Oxford School Board Trustee Mike Schweig believes the signed memorandum agreement between Former Chief Operations Officer Pam Anstey and Former Superintendent Dr. William Skilling is an ‘excellent example of what needs to change? in the district as they move forward.
The request to discuss the agreement by Schweig and Trustees Kim Shumkaker and Joyce Brasington was finally placed on the June 10 agenda for a formal vote and discussion.
A motion to accept the agreement was passed on a 5-2 vote. Shumaker and Brasington voted against the motion.
‘I believe there are two main reasons why we’re here talking about this today. One is TEAM 20. I want to thank them for FOIAing the document and then bringing it to light. We would not be here today discussing it had your group not requested it,? Schweig said. ‘The second reason is our new Superintendent Tim Throne. He fully reviewed the proceedings and determined that it needed to be discussed and voted on by the entire board in open session.?
Schwieg reflected back to the past practices in which Skilling operated, which included discussing issues in private with the (past) board president and some members of the board, then moving forward without a (discussion) in open session by the entire board.
‘This was not the democratic process at its best, but it was democracy. Dr. Skilling could not have done anything without a majority vote of the board. Many good decisions resulted in this process, but unfortunately some mistakes and errors occurred and these need to be corrected,? he added. ‘I believe going forward Tim Throne will provide the leadership necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and collaboration with our community to move in a new direction.?
Schweig noted that he voted in favor of the motion because he felt it was a ‘step in the right direction.?
Shumaker said she was ‘uncomfortable with the process? that Skilling had followed and expressed that to him.
‘I do agree that I think Tim is taking us in an appropriate direction and we can avoid pitfalls that we have managed to get into in the past, but because I struggle with some of the things in the agreement I’m going to be voting no,? she said.
Brasington in good conscience couldn’t vote in favor of the agreement either.
Per the agreement, which was entered into on April 23, Anstey was to be paid her wages/compesenation $130,000 salary plus portion of her annuity $25000 = $155,000) along with benefits until the end of her contract date of June 30. She is also to recieve an additional $30,000.
‘I think of a $30,000 buyout of an employee who in Dr. Skilling’s recommendation letter did her job well and was ‘one of the best people? he ever worked with. So I don’t know why we’re paying a good employee to leave,? Brasington said. ‘Also she makes $583.87 a day. You take that (amount for) the whole month of May, the whole month of June. How much money is this district paying to get rid of a good employee? Not including the consulting fees that we’re paying to replace her in the business office. It’s an abuse of taxpayer money.?