Hindsight is 20 20. Guess it takes a guy who just got his Doctorate to explain that to the board. A bit arrogant. He just proved that the board made the right move in not hiring him. I met Bill Cosby once and he was just fine with me calling him Mr Cosby.

Sadly, it appears there is truth to Dr. Harwood's comments. I don't mean that the board missed the boat by not hiring Harwood specifically, but that they did not heed the call and needs of our community. I harbor no disrespect or ill-will toward Mr. Clark, and wish him well in his pursuits. I do, however, hold our school board fully responsible for the debacle they have made of the situation and for the position in which we now find ourselves. As they come up for re-election this community is responsible for doing our "due diligence" in deciding if they are, in fact, qualified for the positions they hold. Some should stay and some should most definitely go.

This school board seems to dismiss a lot of things at their meetings. My daughter (a high school student) worked very hard to get the board to notice the need for an improved recycling system in the schools. She was extremely nervous to go in front of this school board at a public meeting and voice her concerns, however with the encouragement of a few teachers and fellow students she did it - and she was humiliated, shot down and cut off by one particular board member. Her teachers were mortified that they treated one of their very own students in this manner. So although I did not follow the selection of the superintendent, I completely understand what Dr. Harwood is saying about the conduct of certain members of the board.

I am a parent who followed the superintendent search from afar. What part of the "due diligence" should board members have done differently?

I believe Dr. Harwood vocalized what many in this community felt. He did it more passionately and with more authority because he comes from a deep understanding of what a superintendent's role is and how it affects the educational community. He also is a member of our community and his children went to RCS schools.

I'm a fan of Mr. Clarke. However, it is clear he wasn't the right fit for this district at this time. Many of the people from Grosse Pointe who know Dr. Harwood best believe he would have been an excellent choice for our district, but were pleased when he wasn't chosen so that he could become the superintendent there. Dr. Harwood didn't even make the cut to the final three.

What would I suggest to have done differently? First, I would suggest a different search firm. It was clear during the parent input nights that this firm was not listening to the community. Some of the suggestions made were met with "Oh, you don't want a superintendent like that!" If the purpose of those meetings is to seek community input that statement never should have been made, but the input used in selection of candidates.

Second, both the selection of the final three and the superintendent were hasty and allowed little or no time for community input. The final three were chosen immediately after the last candidate was escorted from his interview. The superintendent was chosen right after Mr. Clarke's finalist interview. There was not time to digest what was said. While the Board intermingled with the audience after Mr. Clarke's interview and sought our input, if I recall correctly there was no public comment period after either round of candidates.

My suggestion would be to have the candidate interviews then air them after all the candidates have interviewed, wait a few days and then have public comment before the board selects three finalists. Based on what I was hearing in the audience, there was strong concern about bringing on a superintendent from a small district with generally below state average test scores. Two of the three finalists fit that description. The finalist interviews should be run similarly. Have all three, then air all three, and a few days later have public comment before the final selection. This allows the public to have more input and also helps when issues arise like the inclement weather that occurred during last year's process.

I was fortunate enough to be invited by the Board to the Parent & Community small interview and to interact with the Board during the selection process. Others may have not felt like their input was received at all other than the sheets the audience had the opportunity to fill out.

I believe that more input from the community would be helpful in calming the community during this turmoil. The community needs to believe it is being heard. A frequent criticism of the Board - and really any politician - is that community input is received but discarded in favor of the politician's own views. Never having sat on the other side, I don't know how much that is true. If community input is heard but the board decides to go against the community's voice, I believe the board members should state why they are making that choice. That builds confidence and trust in the board.

I also believe that the board would be helped by retaining some professional evaluations during this process. There are very few individuals who actually know what it is like to be the superintendent of a large school district. I would give great weight to the opinions of these individuals in selecting the next superintendent. They will have insights that the community and the board will not. Dr. Harwood could be a valuable resource in this next search.

There was another comment that came out of last night's meeting that I felt was pertinent. It was about finding a replacement principal at such a late date. One of Hugger's teachers commented wondering if we would want a principal there who was willing to abandon his or her former school right before the school year began. I think that question also needs to be asked regarding superintendents. Even if Mr. Clarke were to resign today, our new superintendent would not start until at least 1 1/2 months into the school year. If we were to go outside the district, will we obtain someone with the character needed to run our district that is willing to leave his or her previous district? Perhaps the answer is yes. I am not familiar with typical behaviors in superintendent searches. However, it is something our board must consider.

If nothing else comes out of Dr. Harwood's speech last night, I hope the board will examine what was flawed with the previous process. While I believe they picked a good superintendent, he apparently wasn't a good fit for our district.

This board is historically and chronically dismissive of public input. Not ONE of these trustees had anything to say? It's like talking to Mt. Rushmore.

So sad-Sounds the same as UCS!! So- who needs to go? Are they up in Nov? Please advise so the public knows!! Only way things will change!!

Three letters...MEA...Why are you surprised at how the board operates. They care more about making sure that their political backers (MEA) are taken care of than overseeing the school district. That is what voters get when they fail to fully evaluate the candidates. How many people know that all the winners from the last election were MEA sponsored.

This is not a critique of the teachers themselves or even all of the board members. It just shows what happens when one group has too much influence and no checks and balances.

Sad to say that I took my kids out of public school for private after I got tired of all the politcal correctness.

Bravo, Dr. Harwood!

Demonstrating a refreshing, level-headed clarity, Harwood nailed the simple truth that Rochester's perpetually dismissive school board has once again failed to exercise due diligence in serving the students and the community which it was elected to serve.

MEA/REA leadership has exercised too much Rochester school board control for far too long. Time for an overhaul that puts students first.

Rochester's loss is Grosse Pointe's very fortunate gain.

Due dilligence.... ask the UCS BOE about due dilligence. They wouldn't know what that was if it bit them on the ankle. They (along with the superintendent's help) invited a bunch of total strangers into yours

Continued... into you children's schools to do the cleaning work. Even after many of you voiced oposition to the idea. Now take a look at what you've got. The UCA BOE and Dr Johns has demonstrated an inability to keep your children safe while at the same time keeping the schools clean. At UCS... It's time for a change.... It's time for a recall. GOOGLE.... GCA CUSTODIAL SEX CRIMES.. THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. BY THE WAY GCA IS THE NEW CLEANING COMPANY FOR ALL UCA SCHOOLS

UCS? Is that Utica Community Schools? Just wondering what the connection is to this story ...

After viewing the BOE meeting held last evening I thought I would offer some of my expertise in the field of hiring Executives and how under the best intentions the process can be flawed. I am sure the BOE did not intentionally hire the “Wrong Guy” for the job in your district. Human being the key word and elected being the second most important word will make the difficult task appear even more daunting. These seven individuals who I do not know were well aware they were operating under a microscope, and I’m sure did not intentionally want harm done to RCS. I attended all of the interviews and from what I saw Mr. Clarke appeared to have all the right. The final three selected were the same I had on my score sheet after the first round. Sitting back now and shooting arrows is counterproductive for our schools and our community.

As in many of the cases I have worked on the naysayers are either bitter from being overlooked or just simply naysayers because of personal agendas. They are much more harmful to our system then an unfortunate hire. Stirring the negative pot will do much harm in acquiring good candidates in the future. Private enterprise makes many hiring missteps and works hard to correct them, often without so many “Thumbs in the pie” so to speak. Public Schools seem to be the dartboard as of late and arrows are being shot from every direction. While those questioning may think they are helping they need to find a more positive way to do so. Leave private agendas and political views out of the discussions.
Let the Board do their job and offer good suggestions that are in the best interest of the students and school community. Always ask fair questions and wait for answers that are reasonable for all concerned. If there is information being hidden first find out if it is being withheld because of legal reasons. In many cases the employer would love to tell the real reasons for not accepting certain candidates but could risk legal litigation.

Mr. Harwood certainly had the right as a parent to speak but struck out on two counts. One being he should have only identified himself as a parent and not the Superintendent of another district. Second, he should not have intimated he didn’t want the job because he did, and applied for it a year ago. If he were my client I would have advised against those two major errors. He too is a public figure and must be held up to the same rules as the Board he chastised.

Harwood makes very vaild points that many residents questioned during the time Superintendent Clarke was hired. This is my question and I post this because I really don't know the answer - can the board or the school district move forward and terminate so a new superintendent can be hired?? I am not sure what is in the contract or what is legally allowed at this point but perhaps it is just me but wouldn't that make sense?? I think at some level there is a conflict of interest if the school year begins and we have a leader who may have to wait an entire school year for the possibility of finding a new position. I want someone committed leading our children's education.

Thank you Joshua for providing me this information - While I do not have a legal background, I would assume 'just cause' does not include conducting a job search. We are at such a critical time in public education in MI and in this economy and I just feel that we have not had committed leadership in RCS for a while now (the time period where the previous Superintendent was still in before leaving and this past school year) and I really wish we could start this school year with a leader who has intentions to stay for awhile. I certainly have nothing against Mr. Clarke at all and wish him well but I would assume if he does not find a new position before the year starts that his next opportunity might not be until next summer???

In the interest of minimizing further negative impact to the district from the board's poor choice, perhaps a temporary reorganization at the top should be considered for the upcoming school year.

Geraldine Moore has been with the district long enough to know the ropes, is favored by some to become its superintendent and was viewed favorably enough by the board to have made it to the final round of three during the 2011 search.

Why not appoint Moore to the top slot temporarily, with Mr. Clarke serving as assistant (while he and the district explore their respective options)? The added benefit would be a trial run for Mrs. Moore, which would also be less disruptive to the district than having an administrative novice at the helm who is simultaneously looking for work elsewhere.

Not ideal, yet less of a mess.

About time for Alex Freeman to concur...or only feeling bi-polar today Mike?

I think everyone in the Rochester school district needs to take a step back and ask themselves why Dr, Harwood made the comments he did objectively rather than looking for an some ulterior motive.

From a career standpoint, having the commitment to putting students and the community first in a public forum could do nothing but hurt Dr. Harwood. After all, if you were a school board member at another school district that Dr. Harwood may interview with in the future, would you hire someone who is willing to take his career and put it out there because he is so concerned about the direction of his community as a resident? Most myopic school board members I know of would be scared of his honesty and his conviction to doing what is best for the community in which he resides.

Being a former school board trustee in Grosse Pointe, I was able to see his conviction to the mantra of "students first" in action. It is truly amazing. If the Rochester school board was smart, rather than shunning his honesty, they would embrace his passion and put HIM on the new superintendent selection committee and use his talents and first hand knowledge of what makes a great school system to make Rochester the school system everyone knows it can be.

As far as what to do now, the reality of hiring a new superintendent is that interviews need to happen in January or February so that the new super can start July 1. In the interim, the smart move would be to make Gerri Moore the interim superintendent. She knows the system, its strengths and its weaknesses. At the same time, find Mr. Clarke something he can do in the system until he leaves (or buy out his contract) and move the system forward out of the stagnancy that will happen otherwise. To do any less would be a disservice to the community.

LOL...only it isn't funny. This is not a problem in just Rochester. This is an epidemic throughout school districts and boards. They pretend that they want community input, but the reality is that they are annoyed by the community, cause face it folks, you are just a nuisance with your opinions.

In my district, Farmington, put together a committee to help determine which schools to close. This committee put in 1200 man hours and was made up mostly of community members. Guess what, they didn't even vote on any of the "recommended" actions, but rather voted on a "not recommended" action that the Board forced them to consider. What an insult.

But the truth is that this is the most power that these people will ever garner in their lifetimes...and they are awash in it and have lost perspective.

So, the community needs to fix it. Recall them...vote them out, and put in good people (like Mike Reno was on the Board) who do care what the community has to say. Hey all...THIS IS YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK..not their own money.