MCS Board Sets Example
The Memphis City Schools Board has set the example for how appointments should be made. The School Board and the City Council were both in a similar situation, even down to the district, with the resignation of Michael Hooks, Jr. and Janet Hooks, respectively. The difference was in how these two legislative bodies handled the process of finding an interim replacement.
Chairperson Edmund Ford led the City Council in a process that asked for nominations from other Council members within about 3 days. These nominees then came to a committee meeting where they were allowed to make short statements. In this same committee meeting, Chairperson Ford stringently enforced a policy of no questions asked by Council members. In fact, Councilperson Tajuan Stout-Mitchell, who had submitted questions to the nominees, had to assert her right to send questions when one nominee made the mistake of mentioning them in the committee’s open forum. Later that day, nominees made short statements at the General City Council meeting, and a very short period was allowed for questions from Council members. This process left many citizens wondering upon what their interim decision was based.
Contrast the City Council “process” with the School Board process led by Interim Selection Committee chairperson Stephanie Gatewood. The School Board made the announcement of the interim Board position with an ad taken in the Commercial Appeal (CA) and on the Memphis City Schools (MCS) website. Those who responded were sent information and a questionnaire that included demographic as well as policy, personal and professional questions. The respondents’ questionnaires were vetted by staff for accuracy and capacity to serve, even contacting the Shelby County Election Commission to check the address listed to verify the respondent’s district residence. This narrowed the field of candidates, and those remaining were ranked based on their questionnaires by the Interim Selection Committee with an instrument developed by the MCS staff. The top three candidates were then interviewed by the Selection Committee, where questions were actually asked and answered, and ranked again. Based on this thorough and transparent process, a final nominee was submitted from the committee to the entire School Board for approval.
The contrast between the processes followed by these two bodies is stark. We will grant that the School Board had more time in which to make their decision. But, even in considering a scaled down process, the difference in the consideration given seems great. The MCS Board took a step forward and showed they understood the public’s desire for an open, transparent, and public process to determine the representative for District 4. They are to be commended. We ask just one thing; make any improvements based on lessons learned (extend community involvement), and formalize your process into a policy, so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel the next time a vacancy occurs. Oh yeah, send a copy to Councilperson Edmund Ford.
