EDITOR: Your editorial in Tuesday
’s edition on the poor performance of MHSD’s Superintendent
Carolyn McKennan was excellent overall. But is this particular
Board of Trustees to blame for lax oversight of her work?
EDITOR:
Your editorial in Tuesday’s edition on the poor performance of MHSD’s Superintendent Carolyn McKennan was excellent overall. But is this particular Board of Trustees to blame for lax oversight of her work?
Over the years many of us have noticed that the district prefers that the community decision-makers from the Board of Trustees to local school site councils act solely to rubber-stamp decisions made at the district office. Often the administration asks decision-makers to approve documents submitted right at the meeting, or slightly before.
Last November, I joined several others in urging the previous Board to leave voting on the superintendent’s contract extension until the new Board had been sworn in. Approval at that time would unfairly tie the 2003 -2004 Board’s hands, limiting the trustees’ ability to effect changes in the superintendent’s performance.
We were told that the superintendent had a “good review” (specifics of which could not be revealed), and that it would be “a slap in her face” if the Board did not approve an extension right there and then. We were assured that if the new Board wanted to dismiss the superintendent, even after the extension, that all it would cost the taxpayers in the District was 18 month’s salary.
Now we have three new Board members, who did not approve any superintendent contract, trying to work with four incumbents, who did, trying to judge McKennan’s performance under that contract. Thanks to superb research by teachers, the entire community now has a clear understanding of just how much money that embarrassing contract will cost us all, in years of staff layoffs, limited maintenance and larger classes.
Previous Boards almost never voted against the superintendent’s recommendations, despite evidence of cost overruns, numerous lawsuits and community and teacher opposition. The rubber-stamps were out regularly. McKennan’s stilted third-person letter illustrates a regal astonishment that any Board member might consider someone else’s input.
Our system of government requires checks and balances. Boards must actually be willing to assert independent thought. This district has placed too much emphasis on agreement; too many people are afraid of being labeled “Not A Team Player.” Perhaps it is time to extend new respect for true community input, complete with messy disagreements, and retire the rubber-stamps.
Nancy Lee Smereski, Morgan Hill
