Eric Johnson, that seems to be a general theme in Iowa Open Meetings Ive observed or participated in...the ICCSD Board technically does not allow questions of the directors or superintendent via community comment or public comment on an agenda item. Questions happen though, figurative and actual. When a Board Director answers, or has them answered, they usually do so themselves as a transparent reactive to a simple, uncontroversial matter of fact question out of courtesy (rare), they might ask the superintendent or an upper level district administrator to clarify* a speakers question or a statement, or a board member may wait until after the speakers 3 minute timeclock has screamed and then misrepresent that speakers question or statement and answer or refute it by either addressing only a part or the entire statement of the speaker out of context*. --------------------- *These versions are often used by the ICCSD Board Directors, much more so since Chris Lynch and Brian Kirschling came to power. *When Chris Lynch (who doesnt seem to guess it might be inappropriate as a board president on camera for a school district...wears his employers ____ & ___ logo/wording prominently displayed free advertising shirt on camera during board meetings), ahem, I mean, when Chris Lynch isnt actively harassing the first amendment rights of a speaker by taking time during their 3 minute clock to challenge their right to speak and interfere with their attempts to communicate to the board... ...hes depriving them entirely of their right to speak on an agenda item for which they properly submitted a request form by simply not calling them to up to speak. Based on the details that particular event alternately seems to be his inability to run a meeting that works outside of his limited understanding of how an Iowa Open Meeting/ICCSD Board meeting is run or an attempt to get a rise out of the speaker so he can use the policy Murley and Ramey initially wrote rather secretly behind closed doors, to eject that speaker from the meeting or a future one and terminate their rights to return or speak (as their secretive policy for which they will not provide the district lawyers assessment report in response to Open Records requests does not provide for a timeframe or mechanism of determining the length or sentence or return). Sally Hoelscher started the trend of simply not calling up speakers with properly submitted forms and did so on 3-4 occasions that I noticed. She appeared quite smug and pleased with herself about it too, ...or President Lynch waits till a speakers timeclock screams and then misrepresents and/or discredits their question or statement by playing sportscaster chat session with Murley, Ramey, Dude, or another board member/s to answer none or only a portion of the speakers comment in a way that isnt relevant to the speakers message. It appears they are ready, willing and enthusiastically intent to go to any lengths to debunk an opinion without giving the speaker opportunity to clarify or even so far as, i.e., when Jeff McGinness is yelling slander at you from his board table mic, an opportunity to defend yourself. These are some of the abuses of speakers/opinions from the school district board-superintendent altar, there are others. Regardless of how these behaviors are inflicted on a speaker and/or their point of view, speakers are never offered any opportunity to clarify their point unless you count the opportunity to save it for the next allotted 3 minutes of community comment 2-3 week later (unless it also happens to be an individual agenda item at the next meeting). About 2 years ago the Board President Marla Swesey suddenly ceased to allow comment on the consent agenda as an individual agenda item (let alone the hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars spent in that consent agenda as individual items on which one can speak). If a speaker wishes to address anything on the consent agenda items they may only do so in the allotted 3 minutes of community comment, unless, and there is no way to know before community comment is over if a sub-item will be pulled, the item is then pulled from the consent item vote by a director for discussion and later vote regardless of whether there are issues that should be discussed publicly or not, regardless of whether there are relevant comments on it from the public. press-citizen/story/opinion/contributors/writers-group/2014/12/04/iowa-city-progressive/19888401/?fb_action_ids=[%2710204485519516909%27]&fb_action_types=[%27ogments%27]
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 01:31:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015