The Rochester School Board is still one member short. At a
special meeting on January 24, the board’s six current members couldn’t agree on
a replacement for Darryl Porter, who has joined the Duffy administration. If
they can’t select a new board member by February 4, under state law board
president Domingo Garcia has the authority to name one himself.
The board had chosen two finalists from among 14 people who
wanted to be considered for Porter’s seat: Jeff Henley, a Penfield teacher who
narrowly lost the Democratic primary in November, and Karen Jones, who is
director of Mentor and Leadership
Programs for St. JohnFisherCollege.
Board members had expected to make their selection during a
closed caucus just before the January 24 board meeting. They failed to do that,
and the public board meeting erupted in a contentious argument between Garcia
and the board’s newest members, Tom Brennan and Cynthia Elliott, over the
selection process. Brennan and Elliott, joined by board member Shirley
Thompson, charged that the board should have been more public as it considered
candidates for Porter’s seat and that Garcia hadn’t established a clear, fair
process for reviewing candidates.
Garcia insists that the board acted properly. “The law is
very clear,” he said later in the week. This is our responsibility. It is not intended to be an open-ended public
debate. And the district has a policy of not discussing personnel matters in
public for reasons of confidentiality.”
Under state law, the board must name a Democrat to the vacant seat, since Porter is a Democrat
(as are all current board members). Michael Looby, legal counsel to the
district, says the board is mandated by state law to make the decision as a
caucus within 30 days from Porter’s resignation, and it can choose to meet
publicly or behind closed doors.
But Robert J. Freeman, executive director for the state’s
Committee on Open Government, disagrees. He says the board should be reviewing
candidates in public. The open meetings law, he says, is often misinterpreted.
Even though the selection is the board’s decision, the public should be able to
hear questions and responses from the candidates.
Freeman provided City with a copy of the law and an opinion he wrote about a similar case in 1966.
Freeman says the law makes a distinction between an applicant for a
school-district job and an elected official. The opinion does not support
political groups or caucuses who cite personal matters (medical, financial, or
employment history) as reasons to discuss filling a vacancy of an elected
office behind closed doors. These meetings should be held in full view of the
public, he says.
At the January 24 meeting, an agitated Garcia said if the
board can’t agree on a candidate before February 4, “I will appoint whoever the
heck I want to help me move this agenda forward for the district.” The comment
drew heckles from the audience.
“I was very frustrated at that point,” says Garcia. “I was
not angry with anyone in the audience, and I did not mean to be disrespectful.
There was a process. We spent hours going over resumes and narrowing them down
to two candidates to interview.”
Garcia says he doesn’t plan to call another meeting of the
caucus.
This article appears in Feb 1-7, 2006.
