(commented on August 1st, 2026 @ 9:48 am)Nick, in no local government should elected board / council members play second fiddle to hired mangers. Elected officials are elected to MAKE the policy, and hired managers serve to carry out that policy. That is true whether it is a city council, county commission, or school board. Managers in local government are full time while elected officials are part time, so it is also incumbent on managers to keep a watchful eye on policy issues that need to be brought to the attention of their boards, present options on the issues, and make recommendations to their boards. Mangers should always adhere to the policies set by the elected officials, but it can be problematic for elected officials to try to micromanage.
Local government works best when there is a good working relationship between the elected board / council and their hired managers. Local government personnel below the manager are hired and fired by the manager, but board members should be able to discuss any personnel concerns with their manager, and he should give them consideration, although he is not bound by them. Budgets are proposed by the manager but only proposed. Adoption, including with amendments is the function of the board. As part of the budget, funding can be eliminated for positions in local government.
No elected official should ever feel he is a "rubberstamp" because that is not the way the system is supposed to work.
(commented on August 1st, 2026 @ 9:32 am)Van Zant, you are particularly well informed.
The conservatives elected to the school board in 2022 got some important policy changes made on the curriculum adoption process. The new written policy, proposed by board member Donald Shreve, gave the board a lot more oversight over the process, something it should have had all along. It is, after all, the elected board member who have the ultimate say over what curriculum is adopted.
During the adoption process on the new science curriculum, the teachers evaluation committee, supported by their central office staff coordinator tried to do an end run around that new process and present the board with a single "take it or leave it" option instead of the minimum of three options required by the new policy. The central office staff involved in that has since been replaced.
In dealing with that curriculum, the board informally used some new policies that produced a greater degree of information for the board from that teachers evaluation committee. It also became apparent that having cost information on curriculum proposals available early in the process to everyone would improve the process.
I put revision of the written policy on curriculum development on the board agenda for discussion, and verbally presented a series of suggested improvements in the formal process, based on our experience with the adoption of the science curriculum. I went through each of a series of proposals and got no objections to any of them from other board members, so I stated I would draw them up in a formal policy amendment and present them for adoption. When I presented them, I ran into a buzz saw of organized opposition, led by board member Carolyn Walker. They objected to making any change whatsoever. They did not want to rethink just a point or two. They wanted no changes at all.
Adoption of the curriculum is one of the most important policy decisions entrusted by statute to elected school board members, and one that members should take seriously. We need strong policies that maximize the board's responsibility and give it the best information to make its decision. Without appropriate written policies on the procedures in curriculum adoption, that responsibility may not properly be fulfilled.
If some of the more liberal board members had any issues with my proposals, those should have been discussed openly at the first meeting this subject was on the agenda. I put it on the agenda then to try to get a consensus, which from all appearances had been achieved. If any of the proposals had received pushback, I would have presented two policy proposals, one with those that had consensus, and one where there was some division. From the responses, all of the issues had consensus so that was the way I presented it in a formal amendment.