Commentary; Posted: 6/12/02

ISD 831 should change negotiations style

By Cliff Buchan

We happen to agree with the ISD 831 Board of Education that Superintendent Lynn Steenblock is doing a good job and is deserving of a new three-year contract on July 1, 2003. But we donít agree with the process the school board has used in determining if the contract should be renewed and what the parameters should be.

The superintendent has done a good job in the almost two years he has been on the job in Forest Lake. Student test scores have improved, the graduation/completion rate has made improvements and the district is again in a stronger position financially after last fallís successful passage of an excess operating levy. In short, times are better in the district and will be even better when the current statutory debt position is erased.

The fact that Steenblock is deserving of a new three-year stint is not license for the school board to engage in a process that we believe is in violation of the stateís Open Meeting Law.

In early May the school board met in closed session to discuss the question of offering the superintendent a new contract. On June 3 the board met again in closed session to begin hammering out the parameters of the new contract after passing a resolution during the regular meeting to initiate the process of offering a second three-year contract. The latter meeting, as well, can be construed as a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

Hereís an important reminder to our school board and other area elected officials. Meetings can be closed under the Open Meeting Law to discuss contract labor negotiations and parameters for officially recognized public employee unions. Teachers and principals in the school district are examples

But the superintendent is not a union-endorsed labor group and the board has no right to engage in any closed meetings to discuss offering a contract or what the parameters should be. By doing so, the school board is playing fast and loose with the law and that is disappointing.

There has been no covert attempt here by school officials to duck the public. In both cases, the public was notified at an open meeting that the board would use the closed session for the stated purposes. But such meetings need to end now.

We can have some sympathy to the idea that it is not convenient to negotiate such contracts before the public eye. But this is the world our public school administrators and his or her bosses must live in, like it or not.

The school board has the right under current law to go into closed session to evaluate the performance of its superintendent. That may be part of the need for the May discussion in private, but there was no summary of that evaluation made at the June school board meeting, as the law requires.

As the chief executive officer of a school district with nearly 8000 students and budget that tops $50 million, we believe the public is interested in the process, not simply the final outcome as the school board may announce. When we deal with an employee commanding a base salary of $120,000 plus benefits in the year that starts July 1, a higher level of public scrutiny is needed.

We donít believe the school board is devious in how it has gone about this negotiation process. But it needs to improve its process of negotiating contracts for all non-union employees, who often tend to be administrative or management workers.

This district has come far in building community support for its programs and plans. The last thing this school board needs is to wander off the straight and narrow path and face the prospect of legal challenges that could come if these changes are not made.

Top of Page