I was settled onto the couch with my wife last Wednesday when I got a text from reporter Tracey Compton with the news from that night’s Renton School Board meeting: “(Superintendent Merri) Rieger resigned. Difference in philosophy with the board.”

It was 9:30 p.m. and I was already in my jammies after a long day putting the paper together, but I immediately sprang into action, posting that news to our Facebook page and waiting for a press release from the district with additional information.

It is now a week later and we still don’t know exactly why and no one is talking. And that is unacceptable.

Though the decision came as a surprise to Tracey and I – and a lot of you apparently – it was not news to the board, which we later learned had been working on a separation agreement with the former superintendent for about a month.

When the time came, district spokesperson Randy Matheson was able to hand Tracey a printed version of the release that he put on Facebook (and we published on www.rentonreporter.com) soon after.

In the press release, board President Pam Teal was clear that there was no impropriety on the part of Rieger but simply “differing viewpoints” on how to provide every student with a meaningful education.

On one hand, this is a good thing. Dismissing a superintendent is not something to be taken lightly, especially after only two years on the job. The separation agreement, as well as the search for both Rieger and the next superintendent, are not cheap and right now we need all the money we can get put back into the classroom.

And it’s somewhat comforting to know that she did nothing wrong and this was simply an example of the elected representatives of the people deciding that the person they hired to execute their policy goals was not the right one.

That’s how it’s supposed to work in a civilized world.

But on the other hand, at least impropriety would make the decision easy to understand. As it was, all we had to go on was the phrase “differing views” with no details or explanations, and that was wholly unsatisfying, especially to professional questioners like those of us in a newsroom.

We were particularly eager to get the details because last week was also candidate filing week and as of meeting time, not a single person had signed up to challenge any of the incumbents on the School Board and time was running out for voters and potential candidates to decide if they still agreed with the philosophy of the current board or if they wanted new representatives.

So the next morning, with the comments asking about those differences already beginning to pile up on our website and Facebook page, Tracey set out to try and find what they were.

Unfortunately, all sides remained mum and despite our efforts, our Thursday story provided little additional insight into the board’s decision. Though by Friday, a pair of challengers had filed to run for seats on the board.

Tracey continued to push all parties involved, including members of the board. Earlier this week, we heard back from Matheson that “as part of the amicable decision for Dr. Rieger to resign, the Board and Dr. Rieger entered into an agreement to not discuss the matter.”

As I said, that quite frankly is completely unacceptable and I hope voters make that known during this election season.

Honestly, School Board member is a pretty thankless job. It’s a lot of work and a lot of extra hours (remember, this news came at 9:30 p.m. on a Wednesday and the meeting was not yet over…). There’s no money in it and less prestige.

But it is important. Very important, in fact. School Board members, like any other elected officials, are supposed to represent the electorate of the district or city they serve.

Because these offices are non-partisan, we vote not for party, but for the person or people with whom we most agree, who will most represent our voice and are issues while on the dais.

But how are we supposed to know if we agree with the board when they will not tell us the philosophical differences that led to the superintendent’s ouster? How are we supposed to know if the person whose name is on the ballot still actually represents our views and philosophy of education if they will not tell us what theirs is?

And the fact that this happened with only two days left for potential candidates to file to run is particularly grating. Now, I am not suggesting that it was done intentionally to prevent other candidates from filing. I believe this was put on the agenda for the next meeting after it was all worked out and that meeting just happened to fall during candidate filing week.

Like them with Rieger, I see no impropriety on the part of the board.

But as a taxpayer and a voter, I feel they owe it to me to explain their decision. I might agree with it. But I might not. And I should have had the opportunity to vote for someone else if that is the case.

But unfortunately, we just don’t know.

Elected officials of all stripes have a responsibility to their constituents to explain their decisions and to face the court of public opinion on those decisions in November.

Maybe we agree with the Board. Maybe we don’t.

But not knowing is unacceptable.