by Joe Sullivan
You'd think that having declared victory on the biggest issue in its lawsuit against County Commission, the school board would seek an accommodation with Commission to resolve the matter. But instead of holding out an olive branch, the school hierarchy seems bent on contentiously flaunting its victory. Worse yet, it's looking to its lawyer, Robert Watson, to do the flaunting rather than reestablishing lines of communication between elected officials on both sides.
The issue is whether County Commission is entitled to approve school contracts exceeding $50,000, as provided in the Knox County Charter. In its lawsuit, the school board contended that state law gives it unfettered authority over budgeted outlays and that state law takes precedence over the county charter. In her ruling in the case last month, Chancellor Sharon Bell upheld the validity of the county charter. However, in a subsequent discussion involving the lawyers for both parties, it was agreed that Commission's right to reject a school contract should be limited to a very narrow set of circumstances. Only if an outlay weren't included in the annual school budget or if contracted i's weren't dotted and t's crossed would commission have the right to disapprove it.
County Commission had, in fact, approved a settlement of the suit along these lines at its February meeting. The proposed settlement would have eliminated approval procedures that school Superintendent Charles Lindsey found most onerous: namely, his need to get a succession of Commission committee approvals prior to full Commission action. There's little doubt a school superintendent has better things to do with his time than run such a gauntlet on an almost monthly basis.
Instead of responding to Commission's settlement offer or otherwise seeking a resolution himself, however, Lindsey chose to let his lawyer Watson proclaim on his behalf, "It was made clear to the court that the County Commission and executive are not exercising control over the board of education...the board chooses to refrain from appearing before commission and its various committees." An exception was made, of course, for appearances to get their annual budget approved in the first place. But biting the hand that feeds them is hardly conducive to a harmonious budget approval process.
Lawyerization rather than harmonization of relations is also manifest in other ways as well. Without any action on the board's part after Chancellor Bell's decision, Watson is appealing other aspects of it that went against the school board. The prime one was a ruling that the board is not entitled to hire its own attorney as provided in state law. Again, Bell ruled that the county charter takes precedence, and the charter provides for an elected law director to represent all arms of county government except in the event of a conflict among them.
County Law Director Mike Moyers asserts, "Part of the reason we have a law director is to make these kinds of suits difficult, not easy, so we don't spend our time suing each other." He could have added, "money." The county has already paid $130,000 to lawyer Steve Roth to defend the school board lawsuit before the meter has even started running on its appeal. It's not known what Watson's charges may amount to, and whether he's paid for them may depend on a successful appeal that establishes the school board's right to retain him in the first place.
In its February settlement offer, commission offered to pay Watson's fee, provided the school board did not appeal. In the event of future conflicts with the school board, the law director would have to allow the board to select its own attorney. In the event of a disagreement over whether such a conflict of interest exists, the state Board of Professional Responsibility would decide.
So just why is the school board spurning all attempts at reconciliation and persisting in its disputatious course? "We don't feel we can trust County Commission any longer," says board member Paul Kelley. The final straw, he says, was when Commission Chairman Leo Cooper went public with the settlement offer commission approved in February after supposedly assuring school board chairman Jim McClain he'd keep negotiation between the two of them private until McClain could get a board response.
(Cooper for his part, insists. "I had to start lobbying other commissioners when I did, in order to get them to go along in time to act at the February meeting, which was our last chance to avoid an appeal.")
This is pretty flimsy stuff on which to base a schism, and close observers believe that the deeper seated reason is Lindsey's penchant for a fight, coupled with the control he exerts over a majority of school board members. Kelley, who is more independent-minded, is known to have been in the minority in favoring negotiations before the board filed its suit last fall. Moyers is clear that a settlement on the contract-approval issue could have been reached then on the same terms that came out of Bell's courtroom six months later.
One of Lindsey's loyalists, namely McClain, is retiring. His unopposed successor will be former County Commissioner Robert Bratton, who stands tall with his former colleagues and can be expected to stand up to Lindsey much more firmly. Indeed, he views such Lindsey shibboleths as "a world-class school system" skeptically. "We just need an East Tennessee-class school system," he has asserted, alluding to the shortfall between Knox County schools and superior systems in Maryville and Oak Ridge.
Two other Lindsey loyalists, Diane Dozier and Margaret Maddox, both face worthy opponents in May's school board election. Maddox's opponent, Dan Murphy, is a UT accounting professor who would bring much-needed financial acumen to a board that has failed to heed the admonitions of school system auditors for strengthened financial management.
For the nonce, we're inclined to agree with Cooper that any attempt at rapprochement would be "an exercise in futility." Lindsey, he says, "has thoroughly alienated Commission." While such alienation usually works both ways, Commission is a fixture. Lindsey is not.
March 28, 2002 * Vol. 12, No. 13
© 2002 Metro Pulse
| 
