Appointed superintendent better idea
By Steve EstesThe wheels are in motion that should allow the voters in Monroe County to again make a decision between retaining the elected Schools Superintendent system we have now, or changing the system to a Schools Superintendent appointed by the elected School Board.
Both systems have their distinct drawbacks, but we would prefer a superintendent that is appointed to one that is elected.
The reasons for that are simple, although the reasons why we’re getting this opportunity again are far from simple.
An appointed superintendent would be hired from a list of folks who meet a set of educational and experience criteria that proves they at least have a working knowledge of how to run a school system effectively.
For the most part, the candidates would have high-level educational backgrounds that provide proof they understand the importance of education, and they have the knowledge base to impart that understanding.
The Monroe County School Board should approve a resolution to have the question of elected versus appointed superintendent on the August primary ballot in the very near future.
After that approval, the resolution goes to the Monroe Board of County Commissioners for their approval. If that step is successful, the state Attorney General must sign off on the proposal because it will eliminate some voting rights for county residents.
This won’t be the first time local voters have gotten an opportunity to change the way school superintendents are selected here. The last two times the issue came before the voters, 53 percent voted to retain an elected superintendent.
But times have changed, and the political climate has changed.
For years, locals have called the school district the Conch employment agency. If a family member worked there, the rest of the family eventually worked there, or at least that was the perception.
Then along comes this summer’s financial scandal where then-Superintendent Randy Acevedo was convicted on three felony counts for obstruction for his role in allegedly trying to cover up more than $200,000 in alleged thefts from the school district by his wife, Monique Acevedo.
Because Acevedo was elected, it took action from the Governor to remove him from office for his role in the scandal. Had he been appointed, the school board could have simply terminated the contract and saved the taxpayer thousands of dollars in costs to take him to trial.
Had Acevedo been appointed, perhaps district employees would have been more willing to go to the school board with his shenanigans over the years, knowing that they could dole out discipline.
The culture of corruption, or permissiveness as some who are more concerned with political correctness have dubbed it, can only foster when the folks at the top are part of the process. It behooved every district employee to get Acevedo reelected, to fight any attempt to have the position changed from elected to appointed, for that way they saved their positions and kept the comfort zone in which they operated.
Of course, the kids suffered, but who are they? They were simply the vehicle through which the culture of corruption got its hands on the funds to fritter away.
An appointed superintendent would have to be answerable every day to questions both from the elected school board and from the staff. An elected superintendent is answerable only to the voters once every four years, and when a majority of the electorate has a relative working in the school system, they’re not going to upset the gravy train.
Elect a school superintendent and we get a politician who owes political favors, who may not be qualified for the job, and who has no interest in alienating his base of support, the people who work under him.
Appoint a school superintendent and we get someone qualified for the job who answers only to an elected school board that, we hope, is up to the task.
The choice is simple.
In August, we may get a chance to make that simple choice.
Let’s choose the appointed superintendent. Our kids will be the winners.



