Tuesday Update - Behind Closed Doors

[State High Vision]

Tuesday Update

May 8, 2007

 

Between now and the primary election NEXT TUESDAY, we will provide the list serv with additional updates on the high school project and our questions about the way the current SCASD school board conducts their business.  Please contact us if you don’t want the daily updates through this week or if you would like to be removed from the LIST SERV. 

 

We encourage all citizens to express your right to vote on May 15, 2007.

 

CNET School Board Meetings

 

We urge you to watch the replay of last night’s school board meeting on CNET this week (schedule has not been posted as yet).  Students from the high school attended and expressed their frustration at not being heard after last week's protest.  The district approved the budget with a 3.4% increase (opting not to use the exceptions that they requested) for a total operating budget of $103 million. 

 

Bids on the high school project will be open today at 1:30 at Fairmount Ave. School auditorium if you would like to attend.

 

Please also note during the “high school facilities” discussion, SCAHS senior Andy Colwell showed amazing poise in his presentation to the board, asking them how they came to the decision that SHV had directed the protest when the board had yet to speak with either the kids or their parents.  He was more professional and courteous than board member Donna Queeney who rudely cut him off and essentially told him that election business was not appropriate for a school board business meeting.  It was a caustic and unnecessary  admonishment of a student who was trying to be heard.

 

Transparency in Government?

 

Throughout the debate on the high school project and through this election process, we have raised concerns about “behind closed door decision making” by this board.  We have heard references to the Sunshine Act.  What does this mean and what are the complaints about this board in reference to the public’s right to know what governmental officials are doing and deciding?  Below is a description from the Pa Department of Education

 

www.pde.state.pa.us/schoolfinance101/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=77283

 

WHAT IS THE SUNSHINE ACT?

With some exceptions, the Sunshine Act requires public agencies to take official actions and conduct deliberations leading to those actions at public meetings.  Like any law, the terms and applications of the Sunshine Act are subject to judicial or court interpretation.  The general principles are: School boards are agencies covered by the law School board meetings must have a quorum (at least five members) in order to conduct official business.  Therefore, a meeting with fewer than five members cannot result in any official action. Meetings where there is a discussion of district business, even if no vote takes place, must be open to the public The law does not cover administrative actions.  For example, if the superintendent meets with staff to review budget items, it is administrative in nature and not a policy action.  It is not subject to the Act.

DOES EVERYTHING NEED TO BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC? Certain issues may be discussed in executive session (closed to the public), but the vote on these issues must be done in public.  Issues eligible for executive session are: Personal matter Collective bargaining strategy Purchase or lease of real estate Legal matters (such as lawsuits)

In addition to the central theme that policy decisions and debate must be done at public meetings, other provisions of the law state that: All the meetings must be publicly advertised except for emergency meetings There must be written minutes of all meetings The public has the right to bring and use recording devices (subject to reasonable rules of the board) There must be a reasonable opportunity for the public to give comment

If anyone believes there has been a violation of the Act, the individual may seek a remedy within 30 days at his or her county court.  (Issues relating to state agencies are taken to Commonwealth Court.)

The court has the power to set aside any action taken by the board in violation of that Act.  For example, if for some reason a contract was approved at a meeting that was not advertised, the Court could set aside or cancel the contract.  The school board could subsequently reenter into the contract, but only at a new public meeting held in conformance with the Act.

A violation of the Sunshine Act is considered a summary offense and can result in fines.

 

What about the Sunshine Act and the State College Area School District? 

 

Our concerns about the Sunshine Act and the SCASD have involved “executive sessions” where the board meets without the public included and with the SCASD Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings.  The district uses local experts on CACs to make recommendations to district policy.  At times, they have leaned heavily on the CAC for recommendations for policy and procedures and for decisions in the district.  For example, the board just applauded the CAC-Athletics recommendation to replace the turf on the South Track Field and accepted this recommendation.  Another example has been the CAC for finance who has formally presented recommendations on district financial business and investment practices at board meetings.

 

The issue of the Sunshine Act has become a problem for the board for several reasons including questions about the involvement of the CAC for Facilities in the MEGA SCHOOL decision.  The CAC/Facilities studied the 2 building renovation plan for 4 years and made recommendations to the board on that plan.  It wasn’t until AFTER THE BOARD ABANDONED THE 2 BUILDING PLAN and ADOPTED THE MEGA SCHOOL PLAN did the CAC/Facilities get a chance to weigh in on it.   The CAC for facilities – the district’s own “experts” – were never charged to look at a MEGA SCHOOL PLAN!!!  The board was first presented the Mega School plan by their paid consultants on April 11, 2005 and approved it as the favored option only 28 days later on May 9, 2005.  One of the CAC/Facilities members told SHV “we read about it in the paper just like the rest of the community!”  How can this school board, none of whom have experience in engineering or architecture/design, omit their own experts from the decision making process to then rely on those PAID consultants who would benefit from the expansion of the MEGA SCHOOL? 

 

The board has repeatedly been asked “does the CAC/Facilities support this plan?”   They refuse to answer.  We have asked to see the minutes from the CAC meetings.  The board said NO.  Finally, after much frustration, 2 local citizens asked a court to look at this decision.  Using their own resources and serving as their own legal counsel, the citizens bravely took on the SCASD in a fight to ask for open government in the SCASD.  In the end, Judge Brown told the district that they LEGALLY did not have to open the meetings but suggested that it would be a move toward goodness to do so.  Members of the CAC/Facilities have recently resigned.

 

Why won’t the board open the CAC meetings?  They say that it will stifle brainstorming for the people on the committee and that people won’t feel free to discuss ideas.  They suggest that citizens won’t want to be involved if they know they are under the public eye.   How then did the recent ACT 1 Committee have so many applicants, meet publicly and make successful recommendations?  If we follow this logic, we might ask HOW DOES THE BOARD MEET OPENLY, BRAINSTORM and COME TO GOOD DECISIONS IN A PUBLIC SETTING? 

 

The purpose of open government is to insure public input, openness, honesty and integrity and to let the democratic process work.  We have a right to open records, accessibility to information and to participate in our government. 

 

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” Thomas Jefferson