Including union members can provide a unique perspective

Dear Editor, I am writing in response to your editorial of
Friday, Aug. 7, in which you recommend the Morgan Hill Unified
School Board reverse its decision to allow union members to
interview the final candidates for Superintendent.
Including union members can provide a unique perspective

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to your editorial of Friday, Aug. 7, in which you recommend the Morgan Hill Unified School Board reverse its decision to allow union members to interview the final candidates for Superintendent.

For clarity, it should be noted that there will be only three persons on the interview panel – one representative from each bargaining unit, MHFT (teachers), SEIU (classified) and MHELA (principals and other educational leaders). They will be interviewing only the very last two or three finalists and their recommendation is advisory only – the final decision of who will lead our school district is a job the Board cannot, by law, delegate.

While it is true that our search consultants, The Cosca Group, recommended that we keep the entire process confidential, a majority of the Board felt that there were valid and compelling reasons to allow employee groups to participate. Our town and our school district have unique needs and interests. We are attempting to address those unique needs by our action.

Superintendent searches are not cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all endeavors. Some search firms encourage public participation in large measure, and some do not. Some school districts publicly interview all candidates, not just the finalists. Parents are often included in the interview process. There is a wide range of styles and all of them have yielded quality results in the past. We discussed at length all of these options with our potential search groups when we selected the Cosca Group and although they did recommend a completely confidential search, it is not the only kind of search that they conduct. They have always been interested in making this search “our search” and their willingness to support our decision is evidence of that fact.

What are the unique needs/facts that our district has that compelled me to vote for a more inclusive search? There are three that drove my decision.

First, as many people are well aware, we had a bruising and painful contract negotiation this year with Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers (MHFT), the union that represents our certificated staff. The budget we had to work with was slashed by the economic crisis facing this nation and there simply was no money to increase salaries. We did finally reach mutual agreement, but it opened a rift between the teachers and the district administration – a rift we want to heal.

Secondly, the MHFT has just voted in new leadership. I was sorry to see Donna Ruebusch retire from that position, but eager to develop a strong relationship with Theresa Sage, who will be replacing her. Our district is only as strong as the teacher in the classroom. We need to keep communication open and supportive. The teachers wanted to bring in “another set of eyes and ears” to the interview process. They have the “eyes and ears” of an educator and are likely to provide unique and helpful perspective. And remember, no teacher teaches in a vacuum — they are helped by our educational leaders and our classified staff, both of which make success possible. It was logical to include them in the interviews as well, and indeed, would have been inappropriate to leave them out.

Thirdly, I weighed the possibility that including the unions in the interview would reduce the number of qualified applicants who would apply for the job. I decided that although it may dissuade a few from applying, it will not likely prove fatal to the search. We have put into place several protections for the candidates, including limiting the unions to one interviewer each and having them sign a promise of confidentiality. They will interview only the very finalists, whose home districts we will likely have to visit personally anyway.

Your editorial erroneously states that this is the “same process” that we used last time, when we hired Dr. Alan Nishino although he was not the first choice of the interview committee. You wonder what will happen if that “happens again” and wonder if the unions will “go into the relationship with a chip on their shoulders.”

I don’t agree with your assertion that the unions had a “chip on their shoulders” when Nishino began his tenure. For the past four years, the unions have been working diligently with Nishino to make important changes in our district. Changes are always hard to make and there is not always complete agreement on how to reach the goal we all desire – improved quality of education in the classroom. I trust our unions will display the same level of professional conduct and courtesy that they did with Nishino.

Finally, I do agree with you that the “Board alone will be judged by this choice” (of picking the new Superintendent). The obligation of making the right choice for our town and my constituents weighs pretty heavily on my shoulders. I must therefore make the decision in the best way I can and that is to include the employee groups in the interview process.

Julia Hover-Smoot, MHUSD Board member

AIM clarifies a few misconceptions; maintains geology report is valid

Dear Editor,

I would like to correct some misimpressions. First, AIM certainly does not want, or expect, the City to pay for additional drilling. As reported by Rex Upp, certified engineering geologist and expert on landslides, there is no need for additional drilling. The building foundation has been designed for maximum strength.

Second, the issue is not about the depth of the hole. Upp, who was recommended to AIM by the City, did drill the required 250-foot deep hole.

Third, it is unfortunate that the City selected Cotton, Shires and Associates to review Upp’s report. Cotton, Shires submitted an unsuccessful bid to do the original geology study – $400,000 higher than Upp’s bid.

We maintain that Upp’s report is valid and should be accepted.

AIM does not dispute the need for a developer to pay necessary and reasonable expenses, but it does object to unnecessary and unreasonable costs.

Brian Conrey, executive director, American Institute of Mathematics