The Cullman County Board of Education only a few years ago asked the local legislators to make the superintendent’s position a board-appointed role.

The logic, after years of elections and changing faces in the top leadership position, made the proposal desirable and it passed. The thought of having a superintendent appointed was to take the political aspect of the job away and hire an individual with a professional background to focus on building a stronger education system for the county, and to work closely with the board in making sure policies were followed with respect to personnel and students.

Dr. Craig Ross was the board’s first hire, a professional in the education field who came to Cullman County with an outstanding background and ideas. Ross departed last year mainly because of a disconnect between he and the elected school board members. Some residents may believe that is a reason to go back to the election system.

State Rep. Cory Harbison, R-Good Hope, has introduced a bill along with Rep. Ed Henry, R-Hartselle, to bring the issue back to the voters with a referendum. The timing of the bill is horrible as the school board prepares to interview finalists for superintendent this week. The appearance of this bill may discourage anyone from accepting the position, whether they are from outside the area, like Ross, or a local applicant.

State Sen. Paul Bussman has been opposed to Harbison on this issue, and rightfully so. Even if the first appointed superintendent did not suit the school board, hiring a professional for the position remains the best option. Bussman is sure to let the bill die in the Senate, and that would be good for the community.

The purpose of screening and appointing a superintendent is to find someone who doesn’t have to focus on elections and becoming entrenched in local politics. The person hired can be someone from another community or a professional educator within Cullman County. It doesn’t matter as long as the superintendent and school board members share common goals for the students of the school system.

Inserting a bill in the House just as the school board is beginning to interview finalists for superintendent is disruptive and compromises its ability to move forward with its crucial role in selecting a leader for the school system. The bill needs to die. An appointed superintendent remains viable and productive for the school system. School board members simply need an individual who can work closely with them and accomplish the goal of improving education for local students