Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Think long and hard about Polk
Multimedia
Photo: Polk Elementary Cliff Jette
(Cliff Jette/SourceMedia Group)
(Thursday’s print column, delayed by technical difficulty)
First, some credit where credit is due.
Cedar Rapids Superintendent Dave Benson gave the School Board his recommendations this week for school closures and boundary changes. And I think he deserves praise for his decision to leave Harrison and Madison elementary schools open.
It’s a clear signal that the school district is willing, like the city and many community leaders, to bet on the future of core west-side neighborhoods. Sparing Harrison in particular is a big boost for redevelopment.
Harrison’s fate is the reason I got interested in all this in the first place. But I don’t feel much like celebrating.
Because if you care about kids and education, you should grieve the looming loss of Polk Elementary School.
Polk is in a neighborhood that’s seen better days. Many of its students come from families struggling economically. Nine in 10 kids qualify for free or discounted hot lunch. At-risk, special needs, homeless. If you’ve got a label, Polk’s got the kids.
But instead of all those tough ingredients adding up to low student achievement, Polk excels. Its third grade reading and science proficiency scores whip the district average, and math misses by a hair. Polk’s academic trendlines are headed in the right direction. The school worked its way off the dreaded federal Schools in Need of Assistance list, a fact students and staff celebrated just last month. By all accounts I’ve heard, it’s a special school, successful and beloved.
Now, it’s on the chopping block. I’ve been hard on the school board lately, but I still have hope they’ll think long and hard about this one before a final vote on March 12. Saving $650,000 is swell. But what will we be losing? How much is that worth? Think long and hard.
And if you care about open government, this process should make you uncomfortable.
I’m not suggesting any dark motives or sinister conspiracies. But two decisive stretches of this process — months of stakeholder committee meetings and Benson’s sessions with a panel of external advisers — were closed to the public.
Transparency isn’t all about media relations and colorful placards. It’s about the fundamental ability of citizens to witness the deliberations, discussions and debates that lead to important public policy decisions. Without that ability, misunderstanding and misinformation fill the vacuum.
I’m troubled that any superintendents in Iowa can appoint large committees to tackle major public issues with no legal obligation to allow the public to watch. Anyone who moves to plug that loophole would deserve a great deal of credit.
Todd, I am not sure you have that right.
I don’t know if those meetings were “closed to the public”. Rather, they did not announce the meetings in a public way. The district has a slew of work committees designed to gather data and map out various options. They seldom announce the agendas or schedules for them. This is SOP for most committee work. Since this was only one, albeit the first, step in its decision making process, with public input slated for later, it seems like a logical manner to proceed.
If a citizen wanted to watch one in action I think all one would need to do is contact the district (But, I would think the district would certainly be in their rights to limit participation at said meeting).
The superintendent appointed a 20-plus member stakeholder committee to make recommendations on school closures and boundary changes. It met from August through December and all of its meetings were closed to the public. It wasn’t a matter of no notice or asking to attend. They were closed. I asked to attend the final meeting and was denied access. The superintendent also appointed a nine-member panel of community leaders to come up with closure and boundary recommendations, also behind closed doors. The recommendations now being considered by the school board came from those two committees, but the public was not allowed to watch either deliberate. These weren’t just steps in the decision making process. This was the decision making process. And this was no ordinary decision. I’m not saying the public had no chance to provide input. I’m saying they were not allowed to watch key decisions being made.
There was an opportunity for folks to have their input. They were the community forums held on the 2nd and 9th of February. But these “public forums” were no more than mingle and talk sessions. I went to one. Never has achievement or need been broached in these decisions among the board. I have never heard acknowledgment that Polk is a very successful school. Because if the board and superintendent were to admit that they were closing one of the 3 (yes, only 3!) Non-federally substandard schools in the city, they would certainly catch hell for being non- educationally minded. Since No Child Left Behind has been enforced, we (being a school employee) have all had those standards hammered into our heads. We have all heard the speeches and gotten the emails about closing the achievement gap and making our kids learn better. And we did that at Polk. Now, it doesn’t suit the interest of the school board and that isn’t important. So not only are these people making uninformed decisions about the fate of schools without even visiting them, they don’t even acknowledge that these kids did as they were told. Succeeded.
On another note, did you know that NONE of the people on that committee had any ties to any of the schools that were on the chopping block for the last 6 months? There was no voice for Polk, Monroe, Harrison or Madison. No one to raise their hand and say, “Wait a minute. Why does our successful school mean LESS to this district that the school down the street that is struggling to meet its reading proficiency?” After all, isn’t the job of this school district and the superintendent to protect the best interests of their children?
I don’t think people on the committee should have ties to the school as that creates a bias opinion. You want objective thought on these committees, not heartfelt opinions.
Mmmmm, that is interesting.
It appears to be a violation of Iowa’s Open Meeting laws if I read the attorney general’s opinion correctly:
“OPEN MEETINGS LAW – IOWA CODE CHAPTER 21
Julie F. Pottorff, Deputy Attorney General
August 15, 2011
chapter 99F. Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(g) (2011).
8. An advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues. Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(h) (2011).
Advisory Bodies – Advisory bodies created by school boards and county boards of supervisors to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues are included within the definition of governmental bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law, despite the phrase “created by executive order of a
political subdivision.” The term “executive order” confines the authority to create advisory committees to those elected entities with final executive authority for the political subdivision, rather than restricting the manner in which such advisory committees are created. 1994 Op.Att’y.Gen. 59(L).”
This was opined in 1994, and reiterated by the AG’s office in 2011. Seems the district’s legal counsel missed it?? or am I missing something?
Unfortunately, the current legal interpretation of that section does not cover advisory panels appointed by superintendents. Panels appointed by school boards, mayors and governors must be open. For some reason, superintendents’ committees are an exception. Here’s Superintendent Dave Benson’s rationale for closing the stakeholder meetings, sent to our editorial board back in December:
“The District Enrollment Study Committee is an administrative committee appointed by the Superintendent not by the Board. It is responsible to and directed by the Superintendent. The recommendations of the committee go to the Superintendent for consideration as part of my study of enrollment and boundaries. The committee membership does not include any Board members. The Open Meeting Law applies to governmental bodies, and this committee is not a governmental body. As part of an effort to be transparent, minutes of the committee’s work have been posted on the District web site. Further, this structure is consistent with past administrative practices including the previous Enrollment and Boundary Committee that met pre-flood in 2008. A list of Board appointed committees is available on the District web site.”
Still doesn’t sound right. If it is the case of the superintendent acting as the designee of the board, then it would seem he is bound by the rules of the board.
If he is NOT acting as a designee of the board, and we agree he is part of a government body, then it would appear that he is bound by code 21.5 which delineates the events that can have a closed meeting.
In either case it would fall under the guidelines for a mandatory open meeting.
The fact that the district has done it before (“…this structure is consistent with past administrative practices…”) does not make an illegal act legal.
I have filed a complaint with the Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman. I have cited your response in this forum. Maybe they can give me a specific court case that explains the superintendent’s response…. or maybe he was wrong.