Re: Fwd: REVISED: Board of Education Meeting Work Session Monday, August 5 7PM

[David Skolnik]

Arnold  -

What was the revision made since the previous Agenda was posted, on Friday?

It's not a game... I'll tell you (even if you already know).  In response (perhaps) to my email to the Board, on Friday 8/2 (presumably received, despite email problems noted by Wendy), which I subsequently posted to this list on Saturday, the title of the meeting was changed from Regular Board of Education Meeting, to Board of Education Work Session.  There has not, however, been any response to my request that the structure of the proceedings be clearly elucidated, specifically with regard to the opportunity for, and scope of, Public Comment.

While I applaud a renewed commitment to accuracy in communication and process, it points to how truly far we still need to go, in an increasingly short time.

David Skolnik




At 06:45 PM 8/4/2013, Arnold Nager wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Announcements < hasting...@mm.windigicert.com>
Subject: REVISED: Board of Education Meeting Work Session Monday, August 5 7PM
Date: August 4, 2013 3:31:37 PM EDT
To: Hasting...@mm.windigicert.com
Reply-To: hasting...@mm.windigicert.com

This email is being forwarded on from the school mailing list for informational purposes as it represents an issue of potentially broad interest to the community.

Dear Hastings Community,

The Hastings-on-Hudson UFSD has a new website address:  www.hohschools.org.

Please visit us at this address to get up to date news.

Also, there was a slight modification in the agenda for this Monday's meeting. The new agenda is attached for this Board of Education Work Session.

Thank you for your patience as we migrate to a new website and email system

_______________________________________________
You are subscribed to the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Announcements mailing list.

To unsubscribe from this list:
Send an email to Hastingsny_ne...@mm.windigicert.com
You will receive an email with further instructions
to unsubscribe from this mailing list.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6551 - Release Date: 08/04/13

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Wendy pretty well explained this in her email. They're discussing the financing question: whether to raise it all in the bond, or to spend down the capital fund. 

No public comment or discussion. 

Then they go into private to talk about hiring/personnel stuff. 

I can't make it, but I would appreciate someone who does go trying to listen for whether the money used to service the loan comes from the school budget or an additional levy, and whether it counts toward our NY State tax cap. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

---

http://rushkoff.com
http://twitter.com/rushkoff

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I see your points, David, but to me they strike as more "meta" than productive. 

You are correct, as you almost always are, that Roberts Rules and others are being broke on a regular basis, and that due democratic process is often inhibited by both accidental glitches and, perhaps, a lax or biased approach to the implementation of processes. 

But, I am concerned that a continued focus on video, audio, website, and other matters of process actually make matters worse. They are distracting us, and confusing us. We all have so little time, and we are trying desperately to use that time to understand the very core and key points:

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE FIELD

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES

The best thing we can do - even when we see an egregious misuse of the information sphere, even if there is intentional misdirection - is to try to clarify the most basic facts. 

I think a second conversation list, in which we explore and discuss government transparency, might be in order. That way, we can keep this one as tightly focused on getting out correct information. The other list can be for lamenting and complaining about the paucity of information as you and perhaps others see it. Then the conclusions of that list can be sent to this one? 

On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:28 AM, David Skolnik <davids...@optonline.net> wrote:

Douglas,
You are correct.  Wendy did, in fact, address these points in her email to this list, on Sunday afternoon, in font size smaller than in my re-quote below, in blue, which, in contrast to the re-quote of Eileen's earlier email, in black, made it that much easier to miss, but, for the full experience, you need to go back to the original, as none of that shows up in the re-quote in this post.  But on to substance:

Yes, we can acknowledge that technological glitches will happen, and we all regret them.  But some of us regret them more than others.

Wendy's information is inaccurate, or otherwise incomplete, on a number of fronts. She says:

About the board meeting tomorrow night, here’s the e-mail that the village sent out on our behalf on Thursday (since we couldn’t send it ourselves):

except I received three posts from  Outreach Message Hastings-on-Hudson <BLACK...@HASTINGS.K12.NY.US>, on August 1, 2, and 4, in addition to the Villages notices.  What I didn't, and haven't, gotten, to date, was an official notice from the Board, or Outreach, that the BOE is not getting their emails.  When was this known, and how hard would it have been to have the Village, at least, send ANOTHER notice, based upon it's importance to the community? 

she says:

 take a look at the new website, but also know that it’s likely that some of the old content has not been moved over

Indeed, such as at this time, any link to past (even recent past) meeting videos, agendas, or meeting minutes.  Considering how much I am likely to be asked to pay for the information I have already FOIL's (Freedom of Information Law) for information relevant to this whole issue, that 'decision' to eliminate access to information exceeds 'regret'.  Why not just tell me that it will all be attended to, just as soon as we get past this current kerfluffle about Reynolds?

Since the Board's recent reorganization of sub-committees, who is actually responsible for this area of our technology?

She says:

Tomorrow’s meeting is a public work session at which we will discuss just the one financing issue.  Item III on the agenda that was sent out on
Friday should have read “Work Session,” not “Workshop.”  There will not be a public comment, although everyone is welcome to attend.
Wendy

except, there is no provision that I can find, in the newly, and constantly revising policies, that references the concept of 'Work Sessions', or workshops', anything that defines the limitations of public comment at BOE meetings.  I'd like that information, very much.  I'll acknowledge that it exists, if shown, but I've tried, very hard, to find it.

Douglas, given the thrust of your most recent book, you must appreciate the irony of our technological progress coming at the expense of being able to access the past, even the very recent past.

David Skolnik

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I have some information that may be helpful about access to the district website and the board meeting.

We are in the process of changing over out website to www.hohschools.org, which is up and running.  Somehow, as these changeovers go, the link from our old web address to this new one is not working.  We expected the transition to take a couple of days, and obviously that didn’t happen.   We are ALL hoping that this problem is fixed early this week!  

In the meantime, please take a look at the new website, but also know that it’s likely that some of the old content has not been moved over.  Also, if you want to communicate with board members by e-mail, send them to our individual school e-mail addresses, not the general board address, until the problem is ironed out - we’re not getting those general messages.  Believe me, we are extremely frustrated too!

(My italics. ds)

The Board of Education will hold a work session on Monday, August 5 at 7 p.m. in the Russell Lecture Room. At our last regular meeting the Board did reach a consensus on the overall renovation of Reynolds Field, which will include a regulation track and a Geo-turf field. This has not changed. The purpose of the upcoming session is for Board members to discuss some additional details regarding the project financing. We will not be voting on any items on August 5. We anticipate approving the final bond resolution at our Tuesday, August 27 meeting and holding the community vote in the latter part of October.
Tomorrow’s meeting is a public work session at which we will discuss just the one financing issue.  Item III on the agenda that was sent out on Friday should have read “Work Session,” not “Workshop.”  There will not be a public comment, although everyone is welcome to attend. 
Wendy

At 07:08 AM 8/5/2013, Douglas Rushkoff wrote:

Wendy pretty well explained this in her email. They're discussing the financing question: whether to raise it all in the bond, or to spend down the capital fund.

No public comment or discussion.

Then they go into private to talk about hiring/personnel stuff.

I can't make it, but I would appreciate someone who does go trying to listen for whether the money used to service the loan comes from the school budget or an additional levy, and whether it counts toward our NY State tax cap.


On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:48 AM, David Skolnik < davids...@optonline.net> wrote:

Arnold  -

What was the revision made since the previous Agenda was posted, on Friday?

It's not a game... I'll tell you (even if you already know).  In response (perhaps) to my email to the Board, on Friday 8/2 (presumably received, despite email problems noted by Wendy), which I subsequently posted to this list on Saturday, the title of the meeting was changed from Regular Board of Education Meeting, to Board of Education Work Session.  There has not, however, been any response to my request that the structure of the proceedings be clearly elucidated, specifically with regard to the opportunity for, and scope of, Public Comment.

While I applaud a renewed commitment to accuracy in communication and process, it points to how truly far we still need to go, in an increasingly short time.

David Skolnik

[David Skolnik]

[David Skolnik]

Doug,

I confess that I had to start by re-exploring the meaning of 'meta', but, ultimately, it didn't help, since, to argue about whether something is 'meta' is to reinforce that very quality. Quelle irony!  In fact, your re-framing of the issue as 'meta vs productive' is too reductionist, or, if that's not the correct term, too simplistic.  The disservice is the same, in either case.

You are correct, as you almost always are, that Roberts Rules and others are being broke on a regular basis

That was not my point.  For one thing, there is no clear application of Roberts Rules here, as I don't believe there is, in fact, any reference to them in the official Board Policy.   I do, however, find a number of references to  Open Meeting Law.  I am asking by what mechanism the BOE imposes  a restriction on speech at a meeting, the structure or category of which does not seem to be addressed in their Policies. Can you truly be saying that such a question is inappropriate? 

due democratic process is often inhibited by both accidental glitches and, perhaps, a lax or biased approach to the implementation of processes

We're not necessarily talking about 'democratic' process, but certainly some sort of mutually accepted structure.  And, at this point, both 'accidental' and 'intentional'  become subjective functions of interpretation, the expression of which is much more controlled by concerns about libel laws than any mechanisms  imposed by Roberts, or propriety.

a continued focus on video, audio, website, and other matters of process actually make matters worse

And this makes things worse how?  I'm interfering with your reception of unadulterated propaganda?  Do I really have to explain why being able to engage original sources - see/hear what's actually been said, instead of someone's subjective, possibly self-serving summary; or read actual documents is of supreme value?  The document on the new website

7.22.13 Track Location Alternatives http://www.hohschools.org/domain/494

is fairly impressive looking, but functionally meaningless, without the context of the accompanying narrative of the  Master Plan generated by HMH Site & Sports Design, who were employed be the District, at the time, or the interactions between this architect and the committee referenced in another document on the web site:

7.22.13 2008 Field Study Process  http://www.hohschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=2347&dataid=990&FileName=2008 Field Study Process.pdf

We all have so little time, and we are trying desperately to use that time to understand the very core and key points:

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE FIELD
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES

If a subject,(the end result of which  requiring that an action be taken) has a level of complexity that would justifiably take X amount of time to thoroughly comprehend, given good information and effective organizational and learning strategies, then what is the effect of flawed information or reduced time on that outcome?  How do you reduce the input and still have a result which can be claimed to be equally valid?

I think a second conversation list, in which we explore and discuss government transparency, might be in order. That way, we can keep this one as tightly focused on getting out correct information. The other list can be for lamenting and complaining about the paucity of information as you and perhaps others see it. Then the conclusions of that list can be sent to this one?

Rather than take offense at this last thought set, which I otherwise might , I'll attribute it to fatigue.  It reflects a resident degree of disparaging wit that you've been able to keep under control, for the most part. 

I hope that tonight's video is, at the least, adequately recorded and promptly posted.

Sorry to be writing all this on a Monday
David Skolnik

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6552 - Release Date: 08/05/13