Perhaps they really are operating in a vacuum, oblivious to or uncaring about far too many of the people they'll be affecting — and with whom they should now be working.
Perhaps their puppet master — State Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester, who has steered them through this muddled and likely illegal process for months — wasn't close at hand to advise them how to respond more meaningfully.
Or maybe the board of the planned Gloucester Community Arts Charter School really is this dysfunctional — just as at least one state Charter School Office analyst suggested in citing the school's management structure as a reason the proposal did not meet the state's criteria, in the lone evaluation that somehow escaped Chester's reported shredder.
Whatever the reason, the charter school board's embarrassing response to the Gloucester School Committee's "offer" of hosting the charter in an existing school this year, if GCAS leaders dropped their full charter by the start of school in 2011, speaks volumes about the charter leaders' priorities.
It lays out for all to see that:
They're only really interested running a school in a vacuum, and as they somehow see fit.
They have no sense of accountability, either to Gloucester school officials, city leaders, or taxpayers and other residents.
And they have no concerns about the school's shaky credibility, born through a seriously flawed state approval scheme — no qualms or accountability about opening a school that, once pegged to host 120 students in a downtown environment at Brown's Mall, is now poised to open with, at present, just 79 confirmed students out of modular classrooms in a former medical center in Blackburn Industrial Park.
There is, quite frankly, no other way to view the board's position that, as voiced by board member Jay Featherstone, "we have received no paperwork or proposal."
Could the School Committee have sent one of more members to hand-deliver the four-point proposal, which committed to an independent alternative, such as an "Innovation" school or a Horace Mann school? Of course.
But even to call the stand voiced by Featherstone disingenuous is an understatement — considering:
The School Committee proposal, widely reported in the Times and other media, was openly discussed and formally approved — with stacks of copies available for the public. And all of that came at a committee meeting that Featherstone himself attended!
School Committee Chairwoman Val Gilman e-mailed copies of the proposal to Featherstone, School Executive Director Tony Blackman, and charter board Chairwoman Amy Ballin.
Ballin, of course, has missed several meetings of her own board, and charter officials say she doesn't often check her e-mail. So? All that really shows is she has no business chairing the board, or perhaps even serving on it, at this point.
Look, the charter board has every reason to hold its ground, and turn down the School Committee's offer. But if that's the sentiment, all its members had to tell the School Committee "thanks, but we'll play the cards we've got."
For anyone on the charter board to even suggest they weren't "presented" the School Committee's proposal shows such blatant disrespect for the committee, the city and its residents is downright laughable, though not the least bit funny.
There should be a way out of this: If the new school were to be run independently — with a competent independent leadership team and an innovative, independent teaching staff not bound by union constraints, but operate under the district's wing financially, that could bring the kind of "win-win" compromise Mayor Carolyn Kirk and even Chester have sought.
But the charter board, buoyed by Chester's bogus "negotiation" meeting last week, now shows has no interest in discussing alternatives, no interest in working toward any solution other than its own.
Sadly, that's a course toward a lose-lose ending for all.
