Monday, November 17, 2008

McFerson is The Shadow

Is McFerson really trolling the internet for superintendent candidates? Does anyone believe that?

There's a lot of hush-hush as the board goes about its superintendent search, with McFerson running the show as The Shadow. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! McFerson (er, The Shadow) knows..."

The question that remains is this: Can anyone run an effective search from Utah? The Shadow can. Yeh, right!


Anonymous said...

Indeed....from the man who says:
"you know me, I don't do very well with email!"

"It is amazing what you can find with Google"

I just Googled,"qualified school superintendents Ohio"....and the search didn't give me one name of a candidate, but it did refer me to OSBA and several search firms.

Maybe Google is better in Utah?

Anonymous said...

There should be a little bit of "hush hush" during the initial stages of a search. Candidates should be able to have an initial conversation to see if they are interested before having their current employer aware that they are looking. Anyone who has ever searched for a new job and is currently employed appreciates a little discretion in the early going.

I am sure that the finalists will be known to the public and the full Board well before a final selection is made. If not, that would be a problem. It can be dealt with then or at the polls.

Anonymous said...

Judging from the B.S. that Dimon and Co. are pulling AGAIN it looks like he's doing his search from "", instead of "".

From Websters:

A wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft
— boondoggle intransitive verb
— boon·dog·gler \-g(ə-)lər\ noun

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we're to believe that Dimon is actually doing his own research. Please...

We're also supposed to believe that he/they (the board) don't already have their super picked out, and this current "search" isn't just a show.

Given that it's impossible to imagine Dimon research to cultivate his own list of candidates it's only logical to conclude that someone is serving as his own point on this process. Who is his Rasputin now? Franklin? Davis?

Please save our district from this autocrat.

Websters definition:

1 : a person (as a monarch) ruling with unlimited authority
2 : one who has undisputed influence or power

Jim Fedako said...

10:26 --

It's good to know that the board/admin apologists are still out in force. I know, I know, they can do no wrong in your eyes. It's all for the kids.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say they could do no wrong. They may do a terrible job in their search. I did say that a little discretion up front is a good thing. That's all I said...that's all I meant.

Anonymous said...

Full transparency comes with the territory, and all superintendents know--and expect--this.

Truth be told, a sock puppet could be our superintendent and we'll still achieve "Excellent" rating, year over year. That outcome is due to the district's demographics, period.

The superintendent is just a figure head: it's the teachers who run the asylum and implement their own curriculums--it's codified in their contract. The superintendent has very little sway over what unfolds in the classroom. Who are we kidding?

You take Scott Davis, who managed a district that was in Continual Improvement for many years and put him in Olentangy and you have the same outcome that Olentangy has had for many years: Excellent. No higher/ no lower. Stasis.

There are no "star" superintendents out there who can impose their "vision" on members of the OTA. That's not happenin'.
That said, I want to be able to measure the person who we hire fully and completely so that (s)he has superior skills to control that which is in his/her power to control.

All we guarantee with the current, secretive process is that we'll get a superintendent who knew somebody to get the job.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely that the best determinant of results is the deomgraphics of the student population. I simply disagree that every step of a search process has to be in the open. Once a candidate passes an original screening and that candidate decides whether he/she wants to take the next step, then the rest of the process has to be open.

With that said, my sock puppet is available!

Anonymous said...

Every step has to be in the open. As Mrs. Smith pointed out the folly of this process, members of the board have to go into each candidate interview...without KNOWING WHO (s)he is! That assumes that each candidate is like the other, in which case one has to assume that it really doesn't matter who you hire--they're all the same! (which also supports the "sock puppet" comment).

Please try to justify that.

Anonymous said...

Justify what! Who said that board members should go into an interview without knowing who they are interviewing. Not me. In any event, I think I'll put a sock in it on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"I simply disagree that every step of a search process has to be in the open. Once a candidate passes an original screening and that candidate decides whether he/she wants to take the next step, then the rest of the process has to be open."

A.) Who would apply for a position only to decide whether they wish "to take the next step"? That makes no sense.
B.) The "initial" screening is performed by whom? That's a big secret, too. Let's say each member has a list of 3-5 candidates...that's 15-25 candidates: who is doing the "initial screening", and what criteria is being used? Secrecy is paramount--don't forget--so each member is presumably submitting his/her list to McFerson for "initial screening". So, he decides who goes onto the next stage of the process (which, invariably will be his candidate).

Why don't we just end this charade dressed up like a legitimate process and tell the board to just hire Dimon's guy? Please--it's embarassing.

Who do they think they're fooling?

Anonymous said...

Why the comment about Utah?

It seems Mr. McFerson is in Ohio enough to attend board meetings. Of the past seven meetings, he has missed two. Other board members were also absent in those seven meetings.

Anonymous said...

Dear Leader Dimon was at his vacation home in Utah(his words)when he did his reflecting about the process and his search for his favorite candidate....he said as much in his return to the board meeting where he proclaimed himself "Caesar Chavez of the Search Process".

No other Board Member has a bit of input on who is brought to the table.

I hope his next puppet offers more than the last one did is his short tenure!

Anonymous said...

If no other Board member has a bit of input, that would be their fault.

Anonymous said...


So you actually have been to board meeting? Dimon is bringing the candidates to the table and won't allow anyone else to bring a candidate in.

It is the fault of the majority to allow him to hijack the process....correct....but don't blame the minority that speaks out and then is painted as being "against the district and the children".

I blame the majority of district voters who don't pay attention to what is really going on and chose to blindly fund the wasteful initiatives that are put under the guise of "CIP" or "facilitating maximum learning for every student".

By the way...Central office is remodeling again to facilitate a new office for a new administrator. How many times do they need to remodel in 6 years?????????

Anonymous said...

Do tell--they're remodelling the office to accommodate a single, new administrator?

Or, did they just find an excuse to burn through some more the obscene bond balances from 2002, 2004, etc?

This district needs to be audited. And I mean AUDITED, not just summarily "certified", which seems to be current practice.

Anonymous said...



Hey district excuse machine. Tell you what....let's get a real audit done...then if you are right...I will lead the charge to back off!

If we are right...get out of our way and let the people who really care,and understand reality, run the district!!!

Anonymous said...

$1,000 says that Kerr would skip town if an audit were done--and I'm talking about A real audit-- not the kind of Mickey Mouse, "wink-wink" crap the district's long-time paid hack performs.

Our districts annual audit is to a professional audit, what a haircut is to surgery. Our district needs a financial colonoscopy, beginning with those obscene bond balances, if any is left over to audit (which I'm sure Kerr is feverishly trying to burn through now).

What's next--converting the gym at Shanahan into a central office spa? Why doesn't the board do anything about this? Oh, yeah--I forgot--they're the reason why Kerr and Hooie could even consider such a deception. They both know the board holds no one accountable.