The SDUHSD Board met on March 31 for our second and final Governance Workshop.
The objective of these workshops was for the Board Trustees to identify and agree on practices and procedures to run the district in a fair, efficient, and effective manner, primarily focusing on Board meeting procedures. These practices would then be detailed in a “Governance Handbook” that we would all sign and pledge to follow. That was the stated objective before the first meeting.
At the first Workshop in January, we agreed and voted unanimously on a few protocols. One of the most important votes determined that requested agenda items would be added to the official board meeting agenda for one of the next two regularly scheduled Board meetings. This ensures that all items of interest will be heard by the Board in a timely manner. This has been the procedure we have followed since that January meeting.
By contrast, this last Governance Workshop was a disappointment. The only items we were able to agree were trivial or well understood, such as reminding Board Members that when they speak, they speak for themselves and cannot say they speak for the Board unless authorized to do so.
In addition, the format of the meeting was changed without notice so that rather than acting through a unanimous consensus, the Board voted on rules supported by only a majority of trustees rather than all five. We will not have a Governance Handbook that we all agree to, defeating the whole purpose of a Governance Handbook.
In addition, a board majority (three trustees) voted to not only take away our prior agreement to add requested agenda items to a future board agenda in a timely manner, but passed several new rules that are problematic. Let me provide a few examples.
Eliminated the Right to Add an Item to the Board Agenda
Our existing governance procedures state that any Board Trustee or member of the public can request that an item for potential action by the Board be added to the agenda of an upcoming Board Meeting, and that the Board President would ensure that it was added to the agenda for one of the next two regularly scheduled Board Meetings. This ensures that all items of interest will be heard by the Board in a timely manner and could be voted on if the Board chose to do so.
At this governance meeting the Board voted to remove that right, and instead adopted a new rule that only requires that the requested agenda item be added to the agenda of a future Board Meeting as a discussion item only. This is an important distinction. The Board is only allowed to govern the District by a vote of the majority of the Board, and votes are only allowed to be taken by the Board on items that have been put on a meeting agenda and clearly labeled as an item where the Board might take a vote. An item labeled for discussion only cannot be voted upon during the meeting, by California law.
As a result of this change, the right of a Board Trustee or member of the public to place an item on a future board agenda for potential action has been removed.
Trustee Jane Lea Smith stated “A majority of the Board will decide whether an item will be brought back for action. For me, I think that is appropriate. It keeps us focused.”
Trustee Katrina Young stated, “I do like (that it takes three board members to put an action item on the agenda) because it subscribes to the whole board acting as one unit versus individual actions.”
Trustee Viskanta, who sponsored this proposed rule change, stated “I fully support the ability for every Trustee to bring things forward for discussion. For action, it has to be a majority of the Board, because we go as a group, and we need to run our Board meetings efficiently.”
Trustee Phan Andersen and I did our best to make the counter arguments, but in the end the proposal passed, and it is in the draft of the new Governance Handbook.
Eliminated the Requirement to Call a Vote on a Motion Put Before the Board
Our existing governance practice and protocols require that the Board vote on a valid motion brought forward by a Trustee that obtained a “second” by a different Trustee. In other words, if two Trustees want to vote on something, then a vote will be taken. Of course, the vote may or may not pass, but a vote will be taken on the record.
This process caused an issue at a prior board meeting when some board members did not want to vote on a proposal. At that meeting, while discussing bathroom safety, there was a motion before the Board to evaluate providing additional adult supervision near the bathrooms. Rather than vote on that, President Viskanta made a “substitute motion” that the Board defer the item to staff, and this motion passed by a vote of 3-2. This allowed the Board to avoid a vote on the original motion on additional supervision.
When I pointed out that we should not be afraid of voting on proposals sponsored by at least two Trustees (voting on them doesn’t ensure they will pass since it takes three votes to take any action), President Viskanta stated that she did not want to see any proposed action items on the agenda or put to a vote unless they had been approved by staff in advance. Another trustee stated that they thought a proposal should be withdrawn if the sponsor didn’t think it was going to pass with at least three votes. I asked how a Trustee would know if it was going to pass or not before a vote was taken, but I did not receive an answer.
The Board voted 3-2 (with Trustee Anderson and I voting no) to adopt new rules that allow votes to be skipped if not supported by at least three Trustees.
Board Members are Prohibited from Initiating Communication with any Teacher or Staff Member (other than the Superintendent), either in person or over email.
Trustees Viskanta, Young, and Smith voted to require that individual trustees direct questions only to the Superintendent. Trustees are expressly prohibited from asking any teacher or staff member any questions. Trustee Viskanta specifically asked that any staff member who received a question or inquiry from a Board Member not answer the Trustee, and instead immediately notify the Superintendent. I believe this is a gross violation of free speech rights.
Aside from First Amendment issues, this is a terribly inefficient way to have a discussion. It adds to the work burden of the Superintendent to be in the middle of every interaction. The cycle time is also slowed way down. It is hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone through a third party.
Additionally, this process could prevent Trustees from obtaining information that the Trustee felt they needed to do their job and make informed decisions.
Of course the superintendent should be kept in the loop and know what conversations are happening (as is the current practice), but as of now, elected trustees are FORBIDDEN to ask a question of any employee except the Superintendent.
Requests for Information Require a Board Vote
The board majority proposed that all Trustee requests for information are subject to approval by a majority of the Board. In other words, if a Board Trustee would like to know the employee compensation for last year and the employee compensation proposed for this year to analyze the financial impact on the District and employees of a proposed pay increase, the majority of the Board retains the right to approve or deny that information.
Trustee Andersen objected strenuously. “Why can’t a Trustee ask for the information they need?...Why should you get to dictate the questions I want to ask?...This is communistic!”
Our Board Consultant, Mr. Jim Huge, tried to bring some rationality to this discussion, pointing out the obvious. “It is the staff’s job to get you what you need”, he said. “As a Board Member, you have the right to any information you want.” And, “There may be times when a request is time consuming, and then you should have a conversation with the superintendent, who can provide a time estimate. Having a conversation is critical.”
Our Board Majority ignored the objections of Mr. Huge, Trustee Anderson, and me, deciding that Trustees are to only communicate with Superintendent, no one else, and that the Board majority reserves the right to determine if a request for information isn’t worth the effort.
Using the previous example of requesting data from the Superintendent on employee compensation, with this new protocol, here’s one possible scenario of how this could play out. Please stay with me on this explanation!
I ask the Superintendent to ask the relevant staff member for the data. If the Superintendent says no for any reason, my next step would be to ask that this request be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting (possibly a month away). Then the President would decide on whether it would be placed on the agenda for an action item for a vote by the board or as a discussion only item. If the President denies placing this on the agenda for action, but I still ask that this item be placed for discussion only, the board majority could request (through a sense of the board—not a vote) that it be placed on the agenda at a future board meeting (possibly another month after that) for action. Or the majority could deny my request. If a majority request that this item be placed on the agenda at a future meeting as an action item, the President is not required to honor the board’s request, as it was not voted on. In any case, the decision could be finalized months after I make the request. (See the flow chart.)
Banning the Use of Technology
Trustee Katrina Young was adamant that we ban the use of all communication technology during our Board meetings. No texting and no emails. She stated that she wants us all to “be present” and avoid multi-tasking. She added, “We take away the cell phones of our middle schoolers during school, and that works well!”
Trustee Andersen immediately replied, “We aren’t middle schoolers. This is so much restriction. We should respect that people are responsible.”
Summary
This meeting was meant to present and unanimously agree on rules of how we run our Board. In our committee work, Trustee Smith and I worked approximately 30 hours each, consulted with our legal counsel, and reached compromises on several points. Most of the 60 hours’ work, plus legal fees, were tossed aside. I was hopeful that we could negotiate reasonable and rational outcomes. Instead, the Board provided us a classic example of the “The Tyranny of the Majority”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
I fear that much of the Board’s actions at this meeting were inappropriate, unenforceable, or worse. None of it will help improve student math scores, prepare students for college, keep our campuses clean and safe, or improve the physical plants of our schools.