Running For... (Length Warning!)

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin talks about the two ways to run for elective office, and asks you to remember that this is only his opinion. But he also points out that he's a goody two-shoes with a failing memory, which makes him less likely to lie or shade the truth because he wouldn't be able to keep his story straight.

When I first ran for School Committee in 2000, I had a negative reason for running; that is, I ran against the status quo. Four of us ran for 3 seats; I didn't run against them. I ran against the School Committee as it was then operating. Those of you have been in the community since the 90's may remember those days; a refresher for you if you don't remember or if you weren't here.

That School Committee was composed of bright, hardworking individuals who cared about the School system. It was proud of it's work to pass the High School override, It had, as a body, hired one Superintendent, Cappy Smith, but had also made it clear that Smith, who was a visionary in many ways, was not going to be rehired. Between the election and the inauguration of a new majority of School Committee members (three Committee members and a new Mayor) the outgoing School Committee felt the need to relieve the incoming majority of the responsibility of hiring a new Superintendent, and hired Mary Murray. This only reinforced the community perception of the School Committee as aloof, disinclined towards transparency, and controlling of the agenda. Oh, and the habit of making appointments as you headed out the door, tying the hands of the incoming elected officials, is really a hallmark of those particular folks. It has happened repeatedly over the past six years.

So I ran to change that. I ran against that. And although I didn't personalize it, I made it very clear that while the majority would rule, they would not have a silent minority to contend with.

I had garnered a reputation writing for the Undertoad, and through community activism, and I finished 3rd in a field of 4.

So I joined the School Committee as the only seated educator, with a chip on my shoulder, a Saul Alinsky orientation to institutional change, and a legal pad full of ideas. And while I wasted no time in offering critical feedback to procedures and Committee processes, it was always constructive- that is, if I said this didn't work, I'd always suggest something that might be an alternative.

Unexpectedly, I found myself working more closely with Dick Sullivan, who had run for similar reasons. We agreed to second one another's motions, and for the first time in years, were able to promote a dialogue within the Committee about a wide range of issues. There things we didn't agree on, but we always felt the community had the right to have everything deliberated in public session.

We moved from a single session of Public Comment to several, and we introduced Public Conversation, which encouraged people from the community to raise concerns with the Committee publicly in the form of a dialogue- you ask a question publicly, you get an answer publicly. The budget process acquired more structure, and connection with the School Improvement Plans as a way to ensure that we were moving forward with some feedback from the School community. More hearings were held, and more dialogue began to happen between the School Committee and the public at those hearings.

That School Committee deserves credit for creating what has turned out to be model approach to creating clear policies that mark the limits and responsibilities of the School Committee and the Superintendent.

But my strongest memories of the first two years were struggling to pry open process, ranging from budget creation to adoption, finding ways to do business openly and engage the community at every possible point, and simply running into 5-2 votes repeatedly on what I would call back then "thinking outside the box" proposals for changing the system to promote learning and capture efficiencies. I remember that the School Committee self-evaluation just prior to my joining had one question regarding Public Communications- "did we get the Newsletter out in a timely fashion."

To this day, I am still discovering information that might have affected my vote back then, had it made it's way all the way around the table. Information is the currency of politics. And it seems to me that it was hoarded during my early years, and dispensed in a miserly fashion.

At one point, the School Committee representative to the High School Building Committee had to be publicly reminded that their role was our representative to them, and not their rep to us; and that timely sharing of information regarding the progress or lack thereof was expected.

Not only was the School Committee distrusted, it seemingly had no insight into that fact, nor did it have any idea how to change that perception.

Over the last four years, there have been dramatic changes, in my opinion. Early votes on the School Committee felt to me orchestrated and pro forma, the outcomes predetermined, and the public debate limited to move things along. Now, while it may seem that we talk things to death, we have become the deliberative body the community deserves, and we are doing more due diligence about ideas and issues than at any time in my six years on the Committee.

We have made decisions over the past year alone that were never even allowed to be brought to the table as options to be explored; I remember my annual frustration at bringing ideas forward early in the school year, only to be told it was too soon to talk about them, and then bringing them back up during budget talks, only to be admonished that it was too late.

I have called that the tyranny of the agenda; it was exercised by the few to create a school system that reflected a passive, "insider" mentality.

But things began to change. The budget documents became more and more transparent every year. Budget hearings became longer, and more frequent, and much more animated with the opportunity for community input. Our budget choices, which were now limited to making cuts, were more painful for that, but it was the way the process should always have been conducted.

By the end of my first term, I still had a long list of things I wanted to see happen. And although I found myself consistently locking horns with the Superintendent about accountability issues, and curriculum decisions we were making that were driven by budget cuts, I felt there had been just enough changes in the status quo that I was now running for the SC, and not against it. I chose to run for the remainder of Vickie Pearson's term (two years), in part because I was very excited about the field running for the 3 available 4 year seats. In turns out that they were unopposed, and I drew an opponent in my race, which was fine.

I decided, as I had in my first race, I would't raise any money from the community to run, that I would self-finance. In the end, I was both in school taking Montessori training, and teaching during the day, so I had little time for traditional campaigning. My opponent was also managing the Mayoral race being made by Donna Holaday. For every sign she had, I had none. For every brochure, again, I had none.

I eked out a win, pretty much winning every ward. Later, when I asked people in the community why they thought I had succeeded, they told me that they didn't agree with me at times, but they felt I would reliably confront issues and could be counted upon to find ways to get the community involved in the decisions, whether that was through feedback or spending a lot of face-time out there, before and after meetings, or when I would meet people on the street. They saw me as reliably pushing for accountability throughout the school system.

I ran for the School Committee then, and not against my opponent, who, despite all her advantages, could simply not make a compelling case for my electoral removal, or for her own candidacy.

This year, much to my surprise, I am again running for School Committee. We have finally found the synergy that has been missing- a good balance of viewpoints, a visionary Superintendent, some very sharp and analytical minds, and a commitment to explore every idea from the point of view of it's affect on students.

There are three seats, six candidates. Good candidates. Four of them worked on the Override campaign, which I supported. They are all bright, energetic, and engaged. But the feedback I am getting from friends who have attended meet and greets, or met them door to door, is that they are running against the School Committee. We are indecisive, they say, or we have been slow to act. We can do better.

Of course we can, and we will. I have spent the last two years serving on a School Committee that didn't have the answers prior to the discussion; that as we agonize over each decision, it is happening in real time, without choreography, without back room chatter.

I feel my fellow candidates confuse jumping to conclusions without due diligence, or driving to a decision that is made before full deliberation, with indecisiveness.

There's an old Yiddish saying, one that seems apropos- "A goat has a beard, but that doesn't make it a Rabbi." One person's indecisiveness is another's insistence on due diligence.

In effect, their argument is throw the bums out; it is merely coincidence that I am the only bum running for re-election. And people wonder why I'm the only person since 1997 to run for re-election to the School Committee. In some ways, I don't blame them; I ran that way once as well.

Life isn't that simple. If you want to throw the bums out, you need to make sure that all those ejected are bums. You need to be sure that there is no value to re-electing a candidate who has six years experience, is a licensed educator with classroom experience, has lived through six budget cycles, worked with three Superintendents, fought against many of the cuts and the framework in which those cuts were being considered, pro-actively advocated reconfiguration six years before we were forced to do it. You need to make sure that this community is better off losing one of only two members who have sat at the negotiating table with the NTA. You need to make sure that the relationships established with elected officials outweigh those of former elected officials when it comes down to getting city and state money we need for the schools. That is called due diligence.

It's easy to paint with a wide brush; it covers a lot of things. In baseball and football, they have a saying, when you come to play, you leave it all on the field. You hold nothing back. That's how I've approached my responsibilities as a member of the School Committee. I leave it all on the table.

Finally, the surpassing irony is that several of my fellow candidates have sought and have the active support of the very people who were dominating the School Committee when I ran against the status quo six years ago. Talk about back to the future.

So it comes down to this. Either I have changed into a passive, co-opted, insider, who no longer fights stupid curriculum cuts and the misguided emphasis on buildings to the detriment of our academic programs; who mistrusts the public because they don't know as much as I do, or I'm still the same abrasive, creative, irreverent pain in the ass I have been for six years.

And I may have been a pain in the ass, but I have always been on the side of the kids, of accountability, of making hard decisions with an eye on the future; and I have a public record proving it. I don't think I've changed. Nor do I think I will.

I will support another override if and when it is needed, but I believe there are a number of things we can do as a community before we get there, and that we can lessen the burden on seniors when we do.

To repeat- the schools are in desperate need of an infusion of cash, quickly, for the '09 budget, but I'm an no longer convinced that putting all of our eggs in the override basket is the only way to go. Other options exist, and will require difficult decisions, ones we haven't really confronted yet. But they are there; and can be made by a community that isn't as polarized as we are now.

So look for consensus builders up and down the ballot this election day folks, and leave the ideologues on their soapboxes. We gonna need a lot of listeners and sanity in the next coupla years.

Oh, and in case anyone asks, people on both sides of the funding issue still think I'm a pain in the ass, so I must be doing something right.