THE apologists of the Board of Education and the Public School System recently came out with an unbelievably lame defense of the evaluation panel that reviewed the performance of Education Commissioner Rita H. Inos. But this should be understandable considering that they were defending the indefensible.
Now let us review the—for lack of a better word—pleadings of BOE’s apologists.
The evaluation panel, they said, was impartial. Right. Pigs also love to wear tutus and fly. Let us explain. If BOE wanted to ensure impartiality, why did its chairman, Junpan Guerrero, appoint two Inos supporters to the four-member panel? This was a gross blunder. In an effort to minimize the public outcry that they know would follow their decision to re-hire Inos, BOE was willing to perform a charade of neutrality that fooled no one. (This is like insisting, in the name of justice, on a jury in which half of the members are friends of the accused. An overkill, indeed; even a Mafia don needs only one tainted juror.)
Instead of acknowledging their mistake and addressing the valid concerns regarding the panel’s impartiality, BOE officials decided that putting a spin on the issue was enough. Now they are raving about Inos’s performance, citing statistics that, not surprisingly, do not include anything unflattering to the commissioner’s administration. They are, for example, claiming credit for reducing PSS’s expenses, without mentioning the following: 1) It was the previous administration that mandated the government’s austerity measures; and 2) PSS’s budget has not increased since 1998.
BOE officials, at any rate, should answer these questions: If Inos is that good a commissioner why is her re-appointment opposed by a lot of people, including PSS teachers and key lawmakers who decide on the amount of money PSS gets each year? If her performance is that impressive why did 75 percent of the electorate reject her last November?
And this brings us to the most compelling argument against Inos’s re-appointment: Her decision to get involved in politics despite signing a contract that did not allow her to do so. If that wasn’t bad enough, her political party waged an all-out negative campaign and lost by a landslide. Do BOE officials now believe that Inos will secure the assistance of the very same officials her political party savaged last year?
This is why BOE and PSS are supposedly non-partisan agencies. Even one of BOE’s legal counsels said that politics
“has no place in PSS.” (Incidentally, where was this lawyer when education officials were either running for office or stumping for their candidates last year?) Public education needs the support of ALL elected officials regardless of political affiliations. But due to her political affiliation, Inos has torpedoed any chances of getting the unconditional support of key administration and legislative officials at a time when PSS needs all the help it can get from the CNMI government.
Re-appointing Inos is clearly not in the best interest of PSS students and teachers. Board of Education members should at least realize this as they extend their friend’s contract. They should also remember that they are accountable to CNMI voters, who have long memories.
