Candidates Discuss Strengths, Answer Questions from School Board

Eight of the  gathered in front of a small crowd Wednesday at Mehlville High School to interview for the open school board position. 

The board will meet again at 6:30 p.m. Thursday in the Administration Building to discuss the candidates and interviews in an open meeting. If necessary, the decision could go to a third meeting at 6:30 p.m. Friday in the Administration Building. The board must have four out of six votes for a candidate to be selected, who will serve until the April 2012 election.  

The candidates who applied are Ken Leach, David Wessel, Michael Gindler, Greg Frigerio, Timothy Champion, Marea Kluth-Hoppe, Fred Padberg, Aaron Hilmer and Ronald Fedorchak.

Candidate Ken Leach could not attend due to a work conference. Instead, Board Secretary Elaine Powers read Leach’s application to attendees.

All other candidates were given 20 minutes to present an opening statement and answer four questions presented by the board. Afterward, board members asked their own questions and candidates ended with a closing statement.

The questions, prepared by Dr. Lisa Counts with the district’s human resources department, covered a variety of topics:

1. Based on your understanding on public school finance, prioritize the areas you feel are of greatest importance to the Mehlville School District and explain why.
2. Can you please explain some of the ideas that you would bring to the table regarding ongoing community engagement with the Mehlville School District?
3. As a Mehlville Board of Education member, give an overview of your beliefs regarding student achievement, and based on those beliefs, address any curriculum changes that you would propose and explain why.
4. What is your view regarding the role of an individual board member versus the role of the collective board of education?

To see a running log of the candidates’ answers, visit our Facebook page or .

Wessel, Champion, Kluth-Hoppe and Fedorchak both spoke of teachers’ salaries as one of the largest priorities in the budget.

“Our teachers are among the lowest paid in the county, that to me is a major priority,” Fedorchak said, adding that keeping teachers motivated, qualified and compensated for their hard work was key.

Frigerio said teachers and administrators should be secondary to the main financial obligation, which is the students. He commended the district’s Project ENGAGE character education program and said that service should be included in graduation requirements.

“I want to put kids first,” he said.

Gindler said that the most important budget priority was to have Mehlville’s position heard at the state level, especially with cuts in transportation.

For community engagement, Hilmer said “perception trumps reality.”

“We could be doing great work inside these walls, but if there’s a negative perception and persona that’s been built in the school district over the years, and whether you agree with it or not, we need to deal with the cards that are dealt,” he said.

Hilmer added that he would support small, measured bond issues with a sunset clause to fund those capital expenses.

“That’s how you do your community engagement. I think it's not necessarily by bringing people into a room where you show them the slideshows…it’s what people see,” he said.

Wessel said it was the board’s duty to use the superintendent and communications department to relay student activity to the community. Both Wessel and Kluth-Hoppe said the board should also be a bridge to the community.

Gindler and Fedorchak said the district had done a good job with the COMPASS II program, but could be improved by reaching out to other mediums in the community such as parochial schools and businesses.

Padberg said the key was making the community understand the positive effects that schools have on children.

Curriculum brought a different focus to the candidates.

Frigerio called himself “a traditionalist” and said he wanted to see a stricter dress code for students.

“That also holds true for the faculty,” he said. “Some of the photos I see…from other districts, some of the teachers dress as bad as the kids. How can you expect to learn? That’s not a learning environment. Nobody respects anything. You have to start with the discipline to get them going. If you do that, they’ll want to come to class.”

Champion and Wessel both said curriculum should be focused on helping kids become a viable part of the community, whether entering into higher education or a certain profession.

Curriculum committees are extremely valuable, Kluth-Hoppe said, adding that the committees often look at national trends and work them into the district.

When asked about the individual versus group mentality among board members, Wessel and Padberg talked about diversity, but said the board needed to work together and support final decisions.

Gindler, Fedorchak and Kluth-Hoppe said individually, board members needed to have an area of expertise or projects and areas of interest that they strive to improve.

“No individual can act on their own on the board of education,” Kluth-Hoppe said. "It is a team that makes a decision and follows through.”

Board member Rich Franz and Powers also asked each candidate two questions.

Franz asked if applicants would be willing to make a public commitment to not support any tax increase or any bond issue including one with a sunset clause for the remainder of their term.

“I try not to make promises before I know all the facts, but I think it’s probably a moot point,” Wessel said, adding that he would not make a public commitment to not endorse a tax increase or bond issue when pressed further.

Gindler, Champion, Kluth-Hoppe and Fedorchak said they would need more information before a commitment, one way or another.

Frigerio said he would make a public commitment not to raise taxes on operating funds, but would be willing to consider a bond issue for capital expenses.

Padberg said he would be willing to make a public statement to not raise taxes or support a bond issue for the remainder of the term.

Powers asked if the candidates would be interested in running again in April when the seat was up in the election or if their goal was just to serve out the remainder of the term.

Fedorchak, Gindler and Kluth-Hoppe said right now, they are thinking they would serve until the term ended without running for re-election. In his application, Leach said he would not run again. 

Champion and Frigerio said the goal was to run and continue on.

“The learning curve of filling it for just one year would be a waste of time,” Champion said. “I think it would be a longer-term commitment.”

Both Hilmer and Padberg said they would run again if they felt their experience on the board this year was positive.

“If it’s positive and constructive and we were accomplishing things, then I would consider running for a three-year term, but considering my advanced age, I don’t even buy green bananas,” Padberg said.

After interviews, Deputy Superintendent Eric Knost communicated advice from the Missouri School Board Association. Since a decision has to be made, Knost said that in the event of a lock between board members about candidates, the MSBA advised the board to predetermine a process for choosing a candidate after narrowing it down to a small number.

“If we don’t have four people agreeing on one candidate,” Knost said. “From that point, if there is still not an agreement…literally they recommend that you employ either a coin toss...or pick a number.”

“Honestly that’s disrespectful to these folks, considering the amount of time and effort they’ve put in, and I’m not going to do that to them,” Franz said. “So let’s just take that off the table right now. We will make a decision.”

The board decided to discuss each candidate to start tomorrow’s meeting before narrowing them down with a round of informal voting.