No serious observers of the political scene take what they see and hear from politicians at face value. That’s why political junkies like me pore over newspaper articles and check the pundits’ latest analyses to divine what’s really going on in that dark, murky world.
But when it comes to the TUSD school board, too many people forget to ask what are the politics behind the decision-making. In a more perfect world, board members would start from their own educational perspectives, educate themselves about the school district, then discuss the issues openly and honestly with one another and cast their votes.
Since the Mexican-American studies controversy, and continuing through the recent vote for a new superintendent, politics has played all too prominent a role—not Democratic and Republican politics, but “politics” in a more general sense, where there’s always more to what goes on than meets the eye. And it’s played with the greatest gusto by the master gamesman on the board, Mark Stegeman, who is both a scholar and a practitioner of game theory.
Stegeman is an economics professor at UA’s Eller College. He teaches intro econ classes to undergrads, but at the Ph.D. level, he teaches his specialty, game theory, which he describes on his campaign website as “the study of strategic decision making.” Stegeman wrote a paper in 2009 titled, “Leadership Based on Asymmetric Information.” The paper is way above my pay grade despite my few college econ courses, but fortunately the Eller College website summarizes it in a way I can understand. The basic thesis is, a leader can manipulate people to agree with him by restricting the amount of information they have available. If others don’t have sufficient knowledge to make decisions on their own and if the leader has gained their trust, they’re likely to follow his or her lead. The paper is mostly about the business world, but Stegeman also applies the concept to politics.
Stegeman’s scholarly interest in the topic of restricting others’ access to information to push one’s own agenda sheds light on his actions on the TUSD board. He makes good use of his understanding of game theory to try and bend decisions to his will even when the majority opinion is against him, which is happening more frequently since two progressive board members were elected to replace the conservative-to-moderate members who usually voted with Stegeman.
Stegeman writes regular email newsletters and publishes op-eds in the paper where he slices and dices information about the latest TUSD issues to persuade his readers to agree with his conclusions. It’s harder to pinpoint specific examples where he manipulated board decisions, but one clear example was last December during a meeting discussing the federal desegregation order, when he used a procedural sleight of hand to trick another board member into voting against her own beliefs.
There’s nothing unusual about politicians using techniques like this, but that’s the point. If TUSD watchers don’t apply what they know about politics, they don’t stand much of a chance of understanding the way board decisions are made.
The recent search for a new superintendent is a case in point. Lots of people were upset, understandably, when a majority of the board chose one finalist, H.T. Sanchez, for the position instead of giving the public a chance to hear from two or three candidates. The problem is, board members can’t talk openly about the reasons for their decision because they interviewed the candidates and made their choice in executive session, and what happens in executive session is confidential. For someone like Stegeman, who trades in restricting information, this gives him the latitude he needs to shape people’s perceptions by structuring the limited information they receive. My sense is, the majority who voted for a single finalist did so less out of a desire to keep the public out of the loop and more out of concern that Stegeman’s wheelings and dealings would finesse them into choosing a candidate he preferred rather than Sanchez, who was their first choice.
I admit, I’m arriving at my conclusions about the superintendent search by reading political tea leaves, but tea leaves are all any of us have. If board members could speak freely, we would have a fuller understanding of what’s going on. Since they can’t, we have to use our limited knowledge and our understanding of the world of politics to define the truth as best we can.
This article appears in Jun 27 – Jul 3, 2013.
Yes, the reason that I am the wrong end of so many 4-1 votes is my great success in bending the Board to my will!
Goodness knows the Grijalva family is not involved in politics at all (eye roll)
Its hard to pinpoint specific examples because they don’t exist. Sort of like facts in this article.
Mark, I didn’t say you were necessarily good at it. I said politics is “played with the greatest gusto by the master gamesman on the board, Mark Stegeman, who is both a scholar and a practitioner of game theory.” From my vantage point, it’s hard to know how successful you are, since I can’t see what goes on behind closed doors. But I do know many of your writings are purposely slanted, leaving out relevant information to make your point. But you know, someone who’s playing political games, even if they don’t do it effectively, can create anywhere from a nuisance to minor havoc and make it more difficult for people to work effectively.
Ah, it’s all clear now. The rest of the board hired in a rush because they were afraid that given enough time Mr. Stegeman would lead them by the hand like infant children.
Either the author has decided, based on game theory which he does not understand, that all other board members are not only dupes but cowards or his humor has gone over my head.
Mr. Safier, would you please clarify?
With all due respect, David, you don’t know whether my writings are “purposely” slanted any more than I know anything about your motivations. But I do know that anyone who thinks important information is missing is free to provide it. I also know that the incessant discussion of personalities and power and turf and other adult issues within TUSD too often crowds out the more complicated and substantive discussion of what we should be doing to improve our schools and the education we offer.
I afford you due respect as well, Mark, for your intelligence and the thoroughness with which you research TUSD matters. But telling me what I don’t know does more to back up my thesis than to refute it. Instead of telling me what I don’t know — using my limited knowledge to your advantage and my disadvantage — you should know enough about your own writings to be able to say whether you present information in a complete enough way to give others the facts they need to make intelligent, rational decisions or whether you ask yourself, “How can I convince others to see things from my perspective by giving them information that will lead them to support my conclusions”? Saying to me, in essence, “You don’t know what you’re talking about” when you can provide a, hopefully, honest response to my assertions is the kind of game playing I’m talking about in my column.
As well spoken as Mr. Stegman is, he sets off all the schminkie detectors. Hence the reaching for supposition to pin point it. Reaching hard.