Seattle Times Article from Friday 6_26

[ME]

Seattle School Board: Voting blind
The Seattle School Board should not vote on matters they don't fully
grasp, especially when it comes to financial decisions, such as a
$750,000 consulting contract for duties still largely undefined.

THE Seattle School Board needs to be reminded of its responsibility to
perform due diligence on every policy initiative requiring its
approval.

This was not done when the board acquiesced to Superintendent Maria
Goodloe-Johnson's request to spend $756,000 on a consultant to help
revamp high school curricula.

The money is not the public's. It does not come from the same pot the
district uses for teachers and other classroom needs. It is a grant
secured by the district's philanthropic partner, the Alliance for
Education. In the context of the district's $556 million operating
budget, the contract is small.

None of that diminishes, even a bit, the fiduciary responsibility
board members have. The source of money matters less than the need for
the board to clearly understand the intent of every nickel the
district spends.

The board's 4-3 vote for the contract came at its June 16 meeting.
Every board member had a question about the contract. Some had
several. Answers were wrapped in educational jargon so thick it may
have been tempting to approve the contract simply to halt district
staffers from offering more pedagogical statements.

Board member Steve Sundquist acknowledges he and his colleagues were
not up to speed on the contract. Yet, he voted for it. Compelling his
vote was a sense of trust that the superintendent's vision on this —
while murky to him and his colleagues — was worth following. Board
member Harium Martin-Morris had a different take; without clear and
convincing evidence the contract was necessary, he voted no.

Absent clear understanding across the board, the vote should have been
postponed.

Board President Michael DeBell acknowledged the board's concerns and
told them he shared some of them. Then he voted yes, joined by
Sundquist, Cheryl Chow and Peter Maier. Martin-Morris, Mary Bass and
Sherry Carr voted no.

The motion passed. The confusion persists.

Voting blind may work this time. The superintendent appears to know
what she is doing. But the board cannot relax its vigilance. Its
credibility and public trust are at stake.