A simple case of a bad law

The Galveston school board is interviewing the last of six finalists for the superintendent’s position. Trustees plan to reduce the number of finalists to three and conduct another round of interviews. All the interviews are behind closed doors.

The school board could release the names of the finalists. But it is no longer required to do so by law. The state association that represents school boards was able to get an exemption to the Texas Public Information Act about 15 years ago.

The Galveston school board has made it clear that it would not open the selection process to the public.

The school district’s consultants said it is impossible to get good candidates for a job that pays about $200,000 a year if their names are going to be published in the newspaper.

We’d like to challenge that assertion.

We’d like to point out — one more time — that school boards across the state did in fact get good candidates in the days before lobbyists got the loophole into the open government law.

Since this exemption went into effect to shield the candidates from public scrutiny, has the quality of superintendents you’ve seen in your schools really improved?

In the old days, some school boards in Texas interviewed the finalists in public. People in small towns would sit in the audience and hear what the candidates for the top job had to say. The local folks would tell their representatives on the school board who had impressed and who had not.

Other communities had public receptions for the finalists. At the very least, the law required that the finalists’ names be released so that citizens who cared could do research.

Under the new process, taxpayers, parents and ordinary folks are not allowed to see any candidate’s name until a decision is made. After the decision has been made, there’s a 21-day wait before it’s considered official. Many people wonder why anyone even bothers with the 21-day rule. A choice implies a decision between at least two candidates, and when you get to the “sole finalist,” the choice is gone. Note that the public is informed only after the choice is gone.

The new process favors people who do not do well in handling a lot of public scrutiny, who lack the toughness, or at least the personality, to meet the public during a job interview, to hear criticism and to address it.

The system favors the fragile. Those candidates who really aren’t good at the rough-and-tumble of local politics aren’t forced to face it until it’s too late to do anything about it.

In communities where people don’t ask questions and don’t criticize those in authority, the change in the law barely has been noticeable. In communities where people disagree and criticism is common, the change has produced obvious results.

If you doubt this, think back about 15 years. Think back to the superintendents who were selected before the law changed. Think of those selected since.

The argument is that the new system has resulted in a better caliber of candidates to take the top jobs in our school districts. Do you really buy that?