If You Ask Me / By Martha Knight

There are five people seeking the school board seat left vacant when Gary Hardes left.

Five! That’s something of a record.

Not many more than that filed nominating petitions for the four seats available in the 2013 municipal election; five made it through the primary. But often we have seen no contests at all, when there were only as many candidates as there were trusteeships to be filled.

It is a little easier to “run” for appointment than for election. To get on the ballot, a candidate must circulate at least one nominating petitions and obtain signatures (of have someone do so for him or her), and then fill out some paperwork and file the petition with the Board of Elections. The candidate who cross-files must satisfy the requirements twice.

Our school board decided to let people self-nominate by sending in letters expressing their interest and describing their qualifications.

This strikes me as a fairly open and democratic process. The law that says a school board can fill its own vacancy by appointing someone doesn’t say how the board should do this. The remaining members could just pick someone.

Recalling how our board has done this in the past, and how other boards have, I know “calling for letters” is a common approach.

Sometimes another approach is used, that of picking the person who came the closest to being elected in the most recent election. The thinking is that this person did seek the endorsement of the voters and did have considerable support.

There is merit to that. It is possible to lose a school board election, in a good turnout, while receiving more votes than some of the incumbents did a couple years ago in a ho-hum election.

This year that “came closest without winning” person would be a Democrat! Harrumph! Oh, I forgot. There is no taint of partisan politics in school board elections in Pennsylvania. Perish the thought. Although I believe there are many voters who just vote “straight ticket,” and most of them who do, around here, vote straight Republican. That is bound to affect the candidate who filed for a Democratic nomination and received one, but did not cross-file. Maybe next time she will.

Recently an official body in another community was faced with filling a vacancy, and their plan was to choose someone who had served on the board until being defeated not long ago. This person had been elected sometime, and had experience as a board member.

Well yes, others argued, but that person also had been defeated, more recently than he had been elected.

Somewhere a former board member who had finished his last term and chosen not to run was called back into service. Seems reasonable. The applicable law would allow that approach, and the others mentioned.

I like the method our school board came up with, though. It has the “letters of interest” feature, and then lets the candidates “campaign” a little. In appointing someone to an elective office, board members are standing in for the voters, for the public at large, representing them in choosing a board member. If their process of choosing mimics the one we might use before voting, that seems fair.

The board specified that it would hear from the candidates in public, and then elect one of them, in public.

The board decided to invite each candidate to appear at the February 10 board meeting and address the board for five minutes each. I do not recall whether it was said that board members would question them.

In describing the chosen method, it was mentioned that this would be a “Meet the Candidates” event in miniature, modeled after the ones Peggy Kallenborn and the Republican Women put on before the primary in the municipal election years,. Because the events are sponsored by a Republican organization, only Republican candidates are invited. Those who are unable to attend may submit statements to be read; Mrs. K. does that. A timekeeper signals each speaker when his or her five minutes are up.

The school board’s mini-forum apparently will not allow for the reading of any statements from candidates who don’t show up in person. Obviously it will not be for Republican candidates only. But the main idea is similar If it fell to the Court of Common Pleas to fill this vacancy, chances are the judges would invite the applicants to address them, and would limit the length of their presentations.

Last month the borough council had to appoint someone to the position of tax collector, because of the recent resignation of Pat Payne.

The council called for letters of application from interested persons. They got two. The council set a special meeting to fill the vacancy,  and also to discuss negotiations with the police chief.

The two candidates for tax collector came to the meeting,. So did I, representing you, the public.

So far, so good.

Then the council president called for an executive session before discussing the appointment of tax collector. Of course I protested. This was by no stretch a personnel matter of the kind that constitutes an exception to Sunshine Law/Open Meetings requirement.

Well, maybe not, I was told, but the exception would have to do with protecting confidentiality and privacy of the applicants?

What do we suppose the applicants might have included on their letters of interest, or their resumes, for that matter, that would be considered confidential and private?

We sat in the hall for a while, the two candidates and I. Each was called in for a private interview with the council. Then there was a very long discussion in closed session.

What could the council members have had any duty or right to ask the candidates, or discuss concerning them, that could be considered too confidential for us, the public, but not too prying for them to ask? What rights of the job seekers could have been violated by the council members in their private discussion with one another , and the mayor and two appointed borough officials, if we had heard the discussion? Should they have discussed truly private and confidential information or speculation about the applicants even with each other?

Social security number? Sexual orientation? Religion? Lawful personal habits? What? None of that is any of our business, or council members’ either. So what was their business that wasn’t fit for our delicate ears? The candidates didn’t seem to know, either.

The discussion of negotiations with the police chief was a proper Sunshine Law exception. That’s where the meeting should have been closed. But not the appointment of a tax collector. We, the public, are supposed to be able to watch the deliberative process, as well as the final vote and pleasantries. The school board seems to grasp that concept.

Peace.