Good afternoon, all.
I’m still reaching out. But I keep getting my hand slapped.
My offer of assistance/openness to the Athens-Clarke County School District stands with regard to the new superintendent, central office staff, principal, teachers and parents. To their credit, in less than a week since I wrote my column, I have heard from many of you voicing support and promising to help with the process.
In fact, two parents have started sending me “good news” from their kids’ schools. We had three or four of their items in today’s newspaper. No, they are not Earth-shattering, front-page items for most of us. But to the kids listed, it’s a big deal. So why not carve out a little space. Cheers and thanks to those parents.
But that doesn’t mean everyone wants to play.
To be honest, I have written off most of the Clarke County Board of Education’s old guard as an uncooperative mess. I know. I know. I hate to admit that, but their disconnect and defensiveness have grown so large, I opt to focus on areas where we can build relationships and not rehash the same tired excuses over and over again. I was happy to see some competition and new blood last election. Look forward to more next time.
But know their stubbornness doesn’t keep me from trying.
That’s why instead of laughing him off, I wrote board member John Knight this afternoon after reading some of his e-mails/postings to a parents’ listserv. In his first tome, dated Feb. 5, Knight writes:
“… As our sophomoric editors at the Banner-Herald should know, we are in full compliance with every single aspect of the bill that Senator Cowsert is bringing forward. I would look forward to the pay raise that it allows, though. I surely would like to bring forth a bill reminding Senator Cowsert and every other member of the Georgia delegation, just as this bill reminds us as school board members, that the members of the Georgia Legislature are in the business only of passing laws in the public's best interest, not spending most of their days in meetings with special interest groups that are curring their favor. …”
Zing. Of course, I would get my back up as well if I were a member of this school board and a bill got dropped because of my board’s ineptitude and questionable ethics. That’s sort of like waking up one day to discover our state senator has dropped a “Jason Winders Cannot Parallel Park Bill.” A little embarrassing.
In this case, Knight got all worked up over this portion of editorial “School board bill offers near-poetic guidance” which reads:
“… In addition, the bill would clearly set the principle that a school board’s ‘fundamental role’ is to ‘establish policy for the local school system,’ and that neither boards nor their individual members are to ‘micromanage the superintendent in executing his or her duties.’
Beyond that, the bill would set ethical standards for board members, such as prohibiting them from using, or attempting to use, their positions to get jobs for family members or others. The bill also provides a means for school boards to police themselves and enact sanctions, up to and including removal from office, against any member found in violation of ethical standards. …”
Yes, John, where in the world would the community get the feeling that this kind of thing would take place? On our school board, no less. Except, off the top of my head, maybe here or here or here. Maybe even here.
But then again, I guess it is all about the grandchildren.
I consider Knight a stand-up guy. And as I wrote Knight this afternoon, instead of taking shots across a listserv (many of which I get copies of from folks all over the place, keep those coming by the way), maybe he could give me a call if he has a problem. My lines – and door – are always open.
Knight, who I often agree with (unlike many of his boardmates), proudly doesn’t speak to the press because we get it wrong. If that’s his story, fine. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact when his fingers hit the keyboard he cannot help but blame and spin. Listen, I realize some of the comments I read from Knight (as well as other board members) wouldn’t fly in an open forum of a letter to the editor or guest column.
You folks would tear them and their weak excuses/reasoning apart. I know that. They know that.
The second Knight e-mail/posting, dated Jan. 29, refers to the story “School board likes Lanoue” which says, “… Board members voted 7-0 in Lanoue's favor. John Knight, a District 5 board member, abstained, saying the meeting was not advertised long enough for public input. Board member David Nunnally was absent. …”
Knight took issue with that characterization. He wrote:
“… As always, The Banner-Herald managed to make several errors in a very short piece. For that reason, as I explained to Ryan Blackburn, I never speak to their reporters -- I involve the community to the maximum extent possible in every thing that I do in Board matters and I let that speak for itself.
If I try to clear up every single error in this article, I will sound defensive and small, so I have only one very important thing to say, and I ask that anyone who has any questions please email me and I will answer anything that you ask that is not privileged information.
First, I did not abstain from this vote. My exact words were ‘I refuse to vote at all in this matter based on the fact that this Board meeting was not advertised as a VOTING meeting in violation of Article 50, Section 14 of the Code of Georgia Annoted [the Open Meetings Act].’
This refusal to cast ANY vote at all is, to me, a refusal to participate in the matter whatsoever, and is very different than casting a vote of abstention-- which gives the appearance of indifference to what is a very important matter. As your representative, I am anything but indifferent. I put countless hours of research into this matter and I will continue to work very hard on your behalf.”
Sorry, John, I guess we should have wrote, “John Knight skipped another important, even controversial vote.” He abstained – or was it refused to vote – last April when the board had to clean up another of their famous messes voting 7-1 to settle a reverse-discrimination lawsuit with the former employee, Suzanne Kennedy. He was absent for all five votes on the controversial ethics policy. He did make the school uniform vote, however.
OK, I kid Knight, a good guy who does work hard at this gig and for this community, a little here. But the point stays that righteous indignation only goes so far. He’s an attorney, so he’s advanced degreed in righteous indignation with a concentration in blowhardedness.
Simply state, John, if we make an error, let me know. That’s what I do. But this is the type of silliness I hope we can move beyond. When it comes to everyone else, it’s just a matter of opening up communication and letting folks know I’m here to help. With the board, well, just keep turning them over and eventually we’ll get folks interested in solutions rather than games and blame.
Despite this silliness from Knight, I continue to extend my hand to this district – all members of it – to reflect a true, accurate picture of it. The Good. The Bad. And the downright silly.
* * *
Take five minutes out of your day to join Executive Editor Jason Winders here each morning. Stand up and be counted.
- Jason Winders's blog
- Login or register to post comments
From the Sergeant at Arms:
This refusal to cast ANY vote at all is, to me, a refusal to participate in the matter whatsoever, and is very different than casting a vote of abstention--
Knight's comments probably reflect on the overall educational level in the CCSD. There is no such thing as "casting a vote of abstention". Only "yes" or "no" votes are "cast", and not voting at all is an abstention.
What can I say but that John is flat out un-categorically wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
And Wrong again.
I offer this bit of guidance from the Municipal Technical Advisory Service:
The chair should not ask for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call are meaningless. To “abstain” means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if “abstentions” are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect.
I further offer this bit from The Official Roberts Rules of Order Web Site:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."
In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.][emphasis added by yours truly]
So John's little bit of sanctimonious righteousness is entirely misplaced.
I don't want to have to think about the mental conflict in being called upon to defend an editor of the ABH. The shame. Oh, the shame.
Let's face it: The reason a
Let's face it: The reason a lot of people want the CC BOE "locked" into ethical guidelines that keep them far away from the day-to-day running of the schools is because we lack confidence in them. The management side wants to say this stance is "more professional." There are quite a few lobbying groups that support this under guises such as "better government." Unfortunately, such strictures, in a crisis, can prevent elected officials from "interfering" in the way things are run; and in a crisis, it's often the status quo that needs changing most!
At the school board, the local M &C, and at the state and federal levels of government, some would argue that we need more oversight and scrutiny by elected leaders, not less. While I understand why the local BOE is not to be trusted -- the real way to fix this is not through the Lilliputian scheme of ethics guidelines and bureaucratic rules and polices which place them in a box. The voters need to get out their magnifying glasses, gather the facts, and elect leaders that will act responsibly. Ironically, while leadership is needed most, some insiders are furiously trying to game the system to keep things running the way that benefits them most. How ironic is it, too, that some in the press miss the larger picture and actually throw fuel on the fire that's, in the aggregate, largely a signal for "full steam ahead!"?
Finally, I know that many critics, who think they've drummed-up some success (in isolating certain public leaders), are not about to give up one inch of their advantage! OK! What's really needed, though, is enough faith in the ability of public leaders to actually change things and make them better. That's actually the ONLY way out of this mess (at the BOE, M&C, state and federal levels). It's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing: People will have faith in elected leaders when they enact smart policy; poor leadership undermines faith in the ability to find real solutions and faith in the political process. Somehow or another, the voting public is going to have to find enough faith in the system to jump-start the electoral process. (Maybe that's why those parents are sending you those 'good news' items!!)