B.C. has a colourful history of confrontation between the provincial government and renegade school boards. Twenty-five years ago, the Social Credit government fired all nine trustees at the Vancouver School Board for refusing to implement budget cuts.
Today, the Liberal government of Gordon Campbell is facing a similar dilemma.
A government does not axe school boards on a whim. These are elected officials. But they are also in charge of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and are responsible for delivering a first-rate education program. Trust and accountability have to be central tenets of their governing credo. The positions on any school board are not to be used to promote the political agendas of activist trustees.
But a report by B.C.’s comptroller-general suggests that’s precisely what’s happening at the Vancouver School Board today.
Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland’s investigation concluded that many of the trustees, the majority of whom are associated with civic political parties of a left-leaning ideological bent, were not taking a balanced approach to accountability, focusing instead “on advocacy at the expense of stewardship.”
Ms. Wenezenki-Yolland, it should be pointed out, is a highly respected civil servant of outstanding character. Suggestions that her findings were somehow guided by political masters with their own ideological axe to grind are inappropriate and frankly misguided.
Rather, she was asked by the B.C. Education Minister to examine the school board’s operations in light of claims by trustees that there wasn’t enough money to deliver programs without enacting devastating cuts. The government disputed the claim, which led to a public exchange of hostilities between it and board chairwoman Patti Bacchus.
And the appointment of the province’s comptroller-general to investigate.
Ms. Wenezenki-Yolland’s report is devastating on many levels.
It found, for instance, that the district is in a solid financial position, with lots of cash reserves. In other words, nothing like the destitute position the board had suggested. The report uncovered widespread concerns at the staff level about the ethical and organizational culture at the board – including a perceived lack of impartiality of a number of the trustees. It revealed that input from committees, loaded up with representatives from numerous unions, had effectively replaced input from staff.
(One of the comptroller’s suggestions for finding money was wringing concessions out of unions. What are the chances of that happening when the various committees the board turns to for input and advice are loaded with union reps?) Maybe most devastating of all, the report found that the trustees had not demonstrated they had the management capacity to effectively govern the board or fulfill their duties under the School Act.
Clearly, there is a major showdown brewing.
Ms. Bacchus has been defiant since the report was released on Friday, making little effort to conceal the contempt she has for the Liberal government. And most of her fellow trustees appear to be supporting her stand. (As was the case in 1985, there are a couple of trustees who sympathize with the government and disapprove of the approach being taken by the majority on the board.)
Ms. Bacchus is a passionate defender of the public school system. It was her advocacy on behalf of children with special needs that helped forge her current convictions and propelled her to run for the board. It has surprised few who know her that she maintained her fierce fighting spirit during her time as board chairwoman.
But now there is much more at stake.
You can applaud Ms. Bacchus’s zealous defence of her board’s determination to protect the interests of students. At the same time, school boards around Canada are facing many of the same tough decisions that the Vancouver School Board is. In fact, the VSB is likely far, far better off financially than many boards in the country.
How would it look if the B.C. government gave the VSB more money so it didn’t have to take any tough decisions, while trustees elsewhere in the province were forced to sharpen their pencils to find cost savings to meet their budgets?
Horrible, that’s how. Which is why it won’t occur.
There are a couple of things that can happen now: The province can fire the board and take over administration of the district until new trustees can be elected. Or the board can capitulate and accept the findings and recommendations in the report.
Somehow I don’t see the latter happening.
Maybe Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, who leads the Vision Vancouver party that Ms. Bacchus and some of her board colleagues represent, should try to moderate a peace accord. After all, he’s got some skin in this game too.
Failing that, my guess is this board is likely gone soon.
