School board members who speak their minds contribute to -- not detract from -- the public's team.
Exactly whose team are Lawrence school board members on?
During a retreat last weekend, board members discussed the process of "team-building" and somehow arrived at the conclusion that one requirement of being a team is to not express disagreement with a team decision. So even if a school board member vehemently opposes a majority decision, he or she should refrain from speaking publicly about that dissent.
OK, so what team are we talking about?
An all-for-one and one-for-all approach may make some sense if board members' loyalty is only to one another. They are a team and support the team.
Or if the board's loyalty is to the school administration, which guides many board issues and decisions, it might make sense. If the administrators are the equivalent of the board's bosses, then board members probably would owe them the consideration of not commenting on the company's actions.
But board members don't work for the administration; in fact it should be the other way around. And if school board members belong to a larger team, a community of voters who elected them and whom they represent, then their allegiance lies with the public and they aren't doing their job if they don't speak their minds.
The consultant leading the board retreat said each board member must adjust behaviors to foster unity. What does that mean? Everyone wants members of the school board or any other public body to get along with each other. They should be respectful of others' opinions and willing to look at all points of view. But to make unity such a high priority that it squelches the public dialogue doesn't serve the best interests of the community.
The particular case that was discussed was Scott Morgan's criticism of a board decision to purchase the former Sallie Mae building at 110 McDonald Dr., at a price much higher than the appraised value of the building, for use as a new administration center and district warehouse. Morgan, along with many other school district patrons, has questioned the decision and inquired about the cost of the district buying its way out of the purchase contract.
It would be difficult, if not prohibitively expensive, to undo this decision, but does that mean a school board member can't look at the possibility and voice his displeasure with the action?
Apply this rationale to a recent decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to remove the theory of evolution from its science testing. Do the many Kansans who are outraged by this action want the state board members who voted against that decision to now quietly stand by as the new science standard is implemented? Should they say now and during the next election cycle that they support the "team" decision?
Here's another example. The first vote to put a bond issue to the voters last November to finance the construction of a new elementary school and make other school improvements was a 4-3 split decision because of differences over school closing issues which were tied to the bond question. A split board decision would have set the stage for a deeply divided election and perhaps failure of the bond issue.
The board revisited its decision two weeks later and agreed to remove the school closings from the bond question. The result was a unanimous vote for a bond issue that the entire board could support and was eventually approved by voters. The dissent of several board members and the public discussion of their views led to a better decision and a better bond issue.
Consensus is a wonderful thing and whenever any public body can unanimously support an action, it probably benefits the community. But team- and consensus-building shouldn't come at the expense of full discussion of issues that will affect the entire community.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.