Perkins High assistant principal resigns

Perkins High School’s assistant principal announced his departure Wednesday for Maumee Schools.
Alissa Widman
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

Cowboy

Vote NO to save your houses!

Strong Schools ...

Vote YES to keep the value of your home!

RMyer

I believe Clyde-Green Springs added some new or renovated facilities within the past five years as have Bellevue and Port Clinton. Can't answer for Huron, Sandusky, Margaretta, Edison; have those districts had facility reviews?

donutshopguy

RMyer,

Clyde added facilities and now can't pass an operating levy. Nice building, less teachers.

How is that advantageous?

RMyer

Is the new building being used? Clyde, like so many other districts, was having trouble passing operating levies before the facility upgrade. If the old building was still in use, there would still be fewer teachers employed. I don't see the connection being made. Should facility issues be ignored and passed forward indefinitely? Should facility issues only be addressed at a point when the structure is collapsing or some other event triggers the need? Should we wait until the elected folks in Columbus have totally gutted the public school system in Ohio by continuing to make it more difficult for districts to operate? No matter what is proposed for facilities, there will be people who are adamantly opposed. So, what does one do if one is a school board member tasked with providing for facility needs and educational needs?

donutshopguy

RMyer,

Based on conversations with my customer and suppliers in Clyde, I do believe the problem escalated after the new school was built. People were and are still just tapped out by rising costs to fund all the needs of public entitlement. They are paying for the new building and can't afford any more additional taxes. I see the connection. Sorry you don't.

citizen

Bherrle-

Thanks for your response on the athletics.

Any response with the faculty pay "freezes?"

Again, the idea that Perkins faculty has taken pay freezes run directly contrary to Josh Mandel, the State of Ohio Treasurer's transparency site.

Bherrle

Follow up on the athletics question. The $136,524.01 listed under "Athletic Dept" in the chart showing how the $730 per sport fee was computed captures only the salaries and benefits of the Athletic Director and Athletic Dept. Secretary. These expenses are not covered by the ticket sales revenue. The expenses covered by ticket revenue (listed above and in Mr. Strohl's explaination on the levy question website) were not included in the chart, therefore, the revenue covering those expenses should not be included either. $730 per sport is the correct computation.

With regard to faculty salary freezes, I am still seeking full clarity to be certain. There is already an answer on the levy question site (http://www.perkins.k12.oh.us/Lev...) that states that Perkins teachers have been under a pay freeze the past three years. There is also a chart showing that new teachers salaries have remained the same during the past three years.

As far as the new negotiations, I don't believe much detail is available on that at this point, but I believe that the teachers are being asked to make further concessions.

Bherrle

Citizen,

The full answer to the salary freeze question is that the salary schedule was frozen, no increases in the salary schedule for the past 2 years.

However, that does not prevent a teacher moving up on the salary schedule based on years of service, or as they continue their education. Example - a teacher with 5 years of service would be paid more than a 1 year teacher. A Master's Degree educated teacher would be paid more than one with only a Bachelor's. Etc.

So, based on the salary schedule (which is a part of the contract between the district and the teachers union), there have been teacher's who have received raises due to either years of service or their own educational achievements.

donutshopguy

Just because the school board deems it a need doesn't always equate to an agreement by the general public, as in this case.

The general public has different thoughts and ideas of where they want their money spent. If this levy is approved the general public will lose their input on building projects within the district and will lose that power to make decisions in their best interest.

I don't think the general public is willing to give that power up to five people.

Bherrle

DSG,

It was good to meet you in person today, and good to have some civil dialogue despite our areas of disagreement. I think this is our main area of disagreement, and it at least partly stems from how things work where I grew up (Pennsylvania) vs. how things have always been in Ohio.

I understand the reasons you feel the public would be, but I don't see the public giving up any rights by passing this levy. Funding for renovation or new buildings is needed, regardless of the which path is chosen. The BOE choose to move inside millage to ensure at least some level of funding for one or the other. We didn't get to get into the specifics of that move, but long term, I see it to be the best financial decision for the taxpayers. The board see's it that way too. Unfortunately, this has become publicly divisive item, but the board had to do something to ensure PI funds after the failure of the November 2010 Levy.

From a voting rights perspective, as a voter, I don't want the exact design/makeup of the building to be up to 9,500-10,000 voters. I feel this is why we elect a board, and why the board hires a superintendent, and why they seek expert guidance when needed. The public can still have input via public comment, board meetings, board member elections, etc. Yes, at the end of the day, the board can still choose to go against the public majority if it feels that strongly that it is the right thing to do. If if the public dislikes that enough, board members will probably start being replaced at the next election.

Also, just as a reminder to all, the board will not make any decision regarding new buildings until after the November Board member election.

believeit

The general idea of how our tax dollars should be spent has been going on since the advent of taxes. If you asked ten people to come up with a budget, you would probably get ten different responses. Everyone who pays taxes (and many who don't) get frustrated about where "their" tax dollars are going. Unfortunately in this day and age, when taxes are able to voted upon, they often are voted down. You are correct that new facilities have been voted down, but it is wrong to assume that this is the vast majority of residents voicing their opinions. No voters will quite likely still be no voters, but the goal of the pro-levy group is try to get better representation of the electorate. This is a difficult, and not necessarily a successful task, but it is the only choice available. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Gunner, new facilities, the student's needs, or taxes in general, no new monies have been raised in 13 years (the only district in the area with such a record) and financially Perkins Schools is hurting. That need is not going to magically disappear (especially with our current state funding) and is only going to get more expensive, no matter who is running the show.

RMyer

Well said.

Strong Schools ...

I think it is funny the word "power" is being used. I feel people on this blog abuse their "power". We can't control the spending by the politicians at the state level so people use local voting opportunities to be "powerful". Well, your "power" is being irresponsible and could lower the values of our homes and community. Step up and support our students! It is in the best interest of our children!

citizen

Bherrle- If the Gunner and Board will not make any decisions until after the November election, why did they take out a $3,000,000 loan from Citizens Bank to design and plan for the new buildings?

They've already made the $3 million dollar decision to start designing and planning them. Whatever "decision" they put off is mere formality.... or they wasted another $3 million of yours and my money.

Wald

Bingo.

RMyer

The Board took a loan to pay for the architectural fees associated with the design of the new stadium, to assess renovation costs of the high school, and a potential/preliminary design for a new 7-12 school facility. Three facility issues are in the loan amount.

After the Nov. 2010 vote (on 4.98 mills), the district asked for more input from residents in the form of a survey. At the time, the responses indicated that the district should focus on PHS. There were even comments on the Register site that if the board scaled back and focused on just the high school, it might be surprised at the support. There were additional meetings and opportunities for resident input. In order to have a plan, a plan is needed, therefore architects get involved, and architects don't work for free. Design options are also necessary to ball park costs for renovation or replacement. Can't set a number if there isn't a plan in place to arrive at an estimate.

fifteenthgreen

A $3,000,000 dollar plan? Called writing a check that you cannot cash....or taking out a loan that you can't repay.

RMyer

Your plan to deal with facilities and operations is . . .

RMyer

citizen: Your plan is . . .

fifteenthgreen

.....great!

themomx6

Not doing anything right now is a lot better than doing something really stupid! i.e.; taking out a $3,000,000 loan at the same you're laying off teachers! Gunner and the BOE...Ineptness at it's finest!

Sense1

If you're not happy with the BOE, two members are up for re-election in November.

Bherrle

themomx6,

In any moment of decision, the right decision is the best decision, the wrong decision is second best, and no decision at all is the worst.

Doing nothing is just not an option. That only leaves a bigger problem for future BOE's & Super's. I'm sorry you feel they are inept. I and many others disagree.

Strong Schools ...

At least our board and Dr. Gunner are trying to fix the problems facing our schools. The facility issues have been swept under the rug for many years and it is about time someone notices the problems. We would never let our homes fall apart...why are we so willing to let our schools?

fifteenthgreen

The letter to the editor stated that the new schools are on hold. Has the safety of the children been put on hold, as well? What is being done to eliminate the emergency health issues that originally required a $3,000,000 design plan? Why are these children still exposed to raw sewage, potential asbestos, etc.? Or is it ok until after the November election? Which is it?

RMyer

FG-A board member has the difficult job of trying to balance decisions that are best for students, community and staff. You would find, assuming you ran and were elected, that some will criticize you for an action (e.g. moving forward with building issues), then turn around and question the decision to wait to move forward (e.g. wait until the next election). Some will never support any decision you make due to financial or personal issues; some will never support you due to having had an experience with an administrator or teacher or coach that was not positive for some reason; some who don't live in the district will oppose you-I'm not sure why (past issues?); some will oppose you due to tax issues involved (some people are opposed to any tax regardless of the reason for the tax); some will oppose you because their school system is impacted by decisions made by our school system (thank the legislature and gov. for creating that situation-don't blame the school board); some will oppose actions because they don't have any family in the school system, and then the supporters will be pushing you to continue on a path they prefer. Every major decision will be greeted this way. Some will not attend meetings, and some will not bother to review the evidence/facts (or ignore same) but will have strong opinions that will be posted anonymously and contain statements that would probably not be made in a public forum. Some of these anonymous posters will question your integrity and character.

I don't envy the position board members are in and give credit to those who decide to serve our community for the right reasons (i.e. no narrow agenda to push, no grudge) and to put themselves in such a public position that requires difficult decisions be made.

Common Sense

Re: fifteenth green
"The board has agreed to HOLD OFF on any movement or decision until after the November election of board members." That means that the matter will move in some direction after the election. If you don't agree with the current movement, please go ahead and vote for those who share your vision,
The children will continue to have raw sewage removed by the janitors and the ceiling will be sealed as students (our children) continue to break through the asbestos showing us just how high they can jump (or destroy property).
It is not "ok" to have these health issues facing our students. However, as long as we can afford to give them cars, cell phones, video games, vacations beyond the borders, etc., you and the voters that seem to agree with you will have let others know how your priorities are rated.

fifteenthgreen

This makes me sad. I thought we were getting a new school. I loved the design plans mounted on the fence at the new stadium entrance and really thought the district had my child's safety in their best interest. Especially since they seemed so passionate about the need for a new school due to the concerns raised. Now we are relying on a November election of two board members and in the meantime, the janitors will still have to shovel raw sewage on the floor and only minimal exposure to asbestos is ok. What a waste of $3,000,000 if we're not going forward.

Strong Schools ...

The district has the safety of the children in mind all of the time. That is why they fix the problems as soon as possible and why they are making the public aware of the building issues. The board is waiting until November to hear the new board members. All of the board members represent the community and the new board members might have a different vision.

Pages