If the public reaction to the Forest Lake Area Schools’ junior high sports decision last month can teach us one thing, it is the importance of government transparency.
I don’t believe the April 7 School Board vote – which cut funding from seven junior high sports programs and has resulted in the district reaching out to community groups in an attempt to shift those programs to new homes – was made with malice aforethought or without weeks of careful consideration and research. Whether you’re for or against the decision, the district had several compelling reasons, both fiscal and competitive, to consider such a move.
However, much of the reaction The Times has observed from residents is tinged with mistrust, confusion and the feeling that this decision was reached without community input. I don’t believe the district or the school board intended to create this reaction, but in hindsight, it’s easy to see where those emotions came from.
When Jason DeMoe, our community editor and our regular reporter on FLAS education matters, attended the April 7 School Board meeting, he didn’t know that cutting sports programs would be on the agenda. In fact, no one could have known unless they had contacted the district ahead of the meeting.
In the meeting agenda that residents could access online beforehand, the cuts to sports programs, along with the other budget reductions the board voted on that evening, are grouped together under a single item titled, “Approve Reduction of $1 Million for 2016-2017.” If a resident were to click on the file explaining the item in more detail on the agenda’s packet, he or she would still find no mention of any specific programs, line items or positions that would be eliminated in a cut.
The lack of advance notice that sports cuts would be up for consideration was compounded by the fact that the cuts hadn’t been discussed previously at another board meeting. Parents with kids in the programs or kids who were about to hit junior high felt blindsided by the news. The way the vote was handled, the community stakeholders in the programs had no chance to voice their opposition or support for the decision, or even to ask questions before the votes were cast. The first they heard of it, the cuts had been made. They felt that their voices had been removed from the process.
I understand that the budget reduction process at the district has operated in roughly the same way for the last several years, and I understand why the district might feel that a protracted public discussion about cuts beforehand could hamper the decision-making process and cause undue concern. However, good government, from local boards to the national stage, is predicated on the ability of individuals to know what their government is doing and to weigh in with concerns and queries – essentially, to hold their leaders accountable. The viewpoints of dedicated citizens should always be factored into a decision before it is made, not after.
Residential feedback is only one consequence of a lack of advance notice. Since The Times didn’t know about the decision before the meeting, we couldn’t cover the issue beforehand. Instead, we posted a news brief after the vote and began working on the complete story the next day, scrambling to put together the entire picture before our next deadline. Meanwhile, rumors and questions circulated through the community in lieu of a complete accounting of the facts. I’m proud of the work the paper has done on the sports cuts, but a more open decision-making process could have led to better reporting and a more informed public.
Even in the weeks following the vote, residents have struggled to get the answers they want about the plan for junior high sports next year. Since the district didn’t speak to community groups like the Forest Lake Area Athletic Association until after the vote, details about the future of some of the sports remain unclear. At an April 21 meeting, district representatives still hadn’t finalized specifics for the programs as uncertain parents asked questions about schedules, competitors and program quality.
I’m not condemning the school district. The Times has a good working relationship with School Board members and district staff, who are typically quick to respond to our queries and supply us with the information we need for responsible reporting. However, virtually every unit of government can find ways to become more transparent, and thus more useful in the lives of the people it serves.
When something in government isn’t made public, it leads to a constituency unequipped to make the best decisions about issues that intersect the public sector with their private lives. That’s not an outcome anyone wants.