What is the role of the Superintendent?
The School Board is tasked with hiring a Superintendent to manage the daily operations of the School District. This position within the District is often likened to a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a business or organization. To say the least, the Superintendent is an involved, responsible, and highly visible employee of the School Board. From an operational standpoint, the Superintendent is responsible for implementing all the things for which a typical CEO would be responsible, not the least of which is fulfilling the policy mandates and initiatives of the School Board at an operational level/
Michigan School Law (c.f. MCL sections 380.1229, 1246, 1536, etc. of “The Revised School Code, Act 451 of 1976) lists only basic qualifications and stipulations that must be met with regard to the position of Superintendent. Purposefully, the State leaves the most specific job requirements up to the discretion of the District’s School Board that hires the Superintendent.
Here are a few examples of State-mandated requirements:
- The Superintendent must possess a valid Michigan school administrator’s certificate, or must begin the process of earning one within 6 months of being hired, with certificate completion within 3 years.
- The Superintendent’s position must be codified under written contract, not to exceed 5 years at a time.
- A school district may utilize the Superintendent of an Intermediate School District (ISD), or contract with another individual, including a neighboring school district’s Superintendent, to meet the State mandate for having a Superintendent of Schools.
- The Superintendent must be evaluated utilizing a State approved assessment rubric.
- The Superintendent must pursue continuing education.
- The Superintendent shall NOT be a member of the Board
What does it mean that a Superintendent shall not be a member of the Board?
Admittedly, the State requirements for a Superintendent are very basic and leave the recruiting door open for a wide range of potential Superintendent candidates—both traditional and non-traditional. That said, perhaps the most intriguing of the State-mandated requirements is that “the Superintendent shall not be a member of the board.” (MCL 380.1229 (1))
This mandate seems quite straight-forward. However, in an effort to alleviate any bias in interpretation, it is best to identify the intent, as well as the context of the mandate as it was written into law.
As far as intent, this mandate simply places a restriction on the membership of a Superintendent. That is, the Superintendent may be a member of any number of groups, sub-groups, organizations, etc., but he or she is restricted from participation as a member of “the board”—in this case, the school board.
As far as context, this sort of restriction carries the assumption is that to violate the intended restriction would result in some adverse outcome--such as a conflict of interest, lack of accountability, etc. Although there is no clear history as to exactly why Michigan State lawmakers inserted this restriction, there certainly is Federal precedent that separation of power within an organizational structure is foundational to a successful representational republic.
For example, it is permissible for a Senator to run for the office of President, but upon winning the presidency, the Senator must relinquish his/her senatorial position in order to assume the presidency. It is not legal for the individual to maintain membership in both groups (the legislative branch and the executive branch) concurrently. To do so would create a conflict of interest in violation of the separation of powers between branches of government.
Four Possible Interpretations
With reasonable intent and context established, we can much more fairly assess four primary options for interpreting the State mandate, “the Superintendent shall not be a member of the board.”
Option 1 Stated: It could mean that the current candidate for Superintendent shall never have been, in the recent or distal past, a member of the District’s School Board.
Option 1 Reviewed: There is no precedent that a previous school board member of a District could not be considered for a Superintendent position in that same District. In fact, having been a previous Board member may actual be a positive reason to consider a candidate over another, especially if his/her time in office was perceived favorably by the community. Additionally, the statute does not mention a Superintendent candidate, but rather simply a Superintendent, lending weight to the notion that this restriction is to be placed on a sitting Superintendent, not a candidate for the Superintendent position.
Option 2 Stated: It could mean that the current candidate for Superintendent shall never in the future be allowed to be a member of the current District’s School Board, even after relinquishing his/her position as Superintendent.
Option 2 Reviewed: Similarly, there is no precedent that a Superintendent candidate could not be considered for a Board position in that same District, after having relinquished his/her position as Superintendent. In fact, having been a previous Superintendent may actual be a positive reason to consider a School Board candidate over another, especially if his/her time as Superintendent was perceived favorably by the community. Again, the statute does not mention a Superintendent candidate, but rather simply a Superintendent, lending weight to the notion that this restriction is to be placed on a sitting Superintendent, not a candidate for the Superintendent position.
Option 3 Stated: It could mean that the current candidate for Superintendent cannot be a current Board member, who upon hire would relinquish his/her position on the Board.
Option 3 Reviewed: Similar to the illustration above, regarding a Senator running for the position of President and winning, there is no precedent that a Board member cannot step down from his/her position on the Board, in order to be considered for the Superintendent position. In fact, similar to Option 1 above, having been a previous Board member may actual be a positive reason to consider a candidate over another, especially if his/her time in office was perceived favorably by the community. Again, the statute does not mention a Superintendent candidate, but rather simply a Superintendent, lending weight to the notion that this restrict is to be placed on a sitting Superintendent, not a candidate for the Superintendent position.
Option 4 Stated: It could mean that a sitting Superintendent of a District shall not concurrently hold a position on the District’s School Board.
Option 4 Reviewed: Of the four options, option 4 is the most reasonable and likely interpretation, given the context and intent of the mandate. Lawmakers likely did not want to allow a situation whereby a prominent Board member was summarily placed into the Superintendent position, while at the same time maintaining his/her Board member authority. Such a situation would constitute a conflict of interest with regard to separation of powers, as well as, functionally eliminate proper accountability over the position of Superintendent.
Is the Superintendent an “Ex Officio” Member of the School Board?
Some para-District organizations, and at least one State legislature, propagate the idea that the School Superintendent is an “ex officio” member of the School Board.
https://aasb.org/ask-aasb-why-is-our-superintendent-an-ex-officio-member-of-our-board/
http://www.mnmsba.org/RoleOfTheSuperintendent
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/123B.143)
To say the least, this is an inconsistent organizational model, that confuses roles and exacerbates problems. The simple realities are that the School Board is the employer, and the Superintendent is the employee of the School Board. Moreover, School Board members are elected by the community, whereas the Superintendent is appointed by the School Board.
Within a consistent school organizational structure, School Boards and Administrators exist in two mutually exclusive membership categories: Board and Administration. To conflate the two only causes governance problems. This in no way precludes meaningful collaboration between the two groups but rather reinforces necessary boundaries for efficient, effective, and accountable governance.
The fact that School Boards generally require their Superintendents to be at School Board general business meetings, is a function of operational efficiency, not membership. In reality, there are a number of closed-session Board meetings in which the Superintendent would not be allowed to participate in any capacity.
Moreover, there does not seem to be any support in Michigan School Law for the notion that a Superintendent is in any capacity an “ex officio” member of a District’s School Board. Rather, the general import of the Michigan Compiled Law (c.f. The Revised School Code, Act 451 of 1976) suggests quite the opposite, explicitly stating, “The Superintendent shall not be a member of the board.” (MCL 380.1229 (1))