Should the Gantt-Alesi law be repealed? Who should lead a structural district reorganization? Should the interim superintendent become the permanent pick? Would it even be fair to ask Bill Cala to abandon his good work in Kenya? ("Cala Takes Charge - and Plans to Cut Staff," July 18).

How do we improve proper board oversight, without micro-managing, and improve student success? Should the Rochester School Board be elected or appointed? Thoughtful questions are many. I want my own position to be clearly understood.

We must resolve adult political-power disputes in ways that do not hurt kids. Where is the compelling proof that appointed school boards lead to improved student success? There are many examples of this change doing harm.

The failures of state legislatures and city halls are manifest, and often land at the steps of public schools. Where is the demand that those elected officials be appointed? Is the appointed Water Authority a model of probity? Is the Greece School District, or is it just city residents who are deemed incapable of self government?

If you accept that school boards should be elected, does the Gantt-Alesi law establish proper authority for that board? We ought not to personalize these issues. The issue is not how popular the mayor is, or how powerful the dean of the local state legislative delegation is, or even that the current school board president agrees with the Gantt law. (For the record, I like all three of these people very much). The need is to have institutions that can outlast individual politicians, have integrity, and make sense.

There are no quick fixes and no man on horseback to save us. But in the many disputes about city school governance, there is this common ground: no school board member should be critical of calls for mayoral control, or demand greater fiscal independence  who will not also fight for strong board oversight of bureaucracy and sterner accountability.

The purposes and challenges of a public school board are not the same as those of a private corporation making widgets. Former school commissioner Rob Brown once famously quipped, "for what earthly reason does the board need to select globes for classrooms?" I agree. But service on three public school boards, going back 24 years, warns me that the often clubby ethos of the private corporate boardroom spells trouble as well.

What is the proper balance? What is the record, after 10 years of the well-intentioned Gantt law and all the related political interference with board oversight capacity? A board member was appointed human resources director. We had the Janey-era fiscal meltdown. A nationally recognized superintendent suffers from a thousand small cuts.

Recently, the board and superintendent labored to craft a smarter, tougher athletic eligibility policy. I chair the policy committee. City Newspaper mentioned this issue. Our goal was to use athletics as a tool for student retention and academic rigor. Rather than just letting kids drop out, it makes sense to quickly enlist a troubled child's parents, teachers, and coach - to keep the child's eyes on the prize. The bureaucracy sought to sabotage its own board and superintendent, as if this policy were none of the board's business. That is the sort of thing that must stop.

The elected Rochester School Board should have no more - and no less -oversight capacity than most other elected American school boards. Even the president's cabinet is subject to legislative confirmation. This special Gantt-Alesi law prevents such standard checks and balances. This is part of changing the culture at the school district's central office, which Dr. Cala has started so well and which will make it a lot harder for politicians to play the blame game, or engage in crass power grabs, while problems don't get solved.

Thomas Brennan, LakeviewPark, Rochester(Brennan is a member of the Rochester School Board.)