The buck stops with the board.

The news that roughly 57 teachers and support staff in the Riverhead Central School District must be cut next year is extremely upsetting. 

Children will undoubtedly suffer from these cuts, which include teachers employed as academic intervention specialists to provide special services to students suffering learning loss as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, and the elimination of classes with low enrollments, including the district’s longstanding Latin program.

Nevertheless, these cuts seem necessary for the long-term financial health of the school district — and they keep many important things intact, including class sizes, clubs, athletics and music programs. As Interim Assistant Superintendent for Business Marianne Cartisano said last month, the district must have a “solid financial plan” that “doesn’t look like your EKG going up and down.”

At the same time, these staffing cuts, as well as comments made by Cartisano, Interim Superintendent Cheryl Pedisich and even school board members make clear: the school district, in the recent past, has not prioritized financial stability when budgeting. 

While it’s true the district received federal money to cover some of the employees being cut — including the academic intervention specialists — those employees are in the minority. The positions being cut or reduced elsewhere, such as in the middle school and high school, were not funded by grants. The school district started getting a lot of money from the state and started spending it — apparently without thinking of the long-term financial consequences. 

When asked by parents Tuesday why the district expanded its K-4 dual language program when it would not have the funding to continue it beyond this year, Pedisich and Cartisano, who were not here when the current budget was adopted, could look parents in the eye and agree with their criticism. They had no answers. They weren’t in Riverhead at the time.

District trustees — the members of the school board — are elected officials whose role includes, under state law,  fiscal management and oversight. And they must answer to district residents and taxpayers. 

However, the four trustees who’ve been on the board the last three years, and signed off on district budgets during that time, remained silent in response to parents’ questions and criticisms.

That’s why, after the meeting, our reporter asked Colin Palmer — one of those four trustees and the board’s current president — to answer parents’ questions and criticism. He declined to answer on the record that night. The next day in an emailed statement, he said the board’s decision to expand the program was based on the recommendations of administrators at the time.

As Riverhead students, parents and taxpayers have learned repeatedly — most recently in October — a school administrator (or two) can leave at any moment. Often in a shroud of mystery, without any explanation offered by the school board to the public it represents. Over the years, this scenario has proven costly in many ways: in contract buyouts, hearings and legal fees, administrative churn and district morale, to name a few.

And the district still needs to operate. Its primary purpose and overarching duty, the education of the children of this community, continues.

The people we elect to serve as district trustees — not the administrators they hire — bear the ultimate responsibility, both legally and morally. 

The buck stops with the board. They don’t have the luxury of blaming departed administrators. Nor should they, because they hired them and are responsible for their oversight. 

Undoubtedly this is a tall order for a group of community volunteers — board members are unpaid — who typically have no expertise or experience in overseeing the operation of a multimillion dollar enterprise, let alone one operating in the complicated sphere of public education. 

Trustees have no choice but to rely on the administrators they hire for sound day-to-day management of the district and competent budgeting practices.The administrators are the experts, after all. 

Relying on the expertise of administrators is unavoidable and that’s all the more reason for the board to make sure the right people are hired and retained. Any errors of judgment, practice and policy made by administrators are ultimately the board’s errors. And ultimately, it’s the board members — the district trustees — who are answerable to the people.

That’s why the board’s hiring decisions are especially crucial. These decisions must be based on clear-eyed, intelligent assessments of professional qualifications and a careful examination of resumes, references and past performance. 

We were happy to learn that Pedisich and Cartisano are staying for another year. Not only does it allow them the time needed to get things straightened out here in Riverhead — to develop a financial plan for Riverhead that doesn’t look like an “EKG going up and down,” as Cartisano said — it allows the school board, working with Eastern Suffolk BOCES, to search for and thoroughly vet qualified candidates to permanently fill the superintendency in July of 2025 and the critical upper-level administrative posts like the district’s top business official.     

It’s going to take time, hard work and tough decisions to set things right in Riverhead. In the past, we’ve seen too many decisions — especially hiring and firing of professional personnel — made for the wrong reasons, including personal friendships, grudges, gossip and petty internal politics. Those things never have a place in good management. And this district has lost qualified people and scared off qualified candidates as a result. 

When trustee candidates seek our votes in the upcoming election, that’s the most important inquiry voters should make. Will the candidates, if elected, act in the best interests of the children and taxpayers, or will they try to advance a personal agenda or gratify their own egos? Do they understand their roles and responsibilities as trustees — including the duty of transparency and accountability to the school community and the community at large? Do they have what it takes to make the tough decisions —  and to stand by those decisions, accepting responsibility not only for things that work well, but also for things that don’t?

If, in an honest assessment, the answer to any of these questions is a “no,” that should serve as a warning to voters. While responsibility for the management of the district and the quality of education rests with the school board, responsibility for who serve on the board rests with us, the citizens.

Ask questions. Be informed. Understand. Choose wisely. 

And vote on May 21.