The Brownsboro Independent School District made the wrong decision when it elected to effectively end Superintendent Elton Caldwell’s tenure a couple of weeks ago.

Nevermind that trustees are allowed by law to hire and fire superintendents almost at will. That’s not the point.

Instead, we question the board’s motives to terminate Caldwell nine months before voters decide whether taxes will be raised to finance improvements at some schools and construction of others.

Furthermore, this vote could have waited until January 2011, the same year Caldwell’s current two-year contract is set to end.

It appears the four members who want to make a change in the superintendent’s office for the first time in over 20 years rushed their Jan. 18 vote. After talking to several district officials and not having our calls returned by others, we still don’t know why Caldwell was terminated.

But we do know the board’s president, Bobby Teague, and its vice president, Dusty Wise, were “shocked” by the move.

We also know that Caldwell was not expecting his career to end this way, and we’ve been told by some in the community that they didn’t see it coming, either.

If we are to believe everything we’ve been told - and we do - then why did Jeffrey Fulgham, Becky Grantham, Donny Wilson, and Ricky Wyatt vote to terminate their superintendent? Wise said some board members had received “flack” from voters over Caldwell’s performance.

Teague told us “flack” was a bad word to use and that he has heard no negative feedback about the superintendent.

Moreover, Wise and Teague — the board’s longest serving trustees who voted against terminating Caldwell — said they have enjoyed working with the district’s CEO and praised his efforts over the last 20 years.

So we have to wonder what’s really going on.

The board members don’t want to talk about what was discussed in the Jan. 18 executive session, and state law doesn’t require them to do so.

But after 20 years with the district, Caldwell deserves to know why he’s losing his job. And the communities he’s served for two decades deserve an explanation, too.

At a time when many crucial decisions must be made regarding the district’s projected growth and what it can afford in the way of new construction and renovations, a decision on whether Caldwell needed to be replaced by the end of his contract should not have been a priority for board members.

Rather, district officials should have been focused on this bond proposal. While we’re optimistic it will succeed, we understand raising taxes for any reason is not a popular proposition and should not be taken for granted.

The last thing this district needed was to deal with the possibility that Caldwell won’t stay around until summer 2011. If he does decide he’s had enough, and if he leaves before the November tax election, that’s only going to be a distraction and could derail the district’s bond-proposal efforts.

For the good of the district, we encourage Caldwell to finish his contract. But, certainly, we would understand if he did not. He’s put in his time, and we would not criticize him for walking away sooner rather than later.

Caldwell deserved better, and so did Chandler and Brownsboro.

We hope trustees are more thorough in their decision making process the next time they make such a big decision.