, new programs, increased graduation rates and who has an excellent working relationship with Victoria.
What was the motive behind this decision? Union appeasement? Dislike of strong leadership and high achievement records? Personal vendettas?
And where is the financial prudence in this decision? If they try saying this decision was made because of the deficit, that ship sailed when Ms Beaumonts' contract was renewed. Now instead of progressively working together for a year and a half when her contract would have been up, our district owes severence instead.
Will this tranparent board be sharing the cost of this severance with us or will we have to wait for budget disclosure before that information is released?
Kari Medos, Langley
Editor:
Much has been said about Ms. Cheryle Beaumont’s resignation from School District #35 and many comments have been made about the involvement of unions in this decision. My initial reaction was not to dignify the comments with a response, but as they continue, and I continue to be personally named, I am compelled to reply.
The Langley Teachers’ Association did endorse candidates to their members in 2008 and 2011. We did not make any financial contributions to any candidates. Teachers, as citizens in Langley, had the opportunity to vote along with all other residents. The citizens of Langley City and Langley Township voted and elected a new Mayor, some new councilors and two new Trustees to the Board of Education. Democracy at work.
When the previous Board, with a majority of Trustees endorsed by both Langley Liberal MLAs, made unpopular decisions, there was no commensurate hue and cry of interference from the Liberal government. So, I am puzzled as to why now, when the newly elected Board makes a decision that appears to be unpopular in some circles, members of those circles are quick to point a finger at the unions for the decision of a democratically elected Board of Education.
The Langley Teachers’ Association and many other citizens of Langley have taken issue with a number of decisions over the past five years. The reconfiguration of South Central, the loss of the only high school in Langley City, the lack of an Audit Committee at the Board level, the failure by Senior Management and the Board to address repeated concerns from their own auditors regarding ‘internal control’ issues, the amassing of a $13.5 million dollar debt, an ‘in camera decision’ to borrow money to purchase a share of the Langley Event Centre (when the District was already in debt), the closure of schools, the decision not to build a new school in the Upton area and many, many other contentious issues - were and continue to be of concern to the LTA.
Yes, we raised our voice as a watchdog of public education. Yes, we called for the resignation of the superintendent in 2009, and yes, we have continued to voice our concerns whenever decisions were made to cut staff. Why? Because these cuts always lead to cuts in service to students and directly impact those ‘achievement scores’ that have been noted by some supporters of Ms. Beaumont. Interestingly enough, those same supporters neglect to mention Beaumont’s 23% salary increase at a time when teachers are being told they should take 0% and accept further cuts to their contract.
The LTA has used FOIPPA to obtain many useful and informative documents. We have never breached the law.
Under section 30.4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an officer of a public body who has access to personal information in the custody or control of the public body, must not disclose that information except as authorized under the Act. A person convicted under the Act faces fines of up to $2,000.
The decision by Ms. McVeigh to do so raises many troubling questions as to her motive or motives. This ‘truth telling’ may well be the reason Ms. Beaumont leaves SD #35 with a larger than originally required financial settlement.
Gail Chaddock-Costello, President, Langley Teachers’ Association