It’s too soon to say we made a mistake at the polls: The latest edition of our School Board has been working together for only a few weeks.
But there’s already cause for us to be concerned, even worried, by what we’ve seen from this group thus far.
At the very least, we should be disappointed, given the high hopes that accompanied the election of its three newest members, all of whom campaigned on transparency and toughness, promising to hold their superintendent publicly accountable for his actions.
The previous board failed miserably to do so, too often acquiescing, meekly embracing flawed proposals and tolerating wrongheaded decisions that resulted in wasted money, damaged prestige and unnecessary legal battles.
This board was expected to do better.
Yet, when confronted with its first significant challenge – the suspension, investigation and reinstatement of Carter Morrison, the assistant superintendent of finance – the new board shrunk from its responsibility, demanding no public answers from the superintendent who accused him of wrongdoing and offering no explanation to the community.
That’s not nearly good enough, despite that fact that Morrison, thrown under the school bus by his boss, decided to resign after being reinstated earlier this month.
Maybe the board members are hoping this storm will pass, dissipate into the holiday air and be forgotten as the calendar turns to 2019, especially with Morrison moving to the private sector.
Maybe they think the good news – the recently released high school graduation rates, which improved noticeably – will overshadow the bad news.
That’s not going to happen.
This was a very public scandal in which Schools Superintendent Mark Rendell in July accused Morrison, his finance chief, of improperly transferring $2.3 million from the district’s general fund into 12 school accounts without Rendell’s knowledge, direction or permission.
As a result, Morrison was suspended with pay for nearly five months, receiving more than $48,000 in salary during his absence, while an out-of-town law firm investigated Rendell’s allegations.
The investigation, concluded in November, found that Morrison “in no way intended to undermine the superintendent” but was guilty of “very poor judgment” and a “breach of trust,” prompting Rendell to recommend Morrison be demoted to transportation coordinator.
Rendell foolishly tried to sneak Morrison’s demotion past the public at the board’s Nov. 20 meeting, placing it on the consent agenda, where it was unlikely to draw scrutiny.
However, board newcomer Mara Schiff noticed what was happening and made Morrison’s demotion a separate item to be discussed publicly. That discussion was put off until the Dec. 11 meeting and, shortly before the meeting began, Rendell removed it from the agenda.
Instead, Rendell told the board Morrison was being reinstated as head of finance, offering no public explanation, saying only that the move was in the best interest of the school district.
Which tells us nothing.
Apparently, though, the board members were satisfied with Rendell’s reasoning – because none of them demanded any further explanation for his reversal, which proved to be moot when Morrison resigned the next day.
We shouldn’t be satisfied.
Not only should we demand to know what happened, why and how, but we also should expect our School Board to want to provide those answers.
Too many relevant questions remain unanswered, including:
nWhy didn’t the board publicly question the credibility of the findings of an investigation conducted by the same statewide law firm School Board Attorney Suzanne D’Agresta hired to represent Rendell in August, creating a clear conflict of interest?
nWhy hasn’t the board publicly expressed any concerns about Morrison’s claim in his written statement to the investigator that he tried to explain to Rendell the series of beyond-his-control circumstances that prompted him to manipulate the budget numbers?
nWhy didn’t the board publicly question Rendell’s decision to reinstate Morrison, whom he publicly accused of mismanaging district funds and who the investigator cited for poor judgment and a breach of trust?
nWhy hasn’t the board publicly discussed Rendell’s role, particularly his interaction with Morrison, throughout the budget process?
nWhy didn’t the board hold Rendell accountable for his actions and demand that he publicly apologize for the damage done to Morrison’s reputation, especially after determining that Morrison’s sins were so minor that he deserved to be reinstated?
As taxpayers, we have a right to ask those questions.
As our elected officials, the board members have an obligation to answer them.
And if they’re really as committed to transparency as they claimed during their campaigns – if they expect us to believe that they’ll be as tough as they promised they would be in holding their superintendent accountable – they should want to answer them.
But, hey, it’s early.
Three of the five board members have been on the job for less than two months, and maybe there’s a learning curve. Besides, they inherited this Morrison mess from the previous board. So don’t give up on them yet.
Everyone makes mistakes.
Let’s hope we didn’t.
Comments: