EDITORIAL: Travel for training

When should a local government or school district make an extra effort to inform the public when a group of its employees attend an out-of-state training session?

That question was raised at the Leader last week because of two recent events:

< In response to the bad economy, the McLeod County Board in February began restricting out-of-state travel to one staff member per department annually. The county’s new policy requires employees returning from an out-of-state training event or conference to present their findings or accomplishments to the board.

< Five School District 423 administrators recently returned from a three-day conference in Phoenix. Unlike the county, the district has no requirement for employees to present their findings upon their return.

Should the district have a policy similar to the county’s?

Training’s benefits
Out-of-state training can be a flash point for controversy when it’s abused. Over the years, TV news investigations have shown state workers — at taxpayer’s expense — skipping training sessions while sipping margaritas beside a pool at some fancy desert resort.

Call us naïve, but we think this kind of behavior is rare. We generally have a high opinion of our local government or school employees, and we trust they stay on the job even when their training takes place in warmer climates.

Out-of-state conferences and seminars can have enormous benefits. Much can be learned. The training often pays for itself because the people who attend these sessions practice what they learn after they return.

Training offered out of state usually is highly specialized. It often features world-class experts who might never come to Minnesota. They don’t come here because there aren’t enough people here to train. That’s why local governments and school districts send their people to them. And it obviously costs more to do that.

The cost is where the rub comes in. With the economy falling apart and public budgets being squeezed ever tighter, training expenses are being reduced. The public is likely to scrutinize such expenses all the more closely.

That can be both good and bad. We believe it’s good whenever the public pays closer attention to how their hard-earned tax money is spent. It’s bad when taxpayers chafe at any type of training without knowing how that training can benefit the public.

Is a public report necessary?
Government leaders told us last week they’re checking requests for employee travel for training very closely.

Hutchinson City Administrator Gary Plotz said the city’s policy regarding out-of-state travel for training purposes allows one trip every two years for an employee unless the training is exceptionally unusual. The trip must be approved by the City Council before the employee leaves.

City employees seeking in-state training must receive approval from their department head as well as Mr. Plotz. This year, more of those requests have been denied. “Some of them we just have to say ‘no’ to,” he said.

The city is more likely to OK unique training such as a session on new technology involving the operation of a water treatment plant, Mr. Plotz said. Employees receiving training are not required to debrief with the City Council.

Minnesota’s school districts work with a different set of rules. District 423 Superintendent Daron VanderHeiden told us a state statute requires districts to spend 2 percent of their money on professional development. Some of that training must take place out of state simply because in-state training is limited. For example, the Phoenix training featured sessions on strategic planning, continuing school improvement, using data to improve student achievement, and structuring curriculum to align with state standards. More than 1,800 people from as far as Singapore attended the conference. The five administrators Hutchinson sent represented each of the schools and the Central Office.

Should the School Board have received a presentation about the conference at its March 9 meeting? We don’t necessarily think so. School Board meetings are long enough, and unless a presentation will directly help the board, there’s no need for it.

But we do think it would be good for those who attend these sessions to at least mention the trip at a School Board meeting. That way the public could hear it, too. It would reduce the likelihood of gossip that the trip was done secretly. The Phoenix trip was no secret. It happened, and we expect the school district will benefit from it for years to come.