Focus groups alone won't fix trust problem

A headline this week, "Community input key as U-46 picks search firm for chief," probably brought a lot more rolling eyes than a wave of eager volunteers.

Community involvement in the selection of a new superintendent is, of course, a good idea in theory. It is the stated reason the Elgin Area School District U-46 board gave for choosing Proact Search Inc. of Milwaukee to help it find a replacement for the departed Connie Neale.

But focus groups are not likely to satisfy residents, most of whom believe the board majority cared a whole lot more about filling the ever-outstretched hand of Neale than in serving their interests. It will take much more effort to overcome skepticism about its newfound interest in community involvement -- interest that comes years late and has left taxpayers millions of dollars shorter.

The board majority of Ken Kaczynski, Joyce Fountain, Karen Carney and Donna Smith is, after all, the same group whose disdain for the public helped prompt a discrimination lawsuit that has already cost the district $3.25 million, and could turn into a class action costing millions more before it is resolved.

Neale's quick departure, underwritten by taxpayers via this foursome to the tune of what could be $1 million in benefits, means the district is now paying for her, a temporary replacement and the search for a successor.

This is also a board majority that has returned the district to its long-ago days of labor trouble, not so much because of the money it has offered, but for the same reason taxpayers don't trust this group. It never recognized how its pandering to Neale would be received by those who do the real work and those who pick up the tab.

Teachers rejected the board's first contract offer, in part because of the largess granted Neale and in part because the board was so detached from the realities of overcrowded classrooms and declining morale. Only time will tell how the conflicts are resolved.

Surely there will be residents who aspire to meet and greet prospective superintendents. But the next superintendent will be hired by the same majority who gave Neale whatever she wanted. Sadly, that means the most likely question from the public won't be about experience, education or leadership, but more practically, "How much is it going to cost to employ you?"

If the board truly wants direction from the public, we're pretty sure they'd find there's much more interest in the next superintendent's contract than in the next superintendent. Should the discussion of that contract be held in public session or members of the public be invited to be part of the negotiating team, a stampede of participants might occur.

Hope can be found in three board members, Dale Spencer, Amy Kerber and Maria Bidelman, who voted against Neale's last request and who've made efforts to talk to teachers, too. But until they can find a fourth, they only represent hope, not change.

Until then, the public isn't likely to be fooled into thinking its opinion suddenly matters to a board majority that has shown so little interest in it up to now. And any new superintendent should know that coming, for they will have to overcome it and help fix it.