It’s ironic, the way Harford County Board of Education President Tom Fidler chose to issue a lecture about the limits on the official authority of the County Council-created Board of Education Nominating Committee on unofficial stationery.
For such a ponderous pronouncement, supposedly agreed upon by the entirety of the Board of Education, you would think Fidler would have used the actual Board of Education seal and letterhead. You know, just to drive home how official the position is. Instead, it looks like he whipped up a cut and paste job at home on Microsoft Word before dashing it off to the Harford County Council.
Some highlights from this obnoxious tutorial by the soon-to-be Ex-President of the Board of Education for the edification of the President of the County Council:
Even though Fidler clearly states “This will serve to advise you of the position of the Board of Education” there is no public record we can find of the Board of Education having voted on this position.
Fidler has suddenly re-positioned himself as the champion of unnamed community members, who he says are “not appreciative of their lack of presence” on the committee, but these are the same people he fought off with a stick when they wanted the right to vote in elections for the Board of Education.
Finally, three of the four bullet points are not positions, they are facts and they were also true of the Permanent Nominating Caucus the Board of Education was so eager to shove down everyone’s throat. Only # 4 is an actual position, and the only welcome news in the whole letter.
Here is the full text of Fidler’s letter to Harford County Council President Billy Boniface:
Dear President Boniface:
This will serve to advise you of the position of the Board of Education regarding the above Committee which the County Council created by formal action last month. Inasmuch as there appears to be confusion on the part of various persons, mainly concerned parents and community members, regarding the authority of this committee, this will serve to advise you of the Board of Education’s position regarding the Committee’s authority to nominate persons for selection to the Board of Education (“Board”). Frankly, many of the parents that supported the Council and its members’ initiatives in the past with an “elected” Board, are not very appreciative of their lack of presence and participation in this Committee, and, its membership. Regardless, the Board’s position is as follows:
1. The Board recognizes the Committee, but only as an entity that can make non-binding recommendations to the Governor;
2. The Committee is neither the exclusive nor required process by which a person may apply to be a Board of Education member;
3. A person may simply write to the Governor’s office expressing interest in becoming a member of the Board of Education without submitting their name or undertaking any interview with the Committee;
4. The Board of Education will express no position regarding any person nominated or recommended by the Committee for a Board position.
Be assured that I applaud the efforts of the County Council to advance some form of committee/group to begin rebuilding the formal process for future Board of Education appointments. I felt it necessary to clarify our position. I ask that, at the appropriate time, you include in your general comments during a Council meeting, some of the above points so that our citizens are clear on this Committee’s intent and authority. Please advise should you have any questions regarding the above.
Given his tone to the County Council in detailing the limited authority of the Nominating Committee, the irony is just too good to pass up if Filder sent this letter without first securing the proper authority from the Board of Education at large.
And the award for the ‘Confusing Sentence of the Year Written by a Chairman of a County Board of Education President or Chairman Who Has No Authority to Issue Same’, goes to…..
Thomas Fidler for:
” Inasmuch as there appears to be confusion on the part of various persons, mainly concerned parents and community members, regarding the authority of this committee, this will serve to advise you of the Board of Education’s position regarding the Committee’s authority to nominate persons for selection to the Board of Education (“Board”).”
Thomas can’t be here tonight to accept the award as he is trying to find his ass with both hands.
I accept the award on his behalf and thank the Academy for this honor.
Since the committee is essentially for elected officials, community members would have no basis to be upset for not being included. Those members are free to issue their own recommendations, or to form groups or organizations to do so.
The committee the people did not support was disgrace of a bill Fidler–or perhaps the board, since he communicates its authority without the tedium of democratic vote–seemed to support last session, which would have given groups formed for entirely different purposes an official voice when other groups would have no voice at all.
On the positive side, our students now have an example of a stream-of-conscious writing style, and why planning official letters might make one’s position seem more credible.
HMMMMM.So now we are supporting a committee of local politicians nominating candidates for the BOE? Nothing political about THAT !
/snark
Unfortunately we have no choice because Harford County can’t get an elected school board bill passed (remember that fiasco?!) If you call or e-mail the appointment secretary in Annapolis they will tell you that if you are interested in a Board of Education position you NEED letters of support from elected officials. They won’t go as far as to tell you specifically which ones but letters from other people are not good enough. I don’t know who you are Curious but they flat out told me that anyone applying had better had some influential people backing them. If nothing else, at least we know at a local level who applied and who did not. It doesn’t stop someone from contacting the Governor’s Office directly, but if we had elections we wouldn’t have to go through all of this and we (the people of Harford County) could ALL vote the Governor (by law) would have to accept the outcome. As it stands now, the Governor can appoint anyone he wants.
Yes, “we” are certainly supporting that. We’re supporting the NAACP sending a recommendation. We’re supporting the Chamber of Commerce sending a recommendation. We’re supporting you, curious, sending a recommendation. If one man has the power to make a choice, “we” are supporting anyone who wants to make a recommendation, or form a group to make a recommendation, to help the man in power make his decision.
We’d prefer the republic form of government, in which everyone gets to make the decision on the best person, but in the mean time everyone should do everything they can to have their opinion counted.
“We’re supporting the NAACP sending a recommendation. We’re supporting the Chamber of Commerce sending a recommendation. We’re supporting you, curious, sending a recommendation. If one man has the power to make a choice, “we” are supporting anyone who wants to make a recommendation, or form a group to make a recommendation, to help the man in power make his decision.”
Well, I am so glad- that basically describes a revised PNC process. To bad
“we” didn’t support that as an acceptable second choice. Maybe there could have been an actual process for getting recommendations other than the political plums considered.
Really- all snark aside- and at the risk of beating my own personal dead horse- politics is the art of compromise. Bipartisanship, for example is not collaborating as long as the other side gives in to your position 100%.
Is the purpose for pursuing a process for BOE member selection to maximize the potential for knowlegeable, quality, representative candidates, selected by a broad spectrum of well informed citizens, with minimal political overtones? If so- there could be positive steps made in that direction by broadening and revising the PNC process. I know that it does not meet the ideal of one person-one vote espoused here, but it would have to be better than the current “committee of local politicians” scenario that is now being touted by the same folks who supported a “non-partisan” election. How does that in any way de-politicize this selection? Was insulation from political agendas ever really a goal? Honestly, I never heard a peep about this when an elected republican governor was in charge of the selection- and who singled handedly destroyed the PNC by completely ignoring their recommnedations. Where was the protest? But now that a despicable dem is in the drivers seat- oh noes- we can’t have THAT!
A PNC at least provided a respectable venue for groups and individuals to be informed and heard. I have to agree with Kate on this one. Little old curious doesn’t have a voice unless I have an in with the local political powers that be under this “commitee of politicians” process.
Just because we don’t get what we want, do we then endorse the antithesis? Or could we consider another path that would at least move the process in the right direction? Flame away.
Curious, the problem I have with the PNC is that it excluses too many people. It is just a group of special interest groups getting together to make recommendations. I prefer the elected route, but since we don’t have that I would rather have the politicians make the recommendations because at least we can vote THEM out of office if they make bad recommendations. At least the elected officials have to answer to the public. The special interest groups don’t answer to anyone, so I think that would be the worse case scenario.
No, The BOE doesn’t answer to anyone….That’s the worst case scenario.
Sandy- That would depend on the makeup of a “revised” PNC. My “compromise” position would be that the makeup of the PNC would be greatly expanded to include any group that wished to participate. That would provide a greater cross-section of opinion than just partisan politicians. As far as accountability goes- I am skeptical that the voters of HC will “fire” a group of county politicians based on their recommendation for the BOE. An alternate compromise might be to decrease the BOE membership term so that the expanded PNC would have more opportunity to evaluate performance and recommend continuance or replacement.
Curious I’m curious…
Do you think that this letter written with “fake letterhead” and a vote taken at a meeting that wasn’t public is cause for dismissal? Evaluation of performance is apparently very subjective because it is very difficult to get someone removed. I do agree that 5 years is too long for a term and how about the people who are on for 10?! I honestly believe they lose their perspective on what is right for the public and kick into defense mode about bad decisions. What happened to the report that was paid for on CSSRP??? By our superintendent’s admission, they were going to be talk about it. I haven’t heard ANY board member talk about it either and the students are registering for high school with a class that was universally criticized by everyone. There is 1 (and sometimes 2) board members who are willing to address the issue but that is it and our school system will just move onto something else that has nothing to do with improving student achievement but might have something to do with putting their name(s) “in the limelight.” (Listen to the rhetoric about these magnet schools and you will hear a lot of that phrase).
curious, you are so right that expecting 100% capitulation from one side is not compromise. I wish you would explain that to Mary-Dulany James. She was the only elected representative from Harford County who did not support the compromise of a partially appointed, partially elected school board in the last General Assembly session.
For the record, the recent push for an elected school board arose when the PNC officially disbanded in 2006, during the Ehrlich administration. Petitions, e-mails and letters were sent to legislators at the time and continued after the election of Governor O’Malley. Candidates for local office from both political parties reported school board elections were a priority for the voters they spoke to in the course of their own campaigns that year and the proposed legislation got votes from elected officials on both sides of the aisle.
School board elections are non-partisan by law, but appointments are political by nature, whether candidates are recommended by a revised PNC or by a BOE nominating commission and irrespective of which party is in power. What the commission will do is bring some transparency to the process as it currently exists until the process itself can be changed for the better.
Kate:
You are “so” on with your comments.
The CSSRP report has not been brought up at all. The report was very critical in some areas, but it appears–all will remain the same.
Come on Dr. Haas—do something!!
I’m unversed in the magnet area, but John Archer will be put at Bel Air Middle and I’m assuming Harford Tech will be taking over that space,. In the meantime, we still keep putting “magnets” all over the county while the “fuel” budget has skyrocketed, and overcrowding is unknown with BRAC coming. But all looks good–on paper.
Cindy- “Non- partisan by law” is not non-partisan in fact. It is a given that the party affiliation will become common knowlege and campaigns will be funded by party members and by single issue groups. Candidates will be endorsed from some pulpits based on their promises regarding hot button issues- evolution, book approval, family life- etc. My concern is that these narrow emotional issues will become the focus of an elected BOE rather than broader more inclusive needs.There is some rationality to having BOE members who have the independance to do what is right rather than what they are pressured to do.
Cindy- perhaps you can tell me if any compromises regarding a revised PNC process were ever broached or even considered by the pro-election lobby? I think that the revised more inclusive and binding PNC process I have described would be better than a committee of politicians. Yes- any committee would make the process more transparent- so would a PNC-but you can’t really believe that politics will not be considered when recommendations are made by politicians.
Kate- I am not in a position to question Mr.Fidler’s integrity or the authenticity of his letter. I do know that there are parameters regarding closed door meetings and if the BOE is doing something illegal it should brought to task. My thought is that they follow the rules- perhaps the rules need to be changed and that would certainly be a basis for some problem solving legislative effort. Another truth in this whole debate is the unfortunate fact that BOE members are part-time volunteers. They have full time carreers and responsibilities so they cannot in reality micro manage the system. The only solution to that is to make the positions full time and adequately paid – tax dollars oh noes! I am often reminded that sometimes ya get what ya pay for.
I know some of the folks who have served in these positions over the years and they find the job unwieldy, frustrating and thankless. And yet they persist- not as a political stepping stone- but because they care about our children’s education.
Please do not get me wrong. I understand the sentiments expressed here and I agree that some changes are in order and there are problems that are begging for solutions. I am just not sure that the ones suggested here are the best or only alternatives.