Reading through school board members' written comments regarding Superintendent Carol Lark's annual evaluation, statements unavailable at the June 17 meeting but since released, there emerges a clear split among board members about who's to blame for the district's internal strife.
Of the seven board members, only Vice President Tom Moore signed his evaluation. The rest were identified by number.
In their statements, two board members directed fault for the conflict towards Lark's staff and raised questions about insubordination.
Board member 6 stated that Lark had shown good leadership despite "roadblocks."
"I believe that Carol's hands have been tied because of the way certain contracts are written," board member 6 said. "There have been purposeful roadblocks that have been thrown in Carol's path. In spite of that she has been able to pass the bond, consolidation went very smoothly, radon is now solved in all the schools, something that has plagued the Lake schools since at least 1988."
Board member 5 attributed Lark's negative relationship with fellow administrators to a "power struggle."
"I think the apparent negative relationship with district office staff is a result of a power struggle and a lack of desire of cabinet and staff to do things differently or to follow Carol's directives," the board member wrote. "It appears to me to be about doing things the way they've always been done and a resistance to change."
On the other side of the debate, two board members, including Moore, blamed Lark for the internal conflict.
"You do not demonstrate the ability to recognize or solve potential problems," Moore wrote. "Apparent problems exist district wide with personnel at all levels.
"Site leaders do not seek guidance from you."
Moore claimed Lark is "very reactionary" and "does not show evidence of any long range planning."
"You appear to only communicate and follow through with board members that may provide a political benefit for you," Moore wrote.
Board member 2 criticized Lark for an alleged "reckless disregard of fact," and an over-reliance on other employees.
"Displays no in-depth understanding of issues," the board member wrote. "I have been told by principals that the superintendent has no vision and that they sometimes wonder who is running the district."
Board member 2 expressed concern over correspondence from staff, stating opposition to an extension of Lark's contract.
"My biggest concern is the lack of support and respect which is widespread among administrators," the board member wrote.
For the most part, the other three board members, 3, 4, and 7, had little to say in their written statements about the district's internal situation. Board members 3 and 4 praised Lark for her leadership.
"Has asked staff for info about developing problems and has shown capable of making a decision on her own in a crisis situation," board member 3 wrote. "Very good at showing a professional attitude at all times."
Board member 4 wrote, "follows through regarding board priorities, e.g. radon remediation district wide, alternative school. Calm and thoughtful response to crisis situations, e.g. school lock down."
But board member 4 did advise, "needs to continue to build relationship with district office staff."
Also released last week were two petitions signed by district employees requesting Lark's contract not be extended.
Hired in 2006, Lark's existing $123,000-a-year contract expires in June 2010. At the June 17 meeting, Lark requested her contract be extended to June 2011, a measure board members postponed until their August meeting on Tuesday, the outcome of which could not be reported before Wednesday's deadline.
Three employees of the district's computer services department signed a petition requesting Lark's contract not be extended. Twelve employees of the district office signed another petition requesting the same.
The petitions, and the written comments of the original evaluations, were released to The Record-Courier a little less than two months after a formal request was made for the documents, and after The R-C filed an open meeting law complaint with the attorney general's office regarding the evaluation process.
