Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Barry Doyle's avatar

I spoke out at the Board meeting last night about the appointment process, not anticipating that the closure votes would end in an impasse. Obviously that 7th Board member becomes an awfully important individual in the decisions facing our community. I am not sure that I would want to be in his/her shoes.

That said, I think that the process of picking should be far more transparent than it is currently. The Open Meeting Act says that these discussions MAY be held in private session, but does not require it. It has been done that way as long as I have been paying attention to it, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think it should be a far more open process - the decisions they make are a substitute for a democratic process. In the past it has also handed the new board member the advantage of incumbency (although admittedly "I voted/didn't vote to close schools!" is a less appealing piece of cargo that would come with incumbency).

The decisions the new Board member is going to take part in are pretty momentous decisions and current Board members should be accountable for that. And that extends to not just who they pick but also who was also available. To analogize to the NFL draft, after the draft, columnists grade the team's draft. The Bears may have gotten a B+ for choosing a particular player on his own merits, but end up with a B- final grade because they passed on someone else who turned out to be a better option. In a closed process, we have no idea who was a serious candidate or why a current Board member made the choice he/she did.

The process I would recommend is that the Board pick a small handful of finalists. They go to a public meeting, give a 5 minute pitch for why they should be on The Board and field questions from the Board. End of session. At a second session, the public gets to comment, the Board deliberates, and then they vote. A transparent process with community engagement and accountability for the Board.

The Board talks about wanting to earn the trust of the community and this kind of open process builds trust and offers accountability for the decisions that were made.

Expand full comment
Chatty's avatar

I don’t see how at such a contentious moment the board can ignore voter preferences on runner-up candidates. Voter shares were diluted because there were so many candidates. Anyone who received over 5k votes was a serious contender. The board needs to regain community trust- show people you care by appointing a runner-up with high vote share.

Expand full comment
38 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?