Conflict of Understanding

Now that the death knell has sounded for the Eagle Ridge Academy teacher majority, perhaps the concept of “conflict of interest” can at last be seriously discussed. To date, the term as used by parents and the Board has been soaked in either bad faith or ignorance. It says something about the state of affairs at Eagle Ridge Academy that one is left hoping that it is ignorance that explains recent behavior, and not the alternative.

It has been stated that teachers serving on the Eagle Ridge Academy Board constitutes a conflict of interest because they might be involved in deciding matters with a direct bearing on themselves. Voting on contracts, for instance. A comment on this humble blog has stated that having Mrs. Erin Johnson serve on the hiring committee for the new director constitutes a conflict of interest because, it is suggested, she’ll have a say in who her boss will be. This, we are told, is unusual. Few people have such a power to pick their superiors. These comments are representative of what has been peddled ad nauseum since the teachers expressed interest in serving on the Board.

A reality check is in order. First, it must be said that employees frequently have a say in the hiring and evaluation of their superiors. Every employer worth her pant suit looks to the subordinates of an employee (if that employee has any subordinates) when she evaluates her own subordinates. Furthermore, many employees in skilled professions are shareholders in their company and exert influence in that way. And finally, apropos of Eagle Ridge Academy, Americans are long in the habit of choosing others to govern us. We call this process an election.

But the force of the rhetorical attack couched in the conflict of interest term flows from its vaguely legal connotations, not from any real sense of impropriety. It is to be understood that teachers will have the power to give themselves raises or guarantee positive evaluations because they are involved in the hiring and evaluation of the director.

The first thing to consider when evaluating this charge is that the charter school statute explicitly exempts teachers from any charge of conflict of interest. Obviously, this had to be done if the statute was to mandate teacher majority boards because those Boards would allocate funds for teacher salaries as well as hire staff and other teachers. Wherever money goes out the door, scrutiny is prudent. The legislature is no doubt familiar with fraudulent behavior, but protected the right of the teachers to serve on boards. Why the seeming contradiction?

The answer lies in the nature of the teacher’s relationship to the school. A contractor who sat on the Board could not bid on the remodeling project. That doesn’t pass the smell test. Though a Board member can be assumed to be serving on the Board to further its interests, he would have a financial stake in getting the job. A look at the legal understanding of conflict of interest reveals that the key concept is adverse interests. A man can be interested in running a profitable company and also be interested in seeing a charter school thrive. If those interests become adverse, the company profits at the school’s expense. But as a steward of public money, that Board member has a fiduciary duty to put the school first. An appropriately cynical public policy assumes that money will trump loyalty to the school. The concept of conflict of interest does not aim to help those with duties to charter schools make the right call; rather, it functions to ensure that no one will ever be in the position of adverse interests in the first place.

A teacher has no legally recognized duty to the school as whole outside of his employment contract. The only financial duty that a teacher has is to himself. If that sounds callous, the challenge is for anyone to find any employment arrangement where this is not the case. The training, experience and skills that a teacher sells to a school in exchange for money is hard won. A teacher, like any other professional, negotiates for the best deal he can get with any potential employer and the school must negotiate with him for his services. The school must evaluate him and perhaps admonish him. But no one would claim that he had to put the school's financial interests ahead of his own. If he can make himself more valuable to the school, he can seek to get paid more. He might seek non-salary perks like time off and training. But no one expects him to spend his own money on printer ink or white board pens. No one expects him to offer to pay more in medical insurance so the music department can have a larger budget.

Let career teachers, like Erin Johnson, be freed from the base assumption of avarice. Their career choice is its own vindication. If they were driven by greed they would be in another profession. With her resume, Johnson could increase her salary perhaps 20% by jumping ship. Teachers come and go, but it’s hard to find a money-grubbing one. Teachers are either dedicated or stupid (or both). What’s more, parents want it this way. They want teachers who stay late, who take time to meet with students, who get involved in extra-curricular things. And all of it for no additional pay. Every parent who hurls conflict of interest accusations around also wants teachers who bleed for the students and the best parts of the school. So which is it? Is Johnson a blood-sucking manipulator? Or is she a dedicated teacher?

So, Johnson has a say in who her boss will be and therefore in who will evaluate her. Might she actually vote for the person who is most likely to pay her more money? Is that the worst critics can think of? There is no conflict there. Paying teachers more is something everyone agrees is necessary. Is more pay so bad? One can do better. What is the vilest conspiracy imaginable? That Johnson has been in contact with each of the director candidates and told them that she will get them hired and at a fat salary if they promise to pay her extra when they come on board? That she will manufacture false but damning information about rivals to ensure that her director gets in? Will she blackmail the other Board members to get her director in? Is that what these people mean by "conflict of interest?"

Johnson is here, to be sure, not for the financial opportunities but for the quality of the educational enterprise. That is no doubt what drives the other teachers who stick it out. Anything that harms the school in any way harms the teachers. Their primary interest is the school; therefore, their interests can never be adverse. Unless, of course, the school were to cease being a place worth fighting for. Then they vote with their feet.