Another Déjàvu...again?
A few months ago, I authored a Déjàvu post…(the feeling of having an experience all over again). In that message, I challenged the issues surrounding the firing of an employee by an “independent” and “autonomous” board. Now here we are, yet again, with a furor related to the future of a popular school principal. Once again, we see a public clamoring for answers and elected officials unable or unwilling to provide them. Behind it all, there are a myriad of laws and philosophies that seem to be adding fuel to the fire. On the local media blog, there are questions, comments and expressed anger driven by the frustration with this situation. As with most non-direct dialog, some local characters seize the opportunity with "keyboard pontification."
Is this healthy debate or divisive rhetoric? Who really knows, but this is America, Land of the Free, so it doesn’t matter. (I must say that I wouldn’t mind going a round or two with a particular character who continues to pontificate.) OK, I won’t, but I want to add some reflecting perspective to the situation.
The School Committee is a popularly elected Board and they are responsible for general oversight of the school district. This Board hires the Superintendent, who in turn makes staff and operational policy decisions. Some staff issues such as certain personnel administration issues are protected from the general public view by law. Items of general finance, strategy, philosophy and policy are public and thereby subject to any level of scrutiny and inquiry by the residents. The blend-line of these is where the conflict heats up. Apparently, the person whose contract will not be renewed has generally pleased the public, but not the Superintendent. The Superintendent has decided it’s time to part ways with this person; The School Committee backs that decision, but the public still demands to know why.
My questions are about what should be public and what should not. If the Principal does not fit the current philosophies and policies of the Superintendent, then that should be aired with something like “We are shifting our operational philosophies; this person no longer is the best choice”, or... “Our expectations, our goals, etc. are not mutually agreeable.”
To me, that thinking is public and open, score one for the involved voters. If the School Committee won’t honor that, then the voters already know what to do about that (and from the scuttlebutt out there, it appears they are planning on exercising that right).
On the other hand, it’s possible that the problem could be personal issues or matters held as confidential by law. With that is the threat of litigation, so mum is the word from the School Committee. Score one for the School Committee. (I think where this gets curious is the fact that there is no word about disciplinary actions which would trigger confidentiality.) Rather, what we’re talking about is a decision not to renew or re-negotiate a contract. That seems to me to be an area where more information should be forthcoming rather than less. Who scores that point? Nobody, it’s just there.
I could go on and on; truthfully, I know very little about this conflict. I don’t have any more information than the general public. Ah, but the School Committee is autonomous so they bear no responsibility to share that information, right?
If and when this type of situation happens under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen, here is how I hope we would handle it: I would not be comfortable simply citing confidentiality laws as a way to be absolved from the public’s interest or right to know. I suspect that when we say ,“legal counsel has advised us to say nothing” we put ourselves in a bad spot. I hope our Board would work to diffuse the mystery of such matters by remaining as open as possible.
The School Committee has a policy that states only the Chair speaks for the Committee; this adds even more mystery. I would never support such a policy on our Board; it’s less open and seems less representative.
As a Selectmen, I would hope that the mangers we hire manage the situation with an amicable solution before it turns into a public may lay. (That’s why we hire professionals.) I hope our Board holds those professionals accountable and while we need to support them, that backing must be contingent upon accountability. Each time our Board heads off in a certain direction on the many issues that are presented, there are people who come forward with questions. Good! We do much better than previous Boards at listening and that has given us credibility that I hope will be recognized when a matter of public vs. private debate surfaces.
All in all, we must remain steadfast with the fact we are the serving the citizens, we are not powerful but simply empowered, and that the voter has the right to judge us. The voters in the above case, the other Déjàvu cases I have written about and, heck, even my own case as Fire Chief, don’t necessarily have all the information when they form an opinion, but they do have three things: the absolute right to speak out, the money our government needs to operate and the power of the vote.
Is this healthy debate or divisive rhetoric? Who really knows, but this is America, Land of the Free, so it doesn’t matter. (I must say that I wouldn’t mind going a round or two with a particular character who continues to pontificate.) OK, I won’t, but I want to add some reflecting perspective to the situation.
The School Committee is a popularly elected Board and they are responsible for general oversight of the school district. This Board hires the Superintendent, who in turn makes staff and operational policy decisions. Some staff issues such as certain personnel administration issues are protected from the general public view by law. Items of general finance, strategy, philosophy and policy are public and thereby subject to any level of scrutiny and inquiry by the residents. The blend-line of these is where the conflict heats up. Apparently, the person whose contract will not be renewed has generally pleased the public, but not the Superintendent. The Superintendent has decided it’s time to part ways with this person; The School Committee backs that decision, but the public still demands to know why.
My questions are about what should be public and what should not. If the Principal does not fit the current philosophies and policies of the Superintendent, then that should be aired with something like “We are shifting our operational philosophies; this person no longer is the best choice”, or... “Our expectations, our goals, etc. are not mutually agreeable.”
To me, that thinking is public and open, score one for the involved voters. If the School Committee won’t honor that, then the voters already know what to do about that (and from the scuttlebutt out there, it appears they are planning on exercising that right).
On the other hand, it’s possible that the problem could be personal issues or matters held as confidential by law. With that is the threat of litigation, so mum is the word from the School Committee. Score one for the School Committee. (I think where this gets curious is the fact that there is no word about disciplinary actions which would trigger confidentiality.) Rather, what we’re talking about is a decision not to renew or re-negotiate a contract. That seems to me to be an area where more information should be forthcoming rather than less. Who scores that point? Nobody, it’s just there.
I could go on and on; truthfully, I know very little about this conflict. I don’t have any more information than the general public. Ah, but the School Committee is autonomous so they bear no responsibility to share that information, right?
If and when this type of situation happens under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen, here is how I hope we would handle it: I would not be comfortable simply citing confidentiality laws as a way to be absolved from the public’s interest or right to know. I suspect that when we say ,“legal counsel has advised us to say nothing” we put ourselves in a bad spot. I hope our Board would work to diffuse the mystery of such matters by remaining as open as possible.
The School Committee has a policy that states only the Chair speaks for the Committee; this adds even more mystery. I would never support such a policy on our Board; it’s less open and seems less representative.
As a Selectmen, I would hope that the mangers we hire manage the situation with an amicable solution before it turns into a public may lay. (That’s why we hire professionals.) I hope our Board holds those professionals accountable and while we need to support them, that backing must be contingent upon accountability. Each time our Board heads off in a certain direction on the many issues that are presented, there are people who come forward with questions. Good! We do much better than previous Boards at listening and that has given us credibility that I hope will be recognized when a matter of public vs. private debate surfaces.
All in all, we must remain steadfast with the fact we are the serving the citizens, we are not powerful but simply empowered, and that the voter has the right to judge us. The voters in the above case, the other Déjàvu cases I have written about and, heck, even my own case as Fire Chief, don’t necessarily have all the information when they form an opinion, but they do have three things: the absolute right to speak out, the money our government needs to operate and the power of the vote.
posted by Alex McCurdy at
11:21 AM
0 Comments
Links to this post
