The disruptor

Rachel Prinzen has managed to aggravate her school board colleagues so intensely in her short tenure as trustee that they suspended her. Twice. Suspension means barring the elected official from board and committee meetings for 90 days. In both cases, her suspensions were overturned. (Ms. Prinzen represents the north half of Prince Edward County, including CML Snider Elementary in Wellington.)

We don’t know precisely what her offence was, other than she said things outside the boardroom that were “confidential to the board and in some cases, deeply personal.” A breach of the board’s Code of Conduct.

No one is talking. It has all happened behind closed doors. We do know, however, that the local school board has spent at least $110,000 defending its actions against Ms. Prinzen.

My story, however, isn’t about Rachel Prinzen. Partly because I don’t know the underlying facts, but mainly because I don’t invest much energy in monitoring the local school board.

The public education curriculum—what is taught in the classroom—is set by the province. School funding is controlled by the province. In theory, school buildings are managed by the school board, but as we have seen, when the province decides to close schools, the school board is little more than a facilitator rather than a decision-maker. The levers of public education, in all ways relevant to me as a parent, are controlled by the province, not the school board.

As such, I am at best a casual observer of the politics that emanate from the local school board meetings. It was by dipping in and out of Prinzen’s saga, however, that I learned that Ernie Parsons had rejoined the school board.

By a wide margin, Parsons has been my favourite politico since landing in this chair in 2003. He was a Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) then, having just defeated John Williams by 10,000 votes. Parsons spent most of those years railing against the local hospital corporation’s management and board. He insisted the new institution must be transparent, accountable, and fully democratic. Parsons maintained that something as vital as our hospitals had no business being run behind closed doors—it had to be governed in plain sight, where the public could watch every move.

The newly formed corporation had different ideas. Indeed, it worked mightily in those early years to pull the governance of the four-hospital corporation out of the grubby hands of residents and politicians to sequester it behind closed doors. Once safely hidden away, the corporation could be guided by its hand-picked cronies.

The very first issue of the Times under your correspondent’s tenure featured a front page story in which Parsons pressed for more openness, looking to break down the “country club” attitude among hospital corporation board members.

Parsons fought feverishly against such insidious tyranny. He fought tirelessly for accountability and transparency in our local institutions. He still does.

He often said he preferred sitting as an MPP in opposition, as there were fewer minders telling him what to do, or more precisely, what to say and when to say it. He felt free to speak his mind as a backbench opposition MPP.

But in 2007, the Liberals had been in power for four years. A reorganization of provincial electoral boundaries left Parsons on the outside. He was appointed a Justice of the Peace. He seemed to enjoy the job. I was able to observe him on a couple of occasions. He managed his courtroom much as one might imagine his family dinner table. Cheerful, direct and caring.

He could no longer engage in politics, however. A powerful and persuasive voice for openness and accountability had gone silent.

That is, until he was appointed to the school board in 2023, when another trustee stepped down. Before becoming a provincial politician, Parsons had served on the school board for 17 years, six as chair. This was familiar territory. Or so it must have seemed.

Lately, however, Parsons has been beating the democracy drum again. This time, it is about the board upon which he serves. Parsons was one of three board members (of 10) to vote against Prinzen’s first suspension. On her second suspension, Parsons was the lone vote against.

Last week, Parsons tabled a motion seeking to persuade his board colleagues to open board meetings to comments from the public. (Public delegations are permitted at committee meetings but not board meetings.)

“The question really simply is, does this board support encouraging the public to share with us or not?” said Parsons.

This country club wasn’t ready for such a radical change to how it does business. Parson’s motion failed.

“This board is aging me at twice the normal rate,” said Parsons.

Which is problematic, Parsons is 79. He has more work to do. More to give.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca