Separation of church & state 5: How I try to make it work at the municipal level - The public's money

Where I want to get to eventually is whether one can be christian without being a Christian in a system like that of the Canadian Parliament, with party discipline, party whips, a Prime Minister's Office that tells individual government members how to vote and even what to say, or a leader (in this case, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau) who tells his caucus members how they must vote even regarding highly morally charged issues, such as abortion, where individual consciences are at stake.

As I noted in earlier posts, I have been in municipal politics for 27 years, but have had the luxury of being a political free agent for all of that period. Therefore, I have never had to deal with party discipline issues. Nevertheless, the British Columbia school act requires that school districts be run on a strictly secular and non-sectarian basis. Consequently, I have had to work with integrity as a school trustee within that system while also being true to my faith and myself.

As I've tried to make clear as well, I don't believe that being christian means a) imposing certain moral rules that are unique to my faith but not necessarily part of prevailing societal norms; and b) being coercive in governing the school district. In the former case, my decision-making rests primarily on God's principles and values, not rules. In the latter case, if God is so respectful of human choice that he avoids being coercive, how can I be different? God's use of full information and offers of support to achieve his goals, while leaving the final choice to the individual, has been highly instructive to me.

Now, how does this work out in reality?

Governing a school district is, most of the time, a pretty straightforward process. A school board hires excellent people to lead the district, manage its budget, teach the students, plan well for the future, work with partners, and generally give students an education a for life worth living. Easy peasy, or so you would think.

But whenever there are scarce resources--and there is never enough money to fund every meritorious program--how does one choose?  And if there are morally charged issues associated with choices one

must make--such as sexual education or disciplining an employee for misconduct--how does one decide?

I'll take the former first--scarce resources. Being careful stewards of our resources is certainly a biblical virtue, and generally speaking it is publicly approved as well. That is not to say that we don't see shocking waste in various governments, and too often we've witnessed political snouts deep into the public trough, former Alberta Premier Alison Redford being the latest egregious example.

But I have always been a member of school boards that place a high value on weighing the educational value of every financial decision, always keeping in mind the business we're in--educating kids. Transparency in financial decision-making, and giving ample opportunity for public input into how the budget is to be used, are crucial to this process. It is, in the final analysis, the public's money.

I should add that British Columbia boards of education no longer have the authority and responsibility to set local school tax rates. Virtually all of our funds come from the provincial government and school boards have precious little leverage in squeezing more money out of the Ministry of Education. In addition, we don't negotiate educators salaries at the local level.

But we're still left with choosing among competing requests for funding. I have a little grid through which I run such possibilities:

• Is it consistent with the strategic plan for the school district?
• Does it stand on its own merits as an educational opportunity or as a means to help students to reach their potential?
• How many students does it impact as compared to other requests that are under consideration? Or to put it another way, are the rights to another educational alternative that a different group of students/families/educators wants given full respect in coming to a decision. Is the maximum bang for the buck realized?
• Is it affordable?

But in my attempt to be "christian"--i.e., faithful to my principles--I pose these further questions:

• Are some programs being considered because of the articulate nature of the presentations? Requests for some programs, such as sports academies or fine arts schools, are typically made by parent groups from a certain socio-economic class that can be more persuasive, and who can afford the extra costs that go with such programs. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the nature of their presentations often can add a certain luster to the idea.
• Do some programs not stand out as much because they are geared more to students and  families who are not as able to speak for themselves, who are marginalized in some way, or who lack confident spokespeople? I'm thinking here of some immigrants, the poor, the less educated, students with serious addiction or legal issues, and so on.

Where I have to chose, my "bias" tends to be in the direction of those least able to speak for themselves, which is how I see God operating. This will affect how I see an issue like providing transportation for students, for instance, and how much (if anything) to charge. Or the funding for special education. Or limiting fees. Or dealing with the students who are more likely to drop out.

[I once had the disillusioning experience of a teacher union executive member suggesting that we could save a lot of money that could be put toward better stipends for high school department heads if we didn't spent so much money on special education. He wasn't necessarily speaking for the whole union executive, or at least I hope he wasn't.]

Fortunately, my own district is very enlightened in this regard. No one is perfect, but I believe that the district attempts to balance competing requests in a way that optimizes opportunities for all students.

That is not to say that I haven't had the occasional moral qualm with respect to the use of our budget. I've been accused of nit-picking on this, but I have a hard time accepting the justifications that some of my colleagues have offered over the years for attending certain so-called public relations events that have little to do with education. As trustees we get invited, along with the city councilors, to virtually every fundraiser in the city. There are some non-profit organizations who put on quite elaborate "galas" to attract people to attend, with ticket prices upwards of three figures each.

I have no problem with colleagues attending these events, of course. They can ante up their own money and have a great time supporting worthy causes. I do have moral issues, however, with the public paying for the tickets, often for the trustee and a spouse/child/special friend. I simply don't agree with politicians using the public's money to attend fundraisers. Fortunately, the amount of actual money this represents is very small in a ~$200 milllion budget. But the principle is still important.

But what of the so-called moral issues? I'll address that next.