I’m struggling with this pseudo-controversy all over the news last week about San Diego Unified School District superintendent Terry Grier spending $350 on a dinner in Washington, D.C. for himself, two others from his district staff, and three school board members.
Marsha Sutton is an education writer.
The six were in D.C. on school district business, and this $350 dinner, along with other travel expenses, may have been charged to the wrong accounts. Specifically, Grier may have dipped into a pot of federal money meant exclusively for low-income students, to pay for his travel expenses and lobbying efforts. The amount in dispute is reportedly about $2,000.
No question that the $2,000 needs to be charged to the correct account. But some perspective is needed. Two thousand dollars is less than .001 percent of the district’s total budget.
Yes, I understand - $2,000 here, $2,000 there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. And there is the principle of the thing, to be sure.
But the bigger problem that shouts out at me is that we have three trustees sitting around a dinner table with their superintendent, all discussing … what? What are they discussing?
What could they possibly be talking about but school district business? Unless they are incredibly gifted at self-surveillance and friendly restraint, they’ve got to be gabbing - at least in part - about their schools, budgets and education policy.
The laws that prohibit a majority of trustees from meeting as a group without public notice is one of the most important restrictions placed on governmental agencies.
The intent of these regulations is to deny elected officials the sneaky advantage of trading votes, fixing contracts, setting agendas and choreographing other questionable acts that amount to collusion. It keeps things fair (in theory) and protects public interests.
Even special circumstances that allow closed-door meetings away from the public eye - such as personnel matters, real property negotiations, labor contracts and the like - require prior public notice.
How well should elected representatives of the people in group settings be trusted to self-regulate their conversations?
I’ve sat near clusters of people at annual school board conventions and overheard snippets from nearby tables where three (or more) school board members from the same districts across the state and nation chatted casually about better ways to negotiate with teachers’ unions or how a particular accounting practice might impact the bottom line.
It seems harmless for trustees at conventions to share information garnered from informal sessions and lectures, but I found it disturbing the way ideas were being shared among board members, essentially in private (except for eavesdropping reporters lurking about).
It defies logic that this little D.C. dinner was strictly social and that no school district business was discussed. At a minimum, the appearance of impropriety makes the gathering suspect.
So I’m less troubled by the measly cost of this dinner tab than I am by the fact that three trustees and a superintendent were all sitting at the same table at the same time - presumably without public notification. And unless they were discussing gardening or the weather, they just shouldn’t do that - no matter who is paying the bill.
Marsha Sutton is a freelance education writer who covers education issues in San Diego County. She can be reached at: SuttComm@san.rr.com.
Tags: SDNN
Comment by: John Doe Posted: June 18, 2009, 3:18 pm
Relax! Is just a dinner! Find some real news!
Comment by: Marsha Sutton Posted: June 18, 2009, 6:48 pm
I would respectfully disagree, John Doe. Any time three or more school board members get together, even casually, there is the potential for collusion. I’m less concerned about which bucket of money paid for the dinner than I am with the conversation that took place. I don’t really care if they met at McDonald’s for a cup of coffee instead of a fancy restaurant; the fact is that they met.
Comment by: OB mom Posted: June 19, 2009, 9:41 am
Normally I would agree with the three board member rule, but here we had two from the “three musketeer” side and the obvious outsider to that group, Nakamura. I doubt there was much collusion going on there. Nakamura sees things much differently than Barrera and Jackson.
Comment by: Marsha Sutton Posted: June 19, 2009, 11:33 am
The three board members who dined together with Supt. Grier were board president Shelia Jackson, Katherine Nakamura and John de Beck.