OPINION: Everything is Awesome...Until It's Not

Inside a School Board Under Strain

If we were sitting down over a cup of coffee, I’d tell you last night’s governance training wasn’t really about personalities or drama, although you would probably argue with me about that if you had been in the room. However, I think the heart of the conversation was really about how to structure governance in less than harmonious environments.

What stood out to me wasn’t any one comment. It was the quiet tug-of-war underneath the whole conversation: How much is a school board member supposed to question, push, demand, and debate? And at what point does that stop being oversight and start becoming obstruction, or micromanagement?

When I first started attending school board meetings in 2024, the board voted unanimously on everything. There was very little visible disagreement. Meetings were efficient and mostly celebratory. You didn’t see extended debate. You didn’t see much friction. It was like the opening credits of The Lego Movie….”Everything is Awesome” playing in an endless loop.

Since 2025 though, there’s been more questioning, more requests for information, more back-and-forth… And yeah, a heck of a lot more drama.

To be clear, I don’t think questioning the system is inherently bad. Public boards should not function as rubber stamps. Scrutiny and oversight are important. However, this training made something else clear: scrutiny and disagreement without structure can strain an institution very quickly.

Georgia law (OCGA 20-2-61) is fairly direct about how local boards are supposed to operate. A school board sets policy. The superintendent implements it. Both are supposed to focus on student achievement. Individual board members do not have authority as independent elected officials. They only have authority when acting as part of the board as a whole. At the same time though, the law explicitly protects a board member’s ability to request and review financial information. Board members are also tasked with holding the superintendent accountable, but with the very strong caveat…. without micromanaging.

That design naturally creates tension. On one hand, a school board member elected by voters may feel obligated to publicly question, request information, and debate issues thoroughly. On the other hand, Georgia law envisions a collective governing body acting in unison on behalf of a non-voting constituency — students. Both instincts can come from a genuine desire to serve, but they don’t always coexist easily.

Much of the training focused on draft board norms and protocols. There was a huge discussion around agenda-setting authority and the scope of “board items” that have been taken off as an agenda item. That may sound procedural, but it goes to the core of governance. Control of the agenda determines what becomes public debate and what does not.

Some members expressed concern that individual board items were drifting into operational matters or into specific parent complaints that fall outside the board’s policymaking role. Georgia law draws a distinction between setting policy and managing day-to-day administration. When that boundary blurs, accusations of micromanagement surface quickly. The discussion also touched on the risk of referencing individual family situations in public meetings, even without explicitly naming them. Protecting privacy while maintaining transparency is another line boards must navigate carefully.

At the same time though, there is a legitimate concern that agenda authority should not be used to avoid debate altogether. It’s my understanding that in most school boards, the chair works with the superintendent to develop the draft agenda, but the board ultimately votes to adopt it. One challenge is not whether debate should occur, but how to ensure that debate remains tethered to policy rather than individual cases or administrative details.

In a collective body, a decision not to move forward with an agenda item is still a decision. If a majority declines to add an item or does not support amending the agenda, that reflects the will of the board. Continuing to argue the threshold question of whether something should even be discussed can prolong conflict before debate on substance ever begins.

The facilitator also mentioned something that doesn’t always get said out loud: effective school board governance assumes a basic dedication to public education itself. Boards may disagree on policy, but they operate under the premise that members are working to strengthen, not dismantle, the institution they oversee. In today’s climate, that assumption is also under strain.

In recent years, local school boards have increasingly become arenas for broader political debates. Issues that once remained administrative now carry ideological weight. That shift has changed not only what boards debate, but how they debate it. When national political narratives enter local boards, trust becomes harder to maintain. Members may begin to question not just each other’s arguments, but each other’s motives. Without at least a baseline assumption of good faith, governance slows down or hardens into tribalistic factions.

One area where this tension has become especially visible in our board is financial oversight. Fiscal transparency is a core duty of any governing board. However, in complex matters such as bond issuance, certain projections and amortization schedules are not immediately available, and compiling additional layers of documentation can require significant staff time. When requests become increasingly burdensome or extend beyond what is necessary for the specific vote before the board, it can strain administrative capacity and delay implementation of decisions voters have already approved.

Oversight is essential. However, governance also requires proportionality. Not every vote requires every conceivable data point, and not every unanswered question justifies indefinite delay. Boards often must act on the best information reasonably available at the time. The line between rigorous accountability and operational paralysis is not always bright, and disagreement about where that line sits can also quickly fuel distrust.

There is also a philosophical divide over how controversial issues should be handled. Some believe addressing difficult topics quietly and discreetly prevents unnecessary political escalation, as well as protects the district from becoming a spectacle. I get that. Public education has been under sustained attack nationally, and no superintendent or board wants endless culture-war headlines.

However, avoiding open discussion does not eliminate conflict. It simply changes where the conflict lives and where it is discussed. Decisions made behind closed doors on matters families care deeply about may reduce immediate controversy, but they often create long-term suspicion. When trust erodes, it fuels the very backlash leaders were trying to avoid in the first place, and it becomes a festering wound in the community. I will always believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

If difficult decisions are going to be made, they should be made openly, debated publicly, and voted on clearly. We can agree or disagree. That is how public governance is supposed to work.

Which brings me to something surprisingly simple: Robert’s Rules of Order.

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel here, folks. The board already says it uses it. If a board member wants to pursue something, the language shouldn’t be “Would this board be willing to…?” It should be: “I make a motion to…” Another member seconds it, or they don’t. If no one seconds the motion, that’s the answer. The board, as a body, does not wish to take it up. There’s no need for prolonged argument about whether it should even be discussed. Further, it will be on the official minutes that a motion was made and there was no second.

If the motion is seconded, debate follows. Amendments can be offered. Motions can be tabled or referred back to staff for a more detailed report later. Discussion and debate can be limited in time. Remarks must remain pertinent to the motion on the floor. Then the board votes. Following that structure might feel like herding cats at times, but it protects both scrutiny and efficiency. It prevents rubber-stamping. It also prevents school board meetings from drifting into open-ended hours-long political theater. Nobody wants to sit through a 4-hour filibuster at 6 pm on a Tuesday night. (If anybody needs a refresher on Robert’s Rules, I like this guide at our public library.)

Now, let’s be honest. Learning Robert’s Rules isn’t going to magically fix the trust issues on this board. There is no fairy godmother to “bibbidi bobbidi boo” this situation. However having a shared process, and actually sticking to it, would at least keep disagreements from turning into free-for-alls.

School board elections in Georgia are nonpartisan by design. That doesn’t mean members lack political beliefs. We all have them. I do too. I’m a Democrat and serve as Treasurer of the local Democratic Committee, and I lead the Freedom to Read Coalition of Columbia County. Showing up, speaking, and advocating is part of democracy. However, once someone is elected to a school board, their role shifts. The statutory framework envisions a unified policymaking body focused on students. A school board cannot function as a rubber stamp, but it also cannot function as five separate political stages.

The answer to internal conflict isn’t less debate though. It’s having a better-structured debate. Debate without guardrails magnifies distrust, whereas disciplined debate clarifies policy. The difference between those two outcomes is not ideology, it’s structure.

Georgia law is clear on the roles of the board, superintendent, and individual members. The tools and processes already exist to manage conflict. The real question is whether the board will lean into that structure, and whether every member is willing to operate within it, even when it’s uncomfortable.

School boards are made up of adults, but the work is for students. How conflict is handled is crucial. Modeling how to disagree, how to follow rules, how to accept outcomes, and how to move forward without personalizing every disagreement isn’t just good governance, it’s part setting an example for those very students who are supposed to be the focus.

In a moment when our discourse is highly polarized and trust is thin, that example may matter just as much as any policy vote.

The next school board Working Meeting is February 24, 2026 at 4781 Hereford Farm Rd at 5:30 pm. I hope to see you there.