Panel Split Over County School Board Reform

Why would some 20 people spend a sunny Saturday arguing over hundreds of pages dense with seemingly arcane county school board policies?

Because at stake is nothing less than control over the $39-million office of the Ventura County superintendent of schools.

After clashing with Supt. Charles Weis on issues ranging from AIDS education to applications for federal grants, a three-member majority of conservative county school trustees wants to limit his power.

On Saturday, a committee trying to delineate the competing authorities of the board and the superintendent reached little consensus on the thorny issue.

Conservative trustees Marty Bates, Wendy Larner and Angela Miller agreed last year to put together the committee to overhaul board policy, a move critics said was aimed at extending the board’s authority over the superintendent. Saturday’s session was the first meeting of the full committee with lawyers from Sacramento who were hired to draw up the new policy.

“I see that we have a system that is totally out of whack,” Larner said. “There need to be more checks and balances.”

The balance of power between the superintendent and the board has been murky. Last year, Weis ignored several controversial board votes, saying he, as an elected official, is accountable only to the public. For instance, Weis said he would accept a possible $500,000 federal grant even though the board voted against the grant.

“The lines of demarcation are very unclear,” said Eve Peek, one of the Sacramento attorneys who prepared the draft policy. “That’s the most frustrating part of this policy review.”

The attorneys chose the policies of San Diego County schools as a model for the draft.

The decision irked many. San Diego is one of a handful of California counties where the superintendent is appointed by the board, not elected.

“The difference [between an elected superintendent and appointed one] is night and day,” said Jack Parham, an attorney for the superintendent’s office. “When appointed, the superintendent enters into a contract with the board. It is a difference between control and no control.”

And Parham should know. He also counts the San Diego County superintendent of schools among his clients.

The challenge Saturday was to find a way to integrate the authorities of the board and the superintendent without stepping on toes, Parham said.

Committee members tackling the challenge consisted of top administrators from the county schools office, the five board members and one committee member appointed by each of them, representatives of the county schools’ 360 employees, and the attorneys.

They failed. The two sides clashed repeatedly over whether the county board should simply oversee policies or be instrumental in implementing them.

“In what way can an elected county board that meets once a month administrate anything?” asked board member John McGarry. “The board sets a statement of policy. I don’t see it being involved in administrating anything, mainly because they [board members] do not have administrative credentials.”

*

The administration of the county schools--which operate special education schools, instruction for troubled teens and schooling for incarcerated juveniles, as well as perform a variety of administrative functions for the 21 local school districts--is the duty of the superintendent, McGarry said.

Jan Damesyn, another of the attorneys who helped draft the policy, disagreed.

“I do believe the superintendent has some duties to the board,” she said. “The board has to administer its policies through the superintendent, and without something like this policy it would be very difficult for the board to exercise its authority.”

But when Weis read in the proposed policy that the board may direct him to implement regulations, he was simply outraged.

“The term ‘direct’ is offensive,” he said. “It violates the spirit of co-governance. I don’t work for the board and they don’t work for me.”

Another proposed policy would have given the board authority to evaluate the performance of the superintendent and set his salary accordingly.

“I don’t think we have any business in that arena,” McGarry said.

Weis suggested something else.

“In keeping with the spirit of co-governance, if they evaluate me, I should be allowed to evaluate them,” he said.

Time and again, the two sides clashed, their attorneys making references to obscure sections of the California education code to support their arguments.

“This is about the overlapping authority between the superintendent and the board,” Parham said. “It ultimately has to be clarified through legislation.”

*

Earlier this year, Weis and the board asked the state attorney general to clarify whether the county board has authority to approve materials presented at teacher training sessions conducted by the superintendent of schools. The response is expected soon.

In the meantime, the Sacramento attorneys will take the input from Saturday’s meeting and prepare a new draft of the policy.

It is unclear whether a final draft will come up for a board vote before the November election, when the seats occupied by Larner and McGarry will be contested.

Two candidates who oppose the board’s conservative majority have thrown their hats into the race.

Just days after McGarry said he would retire at the end of his term, Paul Chatman, president of the Ocean View School District board of trustees, announced that he will run for that seat.

And Janet Lindgren, who served on the Oxnard Union High School District board for 22 years and who was present at the board meeting Saturday, said she would challenge Larner for her seat.