"Never get between a Momma Bear and her cub."

That was the advice I got when I voted on my first boundary change.  Problem is, a boundary inherently puts a School Board member in the cross-hairs.  But there are a couple of principles I will employ in future boundary changes that, candidly, won't make everyone happy - but at least everyone will know where I'm coming from.

First, I plan to listen.  School system staff recently admonished Board members not to meet with citizen groups during the boundary process - and there were some current members of the Board who agreed.  That is nonsense.  School Board members are representatives of the people who elected them, and they not only have the right to meet with constituents at any time - they have a responsibility.  And any member who refuses to do so is shirking that responsibility.

Second, if a boundary is to be changed, there needs to be a solid reason for it.  The primary reason should be because of long-term overcrowding in a school or the student population that is dramatically declining in a school (although research seems to indicate that "small schools" can have a very positive effect on academic performance).

Third, as an At-Large member, I place a great deal of stock in what district members say.  No one knows an area like the person who represents it and his or her views should weigh heavily.  That said, even as a District Board member, I reserved the right to vote to amend a boundary plan in another district if what was on the table seemed particularly egregious to a particular community.

And finally, everyone in this process deserves a representative.  In my view, in at least one boundary change, it was clear that a large group of parents had no effective representation.  That was not fair to those parents, to those communities, or to the Board as a whole that had to make decisions.  Under those circumstances, at least one At-Large Board members has a responsibility to step in and take up the slack.