Thank you celebration for former DMUSD Superintendent Tom Bishop brings cheers and tears
A standing-room only crowd filled the Derby Room at the Del Mar Hilton recently for a thank you celebration for former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Tom Bishop. Well-wishers greeted the Bishop family to celebrate his decade of service to the students and families of the fast-growing district. During Bishop's tenure, the district achieved highest in San Diego County student achievement scores and top 5 percent in the state scores at a time when he oversaw the opening of five new schools and the modernization of two older schools. Presenters during the formal program cheered that legacy, with many speakers from the community praising his accomplishments, while others thanked him for being the "guiding compass" of the district. the celebration included light-hearted elements, fun and tears.
Former school board member Jeanne Waite, who was president fo the board that hired Bishop commented, "At the time of Tom's hire, the district had three schools, Del Mar Heights, Del Mar Hills and Carmel Del Mar, then six years old. There was a student enrollment of approximately 1.300 students, 64 teachers, a district office staff of four full-time people, and our cutting-edge technology consisted of one fax machine in the district. The districe was poised on the brink of tremendous growth and the board recognized that a visionary leader, who would guide the district into the 21st century, was greatly needed. The school board knew that we had found the leader we were looking for in Tom Bishop, who demonstrated his leadership, intelligence and vision right from the start. We had high expectations, and we wanted to see results through the implementation of a district strategic plan."
Former board member Linda Crawford commented, "Tom proved that he was up to the task. He quickly established himself as a 'hands-on', 'in-the-trenches', superintendent, one who sought the counsel and input of staff members and parents alike, one who would bring staff, parents and community members together as stakeholders in the district's future."
Former board member Barbara Myers added her thanks for, "his extraordinary political leadership during the budget crisis of 2003, and continued leadership through his efforts with the state-wide Schools for Sound Finance, CA School Boards Assn, Superintendents Advisory Council, and High Achieving School Districts Summit at the special invitation of the CA Secretary of Education. Tom has also served the greater educational ommunity as president and executive board member of the state-wide Small School Districts Association, based in Sacramento, and he also served on county superintendent Rudy Castruita's Achievement Gap Task Force, in addition to serving as chairman of its Grant Committee. Recognizing Tom's child-centered focus and educational leadership for all children, the board nominated him for state-wide 'Superintendent of the Year' in 2001."
Myers added in her closing remarks of the celebration program, "Tom, we recognize and appreciate you outstanding career in a field that benefits so many. Your tenure has been marked by exemplary achievement and long-lasting benefit for students and families in the Del Mar school district." Bishop served as superintendent of the Del Mar Union School District from 1998 to February 2008.
DEL MAR ---- Three meetings have been planned to gather information from the community regarding the Del Mar Union School District's search for a new superintendent.
Consultants for the district's school board will hold three public forums to get input on the selection process. The group wants to hear from teachers, parents, PTA leaders, foundation board members, classified employees, administrators and community members.
During each meeting, consultants will provide an overview of the process and then solicit public opinion regarding the critical issues facing the district, the district's strengths, and what qualities the new superintendent should have.
The meetings will be held at 7 p.m. May 29 at Ocean Air School; at 9:30 a.m. June 2 at Ashley Falls School; and at 7 p.m. June 2 at Del Mar Hills.
Contact consultant The Cosca Group by e-mail at tcgcorp@sbcglobal.net or by fax at (707) 422-6494.
On May 14, the board of trustees approved the selection of The Cosca Group to assist in the selection of the new superintendent. The board is committed to obtaining input from all interested stakeholders. Over the next few weeks, numerous meetings will be held across the district with interested stakeholders, including teachers, parents, PTA leaders, Foundation board members, classified employees and administrators. A critical component in the selection process is to obtain input from community members. To achieve that goal, three community input meetings have been scheduled.
During each meeting, the consultants will provide an overview of the process, and then ask three primary questions: What do you see as the strengths of the district? What do you see as the critical issues/needs facing the district? What are the desirable characteristics for the next superintendent?
The consultants will provide the board with a report containing all comments. This information will be used by the board to prioritize the lists of strengths, needs/critical issues, and characteristics. The consultants will then create a candidate profile and brochure to advertise the position.
The community input meetings are scheduled on May 29, and June 2. Details of the meetings are as follows:
Meeting 1 (Ocean Air School) Date: May 29, 2008 Time: 7 p.m.
The resignation Feb. 26 of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Tom Bishop elicited the expected outcry from loyal supporters, but it should have come as no surprise to anyone paying close attention this past year.
When a board majority of devoted Bishop followers was replaced in November 2006 by three Bishop critics who ran as a slate, the die was cast. These three individuals — returning board member Annette Easton and newcomers Steven McDowell and Katherine White — were quite open about their agenda.
The prior board was weak and provided little oversight, they said repeatedly, resulting in a superintendent with too much unchecked power. They contended that bad decisions had been made, an alienating, autocratic management style was intimidating those who dared to question, unhealthy backroom political alliances were undermining effective collaboration, and factions were splintering a suspicious community.
The three trustees never ran for school board to fire Bishop, but they were completely transparent about their concerns over Del Mar's administrative chief. The slate's campaign was an open appeal to voters to return power to the school board. They effectively tapped into pockets of quiet resistance in the community, where dissenters had been silenced for too long.
When all three were elected, defeating a two-term incumbent board president in the process, it was a clear signal that parents and voters had had enough and fully supported the slate's campaign platform to rein in the superintendent. Anything less than a full accounting of his behavior and limitations on his excessive exercise of power would have been a betrayal to those citizens who voted into office this new board majority to do exactly what they promised to do.
So the only surprise is that Bishop was unable to adapt to increased oversight in the year the board majority gave him to improve communication, embrace collaboration, reduce secrecy and eliminate heavy-handed decision-making. To blow a dream gig like he had in Del Mar reflected either an unwillingness to abide by the new rules or a bewildering lack of awareness of new expectations, which were clearly delineated during a rather heated fall 2006 campaign.
If there is another surprise, it is that this resignation took as long as it did to come about, given Bishop's apparent disregard for the board's new performance standards.
Ten years ago, Bishop was hired to replace another long-time Del Mar superintendent, Robert Harriman, whose iron rule and controlling presence during his 13 years at the helm became particularly apparent at the end of his tenure — before the board finally stepped in, placed him on paid administrative leave, and then settled with the standard 18-month buyout.
Seems there is a long tradition in Del Mar of over-eager superintendents ready to fill the power void emanating from decades of weak school boards — and a precedent of costly superintendent buyouts, the reasons for which remain largely unexplained.
Transcripts of a school board meeting held Sept. 10, 1997 show Harriman in full battlefield mode. The issue was overcrowding — primarily at one school, Del Mar Heights, which seems to have a long and colorful history of boisterous civil disobedience when parents feel threatened and bullied.
“I would suggest you take your child out of the school if there are too many, and place them in a private school or somewhere else,” an enraged Harriman told protesting parents in the packed auditorium that night.
In response to one parent in particular, who had been raising concerns about the overcrowding for months, Harriman singled her out by name and said to the crowd, “We don't deserve that. We're not going to take it from any human being on this earth. We have first amendment rights just as any other people. We are not going to work 14 hours a day to have a mouth like that.”
Oddly, Harriman's buyout came just months after the board gave him a glowing performance review in May 1997, complete with a raise and an extension of his contract to four full years. You didn't see that with Bishop.
Similarities between then and now include the fact that no formal explanation was ever given to the public for Harriman's 18-month buyout, no one besides lawyers and board members were involved, informed in advance, or consulted in the decision, and it was a time of great financial hardship for education at the state and local levels.
Harriman's “Voluntary Resignation Agreement,” signed Dec. 4, 1997 and effective Dec. 31, 1997, awarded him 18 months' salary totaling $166,421.46, health benefits for 18 months, and unused vacation days.
Besides board president Jeanne Waite, two of the other four board members back then were Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, both of whom still serve today.
The signed agreement between Harriman and the DMUSD also included the following two delusional clauses that succeeded in fooling no one:
“The employee and the district agree that the employee successfully served the district as its superintendent for thirteen years, and that the employee was a dedicated, hard-working and competent superintendent. The employee always received good evaluations.”
“The employee and the district wish each other well and sincerely hope that each will be successful in the future.”
Bishop's settlement agreement also includes 18 months' pay, health benefits and vacation time. But noticeably missing is any language similar to the above.
The only comparable statement in Bishop's agreement is the “non-disparagement” clause that states: “The members of the board of trustees agree not to publicly disparage employee or this agreement, and employee agrees not to publicly disparage the district.”
Tying the board's hands both times was the absence of any clauses for termination in either contract. Unusual by almost every standard, this omission seriously impairs a board's ability to dismiss an employee “for cause” or “at will.”
Because the two contracts were so similar in format and language, one might imagine that the board that dismissed Harriman and was forced to pay him 18 months' salary would have learned a lesson and framed its next superintendent's contract to include those vital missing pieces. But trustees did not.
Ricardo Soto, attorney with Best Best & Krieger, represented the school board in its negotiations with Bishop and said “it's unusual” to have a contract written with no termination clauses, either for cause or at will.
When asked if board members had grievances that were of a nature that would normally be covered by a “for cause” clause, Soto hesitated for several moments before replying succinctly, “There were concerns raised by the board about the superintendent.”
Without termination clauses in a contract, a school board can still find its superintendent in breach of contract and fire him without the standard 18 months' pay. But Soto explained that this too often results in litigation that can end up costing far more than 18 months' worth of salary and can drag on for years without resolution.
The 18-month buyout, he said, is “very common,” and differences are “typically resolved in that manner.”
At the Feb. 26 board meeting when Bishop's resignation was approved, several speakers denounced the “secrecy,” demanding to be told why he was leaving. One speaker even suggested there was precedent for this disclosure with Harriman's settlement.
I covered every bit of the Harriman exit as a reporter, trying desperately to uncover the reasons for his dismissal. Although obvious that his unacceptable public behavior had to be a factor, people wanted to know what the actual grievances were. But to this day, those who sat on the board at the time are faithfully refusing to disclose details and will most likely carry their secret to the grave.
I worship at the altar of Ralph M. Brown, whose open-meeting Brown Act broke new ground in California for the people's right to know. Enacted in 1953, the Brown Act severely limits a public agency's ability to meet in closed session and withhold information from the public.
But in personnel cases, even the Brown Act requires that public agencies, including school boards, protect the privacy of employees by prohibiting closed session personnel matters from being divulged.
So the charge that this current school board is choosing to keep secrets is a manipulative strategy by critics who know full well this information cannot be publicly discussed.
It sounds good to accuse trustees of withholding information — it serves a political purpose, to make them look bad. But imagine if they were to violate confidentiality laws, exposing the district and themselves to punitive legal action by revealing private details.
Although we'll never know all the facts, anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the issues can make a pretty good guess, just like we did with Harriman.
Bishop stumbled mightily on a number of issues: boundaries, busing, hot lunch money, the Torrey Hills biotech issue, the Ashley Falls laptop controversy, funding for enrichment teachers, the sale of the Shores property which cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees to fight two lawsuits, the mess with the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, the intra-district transfer policy and, most recently, the lack of communication over the Sycamore Ridge Spanish language immersion program.
Bishop did many things right, of course, and probably could have been a fine superintendent with a secure place in this district for years to come had there been better oversight and occasional course corrections by a more engaged, involved, former board.
As it is, he exceeded by a long shot the average superintendent tenure of three to four years in one place.
Bishop's contract had more than two years left to run, through June 30, 2010. With the settlement, he will be paid $15,991.77 per month, beginning May 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009. The total buyout will take place over three fiscal years and amounts to less than 1 percent of the district's total $37 million budget.
No dollars will be sacrificed in the classroom, and kids won't feel a pinch in any way, board president Easton said.
Bishop, of course, could have chosen to settle for less than 18 months' pay. Better yet, he could have chosen to work with the new board and alter his management style. But it was not to be.
Those feigning shock over Bishop's departure either weren't paying attention to the obvious or were being deliberately disingenuous. There were many surprising things said at the board meeting that night, but accepting Bishop's resignation was not one of them.
… and the Sideshow
By Marsha Sutton
Life would be so simple if everything were black and white. Issues would be clear, not muddied by nuances and degrees. People could be sorted neatly into two polarized groups.
Unfortunately, life is not like that, and neither are people. Very few are pure evil, or entirely angelic. We are all a complicated mixture of black-and-white — a palate of shades of gray.
When passionate about an issue, it is tempting to push opponents into a villainous corner — a place where there are no redeeming qualities, where individuals can be demonized and vilified. Taking a stand becomes so much clearer when people question the character of their opponents by deflecting focus from the issue to the person's moral fiber.
At the Del Mar Union School District's board meeting on Feb. 26, when the board voted 3-2 to accept Superintendent Tom Bishop's resignation, the temptation to portray three members of the school board as the embodiment of diabolical malfeasance was too great for many to resist.
With a ferocity normally reserved for the despots and tyrants of the world, speakers gave the board an earful. In defense of Bishop, many comments were blistering character assassinations that seemed to gain momentum as the night wore on.
Emboldened by each speech and the tumultuous applause, speakers delivered hurtful words that seemed to spiral out of control, culminating in a diatribe by the former co-president of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, Debra McGinty-Poteet, who unleashed a vicious condemnation of trustees Annette Easton, Steven McDowell and Katherine White that many believe distorted facts, misrepresented events, turned false rumors into “truths,” and incited the crowd to a near-fevered pitch.
Exceeding the limits of acceptable civil discourse, her dramatic tirade ended with great flourish, when she proffered her written speech, the entire appalling screed, to the board secretary to be entered into the minutes. Her invective vividly demonstrated why so many people recoiled under her leadership.
McGinty-Poteet's torrent of pent-up hostility maligned not just the three-member board majority but also anyone else who may have crossed her over the years. Her targets included:
former Del Mar mayor Carl Hilliard, whom she implied conspired with McDowell, his neighbor, to negotiate a realistic purchase price of DMUSD's Del Mar Shores property for the city, a price that was actually based on current market appraisals rather than her inflated, pie-in-the-sky numbers
tireless fundraiser and DMUSD parent and volunteer Laura DeMarco, whom she suggested had a role in “stealing the Shores property from the students of this district”
Del Mar Heights School principal Wendy Wardlow, who was accused of withholding information about a school theft when it was widely reported that it was Bishop himself who issued the gag order
Katherine White, criticized for generously donating scads of money over the years to Del Mar's schools (this was a truly bewildering charge: to be ruthlessly hammered for being too charitable)
the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, for not disclosing information on its Web site
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
There were many others who chose to engage in denigrating attacks. Even the usually classy Jeanne Waite, former DMUSD board member, began her three minutes at the podium by slinging some below-the-belt mud at Easton's husband, prompting George Easton to shout, “That's a lie!” from the back of the room.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Board members sat quietly, listening to speakers respectfully, giving each of them their three minutes in the spotlight and the courtesy they themselves were frequently denied.
There were moments of decency. Dignified Martha Cox, Bishop's former executive assistant, praised Bishop and spoke eloquently about his contributions to the school district.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Not all, but most teachers were equally respectful, expressing remorse over the loss of their champion and the end of an era. “We will dearly miss our leader,” one said softly.
Yes, he was good to teachers. But Bishop does not walk on water, contrary to what observers might have been led to believe from the adoration he received that night. Nor, because they have been frustrated by some of Bishop's very real leadership flaws, are Easton, McDowell and White the Devil incarnate.
Portraying any of these individuals as anything less than a complex blend of human qualities is a simplistic attempt to bolster shaky positions by advancing divisive and extremist value judgments.
People don't neatly fall into two clearly defined categories. The two-valued orientation system — that everything and everyone is either good or bad, black or white, pure or evil — is a false dichotomy, one that ignores conflicting evidence that makes clear-cut choices not quite so neat and easy.
It is this two-valued orientation that has made the centrist an endangered species these days. Someone who sees both sides is viewed as untrustworthy, spineless or deeply misguided.
Just as Easton, McDowell and White are not malevolent beings, neither should Bishop, or trustees Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, be assigned the blame for every problem in the district. We dishonor these individuals when we categorically dismiss all the good that each of them has done.
At the Feb. 26 board meeting, the 20th speaker of 33 was second-grade teacher Cindy Ralston who, sadly, received only a smattering of applause after speaking shyly about her personal experience with three of the board members.
Ralston spoke about McDowell whom she said spent many a volunteer hour in her classroom, engaging kids in educational discussions that were entertaining and meaningful. White, she said, never failed to support her with a kind word when she thought she might lose her job due to state budget cuts several years ago. And Lamborghini was also praised by Ralston, who said she always offered her a warm, friendly smile when she visited the school.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Unfortunately, this crowd was in no mood to consider the possibility that White and McDowell might actually be compassionate, caring individuals. Humanizing the enemy was not the message these folks wanted to hear.
I now understand how lynchings can occur. A mob mentality can suppress thoughtful dissent and reasoned statements. It took a brave soul, and there were a few, to stand before this angry multitude and express support for the board's actions.
It's hard to say whether the saddest moment of the night was when Ralston's attempt to humanize board members was greeted with stony silence or when McGinty-Poteet's bitter rant elicited wild cheers.
When elected officials are doing the right thing, there's no need to show up at public meetings, as speaker Mary Farrell stated. But those who support the board majority, those residents who voted into office these three trustees 16 months ago, may have been showing confidence in them and their actions by staying home, blissfully unaware of the emotional carnage that took place that night.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
So the evening belonged to the dissenters, those loyal Bishop supporters who expressed staged shock over the resignation and wanted a reckoning, a public hanging of sorts.
Will this be Bishop's legacy? A district torn apart by several dozen vocal board opponents whose unbridled fury over his departure is sure to leave scars for years to come? Is this the behavior that defines our community?
The unrestrained force of the words uttered that night was so unsettling that I felt the urge to shower when I returned home, to remove the stink.
The former superintendent started out great, back in 1998. I was a true believer those first few years. He had to work hard to make me a critic; it did not come easy.
But eventually, he over-reached, and made some bad decisions that have had lasting negative effects. The public finally came to see that and elected a new board in 2006 for a change in direction.
Comments suggesting that the stellar reputation of the Del Mar Union School District is due entirely to Bishop, and that his departure means the imminent demise of the district's renowned academic record, are nonsense.
“I don't believe for one minute that the reputation of this district … will diminish one bit,” said parent Catherine Weselak, to the board that night. “Our school district is bigger than one man, one woman and one issue.”
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
No one starring in this little small-town drama deserved the kind of vitriolic assault witnessed that night - whether pro- or anti-Bishop. We are supposed to be the grown-ups.
As we take tentative steps to heal these raw wounds and look for ways to forgive, we should heed the wise advice of Weselak when she said to the crowd, “Let's watch how our children all get along with each other, and let's learn from our children.”
Moving forward under the wise and steady hand of newly appointed interim superintendent Janet Bernard, who was endorsed by the school board unanimously to guide the district during this transitional phase, may be just the salve needed to soothe an aching community.
As we support Bernard in her efforts to build bridges, let's take a collective deep breath and try to resist the urge to categorize people as either virtuous or abominable. We are all a unique fusion of traits, a canvas of qualities, a balance of idiosyncratic attributes — in other words, only human. And let's save the bad stuff for the truly wicked.
We were stunned to learn that the new majority of the board of the Del Mar Union School District passed a very costly negotiated resignation of Superintendent Tom Bishop. With direct and indirect expenses, this move will cost the district over $500,000 before a new superintendent is permanently in place. How dare this board majority vote to waste our scarce district tax dollars in such a careless fashion? With yet another state budget crisis upon us, how could they ever have thought this justified?
The newest board members waged a successful election campaign in 2006 based on “change.” The mantra was, “Change is needed. Change will be good for our schools. Change will be good for our children.” We can't imagine, however, that more than a handful of voters considered or would ever support such costly and wasteful change in our district.
If illegal or immoral acts had been committed by Superintendent Bishop, we are certain this board majority would have found a way to force an immediate resignation without compensation. That is, if there were evidence of any real wrong-doing, there would be no need for a costly resignation. Lacking any evidence of misconduct, the board majority proceeded to cast the illusion of impropriety through closed door meetings resulting in this costly agreement.
This tactic of creating an illusion of impropriety is resonant of that used during the election campaign. It is also the way this board has justified others “fixes” pushed upon the district since its election. Until now, we viewed this deceptive behavior as mostly distasteful politics, but probably not too harmful in the long run. But we never imagined that this board majority would have the gall to throw away so much money based on personal vendettas. What happened to the campaign themes of “more accountability to the community and parents” and “transparency” (Ref: 1)? This board has literally blind-sided this community with a huge expense with no justification.
It's time to stop this group. As the question was posed to Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954, we also must ask this board majority loudly and clearly, “Have you no sense of decency?” It is obvious this board majority is more concerned about personal agendas than careful stewardship of our scarce resources. The board members that voted to pass this ludicrous resignation buy-out should stop now. Please tender your resignations and save us taxpayers the further cost of a recall election.
“This too shall pass.” I remember the last time I heard those words, I wanted to scream! No one was listening to me, no one cared, didn't they understand they were making a terrible mistake! It was 2002 and the Del Mar Union School District board was making a decision about boundaries. I spoke at several meetings during that time, asked several questions, didn't get any answers and in the end felt like I was just going through the motions because a decision had already been made. My children were forced out of the only elementary school they had ever known, my family was heart broken, and I was angry. It is because of my experience six years ago that I have empathy for those people angry and saddened by the resignation of superintendent Tom Bishop. It is my experience of six years ago that also allows me to turn the other cheek when I hear my name being trashed and my neighborhood (Palacio) being blamed.
I attended the meeting the night the board accepted Mr. Bishop's resignation and it brought back a flood of emotions for me. Not again, I thought. Friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor. But, of course, people are passionate, this is emotional and people don't always say the right things or act the right way when they feel betrayed. I admit that in the days and months after the boundary dispute of 2002, I remained angry, but I moved on and six years later I can honestly say it has worked out well. I have made some great new friends and my children have received a solid education.
There will be much talk in the coming weeks and months about this decision and how to respond. Although I expect it will continue to get ugly, I hope and pray that is not the case. I know there is talk of a recall effort. I understand that. It is still too fresh, too emotional. But where does it end? Just how far will we go as a parent community and for what? This district is about more than one man. Our children go to school each day eager to learn and have fun with their friends. They work hard and we should be proud. Can we say the same about our actions as parents. I know you are mad, I know you are frustrated, I know you think you are right and maybe you are, but are you willing to divide this community even more. We all shop at the same stores, cheer on the same sidelines. Some attend the same church, serve on boards together. Take it from someone who has been there before. It is not worth the anger. Our children will continue to succeed, let's hope we don't ruin it for them by behaving poorly. This too shall pass.
Perhaps I am misguided, but I am struck by the colossal expenditure to buy out Mr. Bishop's contract. Isn't the $288,000-plus price tag a bit high? I have no idea what the problems with the board were. Still, one wonders if the board is serving the district well by incurring this huge debt at the expense of the children. Someone has some serious explaining to do to the community.
There were dark days in the Del Mar Union School district a few weeks ago following the decision of three out of the five school board members to force and accept the resignation of Superintendent Tom Bishop.
To a small few, the decision was no surprise, but to an overwhelming majority of parents and faculty the decision brought total shock and outrage. I consider myself to be an involved parent with two children having gone through the district and one to go, and I was completely surprised by the timing of the decision!
The special board meeting was called just a few days prior by posting it on the district Web site, giving little time for parents or staff to prepare for what would be the inevitable. But rally we did and a standing room only crowd showed to make a plea to the school board not to fire our successful superintendent. The rally was to no avail. The decision had been made and the expected vote of 3-2 to push Mr. Bishop out left everyone with unanswered questions and grave concerns. I personally feel like our district has been hijacked, and now I would like to find the ransom note!
What can parents and community members do for our board of trustee members to put our district back together? Will we even have a say in the hiring of the next superintendent? What is the policy on this?
Some research I have done reveals that the board of trustees voted to form a Personnel Committee in April of last year. I find this out of the ordinary because a school board of trustees' sole personnel responsibility is the hiring and/or firing of superintendents. But according to the charter, part of the committee's responsibility is to over-see the hiring / firing of new teachers and staff, possibly making changes to the employment structure, too! Sounds OK, maybe at first glance, but this is a perfect open door to begin making what could become very costly and disruptive changes. Interesting…. Since the committee was formed, our district has lost to either resignation or retirement, several of our long time staff members. Our director of technology, pupil services director, and now superintendent are just to name a few. Just how much money is budgeted to re-structure our district?
The minutes from the committee show a plea from school administrators to please replace the technology team who left in October. These positions remain vacant and the plea sites that the technology departments are seeking direction for its program. It seems to me that the house cleaning is disrupting our children's learning opportunity. It would be so much easier if the board would let our human resources director continue to do his job! Why the need to micro-manage?
It was no secret that a few of the board members didn't like Mr. Bishop from their campaign speeches. It is rumored that shortly after taking office, Mr. Bishop's recommendations and reports were not even given the courtesy of being heard. What an embarrassment! Couldn't they just agree to disagree?
I think the expenditure to let Mr. Bishop go is reckless. Thanks to our current budget crisis, our district will already have to dig in to reserve money to avoid increasing class room sizes and handing out pink slips like we did three years ago during the Basic Aid crisis. (Thanks to Tom Bishop, and his foresight after that battle, we do have a reserve to bank on!)
The “firing” appears to be self serving with no grounds, just out of disrespect. The find the lack of comment by the board to be eerie and misleading. Of course personnel issues are private, but the fact that the board is buying out the contract shows that there was no real grounds for the “dismissal.”
Our children are the ones who ultimately pay for such decisions! Their school year is interrupted by unnecessary distraction and reorganization, and money that could have been spent on hiring enrichment teachers or curriculum supplies is unnecessarily being used to cover a self-serving decision. Why couldn't the board exercise the same character we Del Mar parents try so hard to instill in our young and just let Mr. Bishop finish his contract? Instead, they spent unnecessarily and have squelched our voice in the state budget crises discussion. (Supt. Bishop was part of a larger budget conversation, representing our district very well in San Diego County and in Sacramento!)
The cost of forcing a resignation on our district goes beyond the buy-out, expected to be just under $300,000. There are legal fees, the salary of the interim superintendent and all the cost involved in interviewing and hiring a new superintendent.
And to those of us parents and teachers who have worked on our mission statements and strategic plans — what will become of those? Will the board deem them to be hog wash, too? What will be the next change? It has been stated in the papers by one board member that one possible change will be in our attendance boundaries. My guess is that our community at large would not like to have yet one more negative factor affecting their property values! Opening the boundaries arguably would create even more confusion and alienate children who want to walk to their neighborhood schools.
I would like to just relax and have trust in the elected board members. They are, afterall, elected to serve our public education interests. But now that the district has been “hijacked,” trusting is a luxury we can no longer afford. If a decision to spend $300,000-plus of our district's money can be made in just one board meeting can be made without waking up our community, I don't know what will.
Is it really OK to spend precious education money to buy out a superintendent who unequivocally can stand proud on his successful collaborative efforts to grow the Del Mar district from three to eight schools in just 10 short years of service? He didn't do it on his own. He worked with our parents and teachers and staff. He worked with the elected officials in the county and state. He led the way to put Del Mar Schools on the map, becoming a premier district, boasting the number one school in all of San Diego County!
We can't bring him back, but we can certainly continue to collaborate together to build on a strong foundation! But, it appears that our elected board members are chipping away at that foundation...to what end?
The school board has three primary duties: To set school policy; to hire a qualified superintendent; and to approve a working budget. I feel that the board is stepping beyond its duties to micromanage and hold hostage a district whose only direction should be up. Why fix something that is not broken?
I hope our school board members would share with us their “ransom note.” What do you hope to gain from your most recent actions?
The continuing soap opera that has become the Del Mar Union School District has taken another bizarre turn with the sudden departure of its leading man, Superintendent Tom Bishop.
Add this to the episodes about the Del Mar Education Foundation, school boundaries, a hot lunch program, Spanish immersion and the sale of the Del Mar Shores property.
As befits this serial, the big scene, last week's special meeting to determine Bishop's fate, featured high drama, complete with tears, anger, retribution — and more than a little confusion.
The crowd that filled the Del Mar Hills Academy auditorium demanded answers but received none. While the board has every right under law not to publicly discuss personnel matters — the district is quick to send out press releases for hirings by the way, but always close mouthed on firings or disciplinary actions — we believe there have been too many parents and educators left in the dark on this one.
Many wondered why a change was needed for a district flush with success and all of it accomplished under the guidance of Bishop.
The superintendent has had his detractors, including obviously three of the five school board members who helped orchestrate his buyout. But only a handful chose to express that sentiment at last week's meeting. That left the an angry mob to vent, jeer and ask "why?"
The backlash continued the next evening at the board's regular monthly meeting during a regular presentation by the Del Mar Education Foundation's president Bob Gans. Gans said he had received numerous angry calls and e-mails from parents, who asked in effect, why they should contribute their hard-earned money to a district that can blow about $300,000 for a buyout of Bishop's contract. "It is essential to communicate that answer," Gans told the board.
The Bishop writing was clearly etched on the wall in the November 2006 election when the triumvirate of trustees Easton, White and McDowell took its place on the board with calls for increased transparency — something now lacking in the Bishop issue — and restoration of power to trustees. In the words of former trustee Jeannie Waite, one of 35 people to speak at the meeting, Bishop "never had a chance" after the school board election.
"Not all of us have access to the same information," said the board's president Annette Easton of the Bishop decision.
Knowledge does equate to power after all.
Some may have their suspicions and theories about his departure, but without any concrete explanation, we are left thinking the board was following the old Groucho Marx adage, "Don't look now but there's one too many people in this room, and I think it's you.
In a sudden but not entirely unexpected move, the Del Mar Union School District's board of trustees has bought out the contract of Superintendent Thomas Bishop.
The Feb. 26 resignation acceptance was announced at Del Mar Hills Academy after a special closed session meeting by the board and a following heated public input portion. Bishop's last day is technically April 30, but he has begun an extended vacation until his final day of work. Under terms of the buyout, Bishop will receive a severance payment of $287,851.86 — the equivalent of 18 months of salary. He will also receive health benefits for the time period unless he is hired elsewhere.
Tension has been palpable between Bishop and several members of the board since a November 2006 school board election, which saw the reelection of current board president Annette Easton and the addition of trustees Katherine White and Steven McDowell. The three ran as a slate in the election on a platform of transparency and accountability of district operations and a return of power to the board. Several controversies had raised tensions, including illegalities with a hot lunch program, a brouhaha over a Spanish emersion program at Sycamore Ridge School and lawsuits over the sale of the district's Ninth Street or shores property. Issues with the Del Mar Education Foundation seemingly exacerbated the tension. The divisions on the board were illustrated by a split decision on the resignation with trustees Janet Lamborghini and Linda Crawford voting against the buyout.
The fate of Bishop has been the subject of speculation and gossip throughout the district since the '06 election, but that didn't stop numerous parents and educators among a large crowd of about 150 people at last Tuesday's meeting from expressing surprise and outrage at the decision and its timing.
Torrey Hills School teacher Chris Teisher said she was feeling, "shock, disappointment and sadness."
"Del Mar is at the forefront of all districts in San Diego County," she said. "This did not happen by accident, it happened under the leadership of Mr. Bishop.
"Is this best for our kids?" asked Teisher.
"What is the problem here?" asked now retired teacher Mary Farrell, a Del Mar resident and longtime district employee. "I've worked with three superintendents in this district and he (Bishop) was the best."
Farrell, like several among the 35 public speakers, questioned the timing of the move.
"We are in the middle of a state budget crisis and a nationwide recession," she said. "I say to this community, ask what the problem is and then hold your noses."
Also questioning the decision was Torrey Hills parent Mary Taylor.
"Why?" asked Taylor, "and why now? Does your decision outweigh the potential damage? Is there due diligence behind this decision? Did I miss something or did something go out to parents and teachers? What is your plan for getting us through this?"
Taylor's last two questions received thunderous applause from the crowd.
Easton later said the board was, under California law, precluded from directly answering questions about personnel decisions discussed under closed session.
"We ran on a platform of transparency in the last election," she said, "and this situation doesn't allow it. You are all going to leave here without having your questions answered and that's unfortunate." She added that the decision was the best thing for the district.
An emotional Lamborghini and Crawford briefly praised Bishop for his service.
Lamborghini, who was seen briefly wiping away tears during public input, called Bishop "a man of integrity."
"Look at our scores, look at our facilities," she said.
"It's a very emotional night, and it hits you in the core," said Crawford. "This is an academic program that is the envy of the state and our children are better for it.
"This is a sad day for me."
Only three speakers spoke in support of the board's decision, including parent Raffi Simonian.
"Communication problems were real and fostered by Bishop," he said. "I'm grateful to this board for making this difficult decision and look forward to a new chapter."
Bishop, who has been superintendent in the district since 1998, was not present at the Tuesday special meeting, or at the following evening's regular school board meeting. Under his tenure, the district experienced explosive growth, opening five new schools in Carmel Valley. He also oversaw renovation projects at the district's two oldest schools, Del Mar Heights and Del Mar Hills Academy. In 2001, trustees nominated Bishop as California Superintendent of the year.
Monday, March 3, 2008 | It was all but certain that most of the throng of teachers, staff and parents who filled the multi-purpose room at Del Mar Hills Academy Feb. 26 would leave in defeat.
If Thomas F. Bishop were going to remain at the helm of the school district he’s led for a decade, that evening’s gathering -- what became a sort of protest/wake for a leader many love, followed by the final vote for his resignation -- would never have happened.
They knew it, and came in force anyway.
So there was a none-too-subtle feeling of desperation at Del Mar Hills that night, one that seems certain to emanate through the district for some time. No matter what one thinks of Bishop, who has loyal supporters and ardent detractors among both parents and staff, what happened last Tuesday served notice that Del Mar now needs some serious healing.
By 6 p.m., when the board of trustees of the Del Mar Union School District emerged from their closed session meeting, no empty seats remained in the big room. The crowd, mostly dozens of Bishop supporters, bristled with indignant energy. In what I heard of their conversations, outrage, worry and shock simmered. They would soon boil over.
The Del Mar trustees sit at a line of foldout tables on a stage at the front of the room, about three feet above the audience. To sit there that evening, daunted by more than 32 speaker slips, looking out at a room about to erupt, could not have been easy (if their faces were any indication). At least not for the three-person majority whose agenda it was to axe Bishop.
But as many stunned district employees reminded them that night, learning that the captain of your ship just got sent down the plank isn’t a piece of cake, either. Deborah Hanna, a third grade teacher with 31 years in the district, got a stinging public comment session going.
"Do I have too much power in my classroom?" she asked, protesting critics who decried the superintendent’s hand as too mighty. "Do I have too much power when deciding how to teach the state standards?"
The room exploded -- and I do mean exploded -- with cheers and applause as she finished, a cry that told of aching anticipation for that moment in those who sounded it.
The superintendent’s resignation was opposed with a brew of rational appeal, raw emotion and rhetorical assault -- with an emphasis on the final two. The best case against Bishop’s resignation was simply that the $287,000 it will cost (at a minimum) simply isn’t worth it in a year when such financial misery is expected to rain down on California public schools. Especially not with his contract up in two years.
Few let the board forget that.
"It appears you let your lust for power stand in the way of good judgment," parent Kelli Politoske told the board. "Why did you force Tom Bishop to resign? Why this shotgun divorce? ... Why the rush to fire our only advocate at the state level?"
A staggering number of speakers -- many of them staff and instructors that Bishop himself had hired -- far exceeded their three-minute time limit in offering praise for their boss.
"We know full well that we are better educators because of his support and leadership," retired district employee Martha Cox said, bring on another thundercloud of cheers from the packed house.
When parents who were thrilled to see Bishop depart took the mic, the trickle of applause from a back corner left no doubt about who was in the minority.
"There aren’t a lot of parents here speaking in support of Mr. Bishop because he frankly didn’t listen to parents," said Ginny Merrifield, a district parent and frequent critic of the superintendent, who managed the election campaigns of the board members who pushed him to resign.
"He misrepresented the facts, he lied and he collaborated with others to undermine the board. I think it’s fair to call the question of whether or not he’s willing to work with the board," she said, over a swell of booing.
The roughly 90 minutes of verbal combat yielded a spate of interesting charges:
First, that board member Katherine White should resign, be recalled or be censured for a quote she made in my last column about other unsavory goings on in the Del Mar district. (Goings-on that were not only never denied by any of the speakers, but which were in fact fleshed out by one of them, who added details that White did not offer.)
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Second, that your Merge-land correspondent is in fact a "crony" of White, Annette Easton and Steven McDowell, the board majority who ousted Bishop. (I try hard to be fair and honest.)
Third, that it was the goal of the new board majority to oust Bishop from the start, a claim bolstered by a quote White gave to the Union-Tribune in 2006, where she mentioned the option of buying out Bishop’s contract if he didn’t deal well with a newly powerful board. ("What I mean was not supposed to be a comment on Tom in particular, it was just a comment in general," White told me. "It was supposed to be a statement of fact.")
Two questions, both of them still unanswered, overshadowed the meeting and will likely overshadow the Del Mar district for some time.
The first, and most obvious, was why exactly Bishop was booted right there and then. All Board President Annette Easton said, with an apology, was that she couldn’t say.
"I would only consider a decision like this if I really felt that it was in the best interest of helping us as a community move forward," Easton told the room, still brimming two hours in. "You see different sides of the entire picture ... Not all of us have access to the same information."
(Bishop is unpopular among some in the district for having an uncompromising management style, being less-than-upfront on his personal agenda and not tolerating dissenting views, all of which critics say have hindered many district endeavors: Its effort to sell a piece of land to the city of Del Mar, its setting of boundaries for attendance at its eight schools, the process of setting up a Spanish-language program and the management of a nonprofit that supports the Del Mar curriculum, among other things.)
But whatever information Easton was referring to apparently failed to sway the two more Bishop-friendly board members, who voted against buying out Bishop’s contract.
"This is a sad day for me," Trustee Linda Crawford said.
The second question, far more difficult and frightening than the first, was aired in many forms by people on both sides of the Bishop debate, and its importance was underscored by the nearly unbelievable bitterness of the whole affair. Even in Del Mar, where divisive school debate has seemingly risen to a sort of sport (at least among parents), the meeting Feb. 26 was worryingly ugly. And now a recall campaign is brewing for the three board members who pushed Bishop out.
Parent Mary Taylor put it best. The next test that the trustees of the Del Mar Union School District, and their choice for a superintendent, must successfully pass: "What is your plan for getting us through this?"
Ian S. Port is assistant editor of the Rancho Santa Fe Review, Carmel Valley News and Del Mar Village Voice. Contact him at iansmithport@gmail.com. Or send a letter to the editor.
If I must die someday - and empirical evidence suggests it's highly likely - I want to come back to life as an embattled school superintendent.
In the various jobs I've held, getting sideways with the boss has always been a bad, if not devastating, prospect.
From what I've observed, losing your job for cause can seriously compromise your chances of a financially secure life.
Not so in the upper echelons of education. In this rarefied atmosphere, getting fired can be a really good thing.
Built into a typical superintendent's contract is the explicit understanding that parting, even under openly hostile terms, will be sour sorrow for taxpayers but a sweet payoff to the departing Mr. Chips.
Consider Tom Bishop, the 10-year superintendent of Del Mar Union School District.
After overseeing a successful era of expansion, Bishop in recent years developed into a divisive lightning rod. Critics considered him impulsive and high-handed. Flash points such as boundary changes and the attempted sale of school land in downtown Del Mar proved his undoing, observers say.
Loyalists, on the other hand, many of them teachers, thought he supervised on water.
In the 2006 election, the board changed majorities. Bishop's days were clearly numbered. Last week, during an emotional meeting, many of his supporters vented their grief.
To no avail. Bishop was let go with a promise to pay him $300,000, or roughly 18 months' pay plus perks.
Bishop's pro forma settlement parallels the 2006 deal enjoyed by former San Marcos Unified Superintendent Ed Brand, who alienated his board after one year but collected $400,000 in walking-away money.
In this circle, getting fired sure beats working.
Fortunately, Del Mar has money to burn. Five mil's in the bank. The district's aggressive foundation fills gaps.
In the post-Bishop era, Del Mar students are going to be fine. Their advantages in life aren't going anywhere. They'll continue to whale on standardized tests because, well, because they're generally from affluent families.
As most educators will concede, good scores reflect bank accounts more than anything else.
For teachers, however, the keening for Bishop will persist. He was their champion when it came to high salaries and reduced teaching hours. They, in turn, were his loyal base of support.
No wonder many Del Mar teachers showed up to tear their hair and rend their clothes when the board voted to get rid of him.
But to be honest, they were crying for themselves, not for Bishop, who was floating into the Del Mar sunset on a golden-air balloon. All around North County, teachers are facing layoffs. Their deals won't be so good.
Aside from the money, what I admire most about superintendent severance deals is the psychologically reassuring promise that no one involved will ever say anything bad about anyone else. Trustees are doling out our money, mind you, but they just can't divulge those devilish details.
Lawyers call this outbreak of genteel manners the "nondisparagement clause."
Here's how it works: Everyone agrees to throw pixie dust over the whole nasty episode. After throwing daggers at each other for months, the players are magically transformed into mute Stepford trustees.
You saw it in San Marcos, where board members smiled through their teeth and refused to explain why Brand, formerly the super of Sweetwater, was let go after a year.
Aside from the dollars and the pixie dust, there's another reason not to weep 'n' wail for Bishop.
If he doesn't want to retire, Bishop, 58, can probably find a job at another district while savoring the infusion of Del Mar dollars.
After the expansion (and affluence-driven academic success) he's overseen, his stock is no doubt high. He'll have a Google record trailing behind him, of course, but self-confident boards will be impressed with his record of achievement. Chances are, Bishop will negotiate an even higher starting salary.
You have to love it.
Superintendents wear out their welcome - and hit pay dirt.
Setting a ridiculously high bar in this rewarding end game is MiraCosta College's former President Victoria Muñoz Richart.
Richart helped make a mess of things during the infamous Palmgate scandal and then, in exchange for leaving campus, demanded (and received!) $1.6 million, $650,000 of it in punitive damages.
On Friday, Richart endured the indignity of a deposition in a citizen's lawsuit attempting to recoup a portion of that over-the-top walking-away money.
If there's any justice, Richart may wind up wishing she'd played by the same lavish, but perfectly legal, rules Bishop and Brand did.
Official Agenda, Special School Board Meeting • February 29, 2008
Call To Order - Open Session - 9:30am
Business To Be Transacted Will Be Limited To The Following:
Approval of Agenda
Public Comment
Adjourn To Closed Session
Closed Session Agenda:
Public Employee Appointment/Employment: Title: Superintendent (Interim) (G.C. 54957)
Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release Pursuant To Government Code 54957
Adjourn To Open Session
Reconvene To Open Session
Report Of Action Taken In Closed Session
Consider approval of the proposed settlement and mutual release agreement between the Brady Company / San Diego, Inc. and the Del Mar Union School District for repair work at Torrey Hills School in the amount of $29,702.00.
Consider approval of the proposed settlement and mutual release agreement between Tower Glass, Inc. and the Del Mar Union School District for repair work at Torrey Hills School in the amount of $22,379.27.
Adjournment Of Special Board Meeting Of February 29, 2008.
The tenure of Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Thomas F. Bishop was ended at a packed meeting Feb. 26, where teachers and parents from the district battled over the legacy of a man who ran one of the county’s highest performing school districts for a decade.
The district’s board of trustees voted 3-2 that evening to buy out the remainder of Bishop’s contract two years early, effectively sending the district chief into resignation.
The board was prohibited from publicly announcing the reasons for seeking to buy out the superintendent’s contract early, which seemed to anger many in attendance.
“I would only consider a decision like this if I really thought it was in the best interest of helping us as a community move forward and continue to have excellence in the classroom,” board president Annette Easton said. “Not all of us see it the same way; not all of us have access to the same information.”
Trustees Janet Lamborghini and Linda Crawford both voted against buying out Bishop’s contract. Easton, Katherine White and Steven McDowell voted in favor of the motion.
“[Bishop] has developed strong educational programs that are the envy of the state, and our children are all the better for it,” Crawford said. “This is a sad day for me.”
Teachers and parents turned out in force Feb. 26 to criticize the board for its decision to remove Bishop, saying the funds used to buy out the contract could have been better spent in a year when the state is likely to slash school funding.
“I have always been proud to be a part of the Del Mar Union School District,” parent and longtime teacher Carole Sharp told the board of trustees. “Tonight I am not proud.”
More than a dozen former and current teachers and employees came out in support of Bishop, highlighting his past leadership and criticizing the board majority for its decision to seek his removal.
“I am truly sorry to see Tom go,” said former DMUSD teacher Linda Castile. “I feel like a series of misstatements and misjudgments have been made by this board.”
Statements opposed to Bishop’s departure earned thunderous applause from the crowd, while a smaller number seemed to cheer for speakers who implied approval of his leaving. But several supporters of the decision to remove the superintendent were present.
“There aren’t a lot of parents here speaking in support of Mr. Bishop because he frankly didn’t listen to parents,” said parent Ginny Merrifield. “He misrepresented the facts, he lied and he collaborated with others to undermine the board. I think that it’s fair to call the question of whether or not he is willing to work with the board.”
Bishop was selected as head of the Del Mar Union School District in 1998, when the district included only three schools. A graduate of UCLA and UC Berkeley, Bishop worked as a teacher and administrator in schools around California before coming to San Diego County and, finally, Del Mar.
His tenure coincided with the growth of development in the city of San Diego east of I-5, an area that would be served largely by the Del Mar district. He oversaw the opening of five schools in Carmel Valley and, importantly, the birth of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, a nonprofit that solicits parent donations to help pay for the district’s extended studies curriculum.
Though he commanded fierce loyalty from parents and teachers in the district right up until the moment the board voted to end his contract, Bishop’s leadership began to fuel opposition in later years.
A vocal group of parents criticized Bishop for what they said was a mishandling of the district’s effort to sell the 5-acre Shores property to the city of Del Mar. He was further admonished by some parents who asked for an investigation into the goings-on of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation — a request that Bishop criticized at the time.
The election of a new three-person majority to the district’s board of trustees in 2006 — amid community-wide controversy — broke up a board that had been seen by some as too supportive of Bishop.
But the lines of division laid out during the past election did not end there, as comments made Feb. 21 vividly illustrated.
“Tom Bishop never had a chance when the three-person majority was elected in 2006,” Jeannie Waite said at the meeting.
Under the terms of the contract buy-out, Bishop will be paid $287,851.86 — equivalent to 18 months of salary — through Oct. 21, 2009. His employment will be formally terminated April 30, but the superintendent’s last day of work will be Feb. 28. (The interim will be taken as vacation days.)
Bishop also receives health benefits through Oct, 31, 2009, unless he becomes otherwise employed. He was not present Feb. 26.
DEL MAR – Tom Bishop, the departing schools chief for the Del Mar Union School District, began yesterday to sift through a decade of work and memories after the school board voted 3-2 on Tuesday to buy out his contract.
Tom Bishop
The outgoing superintendent will leave the district on vacation this Friday and officially resign April 30.
Yesterday, he said he would not criticize the school board's decision. But he said that he probably would have stayed if a majority of trustees wanted him there and that he had no other reasons for wanting to quit.
“The board that hired you is not always the board you have when you leave,” Bishop said. “It doesn't always work well, and my departure is an example of that.”
Bishop, 58, said he was proud of his role in leading the district through a decade of remarkable growth, when the number of schools grew from three to eight and the teaching staff increased from 70 to 250. The district now enrolls about 3,800 students in kindergarten through sixth grade.
“The facilities are top-rate, and especially what goes on in the classrooms is top-rate,” he said.
Bishop will leave the district with a healthy $5 million reserve, equal to 14 percent of the budget. The state requires school districts to keep a 3 percent reserve.
He said yesterday that he hopes trustees use the money to weather the state budget crisis, which is expected to cause a $1 million shortfall in Del Mar Union in 2008-09.
California districts without Del Mar's financial cushion are considering layoffs and program cuts to make ends meet.
On Tuesday night, a divided school board voted to buy out Bishop's contract, which will cost at least $287,000 and likely more than $300,000. Trustees Annette Easton, Katherine White and Steve McDowell, who voted for the buyout, have commanded a political majority on the board since late 2006. They had long criticized Bishop for wielding too much power and not listening to parents.
Bishop's critics have said the superintendent angered parents during school attendance boundary changes in 2002, had formed too close a relationship between the district and its independent parent-run nonprofit foundation, and had not been open enough concerning the sale of the Del Mar Shores school property. It's now in escrow with the city.
Some parents have been angered by district talks to start a Spanish language immersion program – a move they claim has not sufficiently involved parents.
At Tuesday's meeting, a handful of parents said it was time for a change in leadership.
But they were far outnumbered by an angry crowd of parents and teachers Tuesday, some of whom called the buyout a waste of money at a time when the district may ask parents to help offset budget cuts.
“I'm going to have to dig very deep to get the motivation to run that campaign when our school board is willing to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars on this resignation agreement,” said Janet Pecsar, a parent at Del Mar Hills Elementary School.
Trustee Janet Lamborghini, who joined Linda Crawford in voting against the buyout, said she had “unqualified confidence” in Bishop and that he delivered “one of the best educational programs in the state.”
Bishop began his career more than three decades ago teaching high school government, history and English, and he later taught English in middle school and then the fifth grade. Before coming to Del Mar in 1998, Bishop was a superintendent of the Jamul-Dulzura Union School District for 12 years.
Bishop said he has great affection for the community in Del Mar, and he praised teachers, parents, and trustees for their dedication.
He acknowledged that he upset some parents during a decade of rapid growth and dizzying change that required setting new attendance boundaries – a contentious process in any school district.
“There's no doubt that the boundary adjustment was very divisive,” Bishop said. Easton was elected to the school board during that turmoil.
The district today is settled to the point that people who buy houses have a good idea of where their children will attend school for 20 to 30 years, he said.
Bishop said he has also set high academic expectations for all students. Last year, the district scored 947 on the state's Academic Performance Index, a multifaceted measure of academic achievement that ranges from 200 to 1,000. The district had the highest API score in the county in 2007, and the seventh highest in the state.
As the parent foundation continues to raise money to provide music, art, science and physical education teachers, trustees will struggle with equity issues, Bishop said.
He said he has wanted all schools to be treated equally, but some parents have wanted to donate just to their own campuses. The board allows parents to pay for up to two teaching positions at their child's school.
On Tuesday, Easton said trustees would not comment on the decision to buy out Bishop's contract.
On Friday, the board is scheduled to meet privately to discuss hiring an interim superintendent.
I am writing to clarify statements I made that were quoted in “Schools chief looks back on his tenure” (Our North County, Feb. 28).
The article implied that I will be less motivated to financially support my district due to Superintendent Tom Bishop's forced resignation and buyout of his contract. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am overflowing with motivation to donate my time and money to my school and district. I have to look no further than my school's outstanding teachers and exceptional programs to find that motivation.
The quote that “I am going to have to dig deep to get the motivation to run such a campaign” referred to a letter-writing campaign focused on our legislators in Sacramento to fight the governor's proposed budget cuts. My next statement to the school board was that I will run that campaign, regardless of how they voted on the resignation, because I believe that I have a voice in government.
I recognize and appreciate the programs that my children enjoy at our school that are not paid for by public funds, and will continue to support those programs. While I respectfully disagree with the school board's decision, I will not let that stop me from supporting my school and district.
JANET PECSAR Del Mar
I take issue with the newspaper's coverage of the Del Mar Union School District. Specifically, the coverage of the hot lunch proceeds that were diverted, the missing money at Del Mar Hieghts Elementary School and of the recent board meeting accepting Tom Bishop's resignation. Where, for example, were the mention of reprimands that were placed on Bishop? Where were any quotes from anyone supporting the board?
DEL MAR – In a move that angered many teachers and parents, a bitterly divided Del Mar school board bought out Superintendent Tom Bishop's contract last night, ending his decade of leadership in the highly regarded elementary district.
The buyout, which will cost the Del Mar Union School District at least $287,000 and likely more than $300,000, ends a rocky relationship between Bishop and trustees Annette Easton, Katherine White and Steve McDowell. The three trustees had continually criticized Bishop on a number of issues since White ad
McDowell were elected in fall 2006.
The vote to accept the buyout was 3-2, with trustees Janet Lamborghini and Linda Crawford dissenting.
More than 150 people attended the school board meeting last night, many angrily opposed to the majority vote. The three trustees had little to say, other than to express their desire to take the district in a new direction. Bishop did not attend.
Board President Easton said the board could not speak about personnel issues in public.
“This process has been extremely difficult,” she said. “One of the primary issues I ran on was transparency. . . . Unfortunately, this situation does not
allow it.”
Crawford did say Bishop's departure was regrettable.
“Our district is world-class because of Tom Bishop and his staff,” she said. “This is a sad day for me.”
In the past, the board majority had criticized Bishop's management style, saying he was not open enough and did not seek consensus.
However, many teachers and parents said Bishop worked hard to inform them of decisions and enlisted their opinions about how to make schools better.
As a result, the district experienced rapid growth over the past decade, expanding from three to eight campuses while still improving academically. The district is one of the highest performing in the state.
Many speakers said the board's decision was reckless at a time when state budget cuts are looming.
“As we sit at the edge of near certain financial turmoil, I'm concerned that the board is fixing something that clearly isn't broken,” teacher Jennifer Jo Mokiao said.
According to the resignation agreement, the district will pay Bishop $287,851.86, equal to 18 months' salary.
The district also will pay health benefits through Oct. 31, 2009 – unless Bishop is hired elsewhere.
Other provisions allow Bishop to:
Keep his district cell phone and laptop computer.
Receive up to $10,000 for any attorney fees he incurred during negotiations to resign.
Be paid for 3.6 days of vacation accrued between Feb. 29 and April 30.
