The state’s top educational organizations – including the Kentucky Department of Education – have placed their support behind the Spencer County School Board’s decision to conduct the superintendent’s evaluation in closed session and are asking the judge to reverse an opinion by the Office of the Attorney General.
“The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has misinterpreted the Open Meetings Act and reached erroneous legal conclusions which will adversely impact all local boards of education in Kentucky,” said Attorney Michael Owsley in a court document filed last week.
Owsley filed the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court”, brief on behalf of KDE, the Kentucky Board of Education, the Kentucky School Boards Association, and several educational cooperatives which represent many of Kentucky’s school districts.
And, in A Matter of Opinion: What are they afraid of?
The Kentucky Department of Education and a whole host of other taxpayer-funded education organizations are trying to influence a local court into allowing the Spencer County Board of Education to continue evaluating the superintendent’s performance in secret.
Our superintendent who:
• administers a yearly school budget of $20.7 million (comprised of local, state and federal tax monies);
• is responsible for the education of 2,676 Spencer County children; and
• supervises over 400 instructional, facilities and support staff employees (the
county’s largest employer).
All this, while earning a base salary of $121,000 with a few fringe benefits. Doesn’t that sound like someone who taxpayers would want to know whether he was doing a good job?
The question that begs to be answered is: what are they all afraid of?What is going on in these superintendent reviews that they do not want the general public to hear?
The argument that superintendent evaluations should be in closed session because they might lead to the discipline or dismissal of the district’s highest administrator is ridiculous. If school board members plan to dismiss the superintendent, the public needs to know – and they need to know why.
Another excuse that has been tossed around is that school districts could be subject to slander lawsuits if one of the board members got carried away and said something inappropriate. Slander only applies to statements that are untrue. As long as school board members speak with facts and figures, this should not be a problem.
What does become a problem is if an individual questions how superintendent evaluations are conducted. In this case, the message being sent by the Spencer County School Board is that if you rub the system the wrong way – if you don’t accept that this is the way things have always been done – then look out, retaliation may be coming in the form of a lawsuit.
Perhaps what they are most afraid of is that the public will see the diverse views of board members. They have different opinions about finances, instruction – and the superintendent’s perfomance in these areas. Every vote can not possibly be a consensus if board members are honestly representing the wishes of their constituents. Yet, board members are often encouraged to vote together for appearance sake.
As the highest school official in the county, Superintendent Chuck Adams should have no expectation of privacy. He is a public figure – and so are the 173 other superintendents in Kentucky. He answers to five bosses. The five people that voters in this county elect to ensure he does his job correctly. Voters should be allowed to hear what kind of evaluation their elected representatives are providing.
1 comment:
Let's move toward transparency in the administration of our schools as well as our government. Open evaluation of the chief presiding administrator (such as superintendents) would be a good start.
Post a Comment