School Board Meeting, 10/18/16

The HR and Business Committee meetings of the prior week produced some palpable tension in the boardroom, making me wonder what might happen tonight. The meeting went by quickly, however, by school board standards (only a couple of hours!) and things remained pretty calm, primarily for two reasons: (1) Both sides of the divide, knowing how sick Duluth is of school board fights, were loathe to look like bad actors on the 10 o’clock news. (2) Board members were able to find some diplomatic means to slip the noose and push the debate further down the road.
The audience in the boardroom of Old Central did not witness a reenactment of the 1914 Christmas Truce of World War I, when German and Allied soldiers climbed out of their trenches and called out ‘Merry Christmas,’ using their opponents’ native tongues. In fact, at the very onset of the meeting, it was very questionable whether or not the two sides would be able to manage any kind of temporary ceasefire.
The three minority members, hunkered down within their own ranks, made it clear peace was not going to come from a complete capitulation to the powerful political machinery of the majority. During approval of the meeting’s agenda, they insisted a change be made. The three of them--members Oswald, Welty and Johnston--had requested an agenda item to hold a meeting with Many Rivers Montessori. The Montessori school has made three offers on properties vacated by the Red Plan, and had requested a meeting with the Board to discuss the offers.
The minority members had requested an agenda item, which they intended to lead to a meeting with the Montessori school. They wanted a resolution--which, in effect, gave the majority the ability to vote down the meeting--deleted.
Member Oswald began: “I’d like to make a motion to amend the agenda, for the resolution pertaining to the item we placed on the agenda.”
A procedural debate ensued: “My only concern,” Chair Harala responded, “is since we don’t have all Board members present, we’re not actually able to change the agenda. So, we’ll have to wait to have it changed, to the discussion…”
“Wouldn’t the unanimous approval of the agenda be determined at the time of the vote, by those (members) present at the meeting?” Member Welty asked.
Chair Harala responded that the wording of policy was meant “to ensure that all members--if they were to miss a meeting--that they wouldn’t have something voted on in their absence. That’s what I understand that piece of the policy to be.”
Member Welty expressed his “doubts,” adding, “I will say, just in passing, that should that be the case, that’s disappointing because I can’t imagine somebody making a point of not being at a meeting to prevent a change (in the agenda,) but that would be unfortunate (if it were to happen.) Not the case here, I’m sure, but--”
“Member Welty, I wouldn’t even go there--” Chair Harala warned her colleague about making any reference to the fact that one Board member--Nora Sandstad--was absent.
The whole matter was thrown to administration, to clarify. While the audience waited, the district’s Director of Business Services, Bill Hanson, and the secretarial staff scrolled busily through the Board’s policies on the computer. Several points about this debate (including the one raised by member Welty) are very important for the public to be aware of, but I’ll wait until the Business Committee Report to lay them out. For now, I’ll just say that the minority won the argument and were able to proceed. Member Oswald again began:
“I was one of three Board members who used current policy 203.5 to add an agenda item to our monthly discussion. What I signed was presented in the media accurately many days before the agenda-setting session was to take place. It was supposed to reflect three Board members responding to Many Rivers Montessori’s request to meet and discuss why they should not be viewed as competition to our school system. The item I was part of requesting was an informational item meant to learn about Many Rivers and ask questions--a transparent, public conversation, as required by the (Board’s) Code of Ethics Policy, which says that school district business must be legally transacted only in an open meeting with the school board.”
Member Oswald went on to describe that what happened, in her opinion, came a bit shy of living up to the Code: “What appears in this month’s agenda is far from our signed, written request. Chair Harala knew what was happening with the agenda before she left town for her two-week vacation out of the country. She emailed me and my colleagues from the plane before takeoff. Members Kirby and Loeffler-Kemp made sure Chair Harala’s interpretation of what was going to happen with our request. (It) came to fruition at the closed agenda session meeting the following week. Mr. Hanson (the district’s Director of Business Services) was instructed by the agenda-setting participants to write a resolution to be voted on, counter to our requests--to prevent our conversation from happening. Despite an email from me the Friday before our Monday Business Committee meeting--expressing my dissatisfaction with the resolution and the agenda item contained in the agenda--I was hoping this misinterpretation would be corrected at the Business Committee meeting…”
Member Oswald divulged to the audience how her hopes were dashed: “I showed up (to find) our agenda-item unchanged and a firm unwillingness to even acknowledge that perhaps we did have a miscommunication on the item. Chair Harala openly admitted to rejecting three separate offers for (district) property, as a single representative of the school board, in media reports. I fully recognize she most likely believes she was acting with authority, based on perceptions of previous Board decisions about Board policy related to not selling to other educational institutions…I sincerely hope that Chair Harala can recognize that my understanding is quite different from hers. I’ve repeatedly said the school board voted on a resolution specific to selling to Tischer Creek Building Company for Edison school, and I never voted on a blanket statement to reject all (other) offers, based on that one vote. I believe the Chair has acted without transparency and without communicating effectively with the rest of the Board…I must insist that the full school board be informed…In no case should we ever have to find out we had offers (on property,) from the media, and that our Chair withheld that information from us…”
Member Kirby responded from the majority: “While I appreciate member Oswald’s concern, I think that the ability of any member to talk with (Many Rivers) Montessori is there. We don’t need to have an entire school board to do it. She--any of us--are able to talk to them and get the information that she wants. I think that the policy--or the resolution, as written--was how it was interpreted by many of us. And I must say I was not aware of Montessori’s offer, either. I mean, it was not just her (member Oswald); I didn’t (know) either. And I think that’s the way the procedure goes. We have a policy that says that we--at this point, it’s still in effect; it’s never been changed--that we will not sell to other school districts. So that’s all I have to say.”
Member Welty had a few words to say, however: “I beg to differ with member Kirby. It is true: any of us could speak to the Montessori school’s representatives any time we want to, just as we could--and some of us did--with the people from the Tischer Creek organization that put a bid in on the Central high school. But this is a deliberative body, and an opportunity for the public to find out. What goes on should take place in a public meeting--not a series of private meetings. And I heartily agree with member Oswald. It should have been painfully clear--but apparently wasn’t--that we simply wanted to add an agenda item.”
Mr. Welty admitted the minority members may have used ‘infelicitous’ language in the wording of their agenda request, which he further described as “not entirely satisfactory language.” Yet, he went on to argue: “There was very little doubt that the three of us wanted to place this item on the agenda, and instead of talking about parliamentary procedure--or what our policy is or is not--we could have had a conversation with Many Rivers, and probably made a decision now (during this meeting.) And I must say that where infelicitous language is concerned, the resolution that member Oswald wants to delete is particularly infelicitous and unsatisfactory…because it is worded in such a way that four members of the school board…could deny three people from having their (agenda) item discussed…”
One very good thing about the majority’s resolution is that I now know how to spell ‘infelicitous.’
“We’re part of a community. And Many Rivers is part of a community--our community--and they made a formal request to meet with us.” Member Johnston pointed out, using some very good word choices. “Three Board members said, ‘Let’s sit down and talk about it in a public forum.’ That’s all we asked. We weren’t asking about suspending policy…I’d never even heard about Montessori until a month ago. But they are part of our community. So, getting along, and for us as a Board to move forward with a positive step into the future, we should delete this (the majority’s resolution) at this point.”
I know it’s wonky to admit this, but I waited with considerable anticipation to see how this vote would come out. Would the item be deleted, or would a Board brawl ensue? With one majority member absent, I thought the vote would likely end up a 3-3 tie, which would have been a loss for the minority members. On this evening, however, the Board majority displayed a rare capacity to give an inch. The vote was unanimous--6-0--to delete their own resolution!
The issue isn’t settled, though. The minority is almost certain to reintroduce their agenda item with more felicitous language.
 
Onward with the meeting.

The Education Committee Report was largely a benign listing of school activities and grants, and the Board approved it unanimously without comment. Next came the HR Report and another sticky holdover from the Committee meetings: the Superintendent’s contract. HR Committee Chair, David Kirby, dove right into the discussion, before finishing his report:
“Conversations were had between the Superintendent, the Board Chair and the Director of Human Relations, and a draft--in fact, the third draft (of the contract) was presented at the Committee meeting…My personal opinion is that we should accept this contract and I think I’ll tell you why. Although there’s a salary increase, the Superintendent has had none within the past 5 ½ years…At the current time, the Superintendent’s salary ranks 37th in the State, and I think we’re about 20th in size of enrollment…I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the school district, the Superintendent, the community or anyone to go on with this…I personally would like to have this contract agreed to…The feeling of the Board was that it should be tabled until after the (Superintendent’s performance) evaluation, however…and so I think we can do that and get this resolved quite quickly thereafter.”
Friction during the Committee meeting heated up from the fact that a “third draft” of a contract had already been negotiated and written up without the full Board’s knowledge.
More friction is going to heat up over the next few months between the DFL-endorsed majority, which will be pushing to “wrap this up” no later than December and rubber stamp the contract Mr. G. wants; and the minority, who will try to hold off until February or March, until they can get some sense of what kind of deficit the district is looking at in the fiscal ‘18 budget.
A touchy debate is also going to ensue about the length of the contract (the Superintendent wants three years) and those pay raises. Board member Johnston has emailed figures to other Board members, disputing the claim that Mr. G’s compensation is anywhere near as low--comparable to other districts--as his allies are claiming.
 
Business

With the resolution regarding a meeting with Many Rivers Montessori deleted, the Business Committee Report was fairly rote, but not without some notable moments. Member Johnston once again set aside the APU (formerly, WADM) enrollment number for further discussion. For years, Mr. Johnston has doggedly pointed out the dwindling numbers of students attending our sparkling new “21st century” Red Plan facilities. He particularly emphasizes the October numbers, because the disruption of a new school year has generally settled down by October, making an October-to-October comparison between school years a relatively reliable and stable barometer.
“We lost another 117 students from a year ago.” The Lone Ranger grimly informed us. “This is the lowest enrollment number for this month (of October) for…many, many years.”
Readers may not perch with anticipation on the edge of their seats, but I also want to mention that member Oswald raised several questions about deletions and changes in Board transportation policy, near the end of the business report. (There were eight policy changes included in the agenda.) Member O. meticulously parsed details, ranging from “a minor word change in Paragraph B” of policy 707, to catching an incorrect figure for extracurricular bussing in policy 710. This astute representative noticed the mileage figure needed to be changed to reflect recent budget cuts.
“I believe that does have to be adjusted.” CFO Bill Hanson admitted. “I will double-check that, and get the right number in there.”
The reason I found this exchange so pertinent was because of the policy tussle at the beginning at the meeting. When I looked closely at policy 203.5--recently streamlined by Administration--I discovered it had replaced FIVE previous Board policies. The new policy doesn’t include any specific language stating that a simple majority vote is required to amend the agenda. It doesn’t say anything about changing or deleting an agenda item. Nowhere in the policy--nor any other policy--is it clarified whether or not the full Board must be in attendance to delete, add or change an agenda item.
The school board is in desperate need of its own Policy Committee, and I nominate member Oswald as its Chair.

A few more words about the deleted item.

The huge magic trick called the Red Plan was supposed to be “already half paid for” through big efficiency savings, investment of bond proceeds and sales of “excess” property. More than five years after Keith Dixon slipped out the door, the district is still wasting at least $300,000 a year for maintenance and utilities on several of the properties he threw away. By the district’s own conservative estimates, the accumulated loss on the Central campus alone--just for maintenance and utilities--is approaching a million dollars.
Recently it was revealed that Many Rivers Montessori made offers on three of these properties, and that the Chair of the Board--Annie Harala--hid those offers from most of the Board--the governing entity ostensibly responsible for fiscal control of the district.
I walk through the Nettleton campus nearly daily. Someone--assumingly the district--had to haul out a load of trash a few months ago, because the lakeside of the building is transitioning into the neighborhood garbage dump. (More trash is already accumulating.) Last year, big, ugly graffiti scrawls had to be power-washed off the school’s back wall. A number of windows are smashed out and the building is crassly boarded up. Last Spring, district maintenance had to bolt a piece of plywood over a side door, because vandals had been banging against it with rocks and branches, trying to break in.
Nettleton was once a great school with a terrific community outreach. Its bright, spacious classrooms, especially the ones with the lake view, were almost magical learning environments, but the Board majority and the teachers’ union are determined they will never again see students.
This untenable situation with albatross properties is bound to generate a bit more “discussion” in the boardroom, so stay tuned.