COMensarations
Monday, October 24, 2005
A Money-Making Idea for School District 60
I might even tune in.
I’ve got a great idea for raising funds for District 60, and it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. Really.
It’s this simple: sell the rights s to School Board Meetings for a reality TV show. Seriously, you can’t make up drama this, well, dramatic.
You’ve got fired employees suing the district for shenanigans by officials. The school boardcensuring its own members for inappropriate conduct. District officials quitting because they aren’t given enough power. Ex-board members suing because they got kicked off the board for moving out of town. Charter school principals trying to get on the board of the district they’re trying to leave. Mysterious, critical flyers floating around, hot off someone’s copy machine. Plus a lot of the characters are attorneys, which is always a big draw on TV.
Let’s face it, when they announced Christine Pacheco-Kovaleski’s seat vacant, there was a stampede to fill out applications that rivalled a casting call for a major Broadway show. While I’m sure many candidates told themselves “Heck, I can do better than that,” I’m sure there were others thinking, “It’s the only way to find out what’s really going on.” So put it on TV and let us all find out.
Personally, I’ve got some questions I’d like to see answered, and I think they might be on reality TV.
For example, would the law have some precedent that says a wife’s (husband’s) primary residence is automatically assumed to be with her (his) spouse, unless they’re getting a divorce or are legally separated? Especially since their local joint domicile has been sold.
Since the law says that a board member’s primary residence must be within the district in which the member serves, can you accept conducting business within the district as evidence that the member still resides within the district? I wouldn’t think so. Where you live and where you work are two different things. But I suppose that if the board wants to say accepting a job in another state is evidence that you’ve moved, then they have to accept that you’re still doing business here as evidence that you haven’t. So, the next question is, has the ex-member accepted new business in the last few months? That, to me, seems pertinent. And what mail is being forwarded where? And how many days have been spent inside the district as opposed to outside it?
And finally, since Ms. Pacheco-Kovaleski said she was going to resign by a certain date anyway, why is she forcing the district she supposedly cares about to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention time spent away from the real business of the district, teaching, to defend itself in this lawsuit saying she was illegally kicked off the board? Just for the principal of the thing? If she knew she was going to resign in a few months anyway, why didn’t she do it in time to have her seat filled by the voters in the election, rather than by the Board she’s been at odds with for over a year?
And then you’ve got an ex-employee, a secretary, who was fired about a year ago, suing the district, claiming some of her boss’s expenses weren’t valid. The question is, of course, was she fired for disagreeing with her boss about his expenses, or is she complaining about his expenses because she was fired?
I tell you, this reality show will be a major hit; something to revive a genre that is supposed to be waning.
Author’s note: I was going to pepper this with all kinds of links to The Pueblo Chieftain’s web site, but they’re having problems today. Just do a search on “District 60 School Board,” and you’ll pull references in context.
Next entry: The More Things Change the More They Remain Insane Previous entry: The Bird Flu Pandemic II