Those calling for wider superintendent search don't represent most patrons

The Nevada Appeal reporter got it right when he inferred that the slug- fest at the Tuesday night school board meeting was filled with emotional intrigue. However, he got it wrong when he grossly misreported the facts of the proceedings. He excluded public input from those who tried to shed some reasonable light on the subject of how to hire a new school district superintendent, from within the district, or outside recruitment.

The "public" diatribe was dominated by three far-right supporters of board member Joe Enge, conservative activists Sam and Sheila Ward and a former school board candidate, Ann Bednarski. These three activists represent a very narrow slice of public input, grossly overstated by the reporter. In a long conversation with the board, a more reasonable view was presented by another local conservative, Joe Eiben, but not reported.

The board chose between two important alternatives. First, if the board wants to change the visionary direction of the school district, outside recruitment would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the board is satisfied with the district's direction, hiring from within is the correct decision.

As it turned out, the vision of the board is to begin hiring negotiations with Mr. Richard Stokes, a current school district employee and former superintendent in another district. This makes good sense because Mr. Stokes is a known entity as compared to the crapshoot of opening recruitment to all those who meet technical hiring specifications, but may not represent our local values.

While Mr. Enge accused the board of playing politics, I could find no external evidence of that at the meeting. On the other hand, Mr. Enge is a well known conservative activist whose ideology may be advanced under the guise of transparency by opening recruitment to a wider range of candidates, one of whom just may fit his conservative agenda.

Unfortunately, it appears that Enge does not belong to the internal board trust network or the board power loop. When excluded from this essential communication loop, the information that makes up the trust bonds among board members, the shunned member must fill in the information gaps between no information and fact, causing suspicious thinking. Mr. Enge appears to be wary of any form of intrigue, constantly on guard for board deviation from a particular political ideology or action that deviates from his conservative political agenda. In short, strong, decisive board action requires a shared vision among at least a majority of the members. Enge is outside the boundaries of that vision, looking suspiciously in. For example, Mr. Enge accused the board of cooking up a "done deal," by misinterpreting the motive for placing a motion on the agenda that recommended a particular board action. Such a recommended motion could just as well have been placed on the agenda by Mr. Enge himself. As a board member, he should have been aware of his authority to do so.

There is much to be said in support of the board's decision. After all, Carson City school board members were elected because they represent the values and beliefs of our community. That's a major reason why the American educational system is composed of small, local boards, members close to community vision. As testified by board members, Richard Stokes' values and beliefs are well known by them and represent community values. The great expense of taxpayer money to conduct external recruitment for an unknown quantity makes no sense unless a valuable local candidate is not available.

The Carson City School District Board is delegated authority and assigned legal, moral and ethical responsibility to hire a qualified superintendent. They are accountable to explain and justify their decisions. Let them do their work. If citizens don't like their decisions, vote them out of office.

• Dan Mooney of Carson City may be contacted at Nevada4@aol.com.