Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permissions to reproduce granted if authorship is
acknowledged]
Little
good is accomplished when candidates seeking the office of school trustee attack
the board upon which they hope to sit (“running against the board”). It
contributes to a loss of public confidence in the school district. If the
behaviour persists after the candidate becomes a trustee, such behaviour may
lead to the dismissal of the board by the province (or state) and the
appointment of official trustees. Where school boards are permitted to borrow,
it can lead to bond-rating agencies down-grading the board’s credit rating.
Some candidates
have difficulty distinguishing between the demands of politics and the
responsibilities of governance. And some who know the differences still choose
to ignore them. When that happens, it calls into disrepute the boards to which
they aspire.
All who hope
to be elected to public office will hold two positions. One is a politician;
the other is the office they will occupy if they are elected. The audiences are
different. Politicians appeal to those who share the politician’s values or who
can be persuaded to share the politician’s values. Office holders have a duty
to all citizens. That’s why politicians in democratic countries thank their
constituents and pledge to serve everyone, including those who voted for the
politician’s opponent.
Many candidates
seeking election to school board see themselves as politicians first and,
having gained office sometimes find it difficult to make the transition from
that position (politician) to one of trustee (governor). Difficult as making
and maintaining that transition is, it must be made by those who take the oath
of office as trustee. Failing to make the transition engenders trouble for the school
districts, the interest of which they pledge to serve.
Those
who continue to act primarily as politicians – appealing to and acting on
behalf of their perceived constituencies – rather than as governors responsible
to all citizens - often fail to consider the best interests of the districts
they govern or define the ‘best interests’ of the district as synonymous with
the interests of their perceived constituencies.
Serving
as a school board trustee isn’t easy. Trustees are typically elected by
individuals who are either unfamiliar with governance or indifferent to it,
placing their own, immediate interests above those of the citizenry. Trustees
are subjected to the inquiries, complaints and demands of parental constituents
who are largely concerned about the welfare of their offspring and unconcerned
about good governance.
Parents will
ask a trustee whether s/he knows what is happening in “my school.” Trustees are
reluctant to inform the inquirer that s/he is not the person to whom inquiries
about a particular school should be directed for fear of alienating the
inquirer. Educating constituents about the responsibilities of trustees and the
fact that individual trustees have no authority (decisions are made by the board
as a whole) is a related challenge that most trustees are reluctant to face
head-on.
There is
some irony in the reluctance of school trustees to educate citizens about
school board governance and to persuade them that governing in the best
interest of the district is ultimately beneficial for everyone. And there is
more than a bit of selfishness when they put their own interest above the
interest of the district.
This is the last blogpost for the current school year.
I hope your summer is all you wish it to be.
See you in September!