Letter to the editor: School Board interview process clarifiedUpon being elected to public office, individuals are often told that there are two types of public officials in this country; those who have been misquoted and those who will be misquoted.
Upon being elected to public office, individuals are often told that there are two types of public officials in this country; those who have been misquoted and those who will be misquoted. While Judy Spooner does an excellent job of reporting, none of us are perfect.
Last week’s Bulletin article (“Former member appointed to School Board”) and editorial opinion (“School Board makes good pick for short term”) noted my concern that two candidates who had run for the School Board in 2011, and applied for the current vacancy, were not even given the opportunity to interview for the current vacancy. Unfortunately, the article and editorial opinion reported only half of my frustration with the board’s selection process.
Prior to voting on the five candidates who were selected for interviews by the board’s Personnel Committee, I noted that two candidates who had run for the board in 2011 and received more votes than two current board members who had been elected in 2009, were not selected by the Personnel Committee for interviews. I expressed my opinion that board policy for filling vacancies be amended to allow applicants who had both run for the Board and received a significant number of votes from the electorate in a recent election, should at least be given the opportunity to interview for a board vacancy.
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe the will of our district’s voters should be considered when selecting an individual to fill a Board vacancy. The two applicants who received more votes than two sitting board members should have been allowed to interview before the full Board.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the comments that were attributed to me in last week’s Bulletin.
Gelbmann is a District 833 School Board member