Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
I was referring to a high school assignor who said that nobody would ever move up unless one of the vets died. That's called status quo. That insinuates that there is no chance for advancement regardless of ability. Advancement should be through ability and officials can improve (or degrade). To make a blanket statement like that is ridiculous and IMHO, unethical. It sure wouldn't fly in my area.
Z
|
I think you are taking the comment too literally. Basically someone has to be replaced in order for an official to move up. I think that was the point of the comments and a reason I have heard similar comments in the past. And for the record, if that comment was made in my area, there is no one to report to. This is not an issue for the state. Not sure how a state has a say over anything like that? We are independant contractors, the state I would think would have no say over who gets hired and who does not get hired.
Peace
|
Rut,
I see your point. My point is that no official should be "untouchable." In our association, I am rated #5 (out of 100) this year. If someone rated below me is better than me, they should move ahead of my and I should move down for next year. To say that I have to "die" before I move down is not right. We have a peer rating system here and I once heard one of my fellow veterans tell the group, "if you aren't sure how to rate someone, take a look at where they were rated last year and that's a pretty good indicator." I about fell over. After I got back up, I disagreed and told everyone they need to rate based on what they observe in the current year.
I didn't mean to see that our state officials association can dictate how our local association rates. However, they are a body that oversees each association, so they could step in if they felt that a local association was operating in an unethical manner.
Z
Fri Feb 27, 2004, 01:51pm
Threaded Mode
