At the January board meeting I filed two complaints, one of which concerned the lack of public notification for the December 16 Facilities Meeting. A quorum of board members was present at that meeting and voted to use some of the "bond surplus" for several projects. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the general public was notified of this meeting which left the board in violation of Oregon's Public Meetings Law. The Polk County Itemizer-Observer also complained about the lack of notification and published an article about its concerns and the district's response in last week's edition. The I-O has proven itself quite capable of defending its own interests in this matter. I am far more concerned with the public's right to know what is going on in our district and how the board is spending our money.
Reproduced above is the response to my complaint from Supt. Hunter. In it he conflates notification of the media with notification of the public. Media and the general public are not the same entities, however, and the Oregon Revised Statutes he cites make that distinction. Moreover, the newspaper that covers local school issues (the I-O) publishes only once per week so, unless the paper is notified well in advance, the public is unlikely to learn of a meeting until after the fact.
My requested remedy was that the district develop better procedures for notifying the public, including posting meetings on the district's website. Previously, the district did two things to notify the public: they sent notice to the newspaper and they posted a written notice on a door - although which door is not exactly clear. So if members of the public were interested in attending board meetings, which they are legally entitled to do, they had to either rely on the newspaper or drive around the district everyday checking doors and looking for announcements. It will take only a minute of two to post meeting notices on the district's website and I am glad that the district will begin doing so more systematically and "conspicuously."
Decisions made by a governing body in violation of the Public Meetings Law are voidable but they can be reinstated in a future, legally noticed, meeting. I'm presuming this is true even when the work authorized by the board at the December 16 meeting has already been completed. I'm not sure what voiding the decision would actually entail in this instance. The statute does suggest that the courts might permanently void any decisions when there has been intentional disregard of the open meetings law or willful misconduct. That does not seem to have occurred in this case but now that the board and district staff have been challenged on this issue we should be able to expect better compliance with the intent of the law in the future.
Reproduced above is the response to my complaint from Supt. Hunter. In it he conflates notification of the media with notification of the public. Media and the general public are not the same entities, however, and the Oregon Revised Statutes he cites make that distinction. Moreover, the newspaper that covers local school issues (the I-O) publishes only once per week so, unless the paper is notified well in advance, the public is unlikely to learn of a meeting until after the fact.
My requested remedy was that the district develop better procedures for notifying the public, including posting meetings on the district's website. Previously, the district did two things to notify the public: they sent notice to the newspaper and they posted a written notice on a door - although which door is not exactly clear. So if members of the public were interested in attending board meetings, which they are legally entitled to do, they had to either rely on the newspaper or drive around the district everyday checking doors and looking for announcements. It will take only a minute of two to post meeting notices on the district's website and I am glad that the district will begin doing so more systematically and "conspicuously."
Decisions made by a governing body in violation of the Public Meetings Law are voidable but they can be reinstated in a future, legally noticed, meeting. I'm presuming this is true even when the work authorized by the board at the December 16 meeting has already been completed. I'm not sure what voiding the decision would actually entail in this instance. The statute does suggest that the courts might permanently void any decisions when there has been intentional disregard of the open meetings law or willful misconduct. That does not seem to have occurred in this case but now that the board and district staff have been challenged on this issue we should be able to expect better compliance with the intent of the law in the future.
This school administration, abetted by its co-dependent Board, continues to become an ever greater object of ridicule and frustration. Their attitude toward the public, who pays their salaries and for whom they work, is condescending if not outright contemptuous.
ReplyDeleteChalk up another example of the pressing need for a Performance Audit of their activities...