Living in Hanover

Living in Hanover

'Apparently a blog about living in Hanover'

Samuelson Out at Hanover

August 27, 2012 | 5 Comments

Hanover’s school board voted 8-0 with on abstention (more on that later) Monday night to demote Andrew Samuelson from co-principal of the high school to language arts teacher. I’m pretty sure the demotion is to a middle school teaching position.

I say pretty sure because, in a pretty dirty move, the board did not include this item on the agenda so I can’t be 100 percent certain my memory is correct. As I said before, I have no dog in this hunt since I have never dealt with Samuelson, but since he was there with his wife and child, this obviously was not a last-minute decision to vote tonight.

To not add it to the agenda is just petty in my opinion. I don’t see what purpose it served except to keep people from coming to the meeting to see what happened. In this day and age, there’s no reason to not have 100 percent updated agendas on hand.

Now about that about abstention. Darlene Funk chose not to cast a vote in this matter. I can’t fathom what would lead someone to abstain from this decision. You either think he should stay in his position or you think he should go.

There were hours and hours upon testimony. There were, obviously, executive sessions with deliberation. Unless there is a personal relationship that I don’t know about, all an abstention in this matter tells me is that she’s not qualified to make decisions for the school district when push comes to shove.

But it’s done. Kind of. According to a tweet from Heather Faulhefer, he says he will accept the position, but will also appeal the ruling.

I’ll blog more tomorrow sometime about the rest of the (rather uneventful) meeting.

5 people are talking about “Samuelson Out at Hanover

  1. Is the omission of this item from the agenda more than petty, like a Sunshine Act or Open Meetings violation? I don’t know but it suggests to me either a Board which is sneaking around or inattentive to detail.

        • You think it was weak, petty? This pitchfork shaker thinks you might want to rethink this statement. Was it a violation of the sunshine law – probably but why would they stop now. They didn’t advertise the first meeting, I’ve made requests to get the transcripts from the first meeting and was told I would have to wait 30 days. Unfortunately, the board made a decision before the people were even allowed to hear or read the first day of testimony. Just saying. As for Darlene, do you really think her non-vote stated she was not qualified to judge. Or do you think it might be a statement of her own?

          • I strongly recommend actually reading the Sunshine Law before saying something is “probably” a violation.

Leave a Reply to Brian Cancel reply