Where We Stand

Since beginning the Voters of MSAD 46 web site on April 22, 2006, we have written, signed, and posted more than 90 separate entries. We believe that regular readers of this web site will be fairly familiar with our views, and with our purpose, as will those who have known and worked with us over the years. While we hope, of course, that we’re not predictable, we also hope that you’ll know just about where we’ll be. (When I was a young man, our city was threatened with a flood, and there was a call for volunteers to fill sandbags. I bumped into a friend of mine at the staging area. She said “I knew you’d be here.”) We hope you know by now that we’ll “be here.”

Nevertheless, it’s probably useful to clarify some points about our approach.

We have an extensive and affirmative history of communication with our constituents as elected representatives from the Town of Garland. In every town report since our elections (Art in 1995, Mel in 1997), we have written multiple pages about our schools, particularly drawing attention to important issues on the horizon. As a regular aspect of those reports, and expressed repeatedly, and in a variety of ways, we have asked for citizen input on the issues. (One of these reports – 2005 -- is available in full at the “Citizens” site; more will follow.) Within the district, no other town’s representatives have such a clearly documented record of communication with their constituents.

Here are some excerpts from those reports , centered on the issue of the middle school. We have a clear “track record” of deliberate, informative communication with the public.

One thing has changed for us since leaving the Board in March. We now have a much clearer idea of the amount and kind of information citizens receive from the District – it’s very limited.

However, recently the situation has become worse, with the responsibility to report to the public being treated very casually. One small example: the minutes of the May 3 (regular) and May 9 (special) Board meetings were made available to the public on Tuesday, June 27. Another example: the fiasco of the June 14 agenda, detailed here. These lapses and glitches, incidentally, are not the fault of a secretary or a technical person. Rather, this slackness exemplifies an attitude, namely that the public is at best an afterthought.

During our years of service we may not have been as aware of this side of things as we should have been. We do note that in the past, minutes, at least in draft form, were customarily available on the Saturday following a Wednesday meeting. We hope that, for everyone’s sake, the present situation changes. It truly is not in the District’s interest to give the public, as it were, the back of its hand, especially in a year where voting on a new school is imminent.

Our chosen role is to be critical and also to inform, to prod and push and to explain. Why? To help create change. This is the very reason we ran for the Board in the first place. Our motivation hasn’t changed, nor has our focus of activity.

We didn’t take a vow of silence on joining the Board, nor upon leaving it. We have learned over the years how things work – or don’t. With what we know, why shouldn’t we continue to use our knowledge?

But there is a difference between how we acted while on the Board and how we’re acting now. On the Board you’re committed to working within the pre-existing system, for the best results, through the patterns and channels that already exist, however flawed. There is a kind of submission to the collective will -- the will of the Board, the will of the organization. Unfortunately, as we’ve expressed elsewhere, there’s something pretty rotten in significant areas of the organization.

Now we can be freer in our expressing our opinions, and our judgments. It’s not that we didn’t have some of these same thoughts while on the Board; it’s only that we tended to express them privately. Perhaps it was a foolish delusion, the notion that we could change things from “within.”

But it would be a mistake to think that criticism – from us or from anyone else – makes us “the enemy,” the enemy of the Board. Nor are we the enemy of the Administration, the enemy of appropriate funding for the schools, or the enemy of proper and appropriate educational facilities. Now, more than ever, we are going to point out where more effort is needed.

We both support a new school – it’s clearly needed. We both voted to pursue the present site; we both voted to explore a K-8 school. Does that commit us to all the details of the only partially-revealed current plan? No!

In fact, we’re reasonably sure that we were not given accurate information about another possible site. We believe the Board was manipulated and steered to the present site and that the present site has serious flaws.

But we could be wrong. In the meantime, we’ll ask questions. We know that a number of citizens have serious and legitimate questions about these plans.

Perhaps as a District, as part of the process of engaging in a serious discussion about the future of our schools – isn’t that what this is? – we can agree to a couple of ground rules. People with serious questions should never be labeled “anti-school” or “anti-education.” Likewise, those advocating for the yet-to-be-fully-revealed plan shouldn’t trot out the old chestnut of “it’s for the kids.” Wouldn’t these guidelines improve the quality of the discussion?

Even more than a new school (because it affects every aspect of education) we need a shift in orientation in the governance of the District. It needs to become responsive as well as responsible. It needs to become more forthcoming, more generous, and more open. These measures can create a better feeling about the schools and how they’re run, and the District will then enjoy a better relationship with the community, maybe truly symbolizing the “heart of the community”. In fact ultimately these changes are the path to greater student achievement, as well as greater public participation and support.