District sets up diversity role, next steps unclear

By Marcus Clem

NOTE: This story has been updated to correct a factual error regarding board member requests following Monday’s vote by the Board of Education. David Foster and Kim Miller asked to change their abstentions to “no.” Isaura Garcia asked for another vote to be held. 

A divided St. Joseph Board of Education created an administrator role Monday, but nobody is expected to fill that job soon amid disputes over its very existence.

At the initiation of Board President LaTonya Williams and another board member, Whitney Lanning, a plan arose to reorganize district leadership so as to create room for a director of diversity, equity and inclusion.

“This position would address inequities within our student population, work to increase minority representation among our workforce and conduct training on ways to create a more inclusive district for students and staff alike,” Lanning said.

Set to be paid at more than $100,000, the plan envisioned the new director to be “salary neutral” because certain roles in communications, human resources and academics could potentially be folded into it, resulting in no new expenditure.

“Now? At this time? Another six-figure director? Is there a need? What is the need? This position makes it seem like we are guilty and have a problem. We do not,” said Board Vice President Kenneth Reeder. “This position by description appears to justify and legitimize controversial and moral issues under the heading of schooling, not educating.”

The salary matters would be finalized at a future date; defining the job description is the first step.

“Nothing has been done, and we’ve had no instruction to actually recruit the position,” said Assistant Superintendent Brian Kraus, who is the chief of human resources for the district. “It’s simply a move to approve the job description in case we do want to move forward in that area.”

On Monday evening, Williams and Lanning, joined by board member Rick Gehring, voted “yes” to approve the DEI director job description as presented. Reeder voted “no.” Board members Isaura Garcia, David Foster and Kim Miller abstained.

“The details of the position were a bit vague, so I abstained for more information,” Foster said. “A work session on this topic would be helpful.”

After consultation with attorneys at EdCounsel LLC of Columbia, Missouri, the district deemed the job description to be approved, because three board members voted “yes,” and only one voted “no.”

Garcia said the matter is an important issue, and that some members did not wish to vote in favor or against without additional information.

“There was some confusion on whether the motion passed or failed,” Garcia said. “Most of those in attendance believed that the item had failed for the lack of a majority of the Board voting approval, and the meeting adjourned. However, the subsequent record of the meeting was revised and now shows the item passed, and therefore is approved. To dispel any confusion and in the interest of transparency, as one of the board members that abstained, I would like to revisit this matter. This is the best practice.”

As things stand, the board must still authorize a search process, and OK an advertising effort, in order to find someone who can do the job, Kraus said.

On Tuesday, Foster, Garcia and Miller each contacted Superintendent Gabe Edgar. Foster and Miller asked for their abstentions to be changed to “no.” Garcia asked for another vote to be held, and indicated she would have voted differently with more complete information. Another vote could be scheduled for the Feb. 19 monthly board meeting.

Lanning criticized the request by Foster and Miller, which appears to have not been successful, to change their abstentions to votes of “no.”

“It is clear that these members caved to online, partisan backlash from a small group of community members who attacked them online for the position’s passage,” Lanning said. “Part of leadership is making difficult decisions that benefit kids and standing by those decisions.”

In any event, nobody will be hired until at least four board members agree that a correct candidate has been found, according to board bylaws, which forbid fewer than four votes being used to authorize any hiring, warrant, contract or payment of a bill. EdCounsel determined that a job description does not fall into these categories.

Future reporting will focus upon how the description is likely to fit within district needs, and on what roles in other agencies inspired the district to create the role of DEI director. That would assume the role remains defined as it has been by the school board.