IBJOpinion

MEREDITH: Voters spoke clearly; now give democracy a chance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Teresa MeredithQuestion: A number of Democrats and Republicans in recent years have called for making the state superintendent of public instruction a position appointed by the governor. Should the position be appointed, and if so, in which year should the appointment begin?

Answer:
Despite being an underdog in her first run for public office, Glenda Ritz defeated incumbent Tony Bennett to become Indiana’s superintendent of public instruction in November. She surprised many by taking 53 percent of the vote. She received more votes than Gov. Mike Pence or Sen. Joe Donnelly.

She ran a grass-roots campaign, relying on support from teachers, parents and community members who wanted a change for education. The electorate spoke. Ritz took office in January.

Yet, shortly after, the buzz started that perhaps Democrats and Republicans alike might call for the position to be appointed by the governor.

I quickly realized that turmoil was just beginning between the Republican-controlled Statehouse and the Department of Education. I had to ask myself if that question would have surfaced if not for the upset by Ritz.

Then I looked back at a few events since the election and the bitterness that followed.



In January, in one of his first acts as governor, Pence, a Republican, removed Ritz from control of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board that handles conflicts between unions and school boards.

In July, concerns about Indiana’s A-F school grading system were detailed in emails obtained by the Associated Press that questioned the fairness of the system. Several days later, Bennett, who had taken a job as Florida’s schools chief, resigned.

In August, the sparring continued when Pence created a new agency—the Center for Education and Career Innovation. Ritz found this move as undercutting the foundation of her agency.

Then in November, the feuding reached a standoff when Ritz walked out of a board meeting where she said the governor’s new agency and several board members were trying to take over her department.

Board members are hand-picked by the governor, and many say those appointed figures answer to the governor and not the people. Wouldn’t it be the same if the state superintendent were appointed by the governor?

I can’t help but wonder if the appointment question about the superintendent position would have been asked if Bennett had been re-elected. Surely the results of the election show that Hoosiers want the post to remain as an elected position.

My high school civics lessons tell me that an elected superintendent keeps a system of checks and balances in place, but let’s take the democratic process one step further.

Indiana has 289 school corporations, and 275 of them hold elections for their local boards. Only 12 boards have appointed members and just two have hybrid boards.

Wouldn’t an elective process be more democratic if the state board members were also elected? Surely elected board members take more interest in their communities and schools and have better ideas about what works best for their students without being trapped by party policy.

Plus, if elected, one party cannot dominate by controlling the board appointments.

This is about our kids, not about politics. Let’s stop the bickering. The election results tell me that Hoosiers wanted to see changes for students. Let’s do what works best for education, not for the administration of the moment.•

__________

Meredith is president of the Indiana State Teachers Association. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT