The Columbia Borough School District Board of Directors will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 5:30 p.m. in the District Administration Center, 200 N. 5th Street, Columbia, to interview candidates for the open board position to discuss and take action on that and any other matter that comes before the board, according to
a legal notice on lancasteronline.
The regular monthly school board meeting will be held Thursday, January 19, at 7 p.m.
Let's hope that the doo doesn't get to pick the new board member as has often been the case in the past.
ReplyDeleteToo bad it is only for one seat.Replace the ones that side with the DOO would help too.
ReplyDeleteThe Elanco agreement may have worked if Elanco would have picked the right person, a qualified, certified person to be the director of operations...but they did not.
ReplyDeleteHiring a person that you describe as unqualified and not certified sounds like corporate welfare.
DeleteThe problem here is that all taxpayers are paying the salary for this welfare position!
Also, if we would have had the money in hand, not a think we have. Thank you, Kathy on bringing it up, or it would have possibly gone unnoticed.
ReplyDeletePa. House Bill #1332, which was meant to help school districts work together to cut costs, may not pass because of the way that it was handled in Columbia.
DeleteOnce again, Columbia may look foolish because of the poor personnel choices made with the Elanco agreement.
We must remember to thank the few school board members who are working , under a bad situation, to do what is right instead of being led in the wrong direction by those with no ethics.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the state Department of Education, only 10 resident taxpayer signatures are needed for a petition to be eligible to be presented to a judge.
ReplyDeletePennsylvania doesn't allow for a recall election with a question on the ballot. But according to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, there is a procedure where school district residents can file a petition with the court seeking the removal of a school board member who has demonstrated to be "willfully neglecting their duties."
The judge would need to determine whether the school board members actually violated the school code. If the court decides the school board members did violate the code, it would then be up to the judge to appoint replacement school board members to fill the remainder of the removed officials' terms.
According to the PSBA, school code requirements include regular attendance of school board meetings, prohibit conflicts of interest, bar school board members from accepting bribes or tampering with public records, among other guidelines.
In order to file the petition, one has to have cash. The court has a filing fee and they do not accept cards. The code does not mention that nor does it state that one should hire an attorney first to navigate the system, but that was the advice given by those in authority. The process is more complex than the public is led to believe, by design I am certain. The costs involved discourage already tax-straped residents.
DeleteGet rid of the Elanco agreement and the director of operations.
ReplyDeleteThanks to the few members that do care.
ReplyDeleteSo who is the new board member?
ReplyDeleteThe issue was tabled until a judge renders a decision on Frank Doutrich's filing for the position. We'll post more information tomorrow.
DeleteGo here to find out what happened at last night's meeting: https://columbianewsandviews.com/2017/01/18/school-board-special-meeting-whys/
DeleteThank you Cole and Brian for your tireless efforts to get to the truth and inform real Columbia people.
DeleteInvestigative reporting has always been the pillar of freedom from oppression by corrupt individuals.
Where is Brian's reporting?
Deletehttps://columbianewsandviews.com
DeleteAfter reading Brian's column, it would appear that Strickler's fantasies include being the superintendent and the solicitor and the only one that speaks to the press about our schools.
ReplyDeleteNarcissism at it's finest!!!!
It maybe a good idea for Hollister to terminate the agreement and Strickler.
A big thank you to the temporary sanity of the board for voting to overrule Strickler's interjection that they proceed.
If Strickler believes that he is makes the rules and is above the law, he is in for a big surprise.
ReplyDeleteBeing involved in government for over 20 years, now retired, that agreement is going to cost your district more than they say unless the board ends it. It sounds good, but the director of operations position is not needed if you have a principal in place. It sounds as if Mr. Strickler wants to run the show.
ReplyDeleteAlso,the board president runs the meeting,not the Director of Operations. The president is his boss,and that must be stressed to him.
Why is Strickler permitted to speak at meetings, to question, to direct our board, and it seems.... to have spoken to the attorney and to the board president prior to the meeting.....SOUNDS UNETHICAL!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHOW CAN A PROUD TOWN ALLOW, WHAT APPEARS TO BE ONE PERSON, DO WHAT IS BEING DONE???
THE TIME HAS COME TO CHANGE THIS!!!!
If the board minutes from last nights meeting, which I attended, are published correctly, they will show, with no question, that Strickler tried, out in the open, to influence and direct board procedure.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless Us
ReplyDelete