At Mount Clemens, the local prosecutor's office recently wrapped up an investigation of two former school administrators to determine whether they properly invested a certain amount of debt-related bond funds, whether they misled the school board about the situation, and whether they broke any laws in the process.

In the end, the prosecutor determined that the former superintendent and finance officer may have been guilty of "poor business judgment" when they failed to properly invest the money, thereby costing the district thousands of dollars in interest income. The prosecutor also noted that poor judgment is not a crime.

For the hired administrators, maybe it isn't. For the elected school board members who should have been watching, maybe it should be.

As the prosecutor also pointed out, the financial gaffe was also the result of "poor fiscal oversight" by the school board. He noted the absence of strong internal controls that might have detected the problem much sooner, and said the board had failed to meet its policy-mandated responsibility to hire a special financial advisor to oversee district investments.

The entire mess mirrors a previous scandal in the same district in 2004, when the school's auditing firm resigned after finding that the district had overspent more than $400,000 in federal funds and other monies. Pointedly, the auditors blamed "faulty internal controls" for the problems.

The cases point to a fundamental flaw in the manner in which Michigan schools have been managed in recent decades. Superintendents, business managers and building principals run the show, while the part-time school board, which meets once or twice a month, typically remains in the dark on matters of importance.

That's because administrators typically set the agenda, determine what issues the board should address and what information the board should receive. And board members foolishly trust this shaky communication system to serve their purposes.

When they do occasionally ask questions and get peppered with accusations of "micromanaging," they all too often run for cover and hide from the ridicule.

Not good enough. Not even close.

School board members have to remember that the school belongs to the taxpayers of the community, and those taxpayers elected them to run the show. Not to provide passive oversight, or an automatic "yes" stamp to every administrative recommendation. The board runs the district, and hires the staff to help run it.

Running a district means keeping a close eye on what administrators are doing, asking a lot of questions, double checking information with secondary sources and demanding accountability from the hired help. That means school board members, who typically make little money for their efforts and receive little appreciation, must invest a significant amount of time and energy into their part-time jobs. They can't be afraid to question policies and actions, even when those policies and actions come from the desks of the district's "educated elite."

People with masters degrees in education screw up, too. The examples are legion, and the superbrains who screw up get fired for their misdeeds all the time.

The big difference is this - when hired administrators screw up, they can wash their hands of the situation and move on to the next job, because, after all, it's just a job. But for the school board members who allow mistakes and misdeeds to happen on their watch, the shame is much deeper.

That's because they have more than just a job. They are the keepers of the community's educational system, and their failure is personal. When citizens run for the school board, they should be prepared to take the weight of the district on their shoulders, if necessary, because they are the de facto owners of the district.

If they don't have the time, interest or courage to do that, they should step aside and let someone else perform this very critical task.