to me, Kristi, Mckell

December 2012

Dear Mr. Clára,

Thank you for sending the email and follow-up letter outlining your lingering concerns after our school board orientation meeting. We have tried to address them below, repeating the subheads that organized your letter.

We share your expressed respect for the history of local school boards and the important democratic functions they perform. Please know that we approach our legal duties as elected officials and our moral obligations to the students in our schools with great seriousness and care.

OATH OF OFFICE

You have clearly communicated your dissatisfaction with Sherrie Swensen. Please understand that four board members were elected in November. All four may have personal preferences about how they would like to affirm the oath of office. Long-standing practice in our school district has been to include a low-key, short swearing-in ceremony at the beginning of the first meeting in January. This has been the traditional choice, not dictated by law or policy. In the recent past, we have always invited the county clerk to administer the oath.

You are the first newly elected board member in collective memory to have requested a variance—and we want you to understand that your request does affect three other members of the board. Nevertheless, we have confirmed that Judge Andrew Valdez will be at our January 8 board meeting to administer the oath of office collectively to you, Ms. Sandberg, and the two of us.

We would request that you join us just before the board meeting to sign the written oath in the presence of a district employee who is also a Notary Public. This will meet the legal standard in case Judge Valdez’s schedule changes. (Utah Code 20A-14-202(2)(c): “A member of a local board of education is ‘qualified’ when the member takes or signs the constitutional oath of office.”)

BOARD MEETINGS

We agree that board members have the right to raise any relevant issues in public board meetings. Board members must also focus on the duties they were elected to perform. Occasionally the right to raise an issue can come into conflict with the responsibility to perform statutory duties.

We do not believe we have ever acted to “stifle the free flow of ideas.” Moving forward, we would ask that you help us be inclusive without allowing our board meetings to run out of control and off the published agenda. We appreciate your attendance at some of our recent board meetings and your obvious diligence in researching issues central to your role as a member of the board.  Please keep an open mind about the motives and conduct of board members, recognizing that you may not, at this point, have all the information you might later acquire though experience.

Please know that we have considered and will continue to consider the needs and preferences of teachers as we make decisions. We absolutely agree that teachers are the heart and soul of our district and, next to parents and guardians, the greatest influence on student success. Teachers are not monolithic in their desires, however, and it is not always possible to please every individual or interest group with every decision.

BOARD POLICY

Board policy guides the action of the board and district. This does not mean that every piece of good advice about school governance is contained in board policy. We’ve tried to collect and provide resources we think might be helpful as you acclimate to your new role. We apologize for any confusion created by this deluge of information.

Ms. Emery has often voiced opposition to the current high school schedule, which is a four-class-per-day, alternating-day block with the flexibility to offer classes on a daily basis. The schedule is common to all three comprehensive high schools. Her opposition is multi-faceted and goes back more than ten years, though it certainly intensified when the board voted to require all three schools to adopt common starting and ending times. We would be happy to discuss the history with you, and provide documentation of the discussion over time, if you are interested.

At our board meeting of October 2, Mrs. Emery asked that “changing schedules at the high schools” be placed on an upcoming agenda. In making this request, she cited the report we had just heard that included disappointing 2011 high school graduation rates, which she attributed to the schedule. This was not the first time she had made such a request, although it should be noted that she did not criticize the schedule during the September 18 meeting in which the high school principals reported on their progress toward greater flexibility and personalization for students.

From page 6 of the minutes for October 2:

On October 9, Amanda Thorderson made a highly nuanced request to discuss the schedules again. On October 15, Alama Ulu’ave sent an email with a similar but not identical request. Board leadership discussed these emails in detail, comparing them to Ms. Emery’s request of October 2. It was clear that the reasons cited for bringing the issue forward for discussion and the hoped-for substance of the discussion were not the same for each of the three requests. Complicating our course of action was the fact that Superintendent McKell Withers was briefly hospitalized and certain to miss the next board meeting on October 16.

Nevertheless, we did bring the issue forward for discussion at that meeting, as the minutes record:

At the next study session (November 20), the superintendent did, in fact, distribute additional information about graduation rate calculations. Board leadership and board member Thorderson clearly wanted to decouple this issue from the call to “change” schedules. All seven board members, including Ms. Emery, had expressed interest in composing a letter addressed to the principals and the school community councils, urging them to use flexibility built into the current schedule more aggressively—as Highland has already done.

At no time was Ms. Emery’s request “denied.” The challenge has been how to frame the discussion in a productive way that encompasses the perspectives of all board members. We will provide background information about student achievement and schedules at the small group meetings in January and will certainly continue to discuss the topic, as promised, in future study sessions. We welcome your assistance in keeping the conversation student-centered and respectful.

PUBLIC POLICY

John Florez is on the side of the angels. To our knowledge none of the current or newly elected board members disagrees with either his conclusions, as quoted, or your own statements about the value of free speech, transparency, and accountability.

CONCLUSION

We agree that all elected board members deserve to be treated with dignity, but continued respect and increased influence must be earned through respectful behavior, due diligence, and thoughtful discussion. May we all strive to deserve the respect of our constituents, our fellow board members, and especially, the students in Salt Lake City public schools.

Cordially,

Kristi Swett, President

Heather Bennett, Vice President

Salt Lake City School District Board of Education