Continuing from Part 1.
After the comment sections, I had to step outside and get a break. Plus, I find that I usually have much more satisfying adhoc conversations, especially with those who are passionate about a topic. And some of those who spoke at public comment had hung around (after being chased down, I believe *grin*).
I had the benefit of hearing some elaborations of what was shared inside, and most of it need not be repeated here. Several things did hit me between the eyes though. For starters, money and politics are a very evil brew. I learned that some of the gentlemen present were actively working to close legal loopholes such as the one that allowed the working cash bond to be wielded in this particular fashion (with very few limits and little to no oversight). I also learned how money (no matter where it comes from) can be “characterized” to spin a story. I think I popped a diode when I heard that. All the little legal tricks makes me think of a shell game, and as a relatively new and maybe even naive voter, I feel kinda bamboozled by the system. I want cut and dried facts; if I am to make a voting decision on something, I want it to be presented in clear, common language and guaranteed to be free of mischievous little easter eggs. I am now convinced this is all but impossible. I am wondering what would happen if the many pubic acts, house bills and laws were trashed and rewritten using a 6th-grade dictionary and limited to 500 words.
I meandered back into the Board Meeting and found I just could not engage with whatever section of the agenda we were on. And so for the rest of this post I am going to concentrate on the environment of this board meeting, which is rather typical of the board meetings I have been going to.
When I walk in, the media is standing around the wall-mounted speakers and physically holding their microphones near the speaker grille just so they get a somewhat decent sound recording. Ouch. Next, you have one person going on and on and on – doesn’t really matter who it is or what they are saying. This just is not my style at all. And then the Board gets to discuss whatever was just presented. Many times I asked myself “why the heck are members of the audience sitting through this?” And I look around; I see about 4 media folks, about 10-12 Unit 4 employees, 2 members of the Teacher’s Union, and maybe 2 or 3 folks from the community and only one of those I recognize. This, my friends, is a Board Meeting. The part that you never really see on TV, the part that never really gets into print. This is how the Board discusses things in “Open Session”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is vital for the Board to deliberate in an open manner, with cameras rolling and witnesses watching. It is just so dry. There is no “juice”, as I heard this morning from Rev. Chambers. 🙂 And this, to be utterly honest, is what scares me most about applying to be a Board Member. I’ll just put it out there.
So other than my personal bias against this type of setting, I see at least two other issues that concern me.
1. At one point, there was a “first reading” of a proposed policy change. Actually, lots of policy changes were “read”, but the one I am going to concentrate on is technology, since I have some clue in this area. Now I don’t know the depth of each Board Member’s experience and exposure to wireless technology – it is entirely possible some of them are leaps and bounds ahead of me. Maybe. But what I witnessed was not obvious expertise in this particular field. At what point does the Board seek out advice from the wizards? How does the Board have a hope to make good policy based solely on their own knowledge set? I do not mean to mock the Board at all – I try to put myself in their shoes and answer that question. I would not have a chance in hell, personally speaking. And this makes me wonder, is this how the entire body of that monstrous thing called the Board Policies has come to evolve to its current largess? Again, it is not my intent to knock the hard-working members of the Board – I am questioning the practices and behavior that has been handed down by years of tradition. Is this really ideal?
2. So far every vote I have seen is completely unanimous. Granted, I have missed a lot of Board Meetings, and I must infer that many things have been voted on that I have never witnessed, and it is entirely possible that there are have been split votes. But my observation is that, of the votes I have seen, the outcome is predetermined. Which makes me ask, why even have the vote in the first place. And then I think to myself, “oh, I must be really wet behind the ears”. They probably do that to fulfill some archaic, and maybe even very important, policy. Right? Just to get it on record? I confess, my recent enlightenment of the so-called legal system has me a bit jaded about “voting”.
Citizen4: A citizen's blog about Champaign Unit 4 
11 April 2012 at 8:06 am
Setting policy, providing direction, etc are appropriate school board member roles, in my opinion. I believe board members need to demonstrate with their voting whether they trust in the judgment of the administrators chosen by the Supt to make recommendations (only the Supt answers directly to the board). If you as a board member are “doing the work” of the employees, rather than listening to them, asking questions, and clarifying, you’ll find that you will be do more harm than good because you will often have and incomplete understanding of the issues (but you’ll think you have the big picture).. There is no way at all you as a board member can have the needed expertise to manage (micromanage) the day to day issues that arise. You might think that you have the market cornered on a particular topic, but given the information you have access to, you are probably dangerously naive. Strong and smart administrators do not generally stick around very long in a district that’s being micromanaged by board members . . .it causes them to have to play all kinds of games and spend wayyyyyyy too much time teaching/re-teaching/correcting misunderstandings and errors in understanding of board members.
11 April 2012 at 8:24 am
Great point Jackie. This makes me wonder, what would an ideal School Board and Administration look like?
There must be a point at which Board Members can have the freedom to question anything. I agree with you, that can be abused and turn into micro-managing, which I am very much against. On the flip side, it is also dangerous if the Board simply rubber stamps everything with a nonchalant hand waving. Where is the balance?
At this juncture, one of my fears is that “we” are merely doing things a certain way because that’s the way we have always done it. I firmly believe Dr. Malito has opened a door to new changes and Dr. Wiegand is stepping through that door, but it is taking others a bit longer to do the same thing.
11 April 2012 at 1:06 pm
Just a thought to add to this conversation–if the faculty at the U of I had gone along with what Hogan and Troyer were pursuing, many are concluding at the direction of the BOT, the university system would be off on a trajectory that so many, including the co-chair of the committee that selected Hogan, was not appropriate. Without a lot of questioning, detective work, etc. the many layers of the scenario would not have seen the light of day. This is an example in our own backyard as to why it is imperative to ask questions, at times even micro manage, not just go along just because someone is a position of authority, and have a lot of sunshine as a disinfectant.
15 February 2014 at 9:26 pm
[…] a April 9th, 2012 BOE meeting during which the infamous Working Cash Bonds was a hot topic (part 1, part 2). The Working Cash Bonds was another trust issue; again, it is not so much that people don’t […]
11 March 2014 at 8:29 pm
[…] back, April 9th was an interesting day (post 1, post 2). At the time, I did not make any mention about the World Languages curriculum due to all the […]