Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Pinellas board toes fine line before vote

By THOMAS C. TOBIN and DONNA WINCHESTER
Published August 5, 2006

Outside, it was a splendid March day - clear, dry, about 72 degrees. Inside, around the School Board table, the heat was on.

Seven School Board members. One superintendent. More than $20-million in budget cuts on the table. A Sept. 5 election on the calendar.

The charged atmosphere yielded a clarifying moment that, five months later, presents a question for each of the 16 candidates in the School Board campaign: Should a board member focus on the inner workings of the district or concentrate more broadly on its direction?

It is a question that has occupied the current board at length and led to feuds.

Linked to that is another question: How well has Clayton Wilcox performed in 21 months as school superintendent?

The clarifying moment came in a late-afternoon exchange March 7. Board members Nancy Bostock, Mary Brown, Carol Cook and Jane Gallucci had concerns about the budget. But they also expressed confidence that Wilcox and his staff had thought through the proposed cuts.

Board members Janet Clark, Linda Lerner and Mary Russell harbored serious doubts. They peppered Wilcox with questions and pressed him to follow their thinking on such matters as how many employees were needed to repair school buses, clean carpets and repair classroom computers.

"How far down does this board go?" an irritated Gallucci asked.

Russell responded: "The purpose of the School Board is to check and balance the system."

The same trio that closely questioned Wilcox on the budget cuts later voted against extending his contract by a year. The extension - the second of Wilcox's short tenure - prevailed in a 4-3 vote. Initially a four-year deal through 2008, his contract now extends into 2010.

Wilcox has expressed concern about the election, saying a change in the board's makeup could affect his longevity in Pinellas.

Some candidates say he has done an admirable job and that the extensions add stability to the district. Others oppose the extensions, saying Wilcox has not yet earned them.

Under state law, the school board adopts "policies and procedures," establishes "programs," and sets "priorities." The superintendent oversees district operations and recommends policies, rules and standards to the board. He or she must "advise and counsel" with the board "on all educational matters."

Lerner, who is running for re-election, concedes she got down "in the weeds" on the budget cuts. But she argues: "I'm not going to take a vote on something until I have all the information I need."

All board members cross the line at some point, she says.

"It is a tricky line," says Bostock, who is running for re-election.

Bostock says the current board bogs down when some members ask for information "just to get it," and keep pressing their arguments after a board majority has moved on.

Russell, more than most of her peers, often delves deeper into the inner workings of the district. When the rest of the board resists or wants to go in another direction, her frustration sometimes shows and the atmosphere can turn tense.

A four-year teacher before she joined the board in 2002, Russell says it's a board member's obligation to ask probing questions.

"If the school board and the superintendent are challenging each other," she says, "then what we roll out to the public is going to be a much better product."

She added: "I know some people say I'm not on target (about the board's role), but I am absolutely on target."

Good leaders intuitively know where the line is between stepping on the superintendent's toes and getting the information they need, says Peggy O'Shea, a candidate in the county-wide District 3 race.

"The members aren't working together as a body," she says, echoing other candidates. "They need to speak out, but they also need to hear both sides of an issue."

[Last modified August 5, 2006, 07:53:47]