|
|
The vote: 9-0 The 2004-2005 school year has been remarkable in numerous ways. One noteworthy phenomenon is the apparent unanimity of our school board members to date. The number of 9-0 votes is astounding, especially in light of the controversies and disagreement plaguing our district outside of the school board meetings. Perhaps the election of new members will alter this run of unanimous votes, but it is worth asking: what is behind the string of 9-0 votes this year? If a stranger were to see our district just from contact at board meetings this past year, and if that stranger were to leave the meetings before the public comment time, the impression of that stranger would be that Readington is a district without tribulations; without any of the divergence of opinion one might assume would be present in a district of our size and wealth. After all, the public discussions among board members are minimal or non-existent, and the voting on motions of all types is quick, undisputed and unanimous. How can we explain this? Perhaps there really is total agreement, or perhaps any disagreement is ironed out behind closed doors. Perhaps the board members are simply tools of a single person or sufferers of a severe case of groupthink. It isn’t as though discussion or even violent disagreement isn’t allowed on school boards. That has been proven. A 2002 decision about an incident in Pemberton Township upheld such a right. In that incident, a board member at a board meeting accused fellow board members of being racist and voting to satisfy their hidden agendas. It was determined after review that board members have the First Amendment right to voice such opinions at meetings. Funny, then, that members of the public have been discouraged from speaking about certain subjects during Readington board meetings. If board members have a first amendment right to speak their mind, don’t members of the public have the same right? For example, our board members have hidden behind the vague assertion that personnel issues cannot be discussed at meetings. It is true that board members are prohibited from discussing specific personnel issues and it is true that specific issues are first to be handed over to the superintendent for review. However, the board is legally bound to accept concerns and criticisms from members of the public—even at public meetings—and to follow up on those concerns with the superintendent. The board members are also bound to take up the issue themselves if the Superintendent fails to resolve it. The Code of Ethics for board members specifically states: “I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer and will act on the complaints at public meetings only after failure of an administrative solution.” In fact, it is up to school board members to be the final arbiter not just of actions taken by the superintendent, but of the superintendent him or herself. The board members set the goals and objectives for the district, the superintendent implements those goals. The superintendent is then evaluated by the board members based on the performance of meeting the objectives. As the NJ School Boards Association puts it: “The board…has a legal responsibility to evaluate the CSA [Chief School Administrator]. New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 18A:17-20.3, Chapter 267, P.L. 1991, requires every local board to evaluate the performance of the superintendent at least once a year. Each evaluation shall be in writing and shall be based upon the goals and objectives of the district, the responsibilities of the superintendent, and such other criteria as the State Board of Education shall by regulation prescribe. In addition, New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 6:3-2.2 requires boards of education to evaluate, annually, tenured and nontenured superintendents.” The NJSBA is quite clear on how this process is supposed to work, as indicated in this second quote from their Field Services guide: “The Board, working with the superintendent, establishes the goals and objectives of the district; these will provide the basis for what the superintendent is expected to accomplish, and by when. District goals and objectives can come from several sources: they can result from student outcome goals; they can be identified by looking at the superintendent's job description and deciding what needs to be done in each area of responsibility; they can emerge from board discussions of issues facing the district; and they can be extensions of the previous year's goals. Regardless of the source of the district goals, it is important to know that when the board and the superintendent disagree about a goal or objective, the board has the final say.” To bring us back to our original starting point, then, please note the statement in the middle of that paragraph: “…they can emerge from board discussions of issues facing the district”. Such discussions, apparently, have not been necessary based on observations of Readington board meetings this school year. A cynical person might conclude that the relationship of the board to the superintendent has been reversed in Readington, leaving the superintendent to dictate to board members how they should think. A hopeless cynic might conclude that this was necessary, if prohibited, because the board members were not willing or capable of creating goals on their own. There are other explanations, of course. It might be that all of the board members simply disagree with the members of the public who are still seething over administrators and staff that were forced out, over inflexible standardized testing programs, over a complete lack of communication, over the unchecked cancer of political gamesmanship, and more. The 9-0 votes would make sense, then, since the board members are already in complete agreement that the incensed parents, teachers and residents have no real argument and offer no basis for a discussion. As another explanation, perhaps board members have actually been part of the political gamesmanship and limited their public discussion due to a desire to shut down the access of others to the levers of change. Well, maybe that is just crazy talk. It isn’t as though a political insider has been pre-anointed as a new board member in a desperate bid to cement power, right? To visit another angle of the relationship between the superintendent and the school board, the NJSBA also has this to say: “…when the superintendent submits an action plan to the board, it is essential that the board carefully consider before approving the indicator of success. If it does not satisfy the board, it should be changed to one that will…Of course, the board may also decide that the activities proposed by the superintendent are not sufficient to accomplish the goal or objective, in which case the board would direct the superintendent to develop other activities and their corresponding action plans by an established date.” The board has final say. Did we mention: the board has final say? In spite of all the discussion and controversy evident in newspapers, websites, public emails, school hallways, and just about everywhere other than the non-public speaking time at board meetings, the members of our board prior to April 19, 2005 have not found much need at all for public discussion before their 9-0 votes. Further, members of the public do not even know what the superintendent's current job description says, nor on what criteria she is currently evaluated. That is a “personnel issue” not to be discussed, according to our board. The job description is fair game, according to established OPRA (Open Public Records Act) decisions, and a very strong case could be made for release of the evaluative criteria if not the actual evaluation, since the criteria go directly to the heart of the board’s thinking on the future of the district. Perhaps we will never fully know what is behind the string of 9-0 votes by our board members this year. What we do know is that the board and the superintendent have failed to address myriad concerns in any perceptible way. In a democracy we have the means to assist in the changing of the guard from time to time, and it is a duty we must embrace. It is unfortunate that our children are growing older while we wrestle with non-responsive people and systems. Nevertheless, we must persevere until the right people are in place or the existing people awake from their slumber to the scent of a strong-brewed coffee. / / / For further study see these NJSBA links: http://www.njsba.org/Field_Services/SR/overview.html http://www.njsba.org/PI/candidacy/ethics_kit.htm http://www.njsba.org/legal_02/Ethics_Outline_2004.pdf
|
