Lies of Omission

Another interesting board meeting this past Monday. Sorry it's taken me so long to get some commentary up on the blog - things are happening now at a rather frantic pace and it's hard to keep up

The highlight of the meeting was the delivery of the community letters of no confidence regarding Hunter's performance as superintendent. He seemed somewhat taken aback - he may have thought we were bluffing or even that things would blow over once the teachers settled their contract. As was stated all along, however, it wasn't just about the teachers but about all of the negative things that have happened in our district.

Once again, the superintendent and board "leadership" have been working overtime to make sure the public is kept in the dark regarding certain issues. Somehow, the most important and potentially controversial documents that they discuss are always left out of the packet of materials provided to the public. The result, as intended, is that we don't know quite what they're talking about.

One very notable example: Last month, the financial audit of the bond noted that four items (out of the 35 sampled by the auditors) lacked the appropriate bid documents. The board asked to know what those were. The public is obviously very interested in knowing too, as evidenced by the repeated calls for a performance audit. The board and the superintendent managed to discuss it on Monday without ever mentioning what those items were or providing the public with the written summary to which they referred.

Another notable example: The board received and approved a proposal for a performance audit. The public was not furnished with a copy of the proposal, however, so it's impossible to tell whether the audit is what was requested. From the discussion it seemed that there was no specific mention in the proposal about including the FF&E purchases. Maybe it's included but, given the number of questions about those purchases and the problems found in the financial audit, this is one part of the bond that deserves special scrutiny. It's also interesting that last month the estimated cost of the performance audit was $30,000 but now that they have an actual proposal the price has dropped to $16,600. As board member Evans pointed out, it is important that the district not accept a partial audit in return for the lower price. What I suspect, however, is that the initial estimate was deliberately inflated by the superintendent as a way of discouraging the board from pursuing it. They did anyway and good for them! Now they need to insure that the audit is a good one and that the superintendent and bond manager not have a hand in limiting its scope. It's particularly important that all expenditures are very carefully examined. Thanks to Wendy for bringing this up at the meeting.

Traci Hamilton lamented the fact that so many people leave the meeting at the conclusion of the business agenda. What she seems to be forgetting, however, is that, with the change in the structure of the meetings, the public is no longer allowed to ask questions or make comments during the "work session." Combined with the lack of printed information about what they are discussing she should be surprised that anyone stays. It seems rather disingenuous to tell the public that their participation is neither desired nor tolerated and then be upset when they decide not to stick around. I'm not even sure why they call the second part of the meeting a "work session." It's not just informational, they can and do take votes and conduct business. Separating the business agenda from the "work session" mostly just seems like another way to cut the public out of the discussion.

In the final comments, Paul Evans encouraged members of the public to volunteer for the budget committee. It's certainly a good way to learn more about the budget but, as he well knows, neither the budget committee nor the board has any real say about how money is spent. The budget committee can vote "Yes" or "No" to send the budget on to the board for approval but they are not allowed to tinker with it. Even the board only gets an "up or down" vote. One of my last acts as a board member two years ago was to vote against the budget for just that reason. There were things left in the budget, like special benefits for administrators, that I felt were inappropriate during a severe recession when instruction was being cut. So I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from serving on the budget committee but don't go into it thinking you have any control over how money will be allocated.

Nor should we expect to receive any information about proposed cuts. Other districts, most notably Dallas, have been holding meetings at which public input is solicited regarding possible budget cuts. Last year our superintendent put together a "tiered cut" list (proposed cuts based on the different potential shortfalls) but he then refused to share it with anyone. Not even board members were permitted to retain a copy. This leaves everyone - staff, parents, students - in a perpetual state of anxiety and dread. All school districts are facing similar budgetary constraints but some try to bring the various stakeholders into the the conversation while others, like Central, exclude stakeholders and add to their sense of powerlessness.

At the conclusion of the meeting the board went into executive session and then came back out to take action to approve a special services contract. They refused to say who the contract was for or what their duties would be and directed that all inquiries be made to their attorney. Something's up - but what?