Government: its agencies, elected officials and their appointees exist to serve us. We breathe life into the arrangement at the ballot box. Those we elect then nominate, approve, hire and direct the activities of public administrators.

When voting, we do so in secret and choose those believed to be of a similar mind-set and sharing our goals. Things are not as simple for the politician. Because some of their objectives are not always in keeping with the expressed interests of a constituency's voting majority, elected officials must be careful about their obvious - publicly visible - choices. Ultimately, however, they do get around to appointing that special someone, that ruffles the fewest feathers and offers the best likelihood of providing what is asked of them. So, up to this point and in a nutshell, we vote for and our representatives appoint people expected to do our bidding.

But aspiring public administrators have objectives too. And, once appointed, while satisfying the whims of both the electorate and the elected, they reach for their own "bliss" as well. So long as no one or thing disrupts the process, and the interdependence of all is unfettered, the cruising is grand. Everyone gets what they want, if not what they deserve: John Q., his entitlements; the elected official, re-election; the appointee, continued reign.

The really good public administrator understands that to achieve his or her own personal objectives, however, they must remain ever mindful of two essentials: first, they and their organization - which some come to believe is the same thing - must survive; second, their empires must expand, for with expansion comes the power to ensure survival. The fly in this absurd but quite real political ointment is that things rarely move smoothly and, during periods of economic crisis in particular, sometimes move not at all. Or, if at all, in such a way that all parties stand to lose something in the name of compromise. And where compromise is not possible, the heaviest tolls are paid by the weakest member of the public-elected-appointee triumvirate.

Government executives and legislators serve in full-time functioning positions. They are expected to have their fingers on the pulse of most all things going on around them. It's what the public pays them to do. But most elected officials are not full-timers. They are unpaid part-timers that must rely very heavily upon community feedback and the opinions of their appointed public administrators - alleged experts all, so to speak, and presumed rulers of their particular domains.

Which brings us to the Three Village Central School District, its Superintendent and Board of Education.

The Board consists of seven respectable part-timers. Demands upon their family, social and working lives are great. They are men and women otherwise struggling with 40-to-80 hour workweeks elsewhere, who then give of themselves to oversee the important operations of governing the educational development of more than 6,000 children. Therefore, not unexpectedly, they must seek the advice and council of our district's most recent Superintendent of Schools - John Sonedeker - to assist them in making decisions believed best for the school district, its children and the community. On the surface, theirs is a simple choice offering a very practical solution. But when requesting input from the Superintendent, the Board must understand that the "essential rules" of the public administrator - survival and expansion - are likely to produce an undesirable and inappropriate slant to the answers furnished. Not out of any malicious intent you understand but because of personal convictions and perceptions so different from others around them about what is right, wrong, needed and not so necessary - for the "organization," of course. Then, there is the unfortunate fact that an administrator's not so well recognized influence with and obligations to special interest groups of a district are likely to cloud their judgment and muddy the decision-making waters.

Public administrators, not unlike politicians, must go where the votes are. They build constituencies of their own by providing services, advantages or favors to those that can sway popular opinion and influence elected officials. Basically, wise administrators cultivate their own lobbyists. The Three Village School District, for example, is overwhelmed with entitlement programs, providing special education, sports, privileged intellect offerings and more. Offerings that, the loss or the threat of which, compel PTO/PTA and/or union and/or parent groups to go ballistic with concern. The "Chicken Lickin' West Prep" opera, during the winter of '95-'96 for example, provided a classic example of popular manipulation and orchestrated demonstrations of hysteria.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war," reads a line from the Gettysburg Address so apropos of what we see and hear in our own community. The Address continues with, "testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." This too is true of the Three Village School District. Change is in the wind. Mostly ignored and resisted. If not soon recognized and compromise forthcoming, grim circumstances will abound. The greater the effort required to bring about the change, the greater and exaggerated will be the reaction of the victors. The clean sweep will be devastating beyond comprehension.

The successes and failures of our community's educational system, the acceptance or rejection of budget proposals, the greatest opportunities for compromise: all these things rest in the hands of the Superintendent. Such power comes with mixed blessings. What is done with it depends upon his personal agenda. Is he listening? Will he respond in time and foster compromise or play community forces against one another, as Mary Barter did during her regime? If the latter, there will be no winners, only victims, plunderers and one deserved martyr - the Superintendent - to the forces of inevitable change.

Think about it. Then tell each member of the Board of Education what YOU think.