Putting a Limit on Boorish Boards

School Administrator, Nov, 1998 by Edward T. Rancic

During my 16 years as an Illinois school superintendent, my views regarding school board elections and terms of office for board members changed dramatically. Early on, I worked to encourage ray school board members to help one another win re-election because I believed that training any new board member would inhibit progress and jeopardize school district initiatives.

Most veteran board members during the early years of my superintendency were extremely conscientious and understood what the role of a school board member was. The majority respected the line separating board functions from administrative functions. They participated in workshops and conferences and voiced sincere ambitions about becoming better and more effective board members.

In retrospect, I realize my fear of inexperience on the board was a small problem compared to the unethical or uncaring attitudes I witness on the part of some board members today. Now, too many new candidates view their position as a political steppingstone or a place of power to influence situations that should be left in the hands of the school administration.

Wayward Actions

Just how vulnerable superintendents are to this inappropriate behavior was brought home to me by a recent incident in a nearby district. The school board and a land developer were at odds over impact fees. After weeks of tough negotiations, the attorney for the developer, who is also a resident of the district in question, threatened the school district by taking out four petitions for the upcoming board election. The developer's intent was to take control of the board and gain the necessary votes to reduce the impact fees the district was seeking from the developer.

Consider the motives of board members who know they are moving Out of the district yet refuse to resign prior to the date when their vacancy could be available for the general public at the time of the election. Instead, they resign at a time when the board can appoint a "favorite son or daughter to fill the vacancy.

In yet another trick, a candidate for a board position will challenge opponents' nominating petitions in order to remove their names from the ballot. Or at a board meeting, if they do not have a majority present to get their way, board members will purposely absent themselves from the meeting, causing it to be adjourned for lack of a quorum.

Training Ignored

Many superintendents probably are familiar with the training film "On Board" developed by the National School Boards Association. The film presents 10 episodes--most of them depicting inappropriate behavior for board members. I used that film to help educate my board, and most members agreed with the messages in the film.

However, some individuals thought the episodes presented in the film were within the scope of a board member's role, such as the board member who recommended his highly qualified nephew for a position in the district or the member who met secretly with the union negotiator thinking he could settle the contract by cutting a side deal. One board member refused to view the training film, stating, "I am not going to take a test," and left the board room.

The majority of board members who carry out their roles responsibly hesitate to reprimand these mavericks in order to preserve harmony. Rarely can one find a board that conducts self-evaluation sessions to curtail these problems.

Limited Sanctions

What can be done to improve this situation? Some states require board members to attend classes on a regular basis to maintain their positions. Other states have recall votes to unseat board members for failure to perform their job. At every level of our educational system we have checks and balances--except for school board members. Some mechanism needs to be created to correct these situations. Some will say the public is the check and balance because citizens have the ability to vote these individuals out of office. Yet this rarely happens, and when it does it is only after the damage has been done.

In some states, where regional superintendents exist, the law allows sanctions against and removal of school board members for malfeasance or nonfeasance. In my 35 years of experience, I observed only one incident where the county superintendent removed individuals from their board positions. These board members went to a national convention, spent exorbitant amounts of money, rented cars and rolled up hundreds of miles sightseeing. Some paid for their wives' expenses with district funds and others did not attend the conference but failed to return the money.

After two years of devastating publicity and community outcry, the county superintendent finally acted and gave them an ultimatum of resigning or being removed. Some resigned, some were removed and a special election was held to elect a new board.

Even this option is limited by political considerations. In several states, including Illinois, the county superintendent is elected so there is a natural hesitation to become involved in controversy.