Thread by @MichaelGKagan

Today’s agenda from @lindacavazos13 and the @CCSD_Trustees has a slate of governance policies that aim to stifle open dissent among trustees and give @SuptJaraCCSD powers that authoritarian leaders would appreciate. Some examples: 1/x

https://twitter.com/ccsd_trustees/status/1435970783893803021

For example, in judging the performance of the Superintendent, there’s a proposal to allow the trustees to look only at evidence that the Superintendent agrees to. Richard Nixon might not have had to resign if he’d had the benefit of this governance policy. 2/x

And no public dissent from trustees when evaluating @SuptJaraCCSD. In a democracy, we do not insist on “one voice.” But in CCSD trustees should dissent on the evaluation of the chief executive only in closed session. Publicly, they must stand by their man, I guess. 3/x

Then there’s a proposal to require trustees to give “deference” to the superintendent if their constituents come to them with concerns. Again, commanding deference to executives is not how healthy democracy works. 4/x

And finally there’s a set of scolding policies mandating good manners from trustees, mainly by discouraging them from expressing their opinions publicly, except during official meetings. Speak only when spoken to, I guess. 5/x

The theory of an elected school board is democratic, public accountability to voters. If trustees can’t debate openly and talk directly to voters about issues, what’s point of electing them? 6/x

The gender dynamics here are embarrassing. In effect, these policies call for an all-female board to be polite, to defer to a male leader, to look only at the material he agrees they should look at, and tells them to keep their unwelcome opinions private. This is not the way. 7/x

The trustees should rejected these proposals and revise them. And if they are enacted over dissents, the dissenters should take comfort in the fact that these policies are unenforceable. 8/end