Tony Tata was an Army general before he entered the world of school administration, and thus appreciates the advantage of defending the high ground. Right now, in a very public confrontation with two Wake County school board members, the superintendent isn't in that position.
His assertion that board members Christine Kushner and Susan Evans are in the "stranglehold" of the advocacy group Great Schools in Wake Coalition was inappropriate and over the top. It came following an angry exchange of emails among the three, in which Tata said he felt their association with the group, which has been critical of his new student assignment plan, was an endorsement of GSIW's harsh (and yes, somewhat excessive) criticism of him.
Kushner and Evans, part of the Democratic sweep of school board seats last year which delivered a new majority of more progressive board members, say they are no longer active in GSIW, though they did recently accept a commendation from the group.
Tata apparently doesn't buy it. He charged the two had refused, in fact, to "sever their ties" with the group. That sort of demand from a superintendent to a duly elected board member is at best not diplomatic and at worst insulting.
Rockets launch
In a weekend email sent to Kushner and Evans and to school board members, staff and virtually everyone associated with the system, Tata wrote, "Attacks on my character ... which each of you implicitly endorse through your association and support of GSIW, undermine our ability to move forward as an effective governance team, in my view."
Kushner responded that Tata's email, sent without talking to her first and clearly designed to go public, "is disrespectful and counterproductive to having a professional relationship." Evans said his action was "unacceptable behavior for a Superintendent towards a Board Member." Tata followed the exchange with a Sunday email apologizing.
But he escalated things Tuesday, when in an email to The News & Observer he charged the two with potential "serious code of ethics violations," related to what he characterized as their association with a "special interest group." That term conjures visions of cigar-smoking lobbyists. GSIW is a citizens' advocacy group. And a reading of the code of ethics, which dates to the days before the board became so politicized, doesn't indicate that the two board members, who say they're no longer active in this group, have broken any rules.
A tough time
It's clear why Tata wouldn't like the GSIW's latest missive, which said, "Tata's actions continue to erode the public trust." From the superintendent's standpoint, he's trying to institute a new, complex assignment plan, begun under the board majority that hired him and accepted by the current board, that in his view reflects compromise. (Although it is not guaranteed to ensure the kind of socioeconomic diversity in schools that caused the system to be greatly admired nationwide.)
Frankly, it's understandable that Tata might be edgy about never-ending criticism from Great Schools. And he now reports to a board with a majority considerably different from the one that hired him. But Evans and Kushner have a point in noting that Tata works for the board. While he's entitled to a measure of autonomy in order to do his job leading the system, he does need to manage "office politics" carefully.
This confrontation more than likely is the product of building tension, difficulty in fine-tuning the assignment plan, and the process of Tata and new board members getting acquainted. It will pass, if both sides simply put down the hatchets and move on.
