SWEENEY’S SIDE: Where is the leadership?

When the Williamsburg County School Board reinstated the 18 bus drivers last week—the ones suspended at the beginning of the month—they missed yet another golden opportunity for true leadership within the district. For an entity that has been soaking up administrative powers like a sponge for the past year or so, one might think members would have jumped at the chance to flex their bureaucratic muscles and further distinguish themselves as the “group in charge.”

Remarkably, they went in the opposite direction, providing us with more evidence that the board continues to lack a clear and definitive direction when it comes to matters of running Williamsburg County schools. 

When several bus drivers purposely delayed picking up students from district schools at the end of October, resulting in what one official called “pandemonium” among students and staff left stranded, it was not unreasonable to assume that action from the district would be harsh and swift. After all, is this not the same board that has been hacking up the district’s organizational chart for the past few months, shuffling, firing and running out employees? This is the group that saw fault in the young single gender education program and decided to give it the ax. Those serving as just a few examples for the board’s willingness to take some form of action, bus drivers should have been trembling in their boots when it began to sink in just what they had done.

The administration was slow to respond, which shouldn’t have surprised anyone. With the board now effectively out ranking the superintendent when it comes to matters of personnel, the number of places interim superintendent Linda Huell and her staff must check for guidance grew significantly and is sure to slow a number of operations down. When word of the suspensions hit the newsstands later that week, it was apparent that board members were simply buying themselves a little more time. Perhaps there were disagreements amongst the trustees that required more deliberation before a final verdict was announced. 

When the decision finally did come down at the board meeting in Greeleyville last week, the results were more than a little anticlimactic. The drivers had already participated in one individual counseling session, board chair, the Rev. Norman Gamble, announced, and were placed on a 60-day probation period. During their probation, each driver would complete “mandatory professional development courses,” and sign an acknowledgment that any further violations of district policy would result in “further disciplinary actions up to and including termination.”
In other words, the drivers got off with a tiny slap on the wrist.

Every portion of the board’s final decision reeked of indecisiveness. To start with, no details were given, neither during the meeting nor when questions were asked in the days that followed, as to what the “counseling sessions” entailed or what the “professional development courses” would require. How are we to know just what these drivers will be asked to do during those 60-days of probation? Furthermore, what can you ask of them anyway?

The issue seems basic enough: they had a job to do and they knowingly refused to do it. What “development” is needed to cultivate that fact? What “counseling” would reinforce the idea that when you are paid to do a job you do it?

Until the district gives out more information on what these sessions and courses consist of, we can only assume that their silence is an answer: not much.
The kicker came in the final portion of the board’s decision, stating that drivers would be required to sign an acknowledgement that “further disciplinary actions up to and including termination” would be taken should they commit another violation.

Unless the district operates differently, this signed “acknowledgment” they mentioned sounds an awful lot like another document, often signed at the start of a job. You might know it by its technical name: “contract.” Presumably, each driver signed such an agreement when they took their job in the first place, so why they are being asked to sign something else acknowledging they failed to uphold the conditions of the first document is perplexing. If they broke terms with their initial contract, what makes them more likely to abide by a new agreement?

The argument could be made that the board’s judgment was a gesture of compassion, a warning shot that said, “We are going to give you one more chance to get this right, don’t do it again.” After all, given the difficult economic climate of today they might even be hailed for showing such mercy. However, when a person or group in power shows a clear willingness to capitulate to those who threaten it through force, that sends a message to those that says, “Wet are weak and can be manipulated.” What’s to stop other drivers, custodians or even teachers from looking at this decision and saying, “Well, those other guys got away with it, I guess if you push the board, the worst you can expect is a light shove in return.”

If members of the Williamsburg County School Board were serious about clearly defining their position as leaders and visionaries dedicated to saving what is a fledgling district, they would have fired each bus driver who knowingly failed to do their job. It would not have been the easy decision, it might not have even been a popular decision, but it would have the right decision. Such an action would send a clear message that members were committed to lifting the district out of the mess it currently finds itself through clear, decisive action. Anyone who wanted to delay the road to recovery through grandstanding would be tossed by the wayside.

Unfortunately, their decision was a resounding endorsement of mediocrity and a subpar status quo.