Dist. 200's secrecy violates public trust

Wheaton Warrenville Unit District 200's school board needs a lesson in accountability.

For three weeks, school board President Andy Johnson insisted Superintendent Richard Drury was simply on vacation. After five closed-door meetings, the board inked a severance package for Drury, agreeing to keep secret the reasons for his departure beyond vague references to differences in goals and the direction of the district.

This secrecy is a violation of the public trust.

Goals are not private personnel matters. The board insists this was a difference in philosophy - not a matter of performance or misconduct.

We understand any dismissal or departure is sensitive. However, the status of a $208,000-a-year superintendent is not the same as employment of a custodian or librarian or even a teacher. The superintendent becomes the face of the district. His performance, particularly as it relates to policy and goals, is a matter of public interest.

When hiring a superintendent, school board members talk openly about educational philosophy and leadership style. If a superintendent is asked to leave because of differences over these issues, board members must talk about that, too.

Goals and direction are, in fact, the very matters voters consider before heading to the polls. That's why we find the board's agreement to keep these differences secret from "subsequent employers, the board's employees, the media and the public" so unconscionable.

Voters will never have the information needed to determine whether their elected officials are representing their interests.

Taxpayers are picking up the tab for Drury's severance agreement, which includes a job at his salary through March 9, 2010 and a $60,000 bonus. Yet, they have no information to determine whether this expenditure is warranted.

School board Vice President Rosemary Swanson believes, "One statement is less confusing than having several different ones out there."

We're not confused. We're in the dark.

That is because Swanson, Johnson and the other board members - Barbara Intihar, Ken Knicker, John Bomher, Joann Coghil and Marie Slater - refused to make their constituents' right to know a priority. They seem to think voters should simply trust them.

Well, that's not how democracy works.

Voters deserve a transparent government that openly discusses matters of policy and finance. These kinds of parting agreements, unfortunately, are not entirely uncommon. We urge school boards and all public bodies to look at this example, recognize how it inhibits the public's right to information and take great caution before entering into similar agreements in the future.

In District 200, we encourage both Drury and the school board to amend the deal and bring us out of the dark. Agreements can be renegotiated.

In July, school board members were so happy with Drury, they agreed to extend his contract. By the end of August, they wanted his resignation. This was not a long-simmering feud or deep-rooted philosophical difference. Something changed.

The public has a right to know what transpired.