An interesting government transparency fight is playing out in Spencer County. The Spencer County Board of Education wants to do their superintendent’s evaluation in closed session. However, that violates Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act according to the Office of the Attorney General, who has already ruled on the issue. Now, all sorts of taxpayer funded organizations, including the Kentucky Department of Education, are lining up – in opposition to transparency.
Somehow, I think the Spencer Magnet News’ editorial on the issue gets it right.
What, exactly, are all the foes of transparency in this situation afraid of? If you think I am missing something, please provide a comment.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Secret Superintendents?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't do fear, but I am concerned. My first priority is for board members to set high expectations for superintendents and be frank with them when they fall short. As a matter of human nature and Kentucky politeness, I do not believe they will do that in public. Accordingly, I think closed sessions for evaluations will lead to more effective supervision and more effective superintendents.
Anonymous is right. School work is deeply political, with all manner of interpesonal dynamics and special interest groups which both board members and superintendents have to be mindful of. In order to engage in frank, direct conversation about many of the topics that are essential to the superintendent's work, evaluations need to be done in private. It's always about more than just the superintendent.
I must agree with both of the above comments. I believe these evaluation discussions that eventually lead to a final AND PUBLIC evaluaton should indeed be in private. Much discussion could take place simply to establish and to arrive at facts that an evaluation once provided to the public is based on.
There may be many things discussed that could be based on misunderstandings of facts or on disagreements on interpretation of policy or procedure.
If these discussions are held in public, especially if it is something that could or might lead to disciplinary action or dismissal, then the superintendent (if it were me) would certainly want legal representation present. I can easily see where the school district could very well be put in a position of being liable and open to lawsuit for something said in these discussions if held in public.
I don't think these evaluation interviews and discussions should be held as if they were being done in a court of law.
Most of them would not end up in a court but there is no way of knowing what may be said, misunderstood or just plain wrong in the process of arriving at facts and a final public evaluation.
Who would not want to be legally protected, either superintendents or county school districts?
Holding these discussions in public will lead to the superintendent and every school board member having legal council at their side in addition to legal council for the school district just to have evaluation interviews even those that, like most, may not be controversial at all.
That's no way to have open discussion and a fair evaluation.
It seems as though at least 3 of either the Spencer County School Board members or the Superintendent himself has weighed in.
Taxpayer money is being spent. We have a right to know if we are getting value for our money.
If we have a board member who cannot or will not stand up to our employee, the superintendent, they need to be replaced. They are bound by the office they sought by election to represent ALL citizens of Spencer County.
Do your job or give up and get out.
This should not be political. It is about the superintendent.... an evaluation of his performance and nothing more.
The end goal would be to clear any misunderstandings of fact, disagreements on interpretation of policy or procedure, and to do so publicly.
The superintendent should have been advised exactly what was expected of him during the interviewing process. He should know if he is doing his job as expected. Whether or not this evaluation is public or private makes no difference regarding disciplinary actions. If it is discovered behind doors or in public, that disciplinary action is needed, it should be enacted. If he isn't doing his job, then maybe he should show up with legal representation, it is his choice and would be a sure sign he knows he is not making the cut.
It is an evaluation, not a trial.
Just who is trying to cover who's behind anyway?
WE WANT TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT IS GOING ON.
We will not get a full and complete report if this is done behind closed doors. Some of the current board members have proven that they are not willing to disclose the "whole story".
Seriously, is it too much for the citizens to expect their representatives to just FOLLOW THE LAW?
Has anyone checked out the evaluation scores of superintendents across the state? It seems to me that most are getting high scores yet our schools are not doing that well. I think one of the things being hidden behind closed doors is that board members aren't doing their job. They're not actually discussing, asking questions, setting goals.... I'd rather be behind closed doors too if I weren't effectively representing my constituents.
I think the only "frank discussion" going on behind many closed doors is whether or not they're ready to go back into open session.
Post a Comment