I live in Farragut, but they still let me blog here. And I have a stepson, mentioned in my last post, who attends Farragut Middle School. So I am interested in what goes on in Knox County Schools, and being a civic-minded nerd and all, I try to keep up with what is going on at School Board meetings. Tonight was one of my gym nights, and I go to a place called a "fitness center" that has a little TV attached to every elliptical machine, and I would be willing to bet that I was tonight's only - and probably the only ever - member who plugged in a set of earbuds and tuned into the community access channel's coverage of the Knox County School Board meeting, on whose agenda one significant item was the extension of the contract for school superintendent McIntyre. (I hope I spelled his name right.)
An interesting discussion took place, but not for the reasons that discussions ought to be interesting. It was interesting because it illustrated, on the most basic, local level, what is wrong with leadership - not just in Knoxville, but all over America. The problem is totally organic, ingrained in the most innocent, yet ignorant, inability of citizens to understand what leadership entails. Anyway, it boiled down to this: There was a school board election this year, and the new members took office less than a month ago. These are people who ran for the office of representing their districts on the School Board. It is not unfair, I hope, to infer from that fact that they were interested in issues relating to the oversight of public education in Knox County. I like to think, moreover, that these are people who, prior to making a run for office, had kept themselves informed by reading, researching, and - why not go crazy? - attending actual meetings of the board to find out who was on there, what they had to say. I don't think it would be outrageous to assume they were especially interested in the office of superintendent, the duties of that office, who occupied it, and what his record was like. In fact, on that last point - if I were running for school board - I would be especially well-informed.
So what happened was this. There was a discussion about whether to extend the superintendent's contract, and two interesting points were made - one predictable, another not so predictable. The predictable point came from Cindy Buttry (one of the board members who earlier this year moved to ban a science book without reviewing it): Ms. Buttry announced she would not vote to extend the contract, but said it "wasn't personal" against the superintendent. She said it had something to do with policy. Then she fell back in her seat and pinched her lips and glared at somebody (it was hard to say whom). The unpredictable point came from two new board members: They said they did not feel competent to vote on the issue of extending the contract because they had only sat on the board for less than a month, and they just weren't quite informed enough about the superintendent's record, although (as one of them put it, and I paraphrase) they had heard nothing but positive things about his record.
OK. You're running for school board. You have done the research, talked to people, read up on the issues, investigated the board members and the superintendent, apprised yourself of all relevant data. You know history, policy, procedure. Right? Come on, tell me you've done that much. And at the first meeting where there is an agenda item concerning the continued employment of the superintendent, you break down into a morass of indecision and angst: What? We have a superintendent? I've heard he's a nice guy, but what do I know? I haven't done any research! I'm just a citizen, trying to lead other citizens. You think I should have come into this job prepared? Stop bothering me!
But here's the rub, which was further explained when Buttry next spoke up. The two new board members hesitated to participate in the vote on the contract because they just didn't know him well enough. The implication was clear: They hadn't been in there long enough to know how he was going to treat them. That's not leadership, kids. That's politics, and it's bullshit. Buttry, who has never made a clear point in her her entire career to my knowledge, and who also speaks in the pinched, clipped tone of a person filled with barely restrained resentment, repeated that her lack of accord was "not personal." Then she said it was sort of personal. Well, it wasn't personal, it was just based on "personal relationships," which she had expressed in her evaluations. So, it's policy based on personal relationships, but it isn't personal. After listening to Buttry's tortured, disingenuous nonsequitur comments on a number of occasions, it isn't hard for me to understand how somebody who pretends to follow her reasoning can also believe Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur.
This problem isn't just local. It's larger and more obnoxious in a culture that increasingly buys into the notion that leadership is about alliances, personal beefs, and collusion, rather than about real representation based on informed, issue-driven decision-making in the best interests of the community. If you haven't done the basic homework of figuring out who the policymakers and executors are and what their records are like before you get to office, you're not a leader. You're a hack.
Anyway, my work-out summary started rolling right about the time Buttry grabbed the mike for a third chance to be heard, so I checked out before the vote.
Recent Comments