The State Board of Education’s haphazard process for choosing a new state education commissioner doesn’t inspire confidence.

The selection of a new state commissioner of education “probably is the most important decision we as a board will make,” said Janet Waugh, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education.

Most Kansans would agree, which is why they may be concerned by the selection process leading up to the hiring, perhaps this week, of a new education commissioner.

Like everything else it has been involved with in recent weeks, the hiring of a new commissioner appears to be a divisive issue for the board. The differing philosophies of various board members have made it difficult to even set and stick with a logical process by which to select the new commissioner.

Shortly after Andy Tompkins announced his departure from the office, board members agreed to appoint a committee to review applications for his successor. Rather than try to reach consensus on a committee roster that represented talents and experience important to the job at hand, each board member simply appointed one committee member without regard for the overall makeup of the body.

Now it appears that the state board has decided not to trust the judgment of its screening committee and, instead, bring in other candidates on their own. The committee reviewed 12 applicants and forwarded four names to the board. However, a board member has confirmed that one or more candidates interviewed by the board were not among those recommended by the screening committee.

So, not satisfied to handpick members of the screening committee, board members now apparently have decided to sidestep what little process they had set up for the selection of a new commissioner in favor of handpicking candidates they’d like to interview even though they didn’t pass muster with the screening committee.

“There’s really no rules to any of this,” board member Sue Gamble told the Journal-World.

Board members shouldn’t let “rules” get in the way of hiring the best possible person for this important job, but the freelance approach being pursued by the board doesn’t inspire much confidence. If the board members weren’t satisfied with the finalists forwarded to them by the screening committee, they should have considered reopening the search. To simply bypass the screening process and pull in candidates of their own seems a poor way to make such a pivotal choice.

Board members have named two finalists for the position and stated they may make a hiring announcement as early as Wednesday. Both of the finalists may be well-qualified for the job, but the apparently haphazard process used in filling this job is bound to make some Kansans uncomfortable with the result.