School Board To Use Search Firm

Why City and County Did It Wrong
Yesterday, the Sanford Herald' s editorial, strongly endorsed the use of the search firm and search process selected by the Board of Education for the hiring of the new school superintendent.

"The Lee County Board of Edu­cation is insisting on the same for this search — to make sure the community has input and buy­ing in before a decision is reached and an offer made to a potential superintendent."

In an earlier post (click here to read it) before a change in school superintendents was anticipated, the e-Lee Dispatch endorsed the kind of search process used by CCCC in selecting its new president. Both endorsements spoke strongly about the value of community involvement.

When the post was written the secretive, behind closed door searches conducted by the city council for a city manager and the commissioners for the county manager were top of mind. Why did two boards, acting independently, choose a good process for CCCC and the Lee County Schools, and the city council and commissioners take a directly opposite approach?

It is worthy of note that in both cases the two boards brought back individuals who had worked here, taking the less risk course of the known rather the unknown. It is too early to draw conclusions about the individuals selected; that is not the point.

The point is that the city council (before the election) and the commissioners took a "closed room" approach to major decisions with an attitude that they, and not the public, always know best. With the city, it was the business privilege tax in which public input was ignored. With the commissioners, the most notable were the manner in which those who supported Lee County High School were handled, and then the advice ignored about the sales tax referendum which they were sure would pass. The arrogance of the commissioners in refusing such things as broadcasting finance committee meetings (which was also an issue in the city), are yet another example that the participation of citizens in government is just not understood by these commissioners. Seeking meaningful citizen participation in the development of the new county public access would have made a better document. (More on that later.) Instead, it was drafted, taken to the board, and adopted without public participation.

The municipal election began the process of changing the city council as voters lacked only a few votes of turning it over. They will most likely finish the task next year. At first chance, county voters sent a message to the commissioners by failing to renominate their chairman. They are tired of "Just trust us."

This secretive, "closed group" attitude is the way they think and look at problems. They won't change. It is an ingrained part of the good ol' boy network mindset that is in the early stages of death in the path our community's progress. The only way to fix it is to change the people who sit in the chairs. That is where the fall election comes in to play.