Process lacking public input (12/3/04)

Sometimes, it’s not just what you do, but how you do it.

That’s the case for the Jay School Board, which knocked much of the county on its ear last week by setting in motion a process that could lead to a whopping $26 million bond issue.

The capital improvements project itself — which includes things as fundamental as an upgrade to the heating system at the high school and things as debatable as an auxiliary gymnasium — may or may not make sense.

But because of the way the board has gone about things, public trust and confidence in the procedure have already been undermined.

There’s a pretty normal routine for projects of this size and scope.

First comes public discussion, as much and as varied as possible. Then comes planning, with a number of options usually developed for consideration. Then comes a public review of the options, followed by a decision on one course of action. After more detailed architectural or engineering work, it’s then taken to a formal public hearing prior to issuing bonds which will be paid off with property tax revenue.

In this case, that normal procedure fell by the wayside.

It started, as far as we can tell, with a school board strategic planning retreat held this summer.

Thanks to lobbying pressure from the Indiana School Boards Association, a loophole was created in the Indiana Open Meetings law which allows such strategic planning sessions to be held outside of public view.

The theory is that board members need to let their hair down if they’re going “think strategically” about where to take the school system.

Trouble is, the public’s not part of the discussion. And it’s entirely possible for a board to emerge from the strategic planning process with an unspoken consensus on a course of action while leaving the public in the dark.

That’s apparently what happened here.

Most board members — away from public view and without a formal vote — concluded that an aggressive, ambitious capital improvement project at Jay County High School made sense.

They may not have agreed on details, and they certainly didn’t agree on a price tag. But there was a consensus on direction.

That was followed by the development of specific plans, right down to architectural drawings.

Then, having decided on a general direction and having had plans drawn up, a session for “public input” was scheduled.

It was a charade in many ways. The board had already reached a consensus as evidenced by the fact that detailed plans had been put together. And the meeting was heavily attended by school employees who had been directly involved in putting the plans together.

Now, with a hearing scheduled on how to finance the whole deal, the public gets a last chance to join the discussion.

Instead of “discuss-plan-review options-decide-formalize” as the pattern, it’s been a case of “discuss privately-reach consensus-develop plans-sell the plan to the taxpayer.”

Board members don’t see it that way, of course.

They feel as if they’ve been talking about the issue for months. And they have, but much of that preliminary discussion and way too much of the planning have gone on without public involvement.

What’s too bad about this series of missteps is that it makes it harder to consider the project on its merits.

The “how it was done” complicates consideration of what is being proposed. — J.R.

(Editor’s note: An editorial on the project itself will be published in The Commercial Review on Saturday).[[In-content Ad]]