Elected officials often find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Should they be more focused on accurately representing the sentiments of those who elected them or should they rely on their own judgment to make decisions about which they have more information than voters? In other words, should they act as delegates or trustees? The realistic answer is that they should seek to do both of these things whenever possible.
In the case of the Longmeadow (MA) School Committee’s decision not to renew the school superintendent’s contract, four committee members got this balancing act wrong. They chose to bear the entire burden of the decision and to elevate their own judgment over that of others. This approach can, of course, be a noble one and I have no doubt that the four committee members acted in good faith based on their own experience and judgment. However, the “others” whose opinions they discounted here did not need to be discounted. The four committee members who are dissatisfied with the superintendent’s performance could have chosen a path that would have allowed them to be true to their own perspective AND to give the perspective of the superintendent’s supporters sufficient weight.
If the four members had supported a renewed contract for only one year, they would have signaled both the seriousness of their concerns about the superintendent’s performance AND their respect for the equally strong concerns of the teachers, administrators, parents, and students who want Dr. O’Shea to remain on the job. With a one-year extension, voters could weigh in at the ballot box in June. Whether voters change the committee’s majority from one that wants to fire the superintendent to one that wants to retain the superintendent or leave the present majority intact, the elected officials who oppose the superintendent would have done their jobs in this respect honorably and well. In this case they can be effective delegates and trustees.
The bottom line is that superintendents do not “come and go.” The choice of a school superintendent is a very important, expensive, and exhausting one with very clear implications for the health of the schools in the short and long term. The choice of elected School Committee members, on the other hand, while important, is less important, expensive, and exhausting. If a Superintendent can’t get along with some of the members of the School Committee but does get along with others, and this is THE issue upon which non-renewal of his contract is considered, then the town’s voters should be given the opportunity to take the much less costly and exhausting option of replacing the elected policy makers.
We have the judgments of our elected officials on this issue. Four want to part ways with the superintendent and three want the superintendent to stay. With a one-year extension to the superintendent’s contract we can respect these judgment calls without discounting the judgment of some crucial stakeholders in the school district, including the teachers and administrators, as well as a number of parents and students, who are very happy with the superintendent’s job performance.
We live in a representative democracy. In this case, the Longmeadow School Committee has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to both representation and democracy. Let the voters have their say!
https://www.thereminder.com/localnews/longmeadow/school-committee-completes-superintendent-review/
He was given an extension last year After being put on notice that he had to improve his performance.
So why not give him the opportunity to actually improve?
And the items stated as the issues then seem to be exactly what caused his contract not to be renewed now. Did he improve and yet they still didn’t renew his contract?
We have had some ridiculous choices as superintendents in the recent past but Marty O’Shea was finally an effective leader who was truly present in the schools and in the community. I think a one year extension would be a fair compromise.
Elections have consequences. Whatever happened to that belief? I know that the guy who wrote this article was a staunch supporter of that argument at one time because he wrote articles in defense of it. Funny how that changes when it goes against something important to him. Elections have consequences.
Did you read the piece? Nothing in it contradicts the idea that elections have consequences. My advice to the committee is intended to reinforce both their authority and that of the voters.
I would like to offer Mr Duquette an apology for the prior comments. I will not offer any reason for the prior post because I feel it would take away from this apology. Again, I’m sorry for my comments. Thank you. Mr OConnor.
When we as citizens go to the ballot box and elect School Committee members we do so trusting their judgement. What is the point of electing them, and then whining that things did not go to your liking. Vote them out. That’s your right. But it is not your right to demand an opportunity to over-ride their judgement.
You argue that the four school committee members should have voted for a one-year renewal in order to allow voters to “weigh in at the ballot box in June.”
This argument is no different than Mitch McConnell refusing to bring Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Senate so that the voters could decide at the upcoming Presidential election on the type of Supreme Court justice they wanted. Didn’t seem right then.
I thought we want elected officials who vote on conviction rather than worries of re-election.
Democrats lauded Senator Heidi Heitkamp for voting “no” on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. It cost her the election. Based on your logic, should she have voted “yes” because her constituents wanted Kavanaugh to be confirmed?
Willy, if McConnell had somehow temporarily approved Marrick Garland for the SC until after the election, then it might be analogous. The one-year extension would preserve BOTH the school committee’s judgment AND the public’s input. What we do not want is elected officials who either ingore or pander to public opinion. We elected 7 people to balance their judgment with others. That group is closely divided. A one-year extension would signal respect not only for thevoters but for the 3 members who strongly dsagree.
Thanks for the response, Professor Duquette.
Your reasoning is flawed though. There is no such thing as a temporary approval of a Supreme Court justice and, besides, your logic would require that any major, controversial vote by an elected body be temporary in nature. Affordable Care Act? Should only have been temporarily passed until the next election, since some of those Senators and Representatives were up for reelection.
Your logic also suggests that when you have an elected body, they must always vote unanimously or else someone is not engaging in the appropriate “balance of their judgment with others.”
Finally, by your logic, were the 3 school committee members who originally voted for a 3-year extension initially “pandering to public opinion” (assuming the public largely supported an extension)? That would have extended the superintendent’s contract past the point of the next election — effectively taking any decision out of the voters’ hands?