Listen to “Know Your Role” on Spreaker.
My writing often reflects my influences — Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the occasional turn from the Federalist Papers among others. History, and those who lived it, can be a roadmap for moving forward. It offers progress without relearning the hard lessons others have already paid for — a chance to learn from missteps instead of repeating them.
But today’s piece draws on a more modern renaissance man — a purveyor of opinion and a staple of popular culture: Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
One of his catchphrases is simple and declarative: “Know your role…”
What’s Mr. Johnson saying? Bluntly, he’s telling people to understand their place as it is appropriate.
Lawmakers would do well to internalize that advice when crafting new laws or repealing old ones.
Senate Bill 694 is as straightforward as its title: removing the county residency requirement for a county superintendent of schools.
NEWS from Brad McElhinny: Legislation would lift state requirement for superintendents to live in county or county over
If you’re surprised — or disappointed — to learn such a requirement exists, you’re likely not alone.
Do parents care more about where a superintendent lives, or whether that superintendent is qualified and has a record of achievement? The answer is obvious.
Residency mandates are relics of a protectionist era, designed to keep “outsiders” out — even if that outsider is simply from a nearby county or another part of the state. That mindset belongs to a bygone time.
Imagine if the private sector worked this way. Today’s most successful companies recruit globally, drawing talent from wherever it exists. Remote work and telecommuting are not novelties; they are standard practice.
My first career in business delivered days collaborating with teammates across the continental U.S. and sometimes Europe. That reach brought the best minds to the table and produced results that would have been impossible under a “live where you work” rule. Imagine telling a stockholder: we really like this person, and they do a great job, but they have to live in the city or county to work here. Laughable in the modern world. A good way to go bankrupt.
At a time when West Virginia is striving to improve its education system, when strong leadership is needed, new ideas and when the best candidate might live in Charleston but work in Beckley or Wheeling — dare live across the state line but wish to work in West Virginia – why limit the pool? What’s the downside to giving county boards more options? There isn’t one.
This should be an easy bill to move through the legislature and it should be amended pulling all residency restrictions off.
More than that, it should prompt a broader question in the legislative process: Is this policy goal truly within the legislature’s role in promoting the general welfare? And if so, is a new law required, or is removing an old one the better reform?
That question alone would improve much of policymaking. Limited government cannot be achieved by piling on more rules and regulations. Sometimes the most conservative reform is restraint or even pulling back – yes, giving up power.
In this case, that means leaving decisions like hiring a superintendent to local boards, unencumbered by a mandate on where that person must live.