Dr. Paula Smith

Court Petition

COMES NOW the Plaintiff and moves this Court for an Order declaring that portions of the Closed Executive Sessions (closed door meeting) of the Salt Lake City Board of Education (the “BOARD”), Utah that was held on August 7, 2014 (the “MEETING”) and September 16, 2014 to be invalid and a violation of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (the “ACT”) §§ 52-4-101 to 52-4-305, Utah Code; enjoining Defendants from taking any official action resulting from those MEETINGS; and declaring null and void the BOARD’s actions that resulted in the classification of certain documents as protected and to appropriate for expenditure  unbudgeted public funds; and seeking reasonable attorney fees and costs.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Jon Michael Clara is a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah and a duly elected member of the BOARD.
2. Defendant BOARD is the governing body of the Salt Lake City School District.
3. Defendant Kristi Swett is the president of the BOARD.
4. Defendant Heather Bennett is the vice president of the BOARD.
5. Defendant Laurel Young is a member of the BOARD.
6. Defendant Doug Nelson is a member of the BOARD.
7. Defendant Rosemary Emery is a member of the BOARD.
8. Defendant Tiffany Sandberg is a member of the BOARD.
9. Defendant Janet Roberts is the Business Administrator for the BOARD.

JURISDICTION

10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1-9, supra;
11.  The Utah Legislature has declared it to be State policy that the political subdivisions of the State are to conduct their deliberations and take their actions in full view of the people whose business they are conducting. See § 52-4-102, Utah Code.
12. The BOARD is a body corporate and a legal subdivision of the state vested with the powers and duties of a government entity. See § 53A-3-401(1), Utah Code.
13. A public body “meets” when a quorum of the body is present to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has jurisdiction. See §§ 52-4-103 to 52-4-201, Utah Code.
14.  All meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies. A meeting may only be closed pursuant to §§ 52-4-204 to 205, Utah Code.
15. The BOARD has a “duty to comply” with the ACT and cannot create “procedures” in conflict with the ACT, pursuant to § 53A-3-106(3), Utah Code.
16.  Plaintiff has an obligation to ensure that the “peoples business” is being carried out openly, publicly and transparently, “Notwithstanding a local school board’s status as a body corporate, an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.” See, § 53A-3-401, Utah Code.
17. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to discourse with constituents, members of the public, members of the media, members of the legislature and regulatory agencies the deliberations entered into by Defendants at the MEETINGS. See
    § 52-4-102(2), Utah Code.
18. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to publicly distribute, for public inspection, documents currently classified as protected as a result of the MEETINGS. See § 52-4-204(2), Utah Code.
19. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to participate in an open and transparent process of creating public policy by convening MEETINGS closed to constituents and the general public. See § 52-4-102, Utah Code.
20. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to have his vote to appropriate for expenditure, public funds, recorded in the minutes of the meeting. See § 52-4-203, Utah Code.
21. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to §§ 52-4-302 to 304, Utah Code.
22.  A person denied any right under this chapter may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance. See § 52-4-303 (3), Utah Code. 

FACTS
MEETING: August 7, 2014

23.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-21, supra;
24. On August 7, 2014, Defendants held a closed-door executive session to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel (the “Meeting”).
25. Those present for the MEETING included Board member Kristi Swett acting as president for the meeting, Board member Heather Bennett, Board member Doug Nelson, Board member Jon Michael Clara, Board member Rosemary Emery, Board member Tiffany Sandberg, Board member Laurel Young, Salt Lake City School District Superintendent McKell Withers, Salt Lake City School District Business Administrator Janet Roberts, Associate Superintendent Patrick Garcia, Kristina Kindl and Joan Andrews, and Board legal counsel from Fabian Attorneys at Law. Attached as Exhibit A.[1]
26.  On August 1, 2014, Defendants caused the Business Administrator to publish a public a meeting notice of the meeting. The notice stated that the August 7, 2014, Board of Education meeting would convene at 6:00 p.m. into a Closed Executive Session to discuss •litigation •negotiations •property •personnel. See Notice of Public Meeting, attached as Exhibit B.[2]
27.  On August 7, 2014, Defendant Doug Nelson made a motion to go into closed session for the purposes of litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel, seconded by Defendant Tiffany Sandberg. Plaintiff Clara, Defendant Emery, Defendant Young, Defendant Bennett and Defendant Swett all voted in the affirmative to convene in closed session.[3]
28.  During the MEETING, Plaintiff objected to the subject being discussed under the guise of “litigation.”
29.  Following the MEETING, the Salt Lake City School District responded to a GRAMA request submitted by Plaintiff. The school district stated the following in the October 1, 2014, response:[4] “However, insofar as these records relate to imminent litigation, they are classified as protected and you must maintain that classification and not re-disclose these records. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-305 (32) (b).” Letter, attached as Exhibit C.

COUNT I
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not provide public notice or minutes of the MEETING
in compliance with the ACT.

30.  The Agenda[5] for the August 7, 2014, MEETING states, Closed Executive Session: •Litigation •Negotiations •Property •Personnel
31.  Defendant Kristi Swett, signed a STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING[6]. The affirmation states: “the sole purpose for closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual”. See § 52-4-206, Utah Code.
32. The STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING states the time of the meeting to be 6:25 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.
33.  The minutes of the meeting state that the Closed Executive Session convened at 6:05 p.m. and adjourned at 6:26 p.m.  
34. The posted Agenda, public minutes and Statement Affirming the Purpose of A Closed Meeting are clearly in conflict with each other as to the purpose and duration of the MEETING.  
35. On information and belief Defendants entered into a MEETING without first appraising the public of the nature of the closed-session. The format of the agenda places the public in a position to guess the topics to be discussed because the agenda provides four possibilities.
36. This same format places the BOARD in a position to blindly cast votes to convene a closed session pursuant to § 52-4-204(a).
37. On information and belief, Defendants did not provide “reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the meeting” pursuant to
    § 52-4-202 (6a), Utah Code.
38.  On information and belief, Defendants did not provide accurate minutes of the MEETING pursuant to § 52-4-203, Utah Code.
39.  On information and belief, Defendant Kristi Swett did not truthfully affirm the purpose of the meeting pursuant to § 52-4-206(6), Utah Code.   

COUNT II
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not conduct the MEETING
in compliance with the ACT.

40.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-39, supra.
41. The requirement that public bodies meet publicly has limited exceptions.
    See § 52-4-204, Utah Code, including those occasions when a public body holds “a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.” Id. at
    § 52-4-205 (1c), Utah Code.
42. The Utah Supreme Court has given some guidance about what constitutes “litigation” with regard to the “litigation strategy” purpose for holding a closed meeting. The court has stated that because the expressed purpose of the Act is “openness,” the exceptions should be “strictly construed.” Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Comm’n, 2001 UT 55, ¶ 15, 28 P.3d 686, attached as Exhibit D.[7]
43.  During the MEETING Plaintiff objected to the discussion of the topic because it did not meet the exception as prescribed in § 52-4-205 (1c), Utah Code.
44.  Despite Plaintiffs objections, Defendants continued the MEETING under the guise of “litigation”.
45.  Plaintiff asked for evidence (explanation, documentation etc…) that there was “pending or…imminent litigation”, none was presented. Plaintiff maintains that the litigation exception is designed to permit a public body to discuss a real threat of litigation (for example to discuss strategy). Virtually everything a public body does may result in litigation, to permit the use of some vague threat of future litigation to close meeting is a misuse of the exception.
46.  On information and belief, Defendants made a mockery of the ACT. When a public body is authorized to conduct the people’s business outside of public scrutiny it must be done within the limits prescribed by
    § 52-4-204, Utah Code.

COUNT III
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not limit discussions at the MEETING to strategy regarding pending litigation, nor did they open the meeting for discussion of those matters not related to pending or reasonably imminent litigation, as required by the ACT.

47.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-46, supra.
48.  Plaintiff filed a GRAMA request on September 17, 2014, with the Salt Lake City School District, seeking all audio, minutes, and documentation pertaining to the subject discussed under “litigation strategy,” attached as Exhibit E.[8]
49.  On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff (as well as all of the Defendants) received the response from the Salt Lake City School District, attached as Exhibit C. The letter included two sets of documents labeled Public, attached as Exhibit F,[9] and Protected, attached as Exhibit G.[10] The records received did not substantiate the claim that litigation was “pending” or “imminent”.
50.  The October 1, 2014, GRAMA response letter refers to a previous GRAMA response that was provided to Plaintiff two months prior: “Your GRAMA request also included the following two statements: ‘I am requesting any emails pertaining to the [August 7^th litigation topic] that was discussed; beginning June 3, 2014, to the present’….With regard to your first statement, you were already provided with the requested emails dated from June 3, 2014, up through August 13, 2014. Accordingly, GRAMA does not require us to fill this portion of your request because it ‘unreasonably duplicates’ a prior record request. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(8)(a)(iv). You are being provided with the remainder of the records responsive to this request dated August 13, 2014, through September 17, 2014. However, insofar as these records relate to imminent litigation, they are classified as protected and you must maintain that classification and not re-disclose these records. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-305 (32) (b).”
51.  The August 27, 2014, GRAMA response[11] that is referenced, is attached as Exhibit H, and was the result of an August 13, 2014, GRAMA request[12], attached as Exhibit I.
52.  Plaintiff submitted this GRAMA request to the Salt Lake City School District requesting all records pertaining to School Bus #199 and its involvement with an accident where students were burned on June 3, 2014, attached as Exhibit J. [13]
53.  The Salt Lake City School District initially denied Plaintiff’s request[14], attached as Exhibit K. Plaintiff filed an appeal[15] attached as Exhibit L.
54.  In response to the August 13, 2014, GRAMA request, the Salt Lake City School District provided Plaintiff (and all of the Defendants) with approximately 109 pages of public documents including emails.
55. In that initial GRAMA response, Plaintiff discovered an email[16] dated August 11, 2014, from Ken Martinez to Steve Woods, Executive Director of Auxiliary Services, attached as Exhibit M. This email stated the Salt Lake City School District had 18 school buses in service that were subject to a June 11, 2014, Safety Recall[17] by the U.S. Department of Transportation, attached as Exhibit N.
56.  This August 11, 2014, email was significant because it contradicted a July 29, 2014, email[18] by Steve Woods, attached as Exhibit O, advising the BOARD that there were no buses in the School District’s fleet subject to the safety recall of June 11, 2014.
57.  The discovery of this attempt to deceive the BOARD caused Plaintiff to notify the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Highway Patrol of the danger that students were being exposed to.
58.  Plaintiff requested that the Utah Highway Patrol exercise their authority under
    § 41-6-115, Utah Code and compel the Salt Lake City School District to place the defected buses OUT of SERVICE. This letter[19] is attached as Exhibit P.
59.  Plaintiff received a response[20] from the Utah Highway Patrol advising that the recall buses would not be placed Out of Service based on the fact that the school buses meet the current standard to pass a safety inspection in spite of the fact that they do not meet Utah’s current design standard for a safe school bus. This response is attached as Exhibit Q.
60.  Plaintiff exchanged emails[21] with the Utah State Office of Education from August 21, 2014, to September 10, 2014, about potential solutions and additional safety concerns as the Utah State Office of Education had authorized school districts throughout the state to turn off the heating system in the school buses, which in turn caused yet another safety hazard. These emails are attached as Exhibit R.
61.  On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint[22] with the Utah Highway Patrol because the Utah State Office of Education authorized school buses in the District (as well as state-wide) to disable the defrosters so as to prevent the hazard caused by the (safety recall buses) potential rupture of a coolant hose in the passenger compartment. Plaintiff received a phone call from a bus driver who stated that he was unable to see out the window during a rainstorm because the defroster was disabled. Letter is attached as Exhibit S.
62.   On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff received a reply[23] from the Utah Highway Patrol that they re-inspected the buses in question and the defrosters are once again functional. This email exchange is attached at Exhibit T.
63. In Exhibit R and Exhibit T, Plaintiff asked the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Highway Patrol about the hazard that we are currently placing drivers and students in, by allowing them to be transported in buses that have hoses in the passenger compartment that can potentially rupture. These inquires were made on September 10, 2014, and September 16, 2014, respectively. Neither agency has replied.
64.  The public notice posted at the direction of Defendants on August 1, 2014, stated the MEETING would be a Closed Executive Session in order to allow Defendants to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel. [24]
65.  Had the MEETING been conducted in accordance with the ACT, only those portions of the closed session in which “strategy” regarding “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” could lawfully have been discussed outside of public scrutiny; deliberations that did not directly relate to “strategy” regarding “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were required to be conducted in open session. See § 52-4-202 (2), Utah Code.
66.  On information and belief, matters other than those relating to “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were discussed during the closed portion of the Meeting; those portions of the MEETING in which Defendants discussed public policy unrelated to “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were not open to the public and should have been.
67.  Plaintiff maintains that it is vital to the formation of public policy, that the documents currently classified as “protected” in the school district’s GRAMA response of October 1, 2014, should be public documents as their current classification is due to Defendants’ abuse of Utah’s Open and Public Meeting Act.

COUNT IV
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants have mocked the ACT by suppressing information that is vital to the formation of public policy and ensuring the safety of students in the Salt Lake City School District and the entire State of Utah 

68.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1-67.
69.  On June 6, 2014, in reference to the school bus mechanical failure that injured students the prior week, Salt Lake City School District Superintendent sent a memo to the BOARD advising that he would provide the BOARD with a “full report of what happened…as it becomes available.”[25] This memo is attached as Exhibit U.
70.  On August 7, 2014, Defendants violated the ACT and in effect have suppressed information that is vital to the public interest.
71. By claiming that this issue is “imminent litigation,” the Superintendent has relieved himself of the responsibility to provide the BOARD, and thus the public, with an accounting of events surrounding school bus safety and the school district’s actions following the incident.
72. On October 7, 2014, a constituent of Plaintiff, Mrs. Keller Jensen, attended the BOARD meeting and spoke to the BOARD during the public comment portion of the meeting. Ms. Jensen asked the BOARD to “advise the public of what went wrong and give us the assurance that our students are safe.” The text of her presentation[26] is attached as Exhibit V.
73.  On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff received an email[27] from Ms. Keller stating her daughter was sent home on one of the buses that is subject to the safety recall. This was upsetting to Ms. Keller as her daughter was injured on June 3, 2014, when a hose ruptured inside the passenger compartment, spraying hot scalding fluid on the students. This email is attached as Exhibit W.
74.  On information and belief, the purpose of Defendants’ MEETING was not as advertised (e.g. to hold a strategy session about pending or reasonably imminent litigation); rather, it was designed to cloud transparency on a school bus safety recall issue[28] that adversely impacts students (and bus drivers) within the local school district and the state of Utah.
75. Plaintiff maintains that the Act aims at prohibiting the negative secondary effects of closed MEETINGS that (1) prevent transparency; (2) encourage fraud and corruption; and (3) foster mistrust in government.
76.  The ACT does not permit closed door meetings to be held for the purpose of suppressing information that is vital to developing public policy and enforcing existing safety standards or developing better laws to ensure the safety of our children. § 52-4—205, Utah Code.

Education Task Force

PDF Link: Recommendation Letter

Blog Link: Superintendent Response to Michael Clara Recommendations

TEXT OF LETTER:

20 November 2013

DELIVERED: United States Postal Service
The Honorable Rebecca D. Lockhart
Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives
1413 S. 1710 E.
Provo, Utah 84606

Re: Clara Recommendations

Dear Speaker Lockhart,

On several occasions this past year, Salt Lake City School District, superintendent Withers has expressed his disdain over the formation and work of the Legislative Education Task Force.[1] I want you to know that I do not share his contempt.

Unlike the superintendent, I applaud the great work that has been done. As a new school board member, I have learned so much about the educational landscape in Utah, by either participating, attending or listening in to each of the Task Force meetings over the past few months.

I have also enjoyed in depth and stimulating conversations with members of the Task Force on ways to improve the educational outcomes of our most vulnerable students.

To that end, I would like to offer the following recommendations for your review and consideration. I will list them below and then elaborate on them under the heading of draft recommendations recently published by the Task Force. I will outline and explain my recommendations in this letter and send you the supporting documentation in a follow up packet.

Michael Clara Recommendations to the Legislative Education Task Force:

       I.            Require Title I schools to have a fulltime parental outreach worker.

    II.            Require Title I schools to have a fulltime counselor or social worker.

 III.            Require local school boards to allow a committee of parents and staff to participate in the interview and hiring process of a new school principal.

  IV.            Require local school boards to conduct at minimum, an annual standardized evaluation of the superintendent and business administrator.

    V.            Require local school boards to use the proper and legal geographic terminology on ballots and other material when referring to their elected office. 

  VI.            Prohibit the superintendent and business administrator from withholding information from school board members and require that they must provide accurate and reliable information/data in order for school board members to make informed decisions & votes on behalf of their constituents.

In proposing these recommendations, I believe that anyone one of them could be tailored to only apply to districts of a certain size. These recommendations stem from my own observations as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education.

Require Title I Schools to Have a Fulltime Parental Outreach Worker

DRAFT EDUCATION TASK FORCE REPORT -p 3 (Nov 20, 2013):

Parent outreach – Parent outreach strategies may include: 1) calling or visiting parents of students who are falling behind and eliciting their help; 2) regular weekly or monthly communications or newsletters; and 3) daily access to library books to be read at home.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing at-risk issues with parents and students

I often hear teachers in my neighborhood express their frustration in the lack of parental involvement. I hear parents express their dismay at how unfriendly school staff are towards them.

By way of illustration, when school started this year I had several parents contact me and explain that they had reached several obstacles in registering their child for school. For some of them, I would make a phone call to the school to determine how I could help the parents obtain the needed information. For others, I would call someone else in the school and asked them to help the parents navigate the system. Because of the nature of the excuse given for not registering their child, I asked three different parents (two at one school) to return to the school the following day and ask to speak to the principal. I advised them, when you speak to the principal, say the following: “I spoke to my neighbor Michael Clara about this problem, he told me to come to you and that you would help me get my child registered in school”.

Each parent reported to me that there was an immediate change in attitude and that the obstacle to enrollment quickly dissolved. One neighbor was so impressed that she brought me a dozen tamales to express her gratitude. She went on to tell me that it was a very frustrating experience and she did not understand why the people at the school were so short and rude with her. She was nevertheless grateful that her child was now attending school and that the staff was now friendly with her.

Tears well up in my eyes as I relate these incidents to you. It irritates me to no end that my neighbors are treated so roughly by school staff. Then we wonder why there is a lack of parental involvement in some schools?

Based on current research[2] and best practices that I have observed, I would suggest that the following concepts could be implemented by the parental involvement specialist:

1. 1.       Build on the cultural values of the student’s families
2. 2.      Stress Personal Contact with Parents
3. 3.      Foster Communication with Parents
4. 4.      Create a Warm Environment for Parents
5. 5.      Facilitate Structural Accommodations for Parental Involvement

The schools in my community that have high parental involvement have a specialist that is devoted to that task (i.e. Mountainview Elementary, Rosepark Elementary, and Glendale Middle). Without question, parental involvement is an important way to serve the needs of both school and children. I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of parents in my community want to assist their children academically and socially and want to strengthen the relationship between home and school. They just need to be taught how.  Having a fulltime parental outreach person on campus will go a long way in overcoming the lack of parental involvement and at the same time encourage parental accountability. This person is there to educate school personnel and parents alike on how to engage with each other in positive ways.

I recommend that the Task Force follow the Title I guidelines in insisting that the schools with the most at risk student population have a fulltime outreach person on campus that can teach parents how to connect the school life with the home. I prefer this concept over measure that are more punitive towards parents that have not had the benefit of good parenting role models. 

Require Title I Schools to Have a Fulltime Counselor or Social Worker

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Create an infrastructure to force agencies to work together to address factors outside the classroom that affect student achievement so that a teacher does not have to perform the role of a social worker.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing at-risk issues with parents and students

One of the leading factors of teachers leaving Title I schools in my community is the added burden placed on them to address the out of the class room risk factors that a student brings into the school.

The Salt Lake City School District has demonstrated the value of having a fulltime counselor or social worker on campus that deals with mental and physical health issues and helps coordinate the solving or eliminating the out of the classroom risk factors that a child brings into the school  (i.e. Edison Elementary, Mountain view Elementary, Rosepark Elementary).

Same holds true as in the previous explanation, this person can help lighten the burden that a teacher in a Title I schools deals with. This was one of the solutions proposed as a result of the complaint I filed in February of this year with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). [3]

The article quotes me as stating the following:

After talking to more than 20 educators, Clara said he wants to discuss four solutions:

• Include the community and teachers in interviews with future principals, who have the biggest impact on staffing. This is done at some schools, but not consistently, Clara said.

• Extend the one-year provisional contracts for new teachers to three years, with a provision to dismiss after two years.

• Hire earlier in the spring, to be in sync rather than behind other districts.

• To help support teachers, provide low-income schools with additional counselors and family-involvement specialists.

Having this additional staff person (councilor, family specialist etc…) on hand to deal with these factors will go a long way in unburdening teachers in Title I schools. This in turn will provided the much needed adult stability that is currently lacking in many of the schools in my community.

I recommend that the Task Force endorse the concept of a fulltime counselor at Title I schools so that the out of the classrooms factors does not fall to academic teachers. 

Require Local School Boards to Allow a Committee of Parents and Staff to Participate in the Interview and Hiring Process of a New School Principal

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 3 (Nov 20, 2013):

School principal – An effective principal is instrumental in creating a culture where all students are expected to succeed. An effective principal puts systems in place that create accountability for teachers and students and, to the extent possible, make parents accountable for their children’s learning. Those systems involve an extensive sharing of data.

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Highly Trained and Empowered Principals

Commitment to Family Engagement

On February 26, 2013, I filed a compliant with the OCR expressing my concern about the high rate of teacher turnover that was occurring in Title I schools in my community. [4] In that complaint I stated the following:

“Equal educational opportunity requires that the quality of schooling provided to students be similar across schools. In particular, it would require that students in high poverty schools have access to teachers and principals of similar quality to those in schools serving more advantaged students.”

I am including a photograph of me standing with a group of parents at a recent School Community Council meeting[5]. I am not going to mention the school name because I want to say that many of the students that attend this school are about as poor as one can be in Salt Lake City.

Yet these parents care about their children’s education. This particular principal goes to great strides to ensure that there is active parental participation. Back-to-school night was standing room only at this particular school.

I rode the bus to this meeting. As the bus was traveling down the street, I saw parents walking hand in hand with their children, on bikes, scooters, skate board, taxi, bus etc…This particular principal has created the type of school climate where parental engagement is welcomed, taught and expected.

I left that meeting and walked over to a neighboring school and there were hardly any parents in attendance. Same neighborhood, same demographics, just a different principal with a different attitude that sets the tone for the other adults in the school and the surrounding community.

Current law is designed to give a community power over their public schools and how and who operates them. We have “bastardized” the current system to the point that it is so dysfunctional that it is almost void of public influence. The current bureaucracy in my district seems disconnected from the lives of teachers and students, uniformed about what is going on in their own system and reluctant to accept any responsibility for the current dismal situation.

At the July 9, 2013, Salt Lake City School Board meeting, I challenged the superintendent because he was hiring school principals without bringing the names to the school board for final approval. I explained to the superintendent that state law required board approval. [6] Superintendent Wither’s replied “as a board member that is not your role”. [7]

Other school board members, averaging a decade of service jumped in and agreed with his false conclusion. The board president stated that we would refer the matter to our school board attorney, John Robson who was not in attendance.

At our August 6, 2013, School Board meeting, attorney Robson stated in no uncertain terms that it is the authority of the school board to approve all those hired in the district.

There has been a pervasive pattern and practice in our district where the superintendent has placed poor performing principals in the schools within my community. This immediately causes the exodus of the most experienced teachers from schools that need them the most.

We currently have a principal that tells the teachers he/she does not want to be in a “poor school” etc. These teachers in turn tell the parents who then come and tell me.

We have another principal that decided he/she did not like the professional development that they and the school had to participate in. This principal gets the superintendent to transfer them to another westside school.

Yet another principal who expresses a desire to not be in a westside school has turned the school culture upside down, this particular school and everyone in it are in a downward spiral. Just this past Saturday, I had two parents come to my home and report that at this particular school, children of color are not allowed to check out books from the school library because they have demonstrated that they “do not know how to take care of things”, yet Caucasian students are allowed to check out books. The parents reported to me that they have tested the practice of this policy and are certain that it is in place based on what their children and neighboring children have reported. At this point I do not know how real or perceived this report is.

The superintendent is indifferent to the concerns expressed by me, teachers and parents alike. In schools that have an active and vocal parent group, the superintendent allows for the formation of a committee consisting of parents, community members, and staff. They will actually interview principal candidates that have submitted an application. Over a series of several meetings which include interviewing the candidates they will then send three finalist to the superintendent for his approval. The final step would then be approval by the board of education.

I recommend that the Task Force support some form of this process for all schools. At the very least it ensures that Title I Schools are receiving a principal that wants to be there, not one that is forced. Moreover, the process I just described allows for the highest order of site based decision making to occur from the local level all the way up to the elected officials in the local school system.

Require Local School Boards to Conduct at Minimum, an Annual Standardized Evaluation of the Superintendent and Business Administrator

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Meaningful Teacher Evaluation

School Specific Professional Development of Teachers and             Administrators

Execution and Input of Standards and Benchmarks

Three days prior to the October 15, 2013, School Board meeting I received notification that the meeting was starting earlier than its usual time. I sent an email to the board president asking why the meeting was starting earlier. The board president replied, “Because we are evaluating the superintendent”.

I objected to the evaluation occurring without prior notice.[8] I stated the following in a letter to the board president:

This letter is to inform you that I will be voting against going into closed session this afternoon for the purposes of evaluating the superintendent. I was only made aware this past Saturday that the evaluation would take place this afternoon.

Moreover, the superintendent is in breach of his contract, as it clearly states: ”Annually, at least 30 days prior to the time for his evaluation, SUPERINTENDENT shall advise the BOARD of its obligation to evaluate him no later than October31”

While I am prohibited from discussing what did occur in our closed door session on that day, I will state that in response to my question as to the evaluation process, the board president informed me of the following via email (prior to the meeting):

“I was going to request that each board member bring with them …two things both Janet and McKell do well and two things which need improvement.  Then we narrow down from the fourteen into commonalities”

Are you kidding me!!!! I must confess, that this is one of the few times in my life that I thought I was going to blow a gasket. I was stunned when I read the email.

I thought to myself: Why not evaluate teachers and principals in this same fashion? I submit that the mentality that allows this type of evaluation has its roots in the indoctrination that USBA gives to all school board members. [9] In the school board orientation training, the PowerPoint slides state the following in reference to how school board members should treat the superintendent:

• Know your job and don’t interfere with the administration’s

• Understand that the superintendent is practicing a career-a highly complex one for which he or she has prepared with formal training and in most cases, years of progressive experience
• Communicate disagreements in private. If you wish to discuss an action of the superintendent that think was improper, do so in private
• Support the superintendent. If someone complains to you about the superintendent, listen but don’t agree
• Know your superintendent. Be sensitive to the superintendent’s likes and dislikes, what the superintendent expects of you and the rest of the board, and what the superintendent needs 

I recommend that the state of Utah follow the lead of states like Massachusetts and include superintendents in the state mandated educator’s evaluation process. [10]

I submit, it is somewhat hypocritical to standardize evaluations for teachers and principals and not require standardized accountability of our superintendents and business administrators. [11]

The manner in which the Salt Lake City School Board conducted the superintendent’s evaluation last month, was in my opinion a betrayal of the public trust.

The superintendent is hired by the board to run the district, and the board is elected by the community to see that the district runs well. More than just another district employee, the superintendent represents to the board the sum total of the organization, so system accountability comes with the title. The school board, for its part, is positioned between the community and its schools to provide that accountability function.

I am convinced that a fair, comprehensive, well-implemented superintendent evaluation can improve the quality of the schools and the success of the students. Accountability in the form of superintendent evaluation is arguably the board’s most important function.

I respectfully urge the Task Force to add superintendents and business administrators to Utah’s educator’s evaluation process. This will go a long way in helping school boards meet their responsibility to their communities, who expect the board to exercise appropriate oversight.

Require Local School Boards to Use the Proper and Legal Geographic Terminology on Voting Ballots and Other Material When Referring to Their Elected Office

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: Commitment to Family Engagement

When I ran for school board during the 2012 election cycle, confusion arose when the sample ballots were published as they had me listed as a candidate for Precinct 2 as opposed to being the candidate for District 2.

As you are aware, redistricting had just occurred and all voters were now in new voting precincts. The numbering system in Salt Lake City starts off with the single digit precincts in Salt Lake City’s westside. While campaigning for school board, many residents erroneously concluded they could not vote for me because they were not in voting Precinct 2.

Voting Precinct 2 is one of 11 voting precincts in my ‘school board district’.

After speaking to Carol Leer at USOE, Mark Thomas at the Lt. Governors Office, SLC City Attorney, SL County Attorney etc.. I was able to determine that according to state law, the ballot should have me listed as the candidate for District 2.[12]

The Salt Lake County Clerk would not change the ballots because she said that she was following the instructions of the superintendent. The superintendent and school board president were unsympathetic to the confusion that the misuse of the terminology was causing in my community.

The Lt. Governor’s office stated that although the geographic area on the ballot was incorrect, this was nevertheless a local issue and they could not compel compliance.

Current state law reads as follows:

20A-14-201.   Boards of education — School board districts — Creation — Reapportionment.

(1) (a) The county legislative body, for local school districts whose boundaries encompass more than a single municipality, and the municipal legislative body, for school districts contained completely within a municipality, shall divide the local school district into local school board districts as required under Subsection 20A-14-202(1)(a).

Current election code reads as follows:

20A-5-303.   Establishing, dividing, abolishing, and changing voting precincts — Common polling places — Combined voting precincts.

(1)     (a) After receiving recommendations from the county clerk, the county legislative body may establish, divide, abolish, and change voting precincts.

(2)      (a) The county legislative body shall alter or divide voting precincts so that each voting precinct contains not more than 1,250 active voters.

I was able to determine that the geographic area for a school board member was referred to as a PRECINCT for many years.

In 1994 HB 84 was passed and changed the terminology to what we read in current Utah code. Specifically that several “voting precincts” comprise a “district” that an elected official represents.

The superintendent and school board president refused to change the terminology to comport themselves to current state law and at the same time clear up confusion with voters in my community. They stated in so many words that there was no penalty for not following the current law.

It defies reason why school districts are okay with promoting voter confusion and suffer no penalty for ignoring current Utah code.

To that end, during the 2013 legislative session, Representative Brian King was kind enough to open a bill file on this issue in an effort to bring clarity to the voters. I had a couple of discussions with legislative research and it was determined that it would be difficult to create a law stating that you have to follow another law.

It was decided that a resolution would be the best course of action. It was titled: Geographic Divisions of School Districts and later changed to Local School Board Members’ District. We ran out of time in the 2013 general session for this resolution to be considered.

I spoke to Representative King earlier this week and he expressed his support and willingness to propose this resolution in the 2014 general session.

I would ask that the Task Force review the merits of this resolution and encourage its advancement and ultimate passage.  

Prohibit the Superintendent and Business Administrator From Withholding Information from School Board Members and Require That They Must Provide Accurate and Reliable Information/Data in Order for School Board Members to Make Informed
Decisions & Votes on Behalf of their Constituents

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 5 (Nov 20, 2013):

Governance: Concern was expressed that local school boards, and Utah School Board Association training for local school board members, discourage individual local school board members from vigorously advocating for a local school board member’s constituency.

DRAFT EDUCATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT -p 6 (Nov 20, 2013):

Recommendations: Consider legislation to clarify the role of local school board members as advocates for their constituents

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK –Education from the Inside Out:

Local Schools: School-Specific Professional Development of Teachers and     dddddddddddddddAdministrators

Commitment to Family Engagement

Addressing At-Risk Issues with Parents and Students

I believe that the proper application of local school board power would change the face of education in the communities that they serve.  This would happen through the positive and appropriate policymaking, equitable and targeted resource allocation and transparent accountability for all stakeholders.

I have been serving on the Salt Lake City School Board for a little under a year. During that period of time I have witnessed the district bureaucracy play a shell game of policy deception with members of the board of education. The bureaucracy is allowed to consistently  set the stage for the degradation of civic discourse and at the same time erode the capacity for collective critical thinking on the part of members of the school board.

While I can cite multiple examples, I will present three by way of illustration.

In the spring of this year the school district started the budget process that would culminate in the school board voting on a budget in June and then voting to raise taxes in August of this year.

In the August school board meeting I voted against raising taxes, Salt Lake Tribune reporter Ray Parker who was present at the meeting, reported the following:

“I am voting against the proposed tax increase … in large part because there was never any clear reason presented to require an increase,” Clara wrote in an open letter, which he passed out during Tuesday’s meeting.

“The information presented by the business administrator was contradictory and inconsistent throughout the budget process. The business administrator either refused or was unable to answer budget questions with any amount of clarity.”

Clara gave an example involving a program called Enhancement for Accelerated Students. In his letter, Clara wrote district officials said the program lost $255,676 and would need to be made up in the tax increase.

Clara disagreed.

“In the previous budget cycle, the state gave the Salt Lake City School District $204,620 for the Enhancement for Accelerated Students program,” Clara wrote. “In the current budget cycle, the state is giving the district $205,638, which is as you can see, an increase from the previous year. Not a ‘shortfall’ as we have been led to believe.

“Yet, our business administrator is telling us that this program is $255,676 short this year because of the Legislature’s failure to ‘fully fund growth’ and a ‘WPU [weighted pupil unit] shortfall.’ ”

Clara had another issue. In a postscript, Clara wrote: “I am also troubled by the fact that this year, the school board awarded a 6 percent increase to the superintendent and voted to give our employees a meager 1 percent increase. In an effort to rectify this disparity, I proposed an amended [sic] to the budget in our June meeting that was voted down.”

After Clara mentioned the 6 percent increase at the meeting, Superintendent McKell Withers said, “That is not true.”

Clara wanted to debate the point but was cut off when member Laurel Heath Young “called for the question,” and all debate was stopped, and the vote taken. [13]

Not only were we misinformed and misdirected throughout this budget process, in this particular meeting the superintendent actually ordered the board president to cut off all discussion when I was explaining my NO VOTE on raising taxes. When I objected and asserted a “point of order” to the board president, the business administrator was trying to get the police officer to escort me out of the board meeting.

I am of the opinion that the superintendent and the business administrator should not have that much power. Nor should they be able to exercise any type of authority over school board members. Yet they control members of the board by withholding information about district finances and student and teacher data.

More recently, we had an RDA issue come before the school board and again I was denied requested financial information that I needed in order to make an informed vote on behalf of my neighbors.

I sent a letter to the board president declaring that I would VOTE NO on the RDA issue due to the fact that the business administrator refused to answer my questions about district finances surrounding this issue. [14]

I stated the following in that letter, which bears repeating:

As a school board member I am entitled to the information that I ask for in order to fulfill my fiduciary responsibilities to my community. I would betray the trust that my neighbors placed in me, if I vote to divert school property tax dollars in order to receive pass through funding that I have not been clearly told how that is being spent.

It also concerns me that during this past budget cycle we were told that the district could not meet our budget due to the “legislature’s failure to fully fund growth” and a “WPU shortfall”.

Yet I find that our district seems to be awash in cash. We recently discovered that the district had half a million dollars to pay a matching grant. We were recently told that there is money to hire a full-time attorney. Now I am being told that we receive close to five million dollars from Salt Lake City RDA.

As I mentioned in a previous meeting, it is like pulling teeth to obtain information on the budget and direct questions about finances are consistently sidestepped. It seems that the only way to learn about the school budget is to stumble upon it. This is unacceptable!

My neighbors have given me the power to act on their behalf by virtue of the November 2012, election. The state legislature has given me the authority over district finances by virtue of state law, yet I am regularly denied or delayed requested information. Denying me financial information of the district is an insult to my community and I would submit, contrary to state law.

The final example that I will cite has to do with the iSchool program. On August 2, 2013, the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about Newman Elementary in the Salt Lake City School District, being awarded a technology grant that would require the Salt Lake City School District to pay close to half a million dollars to participate in the program. [15]

Several neighbors called me to inquire how the district could afford this program after the district declared that taxes had to be raised just to keep existing programs. I also received calls from other educators asking why this particular school was chosen over others etc…

I began to run the bureaucratic school district gantlet in an effort to obtain the answers to the questions that were directed towards me.

In the mean time I was able to discover that this matching grant stemmed from SB 284- Educational Technology Amendment. I noted the following language in the law:

“a school within a school district,
with approval of the local school board…
may submit an application to the State Board of Education
to participate in the program” [16]

When I asked the business administrator via email to tell me when did our school board approve the district’s participation in this program? I received the following reply:

“It was anticipated that approval by our school board would happen when the approval for funds were included in the purchasing report”

Wow! She is saying that this was going to come to the school board on a purchasing report on the consent agenda. Never mind the fact that the law clearly states that school board approval must be obtained BEFORE an application is even submitted.

I eventually had to submit two GRAMA requests in order to ascertain how this decision was made and where the funds were coming from.

Business administrator, Janet Roberts advised me via email that I would not receive the requested information prior to the next school board meeting (two weeks away) as requested because “a need for an expedited response has not been demonstrated”.

While I support the concept of whole-school technology deployment. I cannot, however, abide a bureaucracy that consistently exhibits a disdain for the powers and authority of the duly elected institution of the local school board.

If the problem in the Salt Lake City public school system (at the highest levels of management) was just incompetence, we would be immeasurably better off.

Local school district governance is unique to America. Nowhere else in the world is education governed by locally elected school boards. Indeed school boards are “the crucible of democracy”. Local school elections in America provide the closest example of democracy for the American people.

One researcher stated: “..Boards are so disconnected from the schoolhouse and citizen involvement in board elections so minimal that they have become obsolete mechanisms of democracy and have little, if any influence on student achievement”[17] If this statement is true, I submit that it occurred because local school board have allowed the school bureaucracy to nibble away their authority and purpose of existence.

I would recommend that the Task Force seriously consider a way to bolster the authority of school board members so that they are not at the mercy of an out of control school bureaucracy. I am convinced that local school boards can make more effective use of education dollars if appropriately informed on the particulars of school finances.

In closing, I want to reiterate that local school boards are agents of the state and derive their authority from the state government. Therefore it is in my opinion appropriate that the state legislature would implement laws to help local school boards make course corrections in public education.

Not only do state legislatures have the authority to address a wide range of problems, both inside and outside the schools, but new and innovative measures, such as stronger accountability systems almost always emanate from them.

Moreover, legislatures have enjoyed some notable success. During the 1990’s, Texas and North Carolina were generally recognized as the states that had done most to improve student achievement among poor and ethnic minority students. Lawsuits, court-ordered remedies, and significantly increased spending had little or nothing to do with their success. Instead, the credit was largely due to accountability and other innovative measures originating in the state legislatures.[18]

I continue to have a growing sense that real, long-lasting change in our education system is urgent, indispensable and possible!

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára

Board Member, District 2

P.S. “In Education, the time we waste today, is a lifetime wasted tomorrow (LBJ)

cc: President Niederhauser
Senator Reid
Senator Stephenson
Senator Osmond
Senator Urquhart
Representative Hughes
Representative King

Enclosures

Speaker Lockhart

The title of this blog posting is a partial quote taken from of a letter sent to the Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives by superintendent Withers, school board president, vice president and business administrator of the Salt Lake City School District.

On November 20, 2013, I submitted a 15 page letter to Speaker Lockhart who is serving as the co-chair of the Utah Legislative Task Force on Education. The letter consist of six recommendations that I believe, if implemented would go a long way in improving the educational outcomes for the students in my community.

On December 17, 2014, the superintendent, school board president, school board vice president and school district business administrator fired off a letter to the Speaker of the House in which they characterize me as being uncivilized and a liar. They also made a feeble attempt to state that they are all about “openness” in the Salt Lake City School board meetings.

As one observer pointed out:

“Which reality of theirs, is the truth? 
 Are they (Superintendent & Board President) 
 really open to discuss the educational outcomes 
 of ethnic minority students as they claim, 
 or are they going to continually 
 attack your character 
 every time you broach the subject?
 Both realities cannot be correct”

On December 23, 2013, I sent a letter to the Speaker, making the point that the tone of the letter sent by the superintendent and board president only served to underscore the problem with public education in the state of Utah.

PDF LINK: Superintendent / Board President Letter to the Speaker of the House (December 17, 2014)

PDF LINK: Michael Clara’s Letter responding to Superintendent and Board President’s character attacks (December 23, 2013)

PDF LINK: Michael Clara Recommendation Letter to the Education Task Force (November 20, 2013)

At tonight’s school board meeting (11/05/2013) we will discuss proposed changes to the policy that governs school board meetings. As indicated in a previous blog entry, it is designed to weaken the voice of the elected school board members and in violation of Utah’s Open and Public Meeting Act.

PDF of Draft Policy

Michael Clara Response (PDF)