Rome school board candidates
pat

Rome, NY

#64 Apr 29, 2014
this is insane
concerned

Rome, NY

#65 Apr 29, 2014
nothing wrote:
you vote no for the budget but they will get it anyway there is always a plan need to get gid of all board members then get rid of jeff and work your way down,how come budget has NO Trainer for next year,but will spend 25000 for RFA band to roam around down south.people of Rome need to wise up and get board out and get jeff out,contract must have a out clause if he doesn't perform to the job. put the clause back in MUST live in Rome if super or move there within a year of taking job!
Finally, somebody else who thinks like my husband and I.. Time to clean out the over paid do nothing Jeff Simons. YES get the clause back in to live in the district. Get rid of a few of the Assistants too, we don't need all of them, what about all the Assistants Benson has in the High School. Go back to the old days Principle and 1 VP. I hope all of the ROME Families get out and Vote we all need to stand together and say NO. To Jeff and his Rubber stamp BOE! Looking forward to voting May 20th remember our kids can't learn if there aren't any teachers. The Assistants aren't teaching our kids all our kids are is walking Dollar sign's to Jeff.
Beans Burritto

Rome, NY

#66 Apr 29, 2014
SAY NO!!!

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#67 Apr 29, 2014
Re: Assistants

Do not underestimate the positive power of excellent executives and administrators. Without good leadership, teachers can't really be effective.

I'm not familiar with whether or not Rome's administrators are excellent or poor. An engaged and steadfast board,will ensure that the superintendent is doing his or her job: namely ensuring that principals and assistants are doing their jobs: namely, ensuring that all teachers are being effective.

It's a bell curve thing. I know we have teachers who perform at the highest levels and we also have teachers who do not cut the mustard. Good leadership can shift the entire bell curve towards the effectiveness side.
Beans Burritto

Rome, NY

#68 Apr 29, 2014
why do we need a board?
BEANS YOU IDIOT

Long Eddy, NY

#69 Apr 29, 2014
Beans Burritto wrote:
why do we need a board?
so we can play MONOPLY!
Time for change

Rome, NY

#71 Apr 29, 2014
Vote wrote:
do you TRUST a teacher...I DONT! DO NOT vote Johnson!!!!
Johnson isn't a teacher or employed by the district at all.
nothing

Rome, NY

#72 Apr 29, 2014
Time for change wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnson isn't a teacher or employed by the district at all.
but her family is
Hold

Rome, NY

#73 Apr 30, 2014
frankcor wrote:
Re: Assistants
Do not underestimate the positive power of excellent executives and administrators. Without good leadership, teachers can't really be effective.
I'm not familiar with whether or not Rome's administrators are excellent or poor. An engaged and steadfast board,will ensure that the superintendent is doing his or her job: namely ensuring that principals and assistants are doing their jobs: namely, ensuring that all teachers are being effective.
It's a bell curve thing. I know we have teachers who perform at the highest levels and we also have teachers who do not cut the mustard. Good leadership can shift the entire bell curve towards the effectiveness side.
I can reply to this. The assistant supers and administrators are hardly excellent and are without a modicum of leadership skills. They are grossly over paid and stealing their paychecks from the tax payers. We have per diem administrators working for upwards of $300-400 A DAY!! That is a ridiculous sum of money. If good leadership is necessary, than most administrators from Central Office, and all from RFA and Strough, where the most waste and incomitance is, must go.
Beans Burritto

Rome, NY

#74 Apr 30, 2014
fire them all
nothing

Rome, NY

#75 Apr 30, 2014
start with simons and work your way down
russ bianco

Moravia, NY

#76 Apr 30, 2014
Its also hypocritical for Simons to plead poverty and have a 2.5% tax hike (which is above the state cap) and then on the other hand give raises to 3 ass't. supt's, whose base salary is $112K/year. If our district is in that bad of finances, then EVERYONE bites the big one..including our district bigwigs. And the last time someone proposed a residency requirement for the superintendent, they were swiftly and loudly meet with uniform derision from the entire board. I feel its time to take a visit down this road again.
Beans Burritto

Rome, NY

#77 Apr 30, 2014
fire his stupid butt

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#78 May 4, 2014
russ bianco wrote:
... the last time someone proposed a residency requirement for the superintendent, they were swiftly and loudly meet with uniform derision from the entire board. I feel its time to take a visit down this road again.
Following your logic -- would you also require that they purchase all their gasoline from Rome gas stations? How about their groceries and lunches?

It is illogical to conclude that where a superintendent resides has any impact on his or her job performance, which is the prime issue on which we should all focus.

Look, I am as disappointed with the outcomes of the Rome school district as anyone. But raising a residency requirement is a pure distraction with no chance of improving the schools' effectiveness. Instead, I suggest, we demand clear, understandable explanations for our low outcomes, followed up with improvement plans that are likely to raise outcomes.
Real Tony D

Syracuse, NY

#79 May 4, 2014
frankcor wrote:
<quoted text>
Following your logic -- would you also require that they purchase all their gasoline from Rome gas stations? How about their groceries and lunches?
It is illogical to conclude that where a superintendent resides has any impact on his or her job performance, which is the prime issue on which we should all focus.
Look, I am as disappointed with the outcomes of the Rome school district as anyone. But raising a residency requirement is a pure distraction with no chance of improving the schools' effectiveness. Instead, I suggest, we demand clear, understandable explanations for our low outcomes, followed up with improvement plans that are likely to raise outcomes.
well you MORON..Once again you are WRONG!!!!! Make them LIVE in ROME AND pay ROME taxes if they want to WORK and be PAID by ROME TAX Payers!!!!!!

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#80 May 4, 2014
That's all you got? Name calling? I see logic escapes you. Go away, troll.
Real Tony D

New Hartford, NY

#81 May 5, 2014
frankcor wrote:
That's all you got? Name calling? I see logic escapes you. Go away, troll.
does the truth hurt you wanna be know it all....
Hold

Rome, NY

#82 May 5, 2014
frankcor wrote:
<quoted text>
Following your logic -- would you also require that they purchase all their gasoline from Rome gas stations? How about their groceries and lunches?
It is illogical to conclude that where a superintendent resides has any impact on his or her job performance, which is the prime issue on which we should all focus.
Look, I am as disappointed with the outcomes of the Rome school district as anyone. But raising a residency requirement is a pure distraction with no chance of improving the schools' effectiveness. Instead, I suggest, we demand clear, understandable explanations for our low outcomes, followed up with improvement plans that are likely to raise outcomes.
Why did the RCSD have a residency requirement all those years BEFORE Simons was crookedly given the position? If I remember it correctly, the board that year was going to call back the top three candidates for a second interview for the superintendent position after Gallagher left. Simons was not one of the top three. He was number nine. Not sure if you were on the board then and had a hand in crafting this position for Jeff and then ultimately waving the residency requirement. It is important that as a superintendent you live where you 'rule'. The message is clear: I will mismanage YOUR money and YOUR children's education because my kids go to school somewhere else and I pay taxes somewhere else. Maybe that's why you deflect logic that clearly many Romans are calling for because you were on the board then.
Wait

Rome, NY

#83 May 5, 2014
frankcor wrote:
<quoted text>
Following your logic -- would you also require that they purchase all their gasoline from Rome gas stations? How about their groceries and lunches?
It is illogical to conclude that where a superintendent resides has any impact on his or her job performance, which is the prime issue on which we should all focus.
Look, I am as disappointed with the outcomes of the Rome school district as anyone. But raising a residency requirement is a pure distraction with no chance of improving the schools' effectiveness. Instead, I suggest, we demand clear, understandable explanations for our low outcomes, followed up with improvement plans that are likely to raise outcomes.
Why did the RCSD have a residency requirement all those years BEFORE Simons was crookedly given the position? If I remember it correctly, the board that year was going to call back the top three candidates for a second interview for the superintendent position after Gallagher left. Simons was not one of the top three. He was number nine. Not sure if you were on the board then and had a hand in crafting this position for Jeff and then ultimately waving the residency requirement. It is important that as a superintendent you live where you 'rule'. The message is clear: I will mismanage YOUR money and YOUR children's education because my kids go to school somewhere else and I pay taxes somewhere else. Maybe that's why you deflect logic that clearly many Romans are calling for because you were on the board then.

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#84 May 5, 2014
Wait wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the RCSD have a residency requirement all those years BEFORE Simons was crookedly given the position? If I remember it correctly, the board that year was going to call back the top three candidates for a second interview for the superintendent position after Gallagher left. Simons was not one of the top three. He was number nine. Not sure if you were on the board then and had a hand in crafting this position for Jeff and then ultimately waving the residency requirement. It is important that as a superintendent you live where you 'rule'. The message is clear: I will mismanage YOUR money and YOUR children's education because my kids go to school somewhere else and I pay taxes somewhere else. Maybe that's why you deflect logic that clearly many Romans are calling for because you were on the board then.
It's a poor debate strategy to question another's motives, especially when you have no grasp of facts. My board service had long ended by the time Simmons was hired as superintendent. I have no need to deflect logic -- your argument ("I will mismanage ... because ... I pay taxes somewhere else) contains no logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rome Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rome rental car 14 min Got a car 22
finishline automotive 33 min Pigs 14
Druggies 46 min Danny Smith 10
tere develow 57 min Momma bear 22
Looking for info on Brianna (Jul '11) 58 min Not the sharpest ... 13
Jackie Favata 1 hr Disgruntled 2
Milescheats 4 4 hr Chicky 29

Rome Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rome Mortgages