The recent letter from the Burbank Unified School District Board of
Education is not what it appears to be. On first reading, it tries to
sell itself as an explanation of all the "facts" Trish Burnett has
"wished" we had all along. On a more careful examination, it only raises
more questions on how the issues of the budget and David Aponik have been
handled.
It has now been admitted by all of the board members that the process
of Aponik's removal is related to his job performance. In its letter, the
board says it "takes its responsibilities seriously" and that "this
school board has the reputation of expecting accountability from all
levels." Really? Then perhaps the board can explain why there was no
written performance evaluation of Aponik since August 2000.
It is a basic tenet of management that employees (contracted or
otherwise) are routinely evaluated on their job performance. Why? It's
simple: if you don't sit down with someone and review their performance
of their job requirements on a regular basis, you cannot substantiate
that they have not performed their job and should be terminated.
Likewise, you cannot substantiate an increase in someone's pay if you
haven't evaluated what they have done to deserve it.
Why is this important? Because if Aponik presses his claim into a
lawsuit, the board will not be able to bolster its claims with job
performance evidence, as it has not documented its espoused displeasure
with Aponik in a consistent or timely manner.
Next, the board claims that the public's questions relating to the
budget crisis "shows a lack of knowledge of the role of the school
board." To even suggest that we are ignorant of how a school board
functions just because we ask tough questions is intellectually bankrupt.
How imperious can the board get?
Look to the explanation of why the budget shortfall wasn't discovered
earlier: because the board likens itself to a corporate board of
directors that doesn't get involved in the day-to-day running of the
corporation. If so, it's time they act like one and stop deflecting
criticism of their involvement and responsibility with the tired old saw
of "we didn't know." The board cannot dodge responsibility for things
that it did not know, since it created that very environment by either
intentionally staying out of the loop or otherwise allowing the culture
of claimed ignorance to exist.
As to those who would seek a recall of the present board, I suggest
the following: Hold off for the time being. First, a state of anger and
