The Owl Newsletter

ISSUE 42 | DECEMBER 8, 2001

[This free e-mail newsletter about school information, accountability and the public is provided by School Wise Press. To add a colleague's name to the distribution, please send us their names and e-mail addresses to: stever@schoolwisepress.com. If you'd rather not receive this, simply notify us by phone at (415) 337-7971, or by e-mail, including the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of your message.]

School boards all over the state will appeal to voters next March to approve school bonds. In many cases, like San Jose USD's $429 million measure and West Contra Costa USD's $300 million request, these bonds are of historic proportions.

What has encouraged education leaders to take such bold steps, especially in the face of an economic downturn? Yes, polling data shows the public favors school bonds now. Yes, interest rates are at historic lows. Yes, Prop. 39 lowers the threshold for passage to 55 percent. But there's an additional factor that merits attention: trust.

Trust is a form of civic capital. Some districts have built up their trust "capital reserves" with their communities, even in the most difficult of cirumstances (see Oakland below). Others have wasted it away, and now face an arduous and expensive process of rebuilding (see San Francisco).

Whether you're preparing for bond elections or not, this is a time for you to review the state of your "capital reserves" of trust. How do you measure it? Over five years time, is your trust index up or down? Where are you gaining trust (principal-to-parent, accountability report cards, school board meetings)? Where are you losing it?

If you wonder whether this is relevant to your district, consider the tale of the three districts below.

TWO DISTRICTS THAT HAVE BUILT TRUST AND PROSPERED

Consider San Mateo Union High School District. The district had gone to the voters three times in a row, and lost every time. In November 1998 they fell just a few hundred votes short of the two-thirds majority required for passage. For a high school district in the center of prosperous San Mateo county, its tired facilities were becoming a civic embarrassment.

Enter Supt. Thomas Mohr, who began inviting his public to come tour the district's seven high schools. Guided tours revealed to the public the toll that time had taken on their buildings. Those who witnessed the damage of maintenance deferred for decades talked to neighbors. The sight of water damage from a leaking roof is an image people tend to remember.

In the presidential election of November 2000, the voters passed the $137.5 million measure strongly, with 72 percent affirming their confidence in the district. (Read the news story.)

Consider the long-troubled Oakland USD, which suffered through a series of very public expressions of its problems. In 1999, Senator Don Perata came out in favor of a state takeover, then led a citizens' audit of its facilities. (Read the news story.)

Mayor Brown appointed four of his own to the district's nine-person board. And a six-month FCMAT audit concluded in February 2000 that the district had failed all five categories of its thorough review: finances, maintenance of property, personnel, community relations and student performance. (Read the news story.)

This bold audit, however, effectively enabled the district to touch bottom, and push off toward the surface. Their board, facing the threat of state takeover, eventually welcomed the audit, and accepted their findings. Hiring the charismatic Dennis Chaconas to come take the superintendent's reins also helped restore public trust. The result? In the March 2000 election, nearly 85 percent of the voters approved a $303 million bond measure. Of course, a citizen's oversight committee was written into the bond measure.

AND ONE DISTRICT THAT MISUSED ITS PUBLIC'S TRUST

San Francisco is emerging from seven bad years under ex-Supt. "Wild Bill" Rojas. His successor, Supt. Arlene Ackerman, wisely took the wraps off malfunctioning departments and invited in the auditors. FCMAT's audit team swept through. Outside accountants audited the books. The FBI investigated charges of fraud and misuse of public funds. A new business officer cleaned house. Supt. Ackerman recruited the much respected city architect, Tony Irons, to come in and take on facilities responsibilities.

Results? The facilities department is now under the FBI's scrutiny, and its prior head may be indicted. Bond funds were discovered to have been tapped for other purposes and never repaid. Ten years of district violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act led parents to file suit. Schools scheduled for renovation were told the district ran out of money. (Read the series "Broken Promises" in which this sad saga unfolds.)

Now the district wants to go to the voters with a $250 million bond measure, largely to make good prior commitments for renovation and repairs. District leadership is trying to decide if they've earned the public's trust back, or whether they need to do more to prove they're worthy of the responsibility. With enrollment declining, and roughly 20 percent of the city's students in private schools, the signals are mixed, at best.

LEARNING HOW TO BUILD TRUST

From this tale of three cities, I offer three suggestions.

1. BUILDING TRUST PAYS OFF. This can be done by leaders of stable districts like San Mateo Union HSD, or distressed ones. But building trust is the foundation for your relation with the public you serve. Neglecting to build trust, or worse, abusing that trust, will take a costly toll in more ways than failed bond elections.

2. TRUST CAN BE BUILT IN MODEST WAYS AT LOW COST. From your teachers to your board members, your daily interactions either add to, or subtract from, your reserves of trust. Publications like your annual school accountability report card (SARC) are moments when you show your public whether you trust them with the facts, presented clearly and professionally. Simple gestures like Supt. Mohr's inviting his public to walk through high schools, or Sen. Perata's citizen inspection of Oakland's facilities, demonstrate both trust and accountability.

3. BETRAYING THE PUBLIC'S TRUST HAS A HIGH COST. San Francisco's wise and talented Supt. Arlene Ackerman is now almost a year and a half into taking the reins from her predecessor. Her team's assessment of the damage of his seven years of combat with the board and the public is still not complete. Misspent bond money by the prior administration makes it difficult for her to return to the public, even now with evidence of her candor and capability quite clear.

4. CANDOR IS ESSENTIAL. If your district employs a public information officer whose job function is mainly press damage control, rewrite that job description. Your relations with the press require an open door, an open mind, and open books. Follow Supt. Ackerman's lead, and let the facts fall where they may. Your community's opinion leaders deserve no less.

This owl urges you to budget, plan and act toward building trust with the public you serve. This building of intangible social capital won't appear on your district's financials. But it will become apparent in your next bond election, to be sure.

OWL ARCHIVE | BACK TO NEWSLETTER REGISTRATION PAGE