A primer to the 2024-25 Worcester School Committee

 as requested

As I regain today what Justice Louis Brandeis referred to "the most important office,"¹ I offer here in that capacity² a primer to the 2024-25 Worcester School Committee. 

This does not pretend to be exhaustive, but to, as the title notes, present some foundational elements on which to build.

This is a nine member committee. It governs as a body.

This may appear an obvious statement, but, while Worcester's school committee has had a number of iterations over the years, it has been some time since Worcester had one of this size, and no one now serving has served on one.
That means a majority is five, and a two-thirds majority--what it takes to change policy, to overrule the chair, to reconsider a vote, among other things--is a full six. That's a significant number of votes to line up. And the votes have to be lined up, as members have no authority outside of a properly posted meeting unless it is specifically delegated (as it is to the vice-chair).
What this I suspect will mean is that extreme items or items that veer off the actual job of the Committee (more on that below) will have difficulty passing, assuming Committee members pay close attention to what they're spending time on (more on that below, as well).

The first indicator of how this is going to play, by the way, will be tonight's vote for vice-chair, The Committee, remember, votes for its own vice-chair, and, as I noted some time ago, that vote has gone in many different directions over the years. What has always happened within recent memory, however, is that while the straw poll held offstage before the inauguration might go any which way, the Committee traditionally votes unanimously for vice-chair from the stage.
We'll see if they do tonight, Either way, it takes five votes.
And that question is answered. 

In a 6-3 vote Jermaine Johnson is vice chair of the School Committee for a second term. Maureen Binienda received votes from Kathleen Roy and Dianna Biancheria @telegramdotcom

— Marco Cartolano (@marco_cartolano) January 2, 2024

At no time in recent history has the Committee split from the stage, and note that three of the votes were also out of order, if you see below, as they were votes cast for someone who was not eligible to serve.

Most of the members are new. All but one of the members who did not serve last term have yet to have their state-mandated training.

As has been noted a number of times over the past two years, last term's Committee was very high-functioning, and was very focused on district governance. That is, members knew and were united in spending meeting time on:

• policy
• budget
• goals
• superintendent hiring and evaluation
• collective bargaining
  
  

I would argue that this is in part due to all members of the Committee, save the Mayor, having gone through their state mandated training (since 2002), which is required under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 36A³. This was the first Committee of which that was the case. It makes a very significant difference when every member has heard the same thing as to what their job is. It makes it significantly easier to stay on course when each member can call others to account as to ensuring they're actually doing their job.⁴ And, as I mentioned in my parting remarks, it makes it less likely that we'll get another round of being criticized by DESE for not doing our job. ⁵
The outgoing Committee indicated how important that training was by changing the rules for this term (the rules go into effect today), requiring that the vice-chair and the chairs of standing committees have gone through the training prior to their appointment.
In addition to the three continuing members (Jermaine Johnson, Molly McCullough, and Sue Mailman), we know from others having seen her in Hyannis in November that Vanessa Alvarez has also completed her training.
Thus those four, and only those four, are eligible to serve in those positions of leadership. 

I suspect that we'll see this emerge fairly quickly, if (and more on this below) the members who know what the authorities of the Committee are stick to it. Motions on the agenda do not have to be passed; they can be filed if a majority of the Committee feels it isn't what the time of the Committee (and the administration) should be spent on.

Policies, contracts, rules, budget, strategic plan: all passed, and all continue.
Worcester has this weird little tradition of having the rules of the School Committee adopted at inauguration. In past years, I assumed that this was due to a basic misunderstanding that somehow they lapsed with a term. The rules, however, are a matter of policy--they're in the district policy manual, of course--and they no more need re-adoption with a new term than the district's nondiscrimination policy or anything else does, as per rule 20, votes of the Committee are effective 48 business hours after a vote.⁶ 

And, of course, the outgoing Committee did a substantial amount of work. In addition to the annual budget allocations by cost center (and that budget continues), the Committee settled nearly every collective bargaining contract (and those contracts continue), adopted a new strategic plan (and that plan continues), updated several administrative contracts (and those contracts continue), reviewed the superintendent's midcycle review of her goals for the year (and those goals continue), and did a thorough review of district policies (and those policies, rules and all, continue).
Yes, that's policy/budget/goals/superintendent/collective bargaining, all currently in place.
The work of the Committee.

A lot happens off the floor.
Items that are filed by members of the Committee are required to be, per rule 26, "under the purview of the Committee, focus on the business of the Committee, and should be concise and specific." It is up to the vice-chair to enforce that, as the vice-chair, together with the Superintendent, assembles the agenda. Any item not meeting that standard, however, can still be voted down by the Committee if it does not meet the business of the Committee.
There is, however, work Committee members do off the floor and outside of meetings. Much of this, in my experience, was things like directing family members on whom to contact with a concern, or directing information to places where people could find it.
Members can, however, use implied authority--authority, note, which they do not have outside of a meeting or indeed may not have at all--in ways that are destructive. State ethics training refers to this as "coercive authority," using one's position to get one's own way. This sort of independent action is not healthy for a district and its work, of course, and it will be up to the Committee to itself police its members to ensure this doesn't happen.

...which brings me to my last point.

This only works if a majority makes it work.

A committee, in my experience, can deal with an outlier or two. They might have to listen to some long speeches that are off course. They will have to ongoingly ensure the agenda is clear of items that are off topic, and then ensure items that get forwarded are those that don't waste time and actually stay to Committee business. 
Above all, they have to be certain that they don't let minor disagreements get in the way of ensuring the district moves forward. This Committee needs to have a functional, focused-on-the-work, majority if it is going to continue to move the district forward. It needs a vice-chair and subcommittee chairs that actually know what the work is (and has been) and can dig right in on ensuring that the Committee's work continues and doesn't get off course. It needs members to know their rules, their policies, the district strategic plan, and ensure their business meetings (for that is what they are) focus on that work, and not on personal hobbyhorses, vendettas, or political pursuits. That working majority has to commit to voting down what does not advance the work of the district, and to doing that every time it threatens to get off course. There cannot be a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that simply because a member has asked for something, it is worthy of time and consideration.

All of this, though, is not self-enforcing. If members get off-focus, deciding to chase individual committee district interests (not an agenda item), settle old scores, get irked and not get over it, it's ultimately the district that will suffer. When the district suffers, it's the kids who bear the brunt of it. 

The public can (and, I'd argue, should, to go back to Brandeis) remind members of their job, but ultimately, it is up to them to do it.

____________________________________________________

¹"What I have desired to do is to make the people of Boston realize that the most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fill, is that of private citizen. The duties of the office of private citizen cannot under a republican form of government be neglected without serious injury to the public."
Statement to a reporter as in the Boston Record, 14 April 1903.

² under my very well protected rights under both the First Amendment and Massachusetts Constitution 

³in other words: no, this is not just me saying this because I work for MASC. It's literally state law.

⁴I would observe that the agenda posted for this Thursday demonstrates this pretty clearly. 

⁵While much less often mentioned than test scores, district governance lacks were part of the reasons given for state receivership in more than one district currently so administered. When I say this keeps me awake at night, I mean it.

⁶ Thus, the rules for the term are not "proposed," as the agenda for this evening holds. Worrisome to see it phrased this way. Nor, as an updated agenda wrote in a proposed referral to subcommittee coming from the clerk (?), is there such a thing as a "period of reconsideration...(90 days)." That's a mishmash of two different rules. Even more worrisome.