On Monday, Governor Doug Ducey announced the names of seven individuals – “education leaders” – he “selected” to “join” the Arizona State Board of Education. All one can and should say is “it is about time Governor Ducey.”
First, a little history of the Arizona State Board of Education (SBE). The Board, as created in the Arizona constitution, is comprised of unelected members, and as such are unaccountable to the parents and citizens of Arizona. The eleven member board is composed of the Arizona superintendent of public instruction (the only position the governor doesn’t control, oops I mean “appoint”), the president of a state university or a state college, four lay members (more on these positions later), a president or chancellor of a community college district, a person who is an owner or administrator of a charter school, a superintendent of a high school district, a classroom teacher and a county school superintendent.
According to SBE’s website, the terms of eight members of the current board are long expired and yet Ducey, only this week, finally nominated replacements for seven of the eight.
The terms of two SBE members expired in January 2020:
- The superintendent of a high school district – Calvin Baker. Not only did Baker’s term expire in January 2020 but he retired as the superintendent of Vail U.S.D. on February 1, 2020, meaning he no longer fulfilled the legal qualification of that board seat.
- The classroom teacher – Janice Mak. Likewise, it is questionable if Mak maintained the classroom teacher status to hold that seat. The University of Arizona’s website has Mak as a staff member – a “teacher on assignment” – to the Data Science Academy. I think it is a fair expectation, if not clearly a legal requirement, that this seat be filled by a teacher currently in a K-12 classroom on a daily basis not someone who has moved on, even if allegedly temporarily.
Four members’ terms expired in January 2021. Community college district President Daniel Corr; charter school administrator Michele Kaye; lay members Lucas Narducci and Patricia Welborn.
ARS 38-211(B) is crystal clear about the process when an appointed board member’s term expires during the legislative session as is the case with every one of the eight expired terms – albeit during three different sessions.
“…the governor shall during such session nominate a person who meets the requirements of law for such office and shall promptly transmit the nomination to the president of the senate.” Emphasis in mine.
Only the two most recently expired terms are being filled as required by law. The majority of the board members terms were expired as of January 18, 2021, or earlier. I cannot help but question the legal standing of the policies or administrative rules adopted and contracts entered into by this or any board on which a majority of the members’ terms are expired. No longer legally holding office are they entitled to set policy, discipline teachers, and enter into contractual agreements?
ARS 38-211(B) continues: “If the incumbent is capable of continuing to serve until his successor has qualified, a nominee to that position shall not assume and discharge the duties of the office, pending senate confirmation. If the incumbent is unable to continue to discharge the duties of office, the nominee shall assume and discharge the duties of the office pending senate confirmation.”
In the past, Executive Nominations to the SBE have gone before the Senate Education Committee for the appointee to answer any questions from the members and equally as important be heard by the public. That was not the case at the Senate Education Committee this week. Will seven new members of the SBE be confirmed during Senate Committee of the Whole (COW) with no opportunity to be presented to the public prior to confirmation?
If not, it should make the next SBE meeting on Monday March 28 very interesting. Are the (long) expired members “capable of continuing” to serve, or will the new nominees step in without confirmation? And what, exactly, is the legal definition of “capable?” Certainly, at least in the case of Calvin Baker and Janice Mak their “capability” to meet the legal requirements of the seats they fill is questionable.
This whole situation should make us question whether or not the expiration of an appointee’s term of office even has any meaning.
That brings us to the lay members of the SBE. By definition, a “lay member” should be someone without specialized knowledge or employment in the profession a board oversees – i.e., John or Jane Q. Public. Dare I suggest parents??? That has not been the case of the SBE (nor has it been the case for “public members” of the State Board for Charter Schools either – which currently has three vacant seats – two of which are public members.) These seats have been given to education insiders.
Jenny Clark, the founder and CEO of the education non-profit Love Your School. Katherine Haley founder and partner of the Oak Rose Group which from the website “works at the intersection of philanthropy, social entrepreneurship, and public policy to generate meaningful improvements in education…” And finally, Karla Phillips-Krivickas the CEO and founder of Think Inclusion has had a lengthy career in education.
No disrespect intended to these women or the work they have done but they do not fit the definition of lay members. These are political appointments but not necessarily in the best interests of the community.
No mention is made of a replacement for Daniel Corr’s community college district seat.
I have always found it very disturbing that our legislators have given the unelected, i.e., unaccountable, State Board of Education so much and ever-increasing authority over education policy; far more authority than given to the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction. The unelected board can and has easily undermined and thwarted the intent of the voters, who elect the superintendent and their local governing board members.
It speaks volumes to me, and should to the citizens of Arizona, that the State Board of Education, with so much authority over our children’s education, is held with such little regard that the expiration of the terms of EIGHT members of the board was disregarded for so long by the Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Senate Education Committee, and the members of the Legislature.
Perhaps the time has come for the voters to consider changing SBE board member requirements and pass legislation that would require that they each be elected to the board and therefore accountable to the people.