Position misconstrued

I have no argument if the policy concerning the rights of the school board president needs to be changed. I am speaking as an individual who is a member of the school board, not as a representative of the entire board and not as the school board president (although it is hard to separate out those positions).

I am not trying to persuade my fellow board members on an issue. I am trying to clarify the miscommunication in the recent article and editorial concerning school board policy that was printed in the Frontiersman (Nov. 19).

Working in the field of counseling, I am more aware of miscommunication than others might be. As Father Michael Oleksa relates in his lectures, communication is approximate and never perfect. We may not get all of the nuances or understand that we are talking about different topics. The topic of the board president’s role is more complicated than was discussed in the newspaper and there are many more issues at stake when one looks to change policies that have been in place for a long time. What are the unintended consequences?

I was on a different page than the reporter when interviewed and I apologize for misunderstanding the questions. My frame of reference was on the addition of the standing rules and not on the actual place in the policy that states that the president has the rights of any member of the board. The second standing rule, passed last year, loosened the interpretation of the past “tradition” of not allowing the president to speak on an item for debate. Although it was noted in policy that the president had the ability to speak, he or she did not do so unless the gavel was handed off. I know. I did so often in my previous tenure as board president.

The actual policy reads: “The president shall have all the rights of any member of the board, including the right to move, second, discuss and vote on all questions before the board.” That particular policy has been in place at least for 12 years. The policy book I was given when I first became a member had the wording as it is today and marked as “Adopted 09/06/95.”

Robert’s Rules states in the 10th Edition (2000), on page 432: “An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office, and does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member.”

Since I have been on the school board it has never been the custom of the president to make a motion, or second a motion, without handing off the gavel. That is the custom. The persons who have been president while I have been on the board have called on members to make motions such as, “The chair would entertain a motion for approval of the agenda.” Also, presidents have had limited involvement in the discussion of a motion from the position of chair.

Kenai, Fairbanks, and Anchorage school boards all have statements in policy that reflect the president has rights as a voting and debating member of the body. Kenai’s states that, “The president shall have all of the rights of any member of the board …”

People who have been on different types of boards and governmental bodies may have learned to operate on a different level. The school board is not the same as a board of directors of a business, a city council or a nonprofit agency. The tasks are somewhat different and the focus is different. We all belong to the same district so we cooperate in the mission of the Mat-Su Borough School District. We do not need to fight for our turf because we are working to do what is best for all of our community’s children. Our board is a positive working group. The different personalities and perspectives are needed for debate and discussion so that “groupthink” is not a danger in our deliberations.

Sarah Welton

Mat-Su