“Serious, meaningful citizen involvement”
As the fur begins to fly in the Superintendent search process, it might be helpful to take a step back and hear what others are saying. I was listening to WUML on Tuesday morning when Attorney Michael Gallagher was co-host and Jackie Doherty was a guest, you can listen here (by the way, they are doing a great job getting the taped interviews up on the website as podcasts in a timely fashion – thanks, UML!). The talk naturally turned to the superintendent search and the advisory board that will help winnow down the prospects. Gallagher actually chaired the Blue Ribbon Committee that, back in 2000, convened to help select the next superintendent. I was thinking it would be helpful to look up how the committee was configured back then, but luckily Dick Howe already thought of that, see list here. The panel then was made up of 16. Gallagher seemed concerned that there be enough diverse voices on the panel, not simply representatives of the powers that be in the city. For a similar perspective, calling for minority and low-income parents as well as Non Profit leaders to be involved, see Victoria Fahlberg’s letter to the editor on January 10.
Gallagher also made the point that Lowell may be at a disadvantage in the process given the way Karla Brooks Baehr has been literally forced out for reasons unrelated to her job performance. Given that perception and the need to attract the most qualified candidate to lead our district, he felt that it was crucial to compose an advisory board with a priority on ’serious, meaningful citizen involvement.’ In other words, let’s not just go through the motions on this, let’s really involve the community – parents from diverse backgrounds whose children are at different stages in the system, Non Profit leaders who work with our most needy children and families every day, principals and teachers who have the inside view of the system and, of course, representatives from UML and MCC. This, to me, is the core group that should be the priority in making up this committee. Look over the two similar motions put forth to comprise the search committee (see previous post), and see if you think the priorities for membership in this group are straight. Sure, 16 may have been an unwieldly number, but to me that would be better than excluding people with a real stake in the matter.