Editorial: Why fire a school superintendent for cronyism — then leave her crony in charge?

Is there any public body in the St. Louis region with more outright contempt for the public than the St. Louis Public School Board is currently demonstrating? If so, we're having a difficult time coming up with it.

SLPS board leaders continue to circle the wagons around acting superintendent Millicent Borishade, formally confirming her duties last week with no word on when or whether a permanent replacement will be hired. Borishade, already the very personification of cronyism, is also the subject of disturbing new information about her superintendent certification status and her performance in her previous jobs.

Meanwhile, the district is bracing for a protracted legal fight with ousted Superintendent Keisha Scarlett, who brought in Borishade and other old pals to fill newly conjured-up positions for lavish pay.

What a mess.

Needless to say, no one on the school board is publicly discussing exactly why this is happening or what comes next. At the very least, they owe the public some basic information about the turmoil at the top.

The board last week terminated the contract of Scarlett, who was recruited last year from the Seattle public school system and who promptly began handing out district-funded jobs and contracts to her old friends and colleagues as if they were gift baskets.

Among at least nine administrators with previous connections to Scarlett that she brought in was Borishade, a friend for whom Scarlett created the $230,000-a-year post of deputy superintendent. As the Post-Dispatch's Blythe Bernhard has reported, other largess from Scarlett to old friends and colleagues included five- or six-figure contracts for such gobbledygook responsibilities as "strategic planning," "lean management practices" and "cabinet team support."

As Scarlett arranged some $3 million worth of new and arguably unnecessary jobs for her insiders, the school district became mired in interlocking budget and transportation crises. Those issues aren't directly attributable to Scarlett's generous contract spending, but are certainly no indication of sterling management by her and her high-priced team of old chums.

Following an investigation into Scarlett's personnel decisions, the board last week finally terminated her contract "for cause" in a closed-door session. True to their secretive form, board members have refused to publicly specify that cause, though there are plenty of apparent justifications.

Scarlett has vowed to fight her termination. That means the district will have to continue paying her $268,000 salary for not working, presumably in addition to district legal expenses, as that challenge grinds forward.

At the same Monday meeting in which Scarlett's contract was terminated, the board doubled down on its earlier, baffling decision to put Borishade in charge. She will continue to serve as acting superintendent — apparently indefinitely.

Though board members aren't saying it, all indications are that Scarlett was terminated for what looks like plain-as-day cronyism. So how does it make any sense to elevate her chief crony to replace her?

Let alone one who has no superintendent certification in Missouri and who, it turns out, has let her certification in two other states expire. The board says keeping her on as acting superintendent is contingent on getting certified; until then, is this already-nonsensical arrangement even legal?

As Bernhard reports, there are at least two other administrators working in the district who have the proper certification to step in as superintendent — and, it seems likely, none of Borishade's baggage.

Further, Borishade's past professional issues reveal a career marked by controversy involving school personnel and students.

As Bernhard reports, Borishade was sued in federal court for a 2012 incident in northern Illinois in which, as a principal, she ordered a student strip-searched over an apparently unproven allegation of theft.

As chief academic officer at a Washington state school district last year, Borishade was the subject of a "no confidence" letter from teachers who accused her of violating student privacy, demeaning staff and contributing to the "dysfunction of our current leadership."

Borishade's short St. Louis tenure has already spurred conflict, with a former district employee telling Bernhard that Borishade has created a "dysfunctional, chaotic and hostile environment," fueled in part by her lack of knowledge about St. Louis.

Against all this, what is the tight-lipped school board's reasoning for keeping Borishade on as acting superintendent?

The closest anyone has bothered to tell the public is that, as Board President Antionette "Toni" Cousins puts it, Borishade was already running the day-to-day operations of the district.

And how is that going?