Board disregards needs of children
As a teacher and taxpayer in Howard County, I was disheartened by the Board of Education's latest decision, which was rendered in closed session.
It is impossible to comprehend the board's response to Superintendent John R. O'Rourke's ultimatum and compensate him with at least $190,800 if the board chooses not to re-hire him in two years when his contract expires ("Board votes intent to rehire superintendent," Nov. 15).
This decision is especially troubling in view of the board's inaction with respect to the status of teachers and instructional assistants in county schools.
Four years have passed since the board spent a year studying the job descriptions and salaries of support personnel.
Currently, it takes an assistant eight years to earn an annual salary of $20,000 in spite of their increasing responsibilities and workload.
Although the board has verbally acknowledged its educators, it remains unwilling to reward their contribution with a comparable commitment.
Mr. O'Rourke has stated that he needs educators to support the budget.
I wonder, however, how can he expect approval of a budget that not only contains such unfathomable inconsistencies but also recommends inappropriate and irresponsible use of Howard County tax dollars?
How would payment of over $190,800 to Mr. O'Rourke after the expiration of his contract benefit the students of Howard County Schools?
Colleen Morris
Columbia
Charles was right on O'Rourke issue
In response to The Sun's article regarding the Board of Education's resolution to either renew the superintendent's contract or pay him a year's salary - and the opposition to that resolution by board member Virginia W. Charles - I have this to say: Yes, Virginia, there is public support for your claims ("Board votes intent to rehire superintendent," Nov. 15).
It seems to me that, while it might be common practice for executives to demand job security, this is precisely that executive mindset that has contributed to the Enrons of the corporate world, and even the non-corporate world. I believe the word is greed.
And I do not understand why the board feels obliged to yield to Superintendent John R. O'Rourke's demands for job security.
After all, if he's so marketable, then he should not need that extra vote of confidence, since it would take him no time at all to find a job elsewhere should the board vote not to renew his contract.
I have no empathy for executives who demand job security. Ninety-nine percent of the workforce does not have the privilege of job security, and for Mr. O'Rourke to demand it under the table, so to speak, is questionable.
And it most definitely raises the question of fiduciary duty of the remaining four board members who so willingly (and nearly secretly) granted him such.
We, the taxpayers, are paying Mr. O'Rourke's salary, so it follows that we, the taxpayers, should be fully aware of Mr. O'Rourke's requests for intent to rehire - as well as the board's response to it - in an open forum.
Anything less is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Diane Goodridge
Ellicott City
To our readers
The Sun welcomes letters from readers. All letters become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit each letter. By submitting a letter, the author grants The Sun an irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use and republish the letter, in whole or in part, in all media and to authorize others to reprint it.
Letters should have fewer than 200 words and include the writer's name, address and day and evening telephone numbers.
Our address: letters@baltsun.com; by mail, The Sun, PO Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001; by fax, 410-332-6977.