Superintendent David Killips: Own Up to a Dumb Mistake

[XLFD]

David Killips was hired as interim superintendent of the Ludington Area School District (LASD) following former superintendent Cal De Kuyper's move to the greener fields of Zeeland Superintendent this January.  He is a Ludington native with a variety of school administrative experience, including a eleven year stint in the Chelsea area as their superintendent from 2002 to 2012, following a six year stint as Reed City's super.  Generally, his time at the helm of Chelsea was successful, he was even recently voted co-citizen of the year for that city, but...

                                      Interim Ludington Superntendent David Killips

In June of 2010,  Michelle Rogers of Heritage Newspapers of SE Michigan wrote the following considering an occurrence at a Chelsea graduation ceremony during the speech of the superintendent where he told an anecdote almost verbatim from another source:

"I hope David Killips, superintendent of Chelsea schools, doesn't decide to change careers and get into journalism.

But, on second thought, in what profession would plagiarism and misrepresentation of the facts be permitted?

Is it acceptable for a school administrator to steal someone else's words, passing them off as his own, and fabricate a story, stating he overheard something that never occurred?...

With hundreds of students gathered and a gymnasium full of family, friends and community members hanging on every word, Killips gave himself and the district a black eye. He should have set a better example Honesty and full disclosure is always the best policy, especially in today's age of technology, when anything can be Googled"

I bring this up only because I have caught Mr. Killips in another incident wherein honesty and full disclosure was sorely lacking on his part.  I commented in the thread open-meetings-act-violation-by-ludington-s-school-board-denied the details of a special school board meeting by the Ludington Area School District that was scheduled not for a meeting, but for running afoul of the OMA.  I had hoped for at least a neutral treatment by City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) Kirby Brasiczeski, but sometimes I expect too much from him and the COLDNews for respecting the laws that public bodies need to follow.  What the one representative said at the end of the meeting, whom I figured out was Interim Superintendent David Killips, was featured in the newspaper.

It recalled the COLDNews outrightly defending the E-mail voting scheme Ludington City Hallers were caught doing earlier this year, saying the emergency aspect of the situation saved a lot of homes' sewers getting backed up and Brother Street collapsing.  It was so emergent, that the response wasn't started until 7 weeks later.  Here, Mr. Killips and his secretary fell over themselves saying that there had been a public notice in the lobby window when there had not been.  But I make the case in the following letter that I sent to the superintendent and his secretary, not to mention a few media outlets and my Outside Legal Counsel attorney, just in case he's needed again.  I hope for all of our sakes that he isn't.

Interim Superintendant Killips,

At the end of last nights gathering at the Ludington Area School District Board's meeting room, you intimated to the crowd that the notices for the March 19 'public meeting' had been posted and that the weather or someone may have took the notices down. Statements that have been printed by the Ludington paper as follows:

The meeting dates and times had been posted many times in the Ludington Daily News and at the district's central business office, but on Tuesday afternoon the notice regarding Tuesday's interviews was no longer on an outward-facing window at the office door.

Interim Superintendant David Killips said the notices had been posted, but maybe the district should do something about how it secures the postings on the window.

Killips said wind or other weather could possibly have knocked the postings from the window, and said, "I would hope that people wouldn't tear them down,"

Here's much of what I can vouch for and/or supply proofs of:

1) I went to the CBO door after 10:00 PM on March 13 and saw the notice for the meeting to take place on March 14. Great, no foul.

2) I went to the CBO door Sunday afternoon, and saw what I took for the exact same notice for the March 14 meeting. No others.

3) The LASD Board had their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday night at 6:00 PM. I presume, it finished by 8:00 PM, and the building was secured shortly thereafter.

4) I went to the CBO door around midnight on Monday night, 16 hours before the March 19 meeting, there was still only a March 14 meeting notice.

5) I went to the CBO at about 8:30 AM on the morning of March 19, the same March 14 notice was there, I checked all conspicuous places in the interior, there was no meeting notices for the March 19 meeting.

6) Presuming the meeting may have been called off or moved, I dropped by at 4 PM on March 19, noticed the March 14 meeting notice was still in the window, and made a point of order so as to save the LASD the embarassment of having to admit later on that it violated the OMA in these two interviews scheduled by the board.

The chairwoman assured me it was posted I checked, asking where it would be posted, I believe your secretary came out, looked at and took down the March 14 posting, took out identical public notices out of a wall folder, and the issue was discussed where I was told that the LASD had posted them underneath the March 14 notice and had come up missing.

I observed no tape or staple marks on the posted March 14 notice, and noticed underneath that post the window was dirty, and had no small clear marks that would be left behind if a notice had been taped there and removed. Making me highly skeptical of such remarks. Consider, when the full board and audience members met the previous night, they would have seen what I did later that night around midnight: one notice on the window for the March 14th meeting. Nothing new was put up in the morning before I got there; nothing was there when I arrived at 4 PM. The public body known as the LASD Board had not posted this public notice that is required by law, even though you showed me that someone had printed them up. It was what I would classify as a clerical error, however...

7) A bunch of mini-conferences between board members and you two occurred outside the meeting room in the administrative wing of your building to reach a decision of whether to hold or fold the meeting. This was highly unprofessional and non-transparent. A meeting had already been opened by your chair, and the board should have had their decision making out in the open, whether it was technically an open meeting or not. You then cap the unprofessionalism by not admitting to the clerical error or mark it as an oversight, but instead blame it on a non-existing wind, or insinuate that someone took a notice or two down without anyone noticing that fact from your board meeting on night of the 18th until your confab at 4 PM on the 19th.

Let's again consider if there was a notice posted underneath the March 14 notice, attached by some other means than tape or adhesive due to the state of the window underneath. It must have been put up and taken down between the times I actually observed and documented points 1-5. You needed to have this notice posted by 10 PM on Monday night, the 18th. With all board members present at the Monday night meeting, none noticed the sheet that was posted was for the 14th and not the 19th. This was easy enough to miss, since your entry light for the door was/is out, I noticed it later that night. Thus if you posted anything, you put it up after I visited the office at 8:30 AM on the 19th, and somehow it was taken down again by meeting time, 4 PM. But even if it had been posted for the full 7.5 hours I missed, it still was insufficient.

Therefore, I am accusing you of misstating the facts, and I will begin to consider an OMA lawsuit against the LASD for this and another violation I noticed earlier this month, unless you publicly admit that the LASD had never posted the notices for the March 19 special meeting as per the OMA, contrary to your public words at the congregation on March 19, 2013. It would be good also to publicly apologize to the public that you serve for 'innocently' violating the Open Meetings Act in this instance, instead of blaming the wind or a prankster for someone's oversight. A copy of this letter is being sent to various media outlets, and my attorney that saw to it that the City of Ludington was disciplined for violating that act. Please respond before tomorrow's meeting. Thank you.

Tom Rotta

The Ludington Torch

[Willy]

I think you have them backed into a corner but I doubt they will ever admit to their error of not posting the meeting because that would force them to admit that they had lied and that would be a much more serious violation compared to the "mistake" of not posting the notice. In my opinion you are doing the right thing. Finally, someone is holding local officials feet to the fire. For to long it's been business as usual and the public be damned. Good work

[XLFD]

What happens during the cover-up is almost always worse than the actual deed when it comes to a public servant violating their duties or the rights of the public they serve.  I take umbrage that the superintendent of my school district, interim though he is, has decided to 'misstate the facts'. 

I am trying to give Mr. Killips enough wriggle room by not actually using the loaded term that you have (lied), even though around my crowd I will use the same word.  But feel free to use that term among yourselves, because I can see that as a reasonable conclusion to what he stated at what was still a convened public meeting at that point that had not been adjourned.

The adult thing, the 'smart' thing to do at this point would be for Ludington-native David Killips, his secretary, or the LASD Board to save us all the bother and expense of having this litigated to get to the truth of the matter.  But as a member of the public, I demand honesty from those who serve even if it's on an interim basis.  And I haven't heard anything back yet. 

[XLFD]

Today, I went to the meeting that was scheduled for 1:00 PM, and when I got to the LASD business office, no one was there and no meeting was posted on the wall.  Apparently the meeting that was scheduled, got called off, as a quick look at their web page shows ( a current screen shot is at the bottom).  Gee, what a waste of my time; they schedule a meeting and call it off without notifying the public that depends on what's posted on their doors.  I was expecting this meeting to be the one where they make the decision or narrow it down, but they went ahead and made it the previous night and narrowed it down to three candidates, Andrea Large being the only local qualifier.

Since I was there, I looked to have a talk with Mr. Killips, since he hadn't yet replied to my E-mail, hand him a hard copy, and discuss options for settling the issue we have concerning the LASD's actions in this matter.  He wasn't in, so I just told the secretary to let him know I dropped by.  Maybe he was at the COLDNews giving them some clarifications of what happened, or some unposted public meeting elsewhere, who knows. 

[Jane]

Are you being sarcastic or are you believing that public officials should follow the rules? If the latter, why the change of heart, usually you argue everything X says about public officials for what seems to be the goal of being contrary. I am curious. you can msg me privately if preferred(as this is not a public entity needing to have public meetings) just so as not to get the thread title off track, but I am curious as to why your not arguing everything and actually agreeing with a few things X posted here in the last few weeks. The unusualness is intriguing to me.

[XLFD]

I believe that an opponent converted over to your cause is a great thing.  You have one less opponent, and one more proponent, a net gain of two. 

If I am to believe reports, there has been a bit of misinformation and propaganda propagated by very powerful public officials and their wealthy cronies to others, as regards me, my actions, and my intentions.  I am not powerful or wealthy, I have my own failings.  I have noticed a change in EyE's perspective since November.  I hope it is not solely motivated by sympathy for my loss in that month, but due more to sympathy for some of the causes we develop here. 

Since my odyssey began, I have talked with others who were initially skeptical about me, who have developed over time at least a tolerance to my carved, orange visage, sometimes an actual appreciation.  There is a lot of discontent out there with many of our political leaders and their objectives, I believe this is part of what has brought EyE to a change of viewpoint, because he has found a common ground.   But I could be wrong.  EyE?

[XLFD]

In yesterday's COLDNews page three, at the very bottom of a good article portraying the six candidates for the post of superintendent, Kirby Brasiceski showed his usual objectivity and newspaper prudence when it comes to reporting about me, the superintendent, and the OMA. 

A "missing" meeting notice that was never posted during the 18 hour period, and almost certainly never before, is referenced and Superintendent Killips' idea to mount some sort of secure box over the notices to keep them from disappearing in the future.  I totally agree, because maybe the next time the LASD Board fails to post the notice, they won't have some excuse that is provably false. 

Kirby adds as an afterthought almost that the COLDNews had run a schedule of meetings in Daily News stories.  As if to absolve this official from the blame of not having posted it.  What's that sucking sound?  Kirby Brasiceski.

I sent out a supplemental E-mail to all the school personnel in the district last night.  As the article says, if I don't see some honesty, I am going to have to get the truth with the court's help.

[XLFD]

I think that's a Ning absolute (15 minutes to edit) but I'll check when I have 15 minutes.  I appreciate the post as it is.

[Marty Redman]

It seems blarney that they didn't take the March 14 notice down and put up in its place a new notice for the other meeting.  If they had only the March 14 meeting up over the weekend, why didn't they take it down on Monday, its never gonna be used for the 14th again and put up a fresh one for the other meeting.  If it was a dirty window and it had been up recent you would have seen some mark of tape me thinks. 

Kirby and Killips sound like there cut from the same cloth.  What disgusting behavior from the plagiarizing little twit. 

[Ima Teacher]

It is blarney.  I regularly go to that door and I can relate I never seen anything other than the one meeting notice over these last two weeks.  I can't say exactly whether it was the March 14 notice, but I can say there had been only one every time I went. 

I can understand why you XLFD (Rotta) want I.S. Killips to admit his fault, I cannot understand why he chooses not to.  Except, I think, he can probably count on other board members to back his side of the story.  If I can help you, but keep my identity secret, I will.  I also agree with you, it shows a certain lack of character in our acting superintendent when he can't even take fault.  Kevin B, shame on you for being such a tool.  Now everyone enjoy their spring break.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Ima, I will take your testimony under advisement, if it's needed.  I have yet to hear anything back from Superintendent Dave on whether he wants to put his honesty to the test in the local circuit court or admit our observations.  It's pretty bad in an area when you have to keep yourself anonymous just so that you don't get repercussions from the elites in power who think violating set rules is within their rights and powers.