|
|
[LETTERHEAD]
August 5, 1996
AN OPEN LETTER TO
GOV. VOINOVICH
AND MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
This letter will not engender the good will of my
colleagues on the State Board of Education (SBE), but I value good government more than
camaraderie. Three problems exist: using public money for questionable activities,
discussing crucial issues at locations not convenient for the public, and attempting to
squelch First Amendment rights. SBE retreats have been hotbeds for these misdeeds.
During the August 94 retreat, members were
blindfolded and collectively tied up with rope, reportedly, to identify members with
leadership skills.
The January 95 retreat was my first after being
elected. Stated goals were priority setting and "team building." Dividing us
into two groups, the facilitators gave each person five or six cardboard puzzle pieces
from different puzzles. They instructed us not to speak, point, or otherwise show that we
needed certain pieces from one another in our group. We had thirty minutes to finish our
individual puzzles. I finished the task in two or three minutes and then struggled to
remain silent, yet, after looking at the pictures from the previous retreat, I spoke out
against spending public dollars on games. A facilitator tried to shush me. Unintimidated,
I urged our group to help the other one so we could go on with business. Our group was
admonished for breaking the rules. Puzzling rules, if the mission was team building.
Loath to attend the five-day January 96 retreat,
I went because committee minutes showed a request for the code of ethics from another
state's appointed board. My antenna up, I was not surprised when the facilitator asked us
to list attitudes and behaviors we expected of one another. Terms like respect, tolerance,
team work, and speaking with one voice were used. I asked if we were creating a code of
ethics and the answer was yes. I reasoned that an appointed or volunteer board might need
a code of ethics if they do not use some form of parliamentary procedure, but, for the
SBE, such a code would be superfluous. We have each sworn an oath to support the
Constitution and obey the law, and our meetings are governed by parliamentary law. The
issue was dropped, temporarily.
More game-playing: Approaching from opposite
sides at the same time, each team was instructed to cross a large mat that was divided
into squares and to avoid the squares that had imbedded beepers. A beep signaled the
person to retrace his steps and the team to start over. Observing from the sideline, I
could not stand the foolishness any longer; I broke the rules by putting paper on the
non-beeping squares to mark the path. As I watched two adult bodies share a space big
enough for two shoes, not four, I wondered what this had to do with public education or
public policy debate. After dinner, some board members were roped together.
Days later, the code of ethics issue resurfaced
when a member raised the noxious idea that we should "speak with one voice."
Most members seem to believe that once the Board adopts a resolution, all members must
support it, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, because it is the will of the
majority. As an elected official, it is my responsibility to speak on the behalf of those
who elected me not to be an echo of the Board. Accordingly, even if all other members vote
yes and I cast the only no vote on matters of substance, I cannot promote that to which I
am opposed, nor do I feel any obligation to remain silent.
The discussion of speaking with one voice
included the absurd notion that the Ohio Department of Education's (ODE) 500-plus
employees (the bureaucracy) and the nineteen-member State Board of Education are just one
big happy family blurring the distinction between the two and minimizing SBE's authority
to direct the ODE. No one except me seemed to reject this fallacy.
Speaking with one voice also included the notion
that members should not attend legislative hearings or otherwise influence legislation,
but should reserve those activities for ODE staff. The concern was that a legislator or
the press might regard a member, not as a citizen, but (forbid the thought), as a member
of the SBE and therefore might take heed to any comments or concerns! Nevertheless,
members are encouraged to support majority opinion, under the supervision of ODE
personnel. I immediately reacted by saying that the SBE cannot make policies that violate
the Constitution. Agitated, the same member who raised the issue asked me, "Why
not?" Incredulous that an American in public service would need to ask such a
question, I explained that I will not surrender my rights of free speech and association.
The ODE attorney remained silent throughout this heated exchange although another member
suggested that such a policy could be a public relations problem. We adjourned.
Speaking with one voice is now back on the
agenda. In preparation for the August 11-13 retreat, members have received a questionnaire
to fill out that includes "Expectations for Board Member Conduct" to see if the
majority of members hold similar expectations for the behavior of members. Any move to
establish approved behavior would be repugnant, oppressive, and thoroughly un-American.
However, a high-level ODE official just mailed us "Building the Board Team," an
article that encourages boards to establish an enforceable code of behavior "that
goes beyond parliamentary procedure . . . ." The official elaborated, saying,
"[The article] echoes many of the comments that the Board made at the January
Planning Retreat. Your discussions were right on target' regarding the work of the
Board." (Those were the discussions that discounted the First Amendment.)
The Board does not need a code of behavior. We
have Robert's Rules; the principles embodied within them, including courtesy, justice, and
impartiality to all, are fully adequate to meet our needs. Keep in mind that the 700-page
Robert's has endured for more than 100 years and that the latest revision took 10 years to
complete, so it is highly unlikely that the SBE can fashion anything of superior quality.
Retreats have been driven by the Total Quality
Management philosophy and its heavy emphasis on team building. TQM is used extensively in
the private sector, but taxpayers are not paying for it. Still, there should be a huge
difference between a corporate board and a representative body in government. In the arena
of government we must allow rational, open disagreement; it is a hallmark of civil
liberty.
The August 11-13 retreat will take place at a
remote location south of Grove City. If we are going to spend taxpayers' money, at least
the location should be readily accessible to the public, and we should focus on public
education instead of team building and behavior modification. Above all, we must resist
any temptation to muzzle the minority.
What is at stake is nothing less than good
government, the high calling of public service, personal integrity, and individual
liberty.
I look forward to receiving your letter of reply.
Respectfully,
Diana M. Fessler
(513) 845-8428
(513) 845-3550 FAX
[email protected]
cc: Members of the State Board of Education
Dr. John Goff, State Superintendent of Public Instruction |