By Mark Olbert
I found Sue Lempert's opinion piece Who's to Blame?? in the Sept. 28 edition of the Daily Journal about the problems facing the San Mateo High School District an interesting read. A similar situation hit the San Carlos Elementary School District, where I am a trustee, a year after I was first elected back in November 2001.
I agree with the points Ms. Lempert made. However, there's one in particular I think is worth discussing further, because it played a key role in both my district's and San Mateo's financial crisis: Insufficient questioning of staff reports and recommendations.
For most people this probably sounds like a strange culprit. Aren't elected officials empowered by their communities to ask questions and hold public agencies accountable? That's one of the reasons we vest final? power in elected officials, rather than public agency executives.
Unfortunately, there are several factors that make it difficult for elected officials to exercise oversight. There is the natural desire not to ask questions that might make one look foolish or ignorant. More importantly, there is a strong bias to go along with staff to be a team player. For school districts in particular, the second factor is strongly reinforced by the California School Boards Association, which emphasizes the notion of a governance team? that includes both the school board and the superintendent (who is usually not an elected official).
As a result, the perspective needed to ask tough questions, and thereby provide good oversight, can be difficult to maintain. Elected officials on oversight boards spend far more time interacting with staff than they ever do with the people who elect them. Once personal relationships are established with those executives, the natural human tendency to not annoy or hurt the feelings of the people we work with can come into play. When you add to this the desire to not look ignorant you have a recipe for problems.
In my own district, shortly after I was first elected, two of my colleagues expressed relief that I, with my strong financial background, had joined the board because they approved budgets they didn't really understand for years. I'm sure that a desire not to put staffers with whom they'd established personal relationships on the spot, or reveal their ignorance of finance, were big parts of why they didn't ask the questions they worried they should have. Our community paid the price for that lack of questioning shortly afterwards, when it was discovered we had been running large deficits for some time.
The point is simple: Elected officials have a job to do, and just like with any job, they must not sacrifice their responsibilities in the name of camaraderie or out of fear of looking ignorant.
To use the team metaphor, elected officials need to remember they are the representatives of the team owners (i.e., the public). They are not themselves players. They need to do what's best for the franchise.
We, as voters, can also improve oversight. Expert political consultants say that many of us pick candidates based on how we think we'd relate to the person in a social situation (the would I want to have the candidate over for a barbecue? test). I suspect one consequence of this approach is representatives who, because their nature makes them want to go along to get along,? have difficulty holding agency staffers accountable.
When we choose representatives, we should think about how they will relate to the agency they oversee. Not all people are equally capable of keeping their duty (e.g., holding a public agency accountable) separate from their personal desires (e.g., having strong personal relationships with the people we work with). Not all people are equally willing to question things they don't understand. We can reduce our risk of experiencing nasty surprises by picking representatives who won't let their impulse to get along get in the way of maintaining accountability, and who aren't afraid to ask questions about subjects they don't understand.
– Written by Jen