Gunner, Kurt apply to be Findlay Schools superintendent

Perkins, Margaretta superintendents are two of 10 applicants revealed Thursday
Alissa Widman Neese
Nov 1, 2013

Jim Gunner and Ed Kurt, superintendents at Perkins Schools and Margaretta Schools, respectively, are vying to be superintendent at Findlay Schools, according to the Findlay Courier.

An article posted to the Courier's website Thursday lists Gunner and Kurt as two of 10 applicants seeking the job.

When contacted Thursday, Kurt said he submitted an application a few weeks ago. The application process ended Oct. 25.

"It's an opportunity I'm exploring," Kurt said. "I'm very happy where I'm at. We've accomplished a lot and there's still a lot to accomplish, but I'm looking into that opportunity."

Gunner did not return a call Thursday evening seeking comment.

Findlay school board members hope to announce their selection in late December, according to the Courier. Findlay Schools superintendent Dean Wittwer is retiring at the end of the current school year.


Big Poppy

I find it hilarious that Gunner and his cronies and BOE are saying think about the kids. And vote yes. And Boss Hogg Gunner doesn't even want to be at Perkins. Vote NO


Can I make a suggestion? Since both school districts are not big fans of either of these two people, let's send Gunner to Findlay and Kurt to Perkins. MHS can then roll the dice- anything will be better than what's there now.


I don't understand the no voter's convoluted reasoning here. Are you all telling me that if for instance Perkins High School can be replaced for (using hypothetical numbers here) 20 million and would be in need of very little additional funding for the next 30 years (beyond routine maintenance) or the current problems could be repaired for 15 million, but those fixes will only last at best another 10 years, that you would still prefer to patch up the building?

It's the BOE's job to find the best long term option. It would have bordered criminal to offhandedly decide that repairing the school was the least expensive option to the tax payers over the next 30 years, if it will in fact cost much more to keep repairing it every 10 years.

That's not even considering energy efficiency. There is no instance where a home, office, or school built 30 years ago can be renovated to be as energy efficient as a building constructed today. Any new school building would be roughly 3 times as energy efficient as the existing ones. Three times the efficiency, means 1/3 the cost on a monthly basis to heat/cool/power the facility.

Regardless of who is on the board, it is 5 members who once presented with facts from experts in the fields, attempt to make the best long term decision that will benefit the most people with the least financial impact.

It's like the inside millage, no voters are actually complaining that the inside millage was set up to take the bulk of the support burden off the home owner to be shouldered by industry. How is this even a rational complaint? You would prefer the homeowner shouldered the bulk of the financial burden for the district?

Truth or Dare

WOW, everyone has to start somewhere, don't they? The others running, let alone the present BOE members, where and when did they start and what were their qualifications and what did they know about the position prior to being elected onboard? Might there been a tad bit of "school politics" and cherry-picking that went on?

As for wet behind the ears young Ahner who is a graduate of Ohio State (no small feat there)....don't kid yourselves in thinking he comes in with no pre-conceived ideas. He too is a product of Perkins, born and bred, experiencing the last (ugly) decade (high school anyways) at Perkins and has seen first hand just how things "work"! Best of luck Michael, and that first name basis comes with respect!

Please, someone remind me as to what qualifies Mr. Franklin, another resident, taxpayer w/children in or graduated from the district? His age? Has served in the Military? You know what I found interesting? When reading the full page of supporters for the levy, the names that were missing. Unless of course they were included in the batch of "and many more" that was EXCLUDED.

As for Mr. Gunner and Mr. Kurt applying at Findlay, don't think feathers @ the Polar Bear Den haven't been ruffled! Seems when "troubled waters" come into play, the game of Exchange Supers is played. History is a perfect indicator of that, and I'm sorry, but if you can't make a living off of $100K PLUS a year, a taxpayer funded income, you're living beyond your means.

I find it interesting that the question that is never answered here, is the one as to what the Administrators, BOE's included and all faculty are doing to address the issue at the State level?


Having only read random very, very convenient for this article to run now. The mere thought that he may leave may swing some votes on Tuesday. Wednesday morning, the levy passes and Gunner says "Uhhh ~ changed my mind." The rumors have been that if he couldn't get a levy passed to build his legacy ~ he was going to leave. So ~ now what does one do. You can say its all about the kids as much as you want, till the egos start doing their jobs more thoroughly, the kids are merely pawns. Sad.


I agree 1000% RITT. "HIS LEGACY". never was about Perkins Twp. or the students. He had already applied for the job and was read to jump ship before he wrote the open letter to the Register. He and the BOE have made a mess and now he is trying to run. NO TRUST, still NO vote


The article references the Findlay-Courier. Are you saying that the Findlay-Courier has an interest in who Perkins' superintendent is?

Strong Schools ...

Stay focused on the students because they will be the ones suffering. Vote yes in November!



cool ! Just playing.


I'm confused. I don't remember Ahner or Franklin saying they wanted Gunner gone, and they are no supporters right? I think they were willing to work with him not knowing he was applying for other jobs.

Azure Ray

The superintendent who left Findlay was making $140k/year upon retirement.

Thomas Paine

Vote No because Gunner is staying...Vote No because Gunner has the audacity to look for another job. Who here has ever looked for another job while still working? Vote No because he only applied for another job to deceive YOU. Vote yes if you don't want it to cost more when the next levy request comes in a few months with a higher millage to offset deficit spending. Vote yes if you understand it really doesn't matter who the Superintendent is as long as we have a broken state school funding system. Vote yes if you realize when Gunner leaves a new super will come in and do the EXACT same thing costing us more. VOTE Yes if you understand there is no magic pill that will make the numbers any different. Vote Yes if you do not want to merge with Sandusky or have the state take over at double the millage we currently pay. Vote NO to putting someone right out of college into a board role. Vote NO to putting someone on the board who thinks reducing income and increasing expenses will balance a budget.


Thomas, please retype it with bullet points or something and it actually might be worth reading. As it reads right now it is kind of how the districts whole message has been presented from the beginning........all runs together, changes by the second and makes no sense.


You must use very short sentences with very simple words for 15th, TP ;)

Thomas Paine

See bullet points below


Perkins Grad


The next Supt and board will come to the same conclusion that Gunner has. If you people are really interested in not paying more taxes you will take this fight to Columbus. They are the ones who have created this broken school funding system. But, please, keep voting for Republican legislators who have done nothing but covertly raise your taxes and put local officials in front of firing squads because they want jobs for life.

Strong Schools ...

A lot of people look for jobs mid year. Vote yes in November and get your Perkins pride back!

Thomas Paine

1. Vote No because Gunner is staying
2. Vote No because Gunner is leaving
3. Vote No because Gunner deceived you by applying for a new job.

These would be you. Notice 1 and 2 contradict each other.

1. Vote Yes if you want to pay less now
2. Vote Yes because it will cost you more later
3. Vote Yes because changing a super now will cost the district more.
4. Vote Yes because money doesn't magically appear without a yes vote.
5. Vote Yes if you don't want a state takeover
6. Vote NO to a 20 something with no experience running a million+ dollar budget

7. Vote NO to board member who balances a budget by cutting income and increasing spending.

(This is the view point of yes voters and those that get school funding)

Hope that clears it up. The school has been consistent with the message. The misstatements on this blog have blurred what No voters believe the truth to be.

(Bullet Point) Do I believe a no voter that quotes the district, or do I believe the actual district and the actual quote. Pretty simple. I believe the source not some anonymous internet blogger.

1. The board feels the buildings are falling apart and we need to plan for the future. (Agree or disagree) Message is the same

2. Keeping up with state and federal mandates without passing a levy in 13 years has eaten away at the contingency fund and we have had to deficit spend with or without a millage move. Levy request will continue to increase each time one fails. (Agree or disagree) Message has been the same.

3. Without a Levy passage the district will run out of money and have to reduce staff, add pay to play, and find creative ways to continue to offer programs to the students. (Agree or disagree) Message has been the same.


"6. Vote NO to a 20 something with no experience running a million+ dollar budget"

Why, so we can have older board members that are more "experienced". What are their credentials? You were a 20 something at some point, as well.

Thomas Paine

Of course I was 20 at some point. I also know now that I would have had no business running a budget this big or would have understood the politics involved that come with this position. I know I would have had a hard time following board rules and guidelines because they didn't make sense to me when I was 20. They make sense now after getting job and life experience. I know he is a good bright kid, and has the potential to be a good board member in the future. He just needs more experience. I applaud him for running (and my guess winning a spot, given the likely outcome of this levy attempt and my belief that voters are voting out of contempt for one person (Gunner) vs. looking at the bigger picture.) I hope he is a very quick learner after throwing himself into a situation like this because all the no voters out there that expect change will turn on him in less than a year when it doesn't happen and gets worse without a levy(which is what the current board has been saying since 2008). I am not sure any 20 year old will be able to handle the venom that will come his way from the no group. That is why I personally cannot vote for someone that young to lead the school district and my children's future education. I also think he is only spitting out what no voters want without offering any substance of not only what will be different but how that will be accomplished. I have yet to hear any substance from no voters that makes any sense concerning what constructive change will be made to push the district forward. Other than with Gunner gone our problems go away. It is my belief the district and how it operates is more than one man.

Brick Hamland

Well said. 10 years from now he may be a good fit. At 24 you odn't have the life experiences that would prepare you for a roll like this, but no voters see him as an alternative to what is there now. For all the no voters that voice concerns I am amazed at how weak the canidates are in this election from the No side.


I just voted NO again! I also voted for Franklin and Ahner! Can't wait to see Gunnie's eyes when he hears that Franklin and Ahner are on the board! That just might be enough for Gunnie to throw in the towel! We can only hope and pray! Time to get this train back on track!


[quote]7. ..... balances a budget by cutting income and increasing spending. [/quote]

Oh, yes! The Obama system of government!!! LOL


Vote NO due to there not being any trust. Weather Gunner stays or go's. Until they come up with a new plan that dose not involve a new school it will always be NO.


NONE of the money from this levy will be used to build any new buildings (; but again, I'll ask, since no one from the no campaign answered before: would you seriously want the board to choose to repair the existing buildings EVEN IF it turns out it would be cheaper to build new?? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I just can't wrap my head around statements like that.

There is no financial incentive for the BOE to choose to build new over repairing the old if it is not the most cost efficient course of action. As is typical with Boards of Education, they hire engineers, and architects, and independent contractors, and schedule state and health department inspections, have accountants go over cost analysis, have electrical and HVAC specialists provide estimates and recommendations, and then, after analyzing information from multiple experts in each area, attempt to develop a plan that has the LEAST FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

I have seen no indication that they are building new facilities. They analyzed the prospect of building new facilities. To my knowledge, there has been no final decision made on the subject, but I certainly hope, speaking strictly as a tax payer and home owner here in Perkins, that they choose whichever option is cheaper in the long run.

If renovating the existing facilities is much less expensive, the experts feel such renovations would hold up for a couple decades, and the cost analysis shows that the extra expense of heating, cooling, and powering the existing structure compared to the efficiency of a new building do not negate any savings achieved by renovating; I'd prefer they repair the current buildings.

However, if the experts feel, as I suspect, that the overall cost to repair multitudes of aspects of each of the four buildings over the next 30 years is going to greatly exceed the cost to build a new building that should need nothing beyond occasional routine maintenance; and that the energy efficiency of a new structure would drastically reduce utility/operating costs per month, then I'd be in favor of building new.

Of course, I would assume they would make that decision on a building by building basis. The figures in the following link ( from 2009, and total apx. 50 million to complete all of the necessary repairs, though those estimates are over 4 years old so I'm sure they are a touch low. From that chart, it looks to me like Furry, Meadowlawn, and Briar MIGHT potentially be candidates for renovation, but I can't imagine there wouldn't be a huge financial loss renovating the HS instead of rebuilding.

You voted no on the campus, and they aren't building a campus... that doesn't mean they shouldn't build new if it is going to be CHEAPER to replace one of the buildings.

It also doesn't mean that you should insist they renovate even if it is going to cost more just to spite them for presenting a plan to the community and asking them to vote on a campus that had 50 million of it's cost supplemented. Punish them for presenting an idea for a community vote. Punish them I say! Even if it costs us more money... >.<


What are your priorities, Perkins BOE?

Asbestos issues in the high school at a minimum should have already been repaired. Why is the board blatantly ignoring asbestos in the tiles and ceilings subjecting our teachers and students to that daily hazard? 2.5 million dollars to remove it and it is still there. Why is the asbestos still in the buildings, Subtle??? This isn't about numbers. This is about what our children are touching and breathing. Why donate 1.7 million to a stadium when 2.5 million would fix this issue, Subtle? Maybe you can wrap your head around this one.

Asbestosis, an inflammatory condition of lungs that can cause shortness of breath, coughing, and eventually scarring of the lungs that makes it hard to breathe.

Mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, chest cavity, or abdomen.

Lung cancer.

Other lung problems, including pleural plaques (changes in the membranes surrounding the lungs), thickening of the membranes that surround the lungs, and pleural effusions (abnormal collections of fluid between the lungs and the inside wall of the chest.

Studies have also suggested an association between asbestos exposure and other cancers, including cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, throat, kidney, brain, bladder, voice box, gallbladder, and others.

Was a sports stadium more important? Was a 3 million dollar loan more important? Are laptops more important? Keep kicking the can down the road, Perkins until you get your levy passed! In the meantime, our children and teachers are potentially exposed to Asbestos! Fix it now!

Priorities Perkins BOE! You posted this on your levy site. Why haven't the asbestos materials been removed? Because you know if you fix it, you won't have any campaign material!!!!



I had posted a response that would apply to the above on the article from last week two days ago. I'll copy and paste it here when I get home later today.


That's ok, Brad. No response can excuse the BOE from not taking immediate action on this potential hazard and threat to our children. In my opinion, legal action should be taken against the district for using funds for matters that don't pertain to the well being of our students and teachers. They don't want to address this, though so they can play the role of a martyr and use it as campaign material. Why else would you film and post on your levy website asbestos laced materials with children's fingerprints embedded in said material. Are you kidding me BOE?

1.7 million donation for stadium vs. 2.5 million to fix potential airborne asbestos particles.

3 million dollar loan vs. airborne asbestos particles.

Laptops vs. airborne asbestos particles.


No, it's not ok . Your twisting and spinning again.