Once the cat is out, it can't go back

Frontiersman editorial board

The Mat-Su School Board recently approved Superintendent Pat Chesbro's contract through a divided vote.

While we applaud the contract approval and feel Chesbro has fulfilled the duties of her station well, we found one of the contract discussions troubling.

During the meeting, a Colony High English teacher began to read a letter addressed to Chesbro. The letter, which had been signed by 47 people, expressed concern over the administration's search for a new Colony High principal. Chesbro objected to the reading of the letter, stating that it was a private letter addressed to her alone, although it had been copied to all board members.

The reader of the letter argued that, as its authors, she and others who had signed it had the right to read it into public record. But board president Dan Contini, responding to the superintendent's objections, halted the reading of the letter. According to a 1995 board policy, people cannot orally complain or make charges against any district employee, including the superintendent. Such complaints must instead be submitted as written testimony.

Timing may play a big part in what happened, as the board was dealing with a highly charged issue and may have been trying to nip a potentially inflammatory situation in the bud. However, their actions did little to dampen the emotions of those gathered, as the idea of corking public testimony only served to flare those emotions further.

Board policy or no board policy, when a letter from members of the public has been sent to public officials regarding one of those public officials, it's quite a stretch to call that letter a private document. To claim that the letter, because it discusses a personnel matter, is private would be akin to letting the proverbial cat out of the bag and attempting to cram it back in. It's simply too late for such an attempt.

That's not to say the board policy is completely out of line. Surely, audience comments during an average school board meeting may not be the proper time to discuss a parent's personal problems with a teacher or principal. And every school board meeting should not be gummed up with individuals' frustrations with the superintendent.

However, when the superintendent's contract is an advertised item on the meeting's agenda, it only makes sense that audience comments pertaining to the agenda item should be allowed.

The position of superintendent is a highly public one, and one that is subject to much public scrutiny. The superintendent's boss is a group of elected school board members and, therefore, Mat-Su voters.

When these same voters take the time to pen a letter regarding policy decisions to these elected officials, it certainly is a matter of public record.

Not allowing the document to be read makes the board appear controlling and power-hungry, which is not a good look for a normally balanced board undergoing stressful times.