“I have not gotten an opportunity to speak with anyone myself,” said Willie Griffin, Fisher’s attorney. “According to Fisher, (CSD attorney) Jamie (Jacks), made the announcement that the board hadn’t decided and that they would notify him of their decision in 30 days.
“They were supposed to make a ruling yesterday (Tuesday),” said Griffin. “Once they were given the transcripts they were given time to discuss. They called for my client to make his final statements and then they were to make a ruling.”
Griffin said he has not been able to speak with Jacks as of this morning to get clarity on why there has been an extended timeline put in place.
During Tuesday’s meeting, both Fisher and Griffin presented board members with final remarks.
Fisher asked that the board do two things, one “be fair” and two to “apply the golden rule.”
“I would like to thank everyone from the community for coming out,” he said. “It’s been four months of sleepless nights and stress. I believe this has been harder on my wife than it has been on me.
“I would like to thank you for being by my side and I love you,” said Fisher. “I would like to thank my attorney, Willie Griffin. He has represented me well and has expressed my views well.”
Fisher said he began his career in the district at Margaret Green Junior High School as a substitute teacher and has worked in the district at what was then Eastwood Junior High, then Cypress Parks Elementary, before becoming principal at Nailor.
“I have worked with five different superintendents and I’ve enjoyed it,” he said. “I’ve enjoyed working with the current superintendent as well and can continue to work with the current superintendent.
“I ask that in making your decision that you be fair, unprejudiced and unbiased,” said Fisher. “I believe that in your respective jobs if you were not performing up to par you would ask that your employer does four things.
“One, you would ask that you be told,” he said. “Two, you would ask that you be given assistance in the form of professional development because you know change doesn’t happen overnight.
“Three, you would ask that you be given time to improve,” said Fisher. “Four you would ask to be revisited by your boss before told that it was too late.
“One, was I notified in a timely fashion?” he said. “I believe I was not. Two, was I given assistance in the form of professional development? I would have to say I was not.
“Three, was I given time to improve?” said Fisher. “I would have to again say I was not.”
Fisher said he would have liked to have been notified by his immediate boss that his contract was not going to be renewed.
“I trust and believe that you all are going to be fair,” he said.
Griffin also made two requests, one was that the board members override the decision of the superintendent and the other was that the superintendent be directed to issue Fisher a contract for the 2010-2011 school year.
Also Griffin presented the board with reasons he believed were grounds to issue Fisher a contract for the upcoming school year.
“The purpose of an improvement plan is to layout the goals and objectives you have for an employee and to express concerns about their job performance,” said Griffin. “The employer is to address those weaknesses and tell (the employee) how to go about targeting goals and bring things up to par.
“There needs to be time to review, to test those targeted areas,” he said. “I submit to you that Mr. Fisher was not afforded that opportunity.
“I challenge the board to go back and review the personnel file of Mr. Fisher,” said Griffin. “There is nothing in his personnel file that identifies concerns about Mr. Fisher’s job performance.
“Then on Feb. 16 — this is really early because normally they are done in April — he was given an evaluation that radically departs from his prior evaluations,” he said.
“Someone knew or should’ve known about this and should’ve bought it to (the employee’s) attention that (he or she) needed to do A, B, C and D by such and such date. If (he or she) don’t, then I’m going to nonrenew you.
“Someone should go through with (the employee) what happened and what took place,” said Griffin.
Griffin went through a list of things that were a part of Fisher’s evaluation. He said Fisher’s scores went from five’s and four’s — with five being the highest score on a evaluation — to two’s and three’s.
“During the hearing, the superintendent made very serious allegations about there being very low morale at Nailor,” said Griffin. “As I recall she only identified one person that could back her allegation about there being low morale at Nailor.
“In fact, Mr. Fisher testified to the contrary,” he said. “His staff sent letters that was not true and that was an untrue allegation directed toward Mr. Fisher’s reputation.
“In the category on knowledge of assessment materials, Mr. Fisher received a four the previous year (2008-2009) and a two for (the 2009-2010 school year),” said Griffin. “I want to kind of talk about this one for a minute.
“I asked Dr. Thigpen during her testimony what assessments are (Fisher) not knowledgeable of,” he said. “Because you see, that is something tangible. That’s something you can put your hands on.
“She could not articulate any,” said Griffin. “During (Fisher’s) testimony, he was knowledgeable and went into detail about some things,” Griffin continued. “Yet, she was unable to do so.
“Now bare in mind that all Fisher’s other evaluations had been excellent up until now, except for his 2008 evaluation, and that’s only because his 2008 evaluation isn’t accounted for,” he said. “It wasn’t in his file.
“In closing, I ask that you be fair,” he said. “Is it fair to disclose deficiencies for the first time two weeks before making the decision to nonrenew? I submit to you that it is not.”