Merced City School District Board response to Grand Jury gets failing grade | Opinion

The Merced City School District Board of Education is the example of what is wrong with public education.

A recent Merced County Grand Jury investigation reported 10 findings. The boards required response to these findings lacked accountability and integrity. The response included such fictional writing as asserting that the minutes of the board meetings that were not made publicly available for 10 months were actually completed, but for some reason they were not delivered for the board’s review and approval even after some board members questioned their absence. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

In truth, the minutes were not done and had to be caught up by other employees who do not have this essential job task included in their job descriptions. What happened to the good old days when you owned your mistake, corrected it, or actually performed the duties described in your job description? The development of the minutes is the responsibility of the superintendent’s (or acting superintendent’s) office, who report directly to the board.

The board hired, and fired, without cause, the superintendent that the seasoned board members were responsible for hiring. Without cause and without the opportunity for improvement or correction? Why did it happen so quickly and without explanation? This might lead a reasonable person to conclude that there were underlying motives.

The adult drama created by this action led to continued chaos including the board president’s denial of receipt of the Final Stakeholder Report, which was not kind to the board and senior staff whom they continued to support as internal interim leadership in the absence of a superintendent.

Just like the superintendent, the board fired the superintendent search firm placing blame on their actions instead of owning their own. Newspaper articles reported that the board president never “read” the Final Stakeholder Report but somehow has addressed all the issues contained within the report. You can’t have one without the other. No public reporting of any investigation into the concerns raised in the Final Stakeholder Report can be found.

The public responded with outrage when the board refused to publicly discuss the Final Stakeholder Report, as agreed upon during the public vetting of the superintendent search firm. This can be viewed on the YouTube meeting recordings. They are conveniently no longer listed under the school district’s website.

The board’s response to the Grand Jury report includes its assertion that providing board meeting video archives on their website may or may not be done, dependent upon staffing. So much for transparency and the governance norm of engaging the voices of “all.”

The board has come to rely, more and more, on its attorneys. The budget spent on legal services has almost tripled during the tenure of the current board leadership. Interesting. Why the need to have their attorney in person at all board meetings? Is it an attempt to remind the public that some things they say during public comment may be considered liable?

The board president reads a statement warning the public of this before every public comment session. It kinda ruins the mood of participating and feeling like your comments will be received as intended. Or, are the attorneys there because the board president and clerk still do not know how to manage and lead board meetings? Either possibility is unacceptable.

The board leadership receives a failing grade for their inability to provide oversight for the District. The political maneuverings and drama caused by the doubling down of denials, and lack of ownership, has kept the focus on adult and systemic problems, not student success.

Parents no longer have the luxury of focusing their attention on what is occurring in their student’s classroom. The district has great teachers and staff. Parents must be brave and broaden their scope to become politically active and ensure that tax-payer dollars are spent appropriately, and advocate for competent, capable people who do the job for which they were hired for – especially the board of education.

When a board cannot follow the blueprint for the daily work, board policies, or accept the challenge of improving the conditions for which they directly impact, they clearly are incapable of providing oversight for anyone else and should leave by choice or voted out.