Sounds like Los Alamos School Board President Judy Bjarke-McKenzie has a personal agenda per her statement that “there were some things from previous evaluations that he has not done … It is a personnel matter.” Is this – ‘a personnel matter’ – one(s) that would stand up in court or personal agendas of some of the board members?
Actually, who deserves termination? Schmidt or the school board? Who is doing the best for Los Alamos?
Decisions behind closed doors: “when a ‘vote’ is not a vote!”
How many ‘voted’ against Schmidt? The implication is 3. Are the two new + one old officers just those who would have ‘voted’ against Schmidt?
As Morrie Pongratz points out “Voters of Los Alamos Deserve an Explanation.”
The ravings of the board members about how great Schmidt has been over the past few years do not jive with giving him the option of ‘resigning’ or ‘being terminated’ with a year to go in his expressed desire to retire.
Of course, there is always the scenario that the board is trying to have Schmidt leave in the most favorable light they can give him. But Schmidt would always have to explain to a new employer why he resigned (why the non-support) and the propective employer would ask for references (what would the ‘nay-voters’ say in such a request?).