posted by Mike Madison at 1:17 PM /
Set aside, for a moment, what precisely the Mt. Lebanon School District could and should have done in connection with the "top 25" list, assuming that the School District acted swiftly and appropriately.
What does this episode tell us about the School *Board*?
Mt. Lebanon has a long tradition of encouraging its citizens to just trust the Board to do the right thing, which in turn has a long tradition of trusting the District administrators to do the right thing.
A year and a half ago, that legacy of "just trust us" blew up in the face of the District. Then-Superintendent Margery Sable, according to accounts that I heard, insisted on critically reviewing the work of her subordinates, instead of just going along with what she was told. That, among other things, brought her into conflict with the Board, and she walked out of town with a "separation agreement." And four members of the School Board that negotiated that deal, a Board that took the position that the citizens should just trust the Board in the matter of that agreement, either declined to run for reelection, or were defeated at the polls last year.
The four members of the School Board who were elected last Fall heard a clear message from the voters: We want a more active Board, and more transparency in School District decisions. "Just trust us" is a motto that the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon should have heard for the last time.
So what's happening right now? The Superintendent who succeeded Margery Sable, George Wilson, sent home a "just trust us" letter summarizing the weak discipline handed to two students involved in "the list." Board president Joe Rodella declined to comment, because (I'm paraphrasing) "we trust the Superintendent".
I know that Board members have heard directly from parents whose children are involved in this mess. Aside from early comments by Mark Hart, they haven't been talking much. I hope that Board members start to speak out about what's happening here, and I also hope that the town learns a lesson in what to expect from elected leadership. Trust is *earned* through critical engagement. Managers make mistakes, and when they do, boards need to act, and they need to explain what they're doing and why.
What does this episode tell us about the School *Board*?
Mt. Lebanon has a long tradition of encouraging its citizens to just trust the Board to do the right thing, which in turn has a long tradition of trusting the District administrators to do the right thing.
A year and a half ago, that legacy of "just trust us" blew up in the face of the District. Then-Superintendent Margery Sable, according to accounts that I heard, insisted on critically reviewing the work of her subordinates, instead of just going along with what she was told. That, among other things, brought her into conflict with the Board, and she walked out of town with a "separation agreement." And four members of the School Board that negotiated that deal, a Board that took the position that the citizens should just trust the Board in the matter of that agreement, either declined to run for reelection, or were defeated at the polls last year.
The four members of the School Board who were elected last Fall heard a clear message from the voters: We want a more active Board, and more transparency in School District decisions. "Just trust us" is a motto that the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon should have heard for the last time.
So what's happening right now? The Superintendent who succeeded Margery Sable, George Wilson, sent home a "just trust us" letter summarizing the weak discipline handed to two students involved in "the list." Board president Joe Rodella declined to comment, because (I'm paraphrasing) "we trust the Superintendent".
I know that Board members have heard directly from parents whose children are involved in this mess. Aside from early comments by Mark Hart, they haven't been talking much. I hope that Board members start to speak out about what's happening here, and I also hope that the town learns a lesson in what to expect from elected leadership. Trust is *earned* through critical engagement. Managers make mistakes, and when they do, boards need to act, and they need to explain what they're doing and why.
3 Comments:
It's my understanding that the board would serve as a "jury" should the matter come before it. Which is why the law prohibits them from making public comments.
Do board members have an obigation to appease public curiousity when in doing so they would expose themselves to potential legal action by the parties involved? Further, if they were to make comments it could blow the whole case--and there would be neither punishment nor exonheration, no nuthin'.
If the law really prohibits Board members from making public comments, I'd love to have a citation. I can't say that such a law doesn't exist, because PA is full of wacky laws. But if that's the rule, then it's bizarre. (And Mark Hart and Joe Rodella may both already have broken it -- which is what makes me think that this isn't a law at all.)
Here's why I think that there shouldn't be any rule against public speaking by public officials on issues within the scope of their responsibility and being debated in the public arena:
Hypothetically, the Board might have to review some action by the Superintendent or the principal, but that possibility seems pretty remote today, and it's always seemed pretty remote. Even if the Board did have to review a suspension, say, or had to review the actions of the Superintendent or other District employees, there's no reason that prior public statements would disqualify a Board member from participating in that process. Claiming the need to maintain "impartiality" is merely a way of avoiding public accountability. We elected the Board to make the hard calls. This is a hard call (well, actually, in my book it's not so hard). Make the call. Then the voters get to decide whether you get to keep your job. That's Democracy 101.
This isn't about appeasing public curiosity. The whole point here is that this is *not* just a private thing. The issue has moved beyond the perpetrators and the victims, though neither group has yet to get the discipline (in the former case) or the recompense (in the latter case) which they deserve. The reputation of the *School District* is being damaged here (and don't just ask me -- ask a teacher), and the competence of District management has been questioned. Those are *my tax dollars at work,* and it's the Board's job to manage them, through both public and private means.
I don't get how public statements by members of the Board would expose them to legal action, or "blow the whole case." (1) There is no "case," or at least any sensible lawyer would see that there shouldn't be; there is only a sordid mess. And (2) the only possible legal claims against a Board member would be a hypothetical claim of defamation, or a breach of a confidentiality obligation, and I'm willing to assume that no member of the Board is going to step out and defame anyone, and no member of the Board is going to open up with confidential information.
"We trust the superintendent" is the very same reasoning that board president Joe Rodella, and vice-president Rene Garson, use continually during the recent budget discussions. Mark Hart has asked that the board review the line item budget, assembled by the school finance director, to look for possible additional savings over and above those suggested by the administration. Mr. Rodella said that he does not see this type of review to be the responsibility of the board. Mr. Rodella has said many times that the budget is developed by the administration, that he trusts their judgement, and the public should also. Trust us, trust us, trust us... is the mantra of the five board members who were also around for the "Sable" episode.
If reviewing the entire budget is not the responsibility of the board, then what exactly does Mr. Rodella consider his responsibilities to be? There has been far too much trust given to past boards and administrations and it must stop now! Question, question, question what the board is doing. And,in the primary election next spring, when five board members are up for re-election, if they all choose to run, let them know that the trust they have been give in the past has gone, not only unrewarded, but has been taken advantage of, and vote to make changes.
Post a Comment
<< Home