By Joe Enge

In the Appeal and during February’s school board meetings, I made a straightforward case that myself and fellow board members should do our duty the right way by not taking short-cuts in selecting a new superintendent. We have plenty of time; a reasonably broad search can be done at very little cost (without a search firm); and it would be a disservice to whoever is ultimately chosen to make it appear that his hiring was the result of an inside deal done behind the scenes.

Some other board members tried to obfuscate this basic common sense by kicking up a cloud of dust that would have made Billy Martin proud. Dan Mooney and David Harrison joined their efforts in the Appeal to support the insider perspective. In an attempt to distract opinion from the real issue, Mooney and Harrison resort to attacks against the various folks making the sensible proposals and to dragging in irrelevant matters.

Dave’s letter to the editor on Feb. 29^th attempted to cast aspersions on my motives, citing my previous dealings with Richard Stokes, the insider candidate the board majority favors. To make his claim, Dave had to studiously ignore my clear statement regarding my experiences with Mr. Stokes that I’ve found him to be always thoughtful, honest, and professional. The issue is the selection process, not the candidate.

Dave’s misrepresentation of this key point is magnified by failure to mention he is a civics and history teacher with the district. Such an important omission is misleading as readers are not aware he may represent a special-interest insider perspective on this matter.

To be fair, Dave did offer brief and indirect insight on the selection process. He said the elected board is responsible and capable of making the decision. No one argued the Board cannot or should not make the decision. The point was that public input should be sought as exemplified by practices of other districts. The logical extension of his “no public input” position is that citizens should be heard only during elections and that listening to them is a waste of time between election cycles. It is a rather peculiar position for a civics teacher to take unless other priorities are in play.

Dan Mooney’s March 2^nd column provides a “teaching moment” as a bad example of labeling one’s opponent in an argument, instead of focusing on the substance of the issues, to reach the conclusion one wants, “Those calling for wider superintendent search don't represent most patrons,” he claims.  A Vulcan would break down in tears trying to unravel all the logical fallacies presented there. First, person A is an ideologue (because Dan says so), so the people supporting person A’s position are all ideologues (because Dan says so), and hence they are all to be dismissed and don’t represent most people on this matter (because Dan says so).

Dan went on another tangent, writing, “Unfortunately, it appears that Enge does not belong to the internal board trust network or the board power loop.”  In trying to paint me as marginalized above and beyond his previous bashing, he now claims I am rather naïve and idealistic to think the board should actually adhere to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law by doing its deliberations in public.  No board member should be in such a network or loop (Dan’s “power loop”), because it would be a direct violation of the OML.

Dan gave token advice on the selection and offered up a simple either/or proposition. We either like the direction or we don’t. Don’t bother with assessing or discussing the direction, developing criteria, or hearing from others. Ultimately, no one knows for sure whether most people feel as Dan boldly asserted in his column’s title – although there are a number of indications to the contrary. The Board’s decision made sure we will not find out until November, when three of the seven Board seats are up for reelection.

Superintendent hiring process fast-tracked

Andrew Pridgen
Appeal Staff Writer
February 27, 2008

Ignoring repeated and impassioned pleas from members of the public, the Carson City School District trustees late Tuesday evening decided to fast-track negotiations with the district's current human resources director Richard Stokes to replace Dr. Mary Pierczynski as superintendent pending her retirement at year's end.

Trustee Joe Enge, who felt the district was lacking transparency in the search by foregoing any kind of job posting or interview process prior to offering the position to Stokes, said Tuesday, "it's a given to the point of cliché that the most important thing we do as a board is selection of a superintendent. Apparently no policies or procedures exist."

Enge suggested the board implement some formal procedures, including, but not limited to the introduction of Stokes to the public at a board meeting giving Stokes a forum to explain why he's qualified and why he wants the job.

Trustee Enge also suggested culling additional candidates by advertising the job.

His motion was quickly rebuffed.

Next came trustee Barbara Howe, who winnowed down Enge's motion to simply table setting up immediate contract negotiations with Stokes, who was out of town on district business Tuesday, until the next meeting.

In the interim, the public could reach out to trustees with questions to ask Stokes.

This motion lost by a tie-breaker vote cast by the school board president, James Lemaire.

Next up was trustee John McKenna, who in a rambling plea called on the trustees to forego any further discussion and enter into contract negotiations with Stokes immediately.

McKenna said casting a wide net or starting a national search for the position would be a waste of time and resource. Frequently he mentioned other neighboring districts embroiled in similar searches and said he did not feel it was worth monetary or "human" cost.

"Mr. Stokes lives in this community. His children go to school here. He's lived here for the last six years. He likes it here," McKenna said. ""He's highly regarded by the people sitting here.

"Can we afford - and not (just) monetarily - to go through enough people to have the cream of the crop rise and in two years when they want to (leave) say 'oh, let's pay them $80,000 and send them on their way?' ... I seriously doubt if Mr. Stokes would do anything in his first five years as superintendent to make anyone on the board question (him)."

Members of the public countered McKenna's argument - some noting that making a snap decision without public review of Stokes or a formal interview process - simply might not reflect positively on the school board.

"Perception is important in this world," said audience member Joe Eiben. "Our children are in your hands. You need to get the public (opinion). They hired who they wanted. That's the perception you're giving."

Enge agreed. "The perception is real that this is a done deal. In my opinion, it comes across as a done deal and is a disservice to Mr. Stokes."

McKenna was adamant to the contrary saying, "One, we're going to end up with Mr. Stokes anyway and, two - Joe (Enge) maybe you should do some thinking instead of talking."

The back-and-forth was quickly diffused by the five members of the board sitting between McKenna and Enge, all of whom eventually sided with McKenna to enter into contract negotiations with Stokes right away.

"I would like this board to forget about anyone else until we agree or (cannot make) a deal with Mr. Stokes," McKenna said.

February 25, 2008

By Andrew Pridgen

Appeal Staff Writer

While Carson City School District officials, administration, staff and volunteers are still getting used to the notion that Supt. Mary Pierczynski will not be back at the helm of the district next fall, a controversy over how her successor will be selected and the transparency of that process has ensued.

In an open letter written last week, Joe Enge, a member of the school board, said he was "concerned" with the way the selection process for a new superintendent has been handled thus far.

"Superintendent selection was on the agenda for the Board's February 12th meeting," he wrote. "It was the last substantive item of a long meeting, and only a few hearty concerned citizens persevered to speak on the topic.

"I was concerned by three elements during the Board's discussion: the rush to select someone without criteria or a search, the appearance of prior coordination to that end, and the board's dismissive attitude towards public input."

The public's last chance to have its voice heard on the selection process is at Tuesday's school board meeting at 7 p.m. in the Sierra Room of the Carson City Community Center.

Richard Stokes, a current human resources director for the district, appears to be the leading candidate for the job.

While Enge said he has "nothing but the greatest personal and professional respect for (Stokes)," he believes an open selection process is crucial.

"A closed, rushed selection will be a disservice to any superintendent candidate," he said. "We do not need to leave an unnecessary aura of favoritism on a candidate who clearly is deserving of such a position based on his merits.

"We do need to use this opportunity as a district to question, review and define our educational priorities."

Indeed, on the most recent school board agenda for Tuesday's meeting, which the Appeal obtained Thursday, it appears the hiring of Stokes is but a foregone conclusion.

The agenda reads: "Discussion and possible action to authorize contract negotiations with Richard W. Stokes, associate superintendent, human resources, for the position of superintendent of the Carson City School District following the retirement of superintendent Dr. Mary Pierczynski, or alternatively, discussion and possible action on the process for the selection of a new superintendent."

The agenda item is one in which the board is expected to take action; it is the last part - a discussion of the selection - that Enge is hoping most to invoke.

"An open selection process may very well confirm (Stokes) as an excellent choice" he said. "(But) we do need to engage the public to develop citizens' priorities and to demonstrate that your views are not only sought when asking for bond money or electing school board members."

Though loathe to comment on the selection process, Pierczynski, in January, said she announced her retirement early so the district, its constituents and the board would have plenty of time to select the right candidate and to plan for the transition.

"I still have several months left," she said. "We're not going to lose focus on what we're doing."

By Joe Enge

The retirement of Carson City School District’s Superintendent raises a very important issue for our community, the selection process to choose a replacement.  Community confidence that the District and Board are truly working in the best interests of students and public hinges on the selection process being open, thoughtful, fair, and transparent.

To do its duty, the Board must be fully open to public input and make a concerted effort to solicit potential candidates as widely as possible.  Thoughtfulness requires identifying the priorities for the District and the qualities sought in a leader.  Fairness (and fidelity to our public trust) demands that the Board objectively evaluate qualifications of individuals from both inside and outside of the District.  Transparency involves holding several public forums on this specific topic and proactively surveying the community to determine its selection priorities.

A good example of a school district that embraces these principles is Portland Public Schools (PPS).  The PPS Board took to heart the fundamental idea of community outreach -- which for too many school districts is a meaningless mission statement for consumption of the masses – in its selection of a new superintendent last year.

In The Search Process: Placing a priority on community involvement, PPS wrote,“All of the community input the School Board received was closely reviewed and discussed by the board, and has been incorporated into a new set of superintendent hiring criteria, which will help guide the Board’s decision-making.  The community input was gathered during an extensive series of public engagement meetings.”

This Oregon school district did a Superintendent Survey, available on its Web site, in hard copy at forums, and distributed by e-mail, and directly incorporated the results into its superintendent selection criteria.  PPS Board Director Doug Morgan said, “We want the community to offer their best advice as we tackle the single most important duty of any School Board: hiring a superintendent. What do our schools and our city want and need in our next leader?  What is the right combination of knowledge, skills, and leadership experience that will help our schools take the next steps toward excellence for all?  These are the questions we want our community to help us answer.”

So how does the Carson City School Board match up this challenge, these guidelines and the PPS example? Unfortunately, not very well so far.  Superintendent selection was on the agenda for the Board’s February 12^th meeting.  It was the last substantive item of a long meeting, and only a few hearty concerned citizens persevered to speak on the topic.

I was concerned by three elements during the Board’s discussion: the rush to select someone without criteria or a search, the appearance of prior coordination to that end, and the Board’s dismissive attitude towards public input.  I have nothing but the greatest personal and professional respect for the current District employee under consideration, and I will not be surprised if he is the best applicant.  An open selection process may very well confirm him as an excellent choice.

A closed, rushed selection will be a disservice to any Superintendent candidate, the District, and the community we serve.  We do not need to leave an unnecessary aura of favoritism on a candidate who clearly is deserving of such a position based on his merits.  We do need to use this opportunity as a district to question, review, and define our educational priorities.  We do need to engage the public to develop citizens’ priorities and to demonstrate that your views are not only sought when asking for bond money or electing school board members.

Your next opportunity to be heard on this matter will be during the February 26^th, 7:00 p.m. meeting at the Community Center.

The Office of the Attorney General agreed with my concerns as a trustee of the Carson City School District that an agenda item for the district’s January 9, 2007 meeting was vague, too broad, and lacked specificity in violation of the Open Meeting Law (OML). I raised this issue before and during the January 9th meeting suggesting it be tabled and then voted against it when it wasn’t tabled. Ann Bednarski took these concerns to the AG’s office as a formal complaint the next day on January 10th. The response to the complaint was received by Bednarski on July 5, 2007.

Upon receiving the agenda for my first school board meeting in January as a newly elected trustee, agenda item # 6 “Adoption of policies and bylaws” seemed too vague to the point of being meaningless. I looked up the guidelines on the AG’s Web site regarding the OML and found indeed agenda items that are written with such a lack of specificity were a violation.

I wasn’t trying to play “gotcha” and sent the superintendent the AG’s guidelines and my concerns before the meeting so that it could be corrected. Needless to say it wasn’t corrected. When I raised the issue again at the board meeting, it was dismissed with a “that’s how we’ve always done it attitude,” and since I was new I didn’t know any better.

I did get a commitment from counsel that this issue would be corrected the next time it came up. The July 2 (written on that date, but received on July 5) AG letter states:

“The resolution agreed to by Trustee Enge and counsel for the Board was appropriate and it showed the public an exemplary degree of openness regarding Board business and a commendable cooperativeness between counsel and Trustee Enge which arrived at a solution to the problem.”

I do have a great deal of respect for the district’s counsel and don’t expect this issue will come up again. The AG letter supports my contentions and after citing the applicable statutes concludes:

“Applying the foregoing rules for use and preparation of agenda items, the Board’s use of ‘Adoption of policies and bylaws’ is far too generic and not reasonably calculated to inform the public of which policies and bylaws are to be considered.”

The AG letter further notes that their letter should serve as “guidelines” and there was not a formal violation because an agreement was reached at the meeting to correct future items and also because it took them more than the statutory 120 days to respond.

Ann Bednarski had a letter to the editor published Sunday about the matter and response from the Office of the Attorney General. You can read her letter by clicking here. Her letter is last among the many listed.

Joe Enge
Carson City School Board Trustee

The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.
Frank Zappa