A superintendent and his board chair steadily lose support on the board and in the community.
They threaten an outspoken opponent privately. He takes it public and it blows up in their faces.
In the annual election of officers, they lose control of the board. They latch on to sunshine laws as an excuse to derail the process...supremely ironic in itself...
...except the laws don't actually say that...
...and nobody the sunshine laws are meant to protect has complained...
...and the election was conducted following policy and laws to the letter.
So finally, they produce an undated, unsigned "complaint" from the loser of the election, only after the superintendent has tried to get the school lawyer to say the election was invalid and is presented instead with a weak response that to be "conservative" maybe something should be done, but only if someone complains...
...but damn...nobody else has complained! How embarrassing!
To add to the problem, there's the inconvenient fact that there is no process allowed in the policy manual to remove a chair you absolutely cannot imagine working with until your retirement.
Still, where's a lawyer who will say the original election was invalid? Trouble is, boards all over the state elect officers the same way and nobody has EVER complained. What to do?
...suggest if there's any question there will be nobody to sign bonds!...and conveniently sidestep the fact that the only question that has been raised has come from you...then have the old chair who clearly can't win step aside and run someone else you can tolerate.
...and after you vote again with signed ballots? Oops, the only people interested in who voted for the upstart turns out to be the old chair and the superintendent. How inconvenient and messy! The reporters just go home.
But it worked!...or did it?
You can tell it must finally unravel when outrage turns to laughter or mockery. There is no good defense against laughter, and it has never been more justified.
02 August 2010
You have two choices...
This was a posting on the Parents United for Responsible Education web site (linked above):
Arne the Horrible?
I used to read Old Norse sagas when I was in graduate school, and one of my favorite quotes from the old Viking marauders was, "You have one of two choices," which usually meant that you either surrendered immediately or you got cloven in two with a great big sword (which usually had a name like "The Biter").
Well, we may have to begin calling Fed Ed Head Duncan "Arne the Horrible" - he seems to be giving us only one of two choices.
Either we accept his privatization plans with more charters and testing, or we get stuck with the "status quo."
This sounds so much like the choices Paul Vallas gave us: social promotion or retention, standardized test or "no accountability."
If these guys are so smart, why can't they think of more than two things? How about three choices, guys? How about your idea, the old way, and something that might actually work?
Arne the Horrible?
I used to read Old Norse sagas when I was in graduate school, and one of my favorite quotes from the old Viking marauders was, "You have one of two choices," which usually meant that you either surrendered immediately or you got cloven in two with a great big sword (which usually had a name like "The Biter").
Well, we may have to begin calling Fed Ed Head Duncan "Arne the Horrible" - he seems to be giving us only one of two choices.
Either we accept his privatization plans with more charters and testing, or we get stuck with the "status quo."
This sounds so much like the choices Paul Vallas gave us: social promotion or retention, standardized test or "no accountability."
If these guys are so smart, why can't they think of more than two things? How about three choices, guys? How about your idea, the old way, and something that might actually work?
Parent involvement...
This is quoted from the document linked above (click on the title):
"It is not enough to 'welcome input' from parents, or to invite parents to the table to help choose from a predetermined list of options for their schools. We want to help create a new vision for our schools."
"It is not enough to 'welcome input' from parents, or to invite parents to the table to help choose from a predetermined list of options for their schools. We want to help create a new vision for our schools."
letter to Quenten...
Here is the letter I wrote to Quenten July 31 and copied to the entire Board and the Irregular:
OK, Quenten. That was fun while it lasted, but back to reality:
You claimed last week you were responding to a complaint from Mike. This week your task is to prove that what you did July 29 was legal.
You did not find a lawyer who would say the original vote was invalid. You have not produced a law stating written ballots for officers are illegal under sunshine laws...admittedly a gray area in existing law which has never been tested but cannot be written by school lawyers on the fly. All you have is our policy in effect which we followed to the letter July 15 and the inconvenient fact that we have no policy for the removal of a sitting chair after an election at our first meeting in July. That's the bottom line. We can do no more than follow the letter of the law as it stood on July 15, which we indeed did...that is until July 29.
I did not resign and still have not resigned. I do not intend to do so as long as I am in good health.
You suggested there was some shadowy financial reason we needed another vote, but that did not rise to the level of law, and certainly has had no effect on all the other districts in the state that follow this same voting policy. Your communications with Drummond Woodsum laid out a course of action we could take to be "conservative," but they did not address the thorny issue that a different voting outcome from the original could not be endorsed under our existing policy. The original vote was, after all, legal by all accounts, and that history cannot be rewritten for convenience...or to be "conservative." Your charge was to remove any doubt that we were in compliance with sunshine laws.
The burden of proof now is upon you to show that Judy could replace me as chair where there is no such provision in either our policy or Maine law.
I'm sure Judy would make a fine chair. In fact, I nominated her and she declined that first night because of her frequent absences...but, the Board elected another chair that night, and that person is still chair until you prove otherwise.
Until you can get a definitive answer to this question---one that could stand up in court, as it may well have to---I suggest Judy run meetings with her title undefined and you schedule meetings only when she will be present. There will be no more need for meeting theatrics until this is settled since Judy is either chair or vice chair under either outcome and thus legal for running meetings. If she has to do that all year, so be it.
I can be patient, but I cannot stand by while you create new laws, new interpretations, and new Board policy to suit each purpose. The Board is bound by laws which are changed only by legislatures and courts, and if you wish to change Board policies, there is a procedure for that, too. Our laws and policies July 15 were clear and were not changed July 29.
--apm
OK, Quenten. That was fun while it lasted, but back to reality:
You claimed last week you were responding to a complaint from Mike. This week your task is to prove that what you did July 29 was legal.
You did not find a lawyer who would say the original vote was invalid. You have not produced a law stating written ballots for officers are illegal under sunshine laws...admittedly a gray area in existing law which has never been tested but cannot be written by school lawyers on the fly. All you have is our policy in effect which we followed to the letter July 15 and the inconvenient fact that we have no policy for the removal of a sitting chair after an election at our first meeting in July. That's the bottom line. We can do no more than follow the letter of the law as it stood on July 15, which we indeed did...that is until July 29.
I did not resign and still have not resigned. I do not intend to do so as long as I am in good health.
You suggested there was some shadowy financial reason we needed another vote, but that did not rise to the level of law, and certainly has had no effect on all the other districts in the state that follow this same voting policy. Your communications with Drummond Woodsum laid out a course of action we could take to be "conservative," but they did not address the thorny issue that a different voting outcome from the original could not be endorsed under our existing policy. The original vote was, after all, legal by all accounts, and that history cannot be rewritten for convenience...or to be "conservative." Your charge was to remove any doubt that we were in compliance with sunshine laws.
The burden of proof now is upon you to show that Judy could replace me as chair where there is no such provision in either our policy or Maine law.
I'm sure Judy would make a fine chair. In fact, I nominated her and she declined that first night because of her frequent absences...but, the Board elected another chair that night, and that person is still chair until you prove otherwise.
Until you can get a definitive answer to this question---one that could stand up in court, as it may well have to---I suggest Judy run meetings with her title undefined and you schedule meetings only when she will be present. There will be no more need for meeting theatrics until this is settled since Judy is either chair or vice chair under either outcome and thus legal for running meetings. If she has to do that all year, so be it.
I can be patient, but I cannot stand by while you create new laws, new interpretations, and new Board policy to suit each purpose. The Board is bound by laws which are changed only by legislatures and courts, and if you wish to change Board policies, there is a procedure for that, too. Our laws and policies July 15 were clear and were not changed July 29.
--apm
Communications with lawyers...
I've copied below the complete set of communications with school lawyers which Quenten shared with the Board, plus Mike's complaint in its entirety. Nothing else was given to the Board.
Here's Quenten's original query to the lawyer on the morning of July 16, the day after my election as chair:
************************
Bruce
The school board has a policy that says they will use a written ballot to elect officers if there are two or more nominees. We used a written ballot last night to elect a chairperson. There have been articles in the Lewiston Sun that this may not be legal. Is it? If not do we need to do anything about it at this point.
The policy is attached.
Quenten
************************
...the response July 20:
Quenten,
We have given school boards the opinion that officer elections, like any other action, must be done in public. Your policy provides for written ballots, although it does not explicitly call for “secret” ballots. If you have the ballots and the identity of the members casting each ballot, you could simply make that vote public by including the tally in the minutes. If not, the conservative thing to do would be to vote again, in public, at the next meeting. Alternatively, you could do nothing and wait and see if anyone challenges it. I know that as a matter of practice, a number of boards use secret ballots to elect officers, and nobody challenges the practice. Of course, the Lewiston Sun may change that.
Bruce
******************************
On the morning of July 22:
Bruce
The person who was chairman last year is challenging the election results. He also contends that the entire meeting was invalid and we need to revote every action that the board took during the last meeting.
So the questions are:
1. Do we really need to revote every action?
2. If we need to hold a revote do we follow the usual procedure where I open the meeting and chair it until a chairman is elected?
3. Do we need to re-elect the vice chairperson who was elected by a show of hands?
4 Or, does the vice chairperson chair the meeting until a chairman is elected?
Quenten
*********************
This was "Mike's" entire complaint. The note was not signed or dated. The name was typed in, as below.
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Gerald Pond Jr., would like to officially contest the Maine School Administrative District #58 vote for School Board Chair held at Mt. Abram High School on July 15, 2010.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gerald Pond Jr.
*************************
At 2 pm on the 29th:
Attached is the letter from Drummond Woodsum regarding the election of a chairperson. In order to comply with the Policy and the law you should vote by written ballot but the ballots should be signed so that your votes are not secret. You may want to consider changing the policy as a written ballot that is not secret does not seem useful. If there is no objection Judy should open the meeting.
Quenten
----- Original Message -----
Attached is a letter to you from Peter Felmly. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.
Paige Folsom
Legal Assistant to E. William Stockmeyer, Daniel J. Rose and Peter C. Felmly
DrummondWoodsum
...
July 29, 2010
Via Electronic and U.S. Mail
Quenten K. Clark Superintendent of Schools
M.S.A.D. No. 58 1401 Rangeley Road
Phillips, ME 04966
Dear Superintendent Clark:
I am writing in response to your inquiry concerning whether the school board must revisit each of the votes taken during the July 15, 2010 board meeting because the board chairperson was elected by a secret, written ballot. In addition, you requested some guidance on who should preside over the meeting scheduled for this evening until the board elects a new chairperson.
I understand that, on July 15, 2010, the school board met to elect officers and subsequently conducted a typical school board meeting. During the public meeting, the school board initially elected (by a 5-4 vote) a chairperson by secret ballot and then elected a vice chairperson by a show of hands. This latter vote was unanimous. Thereafter, the board proceeded to hear a number of reports from administrators and to address the action items on the agenda, which had been prepared in advance of the meeting. The action items included (a) approval of the minutes of an earlier board meeting; (b) approval of student handbooks for the high school and elementary school; (c) authorizing the Superintendent to arrange a short-term borrowing of up to $1 million; (d) approval of the Superintendent’s nomination for a special education teacher; and (e) conducting an executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. §405 (6)(A) to evaluate your performance as Superintendent.
Initially, it is my understanding that Bruce Smith previously recommended to you that the conservative approach would be to have a second election for the chairperson position. For the reasons you and Bruce discussed, we would recommend that the new election be conducted in public session, and not by secret ballot.
Although we believe that the board should conduct a new election of the chairperson, we do not believe it is necessary to revisit all of the subsequent votes. There is no reason an election of the chair by secret ballot would invalidate subsequent votes by the board. As reflected in the board minutes from the July 15 meeting, the votes were unanimous were not shielded from public scrutiny. It is therefore our opinion that the board does not need to take another vote on any matter other than the selection of board chair. Although the vote to authorize a short-term borrowing was proper, please note that state law requires that a properly elected chairperson must sign any bonds or notes issued in connection with such borrowing. Thus, the chairperson elected at tonight’s public meeting should be the one to sign any documents in connection with the short-term borrowing.
Finally, with respect to the process for this evening’s meeting, we would recommend that the vice chairperson conduct the meeting until a new board chairperson is elected.
I hope that the above has been responsive to your inquiry. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, Peter C. Felmly
Here's Quenten's original query to the lawyer on the morning of July 16, the day after my election as chair:
************************
Bruce
The school board has a policy that says they will use a written ballot to elect officers if there are two or more nominees. We used a written ballot last night to elect a chairperson. There have been articles in the Lewiston Sun that this may not be legal. Is it? If not do we need to do anything about it at this point.
The policy is attached.
Quenten
************************
...the response July 20:
Quenten,
We have given school boards the opinion that officer elections, like any other action, must be done in public. Your policy provides for written ballots, although it does not explicitly call for “secret” ballots. If you have the ballots and the identity of the members casting each ballot, you could simply make that vote public by including the tally in the minutes. If not, the conservative thing to do would be to vote again, in public, at the next meeting. Alternatively, you could do nothing and wait and see if anyone challenges it. I know that as a matter of practice, a number of boards use secret ballots to elect officers, and nobody challenges the practice. Of course, the Lewiston Sun may change that.
Bruce
******************************
On the morning of July 22:
Bruce
The person who was chairman last year is challenging the election results. He also contends that the entire meeting was invalid and we need to revote every action that the board took during the last meeting.
So the questions are:
1. Do we really need to revote every action?
2. If we need to hold a revote do we follow the usual procedure where I open the meeting and chair it until a chairman is elected?
3. Do we need to re-elect the vice chairperson who was elected by a show of hands?
4 Or, does the vice chairperson chair the meeting until a chairman is elected?
Quenten
*********************
This was "Mike's" entire complaint. The note was not signed or dated. The name was typed in, as below.
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Gerald Pond Jr., would like to officially contest the Maine School Administrative District #58 vote for School Board Chair held at Mt. Abram High School on July 15, 2010.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gerald Pond Jr.
*************************
At 2 pm on the 29th:
Attached is the letter from Drummond Woodsum regarding the election of a chairperson. In order to comply with the Policy and the law you should vote by written ballot but the ballots should be signed so that your votes are not secret. You may want to consider changing the policy as a written ballot that is not secret does not seem useful. If there is no objection Judy should open the meeting.
Quenten
----- Original Message -----
Attached is a letter to you from Peter Felmly. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.
Paige Folsom
Legal Assistant to E. William Stockmeyer, Daniel J. Rose and Peter C. Felmly
DrummondWoodsum
...
July 29, 2010
Via Electronic and U.S. Mail
Quenten K. Clark Superintendent of Schools
M.S.A.D. No. 58 1401 Rangeley Road
Phillips, ME 04966
Dear Superintendent Clark:
I am writing in response to your inquiry concerning whether the school board must revisit each of the votes taken during the July 15, 2010 board meeting because the board chairperson was elected by a secret, written ballot. In addition, you requested some guidance on who should preside over the meeting scheduled for this evening until the board elects a new chairperson.
I understand that, on July 15, 2010, the school board met to elect officers and subsequently conducted a typical school board meeting. During the public meeting, the school board initially elected (by a 5-4 vote) a chairperson by secret ballot and then elected a vice chairperson by a show of hands. This latter vote was unanimous. Thereafter, the board proceeded to hear a number of reports from administrators and to address the action items on the agenda, which had been prepared in advance of the meeting. The action items included (a) approval of the minutes of an earlier board meeting; (b) approval of student handbooks for the high school and elementary school; (c) authorizing the Superintendent to arrange a short-term borrowing of up to $1 million; (d) approval of the Superintendent’s nomination for a special education teacher; and (e) conducting an executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. §405 (6)(A) to evaluate your performance as Superintendent.
Initially, it is my understanding that Bruce Smith previously recommended to you that the conservative approach would be to have a second election for the chairperson position. For the reasons you and Bruce discussed, we would recommend that the new election be conducted in public session, and not by secret ballot.
Although we believe that the board should conduct a new election of the chairperson, we do not believe it is necessary to revisit all of the subsequent votes. There is no reason an election of the chair by secret ballot would invalidate subsequent votes by the board. As reflected in the board minutes from the July 15 meeting, the votes were unanimous were not shielded from public scrutiny. It is therefore our opinion that the board does not need to take another vote on any matter other than the selection of board chair. Although the vote to authorize a short-term borrowing was proper, please note that state law requires that a properly elected chairperson must sign any bonds or notes issued in connection with such borrowing. Thus, the chairperson elected at tonight’s public meeting should be the one to sign any documents in connection with the short-term borrowing.
Finally, with respect to the process for this evening’s meeting, we would recommend that the vice chairperson conduct the meeting until a new board chairperson is elected.
I hope that the above has been responsive to your inquiry. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, Peter C. Felmly
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)