Fears of nepotism, favoritism

Posted 1/7/20

To the Editor: While I voted for the hiring policy change on December 19, 2019 to align with the new state statute now in effect as of January 1, 2020 to give full appointing power to the superintendent, I only did so because the policy is the best

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Fears of nepotism, favoritism


To the Editor:

While I voted for the hiring policy change on December 19, 2019 to align with the new state statute now in effect as of January 1, 2020 to give full appointing power to the superintendent, I only did so because the policy is the best policy we can create due to the circumstances.

However, I will state that I do not support this change. Up to now, the School Committee has had the ability to consent on appointments for a reason – that reason being accountability. We as elected School Committee members are representatives of the community on school matters in this city. It is a responsibility I take very seriously. As representatives of the community and therefore the community’s voice, I believe that the School Committee should have a say in who enters our community schools.

While principals and school improvement teams are now more involved in the hiring process, which I completely support, according to the new state statute, the superintendent has the final say on appointments. Candidly, I am not comfortable with a superintendent having both appointing and consenting authority. Also, every faculty member I have spoken with about this issue wants the School Committee to have the ability to consent on appointments.

What this new state statute means is not completely clear to us on the Warwick School Committee, since some of the language is ambiguous, which does not make me feel more comfortable about this change. The only thing that is clear with this new state statute is that School Committees are completely out of the hiring process. I have concerns that nepotism and favoritism will rise due to this change, whether from upper administration or principals, since the School Committee no longer has oversight on appointments.

I fought this bill at the State House. Unfortunately, not enough people spoke out about the issue, and therefore the bill went through pretty quickly and took many school committees by surprise. This change will not benefit our students, faculty, schools, the city of Warwick, or our community, and I am sorry that we, as a school committee, will not be able to be as accountable as we have been in the past.

Nathan Cornell

Member of the Warwick School Committee


4 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

your mouth says no no but your vote says yes yes.

Tuesday, January 7

Nathan, you folks have way more important things to worry about. Principals should be able to hire/fire. You really aren't needed in that process. Any allegations of nepotism can be addressed in the Beacon and by public ire. You guys work on curriculum and achievement, both lacking. And finances. And the teacher's union.

Wednesday, January 8

I agree with Mr.Barry’s comment,

While I respect your position Nathan, I completely disagree with you. You knew the facts before you Voted, unless someone told you to just “vote for it”. You would have a little more credibility with your letter to the editor if you had just voted against it. It shouldn’t matter where the Superintendent lives, Police, Fire and other City Positions do not require that. Why do we allow individuals to run for office that have never paid Local Taxes? Or Run for Schools Committee that have no children? I sincerely hope you eventually stop with your dislike of the Superintendent. You were elected based on “Change” and “Working Together “. Stop with the Petty Politics please.

Wednesday, January 8

We should not have children that are not taxpayers on the school committee. WRONG WRONG WRONG. No life experience, probably has never written a check, and has no comprehension of the term UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

When Nathan rang my doorbell last year we had a lengthy discussion of the situation with our schools, teacher salary, and the city's unfunded liabilities. When I asked him if he knew the value of the unfunded liabilities he said "I thinks its around a million dollars".

I was floored that he had no concept of reality. When I told him that the number at that tine was in the area of $600 million, he was unable to grasp the concept. With 3 members of the school committee that are not homeowners and do not pay property taxes, I fear that the lack of life experience does not bring anything positive to the community. I am not saying that they aren't nice people, just not well rounded fiscally speaking.

Thursday, January 9