Are school trustees politicians? The answer seems obvious. Trustees are elected by the public, held accountable by voters, and conduct their business in open board meetings. This certainly sounds like a politician’s job.
Not only that, but many school trustees use their position as a stepping stone to higher political office. For example, Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles, Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Michael Ford, and former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne all started their political careers as Toronto trustees.
Based on these facts, it seems clear that trustees are politicians.
However, not everyone agrees with this assessment. Trustees in the Durham District School Board (DDSB) recently voted to suspend one of their colleagues, Linda Stone, for allegedly making discriminatory comments. In doing so, they relied on a report written by senior workplace investigator Benjamin Drory.
Drory’s report draws some rather interesting conclusions. According to Drory, trustees are not politicians, nor is their role primarily about “giving voice” to the people who voted them into office. In addition, the report suggests that trustees are far more limited in their “freedom” to speak (Drory puts the word freedom in quotation marks) than municipal councillors. In Drory’s view, trustees are primarily accountable to their fellow trustees and to the board’s Code of Conduct.
The report also argues that trustees’ public comments must remain consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code and also abide by Ministry of Education directives. Drory explains that “There are simply certain views and understandings that school boards are supposed to uphold and promote as matters of education policy and law.”
Of course, if these are truly the parameters by which school trustees must abide, one might wonder why we bother to have elections at all. The whole point of elections, at all levels of government, is to allow voters to choose their representatives. Suggesting that school trustees are not supposed to give voice to those who elected them makes the whole process of voting a waste of time.
In addition, there are plenty of Ontario school trustees who regularly use their positions as political soapboxes without being suspended by their colleagues. As a case in point, newly elected Ottawa Carleton District School Board trustee Nili Kaplan-Myrth regularly makes highly political social media posts. In addition, her failed attempts to impose a mask mandate on students and staff have wasted inordinate amounts of time and distracted the board from dealing with actual educational issues.
Meanwhile, Waterloo Region District School Board trustee Scott Piatkowski, a former vice-president on the Ontario NDP executive, was caught inappropriately using email addresses collected by the NDP to solicit support and donations for his initial election campaign in 2018. He had also previously run for office four times before; twice for a federal seat and twice for Kitchener city council. And yet, we are supposed to believe that trustees aren’t politicians.
Two years ago, the Manitoba government introduced Bill 64, which would have, among other things, abolished elected school boards and replaced them with appointed officials. It didn’t take long before the Manitoba School Boards Association embarked on a massive public relations campaign against Bill 64. Among other things, they argued that trustees are elected to represent their local communities.
After months of public pressure, the Manitoba government changed course and withdrew Bill 64. It would be silly indeed for any school board official in Manitoba to now claim that trustees are not supposed to give voice to the people who elected them. Thus, considering that there is little difference between the Manitoba and Ontario education systems, it makes no sense to relegate Ontario trustees to mere agents of the provincial government.
School boards are most likely to develop good education policies when trustees are able to speak freely. It is during vigorous debate that the best ideas rise to the top. While debate can be uncomfortable, it is only by allowing the free exchange of ideas that democracy can function.
Instead of seeking to silence trustees who espouse different ideas, their colleagues would do well to engage them in debate. There is nothing to be gained from excluding dissenting trustees from the roles to which they were elected.
In the end, trustees are accountable to voters, not to each other.
