With the tragic passing of Scranton School Board member Carol Oleski, the Board has a seat to fill.

Last time a vacancy occurred, after the abrupt resignation of Jim Timlin, the end result, thankfully, was positive.  The process itself, however, undermined the integrity of the Board.

Directors Schuster and McAndrew gave me scores that are objectively impossible to defend.  Bob Lesh did something similar with Director Paige Cognetti.  While I’m quite glad we have a Harvard grad on the Board, I’m not pleased that any Director can sink anybody he or she wants.

While Lesh’s motives may be related to Cognetti’s background (the two certainly don’t appear to be buddies, based on their interactions on the Board), Schuster and McAndrew were given orders from the Scranton PAC.  This is a problem.  Inevitably, the PAC will call them in again and tell them who to vote for and who to sink.  And they’ll get that $20,000 spent on them for their re-election again.  Obviously, what happened was entirely unethical (yet somehow completely legal) and if it is allowed to happen again, shame on the Board.  The integrity of the process was compromised once and should not be compromised again.

One solution floated at a recent Board meeting involved throwing out the highest and lowest vote totals.  That does not work if two Board members collude to ensure that one candidate gets, say, a 6 and a 4.  The 4 gets thrown out, but the Directors succeed in playing a political game and sinking whomever.  It also disenfranchises two Board members.  While I’m obviously not fond of McAndrew and Schuster after what they pulled with me, they deserve a say by virtue of having been elected.

There are a few viable ways, with their respective ups and downs, that make sense for an appointment:

• Let the judges handle it.  This is the easiest and fairest way to do it, plain and simple.  The Board is removed, they look at candidates and decide.  I doubt the Board would want to cede their power in this regard, but it’s the only truly fair thing I can see.
• End the pretend, just vote.  In the past, the Board heard people, interviewed them, then a motion was introduced.  Simple.  No fake, manipulable rubrics to hide behind.
• Include objective qualifications.  Instead of a rubric, have the Board vote on implementing objective qualifications, like most employers do for jobs.  Education level, community involvement, maybe residency, etc.  This way, the rating has an objective standard.  The pitfall is that there could be viable candidates that may be new to the area (like Director Cognetti) that wouldn’t get points for residency or community involvement simply because they haven’t lived here for long.
• Include an actual interview.   Allow applicants to actually articulate policy.  A 3-5 minute speech, which is the norm, doesn’t really get across whether or not somebody is qualified.

Honestly, I’d just like to see the judges make the decision.  Nobody could complain.  And the Board, tainted by the overt biases of its members, would be removed from the process.

Regardless, I’ve put my application in.  I’ve never had a problem calling people out publicly.  I can use my time at the podium to be clear about the problems the district still faces and how I can solve them.  The Board STILL has not followed many of my recommendations, and I would be able to get to work the literal second that I get sworn in.  One can only hope they choose to leave politics at the door.  I’m not holding my breath, though.

What’s that definition of insanity, again?