Being there again, or, what was I thinking?!

Don Wheeler

Back in June I wrote an entry called "Being There" . The topic of it was the South Bend Community School Corporation (SBCSC) Board's decision to release Dr. Robert Zimmerman as Superintendent of Schools. A quick refresher on that meeting would be useful background for last Monday night's meeting - where many of the roles were reversed in this ongoing soap opera which constitutes our local school governance.

The main item on the agenda Monday night was to terminate the nationwide search process and appoint James Kapsa (then Interim Superintendent) as our permanent Superintendent.

Last summer, after the Board had installed Mr. Kapsa, it made the decision to proceed with a conventional search process to find a permanent Superintendent. They would initiate the process and the next Board would name the successor. I was personally ambivalent about it (mostly due to cost), but The South Bend Foundation offered to pick up the tab for a search company and no one could tell me whether Mr. Kapsa had any interest in the job as a permanent position. I also thought that this approach would show the community we wouldn't be doing the same old thing again and give ownership of this very major decision to the Board which would have to live with the decision. And, as many people know, I voiced hope that Mr. Kapsa would be offered the chance to apply.

Recently, one Board member - Bill Sniadecki - had a change of heart, and requested the action item making the appointment permanent. Nothing wrong with thinking something through and changing one's mind.

But other Board members who had agreed with his original position were caught off guard. Apparently he hadn't bothered to let them know of his change of heart. They also seemed reluctant to go back on a commitment made to the community. Clearly, there was a lot of tension in the air.

The meeting started well. There were some cool recognition presentations - particularly the one for our Indiana Teacher of the Year, Tania Harman.

Later, thirty people rose and spoke on the action item regarding Mr. Kapsa. Twenty-nine people expressed enthusiastic support for Mr. Kapsa. That can't be bad. One of them, like me, expressed reservations about the timing of the decision. All this was handled with generosity and respect. My comments probably weren't welcome to some in the audience, but there was only silence to indicate that - no derision.

Unfortunately, the ambiance of reason vanished quickly when the action item itself was introduced. Things started well. Ralph Pieniazkiewicz asked the Board members supporting the motion to explain their reasoning, and reserved the right to comment afterwords - a standard way to open a discussion in a deliberative body. Ms. Jones (DJ), in the same spirit, presented her reasoning in a calm, clearly well thought out manner.

Next, it was Mr. Snaidecki's turn. But instead of sharing what caused him to change his mind (he was the only Board member to change positions about a search), he launched into an ad hominem attack on Mr. Pieniazkeiwicz (RP) and (apparently) anyone daring to challenge Mr. Sniadecki.

Now Bill Sniadecki (BS) has done many important things and has a good habit of digging deeply into matters which have been quite helpful. Legal matters regarding bus purchases comes to mind immediately. As RP pointed out, it took eight weeks for the Board to get that matter handled correctly. So I was highly disappointed to see this conduct, and his blatant pandering to and posturing for the benefit of supporters in the audience.

It was at this point we left the realm of a business meeting and entered the world of performance art. Suddenly it was as though I was attending a World Wrestling Entertainment event, rather than a meeting to discuss the most important decision to be made by a group in control of nearly a quarter billion dollars of public funds. I was embarrassed and chagrined.

This was also the point where a strong presiding officer was needed.

I want to be clear that I have no gripe with Sheila Bergeron (SB). In fact, my view of her is pretty favorable. But it takes a pretty stout character - with thick skin, stubbornness and experience in doing it - to regain control of a meeting like this. This is not personal. What I will say may sound like it, but please believe me, it is not.

BS received a mild admonishment from the Chair, but some members of the audience (MOTA) picked up their cues and found their marks. MOTA felt free to make derisive noises and shouted accusing statements when a Board member they disagreed with spoke. No one discouraged this practice.

Were I serving on a body like this and had supporters of my position behaving this way, I would certainly make it clear that this approach was unacceptable to me. Unfortunately neither Ms. Jones or Ann Rosen took the opportunity.

This ain't no way to run a railroad.

Every thoughtful person in a democracy will be on the losing side of some issues. If the process is proper, accepting the "defeat" is tolerable. What do I mean by that?

Simple things - all views respected and heard, agreeing to standard approaches for recurring decision making, same rules for everyone, care to watch out for potential tyranny from the majority... because remember, majorities shift. These sorts of things.

Fumbling around with parliamentary procedure was also not helpful. That may not improve with the new Board. I was standing next to Roger Parent and, though he is a former councillor and mayor, he was completely confused about what can be done with a main motion. The Board needs a parliamentarian.

We cannot have critical decisions made on behalf of our children and; therefor, our community made in this sort of environment. To continue to do so is to ensure failure and failure is not an option.

And, by the way, I don't see this as solely a problem of and for the SBCSC Board of Trustees. This is OUR problem and WE must solve it.

Because democracy and public education are not spectator sports.