There is a puzzling question I've been asked a number of times by groups contemplating endorsements of SBCSC Board candidates. It's been phrased in different ways, but the gist is "What would you do if you win and discover there is 3-3 split on most issues?" This particular phrasing first evoked a slightly light-hearted response from me: "Oh, in other words, I'm Sandra Day O'Connor?"
I guess that reaction was a response to how weird the question struck me. It seemed weird that a non partisan body with a strict mission could ever be in that place, and it seemed weird that anyone would think I would adjust my actions because of this sort of political intrigue.
Eventually, when you hear similar questions enough times, you realize it isn't that the question is weird. It is, rather, that the situation is weird. Long time Board observers already know this, but I'm a newbie.
It would appear that one member of the Board (not up for election) is something of a control freak, and an adherent to the Joan Raymond regime. I've been warned that this person would likely attempt to assimilate (Borg-style) any new member to the collective. "Resistance is futile..."
I've mentioned many times that the Board has a lot of work to do to repair it's relationship with the community and that it is imperative that it do so. What I am learning is that some of the problems go back to decisions made during the Raymond regime.
I got my first clue about this when I proposed that School Board meetings should happen in schools - and at an hour when people who work hard for a living can get cleaned up and grab a bite to eat, and come hear what's going on and pitch in if they want to. Know what? Half the meetings used to be done that way - prior to the Raymond regime.
Now, all the meetings are held in the downtown building at 5:30. It's a scramble to find parking, and the room is miserable. There's limited seating for spectators. The board is seated in a U shape, on risers. Spectators on the wings are treated to views of Board member's backs. As I put it to the South Bend Tribune's Editorial Board, "The likelihood is that the people most likely to deal with this level of inconvenience are those who are really, really mad at you. Is that the only group you want in front of you? Does that seem like a good strategy?" Not to me.
Another precept of the era seems that honest debate in front of the public is discouraged. I'm sure that idea was designed to present a united front. I think we can safely conclude that hasn't worked. And when you think about it, that united front could only come from behind the scenes conversations and negotiations. That way I read the law - that would be illegal.
The open meeting act was designed to include the public in decision making. At the very least, the idea was that citizens should be given an understanding of what leads to the decisions made in public policy. It wasn't created just for citizens to witness an event. At last week's "No Excuses" vision meeting, I explained why I think this is so important.
First of all, if there is no vigorous discussion of issues in public, citizens are likely to conclude (rightly or wrongly) that "the fix" is in. Secondly, serious debate will help citizens understand that this stuff is really, really hard.
The new partnership requires honest debate, more transparency, making it easier for community participation and making community participation matter.
That's how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment