A new board policy under review for the Christina Board of Education would give their Board President an overwhelming amount of power and weaken their board considerably.
Current Board President George Evans and former board member Harrie Ellen Minnehan put forth a proposed policy which would limit the ability of all board members except the President in dealing with anyone in the district.
It is contrary to the spirit of the statutes for any Board member to seek individually to influence the official functions of the District. The Board of Education and its members shall deal with administrative services only by request to the Board President, who in his/her discretion shall forward communications and requests for information to the Superintendent.
What kind of nonsense is this? The Board President runs the meetings. They are similar to the Speaker of the House or the President Pro Tempore in the Delaware General Assembly. Could you imagine if Pete Schwartzkopf told legislators all communications had to go through him? That would mean all constituents as well and anyone they work with to form legislation. This move by Evans and an ex board member is filled to the brim with a massive potential for abuse. I’m not sure what kind of dictatorship Evans wants for this board but the last I heard there are seven board members in Christina. Not one and six underlings. But that is exactly what Evans is proposing. Furthermore, to make it the President’s discretion about what to communicate to the Superintendent gives him the school board equivalent of the Pope being infallible. This board is absolutely insane if they vote in the affirmative on this. As well, what if the issue a board member brings forth is about the Superintendent? According to this policy, the President would have to go to the source of the complaint.
I would love to know the origin of this! First off, since the first reading of this was postponed from their June 26th meeting until their July 10th meeting, that means Harrie Ellen Minnehan shouldn’t even be on it. Her term on the board expired June 30th and she did not run for re-election. This is a stifling measure, no doubt, to make sure only one person on a seven person board can be the voice of the Board with the district. No board member should EVER have this much power. This would be great if it were North Korea. But, alas, this is still America.
Like all traditional school districts do in their first meeting in July, this meeting will see the Christina Board vote for a new President and Vice President. It looks like General George is expecting another term as President. I pray this board sees fit to put a halt to his Kim Jong Un tactics! Whether you agree with another board member or not, the very purpose of a school board is an exchange of discussion to ensure the best education for the children of that district. One person, picking and choosing what he/she feels is best to pursue with the district, should not have that kind of totalitarian and fascist power.
The Season Of Myths 
It’s cute how you think they came up with this. Don’t you know how Christina works? Tsk, tsk. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s cute how you assume I didn’t know that! Don’t you know how I work? Tsk, tsk. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
How dare you compare Mr. Evans to Kim Jong Un!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who do you think you are? He has served Christina longer then you have been alive! He isn’t even Korean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No duh on Evans not being Korean! I was merely comparing the spirit of this policy with something a dictator would do in a bid to consolidate power into the hands of one person. But yeah, you probably got me on how long he has served the district!
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not ‘then’, it’s ‘than’; but are you certain ‘serve’ is the correct descriptor? Study the trajectory of CSD throughout his tenure, then, get back to me.
LikeLike
Thanks for the laugh. George Evans is fascist in his tactics. He may not be Kim Jong Un. But, that doesn’t mean Kim isn’t his mentor. Check his FOIA record. King George may have served Christina longer than Kevin’s lifespan. However, if you look at the results of that service, there is an inverse relationship. The Leader has yielded tremendous influence, yet the district has fallen into disrepair and ill-repute.
Also, you only need one exclamation point to present your case. The rest are redundant.
LikeLike
Why are so many blind to this?
LikeLike
Why do so many people over use punctuation?
There is a fallacy in play: The lack of community observance in a board meeting is not the same as public approval of the board’s actions or ideas. But, board members spin it in their heads. Or rather they let their supers spin for them. When a group shows up to protest, board members insulate themselves with the false positive theory that all those who are not in attendance actually support the direction the board is headed. The absent citizens far exceed those who do attend and protest. Thus the board concludes protesters are the ones in the minority. Group think is lovely. Just ask the Challenger astronauts how that worked for them…
BTW – this analogy applies to almost all boards. It’s not CSD specific. Nor is it member specific. There are some good board members fighting the good fight, fighting for the light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is CSD at its zenith. Power in the fewest possible hands. Neither one of these two surprise me. I expected no better.
LikeLike
This policy is dangerous. The board is elected by the public to represent their interest in a volume of issues while tempering that interest with the needs of the students served within their public school system. Yes, board members in each district attempt to unduly influence their superintendent, a quality that is itself applicable to Evans. Others, during their terms as president, have attempted to enact an unofficial communication barrier. Again, a attribute that could be ascribed to Evans.
However, for me, this is the first time I’ve seen a board attempt to codify it. Similar policies may exist in other districts, I’ve never felt the need to research it. But, this one is puzzling. There has to be more to this policy… Even it’s timing -presenting it during the summer when the fewest interested parties are accessing meetings and audio recordings – is unusual if not suspect. In fact, the grammatical errors in the policy, as presented, make me think this a hastily written document, not grounded in the public’s best interest, but rather in the interest of whomever the board chooses as its president.
Run this policy against this any of the multitude of concerns that board members receive – unchecked bullying, unfair teachers, unresponsive principal, concerns about IEP or 504 implementation, etc. That board member thinks your concern needs to be elevated for an investigation. To him/her it sounds like there is a serious system malfunction, a weak coupling, perhaps improper implementation of the code of conduct. If this policy passes, the board member can submit your concerns to the president. The president simply uses his discretion and refuses to forward it on? Or sends it to the super, receives a pat response, and give it back to the concerned board member with no further investigation. Or passes it to the super, receives that response in March and fails to share it with the board member until May, if ever. Throughout this process, ONE PERSON is controlling the entire communication flow. ONE PERSON is operating in proxy of the SEVEN that were elected and who subsequently ceded that AUTHORITY and enumerated powers to ONE PERSON. The role of the president is quite clear in statute – run the meetings. You have no greater power. The board is a representative democracy. Deliberate discourse is paramount for effective governance.
I don’t know what frightens me more – the bondage of the policy or that it lacks an equality clause that burdens the president with a timely two-way flow of communication.
Thanks for pointing this out, Kevin. Does CSD do second reads or is the second read an implementation read?
LikeLiked by 2 people