Problems with leadership at WISD
There are serious problems with leadership in the Wharton Independent School District.
One of the most
important duties of a journalist is to cover local governmental bodies. Whether you think of
it this way or not, school districts are the largest governmental units
in most any community. They are funded entirely by tax dollars and in
fact make up the largest portion of your property tax bill. They are governed
by elected officials – the trustees who make up the school board.
Please allow me to
pull back the curtain and show you some of the stuff I’ve encountered
while attempting to simply cover the news at WISD.
My first
example involves the upcoming election for three positions on the
school board.
We have been running
candidate profiles so that you, the voters, can know something about the
candidates before you cast your vote. That is just basic meat-and-potatoes
local journalism.
I requested copies of
the candidates’ election filing papers – clearly a public record –
from the district so that I could get contact information for each of the eight
candidates. But so far my requests have been denied.
Superintendent
Michael O’Guin’s new secretary is in charge of elections
for the district and, with the backing of Deputy Superintendent Denise Ware,
they have insisted that I file my request under the Texas Public Information
Act and directed me to a link on the district’s website. I did
as requested, only to find out later that the link goes to the wrong
place.
Since then I have had
an exchange of emails with district officials. Now they are seeking
an attorney general’s opinion to determine if they must provide the
information to me. I know for certain that the information is public and not
confidential. I’ve made this request several times in the past with other
governmental entities and have had no problem getting the information.
While all this is
going on with the school district, the City of Wharton answered my request in
less than five minutes. I submit this to you as an example of a failure in
leadership. I have written in the past about difficulties getting public
information from the district and clearly the situation has not improved.
In
the meantime I did my best to contact the candidates by
other means. Five of the eight have responded and provided requested
information for their candidate profiles. I have no way of knowing if the
other three received my request and ignored me or whether they did not receive
it. This wouldn’t be a problem if the district didn’t withhold public
information from me.
Problems at the top
I have attended about
17 monthly meetings of the WISD Board of Trustees. In that time,
President Curtis Evans has presided over all but a couple. I have yet
to see him run a meeting where he hasn’t made some kind of
procedural gaff. It’s usually something minor, like inadvertently
skipping an agenda item or calling for a vote before a motion has been made.
He is frequently
being corrected on these things and sometimes they just slip by. These are
minor things that the public does not see, but they happen all the
time.
That’s normally not
an issue, but there is more. In the April 22 edition of the paper, Evans ran an
ad in which he called out his opponent, Teri Mathis, for mailing a flyer that
had the “Paid Political Ad by Teri Mathis for School Board” disclaimer on
it.
In his ad he said,
“This statement is problematic as school boards in the state are deemed
non-partisan.” His implication was that the disclaimer was not
necessary. His own ad had to have the “paid political ad” disclaimer on it
because it is required by law. He does not seem to understand this.
Additionally, both in
his ad and in his candidate profile in the next edition, he said he was
running for the WISD Board of Directors. It appears he doesn’t know the name of
the board he leads. He’s a trustee, not a director.
Yes, these are all
minor things, but there are a lot of them. And if he can’t get the small stuff
right, what does that say about the important issues?
Meeting agendas
Evans and
Superintendent O’Guin put together the agenda for each monthly meeting. Most of
the time I’m in disagreement about items placed in the consent agenda. The
consent agenda is a grouping of items that are considered routine and
uncontroversial and are lumped together for a single vote. I’m of the opinion
that too many things are placed in the consent agenda that require more
public scrutiny and discussion by the board.
O’Guin disagrees and
feels more items should be moved from the regular agenda to the consent agenda.
He is backed by Tony Williams of the Region 3 Education Service Center, who is
leading the board through the Lone Star Governance program aimed at improving
board leadership and student outcomes.
At the last meeting,
Williams wanted to know why the board didn’t better utilize the consent agenda
to save time at board meetings (never mind that board meetings have doubled in
length since LSG started). O’Guin pointed the finger at the newspaper (me) and
two unnamed board members for insisting that certain items needed more
discussion in public.
On a couple of
occasions O’Guin has told me that board meetings are not public meetings but
meetings that are held in public. I believe that as a governmental taxing
entity with an elected board that the meetings are very much public and
that citizens have a right to know, investigate, and question each
action the board takes.
Williams noted that
there seems to be a trust issue between the district and the public. No
kidding! If these are small-potato problems it makes you wonder that the whole
stew looks like.
Joe Southern is managing editor of the Wharton
Journal-Spectator and the East Bernard Express. He can be reached at
news@journal-spectator.com.