Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

Yeeeeah, no. You think ACPS were willfully exposing themselves to lawsuits by hiring a guy with a well known reputation for hitting kids? You think the same district that routinely puts the underprivileged first was taking the 'tough love' approach in an area populated by poor minorities? That's ridiculous, sorry.

How do you explain his being hired then? Contract signed and announced by ACPS Superintendent?

You're suggesting NONE of John B. Murphy's ACPS vetting revealed these problems? No one, not one board member Googled? I don't buy that at all. Current superintendent's talk with fellow and past superintendents as do Board members when hiring a new Super. No, I simply do not buy that this was missed in vetting, especially since the same predicament happened to the ACPS School Board in 2008, forcing them away from their preferred selection, and into hire Mort Sherman (a none-team player).

Mr. Murphy may have sought to down-play these past episodes, asked a lower ball salary in light of them. And of course, given our past Board Chair's propensity to control decisions, Mr. Murphy's compromise was deemed malleable to Board decision making, which is exactly what ACPS Board wants in a Super. Perfect fit in many ways for the Board.

Anonymous wrote:Some people really enjoy complaining. This guy isn't going to be the principal. They withdrew the offer as soon as the vetting process revealed more info about him. They have a year to find a new person. Get in with your life and find soemthinh more important than a crisis averted to complain about.

The vetting process revealed nothing. The vetting process was over. He was already hired. It was a tip that came in AFTER the vetting process was complete that brought his down fall. ACPS had greenlighted him all the way.

And they don't have a year. This is November. The new principal needs to be vetted and hired prior to July '18. Do you need helping help counting the months between November and July? Hint- it's not 12 months.

It's like you haven't even read anything about this.

Some people really enjoy complaining. This guy isn't going to be the principal. They withdrew the offer as soon as the vetting process revealed more info about him. They have a year to find a new person. Get in with your life and find soemthinh more important than a crisis averted to complain about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

Yeeeeah, no. You think ACPS were willfully exposing themselves to lawsuits by hiring a guy with a well known reputation for hitting kids? You think the same district that routinely puts the underprivileged first was taking the 'tough love' approach in an area populated by poor minorities? That's ridiculous, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

It's obscenely embarrassing for whoever is in charge of vetting candidates? Can we find out whose responsibility that is? I want a name.

Put "John Murphy" principal and New York into Google and the first half dozen results are FRONT PAGE news articles from the Daily Post, Black Star News, and the freaking New York Times about how this guy has been canned multiple times for verbally and physically assaulting staff and students.

It's incompetence on an unbelievable scale.

ACPS would look better if they just acknowledged that the background search was never carried out because of miscommunication or something. Saying that they conducted one AND STILL hired the guy is too much to swallow.

Now, does anyone know what impact this will have on the colossal goat fvck that is the ACPS redistricting process?

I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

Anonymous wrote:The important thing is they found out in time. Well before he started. You will forget all about him once they find a better qualified candidate.

No, they didn't find out in time. They found out only after he signed the contract and the press release was out, so he has a good suit against the City now. They found out only because people outside the school system found out the facts and contacted people to complain. They found out only way after supposed "outreach" that turned out to be 100% worthless. What part of this is "in time"? Amateurs.

They have known all along they could not use the two top floors for educational purposes. The new issue is that they just learned of use covenants with the neighborhood.

Does this impact redistricting implementation?

I did not interpret that article to mean they found out after purchase that they couldn't use those two floors. It sounded to me like that was known all along.

The important thing is they found out in time. Well before he started. You will forget all about him once they find a better qualified candidate.

Anonymous wrote:Very happy they dumped the principal they hired! They nipped that in the bud. News to me that they can't use the building as a school. Source?

But why didn't they check his background first? Shouldn't they do that? The same paper reported the issue with the floors they can't use and will have to leave vacant - http://alextimes.com/2016/12/negotiations-continue-on-west-end-elementary-school/

Very happy they dumped the principal they hired! They nipped that in the bud. News to me that they can't use the building as a school. Source?

Alexandria bought a commercial building in bankruptcy and apparently overpaid for it, for use as an elementary school. It turns out only now that a lot of the school can't be used for school purposes - there's a state regulation. They hired a principal but never did a background check, and they had to can him before he started. What is going on in Alexandria?

The story is at http://alextimes.com/2017/11/johnmurphy/