The decision to effectively oust Del Burns as Wake County superintendent by putting him on administrative leave is likely to raise the temperature even more.
As noted in today's article, critics of the new school board majority are in an uproar over the decision to put Burns on the sidelines through June 30. On the other hand, supporters of the new board are happy with the move.
"I'm sorry it's come to this," said Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, which had urged that Burns be allowed to stay on through June 30. "In a very short time, the new board majority have turned the county upside down."
People on Del's Army, the Facebook group created to lobby for Burns to keep his job, were being urged Tuesday night to e-mail the school board members to tell how they feel.
But Dallas Woodhouse, state director of the conservative Americans for Prosperity, said that the school board "was left no other choice" but to remove Burns. He said "Burns’ behavior has helped create division in our community rather than help heal it."
Wake County Republican Party Chairman Claude Pope also said putting Burns on leave was a good decision.
Comments
D Burns should have just
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:01 — changewcpssD Burns should have just kept his mouth shut after resigning if he planned to stay through June 30. It is unfortunate, but there are consequences to his actions.
It is SO appropro.....The
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 10:24 — willynillyIt is SO appropro.....The WCPSS can effectively suspend a teacher (speaking from personal experience) for anything they "allegedly" said in the educational environment with NO INITIAL PROOF. Now when that teacher is sent home for three weeks with not one single specific and made to sit for THREE WEEKS without knowing what they "allegedly" said it just seems nice that what Ole Del is suffering is justice. Well, there is an exception, his "comments" against his employeers were done in front of TV cameras and he was quoted so there was hard proof. In my case there were innuendos and out right lies. When the WCPSS allows a principal to lie to the Superintendent of Human Resources (IN WRITING no less) with no consequences it sends a direct message to teachers. A principal can do whatever he or she wants and the WCPSS will support them.
In my case I was sent back to the school that did all this (can you say target on your back?) and then had to endure the principal taking even further action by accusing me of two things I proved were lies. My emails proving the lies were entered into my personnel file at my request. Later, when I requested this mess be removed from my file guess what they removed.....yep, my emails, but the MESS was left.
So, Del (the WCPSS), you will suspend and wreck a teachers reputation with innuendos and lies because of things he said (allegedly) with little proof. (BTW, a female teacher with whom I had worked for 4 years and who knew me well called me and told me the investigator for the WCPSS, when he called her, was putting words in her mouth). When the proof is less than stellar (most of the question I was asked had little or nothing to do with any comments) you send a teacher back to the people who did this "thing." Then you allow the principal to break the agreement (specifically, no further investigtion nor consequences) an attorney (mine) and the WCPSS fashioned. And then.....when this teacher calls and calls to remedy the "falsehoods" you ignore him. Then, after some time, you simply tell him that too much time has passed to do anything.
Well, Del, how does it feel?????
from the online article
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 10:13 — red_balloon"There's no mistaking the reason why we're losing a great superintendent," Brannon said. "We're losing him because of his disagreement with the decisions they're making and the direction they're heading."
I think Dr Burns forced the issue, not with his disagreements, but with the manner and timing he chose for expressing those disagreements.
It is unfortunate it has come to this but, notwithstanding the yellow journalism type heading in the online article, I am glad he has been placed on leave rather than being fired.
The BoE did what every other
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 09:35 — woodstockThe BoE did what every other organization would have done under similar circumstnaces. You cannot say they things Burns said and expect to remain in a leadership role. I suspect he knew that and was aware of the consequences.
Sorry it came to this
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 09:12 — Bob_SconceWell, Yevonne Brannon and I agree on something -- it's a shame that it's come to this. But, Burns dug his own grave on this one.