Here's the text of the email to the SHSD school board tonight:
Members of the Board:
I am not able to attend the board meeting on February 29th, but I wanted to express my thoughts on two issues:
First, I agree with Mr. Porter that it is important to to "beautify" school district properties, but I don't think that it is appropriate for the board to establish a committee for this purpose. One reason is that I believe such a committee would be subject to Oregon public meeting laws. My source is from the OSBA website: http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/Do_committee_meetings_follow_public_meetings_law.aspx
(BCF is your policy that covers committees.) Another reason is that committees usually require professional staff support and the district staff has more than enough work to do to close this school year and prepare for the next. I hope that Mr. Porter will continue to explore ways to improve the look of SHSD properties through the involvement of individuals and community groups. I don't think that it is necessary to form a committee to do this.
Second, An individual spoke at the last two board meetings about "outreach" to the homeschool population. It did not seem to me that this gentleman was representing a group of homeschool families, rather he was representing his own views. Further, he indicated that he thought outreach by the district to homeschoolers should involve discussions about changes in district curriculum and "core values." He did not specify what he meant by this. It is not evident to me that there is any need for the district to initiate a program of outreach to the homeschool community. I don't believe that the gentleman understands that the district is required to follow state standards in its curriculum. Nor do I understand what core values he thinks need to be changed. Does he take issue with your policy AE "District Goals" or your adopted "Blueprint for Success"? While it is important to maintain good relationships with all members of our community, now is not the time to initiate an "outreach" to a single population at the behest of a single individual. The board, Mr. Davalos, and all district staff need to keep the focus on the tasks necessary to make the reconfiguration of schools and attendance boundaries successful for the hundreds of families and thousands of children attending St. Helens schools.
January 26, 2012
The board met last night at McBride Elementary School in anticipation of an audience that would exceed the capacity of the board room at the district office. The number of attendees was more than could be readily accommodated in the usual place, but I believe that fewer than half of the chairs set up were occupied.
Superintendent Davalos' recommendation for school reconfiguration was the reason for the larger than usual attendance by members of the public and staff. It took a while to get to the recommendation as the board took care of more mundane albeit necessary business. Mr. Davalos' actual recommendation was somewhat anti-climatic as he proposed the closing of Columbia City and reconfiguration of McBride and Lewis and Clark elementaries as K-6 schools. It was surprising to learn that this option was estimated to save the district about $150,000 for the next school year.
I came to the meeting concerned that not only was Mr. Davalos to give his recommendation, but that approval of it was listed as an action item on the agenda. Thankfully, a majority of board members voted to table the decision until the February 8 meeting. This should have been a no-brainer as the board had no time to exercise their responsibility to give full deliberation to the recommendation and the consequences of implementing it. Further, immediate approval of the recommendation would not have allowed the public any time to give thoughtful comment. Yes, there was time allotted for public comment after the report and before the board vote, but this was not sufficient and only one person did comment.
Had the majority of the board voted to implement the reconfiguration it certainly would have given the perception of being a "done deal" and that public meetings and public survey were merely window dressing. As it is, the entire process was much too quick. The board first charged Mr. Davalos with his task in the fall. He, other district staff - especially Janine Salisbury - and members of the reconfiguration committees deserve recognition for developing the reconfiguration proposal as quickly and thoroughly as they did.
Still, I am not sure what to make of the board's subsequent vote to "accept" Mr. Davalos' recommendation for reconfiguration. How do you accept something that has just been tabled? This was coupled with a directive by the board to Mr. Davalos to start work on creating school boundaries. So, what is one to conclude about reconfiguration? Is it a done deal?
November 9, 2011
The board seems to be back on track to do the work it has been elected to do. Tonight the board voted to include time for public comment at every open board meeting. I am impressed that the board members are conscious of the importance of not only conducting their business in public, but with the public.
Superintendent Davalos presented goals for his evaluation by the board and an update on the process to be followed by the committees to advise the board on options for possible reconfiguration of district schools. Although there will be a number of public forums, I did not see that any community members were included in the committee membership. Also, it is my understanding that all meetings of the committees must be public in accordance with state public meeting law. (http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/Do_committee_meetings_follow_public_meetings_law.aspx)
There is a vacancy on the district budget committee. Applications to fill the position will be accepted by the board until December 30. There was some discussion among board members and district staff about the function of the budget committee and whetherr or not it had only a "rubber stamp" role. It does not. (http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/Budget_Committee_Roles.aspx)
Attendance at this "work session" was again very poor. There were a total of six people in the audience including myself, the wife of a board member, two district employees, and two high school students. I assume that the students were there to fulfill a class assignment and they left as soon as the time that they were required to attend had passed. It would be good to have more public participation at all meetings including representation from both employee unions and the press.
October 26, 2011
The St. Helens School Board welcomed new board member Matt Freeman tonight. Alan King was elected chair and Marshall Porter is the new vice-chair. I think that this might be the first time in over 20 years that there are no women on the board.
Unlike the previous board meeting, a "work"session on October 12, this meeting was conducted in a manner that seemed to be more respectful of the process, the board members, and the public in attendance. I put quotation marks around work since there is no such meeting recognized by Oregon public meeting laws according to Betsy Miller-Jones, Board Development & Policy Services Associate Director of the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA): (http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/What_can_be_done_at_work_sessions.aspx and http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/Types_of_Board_meetings.aspx )"Work" sessions are regular meetings so I wonder why the school board does not allow for public comment at these as it does at its "regular sessions. I encourage the board to put time for public comment on the agenda for all of its public meetings. (I now know, though, that the board is not legally required to allow for public comment at any of its meetings, only that the meeting must be conducted in public!) ( http://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Ask_Betsy/Agenda_request.aspx ) By the way, charter school board meetings are subject to the same Oregon public meeting laws that public school district boards are.
Two important issues were discussed. The hot potato topic of the year promises to be district reconfiguration. Superintendent Mark Davalos presented a plan to form two committees, Design and Budget, to make recommendations to the board in time for a reconfiguration to be implemented nest school year. A less contentious, but very important matter, setting goals for Superintendent Davalos, was finally begun by the board. It seems odd that action is being taken on both of these matters just now. What has the board been doing since its organizational meeting in July? Could it not have begun work on these even while they were looking for a replacement for the former board chair Benita Saatvedt?
