A conservative group is organizing an offshoot to teach parents how to address their local school board and to work with them on changing policies. A recent meeting of the Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) board shows that it’s not parents who need the training but rather school board members.
This past week’s meetings have been a perfect example of just how little regard the majority of the PUSD board, and so many of their counterparts, have for the community they serve and just how desperate is the need for adequate training.
Beginning on Wednesday with a board “retreat” which included a discussion of “governing board comments” and the “Call to the Public” a.k.a. public comment. It was neither broadcast nor recorded for the community because it was conducted offsite rather than the administration center where such services are readily available.
In full disclosure I admit the Call to the Public is near and dear to my heart. When I was elected and took a seat on this board in 2005 the board agenda did not include a Call to the Public. Constituents were only allowed to address the board on items it chose to put on the agenda.
During the discussions very recently appointed board member and President Rebecca Proudfit commented that she was “not looking to change anything” (see meeting transcript) and hoped to “gain a better understanding of the purpose of board comments.” Regardless of the board members’ thoughts about board comments, the reality is the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law (OML) Handbook Section 7.7.8 is very specific about how “current event summaries” i.e. board comments must be agendized and conducted. PUSD board comments are not aligned to OML.
During the discussions (Read Minutes Here)
The board moved onto a protracted discussion, primarily, of moving the Call to the Public to the end of the agenda as suggested/recommended by Ms. Proudfit.
Board member Melissa Ewing stated that public comment either needed to be moved or “inappropriate behavior” stopped and she “believes public comment is being misused by potential paid activists.”
Board member Heather Rooks was not in favor of moving public comments and stated that “there are no paid activists at our board meetings.’ Well, at least not on the side of the parents, Ms. Rooks.
Board Clerk David Sandoval said that all the board members are responsible “to hold decorum in the boardroom.” It is unclear whether he meant amongst themselves or that they should reign in community members addressing the board.
Board member Bill Sorensen thinks “board meetings last way too long” and the meetings will be “more efficient” if public comments come at the end. Although he did admit the “optics would not be fantastic” and “cause more damage than good.”
Fast forward to the board meeting on Thursday. Apparently immediately following the board “retreat” and just in time to be in compliance with OML Ms. Proudfit had the agenda amended to move public comment to the end of the meeting.
Once again Ms. Proudfit, a recent appointment to the board by Maricopa County Superintendent of Public Instruction Steve Watson, opened the public comment agenda item with a warning to the public about what they may, or may not, say and how they must speak from the podium. Rather than merely and appropriately advising the community why board members are not permitted to respond or discuss matters brought to the podium.
During the public comments two speakers were interrupted. The first was a former teacher addressing the board regarding accusations made against him. Ms. Proudfit interrupted and stopped his explanation. I guess students can only hear the word erection in their classrooms.
The second speaker was a community member. Ms. Ewing interrupted her with a “point of order” apparently in an effort to have Ms. Proudfit to rule the speaker’s comments out of order (see video). While a point of order may be called when the legitimate rules are not followed, it cannot, and should not, be used to shut down a community member’s right to speak. Individual board members are permitted to respond to criticism after the public comment. However, Ms. Ewing was not being criticized by the speaker she interrupted.
One can’t help but wonder where is this board’s legal advice? When we, as a board, added Call to the Public to the meeting agenda almost twenty years ago our attorney made it VERY clear that community members do NOT forfeit their 1st Amendment rights when addressing their elected officials during a public meeting; even if they are saying things we don’t like or using words of which we don’t approve or students may be watching. One might wonder where the Arizona School Board Association is on this issue. Oh right, they write the policies that basically mandate all must go along to get along.
While I do concur with Ms. Proudfit’s “research” that most elected public bodies that include public comment on their agenda have it at the end of the meeting (it appears that Deer Valley U.S.D. recently moved their Call to the Public to the end of their board agenda) it is a disgraceful disregard of their duties to their constituents in my opinion. It makes it very clear that hearing the concerns of the community they serve is of the least importance to the board.
From an obvious unfamiliarity with the 1st Amendment to dispositions that are either too prickly, or unseasoned to weather the messiness of democracy, the majority of the PUSD governing board is clearly not acting in the public’s best interest.