jackiedoherty.org

Besides biting my nails and refraining from “I told you so” (okay maybe not that much refraining), this whole process of replacing Supt. Baehr has been a nightmare for me. Readers may recall I have been a strong supporter of our current superintendent and felt we had the best in the state—an opinion apparently shared by the Board of Education which named her as the only in-state finalist in their recent commissioner search. That, as they say, is the past. We now have to move forward and find a replacement equal to her professionalism, experience, and vision for our schools. First off, I agree with Dick Howe’s call for a compromise regarding the transparency of the search process and will look to develop one that will protect the confidentiality of candidates while satisfying the public’s right to be included. As I alluded to in an earlier post, we need to do whatever we can to attract, rather than dissuade, the best, most experienced candidates to apply and that means some confidentiality is necessary. I am also frustrated that the Citizens’ Screening Committee, as Margaret mentions below, will most likely not include fair representation of the families and children we serve. Despite my best efforts to have invested, diverse stakeholders at the table (the reason I supported the residency requirement for screening committee members and argued to expand the group), it doesn’t appear we will have more than a token minority presence. The good news is we’re not done yet. The next school committee meeting on Wed., Feb. 6, will include the introduction of the screening committee. At that time, it is my intention that we make some adjustments going forward, and I encourage you to attend that meeting at 7 pm in Council Chambers.

I want to be clear that while Jackie and I are co-bloggers and friends who often have similar interests and opinions, when I write or speak, it is from my own perspective.  As a former CPC chair, involved parent and citizen, the following are my impressions of Wednesday’s school committee meetings:

• Why wasn’t this discussion held by the whole school committee, rather than in subcommittee?  The entire  committee was present (along with 30 members of the public), yet only those on the subcommittee were allowed to vote on who would be chosen to be on the Citizens’ Screening Committee (for the new Superintendent).  I know that many issues are referred to subcommittee to be hashed out; however, it seems the School Committee has had a very light agenda since the beginning of the year and this important topic could have been covered in a regular session with all members voting.  Clearly, this is the only topic on peoples’ minds these days.  Having served on other boards, I truly believe that using subcommittees as a vehicle to do the real work of the body can be a dangerous pitfall.  In some cases, an ad hoc subcommittee is necessary, but never to the detriment of the overall involvement of the board.
• The above problem fed later complications.  For instance, as Jackie pointed out, two (TWO) members of the business community were easily voted onto the Search Committee (one from the Lowell Chamber of Commerce and one from the Lowell Plan); however, it was a major victory to add a third parent (someone to represent special ed parents who certainly need a voice in this proceeding) and the effort to get a second representative from the nonprofit community failed.  Why should local businesses take precedence over the local nonprofits who work directly with Lowell children and families?  There is a certain kow-towing to the business community that has not paid off in any direct benefit to our schools, not when you take into account the successful interventions and efforts on behalf of children made by such organizations as the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA, OneLowell and Lowell Community Health Center (plus many more)!  It also seems to have been forgotten that our nonprofits are the largest local employers. 
•  A further problem arose when it became clear that the subcommittee was simply paying lip-service to the idea of minority involvement on the search committee.  The only requisite minority involvement is required from the Citywide Parent Council.  Why not require that a minority business owner be given a seat? Why not ask that UML or MCC supply a minority candidate? Why can’t one of the two Lowell teachers be a minority?  I think the last committee had one minority member, and I am afraid it will be the same this time. 
• Finally, the open-closed meeting debate.  I agreed with the group who felt that every meeting should be conducted in the full view of the public. However, IF we had the assurance of a more diverse search committee, then I would feel less concerned about the group meeting in private.  The presence of diverse voices would give me some assurance that a fair process was underway.  Now we have neither.