Clinton/Dole, Kerry/Weld, Demakis/Massimo. They are all important decisions. But the most important decision Boston voters face this November is (with apologies to my friend Paul Demakis) is embodied in a referendum question. Question 2 asks voters whether Boston should bring back an elected school committee or keep its current Mayorally-appointed committee.

It is a vital question, one whose importance cannot be overstressed. On this decision hinges the quality of Boston’s schools and indeed the long-term viability of the city.

Some background is in order. Boston historically ran its schools through an elected school committee. Composed of 13 members, the committee hired the superintendent and created its own budget. Just like the City Council, four of the members were elected at-large, with the other nine representing nine districts. The Mayor and the City Council had little influence in running the schools. Indeed, the Mayor’s role was confined to signing off on the budget the School Committee proposed. The Mayor could cut the proposed budget, but did not even have the authority to specify from where the cuts should come.

The results were disastrous. It was the elected school committee that intentionally segregated Boston’s schools, resulting in the busing crisis of the 1970s. With a few exceptions, school committee members had no background in public schooling and seemingly cared little for education. They spent their time in office getting cronies jobs in the school system, building their political bases for a run at another political office, or posturing on busing.

The personal failings of the school committee members aside, it became increasingly obvious during the 1980s that the elected school committee structure itself was inherently flawed. The old saw about camels being horses created by committees applies here. To administer something, you need an executive. That’s why most governmental structures consist of a legislative branch (such as the City Council) and an executive branch (such as the Mayor). No such parallel existed in the case of the school system. When problems occurred, school committee members could point their fingers at other school committee members. No one individual was responsible for the system’s success or failure. And because the Mayor was cut out of the process, both Mayors Ray Flynn and Kevin White could, and did, disclaim responsibility for the schools.

The result was that the school system slid downwards into an educational abyss even while expenses were increasing dramatically. Parents who could afford the cost of private or parochial schools pulled their children out of the Boston Public Schools. Other parents simply left the city for the better schools of Boston’s suburbs. Something had to be done, and concerned activists in the late 1980s devised a plan: get rid of the elected school committee and replace it with a committee appointed by the Mayor.

After much controversy (does it surprise you to learn that most elected school committee members were not wildly enthusiastic about the idea?), the state legislature approved the plan in 1991. There was one proviso however. Voters would have the chance to pass judgment on the appointed school committee five years later. Well, it’s 1996, and Question 2 is our opportunity to pass judgment.

So, should we go back to an elected school committee? There are compelling reasons for why we should not, reasons I will outline in next issue’s column.