The Gazette editorial board gives a weak endorsement today of the Billings school board's decision not to renew Superintendent Rod Svee's contract. The thrust of the opinion appeared to be this: If eight of nine board members agree, they must be right.
The editorial defends Svee from allegations that he spends too much time in Helena and that he delegates too much. It agrees that Svee communicated inadequately, but praises him for keeping his "rift" with the board from the public. Lack of communication seems to be OK, so long as it's the public that doesn't know what's going on.
Svee's "lack of commitment" to a more transparent budget process also is cited. Trustee Malcolm Goodrich also cited that in his interview with me, and I don't doubt the sincerity or legitimacy of his concern. But I have trouble seeing why that's not a fixable problem.
Considerations that seem more important to me aren't given their due. For example:
1. The district has an image problem that is not of the superintendent's creation nor within his power to repair. The problem arises from the board. Getting rid of the superintendent doesn't solve the problem; it exacerbates it.
2. Svee argues, persuasively to me, that the real work of the superintendent isn't to be, as the Gazette puts it, "communicator, leader, innovator, negotiator, cheerleader and healer." The ephemeral dream of finding all of those qualities in one package guarantees a history of superintendents with brief and troubled tenures. I've covered quite a few school boards over the years (though never this one, on any consistent basis) and I have never known a superintendent, no matter how capable, who could fill the Gazette's job description. The position needs to be cut to a manageable size, and Svee, I think, tried to do that.
3. Svee's departure will inevitably mean another long period of transition and training. Can we afford it? As the Gazette notes, crucial issues lie before the school district. If the district can navigate those issues with a lame duck superintendent, a novice superintendent, or no superintendent at all, then maybe it doesn't really matter so much who, if anybody, gets the job.
3. Odds are quite good that whoever replaces Svee will also fail, in important respects, to meet the board's expectations. Superintendents nearly always do. Measure Svee's flaws -- communication style, interaction with the board -- against his strengths -- unquestioned integrity, decency and competence -- and it's not hard to imagine that we could wind up a whole lot worse off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
David, let's face it. The board is not upset at Svee himself, they are upset by their inability to pass a mill-levy vote in this town, and figure a better spokesman might help them do it.
If they have truly needed, and worthwhile projects, the voters will get it right.
And if they want to appease the realtors and build a High School in a cornfield again, they'll get it right also.
I honestly dont see a mill levy passing anytime soon. Firing Svee was just another nail in the coffin.
I'd say the board is not pleased with Svee. They're not pleased with his determination to work around the board, regardless of policies set by board vote. They seem not to be pleased with his bait-and-last-minute switch of budget numbers last year and the same scenario being tried again this year. They're not pleased with his solo pursuit of a contract for one company to provide out-of-school internet programs and a college program for high schoolers, disregarding board decisions on the former, and not waiting for a board decision on the latter. They're not pleased with his incompetence over the Skyview situation (read: did nothing for a year until it blew up, and then, yet again, doing nothing). They're not pleased with his allowing staff to ignore the policy for school transfers, thereby creating their own policy for giving kids (athletes) (eighth graders) free choice on where they'll go to high school under almost any circumstances.
I think it's the repeated circumvention of board decisions that led to the board not renewing his contract. And much like Kristoff Bauer, his proposal of a raise, plus future raises being tied to any negotiated raise for the teachers was salt on the wounds. How can a person whose position is clearly supposed to be on one side of the bargaining table, suddenly expect his salary to be tied to the people on the other side of the bargaining table? Can you say, "conflict of interest?"
No, it's not a simple soundbite. Though there seem to be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacks who don't follow meetings, cable tv replays or minutes, who suddenly claim to know all there is to know.
"They're not pleased with his allowing staff to ignore the policy for school transfers, thereby creating their own policy for giving kids (athletes) (eighth graders) free choice on where they'll go to high school under almost any circumstances."
That has gone on for some time before Svee took the job since Ron Lebsock lives in Senior High's area and his kids played football for Skyview. Nice try though.
It's irrelevant whether ignoring policy began before Svee or not; the responsibility now belongs to Svee, and he continues to allow a hemmorrhage of freshmen from Sentior to West. He is accountable.
Just like Texas, the only thing that matters is football...
Seven superintendents in 20 years for School District 2. That says it all. This board is troubled. Some trustees have little knowledge of how a school works. Apparently none of them understand good management techniques that delegate responsibility to those responsible. Svee worked within the law and board policy. If the board doesn't like what he did, it should change its own policies. The decision shows nothing so much as the board's ineptitude.
Svee displayed dedication, caring and integrity during his term. The board seems ignorant of those qualities. Trustees would best serve the district by making room for new trustees.
Svee does NOT work within board policy. How much time do you have? Here's an example since you obviously don't pay much attention to the chaos going on in out of area school transfer requests. He has, over the years, allowed dozens of eighth graders to switch high schools based on NOTHING but their claim of a POTENTIAL for danger after school--not at the school, mind you, but SOMEWHERE.(this is the latest fad excuse for the 2006-07 school year) Give me a bleepin break! Check out the policy and see that it is clearly against policy to allow transfers under such flimsy, undocumented circumstances. That's why we have 100 fewer students at Senior and 100 more at West. Then there were the teachers yanked out of Senior at mid year to alleviate the crisis at West. Advanced placement classes are jeopardized at Senior.
You are either severely out of touch or you are one of those few central office staff who has it pretty cushy under current asleep-at-the-switch leadership. I'd be concerned too if I were you. Someone soon may soon make you work for that overblown salary.
Post a Comment