Posting a comment for Mr. Chandler, who's having problems with Typepad (shocker, I know): The analogy of the killing of a spider in the 2004 editorial above to support the "structural integrity" of the governance model of Horry County Schools is so far-fetched as to be almost laughable. The better analogy to highlight the structural weakness of our rare form of school governance would be a bull in a china closet. A china closet looks prim and proper, showcasing its fine wares. A bull inside a china closet is strong, of course, and together the two seem quite admirable. Over time, however, we all know what happens to the china closet. Our governance model originated with Dr. John Carver, a clinical psychologist from Atlanta, who had no expertise in governance and who dreamed up our model over a short period of time. Used in less than 1 percent of the 14,000 school districts nationwide, it is NOT the norm in most states, as indicated in the 2004 editorial. In fact, Colorado is the state that uses it the most, and it has only about 30 policy governance districts out of 178. The states of Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow with about 13, 10, and 10 respectively. These four states combined constitute about 2/3 of all the districts nationwide which use this form of governance. In South Carolina, we have only two districts, Horry and Beaufort. Beaufort is currently facing massive problems with the model and is effectively not using its main features, as it is moving towards the use of standing committees. The model gives lawmaking authority to the superintendent in areas related to instruction, students, personnel, finance, and operations. The superintendent is given immense power by the board of education. She can decide ideology, methodology, and financial parameters in controlling the means of operations. As long as the results are satisfactory, how they are achieved is of little consequence, or is it? The following analogy was sent to the media, the board of education, and the superintendent on March 2, over two weeks before the current controversy erupted over my being denied the right to speak at an upcoming board meeting by the chairman of the board and before my truthfulness and professionalism were questioned publicly by the superintendent: Horry County Schools is a highly successful district by many measures. On a scale of 1-10, I would give it an 8.5. If, however, I were to give it a 10, I would still be asking the question, "Who should make the decision of how we govern ourselves?" Governance should not be about the kinds of results we are producing but about how those results are being produced. Success can be achieved by awful means, at least for a while. After World War I, Germany was devastated. She was stripped of over 20% of her land and lost all of her worldwide colonies. Forced to pay reparations to the allies, she struggled to survive. People were out of work and hungry. The streets were chaotic. Hope for a better life had vanished. Germany shifted from a democratic-republic to a fascist, authoritarian regime in 1934 through democratic means by way of a law, the Enabling Act, which allowed its new leader to confer upon himself dictatorial power. Over the next seven years, 1934-1941, Germany saw much success, by just about any measure. Most Germans were applauding their leader and new governance. In a very short period of time, Germany saw a miraculous turnaround. The machinery was churning, people were working, and hope restored. Lands lost in World War I were regained, pride was restored, and most Germans were counting their blessings that they lived in such a wonderful country. The evidence or results were clear that Germany was indeed a successful country. Germany did not think she was doing anything wrong. She was acting ethically. She was the country that had been wronged in World War I. She should never have been forced to sign the war guilt clause. What Germany was doing was righting a terrible wrong. Germans trusted their leader to produce the results that all desired. The means were largely in his hands. Well, we know the end of this story. Nothing more need be said. Of course, Horry County Schools is not Nazi Germany. Many might take offense at the analogy. None is intended. However, in principle, what we have instituted is a type of governance based on trust of our leader to obtain desired results by dispensing with traditional, democratic practice. No definitive studies have ever been produced to show a causal relationship in school districts between a form of governance and results achieved. Great results can be produced in both traditional and policy governance districts. Likewise, financial problems and controversy can happen under both. What, then, is the heart of my argument? The board should never vote on how we govern ourselves in the absence of much public participation. This should not be about what board members want but should be about what the people want. The public must first know all of the pros and cons of governance through vigorous discourse and debate, urging their board representatives to vote this way or that, and only after sufficient time has transpired for them to have an adequate understanding of what they are supporting. This could take some time. In the end, board members should vote for what they think is in the best interest of all concerned citizens. Public information by Horry County Schools and the media should be disseminated through mailings, extensive articles, radio and television, town meetings, etc., giving all sides ample time to gain information, express their opinions, ask questions, and debate before the Horry County Board of Education votes on such a fundamental issue. Most issues cannot practically be explored in-depth through public discourse before a board vote. This, however, is NOT a typical issue. This is as fundamental an issue as the shift from our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution of the United States. The roles of the public, the board, and the superintendent have radically changed for the last thirteen years, and most people in our district are ignorant of that change. Most do not understand our Coherent Governance Policies. They do not know how we operate. They should. Sincerely and professionally, Bobby Chandler

Thank you, Dakota. I'll put this on my reading list.

Can't argue with that.

If we put half the energy in these situations that has been put into the Libya situation, we'd probably come up with something that might make sense and be effective. Instead, we use a ton of energy skirting around the issue, something I plan to stop doing. What we are doing is clearly not working, which means we need to be thinking about something else - and, yes, that includes how we view and use guns as PART of that discussion.

Got someone working on that margin shift, Sunny.

So we are to first assume that things are untrue because it doesn't fit what we think it should sound like? I don't get that. Some people are more polished than others, and some mature faster than others.

Sorry. That last comment is via Ron, who kept getting it eaten by Typepad. After reading it 3 times and looking through our very profane and short list of blocked words, I can't figure out why. But anyway, you might also be curious to know that our own Bob Bestler wrote on this last week: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/02/09/2652559/bob-bestler-can-trashy-ranking.html

Forgive me if someone has already posted or commented on this blurb from Friday’s USA Today, p. 4D – thought maybe Dan or somebody at the Sun-News (or the Chamber of Commerce) would be interested in replying to this dubious distinction for our area. Headlined “ ‘Trashy’ rates nicely with spring breakers,” the brief piece by travel writer Jayne Clark reads: ---------- You don’t have to tune into MTV’s spring break coverage to know that for many college students, the annual rite revolves around booze, beaches and babes. Coedmagazine.com has ranked the most popular U.S. spring break destinations by their degree of trashiness (a positive in this context), factoring in the prevalence of strip clubs, liquor stores, tattoo parlors and Hooters franchises, among other elements that underpin the “Girls Gone Wild” ethos. The top 5: 1. Las Vegas. “Home of gambling, strip clubs, and anything else you can buy.” 2. Key West. “During the high spring break season, open-container laws are not enforced…Don’t miss the clothing-optional Garden of Eden bar. 3. South Padre Island, Texas. “How can it get any trashier than South Padre, a beach that essentially exists for the sole purpose of having wild parties?” 4. Daytona Beach, Fla. “According to the Orlando Sentinel, Daytona Beach has become the ‘undisputed party capital for underage drinkers’.” 5. Myrtle Beach, S.C. “South Myrtle (the trashier side) is run by three defining places: the beach, Broadway on [sic] the Beach, and the strip clubs.” ------------ If we’re going to wind up as low as no. 5 on the list, you would think the magazine could at least be accurate on the names of our attractions.