If transparency isn’t an option, Beaufort Co. school board member should step down | Opinion
Here’s an interesting question to consider: How much money do you think public employees and elected officials in Beaufort County waste each year in their efforts to avoid temporary embarrassment?
I’m not even talking about the lawyer fees — though it’s safe to assume those bills are considerable and gross.
I’m talking about the simple and very valuable element of time. The gobs and gobs of publicly paid employee hours that are most certainly getting expended annually in service of protecting, let’s face it, a single fragile ego from having to openly say, “This happened. We or I will do better.”
That single fragile ego is typically a boss — the kind of boss who surrounds himself with bobble-headed lieutenants and a moat of eggshells — who has put his entire staff on alert, either explicitly or implicitly, that the occupational guillotine awaits should they subject him or the agency he leads to any form of public cheek-reddening.
And sometimes the ego is an elected official, someone Olympically trained at scampering away from the heat.
Thus we end up with whole government outfits that are best-versed in minimization and obfuscation, that can contort themselves around whatever justification might be needed at any given moment to keep something from public scrutiny.
And that’s where we run into problems.
That’s why we see so many zombie issues in this county — whether it be the behind-the-scenes and relentless machinations on the County Council, ongoing problems with officer misconduct at the Bluffton Police Department or the multi-jurisdictional effort to silence a frequent critic at public meetings.
You think a situation is over, but no. Up it comes again, slobbering and growling because no one had the courage to stab that issue in the heart from the beginning.
One such zombie issue is whatever Beaufort County school board member William Smith was accused of doing last summer.
At least four school district employees filed grievances against him.
The existence of those grievances was not made public by the district or the board, though.
When asked about the nature and seriousness of the grievances, how they were resolved and whether any others have been filed since, the school district and the board zip their lips and claim that virtue prevents them from being transparent.
It’s a personnel issue, they’ll say. We don’t want to discourage any employee from filing a complaint in the future because they’re afraid it will be made public, do we?
Never mind that the district can easily redact names and identifying details — and therefore protect the identity of the aggrieved.
Never mind that Smith is not an employee and is instead an elected official.
Never mind that the public has a right to know what’s happening at an institution it pays for, particularly when it costs the public extra money (for instance, at least $16,000 in legal bills and who knows what else in staff time).
The issue popped up again last week — growl, snarl — because of a citizen’s Freedom of Information Act request for emails from the district.
The emails revealed that some people in the district’s main office appear to have feared Smith enough that they felt compelled to keep tabs on him and check with SLED — through back channels — whether Smith was permitted to carry a concealed weapon.
You know, a casual inquiry about his permit.
Not an official one. No, no. The district was unaware of any threats.
Except yes, yes, actually an official inquiry, because you know what? We’re talking about a gun, which last time I checked is occasionally a dangerous element, depending on what end of it you’re on.
And, again, we’re talking about an elected official — someone chosen by voters to represent them.
We are talking about a school district fearing, in some way, shape or form, that an elected board member might be carrying a gun.
Or maybe we’re not talking about that. Who can say?
The district and board could. But they won’t.
All the public can do — every few months apparently — is pop a newly discovered piece, one that had to be wrestled from their hands, into the old mystery puzzle to see if the picture has become any more clear.
Is William Smith a problem? Is he danger? There are still too many pieces of the puzzle missing.
One way to put a stop to this, though, to put this zombie issue out of its misery, would be for Smith himself to start talking.
There is no reason he can’t.
Except maybe it’s embarrassing? Maybe he’s not proud of a few interactions he’s had with staff.
But here’s a fun fact: Feeling embarrassed isn’t a bad thing.
It’s an emotion that keeps us in check. It’s an internal form of feedback. It’s biological accountability.
And guess what?
According to a 2011 study from the University of California Berkeley, people trust you more when you show embarrassment.
It is a sign that you care about how your behavior or decisions affect others.
This isn’t a license for public employees and elected officials to go out and intentionally do embarrassing things, obviously. But it sure is a sign that it’s OK to be human, address the issue and commit to doing better.
It sure is a sign that more people in powerful, public positions ought to be less inclined toward ducking and hiding and more inclined toward communicating and building trust with the people they serve.
Smith would be doing the board, the district and his voters a great service by being more open about what it was he was accused of doing. Even in general terms.
Did he think the accusations were frivolous? Or was this a learning opportunity for him? Did he change his behavior after the complaints? Does he feel unfairly targeted? Is he sorry for what happened? Can we trust him? Can his voters?
Smith has a responsibility to the public to directly and appropriately address this issue.
If he can’t do that, then he should resign.
This story was originally published January 26, 2020 at 12:00 AM.
