INDIANAPOLIS – Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully is right about at least one thing – if there were a statewide referendum today on Glenda Ritz remaining the chair of the Indiana State Board of Education, she would probably win.

That’s because a lot of media coverage regarding this issue has been absurdly simplistic, and largely sympathetic to Ritz.

The people of Indiana have been led to believe that the entire affair boils down to pettiness on the part of Republicans. Ritz beat their candidate for superintendent of public instruction in 2012, they can’t accept that, so they are trying to steal away her power.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

Of course the issue is not nearly that simple. There are reasons why Gov. Mike Pence and legislative Republicans are willing to make a potentially unpopular move, and possibly hurt themselves politically, by pushing the bill to allow the Board of Education to choose its own chair.

Some people would understand and agree with those reasons. Others would probably still support Ritz.

But citizens at least deserve a full and honest analysis of the situation. Unfortunately few journalists seem interested in providing it.

It’s far easier to toss out a juvenile explanation that the public will easily comprehend and accept – the sore loser theory.

As Tully summed it up, “I don’t know how to say this more clearly to the governor and his Republican allies in the legislature, but let’s say it again: Glenda Ritz won. She put her name on the ballot in 2012, she campaigned and she won. That’s apparently a pill that, for some, still won’t go down.”

To be fair to Tully, he’s an opinion columnist, so he has no responsibility to fully and fairly report the news. But news reporters do have such a responsibility, and based on a sampling of recent reports, they are not living up to it.

We reviewed five news articles, regarding the recent state Senate approval of the bill to allow the Board of Education to choose its own chair, and found precious little that helped readers understand where the Republicans are coming from.

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

Most of the stories simply report that Republicans are trying to remove “dysfunction” from the Board of Education, due to the constant squabbling between Ritz and other board members. And they all dutifully reported the Democratic stance – the GOP just wants to get even with Ritz for the 2012 election result.

More questions need to be addressed on behalf of citizens. Exactly what sort of dysfunction cripples the board? Who or what caused it? What has been the impact of that dysfunction? Is there a chance the system would work better if the board chose its own chair?

How important is the role of chairman on the state Board of Education? Would Ritz’ power or influence be greatly reduced if she were no longer the chair?

What are the constitutional roles of the state superintendent and the board, and would they be more likely to properly fulfill their duties under a different structure?

Inquiring minds want to know. But the media doesn’t want to tell us.

Only one of the five reports indicated when the legislation would take effect. Would it be immediate, or after Ritz’ first (and perhaps only) term expires in 2017?

Would the answer to that question determine how some citizens perceive the legislation? Did that even occur to the reporters or editors?

Only two of the five reports mentioned the very pertinent fact that separate versions of the bill were passed in the House and Senate, and the differences will have to be worked out before the legislation can go any further.

Details, details.

Sometimes Glenda isn’t so good

For those who buy into the idea that this is all about getting Ritz, here’s some eye-opening news:

Ritz has made quite a few controversial moves in her two-plus years in office, and has played at least an equal role in creating havoc on the Board of Education.

The following are just a few examples:

Flash back to November 2013, when Ritz, angry over a proposal to create a new, separate state education agency, staged a major temper tantrum and walked out of a Board of Education meeting.

The Indianapolis Star wrote the following in an editorial:

“All Hoosiers, regardless of party affiliation, should be appalled at Ritz’ unprofessional behavior on Wednesday. Even if Ritz had a point about the legality of the plan – and that’s far from certain – then the responsible, professional way to handle the disagreement would have been to call for outside legal advice. Instead, Ritz stood up and marched out. And the important work of setting education policy in this state was unilaterally put on hold.”

In August 2014, the Star reported that Ritz had kept the Board of Education in the dark about a $3.3 million settlement she reached with a company that was blamed for computer disruptions during the 2013 statewide ISTEP exam.

Ritz made the settlement with the company in October 2013. Seven months later, in May 2014, her department reported that no settlement had been reached. Three months later board members learned the truth – that a deal had been in place, without their knowledge, for nearly a year.

The friction between Ritz and board members is not entirely partisan. Board member Gordon Hendry, a Democrat, blasted Ritz in an editorial in July 2014.

“I want to be clear: This is not a partisan issue,” Hendry wrote. “I’m a proud Democrat who can remember the days when my party held the governor’s office and the superintendent was a Republican. We never say someone angrily walk out of a meeting, withhold information from fellow board members or file a frivolous lawsuit against them to make a political point.

“The media love to play up these recent flare-ups as a partisan battle between board members and the superintendent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“As a Democrat, I don’t know why the superintendent insists on creating conflict where rational debate should instead exist.”

It’s not all about Ritz

What the media is not explaining is that the proposed legislation is about governmental structure, and whether a different arrangement would produce better results, in the near and distant future. The proposed law would affect all future state superintendents, Republican and Democrat.

If board members were allowed to choose their chairman, it would be far more likely that the majority of members and the chair would be on the same page. Important issues would be far more likely to be addressed.

Under the current system, the majority on the board can be from one party – since all members except the superintendent are currently appointed by the governor – while the chair may be from another. That’s the situation as it stands, and it’s produced nothing but anger and gridlock.

Would the proposed new system work better for the Indiana Board of Education, and ultimately the students? That’s the long-term question that Hoosiers should be pondering, instead of who’s being naughty and nice in the statehouse.

Pence and Ritz will both be gone before we know it, but gridlock on the board is bound to resurface in the future if the structure remains the same.

What if the people elect a pro-reform Republican superintendent in the future, but a Democratic governor appoints pro-union board members? Would it be different faces, but the same broken system?

The Republicans in Indianapolis are trying to fix the system. Their idea deserves a fair trial in the court of public opinion.

Unfortunately the citizen jurors are not being presented with the pertinent facts, so there’s little hope for an intelligent and fair verdict.