Remedy is possible in cases like Colorado City schools
 
Opinions
The Arizona Republic
 
Regarding "Blunted reforms" (Editorial, Tuesday):

Many people were shocked as it became clear how dysfunctional was the Colorado City school district, that no branch of government had any power to do anything about it.

I proposed a bill for consideration by the Legislature. Many technical parts of the bill were prepared by the Arizona Attorney General's Office, which did an excellent job. The educational judgments contained in the proposed bill were the responsibility of the Department of Education.

The proposed bill was submitted in the House of Representatives. A number of education groups sought to water down the bill. One of the groups is under strict orders from its constituency to oppose any reduction in local powers, no matter how meritorious the need.

The lobbyist for the attorney general, now acting in a political capacity, quarterbacked this group, which held a number of meetings to prepare a watered-down version of the bill, without seeking any input from the Department of Education on education policy issues. The original bill called for appointment of a receiver to operate a school district so that students' education would not suffer in the case of "systemic and egregious mismanagement of the school district's finances, financial records or other duties." The watered-down version limited this to "financial" issues. The next extreme case that we have will be unpredictable. If it is non-financial, there will again be no remedy for a year, while students' education suffers, awaiting new legislation. We will be like the French who, on the eve of WWII, were so well prepared to fight WWI. We needed to deal with the fundamental problem of no remedy in the law for extreme dysfunction.

I meet frequently with education groups, and listen hard to what they have to say, often taking their advice. But I wouldn't be doing my job properly if I weren't willing to disagree once in a while. I believe that independence of judgment, though not a universal, is a desirable quality in public officials.

Both bills were prepared, and the issue was fully joined, when the House voted. A majority voted for the original bill. A minority, favoring the later, watered-down version of the bill, voted "no." At that stage, the majority prevailed. Hopefully, similar independence of judgment will be shown as the bill proceeds through the process.

Tom Horne,
Phoenix

The writer is state superintendent of public instruction.
 
azcentral.com
Originally published April 23, 2005
 
Back