Proceedings of the Secret Societies

Richmond is violating a reporting regulation of the Board of Education.
The Board was ignorant of the violation until I told them about it.

The second paragraph of 8VAC20-131-300.C.4 provides:

In any school division in which one-third or more of the schools have been rated Accreditation Denied, the superintendent shall be evaluated by the local school board with a copy of such evaluation submitted to the Board of Education no later than December 1 of each year in which such condition exists. In addition, the Board of Education may take action against the local school board as permitted by the Standards of Quality due to the failure of the local board to maintain accredited schools.

As of November 10, 2016, 39% of Richmond schools were in “Accreditation Denied” status.

As of  January 20, 2017, VBOE revised the list, leaving sixteen of forty-five Richmond schools in “Denied” status.  16/45 = 0.36, which still is more than one-third, so Richmond continued to be obliged to submit an evaluation of its Superintendent. 

Last month, Richmond denied my Freedom of Information Act request for that evaluation, citing the personnel records exception to the Act. 

As of yesterday, VDOE had not received the evaluation, which raises the question whether Richmond actually prepared it.  In any case, Richmond has been in violation of the regulation for six months.

The email from VDOE yesterday told me that, in addition to not having received the required evaluation, they did not know that it was due until they received my inquiry. 

The School Board announced in April that our Superintendent will be leaving at the end of June.  So there is a case to be made that the requirement for submitting the evaluation became moot sometime in April.  To the contrary, I suggest that Richmond badly needs to know, and to explain to the public, what was wrong with this Superintendent so they, and we, will know what to look for in the next one.

In any case, we have Richmond in plain violation of the law for over four months and we have the enforcer that was ignorant of the violation of its own regulation and still has not attempted to enforce it.

Your tax dollars “at work.”

Note added the next day:  The RT-D reports that the School Board agreed to not criticize our (soon to be former) Superintendent “to secure his early exit.”  Given that the Board is required by law to assess the Super’s performance, is that agreement void?