Maybe It's Time To Take That Government Class

In the DH today, there's an article....well, here:

LEBANON — The president of the Lebanon teachers’ union won a preliminary decision this week in an unfair labor practice claim against the Lebanon Community School District.

An administrative law judge for the state Employment Relations Board decided the district was wrong to discipline Kim Fandiño for communicating with a school board member about a motion he had made.

The preliminary ruling also states certain district policies are in violation of the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, specifically the ones that forbid employees to contact board members directly and requiring them to discuss work-related matters only with their supervisors.

OK. I agree with this - and it seems obvious in hindsight that this rule serves to (even if this is not its purpose) consolidate Robinson's power by forcing all information through him. That's bad.

Though I understand a potential impetus for such a rule in the first place - in a hierarchical organization, people think a chain of command is a good thing. And in a place with an organizational structure like the LCSD, it's probably a good idea not to intentionally undercut the Superintendent if you're the school board. However, given who is on the School Board at the moment and their recent behavior...

Anyway, there's a bigger reason that this rule needs to go out the window: It restricts the ability of employees to go over their superiors' heads. I think that's necessary - what if someone's supervisor is embezzling? Stealing? Hurting children in some fashion? There's usually good reasons to allow outside-the-lines communication.

And certainly - certainly! - school district employees should be able to talk to the members of the School Board free from harassment, intimidation, or fear. That this is even in question is another indicator that something is very, very wrong. Note: "talking to" does NOT mean "conspiring with to overthrow the Superintendent." The latter is just bad politics - get it done out in the open if you've got something to say.

And making a rule to outlaw such communication is just bad policy - it's policy with a hammer. It doesn't solve the 'problem' in question - the feeling that communication between Board and employees is necessary - and serves as somewhat of a "governance through brute force" approach. And while that may have been, or may be, Robinson's M.O., it's not a good one.

Finally, there is this quote that has me shaking my head:

“People absolutely have a First Amendment, constitutional right to speak with their elected officials without the fear that it will be reported to anyone else inappropriately,” [Fandiño] said. “Anything that would treat a Lebanon school district employee differently from a regular constituent would be inappropriate. That’s what this unfair labor practice confirms.”

She would have been better served not writing up this quote so it sounds so manufactured. And she should have been clearer on the First Amendment angle; as is, it sounds like she's grandstanding to me. She didn't need to jump to the Constitution to prove her point. Remember this is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think what's relevant here is not the freedom of speech thing - that's restricted all the time, especially in the workplace (and there are certainly other restrictions on freedom of speech in a school; ask students). I think what might actually be more important is the last clause, the one about being able to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." The gag rule had certainly undermined that.

Note: To be clear, I support radical freedom of speech - no limits in the workplace, and no limits on children in schools (contra the Supreme Court), but taking that on is a whole different thing, and Fandiño is authoritarian enough to not want children to have freedom of speech. More for me but not for thee, apparently.