Your article states that he's looking to relocate south (FL) however it also says that Newaygo Co. on the west side of MI......

I think Mr. Clarke needs to submit his letter of resignation to Rochester. It is clear by reading his posting to the FL position that he believes he's done all he can do in Rochester Schools. Also interesting that he doesn't highlight his Rochester achievements on his resume, only what he did in Albion. You would think in a district the size of Rochester, he would have been able to do more things than Community Coffees. Mr. Clarke needs to resign so our school board can find a better candidate that wants to truly move Rochester Schools forward before the start of another school year. This is a critical time.

I would hope at this point Mr. Clarke would also resign if that is what needs to happen for the Board to move forward brining in a new candidate. There is obviously much more to this story (and who knows if we in the general public will ever know what it is) as he is conducting a full-on job search. Excellent reporting by the Patch - these are the stories in which the public greatly benefit from local news reporting!!

Lets just face the fact: Fred Clarke was brought to RCS to do 1 thing: privatize Custodial and Transportation services. Not to improve anything, not to make things better, just simply to do the "dirty work" and then leave. That has been accomplished but be careful what you ask for - you just may get it. At the April BOE meeting I spoke of the Intangibles lost when our custodial staff was replaced by a transient work force. That's what we have now - a work force of transients. Every summer our staff would clean all facets of our buildings, This year the private company cannot get enough staff hired to do this. They have a reputation for not doing proper background checks on their workers - it is cheaper to pay fines rather than background check them all. The worker turnover and the theft of personal property and district property will be very high, the quality of work low. These are the people who will be letting your children into classrooms and back areas of the building after hours. Fred Clarke leaving? No surprise there. I believe our BOE had an obligation to at least present the full financials of the district and offer a number of choices to the public, including a millage increase, to preserve key services. Sure, no one like to pay more taxes but the reality is that services are not FREE. If you WANT more you have to PAY for it. Remember the intangibles of our Custodial and Transportation staff - you will begin to realize their value this year.

talk about commitment. I wonder what his first letter to the parents of RCS said about what his commitment was going to be to the district and the residents.

Please refrain from name-calling in this and any other post. We respect the dialogue and appreciate freedom of expresion, but see no real value in referring to Mr. Clarke, the commenters or anyone else by anything other than their given names.

Good dialogue! I dont believe Prop A prevented districts from asking for millage increases, just from using property taxes as a source of funding. The core services are funded by the extra 2% sales tax (which is fine in a growing economy - not so fine in a recession). Ultimately we need to realize that our cuts will reach a point where we may compromise the quality of our facilities and the ability of our educators to deliver instruction because of them. I am very concerned with the custodial services company contracted to work in the schools. If they do a poor job of cleaning the building then that is not a tradegy but if a sex offender, who was not properly background inspected, causes harm to one our children then that will be a huge tragedy. My hope is that the facilities Director and his staff will be careful and not avoid responsibility on this change.

I have seen this before in industry - when a private company takes over non-core services it becomes very easy for the management to say "it's not my problem. See the private company to resolve the problems. They have a contract." If that "hands off" mentality starts to be observed then the Board needs to act quickly and get people into position to act decisively and quickly to rectify the problems, not allow the current management to hide and blame others. The enforcement of the contracted services is totally the responsibility of the District Management - if not then why would they be kept on the payroll?

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Clarke feels that he was left holding the baggage in this. The baggage belongs to the School Board. It was their intent in hiring a 'change agent', their direction, their votes, and for many of them, their lack of action in the past that led to our current dire straits. Mr. Clarke did what he was required to do because of unaddressed financial issues that preceded him. His only other option would have been a 10% cut in all salaries - including teachers, which would have been difficult to do and politically impossible for our Board to support."

Well said.

The Board's silence is deafening.

The Board voted to take the actions Mr. Clarke proposed as a remedy for the district's "huge financial issues". Why aren't they defending him? Or explaining why they won't?

The buck stops with the elected school board trustees.

Perhaps Mr. Clarke is being push out... the school board is decidedly union-backed now. The union-backed candidates have won in the past several elections. Several are even union members.

The pendulum had started swinging from union-interests to student interests... maybe it's started it's swing back?

Hmm......union backed? They just crushed the AFSCME Unions that represented the Custodians and Transportation workers. Not sure where that thought process comes from.

They are all backed by someone. Local tea party backed the unusual man who ran last year.

The district cried for years they are broke. They privatized noncore servicers to save money. The signed contracts with GCA services and Durham School Services are not listed on the Rochester Comm. Schools website. Who actually knows what the district is actually paying? (If someone knows where the signed contract is on the website, can you please direct me to it?.....Thank you). The district has talked for years on privatizing these services. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
This is the same district that is worried about making cuts into the classroom. The financial situation for the next fiscal year is the same. More cuts. More deficits.
Last month, the administration got a 1 to 3 year wage and benefit freeze on their contracts. I wonder what union the administration belongs to. It must be the almighty REA/MEA. Like I said, the district is worried about going broke, but can’t get 5% reduction in wages and benefits from the administration.
I don’t buy the “change agent” line. If Mr. Clarke was a “change agent”, cuts would have gone further.

This Rochester resident & MEA member hated that Mr. Clarke supported and pushed privatization. Ultimately the board had to agree. Please remember that there are many MEA members in the community, but we alone did not elect the board members. They were elected by the community. They are representatives of the community. MEA members oppose privatization, and Mr. Reno supports it. Please remember that he is pointing a finger in the wrong direction.

Since Mr. Clarke is leaving, this is a great time to negotiate a contract that pays less. In this educational environment, I'm surprised anyone wants this job. It would be great to hire someone with ties to the community. This is a great opportunity to move forward in a more positive direction. Speaking of direction....when searching for the next Superintendent....don't go West:-)

What a piece of work! All I can hope is that the Board learned from this hiring decision and makes a better one going forward.

If the people only knew that the district is still purchasing all supplies for this company for the first year and that ALL equipment is being furnished by the district. This company is being paid in full and is not taking the full responsibilities that were set forth in the contract (Grounds work is still being done by district employees at buildings that were contracted by this company and payments are still being made in full). The district still employs a Director of Operation, Custodial Manager, and 2 Custodial Coordinators at a Major cost for a company that was supposed to come in and be a "turnkey" contractor. The April 16th board meeting has the contract stated towards the bottom of the 168 page packet sent to the board. Furthermore, it is interesting that there is no cost associated with renting the busses, grounds trucks, trailers, mowers, etc. and the bussing contractor will be receiving 3 new busses this year at a cost to the district of 269,000. dollars. These costs are not being factored in to the savings that the Administration and board put out to the general public. Sharpen your pencil and you will see that the "savings" will in fact be a loss to the district if the math was done correctly.