While I have focused in my previous analysis on the systemic downsides of creating recall elections in Longmeadow, including the unpredictable downsides of making long term changes for short term political advantage, the case against the recall can also be made in purely political strategic terms that should be compelling to the present supporters of the recall petition. While my argument against the recall has thus far been embraced as a politically useful argument by the Superintendent’s critics, the political-strategic reality is that the case against the Superintendent would actually benefit from a recall election this spring and create unnecessary difficulties for those trying to save the Superintendent’s job.
Supporters of the Superintendent are responsible for bringing this recall petition to the Special Town Meeting (STM) happening tonight in Longmeadow’s high school gym. They are motivated by the desire to remove the School Committee members who voted not to renew the Superintendent’s contract. What they do not appreciate is that by making the non-renewal controversy personal they have given their political opponents both “an out” and a viable political strategy for a recall election.
Were I a political consultant to the critics of the Superintendent, I would tell them that without the recall on the June ballot, it is likely that the two School Committee seats on the ballot will be won by supporters of the Superintendent, which would allow the new committee to renew the Superintendent’s contract. Therefore, it would be best for the cause of removing the Superintendent to have all four of the School Committee members who want to get rid of him on the block in the June elections via recall because that would give them a much better opportunity to rally and mobilize support among voters.
As it stands, one member of the School Committee who voted against the Superintendent would have to run in June without the moral outrage and energy that could be mounted against a recall effort. In the absence of the recall issue the supporters of the Superintendent appear to have the advantage in terms of public opinion. It appears that more Longmeadow residents are supportive of the Superintendent than unsupportive, and the political mishandling of his contract renewal has also created significant moral outrage directed at the School Committee members who voted against the Superintendent. The introduction of the recall amendment could (and if passed almost certainly would) effectively shift the moral outrage factor in ways disadvantageous to the folks trying to save the Superintendent’s job.
When your side in a political dispute can command the support of the public on the substance of real issues, you want those real issues to be the clear focus of an election. When you are likely to lose on the issues, you want to divert voters’ attention to something else, thus diluting the election narrative in a way that will decrease your opponents’ advantage. The defenders of the Superintendent have both the issue-based and outrage-based political advantage at present, as well as a clear and uncomplicated route to achieving their goal using the regular annual elections in June.
Question: Why would any serious political actors choose to make the accomplishment of their ultimate goal more difficult? Answer: Anger, frustration, and political ignorance and inexperience.
The School Committee majority and the supporters of the recall amendment to the Charter have one thing in common. Both the horrible mishandling of the Superintendent’s contract renewal issue and the campaign to hastily amend the Town Charter in order to punish the offending School Committee members are products of anger, frustration, and political ignorance and inexperience.
To sum up, the REAL political beneficiaries of tonight’s STM vote (if the recall passes) are the four targeted members of the School Committee majority who would then have a noble cause (i.e. opposition to recalls) and strong incentive to fight like hell. If only one of them is up for re-election, however, they would have no great and noble cause (i.e. opposing recalls on principle) and FAR less incentive to fight like hell. By electing two School Committee candidates supportive of the Superintendent (a slate, if you will) the Superintendent’s supporters could flip the School Committee majority, replace the leadership, and renew the Superintendent’s contract.
The recall petition was a serious political miscalculation, both in the present political conflict and in the long run, when, I am afraid it will be used AGAINST the interests of educators and students more often than for them, interests which BOTH sides of the present conflict share. Waiting in the wings are the angry “taxpayers” who routinely oppose increases in education spending and who will not fail to take advantage of a new weapon with which to pit the town’s families with school aged children against empty-nesters and retirees.