Comments were about process

Dear Editor:
The July 19 edition of the Hoboken Reporter mischaracterized my comments at the last Board of Education meeting. I spoke out in response to an agenda item that stated: “That be appointed to the position of Interim Superintendent of Schools for the period of to , at a salary of $_________ per annum, prorated. Account #11-000-230-100-11-1005-000.” My statements and questions to the board were not intended to smear the incoming Interim Superintendent. My purpose was to bring attention to the discreditable way in which he was hired.
One Board member said that the process was rushed and advertised only over the July 4 holiday weekend because Mr. Raslowsky gave little notice. No one mentioned that the interviews were expedited to accommodate the extended vacation plans of one of the majority members of the Board. The fifth vote dictated the superficial investigation into applicants.
My comments were mostly questions directed at various Board members to ascertain what they knew about the incoming Interim Superintendent. Judging from the deer in the headlight responses, my information about the circumstances under which Mr. Peter Carter was appointed and left Plainfield was not known by all the Board members. Several were unaware of certain controversies and relationships that existed. There was no transparency and little due diligence.
Even the newspaper account published in this paper is a victim of the lack on honest information sharing. The article stated that the Interim Superintendent was hired for $350 per day. Actually, the Interim Superintendent was hired for $850 per day. How much is that for the year? No wonder they left the agenda item blank!
Mr. Peter E. Carter will lead the Hoboken schools until July 2010 and the Board is charged with finding a Permanent Superintendent. Both are fantastic opportunities worthy of best effort. Mr. Carter deserves the support of the entire community as he undertakes the role of Hoboken’s Chief School Administrator. My public statements were never intended to suggest that he had a questionable past, but rather that the background of Mr. Carter and all the final applicants should be thoroughly questioned. There is a tremendous difference. Transparency requires that the actions of the Board of Education be held up to the light of public scrutiny.

Theresa Burns

© 2000, Newspaper Media Group