Perkins High assistant principal resigns

Perkins High School’s assistant principal announced his departure Wednesday for Maumee Schools.
Alissa Widman Neese
Jul 12, 2013
At a brief meeting, school board members approved Nick Neiderhouse’s resignation and called upon Meadowlawn Intermediate School principal Dean Stanfield to fill the vacancy. Stanfield will be “co-principal” to current Perkins High School principal Mark Dahlmann, who will advise and train him to possibly take on the principal position full-time someday, communications director Chris Gasteier said.   
 
Neiderhouse was hired earlier this week as principal of Wayne Trail Elementary School at Maumee Schools. He was Perkins High School assistant principal for two years.   
 
The district has posted the Meadowlawn Intermediate School principal vacancy on its website and is accepting both internal and external applications, Gasteier said. The school board’s next meeting is Aug. 7, but its agenda is contingent on what happens the day prior.
 
Perkins Township voters will go to the polls Aug. 6 to decide the fate of a contentious emergency operating levy. It would fund day-to-day operations for the district, including employee salaries and benefits. If voters approve the levy, board members will recall employees cut in June to save costs and will reverse the increase in pay-to-participate athletic fees. If voters do not approve the levy, board members will agree to place a new levy on the November ballot.
 
Board members ended Wednesday’s meeting with a closed-door session to discuss possible litigation with an attorney and employee negotiations. No action was expected after the private meeting.

Comments

DLK

They are indeed going after OVH residents with breakfast meetings, and offering them rides to the polls. Another ploy is going after college kids. Not that either are illegal, but certainly going after those it won't affect is as sneaky as moving inside millage.

Bherrle

Again, not a "ploy", nor is it "sneaky." So let me get this straight, you would deny someone the right to vote simply because they don't directly pay a tax based on property value right now?

The Inside Millage move was discussed over a two year period, and there were three public meetings regarding that issue before the board voted on it. How can you call that "sneaky"? Seems like it was a very public issue to me.

Oh, and to top it off - the inside millage move was a very good long term financial decision for the school district.

lifetimeresident

The inside millage move was a very good long term financial decision? Evidently Not. When the voters said no for a new school and he did this, he did one thing. Lost the trust of the old timers. You cant pull the wool over everyones eyes. If it was a good move we wouldnt be discussing this right now.

Strong Schools ...

It was the best situation for our district financially, long term. There were different options laid out in front of the board at public board meetings. This decision is actually the best for the taxpayers in the long run.

lifetimeresident

While I might agree with you. The majority off the Perkins people dont seem to. They lost their trust. Only one way to get the trust back now.

Bherrle

Even good decisions have those who disagree with them. I don't see any wool being pulled, and I don't understand how this decision caused a loss of trust. Dr. Gunner and the board have made it clear that new buildings are needed, over a 3-4 year period now.

However, keep in mind that the board has decided to hold any final decision on the future direction of buildings until after the November election.

samiam

And over a 3-4 year period now, the voters have told them NO, we don't want or can't afford new buildings. Yet they refuse to listen to the voters! Many people do not have the financial means to pay another tax increase.

"until after the November election"? So even if the voters say NO, yet again, they plan to put a levy issue on again in November?

Bherrle

Samiam,

The November Board Member election is what i am referring too. Two members are up for re-election in November.

Cowboy

Could a tax increase supporter please explain how Gunner calculated the $730 per sport fee?

On the Q&A page on the Perkins Schools website, he provided a chart that shows $454,043 in athletic department costs. This is divided by the 622 student participants for a rate of $730 per student.

However, Gunner did not take into account the revenues that are generated by the athletic department. According to Mike Strohl's (Athletic Director) response on the Q&A forum, athletics generates revenue of $142,194. Plus $5,000 per season from the PABC.

This puts Perkins Athletics at a $296,849 annual operating loss (454,043-142,194-5,000-5,000-5,000). The $296k loss divided by the 622 participants shows a $477 fee per participant would cover the operating loss of the athletic department and also pay for the AD and assistant's salary.

Why then did Gunner and board choose to use the $730. Could it be that the $730 fee would likely have a much larger negative impact and cause more parents to vote yes to avoid the fee than a $477 fee? Nah, Gunner and Board don't use scare tactics like that!

samiam

Just because it was discussed at public meetings, doesn't mean it was a public issue. The board voted on it, not the residents, who have said no to levies for new buildings 3 or 4 times already. For the board to move inside millage after being told no that many times is sneaky. It may be legal but it certainly isn't ethical. What part of no don't they understand??

underthebridge

This is so true and such an important point. As citizens, we expect elected officials votes to represent the wishes of those they serve. They heard the concerns of the public and did their own darn thing anyway.

Bherrle

The public does not get to vote on the Inside Millage move. That decision is entirely up to the board, and state law does not allow a public vote on it.

Saying it isn't ethical is your opinion, and I disagree with you. In my opinion, and this is strictly my opinion, I think they can't understand, and I can't understand, how the public can say no after 13 years with no increase, and having the lowest millage in Erie County.

However, keep in mind that the board has decided to hold off on any final decision on facilities until after the November election. If any new board members are voted in, they will be given a chance to be brought fully up to speed on the facilities issue before decisions are made there.

44870 South

We can't afford nor do we need brand new buildings...That's what this is all about. My house is older than those buildings! Vote NO.

samantha

Just to clear this up from an earlier post, I am actually going to post this twice. Many accuse the supporters of giving out false information while the facts are what is important.

The new building levy failed ONCE- in November of 2010. It was a 4.98mil Levy for 10 years with FREE ObamaObamaAbeam money for a $100M campus that lost 58% against to 42% for. The board surveyed all registered voters after the failure. Of the over 1400 responses, 60% said they would support the remodel or rebuilding of a new highschoolhighschoolHaskel.

The only levy since 2010 was the failed operating levy in May of 2013.

As you can see, there has been only ONE building levy, not many as people on this blogblogbloclogbogflogblowbiogslogbldgblotblobclog are stating. Please be factual when posting. SR just provides us the forum, they do not police the facts.

Strong Schools ...

samiam,

We elect the board members to take care of our school district and make appropriate decisions that are best for the students. Please do not take out your anger on the students in August. Why should we punish them? Take it out on the board members in November. Two of our board members will be on the ballot and that would be an appropriate time to show how you feel.

underthebridge

It is not a good decision if it against the wishes of the majority of the electorate. It is not a good decision if it creates a cascade of mistrust. This is not how they packaged their decision or presented it to the public. This was a very poor decision.

samantha

Just to clear this up from an earlier post, I am actually going to post this twice. Many accuse the supporters of giving out false information while the facts are what is important.

The new building levy failed ONCE- in November of 2010. It was a 4.98mil Levy for 10 years with FREE ObamaObamaAbeam money for a $100M campus that lost 58% against to 42% for. The board surveyed all registered voters after the failure. Of the over 1400 responses, 60% said they would support the remodel or rebuilding of a new highschoolhighschoolHaskel.

The only levy since 2010 was the failed operating levy in May of 2013.

As you can see, there has been only ONE building levy, not many as people on this blog are stating. Please be factual when posting. SR just provides us the forum, they do not police the facts.

Bherrle

Not a "ploy" at all Samiam. The students are not being forced to help. They want to help.

samiam

I never said they were being forced to help.

underthebridge

Some were being "strongly encouraged" to help by their coaches who suggested their lack of participation would not be looked at favorably.

samiam

And I can see the following scenario: Students visit OVH residents and say something like "I won't be able to play my sport next fall because my parents won't be able to pay the fee if the levy doesn't pass." Or "Our class won't be able to come and visit with you next year if the funds are cut because the levy failed." Oh yeah, I can see this happening, playing on the sympathy of the OVH residents.

Kelly

What a load of bull.

Strong Schools ...

The students want to help with this levy. It is good to see the young people get involved and have pride in their schools. No one is being forced. I am proud of the students for taking an interest and learning about the levy and what is going on with their school district. Support the Students!

donutshopguy

They know who I am so I'm guessing my house has the mark of the plague written all over it.

Strong Schools ...

Dr. Gunner is very invested in our schools. He works hard to make the best decisions for the students. I do not care if he does not live in our community. There are a lot of people who commute to work and have a lot of pride for their jobs. I am glad Dr. Gunner is doing what is right for our students even if it is not the most popular choice. He is very smart and I support him.

princedenny

Perkins schools are ALMOST as big of a joke as those in Huron. Dr. Gunner is good for Perkins? Are you SERIOUS?

Lets see: he spearheaded the movement of funds within the district to rebuild a stadium, lied to the community about the "poor condition" of PHS, and MOST IMPORTANTLY he lives 50 miles away and (I believe) has it written in his contract that he gets a travel expense...which includes his expenses to travel back and forth to work on a daily basis.

Are you that stupid, or do you have a vested interest in the levy passing?

Bherrle

Princedenny,

We are not stupid. Yes, I am SERIOUS. I don't agree with your assessment that either Huron Schools or Perkins Schools are a joke. Overseeing/running a school district is not an easy task, and the state continues to make it increasingly harder.

RMyer does a very good job explaining the facts, and laying out the opinion of many supporters. I'll add a couple comments:

1. Dr. Gunner receives a $300 per month travel stipend to cover travel expenses as it directly relates to his responsibilities as Superintendent. It is not for his daily commute. I think that if you calculated his daily commute mileage, multiplied by the current IRS mileage rate (i know it's over .50 cents per mile), you'd find that $300 per month doesn't come close to covering his daily commute. Where Dr. Gunner chooses to live is the LEAST IMPORTANT issue in my mind, and that of numerous supporters.

2. Please explain why you feel he lied about the condition of the High School? A number of independent inspections/reports have supported what Dr. Gunner and the board have stated, and all have been made available to the public. I have toured the facilities myself. It is time to set about replacing these old facilities.

3. Yes, I have a vested interest. I am a homeowner in the district, and I want Perkins Schools to continue to be strong, and attract new residents. Property values are reflective of a strong school district. I also have children in the school district, and I want them to receive the best education they possibly can. We chose Perkins over many other districts when we moved here from Pennsylvania two years ago. Perkins has approx. 540 open enrolled students. I want others to make the decision my family made, and I want others to want to send their kids to Perkins Schools. It benefits all residents in the long run.

RMyer

Some of the issues brought up were previously addressed.

1) Dr. Gunner, as stated earlier by BHerrle, does not receive reimbursement for travel other than for travel related to his duties as superintendent.

2) No one "lied" about the condition of the buildings. The high school was reviewed on three separate occasions in order to assess the infrastructure and the long term viability of the structure. One assessment rated the high school 92/100 with 100 being the worst. The Health Dept. assessment was to look for immediate health issues during a one day inspection. The Health Dept. report also stated that it wasn't dealing with a large portion of the issues as outlined in the infrastructure report. People are comparing two different inspections for two different reasons (apples and oranges). I encourage you to take an infrastructure tour of the high school and see the issues. To those who have mentioned that other area districts have older buildings, I would like to see the most recent reports detailing the long term viability of those structures and compare to reports rec'd by our district on its buildings. I suspect other districts haven't had recent reviews of buildings. Although, Port Clinton, Clyde, Bellevue, etc. deemed it necessary to renovate or build new structures.

3) The residency is a nonissue for me. I look at the direction of the district during the tenure of a superintendent. I also look beyond the standardized test scores as a single measure of a district's success or failure. No business would agree to be rated a success or failure based on a single day measure of its employees taking a "test". Our district has rec'd statewide and national recognition for its technology and STEM/21st century learning initiatives, and so on. The graduates I have talked to generally tell me that they are ahead of the curve with the use of technology compared to graduates from other schools who did not have ample opportunities with technology prior to college.

Residency doesn't equate to leadership/people skills. It's possible to form relationships with parents, community, students and staff through daily contact, attending after school athletic and extracurricular events, and responding to phone calls and emails.

The bottom line for residents is the school board members make the ultimate decisions. They are all elected residents who are directly affected by their own decisions. Superintendents lay out options and plans; the board members have the final decision making authority for residents.

4) The new stadium was a joint effort of the community. Many businesses and individuals were generous in support of materials, money, and free labor. If one takes the time to look at the entirety of what was accomplished for the amount it cost the district, we rec'd a community/school use facility at a bargain.

5) The inside millage (which is unvoted millage; it is rec'd by law with no vote of the public) move was far from "sneaky" or unethical ( and over 80 other districts in Ohio have done the same). After reviewing all of the options, it is obvious that the path we're on is the best for the long term success of the district. It is also the least costly for taxpayers as we go forward. Following the traditional bond levy route for buildings will result in higher taxes now and into the future as other buildings have to be addressed to fund the cost to renovate or repair. I am not in favor of paying more than I have to. I prefer the best program for the lowest cost.

6) As each year goes by with no new money (and as the state continues to put off dealing with the funding issue), the levy amount will continue to rise. We have gone from 4.98 mills to 6.73 mills. If we wait another year (and after cutting whatever programs and staff are left to cut), the millage amount will be higher. Some advocate the state take over. The district will have to pass a levy to cover the amount borrowed from the state and to fund operations-again, this will cost us more.

7) Let's agree to disagree civilly.

Perkins Resident

This is the only post I will make on this subject. I will not respond.

I will not vote for any school levy as long as Gunner is the Superintendent.

I am confident this levy will pass. The parents with children in sports who have been bullied and have been scared with the pay to play fees are doing a great job getting the yes vote out. They think they are saving money by voting yes but don't realize this levy will cost them more in the long run.

To close, don't ask me to donate for this or for that ever again. I will keep the $2500 + I have given various school organizations each year so I can pay for the levy. I know I am not the only one who will be doing this.

Thank you for reading.

Bherrle

Thank you for your past support of various school organizations. $2,500 per year is very generous support. I understand you are not going to respond, but I have ask why your (or others) "no vote" is tied to Dr. Gunner being Superintendent?

This levy will cost the owner of a $150,000 home $25 per month (I believe is actually $25.76 but rounding to $25 for quick math.), or $300 per year. If you are withholding $2500 per year of past support to pay for the levy, you must live in a home valued over $1.2 Million dollars?

Pages