“It’s important to know that the field of candidates is one of the best in district history,” said Andy Small, an appointed board member running for election.

Of the three candidates interviewed, two have had careers in the field of education. There is no member of the board with an expertise in education, candidate Joyce Lieberman said.

Is this a problem? Logic says yes, Small said. But the board does not often handle educational matters, such as curriculum. Rather, it decides on redistricting issues, budget responsibilities and negotiates labor contracts.

In other words, having a history in business is valuable but does not mean a background in education is a hindrance, Small said. During the 10 percent of the time the board discusses curriculum issues, such a background is valued.

On average, members commit five to 15 hours per week to the board, Small said. Just as in school, there is homework to prepare for the biweekly meetings and more frequent private meetings.

Beyond the activities of the regular meetings, there also are committees to serve on, such as curriculum and the business-oriented Finance and Facilities Advisory Committee.

As the only elected officials in the state who are not paid, Small and the candidates said the work is akin to “a labor of love.”

Beyond this, candidate Jennifer Hayes said there is a common misunderstanding of how the board functions.

Once the board has hired a superintendent, its only employee, the board acts as an overseer of the district, she said. It decides on policy and the superintendent acts as the administrator.

In this way, the board and the superintendent are two distinct entities, candidate M Cecil Smith said.

Where the board looks at broad issues such as overcrowding, the superintendent handles the narrow issues, such as discipline in the classroom, Small said.