Well, after 2 sleeps trying to figure out how to communicate what went on at the RTR School Board Meeting on Monday evening, Im still at a loss for how to begin. For many years, our administration has been doing its own thing with or without support (or even informing) the school board. Many of us have been complaining for years about the lack of communication, about how some things that happen seem just a bit shady...A couple of months ago, a few people started asking questions. They started voicing their frustrations. And frankly, they started demanding answers. The administration was asked to open up communication, to be accountable to the communities they work for. The school board was reminded that they represent their constituents, not the superintendent. 2 months ago, requests for open communication were met with comments from the board chairman that included, Because I said so and Its my prerogative. Rather than open up communication, the chairman and the superintendent responded by inviting the districts attorney to attend the next meeting and talk about the open forum, responding to community members and data privacy. So, last month, the attorney shared his opinions and recommendations (and I say opinions and recommendations because despite being asked to back up his opinions with statute, he refused to speak to the community member, making it clear he was only addressing the board, and never did site statute). The open forum is defined on the school website as: Two board members are available 1/2 hour prior to each regular monthly board meeting for a public forum. The purpose is to give the public the opportunity to meet with board members to discuss the RTR educational system. Everyone is welcome to attend. After the attorney spoke, a motion was made to have the attorney take a look at the existing Data Privacy Policy and to address the open forum and draft policy. It was very clear from his opinions and recommendations that he did not support open communication between the board and the constituents they represent. So. Now on to Monday night. On the agenda, it stated that there would be a first reading of a policy to address data privacy and the open forum. However, I was confused. 2 months ago, Kari Hansen questioned some of the policies in the student handbook. A motion was passed to approve the handbook with the exception of those policies and they were to be brought back to the Policy Committee. Its been 2 months and I noticed that for a 2nd meeting after that, there was no mention of the policies on the agenda for discussion. So, during the open forum, I asked if the policy committee had met to discuss the policies in question, or what the procedure was to address/follow up on those concerns. I was informed by Mr. Houck that the policy committee had not met. I then stated that I was even more confused, because the agenda for Monday stated that there would be a first reading of the open forum policy, but the policy committee had not met, how could there be a 1st reading when the policy committee hadnt had a chance to review the policy?? I asked if there was a policy meeting scheduled. Mr. Houck stated there was not. I asked if there would be a policy meeting scheduled prior to the next months meeting, and I was informed there would be. I then expressed my frustration that there was to be a vote approving the first reading of a policy the policy committee hadnt even discussed yet, and there were obvious issues with it (in my opinion). Something seem a bit shady here, people?????!!!!! Some of the more divisive components of the proposed public forum/public participation at board meeting policy include: Changing the open forum from 30 minutes prior to the meeting to only 15, only 2 members of the board will be present (which, as you see above, has been the practice as the board does not want a quorum present, at the risk of making decisions without the entire board present - Mind you, board members arent allowed to speak during the open forum, so Im not quite sure that this is that big of an issue), Members of the public wishing to speak during the open forum will be required to fill out a form indicating what they will be talking/asking about prior to being allowed to address the board (seems to me, if I wanted to make a formal presentation to the board, Id follow the steps to be placed on the agenda???). Of the 2 members present, one will be appointed the facilitator, and that facilitator will determine, based on the submitted forms, who gets to speak, for how long, etc. Additionally, during the open forum none of the board members, NOR the administration will be allowed to speak or respond. So basically, this means if the members of the community have questions, they can ask them, only if allowed by the facilitator, but no one will be allowed to answer. This is wrong on so many fronts. There were also some changes to the process of being placed on the agenda, etc, too many to list here. Im not sure if members of the public can request to see copies of the draft policy or not, but I was informed when I asked above about the policy committee not having an opportunity to meet, if members of the public would have an opportunity to express their opinions of the policy, and was told by Mr. Houck, that No, they will not. Im going to repeat that - this is a policy that effectively controls (i.e. limits) the community members ability to address the board in an open forum, yet the members of the community will not have an opportunity to express their opinions of the policy. Most of this was being promoted as part of data privacy. I personally believe that the administration and attorney are using data privacy to scare the public into silence. Yes, data privacy is a HUGE issue. There are multi-million dollar fines for releasing protected information. I understand the board not being able to answer questions without being in a formal meeting setting and the importance of data privacy, but not all information is protected information. More importantly, allowing community members an opportunity to share opinions or ask questions is NOT a violation of data privacy. Denying them that right is an infringement on their First Amendment right to free speech. No. They do not have a right to personally attack someone. If they choose to, that community member can risk charges of defamation of character and reap the consequences, but that community member is not bound by data privacy by expressing their opinions. Should they expect open discussion about private information such as employee performance issues, student discipline issues, etc.? Of course not, but the community member isnt limited by data privacy like the employee or school board member is. Dont be fooled by the false presentation that this is being done due to data privacy, it simply isnt the case. This is about silencing those that have dare called shady practices into question. There were many more issues that were discussed, including a very well-prepared discussion from a community member about the extremely high cost of extracurricular fees compared to other schools in our district. However, the biggest issue is the attorney/administrations attempt to effectively cut off open communication between the board and the community. For way too long, things are happening (or not happening) right under our noses. Now people are asking questions. Instead of being transparent and open, the administration is responding by trying to silence those questioning their performance. It is CRITICAL that community members contact their representatives and let them know how they feel about this policy. The community is begging for open communication. The administration responded by tightening it up even more. Time to STAND UP, RTR!!!! SPEAK OUT!!!
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:35:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015