Submitted by Brian Raabe
Pragmatism would have stopped Greenwich from litigating the Mark Kordick dismissal well ahead of a $650,000 settlement and what was estimated at well over $1.0 million in legal fees.
This was only 2 years ago.
That same pragmatism would see the FOIA commission win, nullifying last year’s BOE meeting, as an end goal.
A logical time to stop the lawyers fees
Yet despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent, there appears to be some point to prove, or some end goal to further litigation.
And our track record in these things (Kordick) isn’t good.
Speculation is the new goal is reversing Superintendent of Schools Dr. Jones’ contract extension.
She was granted an additional two years to June 30, 2028.
(Greenwich Board of Education Extends Superintendent Jones’ Contract Two Years May 3, 2025)
Taxpayers would bear the cost in lawyer’s fees to nullify not only the meeting that the FOIA commission stated
was in bad faith, but to nullify all acts thereafter.
Including Dr. Jones’ contract extension.
Undoing the proceedings of subsequent meetings would take a year or more, as evidenced by the legal
calendar submitted to the court recently (if that’s goal, again – who knows?)
https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31321444
Depositions and court appearances into late 2026.
If the nullification of subsequent meetings is achieved – very uncertain- the question becomes, would Dr.
Jone’s sue?
The answer from far and with no legal background is, I would.
On what basis?
Look at what has transpired in our school system under Dr. Jones’ leadership.
Look at what Kathleen Stowe (Democrat) had to say at her exit from the BOE (Ms. Stowe’s tenure was a Cal Ripken like 8 years with no missed meetings. None.).
(After Two BOE Terms, Kathleen Stowe Grateful to Have Served the Community Nov 20, 2025)
Look at what Michael Joseph Mercanti Anthony (Republican) had to say in assuming his position as the Chair of the Board of Education recently.
(Greenwich School Board Installs Mercanti-Anthony as Chair: “We ask for your grace” Nov 21, 2025)
The statistics and stellar accomplishments in our schools cited by both occurred under Dr. Jones’ tenure.
If you had that record and then had a contract extension rescinded, wouldn’t you litigate?
The question becomes how long that would take, another year, maybe two – until the end of 2028.
Here again, would the town even prevail?
Pragmatism suggests further litigation, regardless of what you think is right and wrong, but simply based on mathematics, is a colossal waste of money, time, and energy.
Any litigation would likely approach or exceed the 2 years of the Superintendent’s contract extension.
And whether the town would “win” is unknown.
This is not a conservative or a liberal view.
This is the view of a taxpayer who demands their money be spent prudently.
Pragmatism.
From here we can either heed Donald Rumsfeld‘s advice – that when you’re in a ditch you quit digging, or we
can keep at this for the next few years to no logical end.
What would the Town be hoping for in lieu of litigation from Dr. Jones, would we offer a contract buyout like this
is some sort of baseball league?
If you really want Dr. Jones out of her seat, then you should start an executive search now.
Because the Town of Greenwich track record with superintendents is abysmal.
Dr. Jones was hired in 2018. The prior superintendent resigned with less than a year in the job.
That loss was Greenwich School’s 12th superintendent in 20 years.
What kind of adverse selection in candidates do you think that history will generate?
If you were superintendent looking for future employment, would Greenwich be high on your list?
Would you uproot your family and your career for a town with a track record like ours?
Of course you would not.
Our track record by definition would create a pool of candidates that is less attractive than the aggregate average.
And if Dr. Jones is sent on her way after prolonged litigation – that will only drain more water from any reservoir of attracting candidates.
And so again an executive search should start now if there’s displeasure with Dr. Jones.
But that displeasure would have to be one born of something other than accomplishments and statistics of achievement – the things the job is about – and which she has delivered.
That bears repeating.
Dr. Jones took the job despite our track record, which in and of itself is good fortune.
She managed through a pandemic and has delivered academic excellence.
Maybe I am wrong on my speculation – but if voiding her extension isn’t the end goal in more litigation, the Town should explain what the goal is – fast.
The legal meter is running like a speedometer in F-1 and taxpayers deserve a response – so far we have a radio call in show with the First Selectman complaining “they hired attorneys first!” when asked about why this is going on.
That’s not the question; the question is what the goal is from here.
Please answer the question asked.