The topic is the appropriateness of actions the OCDSB has undertaken to select a new director.
Today the Ottawa Citizen ran a story about the attempts of Uniting for Children and Youth (UCY) to delay the selection of the new OCDSB director. There is the common sense reason for doing so, that the new board to be elected October 22nd is the one that has to work with the new director so they should be the ones to select the person, but there are other reasons.
Before getting to them, consider the issue of an interim director. The board seems to have an aversion to having one despite the associate director, Brett Reynolds, being positioned to step into that role, and the fact that many organizations have operated well with interim directors while the most suitable person is being sought for the role. The PC Party with interim leader Rona Ambrose is a good example. The question is, “Would the best course of action be to operate with an interim director or proceed as the board is doing?”
Most important to me are our democratic values. Our democratic values are under assault these days and we need to have a good discussion about what makes a good democratic citizen. We are in the midst of school board elections. The public is going to decide within weeks whom it wants making big school board decisions that will affect the lives of students and the shape of our communities for years to come. During this time the current school boards record will be put under the microscope to determine if it has done a good job, and if things unfold as one would hope they will, people will grow and perhaps change some views during this time. The elections offer the public the opportunity to collectively voice their current view of whom they want making the big decisions. To not wait for their input is to bring into question the level of respect the board has for its electorate, and its sense of what it is to be a leader in a democracy. It brings to mind Trump’s short list for Supreme Court justice, which looks to many observers like an attempt to impose his will on the voters instead of to do what is best for the country.
The current school board has not demonstrated much vision or imagination for how to bring public education inline with the times. It has been informed that this is going to be highlighted during the election process. For it to move to appoint the new director before this challenge has been well addressed can be seen as arrogant and not in the best interests of our students, our communities, nor our future. It is a display of the same kind of disregard for the opinion of others as when they voted to close Rideau High School, despite receiving that day a government memo advising the board of updates to the accommodation review process, and the strongly stated belief by a person representing community members that the OCDSB had absolutely not acted in the way those updates directed. The board has demonstrated the attitude that it knows best with disregard for what others are saying, and for them to push ahead with the selection of a new director, instead of waiting to see if people think the same after the elections is questionable. They may have the right to make the appointment, but is it the right thing to do, and whether or not they actually have the right is a question that needs to be answered.
There is some uncertainty as to whether or not the board has the right to make the selection at this time. Gurprit Kindra, professor with the University of Ottawa Telfer School of Management, and Nathalie DesRosiers, former Dean of Law with the University of Ottawa and cabinet minister with the Wynn government wondered at the legality of the board making the selection before the election. They thought there might be a law prohibiting organizations from appointing new CEOs within four months of the election of a new board. The director of the school board is in effect the CEO of the school board. If such a law exists, then we need to know if it applies to school boards. If it does, and the current board proceeds to appoint a new director, it is potentially creating the situation that the board will be tied up with legal proceedings to nullify the appointment, a costly waste of resources that is better spent on the students. It would make for a bad start for the new board that would want to be dealing with other things.
So why the great rush? What are the irrefutable arguments for making the selection now? To date it seems that the perceived, but questionable, downsides to operating with an interim director are outweighing the possibilities of not having the most suitable director for the job.
A final comment with respect to the Citizen article reporting that one trustee has accused me of harassment for sending out numerous emails on this issue. Things were evolving and to be fair I wanted to keep the trustees informed of developments so that they could respond accordingly if questioned by people. I was concerned about the possibility of being criticized for the number of emails and I weighed the value of each one before sending it. I feel the accusation of harassment reflects the unwillingness of a trustee to appreciate the importance of selecting a new director, and the right that people have to speak out strongly on issues that affect them. I see this charge of harassment as one of the tactics used to silence one’s critics. I’m encouraging people to make their voices heard, and to know when someone is just trying to silence them. In fairness to the other trustees, the person who made the accusation should identify themselves.