The School Board's Approval Process for Personnel issues
The Jeff Davis Pairsh School Board voted 11-1 to approve Superintendent Friedman’s recommendation to name McKeivier as principal of JHS. Board Member Robert Menard voted against the appointment citing concerns from un-named constituents.
In a recent article the Elected Police Chief of Welsh sought approval from
the Welsh council, for the suspension of a police officer for a conduct related issue. I
keep seeing this approval process on personnel issues, with all of our governing bodies.
Why does an elected Police Chief, or an appointed School Superintendent need
to seek approval for personnel decisions? There is an organizational outline for our
Government that establishes three branches of government and reflects a separation of
powers. This plan is established in the US Constitution, and it seems to have served us
well for a few hundred years..
It appears that School Boards, Police Juries, City Councils etc. have blurred the lines
between the functions of the administrative staffs and the legislative function of the
boards. I often read the legal notices and see the School Board approving leaves,
transfers, hiring, firing and resignations. Why are they involved in these personnel
issues? With this antiquated structure in place we are inviting “politics” into
a process where it’s not needed.
The sole authority to hire, fire, promote, demote principals, teachers and support staff
should fall into the hands of the Superintendent, who was appointed by the board for that
very function. Under the current structure, as it relates to personnel, there is no
separation of power. All power resides in the hands of the boards whether it be the School
Board, Police Jury, City Council’s etc., and in my opinion is not healthy to the
structure. The role of the School Board or other entity, should be to establish
policy, guidelines, budgets and enforce compliance to those functions.
All too often there is interference with staffing decisions from the boards, based on
politics, and at the same time they hold the superintendents accountable for their
personnel decisions. As a parent if you have an issue with a teacher, coach or principal
and you contact your school board member, you are referred to the Superintendent, and they
pretend to be disconnected from that process. If that is the escalation process to resolve
your complaint then why is the school board involved in personnel issues to begin with?
In my opinion, our elected school board members, police jury members, city councils, etc
should not be directly involved in the approval process for departmental issues. That's
why we have department heads. If the superintendent is not handling his/her
personnel issues effectively then the board can vote to terminate his employment. To put
this into perspective, it’s like the board of directors in a large company making
administrative decisions and personnel decisions on a day to day basis. It just
doesn’t happen. The PAR (Public Affairs Research Council) recently reported. The
superintendent and school board would have full authority over how to provide student
support services. The superintendent would have sole authority to hire, fire, promote,
demote, transfer or suspend teachers. And, the process for dismissing tenured employee
would be streamlined with an administrative law judge to hear cases. I also believe there
should be a personnel director that oversee's the entire process to insure policies,
practices and procedures are adhered to. Violations to policies and procedures or concerns
with disciplinary actions would then be documented and reported to the School Board. The
School Board or Comittee would then review the issue and respond if necessary as it
pertains to the Superintendent. The Board, by unanimous vote would need the authority to
overturn the Superintendents decision. If there are a high degree of "churn" or
"overturn's" by the board, then it's time to re-evaluate the process or even his
employment.
In the case of the controversial issue with the “Elected”, police chief of Welsh seeking approval from the council to administer disciplinary action on one of his employees does not make any sense to me whatsoever. First of all the incident revolved around the use of "snuff" on the job. Pursuing a suspension for "dipping snuff" was totally ignorant at best. If employees are allowed to smoke on the job, under specific guidelines, then you have to allow all tobacco use, under certain circumstances, even dipping snuff. What recourse does the police officer have? If other employees are allowed to smoke, eat or drink while on the job, outside of designated areas, you have grounds for a descrimination suit. It is at that point the city council should get involved.
The council should be involved, along with the police chief, in establishing, legal, “disciplinary guidelines” consistent with other communities or the generally accepted standard used in business. It should not be directly involved in the approval process to implement disciplinary action.
What is needed to bring our parish governing bodies into the 21st century,
in my opinion, are HR representatives/Personnel directors at the parish level. The
governing bodies and elected officials are involved in the approval processes submitted by
their appointee's but when the shit hits the fan they are nowhere to be found. Even worse,
is when you have elected officials that try to avoid having to deal with personnel issues
and they let problems fester. Handling personnel issues is extremely time consuming and
takes alot of resources to deal with. Many view it as a symptom of corruption but It my
opinion, handling personnel related issues is a messy and time consuming proposition and
some may feel it's better to avoid them than to deal with them head on. Most managers are
guilty of letting personnel problems fester until they blow up.
Either way, those people elected or appointed to perform a job should be allowed to do so
without interference from other governing bodies. Accountability is the key, whether
held accountable by a board or the public.