The Vanguard learned late last night following a closed session meeting, that James Hammond will take the position of Superintendent in the Ontario-Montclair School District in Southern California as rumored on Saturday.
In the end James Hammond loved the Davis Join Unified School District, the personnel and the community. Unfortunately the strain of his family living away from him was too much for him to bear and therefore working closer to where his family is living was the obvious move for him personally, even if it was a hard decision professionally.
“The story as it exists right now,” Mr. Taylor informed the Vanguard, “which is that James [Hammond] intended to submit a formal resignation on the 3rd of June and the board has met in closed session to discuss that and is prepared to accept his resignation.”
Tim Taylor went on to say, “In all honesty this guy has done just hurculean tasks for this district and turned it around from a place that had a lot of rightful second guessing going on to an open and very public operation and has reached to the community, to the city, to the students, to the teachers, and to the administration like no one else has done in a very long time and perhaps ever.”
“Losing that is a big deal for us,” Tim Taylor stated. “It’s kind of like sending a kid off to school, it’s not easy to do. There are a lot of tears, and everybody is upset, but it’s for the best. I think that’s the way we are and that’s the way we feel right now.”
He continued, “We’re letting James [Hammond] go for something that he needs personally and we wish him the very best professionally.” Tim Taylor went on to say that he had no doubts that they would hear great things in the years ahead about James Hammond. He mentioned that while the district may not have been quite in ashes, that James Hammond “has brought a lot of things back there were down and not firing on all cylinders.”
James Hammond told the Vanguard, “This is a district that I absolutely love and a community that I absolutely love, and the only thing that is making this job hard for me is being away from my wife and children. That is the draw.”
He continued, “This has been the finest school board any Superintendent could work for. The integrity and leadership from Tim Taylor to the other four trustees has just been exemplorary. It can be a great deal of confidence that this community can have in this district because of this board and because of the capacity that we have in this district from the support staff, teachers, administrators, there is a very bright future here in Davis for many years to come.”
“This has been the toughest professional decision I have ever had to make because I absolutely love this job and working for this board, and working for this community, and love these children,” he said, “It’s gut wrenching to say the least.”
Tim Taylor added, “James [Hammond] has offered and we are absolutely willing to accept his assistance on all of the transitional issues.”
Tim Taylor says they expect to have someone in place by July 1 as an interim Superintendent. That decision would occur after Dr. Hammond formally resigns. He and James Hammond both stressed that there would not be a situation, as happened when previous Superintendent David Murphy “retired” where the district would be paying for two people.
Commentary
Everything that Tim Taylor said about James Hammond I agree with. Up until the point of James Hammonds hiring, the retirement of David Murphy, the termination of Tahir Ahad, the departure of Ginni Davis, the school district was a very different place in terms of how it was run. It is unfortunate that the district never got to see James Hammond at work during times when it was not in budget crisis mode. Nevertheless, the district is in far better shape in terms of operations and community support than it was when he took over.
Someone mentioned to me that Dr. Hammond upon arriving in Davis was appalled at the state of the schools despite its reputation to the contrary. Years of poor leadership took its toll.
And though I personally lament the loss of a young and bright leader in James Hammond, I think that the district has a strong board and an excellent top administrative team and the students will be in good hands despite this occurrence.
James Hammond told me that they will in the coming weeks be rolling out a plan to close the achievement gap and hopefully that along with all else will be part of Dr. Hammond’s legacy here.
As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, even knowing that Dr. Hammond would only be here for a few years, I think it was well worth it having him for these years and helping to put our district back on track.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I was recently told by someone familiar with UCD interviewing dos and don’ts that an interviewer could not ask a candidate about their family’s location of primary residence. Given the expense to recruit and train new employees, this is an idiotic rule. It prevents the hiring process from vetting a candidate’s risk of leaving and the associated risks for overall higher recruiting costs.
This is just one of many reasons why the public sector is less efficient than the private sector… we are so gosh darn careful to be fair, and not make any mistakes, and not offend any person or protected group that we cannot make effective business decisions. Attorneys and the PC police have us all with our shorts in a bunch, unable to think for ourselves.
Dr. Hammond should never have been hired given the circumstances with his family still residing in Southern California with no plans to relocate. It would have been common sense to have assessed a high level of risk that he would quit and return at some point, and have been rejected for that reason alone.
We have taken the fear of discrimination to such a high level we might as well just have the labor attorneys do all the hiring and expect a revolving door of human resources.
I disagree with you Jeff, the district is in far better shape now than when he took over and he was a huge reason in that. I don’t think a single member of the board that hired him or the current board believes his hiring was a mistake based on that information.
Hindsight is 20/20, and I think that Hammond has done a great job. However, I agree with Jeff in that a school superintendent needs to have a personal vested interest in the community in which he serves. Otherwise one foot is always out the door. This applies to all of our senior management in Davis too.
Random: In general I agree with you, that one of the problems I feel both with senior city management and others is the lack of personal vested interest in the community. There are some people however, Hammond and Chief Landy Black who regardless of where they live feel the obligation to the people they serve, but sadly they seem exceptions rather than the rule.
Dr. Hammond should never have been hired given the circumstances with his family still residing in Southern California with no plans to relocate.
Jeff, maybe you understand something I don’t, but I understood that his whole family was in Washington state before moving to California. When they moved to California to take the Davis job, they weren’t comfortable locating in Davis compared to other options. On the outside it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I imagine there are personal issues that are probably not for people to pry into too hard.
This excerpt is an example of what was circulating in fall of 2007 that suggested to me that his family was in Washington state:
[quote]Jeff Hudson, Davis Enterprise, Aug. 23, 2007
* He’s risen swiftly through the ranks in public education. He taught humanities to ninth-graders at Frontier Junior High School in Spanaway, Wash., from 1993 to 1996. He was dean of students at Bethel Junior High School in Spanaway from 1996-’97. He was assistant principal at Bethel High School from 2000-’01, then principal until 2004. And he’s been superintendent in Tukwila since then.
* He’s got a doctorate in education (Washington State University, 2003), a master’s in curriculum, instruction and administration (Gonzaga University, 1997), and a bachelor’s in political science and secondary education (St. Martin’s College, 1993).
* He’s been active community affairs, serving as a board member on the King County Workforce Development Council, the Tukwila Children’s Foundation, and the Tukwila Community Schools Collaboration.
[/quote]
I think it’s heavy handed to demand where someone ought to live, but I imagine it would be reasonable to offer incentives to locate within the boundaries of the school district, for example, a bonus of X dollars after locating within the district for X number of years (2 years, for instance).
I agree with Jeff Boone and Random Thoughts. We need to hire leaders that are going to stick around, and stay vested in our community. Yes, James Hammond did a good job – but now we are in transition yet again, a painful, time-consuming and interruptive process. I would much rather have someone hired who has a real stake in this community, who wants to address the problems LONG TERM, and not just use the position of School Supt. as a jumping off point for better salary negotiations. Hammond should have worked out his family problems BEFORE APPLYING FOR THE JOB OF DJUSD SUPT.
Hammond should have worked out his family problems BEFORE APPLYING FOR THE JOB OF DJUSD SUPT.
Before applying? That statement makes a bunch of huge assumptions. Before accepting, maybe.
Still, I think DJUSD has been better with him.
The other point I would make, and I understand Hammond lasted less than three years, I think we should look at a management level position in Davis in general as a five year position, rather than a life time position for someone. We can get good up and coming people to come here on their way up. The other option is to get someone decent who moves here to be in a community like this. Otherwise I think we get stuck with a lot of fairly mediocre leaders (and we have now and in the past) or people who end up sticking in a position too long it getting stale. So Hammond stayed here a little less than five years, which is suboptimal, but not atrocious.
A news search reveals that Hammond was looking around a little earlier, however. An Oct. 2, 2009 article (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin) shows that he was on the short list for the superintendent’s position at Pamona USD at about that time.
DMG: “The other point I would make, and I understand Hammond lasted less than three years, I think we should look at a management level position in Davis in general as a five year position, rather than a life time position for someone. We can get good up and coming people to come here on their way up. The other option is to get someone decent who moves here to be in a community like this. Otherwise I think we get stuck with a lot of fairly mediocre leaders (and we have now and in the past) or people who end up sticking in a position too long it getting stale. So Hammond stayed here a little less than five years, which is suboptimal, but not atrocious.”
Don’t agree with this at all. Many problems, such as addressing students who are falling through the cracks, take a long term commitment to solve. You have to have someone really committed to the school district, who won’t take a hike to some other city after a relatively short period of time. I think back to the former Principal at Emerson – I cannot recall his name offhand, who died of cancer. He had been the Principal at the school for a very long time (23 years I think), and was outstanding. He was at every school event, on the grounds visible everywhere. He cared about the school and its students, and it showed. He had a vision, a pulse on the school, and good control. Emerson was never quite the same after he passed away. Can anyone remember his name? Norm Enfield was also an outstanding administrator – Principal of a couple of elementary schools in Davis (he started as Principal of Patwin Elementary to get it started before he retired).
Both these men would have made outstanding Supt. of Schools. But instead of looking at the very capable people withing DJUSD we have living here in Davis, the DJUSD/School Bd passes them over for some outsider who isn’t necessarily vested in the school system long term. Just my opinion 🙂
Both these men would have made outstanding Supt. of Schools. But instead of looking at the very capable people withing DJUSD we have living here in Davis, the DJUSD/School Bd passes them over for some outsider who isn’t necessarily vested in the school system long term.
Maybe. But Murphy was someone who had a clearer vested interest, a history of administrative experience in Davis, a Davis resident, kids in Davis schools. At one point he looked like a great candidate to a lot of folks. The current school board and some in the community wouldn’t agree, though.
I also suspect that a superintendent’s job is a little different from a principal. Plenty of overlapping knowledge/skill sets, but some important differences.
I’d argue the opposite Elaine. WDF is right, David Murphy is the obvious point. We needed to clean house when Hammond was hired and hire someone from the outside, just as we did at DPD and now at DFD. I’d be more willing to consider someone from inside now that Hammond and the new school board have gotten rid of most of the people that were a problem three or four years ago.
“I disagree with you Jeff, the district is in far better shape now than when he took over and he was a huge reason in that. I don’t think a single member of the board that hired him or the current board believes his hiring was a mistake based on that information.”
David: It depends on the job. If we were interested in a – 3-year kick-ass and don’t worry about how many people you step on – type of role, then Hammond might have been a perfect choice. I don’t think that was what we were hiring for, but I could be wrong.
Depending on the scope and complexity of the role, it can take 1-3 years for an executives to get to know their direct reports (and direct reports to get to know their manager) and the business well enough to hit their stride as a manager and leader. Hammond did good things for the district, but at some investment in his recruiting and ramp-up period. Now we have another recruiting and ramp-up period investment. This includes the need to re-settle the unsettled workforce that results from a change in leadership. This last point is a big deal and not given enough attention. My Board of Directors demands that I have a leadership continuity plan and my severance compensation is tied to me ensuring a smooth turnover should I decide to leave. The reason for this is that my Board knows that turnover at leadership ranks can have a disabling and deflating impact on employee morale.
When we lose good leaders for reasons other than their career advancement, then I see that as a big problem. Somebody screwed up in the hiring process, or someone is not taking care of the talent well enough.
”Jeff, maybe you understand something I don’t, but I understood that his whole family was in Washington state before moving to California.”
Wdf1: I only heard second hand that his family is living in Southern California, and that is a primary reason he is leaving Davis.
I have hired many people in my career, and I would certainly want to understand their family situation to determine the probability that they would be a short-term employee for personal reasons. I generally have in mind a target minimum number of years I expect to retain any particular new hire, and if the candidate comes with significant risk of short time, I would likely move on to the next candidate. I have hired some super talent that came with a risk of early departure, but I would not do this for a senior manager.
David, I am in complete agreement with you. I think that Hammond and the present school board has done a great job with the big mess handed to them three years ago. As you know, I was amazed that Hammond stayed as long as he did. I told Hammond as soon as I met him at that time that he should ask the BOE to buy back his contract and offer to lend them the money to do so. He could not have known then that he was signing on as captain of the Titanic and that all he could do, it seemed to me, was to rearrange the deck chairs. Hammond did way better than that I thank him for staying as long as he did and leaving a better climate than he found.
Could it be that Hammond is a casualty of high housing costs? I remember seeing him at a party and he was talking about how he couldn’t afford a house in Davis because he was having trouble selling his real estate in Washington. Maybe they couldn’t make it work in Davis, even with his high salary, they just couldn’t afford to buy here. Remember he was hired, when was it in, 2007, when the real estate in Davis was a stretch even for someone making 200,000/year. Maybe they made the calculation that it would be better to split the family up than to get buried under a mortgage in Davis. Yes its speculation, except for the part about him not buying here and having a hard time selling in WA. Still it makes sense. James Hammond another casualty of Davis housing policy.
I highly doubt that is the case, Toad, but Davis is much more expensive than Montclair, CA, where he is going. I checked a whole variety of home prices in each, and Davis is substantially higher.
Here’s an example:
9576 Surrey Ave, Montclair, CA
Recently Sold: [b]$360,000[/b] Zestimate: $366,000 Beds: 4
Baths: 2.5 Sqft: 2,250
Lot: 5,029 Sold On: 01/28/2010
Built: 2004
3522 Mono Pl, Davis, CA (Willowcreek)
Recently Sold: [b]$550,000[/b] Zestimate: $584,500 Beds: 4
Baths: 2.0 Sqft: 2,068
Lot: 6,534 Sold On: 12/22/2009
Built: 2003
The Davis house is slightly smaller and has 0.5 less bathrooms, but is on a larger lot. Given the ages of the homes, they should sell for within $50,000 of each other, give or take. But the Davis house, sold one month earlier, went for $190,000 more. I would guess that 2-3 years ago, Montclair houses went for twice what they are going for today.
There are 80 single family homes for sale now in Montclair which are “foreclosure sales.” There are 16 in Davis (plus a handful of foreclosed apartments).
Here is the bottom line:
Only because he has family here in the area (and yes, I live right smack dab in the middle of the Ontario-Montclair area) would ANYONE move from Davis to Ontario/Montclair. This area makes 1970’s West Capitol Blvd (in West Sac) look like Main Street USA (at Disneyland). It is a complete shithole. The politicians (and teachers and cops and fire) are completely corrupt. The teachers union is far stronger, and there is FAR, FAR, FAR less expectation of success. Easily 50% of the kids do not speak English at home and about the same amount drop out.
Basically, this guy would HAVE to perform in Davis. Down here, no one gives a shit. School is simply day care until they are old enough to drop out.
He took the easy way out.
One thing about Hammond, he will give a … And he will not take the easy way out.
DMG: “I’d argue the opposite Elaine. WDF is right, David Murphy is the obvious point. We needed to clean house when Hammond was hired and hire someone from the outside, just as we did at DPD and now at DFD. I’d be more willing to consider someone from inside now that Hammond and the new school board have gotten rid of most of the people that were a problem three or four years ago.”
The only thing the “David Murphy” hire proves is that the BoE can’t seem to do a very good job hiring – which is also true in the Hammond case, in that Hammond is not going to stick around for the long haul. I cannot believe that there are no perfectly qualified applicants in the DJUSD who couldn’t do a perfectly fine job, and stay here for the long haul.
Jeff Boone: “When we lose good leaders for reasons other than their career advancement, then I see that as a big problem. Somebody screwed up in the hiring process, or someone is not taking care of the talent well enough.”
Amen!!! The points in your post are well taken. By the way, was Bob Dunning’s column yesterday making the same point with his basketball analogy? It sort of went right over my head, since I’m not into basketball that much…
ERM: The only thing the “David Murphy” hire proves is that the BoE can’t seem to do a very good job hiring – which is also true in the Hammond case, in that Hammond is not going to stick around for the long haul. I cannot believe that there are no perfectly qualified applicants in the DJUSD who couldn’t do a perfectly fine job, and stay here for the long haul.
Unreasonably judgemental. You could make a very educated guess, but you won’t necessarily know if you really picked the best candidate until you can see it in hindsight. Too many variables. Also, the BoE is not a monolithic entity but changes over time and reflects the agenda of its members at the time. You just hope that there are good board member candidates in each election and that the voters are enlightened enough to make the best reasonably good choices.
wdf1: “Unreasonably judgemental. You could make a very educated guess, but you won’t necessarily know if you really picked the best candidate until you can see it in hindsight. Too many variables. Also, the BoE is not a monolithic entity but changes over time and reflects the agenda of its members at the time. You just hope that there are good board member candidates in each election and that the voters are enlightened enough to make the best reasonably good choices.”
You make good points here about hindsight being 20/20 and the BoE changing over time – except the DJUSD seems to be getting in consistently wrong (Murphy; Hammond not staying). Nevertheless, I have seen this scenario of hiring from outside the system, only to have the hire be cozened away with a higher salary, play out over and over again just about everywhere. It would seem to me the BoE ought to more carefully look at candidates already here, that they think will stay for the long haul and are truly committed to our community and addressing the problems within the DJUSD. Hiring outsiders is an all too common practice, and outsiders tend not to stick around. The DJUSD has more stringent policies in place so it is not likely another Murphy/Ahad scandal would occur. Everyone agrees the DJUSD is doing an excellent job of teaching our kids (altho many of the school facilities are in shoddy shape as Hammond noted – but then we know how much more important the DHS Stadium was to most in Davis (I’m saying this tongue in cheek)), so I have a hard time believing there is no qualified candidate to serve as Supt. of the DJUSD.
I have worked in several states in teaching and administrative positions. I have never worked for a more effective, relationship oriented, kind, or talented superintendent than Dr. James Hamond in my career of nearly thirty years. He came in and hit the floor running. There was much “blood on the floor” when he walked in and he cleaned it up, rolled up his sleeves and got busy assessing what needed done and was efficient in seeking out the right groups of teams to tackle the tasks in order of importance. When the mean retention of superintendents in some states is 18 months and they achieve only the status quo or less, I submit we have been blessed with a man of Dr. Hammond’s talent and caliber for however long we were able to keep him. He is leaving our district a better place than he found it on many levels. He knew names, he acknowledged excellence, he was clear about disappointments in performance and made good suggestions for remedies, he modeled and demonstrated leadership skills, he asked the tough questions and put forth positive challenges, and he was transparent with the community, board, and staff about the sad realities of the budget situation, goals that were expected to be met, and he modeled and maintained a high value on being a good father and husband. My only surprise is someone did not recruit him up sooner. We will hear much about this man in larger venues I am sure. God bless him and his family. I believe the community should be thankful for the time this extraordinary man served here. He more than earned his paycheck and modeled positive morale and integrity in ways I have not witnessed in any of my twelve years in this district despite the hurdles he had to jump due to inherited problems and an unstable state budget. I wish Dr. Hammond and his family only the best.
With much admiration and respect,
Dr. Deborah Kimokeo
With much admiration and respect,
Dr. Deborah Kimokeo
Thanks for sharing your kind words. I very much appreciated what I saw of Hammond from the perspective of a community member. I hope they can find someone even a little bit like Hammond, but who might stay a little longer.
And congratulations on your retirement! I am sorry to see so many talented, dedicated individuals like yourself leaving all at once.
Whoever is wdf1, thank you for your congratulations on my retirement. It was a very difficult decision, but I hope to find new opportunities to serve in this community. Thank you again.
Link to Ontario-Montclair area newspaper article about Hammond’s arrival there as new superintendent:
[url]http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_15305827[/url]
I know James Hammond personally and have my entire life. Our mom’s are good friends and I consider him a cousin. He is native to SoCal. Be happy you had him for three years and accept the fact that he has to do what is best for himself and his family. I am excited for his new district, where he is only an hour or two from home and can see his kids every night. He was on the short list a few years ago for Pomona Unified and because of infighting on the school board, he removed himself from consideration. Half the board wanted him and half the board wanted someone from inside the district.
He isn’t moving to Montclair or Ontario. He lives in Laguna Beach, where his family has lived since they left Washington. He grew up in Whittier, CA.
He now lives in the district.
Here is a link to a recent local newspaper article
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23474003/school-districts-say-high-priced-leaders-are-worth-cost?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.com
Check out the contract links with the story and the comments.