Seattle School Board: Voting blind

THE Seattle School Board needs to be reminded of its responsibility to perform due diligence on every policy initiative requiring its approval.

This was not done when the board acquiesced to Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson's request to spend $756,000 on a consultant to help revamp high school curricula.

The money is not the public's. It does not come from the same pot the district uses for teachers and other classroom needs. It is a grant secured by the district's philanthropic partner, the Alliance for Education. In the context of the district's $556 million operating budget, the contract is small.

None of that diminishes, even a bit, the fiduciary responsibility board members have. The source of money matters less than the need for the board to clearly understand the intent of every nickel the district spends.

The board's 4-3 vote for the contract came at its June 16 meeting. Every board member had a question about the contract. Some had several. Answers were wrapped in educational jargon so thick it may have been tempting to approve the contract simply to halt district staffers from offering more pedagogical statements.

Board member Steve Sundquist acknowledges he and his colleagues were not up to speed on the contract. Yet, he voted for it. Compelling his vote was a sense of trust that the superintendent's vision on this — while murky to him and his colleagues — was worth following. Board member Harium Martin-Morris had a different take; without clear and convincing evidence the contract was necessary, he voted no.

Absent clear understanding across the board, the vote should have been postponed.

Board President Michael DeBell acknowledged the board's concerns and told them he shared some of them. Then he voted yes, joined by Sundquist, Cheryl Chow and Peter Maier. Martin-Morris, Mary Bass and Sherry Carr voted no.

The motion passed. The confusion persists.

Voting blind may work this time. The superintendent appears to know what she is doing. But the board cannot relax its vigilance. Its credibility and public trust are at stake.