Meltdown: a failure by all
Published 12:01 am Tuesday, August 30, 2011
By her own admission, Everett School Board member Jessica Olson is at times confrontational. Her four board colleagues, who earlier this year voted to censure her, see her as downright irritating. Her frequently antagonistic approach is hardly conducive to constructive problem solving.
Neither was the behavior of board member Kristie Dutton or board President Ed Petersen last week when they got into an altercation with Olson during a closed meeting, an incident partly captured by Olson in a video recording. Nothing can excuse the use of physical force that took place. That long-brewing tensions between adults in positions of leadership were allowed to escalate this far represents a failure on the part of all involved.
The latest spark came over an annual review of Superintendent Gary Cohn’s performance. As with many issues before the board, Olson’s view differed from those of her colleagues, and she was adamant that her minority view should be reflected in the written review. A draft review handed out by Petersen during a closed session apparently didn’t do that, and Olson, who had been recording the meeting, objected. Other board members objected to having the meeting recorded, Olson charged that the meeting was illegal, and eventually things devolved into low-level violence. Sheesh.
Olson’s approach needs work, but her main point in this case seems sound. A majority of the board may be within its rights to keep Olson’s views out of the review, but it isn’t right to do so.
She is one-fifth of a board whose primary responsibility is hiring and supervising the district’s superintendent. Like her colleagues, Olson represents citizens in a public trust. Citizens deserve to know if a school board member has serious reservations about a superintendent’s performance. It’s up to them to decide whether they’re valid.
This embarrassing chapter in school board politics, and the clear lack of trust on display, also should revive a push by the state attorney general and auditor to have closed meetings of public bodies recorded.
State law requires public officials to conduct the people’s business in the open, with very few exceptions. Those include topics that make sense to keep private, like discussions of personnel issues, real estate transactions and litigation. It’s illegal to veer away from such topics in a closed session.
Bipartisan bills introduced in recent years would have required sound recordings be made of all closed sessions. If an allegation were made of an improper discussion during a closed session, a judge could review the audio and decide. Only discussions that fall outside the Open Public Meeting Act’s exemptions could be released to the public.
Local officials lobbied successfully to kill such legislation, claiming (speciously) that recordings would be expensive to make and maintain, and that they would chill frank discussion. Everyone knows how cheap recording devices have become. As for the chilling effect, the only discussion that could be made public is an illegal one.
It’s a simple safeguard for the public’s interest; one that’s clearly needed.
