Objections should have been heard
To the editor:
I have read the articles on the removal and subsequent payout of Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District human resources director Tania Chance.
I also watched a portion of the June 1, 2011, School Board meeting where Ms. Chance’s employment was ratified prior to employment reviews to the objection of board members DeeDee Currier and Paula Teiken.
In light of these objections, it dumbfounds me to the total lack of any fiscal responsibility to the taxpaying citizens of District 191 to give an employee compensation over $250,000 just to leave and two letters of recommendation so future employers can be blindsided.
The offer of a letter of recommendation dilutes the integrity of this board and of any letter of recommendation the board will submit in the future on someone’s behalf. This board has shown incompetence in the hiring and handling of this situation to the tune of over $250,000, while smart, productive children in classrooms all across District 191 have to share textbooks in overcrowded classrooms.
Then, when confronted with the rule of law to disclose the specifics of the separation agreement, the board does the bare minimum by stating that it complied with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, according to their interpretation of this statute.
From this taxpayer’s position, and many like me, the board has done the bare minimum to inform its taxpaying base of what went wrong and now cowardly stands behind its compliance to the statute in order to not answer difficult questions.
It’s undeniable that this board or the superintendent or both have shown incompetence in this matter. Performing one’s job correctly simply doesn’t result in large monetary payouts to an incompetent employee from an already financially strapped school district.
The board needs to address how they write their employment contracts and not rely on how everyone else does theirs. The vetting of future cabinet posts such as this human resources position needs to be better scrutinized and termination of underperforming employees should be just that, termination. Not termination with large cash payouts.
This is a very concerning matter to this tax-paying citizen.
Scott Walters
Burnsville
