Blogging and Property Values

I’ve been told that discussing the tough topics can damage reputations.

While it would be difficult to document, I would suggest that school districts and communities that take on the crucial conversations are more likely to improve over time.

In my opinion, we need to discuss the problems and work to resolve them.  The reputation will follow.

If you are looking to buy a home in a superior public school district, I highly recommend the La Cañada Unified School District in La Cañada Flintridge, California.  (Note, city and school district boundaries are not the same.  For boundaries, check with a local realtor.)

This is a wonderful community with fabulous schools.  Our property values reflect that.

Most importantly, this community is not afraid of open, candid discussion about challenges.

We have many volunteer organizations in this City and region.  Join us in volunteering for a favorite project or cause.

And, please join the conversation.

Nepotism and the School Board

Background:
About five years ago, the daughter of a sitting school board member applied for a position.  I objected on the basis that this was a conflict-of-interest.  There were no rules about hiring family members at the time, and I lost that vote.

The problem:
From my point of view, I don’t want staff in the tough position of accepting or rejecting an application from an immediate family member of a current school board member.

After reviewing the situation, I learned there were no rules against it.  The daughter was determined by staff to be the most qualified in the pool of applicants for a part time position and was hired by a 3:1 vote.  Beattie, Dietel and Tracy in favor, Wilcox (me) dissenting, the “parent” board member didn’t vote.  Before the school year started, the job was funded as a full-time position.  The job was not re-posted and the daughter kept the job.

I felt it was too difficult for staff to be impartial and did not want the suggestion of conflict-of-interest for school board members and jobs under our jurisdiction.  (If a family owns a private business and wants to hire their relatives, I’m fine with that.) The underlying question still remained; did we want to put staff in this position in the future?

After the school board election of 2005, the Board decided to review the by-laws.  Joel Peterson had run on a platform to improve the processes of the Board.  Joel and I agreed to serve on the committee for the revision of the by-laws.  We researched options and suggested updates for many sections of the by-laws.

Nepotism By-law:
We learned that most of the California state law on conflict-of-interest involved contracts.  For example, a school board cannot hire a roofing company owned by a school board member.  That makes sense.  However, there was very little in the California code regarding the hiring of immediate family members of elected officials.

We reviewed nepotism laws in other states.  Based on this review, Joel and I proposed a restriction on interviewing immediate family members of current school board members. This by-law was eventually adopted by a 3:2 vote.  Joel Peterson, Scott Tracy, and Cindy Wilcox (me) voted for the new by-law.  Susan Boyd and the “parent” board member voted against the nepotism by-law.

Two special notes:
The contested employee has turned out to be an asset to our schools.  She was hired under the “old rules” and is still employed.   Her parent is no longer on the School Board.

Through this period, Board Member Scott Tracy had two immediate family members working in public education in Los Angeles County.  They both worked in other districts.  They both had deliberately not applied to the La Cañada Unified School District while Scott Tracy was on the Board.  Prior to any rules, Scott and his family avoided any suggestion of conflict-of-interest.  I applaud them for setting their own standard and living up to it.

Wrap up:
It is unlikely that this particular discussion will be raised again.  However, it does give you insight into how board members vote on a controversial issue.

Peterson and Tracy voted in favor of the nepotism by-law.  Boyd voted against it.  All three are up for re-election.  If you are interested in an explanation for their votes, please talk to them directly.

The Board Agenda: are you welcome?

It is an embarrassment to me to sit on a board with this agenda format, but it is tough to fix things if we don’t talk about them, so here goes.

If you look at a School Board agenda, the title ‘Agenda’ appears in the middle of the page.  after the Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Approval of the Minutes, Reports from Staff and Report from Board President.

You might wonder why the title appears in the middle of the page.

This is my general recollection.  You need to talk to other board members to hear their views.  (Three incumbents running for re-election:  Susan Boyd, Joel Peterson, Scott Tracy; not running now, Jeanne Broberg)

Once in a while, community members attend Board meetings to talk with the board and interact with staff regarding various programs and topics.  By the way, people don’t show up very often to discuss agenda items.

Over the years, parents have offered comments, research and suggested improvements on

• the Gifted and Talented program (GATE)
• the new High School schedule, including the re-arrangement of instructional minutes and enrichment/intervention offerings (STEP schedule)
• designs for remodeling projects, building projects, and the related construction process
• food services, aka cafeterias
• (you get the idea)

This may seem like a long list, but community members with comments are fairly rare.

In summary:
In 2008, under the leadership of then President Susan Boyd, Boyd and three other members of the Board agreed to streamline meetings by delaying community input until the Opportunity for the Public to Address the Board concerning items not on the agenda. (September 30, 2008 meeting, agenda item 1g)

Wait, these reports are on the agenda, right?
Yes, and then again, no.  They now appear before the word ‘Agenda’.  As you recall, ‘Agenda’ appears in the middle of the page, so the Reports are on the ‘not agenda’ part of the agenda.

The Call to Order, Report out of Closed Session, Pledge, and Approval of Minutes are also in this no-man’s land.

By the way, I requested staff have this reviewed by an attorney.  The attorney agreed this agenda format is OK.

One clarifying change was made:
the Opportunity for the Public to Address the Board concerning items not on the agenda has a new title. It is now called Opportunity for the Public to Address the Board concerning items not under Proposed Action and Discussion Items.

Under this new system, let’s say a program coordinator gives a report on the Gifted and Talented program, and there are parents in the room who want to participate in the discussion.  These parents can’t participate until Opportunity to address the board. In the meantime, the staff member gives the report and goes home.  The Board continues to hear reports, maybe a 15 minute update on construction followed by a 30 minute report on standardized tests scores.  Finally, we get to the Opportunity to Address the Board section of the meeting.

Are the parents still in the room?  If yes, they can take three minutes to ask their questions, offer observations and make comments, but the relevant staff member is probably long gone.  Any power point presentation has been shut down, making it almost impossible to refer back to specific slides.  At this point, Board members can acknowledge the input from the parent and that’s about it.  We can’t interact because these comments are on a topic that is not on the ‘Agenda’.

It gets worse, stay with me.
Under this current agenda format, a seated board member can not interact with the staff member during the presentation to any major extent because this item is not on the regular agenda.  (Quick clarifying questions are ok.)

Board members also can not interact with each other to discuss, arrive at conclusions, or give staff direction.  We gave that up for efficiency.  If we want to have a full-up discussion, we have to get the topic re-agendized for a future date as a workshop or as an action item.  That is not always easy or timely.

And for the parents that want to be part of the discussion?
They have to re-arrange their schedules to come back at a different time and date.

Is this efficient?

In my opinion, No!  The staff member was standing there, prepared to answer questions, but the Board and community could not interact.

This agenda modification is not staff’s problem.
With four board members in agreement, the Board did this to itself.

Did I mention I was embarrassed?

The agenda-planning people, including the board president and one rotating board member, are supposed to anticipate board/community interest and move a topic to the action items if they think people will want a discussion.  Those participating in agenda-planning are making an honest attempt to implement according to these guidelines, but no one has ESP.

Why are we putting ourselves through this?  Hard to say.

Yes, sometimes parents come to criticize a program or staff performance.  Yes, it can be uncomfortable.  This is the nature of a school board meeting and the open meeting format.  We are the trustees of a significant public resource and the public has every right to comment.

In many cases, when people have made the effort, we have learned a great deal from our knowledgeable community members.  No surprise there!

We don’t have to agree with everyone, but we need to be more respectful of their time and more courteous, even welcoming, of their comments.

I personally think this agenda format is an insult to an educated, supportive and involved community.

You might wonder if I have been working diligently to fix this agenda.  The answer is no.  While I would like to restore the agenda to a traditional format, I can’t take on everything.

For now, I am trying to stay focused on some of the important issues, like:

• authentic staff evaluation and improvement in instructional quality
• construction schedules and budgets
• the challenging District budget issues

Still, if you care about the agenda and the public’s ability to address the board and staff in a timely, relevant and interactive way, please let board members know.  I will happily support a change back to the traditional format.

Most importantly, we all need to remember, we are the elected public servants and, ultimately,  you own the microphones.