1. | Jan 19, 2014

Most nonprofits aradley have term limits' when board members are elected for a specified period of time, e.g. two or three years, and cannot continue to serve unless re-elected. Limiting board members to a number of terms is the weak-kneed crutch for failing to (a) be clear about expectations of board members before they are elected and (b) conducting organized evaluations of board member during and at the end of their elected term. Underperforming board members should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prove their worth.Board members who are unable, or unwilling, to prove their worth should not be re-elected. In other words: continued service should be based on the value of the board member's contribution to the organization, not on the length of time in office.If a crutch is needed to get rid of underperforming board members, then there's a problem which goes beyond the individual board member. Term limits are a sign of underlying governance problems not a solution to how to weed out the deadwood.

2. | Aug 14, 2013

What distresses me the most about the Maureen Castriotta siuoatitn is the way in which the BOE trampled her Constitutional rights. Also, the Board members have now opened us up to a costly law suit because they acted as authority above the Constitution of the United States and can now be officially recalled according to the BOE bylaws.The town lawyer did not read the all of Section 0146. Here is the pertinent part that was omitted at last night's meeting: Board members are entitled to express themselves publicly on any matter, including issues involving the Board and the school district. Individual Board members cannot, however, express the position of the Board except as expressly authorized, in accordance with the Board Policy No. 9120. A Board member shall not represent his/her personal opinion as the position of the Board and shall include in all formal expressions in which his/her Board affiliation is likely to be recognized, such as letters to government officials or newspapers, speeches to organizations and the like, a statement that the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the board.She did not violate that part of the bylaws. According to the bylaws, she was free to express her opinion. It was malicious slander and nothing less. Regarding the walk out . First, it was authorized by Mr. Swanson and Dr. Rossi. They knew the day before that it was going to happen and they did nothing to discourage the students from doing it. This action, in itself, opens us up to any number of law suits. Most of those children were minors. As such, permission slips would be needed to excuse a student from class. I sincerely doubt that 600 permission slips were obtained. Secondly, a permit for lawful assembly was not issued to these students. Thirdly, the press was welcomed at the walk out which makes me believe that either Mr. Swanson or Dr. Rossi invited them to attend.Lastly, if the principal of the high school and the superintendent cannot MANAGE and exert their authority over their students, they are incompetent and should be DISMISSED immediately.Shame on Pat Miller who only stated the view point (and IMHO, a pack of lies) that Rossi and Swanson presented as truth etched in stone. Shame on those who voted to censure Ms. Castriotta. At the very least, she should start the recall procedure against the members of the board for trampling her rights.