There’s a sense of deja vu regarding actions by the school board—both prior to the election, last fall and the calendar issue, and the most recent incident bypassing Dee Perry as board president.
While I am grateful for the board’s service to the community, our students and education, I’m concerned that lack of perspective and confusion amongst the board is driving decisions. They serve their constituents—not the superintendent, faculty, themselves or their agenda, but the constituents and tax payers who voted for and supported them during their elections. Broad and varying levels of experience hopefully create a dynamic and well-balanced board capable of making sound decisions for our district, the staff, students and community funds.
The recap of Dec. 11’s meeting and the first reading of suggested policy changes are disturbing. Board member Wolff’s comments toward board member Perry’s capabilities as board president are inappropriate at least and multiple violations if true based on cited references. Will the board continue to modify policy to ensure vague flexibility as needed? Why wouldn’t we allow board member Perry as president? She is an elected member. How is she not qualified, capable? She ran a campaign and won. Twice. If skills are lacking, then provide training. Budget allows consultants for district, administration, and board training where needed, wanted and necessary. A benefit of being/working in our district.
Board President Vickers has important history and I appreciate the dedication. The president of the board is influential. The agenda can be powerful at times, especially during controversial issues. President Vickers is not malicious nor uses the role in an authoritarian manner, nor would Perry I believe. However, the fact that this issue has occurred presents reasons for which the policy should maintain specific language requiring rotations for president of the board, should be withdrawn from consideration and Perry should be offered an opportunity. Rotations allow for different members to lead the board and demonstrates trust to the community and students in all board members. If our board votes to remove language that protects fairness and equality for all members, and under this veil of scrutiny, what type of potentially authoritative behavior amongst our board are we allowing? What message does that reflect? Is this message cohesive with the Social and Emotional Wellbeing programs for our students?
Balance and perspective are important to maintain. Without perspective, we lose sight of something broader than ourselves, why eliminate that? Perhaps it is that very issue. The board, in their effort to seamlessly support our superintendent and his goals, may have lost perspective—the very reason board policy regarding rotations should remain intact.
Sheri Morgan, Laguna Beach