According to both the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune, disputatious Farmington school board member Tim Burke has been accused by several sitting school board members of creating more work for district administrators than they feel is necessary as well as being “disrespectful” to them.
According to the Pioneer Press:
Burke’s strained relationship with district administrators predates his election to the board, when he took a request for a copy of Superintendent Brad Meeks’ contract all the way to the state’s Department of Administration. At an October meeting, some board members voiced concerns that Burke’s criticism and battery of information requests might be creating a hostile work environment for the administrative team.
The request of information regarding Superintendent Meeks’ salary was done back in 2008 and while the district and the school board at the time didn’t much appreciate it, the public was appreciative of the fact that they could make educated conclusions as to its value when compared to other local school districts which have over four times the number of students enrolled.
The Star Tribune noted:
Board members have said he treats administrators disrespectfully and burdens them with unnecessary data requests. Meeks has said that Burke has poor “e-mail etiquette,” and that he’s too quick to blind-copy or forward messages with district data.
Burke has said he believes the district conducts its business with “bewildering” secrecy, and that the board’s claims boil down to “not playing nice in the sandbox.”
School districts, like all other public entities in the State, must provide information requested by the public (school board member or not) as long as the request is considered to be public data as per Minnesota State Statute §13.03. No data request should be denied, delayed or otherwise hindered unless it is considered non-public and frequency and/or breadth of requests have no bearing on the statute’s requirements.
Many of the current sitting members of the Farmington School District are of the belief that as little information as possible should be made available to the public and in the past wanted to limit the use of social networks for dissemination of information which arguably was meant to silence Mr. Burke as he is known to use Twitter heavily. They have also closed a school board retreat to TV viewers so as to, “foster a different kind of dialogue,” because the ISD 192 school board members were afraid of what the public would say if they spoke their minds.
So what do you think of the Farmington School Board’s attempts at silencing fellow board member Timothy Burke’s data requests? Do you believe that it is acceptable for a school board member (or a member of the public) to request information which others may consider to be “burdensome”? Do you believe a school board member has to be “nice” to administrators who some argue have a clear disregard for the public in general? Is any related expenditure, such as hiring a third party to do the investigation, a wise investment for the taxpayers of ISD 192?
Well what say you?
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
November 8th, 2010 at 7:57 am
What I find simply hysterical about this whole situation is that they treat him differently than everyone else and then they make statements about a hostile work environment as if their own actions play no part in any of this.
Burke is doing what he was elected to do – bring the working of the school district into the sunlight. They are spending our tax dollars and we deserve to be able to judge for ourselves how well they are doing.
If Burke was unpopular with the voting taxpayers in our community the most recent election results would have been very different. We voted for him and now we have voted to elect three new individuals all of whom has openly questioned the school district. It is not a coincidence it is the will of the people.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Mr Burke is doing exactly what he was elected to do, and honestly what more of our elected officials should be doing. The fact that it is making them uncomfortable is proof that he is making progress.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:45 am
So he copies people on emails that he is perfectly within his rights to copy. He makes data requests that he is within his rights to request and he strongly questions administrators when he feels that data has been left out?
Sounds like he is rocking the boat and the board wants to send a message to him and any other newcomers that changes to the status quo won’t be accepted.
Investigate him? We should give him a freaking medal. I find this whole situation very unsettling.
November 8th, 2010 at 9:01 am
You can view the portion of the 10/11/2010 meeting which pertains to this post here: http://vimeo.com/15793557
November 8th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Asking for facts or documents does NOT fall into the category of creating a hostile work environment. If there is more to it than Burke asking for facts or documents, then an official complaint should be filed, following internal procedures put in place for that purpose. But throwing that term around in a newspaper quote without the legal substance to back it up is just wrong. I’m thinking the attorney for the Farmington school board should be having a little meeting with each member soon to explain this.
Frankly, a school board member should (a) know the elements of a hostile work environment claim; (b) recognize what they are stating in the paper that Burke is doing “wrong” is NOT the type of behavior such claims are meant to address and (c) not to throw around legal terms when the member doesn’t know what they mean. Also, considering the seriousness of accusing someone of discrimination, using that terminology is NOT something to be done lightly.
November 8th, 2010 at 9:55 am
It’s scary, but I’m afraid not too uncommon, that someone who appears to be attempting responsible citizenship is being skewered.
November 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Frankly, I applaud Burke’s efforts for transparency. While consideration should be given as to the purpose of information requested and the volume of requests, as a public entity, we should have access to this information.
Further, social networking is as valued today as newspapers yesterday. The invent of the internet has changed how we do business and receive information and I think they need to recognize that it is a natural part of how communication exists today.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
This weekend I watched the full 29-minute video that Burke posted on his Vimeo site. I had a few thoughts.
1. Brad Meeks said “etiquette,” with the “qu” pronounced like “quail.” And he said it a couple of times. My wife overheard it and asked, “Did he just say ‘etikwet?’”
2. Proper email etiquette is definitely important. BCC’ing others is probably not appropriate. Of course, if they know he’s BCC’ed others than either the people being BCC’ed aren’t very trustworthy or he really didn’t care if they knew others were BCC’ed, in which case they could have just been CC’ed. Either way, email etiquette is important, but everyone has a different take on what it means.
3. Communication methods are moving electronic and it doesn’t seem that Meeks is very comfortable with that. In some cases I can’t blame him. When it comes to personnel issues, it’s absolutely preferred to have a conversation in-person instead of having an email that can be passed along. I can’t blame Meeks for that.
4. The communication problems between Burke and Meeks don’t seem to be one-way. I imagine that Burke entered his position as an outcast based on his activity prior to being elected to the school board. However, the fact that he was elected says the people in that district must want that sort of representation.
In short, I don’t see any evidence from the video that anything illegal has happened. It’s completely fair for the board or even a regular citizen to want detailed contract information. If I put myself in the administration’s shoes, yeah, it sucks to have to deal with all of the data requests. It sucks to have your priorities questioned. But the confidence of your residents has to be earned. It’s not a given. The fact that Meeks has interviewed for other positions in other states tells me he may not have the confidence of his citizens that he feels he deserves. Maybe I’m wrong, that’s just my out-of-district point of view based on what little I’ve seen and know.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I appreciate the supportive tone of the post and comments.
The real source of this whole business lies in request for the superintendent’s contract, my role in the defeat of a $24 million bond referendum in 2007 that the superintendent proposed and supported, and my public statements that the Farmington school district would be better served with different leadership.
Since that time, the superintendent has been distrustful of me, fearing that each request for information was an attempt to uncover information that could be used to embarrass him and lead to his removal or non-renewal. That, I believe, is why my requests for information have been treated as they have.
My reasons for thinking the district needs different leadership are rooted in some basic facts.
After seven years in his job, the superintendent continues to preside over a system that continues to score below the state average and below other area school districts in high school MCA tests.
Farmington has the highest school property taxes in the area.
Under his watch and direction Farmington has built one of, if not, the most expensive high school in the state.
In the course of that high school construction project, he lead the district into two lawsuits, with the City of Farmington and the company hired to build the high school, that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
And in the course of building that high school, the district employed four (or maybe five) different construction managers suggesting that when that many different outfits can’t get along with you, maybe the problem isn’t with them.
During this period, the school boards gave the superintendent glowing performance evaluations and a juicy new three year contract into which he is barely more than 14 months.
I am flabbergasted that such performance warrants retention, let alone renewal.
Some folks say that all that is in the past. I say past is prologue. When these many mistake are made and sub-par performance continues, it’s time for a change. It is an opinion apparently held by a minority of one on the current Farmington school board. Thank God for elections.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:24 am
I should also note that based on the introductory statements of “concern” about Burke and comments from others on the board, I had a few presumptions about what Burke would be like. I was surprised when the camera panned to him to find someone who was well-spoken and put together. The image of him painted by others didn’t match who he seemed to be.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Hilarious, fitting ending statement.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
There are two sides to every story. I suspect that there is a deeper issue between these two gentlemen that may or may not bubble to the surface. Anybody who uses the BCC function (not that I know personally that it was actually used, but going with the comment as accurate) would indicate to me that Mr. Burke is acting punitively whilst trying to stand on the back of “doing right for the community”.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I use BCC all the time to hide the addresses of other recipients who are not in the public view and should not have their e-mail addresses shared with others on the list.
It does many things including:
1. Stops people from “reply to all” stupidity.
2. Stops the spread of e-mail borne virus and spam.
3. Allows recipients to remain anonymous (as they should in a public e-mail chain).
Very few e-mails that any district staffer sends out should be considered non-public and thus BCCs are a totally acceptable thing to do in the vast majority of cases.
If anything ISD 192 staff, including Mr. Meeks, needs to carefully study §13.03 and understand what it means before they make accusations as they have so far. Just because the staff (purposefully or not) have made mistakes in their handling of this situation, it appears that Mr. Burke has not.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I can understand your point.
From a business/work perspective, it is plainly rude to “Bcc” a co-worker when sending another a message. The recipient should know exactly who is privy to the message that was sent to him or her. The only times I have witnessed this happening is when a co-worker is calling out another on something and they want the boss to know what is happening but they don’t want the receiver to know they are a big tattle tale.
I get the part when you send out a message to the masses and you don’t need everyone to know who received it, and that is usually pretty clear that you did that because in most cases the only person in the “TO” column is the sender.
I am not making the assumption that Mr. Burke is inaccurate. I am merely raising my personal speculation that maybe there is additional agenda at foot.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
lefty,
School Board members are not employees of the district nor are they trying to “tattle”. A BCC in this case is simply a way for information to be disseminated to interested parties in the public without their identities being made known.
As part of §13.03, data requests may be made by anonymous members of the public and filled in the same way. Consider a BCC by a ISD192 School Board member a way of facilitating that portion of the Statute.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
:)
That’s why I said I understood your point. I was merely pointing out that these school board members probably have real jobs and they (inaccurately) did not appreciate the blind copy deal. That they do have a problem with that does make this writer wonder if there is a bit more to it, that’s all.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I am certainly not a fan of the education success that the Farmington school district is seeing. It does make it difficult to be satisfied that Dr. Meeks has lead us to a fairly trouble free budget this year while other districts struggle.
Regardless of what Mr. Burke has said or done, if in the end we have employees of the district claiming they feel they are in a hostile work environment, then care must be taken. There can be real consequences to the district, and such concerns from staff should be listened to. Now if the investigation finds that staff associates a hostile environment to simple legal requests for information, well then maybe we need different staff.
My impression of Dr. Meeks is that he is an extremely intelligent person with a significant superiority complex. He does not deal well with people questioning his decisions or people asking him how he came to a decision.
This creates a dynamic between Mr. Burke, who questions everything (God love him) and Dr. Meeks, who doesn’t abide question. Mr. Burke asks for information, and Dr. Meeks either doesn’t answer, or tells staff not to answer, sticking staff in the middle of their little battle.
I’d like to see Mr. Burke become a kindler, gentler Burke. Talk nicely but carry a big stick. The law is behind him. He doesn’t need to threaten (assuming he has) nor tell people how bad of a job they are doing.
Note that the last few years, I don’t recall seeing Dr. Meeks have his feet held to the fire on education results. Lately it has all been about dollars spent on this or dollars spent on that. Maybe that should be what happens with the new District Board, rather than focusing only on $$, start focusing on improving education in general. Not just meeting test scores, but exceeding test scores and setting the bar very high.
November 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
If Mr. Burke is copying other board members on e-mails, he may be violating the state’s Open Meetings law. However, if that’s the problem, then his fellow school board members, or the school district’s attorney, should say so.
If he’s violating some other school district policy, then that policy should be specifically referred to.
If he’s only being prickly and not violating the law or school district policy, then he really is only answerable to the voters.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Mikeh, while I think we agree on the overall issue, I disagree that Mr Burke should be kinder and gentler about how he delivers the message.
At this point, I think its safe to say we are past people having hurt feelings, and honesty is probably more important than kind words. To be honest, this is how I feel about almost all of our elected officials. Quit hiding behind kind words and fake smiles and just start telling the truth. It seems that this is where Mr Burke has found traction with the voters, and roadblocks from the school district.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Actually, school board members are employees of the school districts they serve (I have the withholding taxes to prove it). And, not knowing the whole story in Farmington, I was reading between the lines a concern that the board member might be forwarding messages that contained private educational data or employee data, both of which are illegal. That would be my concern as a board member. Otherwise, I am for sharing openly everything that we do in our district, to the extent allowed by data privacy laws. Again, I don’t know the situation in Farmington and I’m not taking sides in their disagreement — just offering some perspective.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
UWTM, that’s like me claiming because Google pays me every month I’m their employee.
If they were concerned he was passing along non-public data via BCC then they should have said it outright. Unfortunately for them they didn’t and thus they are at the mercy of the public.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Using bcc in any situation other than the hiding public lists is juvenile and shady. No, it’s not illegal, but it’s rude.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Actually, we are district employees with W-2s and everything. We pay into PERA and have payroll taxes withheld from our monthly checks.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
My bad.
Please, for the love all that is holy, tell me that the org chart has you at the top and them underneath you. Because if the Superintendent is giving the School Board work direction then we have a serious problem.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I don’t think it’s always shady to use BCC for purposes other than hiding public lists. For example, if I’m sending an email to someone and I want my wife to see it but it isn’t something that directly involves her with that person, I may BCC her rather than forward it later. It’s the exact same concept.
If the issue here is with Burke sharing information with people who shouldn’t be receiving it, that’s one thing. If the issue is people who just have an issue with BCC, that’s another. In other words, would it have been an issue if Burke had forwarded the information instead of using BCC? People do have a bit of a complex around BCC that I don’t quite understand so I wonder if that’s part of the issue. If it is, I’m guessing it’s still really only a small part.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Bill, shouldn’t we have been congratulating you on 4,000 comments earlier today? Does it count when it’s your own site?
November 8th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
If anything you should be telling me to STFU.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I believe the org chart would have the residents of the district at the top, then the board that they elect on the next level. (Sometimes, elected officials forget who the real bosses are). But, yes, we do provide direction to the administration — we set policy and budget, they carry it out.
BTW, this has been a very interesting thread. I love that you now have a bunch of elected officials joining the conversations on LL.
November 8th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Joey, why would you not just CC her so the person who you are sending the info to knows that she knows as well? Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason for BCC or frowarding later.
November 8th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Ok, here’s an example. I’m going to play poker with some friends. We’re all emailing each other about it and there are 6 of us hitting reply all. I want her to know the plans but there’s absolutely no reason for her to be in on future reply alls. So, I’ll BCC her.
I could give numerous other examples. I also use it when I send our annual Christmas letter (yes, I email our Christmas letter…I have a blog post going up tomorrow about emailing things versus snail mail so I won’t defend it here!). I don’t need all of my friends and family to see one another’s email addresses, though I think we all agree that’s an appropriate use for it.
The point is, BCC has its place and it can be abused and there’s obviously disagreement on where that line is.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
The board approved the investigation 3-1 with two abstentions. Game on.
Star Trib story… http://www.startribune.com/local/south/106929113.html.
The Pioneer Press story wasn’t posted as of 11:20 tonight.
Tim Burke
November 9th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Not sure if this was touched on, but who pays for the investigation? Would that be the Farmington residents?
November 9th, 2010 at 7:08 am
bubbins – Taxpayers pay.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:26 am
BCC rules are as such. If you use BCC, you either do not want the person you are e-mailing to know others are participating, or you do not want the person you are e-mailing to get the e-mail address of others you are discussing.
Next rule is this. If you receive an e-mail where you are the BCC, then you are a fool if you press reply to all and add your comment. In fact you are too stupid to be allowed to operate a computer. Is that threatening enough?
Without having any access to the actual e-mails or conversations Tim Burke has had with District Employees it is impossible to classify the discussions. All that we know is that there are claims by a select few that they “feel” communications and actions by Mr. Burke have led them to “feel” their work environment “might” become hostile. Thus far no one has claimed they feel they are in a hostile work environment, at least in any official manner (law suit).
That said, It is obvious from the council meetings that we have two people with significant communication challenges. Dr. Meek appears to think he is above question. Tim Burke appears to think that the District staff is hiding things on purpose. Seems to me it is those two traits that feed on each other and lead to the problems the district is facing today. Not a problem of budget, but of personalities.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Hey Tim,
What would the other guys side of the story be? As we all know, the real answer always lies somewhere closer to the middle of each story. Did he sleep with your wife or something?
Lefty
November 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
This is real simple. Meeks thinks “local control” means control by him. (most of) the board thinks Meeks is sharing control with them (he’s just letting them think that). The voters last week, and the incoming school board members, are about to show Meeks and this old board what local control really means.
Hostile work environment? That would be Meeks. He’s hostile to anyone he works with.
Oh, by the way, lefty: the guy slept with your wife. That’s why the guy is so….
November 9th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Doesn’t the district have a PR/media guy to help everyone sort through all this? Oh, I forgot… Meeks fired him!
November 10th, 2010 at 9:08 am
I just want to point out something in regards to the BBC option in emailing. This summer when I was conducting my email campaign for the class size issue, I started out using CC, but then others began copying and using my list, prompting several complaints from people on my list who only wished to receive emails from me. I was instructed by many to begin using BBC as proper email etiquette. I think this is valid. Also, some on my list were concerned that their names would be seen by someone and retaliation would occur in some manner. Also a valid concern. I just wanted to point that out here.
November 10th, 2010 at 9:46 am
I agree with Tara – I was a bit miffed this election season when I received a mass email from a candidate who did not use BCC. I appreciate the fact that using email is an inexpensive way to reach a large number of people, particularly during a campaign, however, I don’t need/want everyone to see my email in an election context.
November 10th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Sorry, Tera, not Tara.
November 10th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Tera, that’s exactly what is meant by a list use.
Does BBC option translate English to British English?
November 10th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
whoops. Those good ol’ British….
November 10th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
What is worse, my BBC or “etikwet”? Maybe Meeks and I should make nice and be friends. :)
November 10th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
From the Farmington Independent’s Editorial section (may require registration): http://www.farmingtonindependent.com/event/article/id/15816/
November 11th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Now that the school board has opened the door on this, they need to release all investigative findings and not be allowed to hide behind attorney-client privilege, as they like to do.
November 11th, 2010 at 10:32 am
This entire investigation is misguided on so many levels.
An investigation to determine if there was a policy violation when said policy has no violation consequences is a waste of time of money.
The board has already exceeded what would occur in most organizations for a policy violations. They have written him up (board meeting minutes), put a note in his permanent file (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, Farmington Independent, etc.) AND they have given him a public scolding (10/11 school board video). This is already, in my opinion a remarkable overreach for peer relationship but apparently since there is not sufficient remorse on Mr. Burke’s part the flogging continues.
The fact that the move is on to keep finding of this investigation private using an attorney-client privilege claim only confirms my suspicion that the investigation has already uncovered bad behavior on the part of the school district. If it looks like a witch hunt, sounds like a witch hunt, acts like a witch hunt, it IS a witch hunt.
I also posted this at the Farmington Independent website but felt it bears repeating.
November 12th, 2010 at 12:11 am
We need as many people as we can get to show up to the next board meeting on the 22nd of November. Please come and speak your minds to the board.
They have shown in the past that they blink when the people show up in force and let them know they are not happy with the way things are going. Please join us on the 22nd and let them know your thoughts on this matter.
November 18th, 2010 at 10:56 am
A possible solution to the situation is provided in a Letter to the Editor over at the Farmington Independent: http://www.farmingtonindependent.com/event/article/id/15875/
November 19th, 2010 at 5:52 am
What a great, well-written letter, with a common sense solution. It would be comparatively inexpensive; result in bridging the rift instead of widening it; and (gasp!) it would make the board look like adults who know how to resolve conflict while maintaining necessary working relationships.
Unfortunately, this also means it has a snowball’s chance to get implemented.
November 19th, 2010 at 9:49 am
I recognize the name, but I’m not sure why. Was he a former mayor or City Council member, or ISD 192 guy? Somehow the name rings a bell.
November 19th, 2010 at 9:52 am
He’s been politically active in Farmington for a long time.
December 14th, 2010 at 8:08 am
From the Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/111834154.html
Thoughts?
December 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
So where is the report that we paid to have generated? Are they going to try to claim that it is protected by Data Privacy laws? I’m sure they will try and hide the summary released to the public and not place it on their website.
I’d need to see it to really draw any conclusion, as I really don’t trust the current sitting board to make any type of fair decision. The innuendos in the article don’t provide any clarity.
December 14th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Here’s a copy of the Executive Summary: http://www.lazylightning.org/documents/BurkeCensureExecSummary.pdf
December 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Wow, Mr Burke is getting jacked.
December 14th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
From the Pioneer Press article:
The report further said when Burke charged specific administrators with withholding information from the public, he violated the Minnesota Data Privacy Act, a possible misdemeanor offense, and exposed the district to possible lawsuits.
Wait, what? Someone explain the logic of that to me.
Also, this made me laugh: “They have an environment that’s not only unpleasant but also almost unbearable to work in,” Waldspurger said, adding, “It’s not enough to say, ‘I am a rude and abrasive guy.’ ”
Someone making data requests somehow makes the work environment unbearable? Maybe someone needs a nice quiet job in a library or something.
As much as the report seems damning, it also so very one-sided that it’s hard to believe it is the full story. When I’m looking for a teaching position, I’ll be sure to stay away from Farmington. Fishy things going on there.
December 14th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Its so one sided as to make one wonder if the person(s) doing the investigation were at all impartial. The choice of words and the incredbile recall of detail are both shockingly difficult to believe.
December 14th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Now, I have met Mr. Burke and spoken with him on the phone on two or three occasions as well as my interactions with him via e-mail and social media. I agree that he is abrasive but so am I. That said:
This entire ordeal reads like a Farmington HS 9th grader’s complaints against a classmate they don’t like.
“Timmy isn’t nice to me Mr. Smith, he needs to play nice!”
“Now Timmy, you know that as an administrator I just don’t have the time to be doing actual work so these requests are just too much. Oh and you’re not nice Timmy. You’ll never go anywhere if you aren’t nice.”
I don’t particularly care for all the memory omissions Mr. Burke apparently had in many of the responses he game as in my dealings with him he generally has excellent recall but I certainly don’t believe any of the allegations are worthy of Dakota County residents’ tax dollars being wasted on a possible criminal investigation. If ISD192 wants to waste tax dollars on censuring/removing Mr. Burke so be it but do NOT get me involved when it has absolutely no bearing on the vast majority of the county’s population.
Ridiculous.
December 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
How stupid! I hope Mr. Burke asks the State office of Administration for an opinion on the data in question. Their opinions after all must be given deference by a court in a proceeding involving the data.
Until the State Administration Commissioners make a ruling it’s just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It was the commissioners opinion that forced Meeks to go public with his contract. And who asked them for an opinion on contract issue? Our friend Mr. Burke.
December 14th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Censure doesn’t mean crap. It just means they don’t like him. No news there. If the County Attorney finds anything actionable the best they can nail him with is a Misdemeanor. Granted, he shouldn’t be releasing information protected by Data Privacy rules (illegal) and I hope he apologizes for that (if true) but otherwise, the voters have voted, and they voted for Tim Burke. The council and the Administration would do good to recognize the will of the people.
In summary, the District and other board members don’t like the guy. Cry me a river.
December 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Maybe the Farmington Board should be required to attend the Envision academy at the PAC. Apparently it does wonders for “building a sense of community”.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
According to this StarTribune article more investigation into the Tim Burke debacle may be eminent following the start of newly elected Board members:
August 1st, 2011 at 7:01 am
[...] According to this article in Thisweek, Farmington School Board member Timothy Burke is going to ask ISD192 to repay the ~$5000 he incurred fighting a legal battle with the district for his supposed ‘burdensome’ requests and ‘disrespectful and abrasive’ tone. [...]