Wednesday, February 17, 2010

GCSD Administrator Is In The Running For ER Supt. Job

  
The D&C reports that Carol Pallas, asst. supt. for curriculum and instruction is among 4 finalists.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wasn't there some talk before that she was close with Stevie II.
If it impacts upon her job that's a relevant fact.

Anonymous said...

Please take her!

Anonymous said...

Why would it impact on her job? Has it? I guess if you have to ask the question then it really hasn't been a problem. Keep stirring the pot, though.

Anonymous said...

I heard whe was pretty good.

Anonymous said...

How independent is Carol Pallas from the policies and practices of the current super and board?

Would she be a continuation of the same?

Don't we need a more fundamental change of direction whether it comes from an outside person or someone in the district but not tied in to the current administration or board.

Anonymous said...

It's reassuring to me that there is at least one other school board in the area that matches the stupidity of our board. We can only help they're stupid enough to select CP as their Superintendent, she has trained under the worst of the worst. Their loss would be our gain.

SCATS said...

Keep talking like this and we'll be stuck with her forever, folks ;)

Anonymous said...

How independent is ANY employee from the policies and practices of the current BOE? You have to realize that employees, even high ranking ones, learn to be good soldiers. It doesn't mean they necessarily swallow the BS hook, line and sinker. CP is an independent thinker and unless you've worked directly with her please don't cast aspersions on her because of who her "mentors" have been. Remember, she has had no control over who gets hired in those positions. Give her a break.

Anonymous said...

Right on SCATS, instead of making negative comments about CP, we should all write to the East Rochester Board praising her work here and how much she will be missed! Wink, Wink!

Anonymous said...

With the retirement of her sweetheart, she is in trouble. This usually occurs when you put all your [L]eggs in one basket.

Anonymous said...

11:46
Yes, she was.
-S

Anonymous said...

Wasn't she an integral part of the age discrimination law suits a few years ago? Well at least she seems to have kept her nose clean from the newest discrimination case that is ongoing!! Well maybe not!

SCATS said...

To 8:31AM ~~ Tell us about it?

Anonymous said...

No she was not. Actually, she was an elementary principal during that time and successfully defended a 3020-a proceeding. If you know anything about those, they are VERY difficult to prove; particulary when the charge is incompetence. The teacher lost his/her job because of the thorough job by CP. And an independing judicial officer agreed that was appropriate.

SCATS said...

To 10:37AM ~~ You are certainly on top of monitoring this thread today ;)

Anonymous said...

Just happened to log in at the right time! LOL

Anonymous said...

You mean there was more than one age discrimination case. Because I know for a fact that she was directly involved in mine, AND I WON. I know she was directly involved in a "misprosecution" of a 3020a case. I am sure everyone is aware of that one. Personally, I hope she leaves. ER gain (loss) is GCSD gain, if GCSD starts to make things right in the district.

Anonymous said...

1:20: I don't know specifically who you are, but if you are asking if there was more than one age discrimination case in Greece then I have serious doubts about the veracity of your statement "she was directly involved in mine and I WON." Anyone (even those who live under rocks) knows there was more than ONE discrimination claim/case. I know of 4 that were "settled" and that was public information. As for the 3020-a claim, if she was "directly involved" in a misprosecution (that's laughable by the way) then it could have been as the Director or Asst. Supt. of HR where she would, by nature of her job, be involved. As a Principal, she was DIRECTLY involved in a case in which the district prevailed.
By the way, accountability is a great thing - unless you have something to worry about. If you (or someone else) didn't pass instructional muster then it's the administrator's job to hold you accountable. That said, it is also the administrator's job to provide support, encouragement and mentoring. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. The fact that some people were held accountable and also happened to be in a "protected age class" makes it convenient for their argument, doesn't it?

SCATS said...

To 7:28AM ~~ Please tell me about "a protected age class." That expression and what it means in these kinds of suits is new to me. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Scats: Protected age class consists of employees 40 years of age or older. If you google "Protected age class age discrimination" there is extensive information available to explain the law surrounding this. Thank you for asking for the clarification.

SCATS said...

To 1:29PM ~~ Thank you. I learn something new on here almost every day ;)