School Board Approves 6-Year Terms After Testy Debate

The Saline board of education, facing several major issues, was strained in deciding how to react to a new state law that forces districts to hold school board elections during November of even-numbered years.

After a sometimes-testy discussion, school board voted 5-2 to extend school board terms from four to six years. Trustees Lisa Slawson, Todd Carter, Amy Cattell, Craig Hoeft and Chuck Lesch voted to pass the resolution to extend school board terms. Trustees David Zimmer and David Holden voted against resolution. 

The new law essentially forces districts to choose between four-year terms and six-year terms for board members. With four-year terms, voters would elect four trustees one year, and three trustees two years later. With six-year terms, voters would elect two trustees one year, three trustees two years later, and then two trustees two years after that. The issue provoked a spirited debate about the importance of accountability to voters and the need for continuity and stability for the district. It also exposed a gulf between new trustees Holden and Zimmer and board president Slawson, who were once thought to be part of a "working majority" ready to tackle the district's finances.

Trustee Zimmer set the table for the issue during board member remarks early in the meeting, when, during a lengthy address, he said he aimed to solve district issues by being responsive, accountable, balanced and engaged. Zimmer urged others on the board to do the same and then asked the community to evaluate the board’s decision on the election cycle issue based on whether board members met his four criteria.

Board President Slawson appeared surprised by Zimmer’s address, which lasted five minutes.

“(Zimmer's) opinions do not represent the opinions of the board," Slawson said, before turning her attention to Zimmer. "In the future, I’d appreciate, if you’re going to make a statement of that length, that you send it to each and every board member prior to that statement."

After presentations, Holden motioned to make the election cycle issue a discussion issue instead of an action issue.

“I think we need a little bit more time to deliberate. I’ve done some research on the issue. Frankly, I am undecided. There are pros and cons to both the six-year and four-year term,” Holden said, noting that there was division on the issue in neighboring school districts. “I think board members need time to check in with the community. At the end of the day, it’s the voters who should have the say, in terms of whether we go with four years or six years.”

Hoeft said the issue has been discussed by the board a number of times.

“It’s always important to get feedback, but you can go to a different group every day and find a different answer every time,” Hoeft said. “I think that you all elected us and you hopefully have confidence in the decisions we make. I think this is one of those things where it’s on the agenda and we need to make a decision and move on.”

Holden withdrew his motion and it remained a discussion item.

Slawson addressed the issue, saying that there had been many e-mail messages and discussion by board members over the last “couple days.”

“The thing that I would encourage board members is to be civil and let’s be respectful of other people’s opinions,” Slawson said. “I understand that a number of us feel that by (voting on this issue tonight) that we’re not being responsive, but I will tell you that I did not put this on the agenda until I talked with (the Michigan Association of School Board’s executive counsel).”

Slawson opened the issue for discussion.

Superintendent Scot Graden reported that nearby districts are split on the terms, with Ann Arbor and Manchester and choosing four-year terms and Chelsea, Lincoln and Milan going with six-year terms.

Carter outlined the issue, with pointed criticism of the legislation that forced the district to change its ways.

“The state legislature, in its extended wisdom, chose to make a decision for us and remove some of our local control. They chose to say that ‘We’re going to save you guys money by telling you when you have to your elections,’” Carter said. “So rather than having school board elections in May or whenever the community might have liked, we need to have elections during a November election, and only during even-numbered years. So that is what is forcing our decision.”

Carter explained some of the pros and cons of the six-year terms.

“One concern is that the longer your board members sit, the less responsive they could be to the community. That’s a negative consequence of the plan. A positive would be to extend the continuity of the board and better ability to do long term planning.” Carter said.

Lesch, the second-longest serving member of the board, said that he thought longer terms might be advantageous. He said he was a little naïve when he first joined the board, underestimating the complexity of the job.

“There’s so much to learn. I feel now that I am reaching the end of my term, I am just at the point where I understand everything,” Lesch said. “My feeling is that continuity is what we really need on the board, especially in these trying times.”

Lesch said he understood that six years was a long commitment, but said he thought people who were truly committed would step up and serve. He said the lengthy terms might dissuade one-issue candidates.

Hoeft agreed with Lesch, adding that it might not be good for the district if voters could replace a majority of the board in one election.

Zimmer said he was worried that moving to six-year terms takes the board too far away from the control of voters. He said some people won’t be able to stick around for six years.

“There’s more potential for having someone resign during a term and appointed for the remainder of the term. So the voters lose a right,” Zimmer said. “If someone is elected in November for a six-year cycle and then relocated by their employer to another area in the United States, we then appoint somebody to serve in that position for six years.”

Zimmer questioned whether a board would be responsive and accountable to its community during a six-year cycle.

“Are we increasing or diluting accountability?” Zimmer asked.

He said that it took 10 years for parents to get the board to move forward on weighted grades.

“That was on a four-year election cycle. Going to six years, does that increase responsiveness to the community? I’m not sure it does,” Zimmer said, adding that the community wasn’t given a chance to weigh in on the election cycle issue. “I think this is an important topic — for us to take away voting rights from our citizens without asking them about their view is a huge mistake on our part.”

Slawson said she appreciated everyone’s view on the subject but feared politics was seeping into the discussion.

“(School board) is a non-partisan position. I don’t represent the Tea Party. I don’t represent Republicans. I don’t represent the Democrats. I represent the children and educators of this school district and that’s it. And the taxpayers.” Slawson said.

Slawson said she hated that politics was playing into the issue.

“I’ve heard the phrase ‘throw the bums out.’ Well, with all due respect, to all the people that say that, they are the bums, too,” Slawson said. “The thing we need to remember, as board members, is that we need to sort out the politics from the issue. Once we let this become a partisan board…that will be a very slippery slope, and I don’t think you come back from that.”

Holden said it was not a political decision. He said he understood the desire for continuity, but said it might also be too protective of the status quo. He said he wasn’t concerned about giving the voters the opportunity to choose to change the makeup of the board.

“I don’t think we should cast judgment on what is right or wrong for a voter,” Holden said.

He said he thought a six-year term might discourage some from running for office.

“I think a four-year term is probably enough for anybody. I don’t think school board should be a life-long application for anybody. I think people should come, serve and then move on to other things in their life,” Holden said. “I think it’s healthy to have turnover on a board. It brings in fresh ideas. I think the public should have the ability to do that in a four-year cycle.”

Slawson, the longest serving board member, appeared offended by Holden’s comments.

“With all due respect, Mr. Holden, I am at the end of my second term, and I’ve never been anything but humbled and honored to serve this district, its children, taxpayers and staff,” Slawson said. “You can throw stones at me. This is my application. Public education is what sets us apart from everyone else in the world. I am actually kind of troubled that you made that comment knowing I was sitting right here.”

The discussion ended when Hoeft asked to call the vote.

Answering a question from Cattell, Graden said the district began exploring a six-year cycle when it received word that the state moved districts away from May elections.

As a result of the change, Cattell and Hoeft will have their terms extended by one year until 2014, the same year Carter’s term expires. Trustees Zimmer and Holden will have their terms extended from 2015 to 2016.  Slawson and Lesch will see their term expire in 2012. Whoever wins those seats this November will have a term that extends until 2018.