A New Broom Sweeps Clean: Board of Education elections

by Frederick Stichnoth
September 12, 2010 


Board of Education members and senior MCPS administrators met in semi-private work session August 26, 2010 to consider criteria for setting Board meeting agendas. I have never seen such passionate engagement by and among the members, striving to work better together as a Board, in tacit tension with the administration. This drama seems connected with Phil Kauffman's meet and greet on behalf of the four members running for reelection (Brandman, Docca, Durso, O'Neill), Laura Berthiaume's endorsement of Mike Durso, and the election sign advocating this slate of four incumbent Board members. 


The Examiner's Leah Fabel reported July 18, 2010, the Board's near unity against bringing Superintendent Weast back. Board member Laura Berthiaume's July 25, 2010 Washington Post op-ed piece likewise opposed renewal of his contract. 


These articles voice the Board's complaint with Dr. Weast: imperial attitude, uncompromising, behind closed doors, politically charged, bullying tactics, lack of openness about major decisions, cozy relationship with union leadership. According to one anonymous County official, "He's diabolical. He thinks he's Machiavelli." Ms. Berthiaume also expressed wariness of "a fierce, resolute wall of angry staff." 


The complaint derives from a power disparity. Ms. Berthiaume states: "What the critics miss is who really controls the school system: the superintendent and the entrenched, unaccountable bureaucracy, who make almost all the real decisions."  What about the Board? "In fact, the board does not have even the power to insist on turning out fully literate graduates when the bureaucracy has these other rabbits to chase. From the administration's view, a teacher revolt would be a particular problem in a bureaucracy that prizes control.  In the balance of power between the board of education and the bureaucracy, the superintendent and his staff hold all the cards. They outwit, outlast and outplay."


Dr. Weast is substantially responsible for the well-being, present and future, of our children. He directs a large, unionized workforce, and operates in a highly-regulated environment and a challengingly diverse community. He is an integral player in the State and County government, and County business, power milieu. If he were not Machiavelli -- a masterful operator -- he could not do the job. Does the Board expect that he will attempt the job with one arm unilaterally tied behind his back? 

Ms. Berthiaume perceives a separate, threatening, power center in the bureaucracy. It does no good to protest that this bureaucracy "prizes control" that is the nature of bureaucracy itself. 


Then what of the Board? Maryland law allocates substantial power to the "Board" on paper. All the Board must supply is leadership, to seize and to execute. Admission that the Superintendent and bureaucracy "outwit, outlast, outplay" is a confession of leadership default. 


For example, on June 23, 2010 Board President O'Neil and Vice President Barclay assured that the 48 hours granted by the Superintendent was more than enough time, prior to Board approval, to review the Pearson online integrated curriculum contract: a laughable statement that subordinates the Board to Dr. Weast's demeaning dispensation. Mike Durso and Laura Berthiaume voted against the Pearson contract because of the truncated review allotment; Ms. Berthiaume praises Durso's vote as "remarkable." To call such votes "remarkable" is to reveal the rarity of Board good judgment and independent action. 


Earlier, on May 12, 2009, Ms. O'Neill referred to parents who sought greater involvement with school improvement planning as "pain-in the-asses." Mr. Barclay said that school improvement team members had to be "team players," who "know how to agree to disagree." This recommends that community stakeholders display to the Board the same untoward deference as is shown by the Board to Dr. Weast and the bureaucracy; and inflicts on the community the same imperial disdain as is imposed by the Superintendent on the Board.  "Kiss up, kick down"(as was said of John Bolton). 


The passion over intra-Board agenda setting, the banding together as a slate: it is the dream fantasy of the subservient oppressed. 


Now Board members, those up for reelection and those not, would salvage their besieged circle to select a new Superintendent. Their dream Superintendent will be collegial, and Board members will flourish in regained power and self-respect. 

We no more need a milquetoast Superintendent than we need a Board that would sacrifice our interests for its second chance. This Board has proven its dysfunction and embraced it. As the biggest loser of the Weast regime, its members are at the end of their line. 

It is time for us to sweep the slate clean and renew our search for political leaders who will exercise judgment and power to represent the community interest.