This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

School Board Builds Case for Staggered Terms

Revisiting the budget without advance notice shows lack of consideration – and experience.

Every four years, there is the potential for sweeping change on the Loudoun County School Board and Board of Supervisors, since all seats are up for election at the same time.

As it happened, both boards experienced such change in the 2011 election, with only three incumbents returning to the school board, and only two to the board of supervisors.

In its Feb. 14 meeting, the school board unwittingly made a good case for staggered terms.

Find out what's happening in Leesburgwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The six new members of the school board all ran as reformers, committed to taking a hard look at school expenditures and holding the line on spending.

There’s nothing wrong with that. But there are right ways and wrong ways to enact reforms. What the school board majority did on Valentine’s Night – at least, the way they did it – was wrong.

Find out what's happening in Leesburgwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

To recap: The school board adopted its FY 13 budget on Feb. 7.  At the Feb. 14 meeting, Leesburg District member Bill Fox surprised some of his colleagues by moving to amend the budget, even though that item was not on the agenda.

A two-thirds majority vote of school board members was necessary to reopen the budget discussion. Fox got the support he needed from the five other new board members. Over the protests of the three board veterans, Fox and the new majority succeeded in pushing through $2.4 million in budget cuts.

Here’s why I think the school board majority was wrong:

  1. Since the budget was not on the agenda, the public was not informed in advance that any budget actions might be taken at that meeting. Members of the public who are interested in the budget would likely have attended that portion of the meeting if they had known it would be reconsidered.

  2. Three members of the school board – Tom Reed (at large), Jennifer Bergel (Catoctin) and Brenda Sheridan (Sterling) – were apparently unaware that the budget would be taken up that night. When elected officials know they are going to raise an important matter, it is common courtesy to let all of their colleagues know, so they are prepared for the discussion.

  3. Staff members were also unaware that the budget would be raised. Senior staff needs to know in advance so the appropriate staff members can be present to answer questions, and so that they will have the supporting documents they need.

Members of the new majority probably thought they were doing the right thing in making the cuts. But when you’re doing the public’s business, that’s not enough. Things need to be done the right way.

When Reed asked chairman Eric Hornberger (Ashburn) why he had not informed the staff and the entire board that the budget would be reconsidered that night, Hornberger replied, “I don’t feel the need to answer the question.” Reed then walked out of the meeting.

Hornberger, Fox and their colleagues in the new majority may have felt they were making a strong statement, but the message they conveyed was not the one they intended. Their heavy handed actions that evening made them look like bullies who don’t know the basics of governing – or how to treat people.

They put Reed, Bergel and Sheridan at a disadvantage by keeping them in the dark about their plans. In doing so, they were disrespectful of residents of the Catoctin and Sterling districts, who elected Bergel and Sheridan, respectively, to give them effective representation.

They were also disrespectful of Reed’s constituency. The senior member of the school board, Reed is the board’s “at large” representative, elected by voters in every district.

It is worth noting that Reed received 47 percent more votes in the 2011 election than the six members of the board majority combined. Reed – and the 25,540 residents who voted for him – deserved better than they got from the board majority.

The dysfunction that is apparent on the school board now is a largely result of having too many rookies, with rookie leadership.

It’s not just a matter of respect, or common courtesy; it’s also a matter of effectiveness. When a public body does things the wrong way, it reflects badly on them, calls their decisions into question, stirs up opposition, and inevitably makes them less effective.

So far, the board of supervisors looks mature by comparison. Although there are seven new members on that board, they benefit from an experienced chairman in Scott York.

York knows what it is like to be part of a minority faction on the board. I don’t think he would have made the same mistake Hornberger did by allowing three of his colleagues, and the staff, to be blindsided.

Without York’s veteran leadership, the board of supervisors might well have been in the same boat as the school board, and Loudoun County citizens might have had to put up with dysfunction in both boards for four long years.

Let’s hope the Commission on Government Reform takes a hard look at the advantages of staggered terms.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?