Hoc Committee, Has The Superintendent Undermined The Authority Of The Assistant Superintendent For Business?

Case Study 6

2. By appointing the ad hoc committee, has the superintendent undermined the authority of the assistant superintendent for business?

When Dr. Davis wrote a formal recommendation to the former superintendent requesting centralized control of the principal’s activity funds, it was dismissed because there were many unanswered questions. Being a former principal in the district, Dr. Davis was fully aware of the mismanagement of these funds and continued to pursue the issue with the school board, despite the decision of the superintendent. “Even after the superintendent rejected her recommendation, she continued to tell school board members that the potential for misusing the funds, legally and ethically, was extensive,” (Kowalski,

The current position of assistant superintendent for business has never been in charge of these autonomous activity funds; therefore, Dr. Quillen has not taken any power away from her. In fact, Dr. Davis is making an attempt to gain fiduciary influence. Obviously, there is conflict between Dr. Davis and the majority of principals on this matter. By appointing the ad hoc committee, the new superintendent is initiating an effective conflict resolution process. Taking ISLLC Standard 4 into account, the superintendent has appointed a variety of stakeholders to the committee, in order to involve them in the decision-making process. The superintendent has chosen parents that have other useful skills in this matter, such as an accounting background. Furthermore, the ad hoc committee has an identified purpose and fair process (except for the lack of principal representation on the committee) to transfer the attention to the problem, rather than at a person(s). “When we attempt to understand the perceptions of others (and the accompanying judgments and assumptions they carry), we build on our ability to understand the concerns they have,” (Sorenson & Goldsmith, 2009, p. 96). The ad hoc committee will help progress the stale mate between Dr. Davis and the principals. After they make their recommendation, Dr. Quillen will have to weigh the options and consider ISLLC Standard

The use of the activity fund is has been solely under the principal’s control; therefore, a principal will be able to explain the pros and cons of suggestions that are made by the committee. It seems to me that by excluding the principals, they are going to feel as if their concerns have not been heard, and since this decision directly effects how they do business, they should be included in the process. Sorenson & Goldsmith discuss the 8 steps to perfect peace, and step 2 clearly states that the process must be fair in order to be effective, as noted when they stated, “While we all care how things work out, a deeper concern is that the process used was fair. With few exceptions, people within an organization will rally if they believe that their voices have been heard and that the decisions made, even if they weren’t exactly what they wanted, were delivered with respect to the opinions and feelings of all,” (p.