Why?

Logan Dailey
Posted 1/24/23

The Goshen County School District’s board of trustees voted to table the approval of Superintendent Ryan Kramer’s contract to the board’s March meeting. The matter was brought up again during a special meeting held Jan. 16. The board voted to approve Kramer’s contract extension through the 2024-2025 school year. Four board members voted against the extension: Chris Alexander, Bob Peterson, Wade Phipps and Matthew Cushman.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Why?

Posted

EDITOR'S NOTE REGARDING CORRECTION AND CLARIFICATION: This article originally stated Wade Phipps voted against the extension of Superintendent Ryan Kramer's contract. This is not accurate; Phipps voted in favor of the extension. My apology for this error. Also, I learned board members other than Cushman also responded to the inquiry, but the Telegram was not included in those responses. I thank those board members for responding to the inquiry.

Regardless, the point I am trying to make is the public needs to be informed of the "why;" why board members are voting the way they are. If board members are voting for something, then why are they for it? If board members are voting against something, then why are they against it? If board members are not sharing why they are voting the way they are, the public is left to speculate, which is counterproductive and leads to the spread of misinformation. 

The Goshen County School District’s board of trustees voted to table the approval of Superintendent Ryan Kramer’s contract to the board’s March meeting. The matter was brought up again during a special meeting held Jan. 16. The board voted to approve Kramer’s contract extension through the 2024-2025 school year. Four board members voted against the extension: Chris Alexander, Bob Peterson, Justin Hurley and Matthew Cushman.

Why?

Rob Branham, chairman of the Goshen County Democratic Party, sent an email to the naysayers inquiring why they had voted against renewing Kramer’s contract. Branham made a significant point with the questions he posed to the group: Why did they vote the way they did?

“When the vote was called for, you four voted against renewing Mr. Kramer’s contract,” Branham wrote. “Why?”

While Branham points out “this is a personnel issue and (they) could hide behind that as an excuse for not responding,” he makes another point of addressing platforms the candidates ran on: communication and transparency. 

“Thank you for reaching out to me,” Cushman wrote. “My vote not to renew the contract honestly had nothing to do with Mr. Kramer or his work done as the superintendent. My issue was about the policy. Why were we addressing a contract that was already in place? Last January, we renewed his two-year contract that would keep him in his current position until the end of the 2023-2024 school year. So why were we discussing a contract that still had 18 months left in it? Why are renewing a two-year contract annually? The logic doesn’t make sense and causes us to readdress items that have already been discussed and voted on. I feel that there were much more pressing items that needed to be focused on and that we should not be voting on his two-year contract until this time next year. Again, thank you for reaching out to me about this issue. I wish more of the people who had become so upset would have done the same.”

In Branham’s reply to Cushman, he points out voting against Kramer without any supplemental reasoning provided was interpreted by many Goshen County residents as “divisive and counter-productive.”

“If each Board member had the opportunity to explain their vote during the “discussion” period, (that seemed to be overlooked) that would have provided a lot of clarity for the audience,” Branham wrote.

The Telegram has questioned the votes against Kramer as well. We, and the parents in Goshen County, would like to know why. If board members are not voting in favor of Kramer’s contract extension, there must be a reason, and the public should know.

It is our hope the board will stand by their word and be transparent involving matters concerning the district.

Branham made another valuable point in his response to Cushman, “in closing, a united board is essential for a successful school district.”

The board needs to be united, but they also need to have clear and open communication with the public. The Telegram firmly believes we will accomplish much more when we work together. 

There needs to be transparency with the school district and there needs to be open communication between the board and the public. This can easily be done by talking to one another. The public should attend board meetings and write and speak with the board members and district staff.

The board members’ email addresses are published on the GCSD website, https://www.goshen1.org/about_us/board_of_trustees/index.php.