It’s hard to tell right from wrong in the complicated debate over state school’s superintendent Nancy Grasmick’s future. Many had called for her ouster after the state school board, with the support of outgoing Republican appointees, extended Grasmick’s contract, and legislators were looking for creative ways to reverse the board’s action.
One proposal that was being bandied about was a move to prevent a “lame duck” board from extending a contract. But Gov. Martin O’Malley’s public burial of the hatchet with Grasmick yesterday appears to have put a damper on that effort.
Anyway, I’m curious about how people view the situation. Was it proper for the board to extend the contract when members knew Gov. O’Malley was preparing to reconstitute it? Is that the board members’ right, or should they respect a new administration’s intentions? On the other hand, it’s always a bad precedent to change established law based on one objectionable development.
What do you think?
Above: Gov. O’Malley, hoping to put an unproductive political feud behind him, shook hands with Schools Superintendent Nancy Grasmick on Monday, pledging to work hard on education initiatives - instead of her removal. (AP Photo/Brian Witte)
