Trustee Appointment & Election Ahead
Cascade has never had a choice - until now! (a 4-5 minute read)
Dear Friend and Community Member,
There are three seats on the school board in question: two seats are up for election and one seat will be appointed at the next regular school board meeting—which has been moved to September 15th at 6:00pm. I’d like to bring to your attention the impending appointment. Afterward, I’ll provide a quick update about the upcoming election.
Appointments are not uncommon on our school board. Appointments are neither good nor bad, but they come with challenges. In my mind, the greatest challenge is this: how does a board select the incoming trustee who best represents the interests of the public, particularly when not one sitting trustee was elected by the public? After all, this is the primary purpose of representative government: to incorporate the collective voice of the people into governance. As your Zone 1 trustee, appointing someone who can genuinely and successfully represent the collective will and expectations of Cascade is my highest priority.
So, how does a board determine who best represents the local public? In the past, it was easy. Only one person would throw their name in the proverbial hat and, by default, would be appointed. In this case, we have two people who have submitted interest. To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened before in Cascade. This means an evaluation process is needed, but doesn’t exist. I have drafted different versions of potential evaluation tools (here is one version), and the Idaho School Board Association has an appointment toolkit, all of which have been provided to the board.
My official “Zone 1 Trustee” opinion is this: that names should not be a factor in the selection. Only merit, as determined by comparing each individual’s ability to collect and translate the collective will of Cascade into a plan that fits within the State of Idaho’s “box” of legal framework, should be considered. After all, this is the primary purpose of having a school board. I am not saying that we should keep identities secret while we make a decision (that would be overboard, I think), but our focus needs to be on how either perspective trustee will represent the electorate. Other considerations come into play, too, such as having a systems perspective, the ability to lead from the front, and the understanding that an individual trustee should never insert themselves into administrative tasks (that is the sole responsibility of paid staff, legally and ethically), but those are for another conversation. So, what about compliance…?
Compliance is, always has been, and always was intended to be, a side dish, not a main course. It is a checkbox rather than a mission. It is a set of boundaries, not a purpose or focus. If compliance was the primary purpose of public schools, why have a board at all? Compliance would be far better served by an in-house compliance expert (like an attorney or superintendent). This brings me back to a trustee’s primary purpose: representing the electorate. After all, the electorate is the ownership group of the school, trustees are the owner’s representatives, and families are the customers.
So when you are thinking about who would best fill an appointed/elected seat, keep this in mind: the best candidate should be very interested in the opinions of the public. They should have the honest desire to seek out public feedback and visibly incorporate it into their decision making. They should actively seek out opportunities to connect with community members in public and in private, in groups and one-on-one. They should be interested in hearing opposing perspectives as a means to test the perspectives held by the collective community. They should have a systems-perspective so they can see how a change “over here” can impact system components “over there”. In other words, they should primarily be focused on and capable of incorporating the collective will and expectations of the community into the government systems they are called to govern—in this case, your school.
I encourage you to help your trustees serve their purpose. Contact them and let them know you expect to see an evaluation process. They are in uncharted waters, as having to choose between two trustee candidates is new. They could use your help to select/create a tool that keeps the focus on the trustee’s purpose rather than arbitrary and personal opinions.
Those who have submitted for the appointment (so far) are
Monica Gokey Bequette
Ryan Taylor
Who is running in the November election (barring any withdrawals):
Zone 3—
Kathy Hull (incumbent, 7 year tenure)
Patrick Pratchett
Zone 4—
Karen Thurston (incumbent, 35 year tenure)
Brad Dillon
I have my own personal opinion on who I think would best fill these roles. However, as a trustee, my own opinion on who fills public office is irrelevant. The criteria used to judge candidates should be objective and based on the purpose and functions of the role, not who I get along with best or who shares my opinion. The natural, human inclination is quite the opposite, and that is why accountability—the act of being held to the expectations of those you serve—is so important. For a representative government to function properly, trustees have their role to perform, and you have yours. Without one or the other, governance breaks down.
I hope to see you September 15th and 6:00pm. You have 11 days to ask the school board about their selection process. I look forward to receiving your input.
Best,
Brad Howlett