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.  

  • We know that Mr. Stover told Sisney in June 2008 that Sisney had done too much for the district to get rid of him.  

  • We know that Mr. Stover clandestinely  sent a letter from the whole board to Mike Rampey, without letting the other board members see the letter, without telling
    them the draft was even available to review, without telling them he had sent it until Ms. Wilkins asked, and without providing them copies.  

  • We know that Mr. Stover refused to allow agenda items that were requested by other board members, including one to discuss the fund balance, attempting to
    explain this refusal with a technicality on a policy that didn't apply.  

  • We know that Mr. Stover spoke out against the board's 3-2 decision not to allow public comment at the special board meeting to vote on Sisney's suspension,
    even though as a board member, he had to know that it would have been unfair to Sisney, since negative comments would have been allowed also; it would
    have put the district at risk for legal challenges since comments could be considered to have influenced the board's decision; and it's common practice for board
    not to allow public comment at special meetings when personnel issues are going to be discussed.  Stover even wrote an editorial in the Broken Arrow Ledger
    criticizing the three, and claimed that this decision was censorship and a violation of democratic principles; a ludicrous claim since the First Amendment does not
    guarantee the public the right to say anything at any time in anyone's meeting.  Nevertheless, it worked on some people.


  • According to Ms. Wilkins, Mr. Stover refused to take any action when she informed him of Sisney's threats to Maryanne Flippo; he called it "hearsay", as if the
    word of two board members should be dismissed offhandedly.  

  • In Sisney's deposition, it was suggested that Mr. Stover told Sisney before the October 23 hearing that he would not vote to dismiss Sisney unless there was
    evidence that Sisney had committed a crime.  Sisney did not deny this in his deposition.

  • We know that Mr. Stover participated in a meeting with representatives of the AG's office, along with Stephanie Updike and Beth Snellgrove.  Stover presented
    his opinion that Sisney had been fired over a 77,000 PO.  He did not mention any of the reasons given in the termination letter, or any of the evidence that was
    presented to the board in executive session - which of course Stover had attended. No mention was made of the board members' counterclaim or any of the
    evidence in it that shows Sisney's scheme to discredit and pressure the board members.


  • We know that Ms. Updike willingly assisted Sisney in "isolating Maryanne".

  • We know that Ms. Updike willingly assisted Sisney by publicly making disparaging claims about RFR.

  • We know that Ms. Updike rallied parents and citizens to protest the ban on public comments at the special board meetings even though she knew it was
    necessary for legal reasons.

  • We know that Ms. Updike stirred up conflict by continually trying to blame the board for the legal fees that had been incurred directly because of Sisney's actions.

  • We know that Ms. Updike directed citizens to take action to harass the board and show them in a bad light.

  • We know that Ms. Updike lied about whether board members had been prevented from putting things on the agenda, and lied about knowing any reasons why
    the board was considering suspending Sisney.

  • We know that Ms. Updike gave a newspaper interview in which she violated several board policies to inaccurately place blame on the board members for the
    loss of teaching positions.  

  • In Sisney's deposition, it was suggested that Ms. Updike told Sisney before the October 23 hearing that she would not vote to dismiss Sisney under any
    circumstances.  Sisney did not deny this in his deposition.

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?