A power struggle surfaces in the Dysart school district between board members and administrators

Dysart's elected school board leaders recently unleashed pent-up frustration over feeling shut up and shut out of crucial decisions made by the superintendent, saying they wanted to be more "hands on" with big issues facing the district, such as COVID-19.

They placed the blame on a 12-year-old governing model that spells out board members' and administrators' roles in overseeing the Dysart Unified School District of some 24,000 students in schools in Surprise, El Mirage and other areas of the northwest Valley.

The district had implemented the model in 2008 after a controversial period that Superintendent Quinn Kellis called "dysfunctional" and a time of concern about board relationships with one another and the administration. Kellis, who has led the district since 2018, was an assistant superintendent at the time.

Kellis, at the Jan. 13 meeting, told the board he regretted his potential role in making current board members feel unable to ask questions and suggested they work to solve the grievances.

"The board is in charge and always will be in charge," Kellis said.

At another point in the meeting, he pleaded: "Please, officially, I'm asking you to ask questions at will."

Board member Traci Sawyer-Sinkbeil requested more time to study the issue as it was just the second meeting for two newly elected board members.

But the debate crescendoed into a 3-2 vote to eliminate the district's policy governance model. Sawyer-Sinkbeil and new board member Jo Grant voted against the move. 

The board now must figure out what exactly the decision means, and its effect on how the district operates. Board President Dawn Densmore did not respond to The Arizona Republic's requests for comment.

Board member Christine Pritchard did not specify what would change but reiterated a desire to be more involved.

"I would just rather be more hands on — not in the day to day — but just hands on when it comes to some of these bigger decisions that impact our community," Pritchard said.

What was the problem? 

Densmore and Pritchard led the charge at the meeting to do away with the district's governing model, saying it restricted the board's ability to be more involved in decisions. Densmore said it wasn't about a "power trip" or "to micromanage anyone." 

Chrystal Chaffin, a new board member who also voted the system out, said at the meeting: "Some decisions, if it really is up to the superintendent, I feel like that's a lot for one man's shoulders to carry."

Pritchard, an on-and-off board member since 2006 whom voters reelected this fall, said she had raised concerns in 2019 to no avail, thus did not want to wait.

She and Densmore said they felt barred from asking detailed questions during board meetings, for fear they'd be told to "get in your lane." 

The two attributed the feeling to the district's governing model that declares board members in charge of determining the district's goals, and the superintendent in charge of figuring out how to get there. 

"Sometimes it feels like the governing board should be making some decisions or having a voice in areas that maybe policy governance kind of frowns upon," Pritchard said. 

"In other districts, you'll hear that their boards made those decisions, but in Dysart, there's a separation of power," Densmore said, adding that she wanted more collaboration.

They offered only one example at the meeting: decisions surrounding COVID-19. The district, like many in the state, is operating with a hybrid model in which parents can select to send their children to school or to keep them learning remotely via computer. 

Densmore said at the meeting she also had a problem with a policy that forbids her from interacting with constituents. She said "per policy," she's not allowed to reply to emails from parents because board members must forward those to the administration.

According to Dysart's policy manual, which is published on the district website, board members must "refer complaints to the Superintendent and refrain from individual counsel and action." 

Another section of the policy says "any community member who exhausts the opportunity of discussing a matter at the administrative level may communicate with the Board in writing."

By comparison, Scottsdale Unified School District's policy says "to refer complaints to the proper school authorities and to refrain from individual counsel and action."

Pritchard and Densmore further said the board already had gotten away from the model when it discarded the use of board self-evaluations a couple of years ago. 

The evaluations were meant to create a more effective school board through self-evaluations and feedback from the public, which were compiled by a consultant and led to suggestions for improvements.

'Complete misinterpretation'

Thomas Jandris, the consultant who helped the district set up the governing model, said it's a "complete misinterpretation" to think it would limit the board's ability to ask questions.

He said board members are "free to and expected to ask as many clarifying questions about it as they like."

The decision to do away with the system shows board members' lack of training and commitment to the system, which unfortunately led to "creeping misunderstanding and even paranoia about what policy governance is," he said. 

According to the district's website, policy governance is meant to "empower" the board to “focus on larger issues, delegate with clarity (and) direct the superintendent who acts as the CEO." 

The superintendent has direct authority over the operational aspects of the district but is accountable to the board, and the board advocates on behalf of the community.

Jandris cut ties with the district after the board stopped participating in the self-evaluation process in 2019.

"Any board that's worth its salt is going to recognize that it's an important example to the rest of the school district," Jandris said, adding the boards that don't evaluate "either (have) something to hide or don't understand how high-performing school districts work."

Long path forward

Jandris said the system was implemented more than a decade ago as a path forward from blurred lines about what was and wasn't appropriate. 

A district study at the time showed teacher morale was low and residents mistrusted school leaders. 

Between 2006 and 2009, the rapidly growing district was experiencing board member infighting, state investigations and embittered residents attempting to recall board members.  

In 2007, for instance, The Republic reported that then-board member Bill Lipscomb violated the Open Meeting Law. Lipscomb was investigated after Pritchard, board president at the time, filed a complaint with the state. The state Attorney General's Office called it a "minor technical violation." Lipscomb called Pritchard's complaint "vindictive and retaliatory."

Another controversy erupted that year when the board required school uniforms, which deeply divided parents. The board quickly reversed course and eliminated the policy, but many parents already had spent hundreds of dollars on the clothes and were outraged.

By 2008, residents tried to recall three board members, claiming the members abused their power and ignored public input. Some were upset at the hiring processes for top district positions. Others were angry that a married couple sat on the board together.

Jandris said developing a system for the board and administrators to work together was "instrumental in turning (Dysart) into an award-winning district."

He called its elimination a "slippery slope" back to dysfunction. 

Reach reporter Taylor Seely at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or 480-476-6116. Follow her on Twitter @taylorseely95 or Instagram @taylor.azc.