|Mr. Stover, is it true?
Mr. Rainey asked Dr. Sisney in his deposition if you had told Sisney that you would not vote to terminate him unless there was evidence that Sisney had committed a
crime; Sisney did not confirm or deny this.
Then Dr. Sisney said in his deposition that you told him in June that you thought he had done "too much for the district" to get rid of him.
Mr. Stover, is this true? Did you tell Dr. Sisney, as he indicated in his deposition, that you would not vote to dismiss him because he had done too much for the
District? Was this before the hearing on October 23, 2008 where the evidence was presented? You had already made up your mind and declared your intentions
without seeing the evidence? Did it not matter to you what he might have done that was damaging to the district, individuals, and the community? Can any destructive
behavior, including breaking laws, be excused as long as a superintendent has done enough for the District?
Is it true that you told Dr. Sisney that you would not vote to terminate him unless there was evidence that he had committed a crime? If so, do you really believe that
nothing short of a crime is grounds for dismissing a superintendent?
What about if a superintendent frequently treats staff, patrons, and and others in a demeaning and humiliating manner which imperils working relationships? This
doesn't mean an occasional temper flare - it says "frequently", and that it had a significant negative effect on working relationships. In light of the reports of the
teachers and staff who have left directly because of Sisney (whether or not that was the official reason they gave), is this not worthy of consideration in whether a
superintendent is good for the district? It's not a crime - so does that mean it's ok?
What about if a superintendent badmouths employees, former employees, board members, and other superintendents to a district employee? That's not against the
law. Is it the kind of professional behavior that you would accept from the superintendent?
What about if the superintendent made under-the-table deals with certain staff members and kept them secret from the board and from the public, when agreements
of this nature are required to be public record? Unless that's against the law, you have no problem with that? This may actually be against the law. How "against the
law" does an act have to be for you to consider it a crime, therefore something that should be considered regarding the superintendent's employment?
What about if a superintendent made false public allegations against a vendor, which damaged their reputation in the community and cost them business? Note that
this says false. The superintendent knew at the time that his claims were false. We know that because he has admitted that he has NO EVIDENCE, confirming that he
made it all up. This is against the law. Again, how "against the law" does it have to be for you to consider it a crime, therefore something that should be considered
regarding the superintendent's employment?
What about if a superintendent came across information that raised questions in his mind about billing practices of a vendor, and he did not meet with the vendor,
bring up his questions in a civil manner, and ask for clarification? What if instead he refused to talk with the vendor and instead went directly to publicly accusing the
vendor of cheating the district - while continuing to refuse to meet with the vendor to even tell him what the suspected problem was? Is this how a superintendent
should interact with vendors and members of the community? Should this evasive and adversarial behavior not be taken into account when considering the
superintendent's continued employment?
Is not being a criminal the only requirement for the superintendent of Broken Arrow Schools?
I question the decision-making abilities of Mr. Stover and Ms. Updike. They have been lauded as the "good guys" from the Sisney side. But from their words and
actions it seems evident that they were loyal to Sisney without considering either his unprofessional behavior or the evidence in the October 23, 2008 hearing.
If it is true that both of them told Sisney before seeing any evidence in the October 23, 2008 hearing that they would not - under any circumstances, said Ms. Updike -
vote to terminate Sisney, they were unfit to be part of that decision.
Sisney was right - there was bias on the school board. "Bias" is defined as "a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." It is clear to
see where the bias was, and which way it leaned.
Anyone who pointed to the 3-2 vote as proof that the three board members were hiding corruption, this is the explanation you were looking for. Some of us had it
figured all along.
|Mr. Stover, is it true?