At long last, the Electioneering Committee completed its task of revisiting Regulation 0380. Their original charter from the board was to reread the regulation and make any modifications necessary to avoid the confusion on the part of the district representatives that happened immediately preceding the 2007 Board elections in April.
The End Result
So I don't keep you in suspense, I'll fill you in on the conclusion of the committee's meeting now, and then fill in details afterwards.
The committee did revisit the regulation, and made some changes to it. Most of them seemed pretty trivial, with only two controversies.
Approving materials for publication
The first point of contention was to decide who had the final say as to whether or not a piece of campaign literature submitted to the district by an outside body and intended to be distributed by the district was advocational or not. The committee was unable to come to consensus on this question.
Definition of working hours
Part of the regulations specified what Rockwood employees were allowed and not allowed to do during "working hours". There were lots of questions around what "working hours" meant. For example, did it mean all hours for which you were paid? If so, then do you consider vacation days to be "working hours", since employees are being paid for them? The committee decided to drop the language attempting to define "working hours" entirely, in favor of recognizing that teachers, staff, and administrators are citizens as well as Rockwood employees, and as such, have the right to participate in political campaigns.
Other changes
A change was agreed to that required all materials from outside groups about elections to be submitted for approval to the Communications Department prior to distribution by the district.
Background and explanation
For those of you who may not know, there was a bit of trouble this last election season. The PSO submitted a flier to be sent home in student backpacks the Friday before the election. This flier said that there was an election coming up, mentioned the names of the two registered candidates, and the name of the active write-in candidate. I've seen the flier, and that was the extent of what it said.
Now, for one reason or another, someone protested the word "active" which was used to describe the write in candidate, and the person in charge of the district at the time (Dr. Larson was out of town, so it was another administrator in the district) decided that this language was not acceptable. That led to this flier being pulled from backpacks and the information about the election not being distributed to district parents.
This issue is really important to the district. According to the laws of Missouri, publicly funded institutions, such as school districts, are prohibited from advocating for or against any board candidate or ballot issue. If the district were to violate this law, they leave themselves open to lawsuits and other penalties. Also according to the laws of the state, the Board of Education is viewed as the legal embodiment of the district, so any violation of the aforementioned law would be blamed on the Board. Since the Board is responsible for these decisions, then an argument can be made that they should have the authority to approve or disapprove of campaign literature as it is submitted.
On the other hand (there's always an other hand, eh?), when it comes to Board elections, there could certainly be a conflict of interest. Our Board has factions on it, as do most Boards I imagine, which means that each member has their own vested interests about who wins and loses elections, which may make it difficult for them to pass judgment on campaign literature.
Given that an actual or perceived conflict of interest could exist for Board elections, a suggestion was made that to move the authority for making this decision to some other person in the district. The actual wording moved the responsibility for making these decisions to the Communications Department, in consultation with legal counsel, and the Superintendent.
The Discussion
So this wording generated most of the conversation at the final meeting. There were people on both sides of the issue. The ones who wanted the responsibility left with the Board fell back on two arguments. The first was that they are legally responsible anyhow, so the decision should be there. And the point was made that the Board is not actually legally bound to follow the policies and regulations, so they could decide to step in anyhow. Those on the other side focused on the fact that the Board members really are "above the law" when it comes to any punishment that can be meted out to them by the district or fellow Board members. A staff member, however, would put their job at risk should they violate any part of this regulation or the state law, so they are more able to be controlled.
The committee members went back and forth talking about this single sentence for the longest time until they finally took a vote.It came up tied. They talked more. At the end of all this talking, all they were able to do was to decide to forward the newly modified regulation back to the Board along with a statement about how they couldn't decide on this issue.
So, after 4 meetings, this issue, the crux of the entire issue, wasn't decided.
Why it doesn't matter
This particular Board has a habit of asking for input from parents and staff, and then ignoring it. This happened with the high school schedule and redistricting committees as well as a failed bond issue recently. So, although the committee did excellent work in crafting the new regulation, the Board is going to do what it pleases, input be damned. And this is the problem with this Board.
Make your voice heard
This issue is going to come up at a Board meeting soon, either the beginning of September or October. Show up for the BOE meeting, listen to the reading of the regulation as drafted by the committee, and watch what the board does with it.
Odds are that it will be changed greatly. History says that it will. So, please tell me, why should some kind parent volunteer their time, spend multiple evenings discussing issues such as these, deliberate thoughtfully, and carefully craft their decisions, if their only payback is to be ignored? Is this a good way to encourage volunteerism?
-- bab
