OZARK, MO — Christina Tonsing, one of the seven Ozark School Board members got a scolding by the other six. They pulled her aside after a meeting and said she wasn’t, well, playing nicely in their playground. For a back story, click here.
Her response, sent to each board member recently:
Dear fellow board members,
I am deeply concerned about the anxiety and tension some of you shared during our meeting the other night. I thought about it on the way home and long after I retired to bed that night. I certainly know how you feel. I, too, have increased stress, anxiety, and fatigue since joining this board. I do not, however, blame any of that on you. I knew the job back when I applied for it and worked to earn it, and still know it now as I continue unabated in my efforts to, like you, make Ozark District Schools better, which I believe – and many voters in our district believe – includes ensuring we are more in line with the representative function of good government.
Just as I do not blame any of you for that increased stress in my life, I also accept no responsibility for any of your angst resulting from your own efforts to do what you think is right. I do still remain very hopeful that our many and varied strengths and viewpoints will work together to benefit our school district.
We all know how frustrated we are when we hear that Congress has passed a massive spending bill or health care bill, loaded with excess bulk, secretly agreed upon by a select small group, presented unread and unedited to the body, and voted on by consensus at the open meeting. That happens up and down the chain of government from federal to state and even local – but it’s not supposed to be that way. We all know it, we all are frustrated by it, and we all can do our little part to do something about it. As for me, I must continue to do what I see as my little part. A big part of why I ran for school board was because I didn’t agree with the way 7 out of 7 members were conducting business – so, although 6 of the 7 members are now telling me that I should act more like them, I cannot start adopting the very behavior I was elected to change. I campaigned and was elected based on a passionate, heart-felt commitment to transparency and accountability. I can do no less than stand by those commitments.
Up and down that chain of government, the public business is supposed to be conducted in public, in the light of day, and – on any and every issue – all of the sides and angles of any discussion are deemed appropriate for public discourse. That’s why we have laws, from the top levels of the national government to the smallest county ambulance board, that specifically limit the amount of decision-making that can be done in the closed rooms of government. The existence of differing sides and angles and even divided opinions and perspectives is not inherently a bad thing. The bad thing is when we have divided opinions and are unwilling to listen to one another. Divided because we simply harbor different perspectives is actually healthy. Discourse helps us progress in spite of those divisions. It enables us to further refine and improve our decisions.
Let me point out that the perceived grievances you have said you bear toward me for your stress and anxiety resulted from your actions as much as mine. I wanted to address a proposed policy issue openly and coherently, by inviting discussion and sharing my views and listening to yours, not disjointedly and secretively. I wanted all sides to be heard and considered. I wanted an open, impersonal, topical discussion on the issue of whether our valued employees deserve or do not deserve due process when they have a grievance. I still have many thoughts to share on that, thoughts backed up by the Executive MSBA training director Terrence Peterson, thoughts backed up by dozens of current and former employees, thoughts backed up by even more members of the community. You, however, in a 6-1 vote, shut down* public discussion on the matter, shut down even hearing or considering the remainder of my thoughts (including some as-of-yet unshared tweaks that would have made the proposed policy more amenable), and then, in another 6-1 vote, decided those valued employees did not deserve due process. Those votes did not, though, eliminate my sworn duty – my obligation– to have this discussion before the public we serve. I felt, due to your actions alone, that I had little choice but to make my points from at least as high a podium as you’d made yours. The public deserves to know what is discussed and decided.
*To clarify the brief time spent beginning to discuss this: If you watch this linked video of the December meeting, you will see that I began trying to provoke thoughtful discussion about this at 1:19:01. Amber joined the discussion at 4 minutes into my attempts to draw out ideas by sharing her views back and forth with me, and then, at 5 minutes, interrupted my answer to her last comment to call the question. I truly doubt that anyone believes 5 minutes is too long to consider a policy designed in response to quite literally dozens of pleas to protect our employees. That is less than 1/3 of the time we hear from one school’s specific program and less than 1/10 of the total time we hear about various POG students at various schools. Yes, those schools’ programs and students are given that time because they are important and highly valued. How can protecting the teachers and employees who lead them be any less important or highly valued?
In another stressful and anxiety-inducing instance, this summer six of you somehow managed to write, read, and then sign a letter clearly censuring my proper, legal, and dutiful actions; a letter that intimated strongly that those actions were improper, illegal, and misaligned with our sworn duty to serve those who elected us. This was done without any discussion before or during the writing of it. I was not included, consulted, nor advised before this deed was done. And, obviously, I was expected to sit silent and absorb the “stress and anxiety” of this situation without voicing any opinion at all. This is my take on what happened, and I share it to refute your blaming me for the “stress and anxiety” you feel because I defended myself from this brutal, personal, vicious, and unwarranted public rebuke. Again, your own actions forced me to the airwaves because you disallowed a true, open, honest discussion that fairly represented both sides of an issue.
Let me be as clear as I can. This board is not, nor is any member or members of this board, “creating division in our community.” Our community is already divided. From the days predating our revolution against monarchy,
our community has been divided. That’s the whole point of representative government – it is designed to make sure all constituencies of that divided community are heard, that the “tyranny of the majority”, to borrow one of Jefferson’s phrases, is prevented. My job continues to be representing a good-sized portion of that constituency. It’s no small coincidence that that is your job as well – and we all swore an oath before God to do so. So, in some instances, there will and ought rightly be, some division among board members. As I told Patty and Amber after the meeting Thursday night, we are each elected to represent those who share our passions or concerns. I imagine that all of you acted within the bounds of your conscience when you voted on the policy to defend or deny our great teachers their legitimate process. Like Jefferson, I hold no grievance against anyone who votes or speaks their conscience, regardless of its alignment with my own. But I will not be part of a process, a system, or a parliamentary procedure that permits the shutting out of open discussion of both sides of an issue in the midst of one side sharing. My speaking out or going on the radio should not ever be a surprise to anyone. I have always stood with a very sincere, honest – if irritating – insistence that all should be heard. I realize I have many rough edges that might even cause stress. I’m persistent. I’m not all that good at reading someone’s emotional response. I think it’s best to be direct. I think it’s important to investigate and find all the facts. There are surely more that you could name. Nevertheless, I have to work with the tools and limitations I have. And so, you should not ever be surprised to hear me sharing or speaking publicly about public business – or inviting public input into that public business by holding a community listening session to hear various views.
Our community is and has long been divided on these issues, and we owe it to them and to the good of the community to ensure both (or all) sides are fairly heard – openly, honestly, transparently. In contrast, it is detrimental to the community when you vote to silence that dissent, to issue a legal-sounding letter aimed at discouraging communication between the public and an elected board member, to refuse to hear or discuss a patron’s proposed policy revision aimed at protecting mistreated employees, or when you even go so far as to suggest changing district policy so patrons cannot submit policy revision proposals, and especially when you tell a fellow board member that I should not even try to initiate discussing something you’re all clearly against – and then you vote to end discussion before it hardly begins. Again, division itself is not inherently harmful. Division becomes dangerous only when one side (or both) refuses to listen to the other. Division reinforced by distrust and refusal to entertain opposing opinions is fatal both to communities and their school boards.
So, yes, I feel your stress. I feel your anxiety. I feel your fatigue. But I knew I would when I asked for and then worked to earn this job. I also feel vital and invigorated to be the smallest part of the system of representative governance that has served to keep Ozarkians free and in charge of their own future. I hope you can as well.
To borrow a phrase which is the basis of legal systems devoted to justice – and which gave rise to a popular car brand – “Audiatur et altera pars: let both sides be fairly heard.”
Most Sincerely,
Christina Tonsing