Screw the Taxpayer and Even Their Own District Employees: "The Fairfield Way"

In researching for this blog entry, we have observed multiple instances in which district employees and officials at various levels have spoken of "The Fairfield Way."  We've come to the conclusion that "The Fairfield Way" exemplifies everything actually wrong with the school district.

"The Fairfield Way" was on full display in the fake, fixed, faux job search for the district's next superintendent.  Deceit and a contemptible loathing for public input - and even the comments and wishes of their own district employees - all combined to taint the recent hiring process for Fairfield City Schools' next leader.

Fairfield City Schools was not honest and transparent with the public or even it's own employees while conducting a sham search for the next Superintendent.  As usual, Fairfield has demonstrated why it is a district that has no desire to listen to one word from the public about anything.  This is a school district in denial, and has exhibited once again why it simply cannot be trusted.  We'll show you why we believe this by sharing a series of e-mails and documents.

The story of how Fairfield City Schools came to have a new Superintendent through a tainted process began when Paul Otten handed in resignation notice on April 5th. You can read more on that story here.

Ostensibly, it looked like a new day was dawning for Fairfield City Schools. Perhaps a new face would be arriving in our district to unify our community and bring about the necessary change and healing we so badly need after the Emilie Olsen scandal that has rocked the school system and placed Fairfield in the negative spotlight of international news. Even this April 22nd posting on the district's Facebook page made it sound like the search for a new school leader was a wide open process that would gather up and consider community input until the Board of Education was able to make a superb selection in a large field of qualified candidates from inside and outside the district:

Behind the scenes however, the outcome of the job search was everything but pre-determined, even as the services of consultant Bill Sears were retained for $1000 on April 14th:

Fairfield City Schools could have saved itself the effort of spouting worthless lip service, Mr. Sears the trouble of his good work, and the taxpayers' money.  It was clear from the onset of the job search that it would be a strictly internal process, open only to employees already on the payroll at Fairfield, according to this April 14th e-mail:

We know for a fact that the job search was only open to internal candidates, and that only two people even applied, according to this recently uncovered e-mail from Board President Dan Hare:

We also know the names of all Fairfield employees who applied the Superintendent's position.  The massive field of two candidates included Assistant Superintendent Roger Martin, and the eventual winner, High School Principal Billy Smith.  If you would like to see their applications, please contact us and we will send it along.

Unlike Fairfield City Schools, it is clear that the consultant hired to lead the search, Bill Sears, was trying to act with professionalism and integrity to get Fairfield the best Superintendent possible.  The school district had it's own agenda and threw away Mr. Sears' talents and experience.  We don't understand why.

Further proof that Fairfield City Schools had an agenda all it's own when they began the job search for a new Superintendent can be seen in this April 19th e-mail from Mr. Hare, where he lists the steps that need to be taken.  Focus groups were supposed to be a prominent feature of the hiring process.  Take a close look and see where community input from taxpayers and parents ranked in the pecking order:

As you can see, your thoughts, wishes, and input about the new Superintendent ranked dead last.  Your thoughts were the last to be considered.  Once again, the district's contempt for you is palpable.

The leadership and Board of Education gave the community a huge middle finger in the hiring process for a new Superintendent.    But don't feel too badly.  The district used their other middle finger to shove into the faces of it's own administrators, teachers, and other employees.

Several focus groups were formed among different work groups at Fairfield City Schools to gather ideas on what the ideal Superintendent would look like.  If you would like to review these brainstorming session results, please contact us and we'll send it along.

In the focus group involving building administrators, one of their top requests for a new district leader included a wide range of experience in dealing with multiple student age groups.  Building administrators also wanted a Superintendent with experience in many different areas of district affairs, such as curriculum or A.P..  Employees in the focus group from district offices requested that the new Superintendent possess "multiple years of admin experience in a school district."

Here are the qualifications for the new Superintendent of Fairfield City Schools, according to his own application:

This group cannot find any mention of multiple years of administrative experience at the district level, or involvement with curriculum or A.P..  In other words, the Board of Education ignored it's own employees as much as the taxpayer.  At least the district leadership was fair about it.  They don't care what anybody thinks.  Period.  No exceptions.

The manner in which Fairfield City Schools deceived the public into believing our voice carried weight in the Superintendent hiring process really is scandalous.

A public meeting to gather public input on what Fairfield residents wanted in a new Superintendent was held May 5th, according to this Journal-News story.  The consensus view of the meeting appeared to be that an outsider, with fresh eyes, was what Fairfield needed in a new leader.

There were even community members who wrote the Board and Mr. Sears urging them to hire an outside candidate for the job, such as this citizen:

To his credit, Mr. Sears was prepared to give the community a wide field of exceptionally qualified candidates.  The slideshow he presented to the Board and community indicated he desired to present to the Board nine to twelve candidates to pick from.

The Board of Education simply did what it wanted to, and said to hell with you, the taxpayer, district parents, and even their own employees.  We feel this hiring process for the new Superintendent was not transparent or honest.  The selection lacks legitimacy because of doubts about the process.

At no point have we found a single e-mail or document to indicate that any consideration was ever given to posting the vacant superintendent's position externally.  If you don't believe us, send us an email at shameonfcsd@gmail.com and we'll turn over every document we have on the matter for your inspection.  Unlike this school district, we have nothing to hide.  

Fairfield City Schools is so conceited and presumptuous that it thinks the best qualified candidate to be your community's superintendent of schools could only be found on it's own existing payroll.  Nobody else in the field of public education anywhere in the United States and it's 14,000 or so school districts could possibly be up to snuff or match the qualities of any of the whopping field of two internal candidates who applied to be Fairfield's next school leader.  That's "The Fairfield Way."

Another subject conspicuous by its absence in the 100 pages or so of documents we have about the Superintendent job search is any mention of the Emilie Olsen case or the lifetime of ensuing negative publicity Fairfield City Schools has endured because of it.  Not one person from the Board, to applicant candidates, or any district staff in focus groups mentioned Emilie's case or even hinted at the topic vaguely.

What that tells us is that Fairfield City Schools has not learned anything in Emilie's case.  How else can one account for the fact that the case, and preventing future such tragedies, or even addressing the issue of bullying never came up once in any of the focus groups.  Nor were these topics addressed anywhere by the two job applicants vying to become Superintendent.

The district is tone deaf and doesn't care.  End of story.

Fairfield City Schools appears to not be in touch with reality if no consideration was given to how the new Superintendent might go about cleaning up the mess this district created for itself because of misconduct before and after Emilie's death.  The district is famous worldwide.  Or, infamous, rather.

The school district, Board, staff, and new Superintendent may have no interest in addressing the Emilie Olsen case.  But the rest of the world and a federal court does.

The community here in Fairfield is the loser here.  But so too is Mr. Billy Smith, our new Superintendent.  The process which hired this man was crooked and lacked integrity and transparency.  A large portion of the community will find it difficult to support Mr. Smith in light of the questions which surround his appointment.

Mr. Smith has done nothing wrong here.  He is a victim of circumstances, and the plotting of our school board.  It wasn't Mr. Smith's fault the district lied to our faces and said they'd conduct a thorough search for the best candidate, armed with your input, but then turned around instead and just conducted a sham process.

We have proven your worst fears about the job hunt for Fairfield's new Superintendent to be true.  You now know that the process was a rigged sham.  You were lied to yet again by Fairfield City Schools.  Rather than embracing this opportunity for healing and a new beginning in our community, Fairfield City Schools was too busy pursuing it's own agenda, and have once again shattered any faith the public had in them.