Kudos to new school trustees

After watching the school board, with some interest, for the last several months, I am pleased with the actions of the two new members. It is great to finally see some independent thought emerge from that panel. There are several things that have caught my eye and foremost is the challenge of the appointment of Ms. Quinn to the board.

Someone at the last meeting said the new trustees' challenge was nothing but a power grab. If this were true (and ignoring the legal vs. illegal issue), how would this be any different than the actions taken by the board to ensure a voting majority? If you remember, Ms. Brooks-McLachlan originally resigned effective June 30 with the new members to be sworn in on July 1. She later changed her resignation to June 6, and the board declared a vacancy and voted for Ms. Quinn to be her replacement at the same meeting. She also stated to The Press it was "her seat" and it should be staffed with someone who shared her own opinions and values. I believe declaring a vacancy when none existed, was the ultimate power grab to ensure the new trustees would not have a voice in naming her replacement.

On June 1, Ms. Seymour and Mr. Hamilton requested, by writing to the board, a delay in appointing a new trustee until they were seated. The board's response was silence as they proceeded with their own "power grab" resulting in Ms. Quinn's appointment. How can the board vote on a replacement when no vacancy existed? If a vacancy did exist, there would have been only four votes cast, not five. Common sense and the plain language of Idaho Code section 33-504 both say that the board can't declare a vacancy before one exists. The board's process was invalid. Even if a judge doesn't agree and allows Ms. Quinn to remain on the board, at least the process was questioned, which is the kind of thinking we need on the board. The board's refusal to consider waiting for the new trustees, which I consider an ethical issue, resulted in the challenge.

If the appointment is invalid, then Ms. Quinn's votes are illegal and abstaining from voting is the proper course of action for the new trustees. Regardless of Wendell Wardell's claims of "terrible representation," this course of action was well thought out. It doesn't matter if the new trustees voted or not, as the outcome of all votes would have been the same. They were all rubber stamped by the usual majority.

I have seen other encouraging signs of independent thinking by the new trustees as well. One example was Mr. Hamilton's questioning the ongoing costs of a new athletic building to be built by the CHS Booster Club and then deeded over to the school. A free building sounds nice and should pass muster by the board but it is wise to question the continuing future costs of such a gift. Incredibly, Chief Finance Officer Steve Briggs could not answer Mr. Hamilton's question by quantifying those future costs. The other three trustees blindly went along with the idea until it was questioned, resulting in a motion to postpone any action until the Chief Financial Officer can provide a dollar estimate on maintaining the building. This is what I expect from our school board; they need to ask questions and think things through.

There were also questions about the school lunch finger scanning program and a question on the board's idea about the policy regarding bringing weapons to school. The old board thought some leeway should be shown to those students who voluntarily reported accidentally bringing a knife to school. But according to the schools' attorney, state law demands mandatory expulsion for any knife with a blade over 2 or 3 inches long. Since board policy can't overrule state law the idea wasn't thought out well by the old board.

So what do we do now? Do we suppress the new trustees and allow the board to continue as it has in the past? I seem to remember the old board enforcing a rule that forbade the public from speaking at the meetings. This new rule was enacted before the actual board policy was ever changed to prevent public input, and then later rescinded, and now the policy change has been dropped. Is this how we want to operate? Or do we want a group of trustees that has a more transparent logical approach to how it does business. I think this is the agenda that the new trustees want and I believe the new trustees bring a fresh sense of professionalism to the Board.

I say, let's give the challenge time to run its course. If it is upheld, then the new trustees will be vindicated in questioning the tactics of the old board. If it is not, then what will have been lost? Certainly none of the actions passed by the board would be affected. Would there be some discord on the board? I think probably so, but I think it is present and would have been whether or not Ms. Quinn's appointment was challenged. At least it will be decided, one way or the other, if Ms. Quinn's appointment was legal. This challenge doesn't question Ms. Quinn or her qualifications, just the process implemented to seat her on the board.

Finally, I would like to see some of the hateful rhetoric toned down. I've even seen an Aryan Nation reference in the blogs by someone who supports the old board. This kind of talk serves no purpose other than to make the accuser look foolish. We should be able to have an adult discussion without the name calling.

Shelley Woodard is retired and has lived in Coeur d'Alene for 13 years.