It is astonishing that Lebanon residents seem to have elected to the School Board some members who appear oblivious to or ignorant of two of the fundamental obligations of elected officials in a democracy: to openly and frankly declare their views; and to transact the public’s business in public.
This harsh judgment is prompted by news that earlier this month board members proposed deliberating behind closed doors when they choose a replacement for their colleague Erin Madory, who is resigning effective July 1. While Superintendent Joanne Roberts has advised the board that questioning of candidates to replace Madory and the formal vote to appoint her replacement must be done in public, staff writer Tim Camerato reported last week that in the past the board has sometimes deliberated in private and sometimes in public while exercising its power to appoint a new member to fill a vacancy until the next election.
Board member Richard Milius suggested at the board’s May 8 meeting that the ideal way to go about things would be reach agreement in closed session and emerge in public with one candidate in mind.
“The problem that we had last time was that not only did we have the vote in public,” said Milius, “but we were counseled that we needed to have our deliberations in public, which was extraordinarily awkward.”
Awkward maybe, but, as some critics have pointed out, a requirement if government is to be accountable to the people. In this instance, the School Board is exercising a function reserved in all other instances to the voters themselves — choosing a member of the School Board — so it’s all the more important that city residents understand the reasons for the selection.
Moreover, residents have a reason and a right to know the thinking of the board’s individual members, not only their collective judgment. One wonders why the board failed to grasp that message back in March when voters overwhelmingly approved a requirement that the warrant for the annual district meeting carry information about how the board voted on the individual budget and warrant articles being presented for approval, a practice that had been discontinued.
For her part, board Chairwoman Wendy Hall emailed Camerato last week that the plan now is to hold interviews and deliberations in public. Symptomatic of the board’s larger problem, though, is that Hall declined a request for an interview to explain the outcome; board members Mary Davidson, Tom Harkins, Jenica Nelan, Milius and Madory joined her in ducking the opportunity to comment.
This reticence is perhaps because the School Board adheres to a fundamentally anti-democratic procedure that has been adopted by a few public bodies in other Upper Valley communities, such as the Thetford Selectboard and the Hartford School Board. They oblige members to refer all questions to the chairman or chairwoman of their respective boards, or to confine themselves to parroting the outcome of decisions without amplification. What these entities fail to recognize is that political bodies in a democracy are not intended to function in unanimity and not intended to speak with one voice. That is the way of the Politburo in the former Soviet Union.
The American belief is that the best course of action is derived from the clash and competition of opposing ideas, vigorously expressed in public. And debate doesn’t end when a board has reached a decision. Not only do board members have no obligation to remain silent about a decision with which they disagree, they have an affirmative duty to make clear to their constituents why they parted company with their colleagues. After all, continuing dissent is often the prelude to overturning decisions that weren’t wise in the first place.
A gag rule on members speaking outside of meetings is also at cross purposes with the obligation of the press to fulfill its constitutional function to inform the public. Officials may not like to answer reporters’ questions, but it is part of the job of being accountable to their constituents.
It sometimes seems that as soon as the practice of open government was assigned a trendy name — transparency — elected and appointed officials at all levels of government began to talk the talk, while avoiding walking the walk. The voters should make them do so.