Board Agenda Process Letter 120812
TEXT OF ENTIRE LETTER: 8 December 2012
Kristi Swett, President Salt Lake City School District, Board 2256 South King Street Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Re: Board Agenda Process
Dear President Swett,
I want to thank you and Heather for conducting my second board orientation meeting this past Friday with Mckell and Janet.
I am so honored to be elected to serve on an American institution that predates even the founding of this country (Dorchester, Massachusetts 1645).
As a follow up to our meeting, I wanted to clarify something I said and elaborate a little more on one of the concerns that I expressed.
In doing so, you should know that I hold dear the core principles that our country was founded on. I share that with you, because as we embark on this new chapter together, I want you to understand and hopefully appreciate my motives and decision making process as issues come before us.
OATH OF OFFICE On the issue of taking the oath of office; I did send McKell the reference in the election code that states that a judge can indeed administer the oath. “Utah Code 10-3-828 specifies who may administer the Oath of Office:
The oath of office required under this part shall be administered by any judge, notary public, or by the recorder of the municipality.”
Recognizing that historically the County Clerk has administered the oath of office to newly elected and reelected board members, I nevertheless must underscore my desire to have someone other than the county clerk administer the oath of office.
I believe that our county clerk made several mistakes in running the school board election this past cycle and when mistakes were brought to her attention she did not make any corrections or attempts to clarify misunderstandings.
As a result of her indifference, I believe that she disenfranchised many west side voters. That is why I do not want Sherry Swensen to administer the oath of office to me. I have been advised that the board receives the oath as a group. I appreciate your willingness to have Judge Valdez administer the oath to all of us at our January 8, 2013 meeting.
BOARD MEETINGS In our discussion about decorum at the board meetings; I made mention of my concern that I felt Rosemary Emery is consistently ill-treated and marginalized at board meetings.
I drew that conclusion from what others have reported me (including Rosemary) and from what my own ears have heard in listening to the audio of previous board meetings.
I was not fully satisfied with the response I received on Friday. Without judging the merits of the issues that Rosemary is raising, I bristle a bit when I hear others trying to stifle the free flow of ideas in the public square. When the seven board members sit in council together, we have in a sense convened a ‘public square’ of sorts.
I hold sacred ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
When a board member brings an issue to the ‘public square’, that board member represents the collected voice of the people that elected them. As an elected body, I believe it to be in bad form to create rules or assumptions that would blunt the voice of a fellow board member.
In this case, I have, by way of listening to past school board audios (and it was mentioned in our Friday meeting), heard other board members tell Rosemary “you are not here to represent teachers; you are here to represent students”.
I must confess that I was taken aback the first time I heard that judgement. I thought to myself, ‘Wow!, I would never presume to tell another board member who they should and shouldn’t be representing”.
I am of the mindset, that it is not my place to impose my judgment on a fellow board member. What a board member chooses to bring to the public square as it were, is between them and their electorate.
We should not lose sight of the fact that as local school board members, our role in the community are more closely aligned with the legislative branch of government; “The members of the legislative department …are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people…” (Federalist 49)
How do we know what Rosemary and the constituency in her district discussed? Perhaps her supporters are okay with her consistently bringing up issues effecting teachers. If she is indeed pushing issues that her voters don’t support, they can sort it out with her at the next election. “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power”.
Notwithstanding the opinions of fellow board members, I strongly believe that teachers are an essential part of the educational equation. After all, you can’t have students if you don’t have teachers.
I submit, when we address the concerns and needs of teachers, we are fundamentally influencing the ‘quality of instruction’ of our students (see Student Achievement Plan 2010-2015).
If Rosemary is ‘teacher-focused’ as the accusation goes, what of it? Is there really a way to create educational policies at the exclusion of workplace issues facing our teachers?
BOARD POLICY I am a bit troubled by the fact that on the one hand I am told about the requirement to follow board policy and on the other hand I see its tenets being trampled upon.
Furthermore, I am disturbed when I read “Only those written statements so adopted and so recorded may be regarded as official board policy” (Board Policy B-1), yet I am constantly being told about the ‘unwritten order of things’ that must also be obeyed. At times, it has appeared to me that the ‘unwritten order of things’ has more force than the written policy.
By way of observation; in the Utah School Board Association training that I recently attended. They gave us a book titled. COMING TO ORDER. It has a subtitle of A Guide to Successful School Board Meetings.
Chapter 2 is titled: THE AGENDA –A Road Map To Success. In one part it states “Items submitted by School Board members to the superintendent of the President shall be placed on the agenda”.
I of course recognize that our local policy is a bit more restrictive. I share this quote, merely to point out, that on a national level, it appears that ‘successful’ boards are open to the ideas that individual members want to discuss.
I am however, puzzled by the display of disobedience to our own written policy. My reading of current board standards tells me that Rosemary has met the threshold to have the high school scheduling item placed on the agenda.
BOARD POLICY B-2 Agenda Development: “The board president, board vice president, and superintendent should develop board meeting agendas collaboratively. Any board member may request that a topic be placed on an upcoming meeting agenda by contacting the board president or vice president. In general, scheduling of topics is at the discretion of board leadership, but if three or more board members join in requesting that a topic be placed on the agenda, that request will be accommodated within two meetings.”
Admittedly, Rosemary has asked the board president and the vice president for the high school scheduling item to be placed on the agenda. Her request was denied.
It is my understanding from current board members, Alama and Amanda that they too have submitted request to have the high school scheduling item placed on the agenda.
By my count, if we include Rosemary’s initial supplication, that constitutes three board members making the request.
So help me understand, why we have summarily rejected the adherence to this written policy?
I am reminded of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “in every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury….”
I would request that we stop responding to Rosemary’s “petitions[s] for redress” with “the repeated injury” of rejection.
PUBLIC POLICY Public policy is best made in the light of day. “Debate and dissent are vital for transparency, accountability and the creation of good public policy” (School Board Can Make A Difference by John Flores, Deseret News –December 1, 2012).
We should never attempt to suppress the constitutional rights of citizens (or one duly elected) to express their opinions about contentious issues at board meetings.
I believe that our board meetings should become renowned as one of the true marketplaces where ideas can be exchanged.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, as a board member who has not yet been seated. I add my voice to those that have already spoken and insist that we uphold the ideology of the very Constitution that in the coming days we will take an oath to support, obey and defend.
I respectfully encourage you to extend to Rosemary Emery the dignity that should be afforded her office. She has after all ‘been distinguished by the preference of [her] fellow citizens’ (Federalist # 57).
I would urge you to place her issues on the agenda so that they can take their rightful place in the arena of an open and transparent public policy discussion.
Shalom,
J. Michael Clára Board Member (Elect), District 2
cc: Heather Bennett, Board Member-District 5 Rosemary Emery, Board Member-District 4 Amanda Thorderson, Board Member-District 1 Alama Uluave, Board Member-District 2