"It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect. On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be, if that indeed wasn't where he isn't. Even if he wasn't at where I knew he was."
Remember that part in the Shrek movie where Pinochio tries to tell a lie without really telling a lie? It's funny when a cartoon puppet does it. When the largest employer in the city of Pasco with the fate of 17,000 students in their hands, it's not nearly as funny. In fact it's tragic, and frankly it's illegal.
When our Founding Fathers envisioned a government for the people and by the people, they knew the natural tendencies of men (and women) to wield control would be one of the prevalent threats to this new ideal. Our government enlists several checks and balances to ensure that the people are informed and have a say in decisions impacting them.
The Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), is how Washington state safeguards against elected officials making decisions without public input or knowledge. Part of this law deals with executive sessions, or meetings that bodies of government, like a school board, are allowed to have in private. There are a limited number of reasons allowed for a council to meet in executive session and only a few apply to a school board. The purpose of executive sessions is to protect the people the executives represent. For example, if the school board was looking at purchasing a piece of property, the highest amount they were willing to pay could be discussed in an executive meeting. Otherwise, the entity selling the land would know for how much to hold out for, thus costing the tax payers more money. This is what the executive session was created for. What is was not created for, and what the OPMA specifically guards against, is public entities hiding questionable actions from the public.
From the time Superintendent Hill made her intentions to retire to the board to the time a deputy superintendent was appointed, the Pasco School Board met in fourteen executive sessions. Each of these executive meetings was denoted by the code RCW 42.30.110 (g) which states:
Nancy Krier, state assistant attorney general on open government, stated in an interview with the Tri City Herald that, "not making those decisions during public meetings could open the district up to legal action." She further explained "that discussing the qualifications of individual candidates is allowed in closed executive sessions. But discussions about how a school district or public agency plans to go about hiring for a position must be conducted in public. There should be some discussion in public of that policy."
During executive sessions the board made several decisions including:
Remember that part in the Shrek movie where Pinochio tries to tell a lie without really telling a lie? It's funny when a cartoon puppet does it. When the largest employer in the city of Pasco with the fate of 17,000 students in their hands, it's not nearly as funny. In fact it's tragic, and frankly it's illegal.
When our Founding Fathers envisioned a government for the people and by the people, they knew the natural tendencies of men (and women) to wield control would be one of the prevalent threats to this new ideal. Our government enlists several checks and balances to ensure that the people are informed and have a say in decisions impacting them.
The Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), is how Washington state safeguards against elected officials making decisions without public input or knowledge. Part of this law deals with executive sessions, or meetings that bodies of government, like a school board, are allowed to have in private. There are a limited number of reasons allowed for a council to meet in executive session and only a few apply to a school board. The purpose of executive sessions is to protect the people the executives represent. For example, if the school board was looking at purchasing a piece of property, the highest amount they were willing to pay could be discussed in an executive meeting. Otherwise, the entity selling the land would know for how much to hold out for, thus costing the tax payers more money. This is what the executive session was created for. What is was not created for, and what the OPMA specifically guards against, is public entities hiding questionable actions from the public.
From the time Superintendent Hill made her intentions to retire to the board to the time a deputy superintendent was appointed, the Pasco School Board met in fourteen executive sessions. Each of these executive meetings was denoted by the code RCW 42.30.110 (g) which states:
To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;This provision in the law means that boards may meet in executive session when discussing qualifications of a specific applicant. However, under the direction of President Ryan Brault, with the guidance of the district's legal council, Ms. Thornton, the Pasco School Board interpreted this very loosely and held all superintendent search related discussions in closed door meetings. Board minutes show that the superintendent search was never discussed publicly.
Nancy Krier, state assistant attorney general on open government, stated in an interview with the Tri City Herald that, "not making those decisions during public meetings could open the district up to legal action." She further explained "that discussing the qualifications of individual candidates is allowed in closed executive sessions. But discussions about how a school district or public agency plans to go about hiring for a position must be conducted in public. There should be some discussion in public of that policy."
During executive sessions the board made several decisions including:
- voting 3-2 to look for candidates outside the district
- hiring a consultant
- deciding on a year long training period for the new superintendent under the current superintendent's supervision
- making decisions about the hiring procedure, ie: meet and greet, focus group, online survey, etc.
- coming to a consensus on the candidate chosen
Ryan Brault demonstrated that he does not posses knowledge of OPMA laws or an understanding of open government when he told the Tri City Herald that, "he could not immediately recall what Goeke (the superintendent search consultant hired by the board) was paid but it was below the amount set by state law that requires approval in a public meeting." Mr. Brault must not understand that the dollar amount someone was paid is not an issue with Open Public Meeting laws. The problem lies in that a decision was made in private.
Another section of OPMA states that "before convening in executive session, the presiding officer of a governing body shall publicly announce the purpose for excluding the public from the meeting place." Most organizations will list a specific reason on their agenda. In the past, Pasco has only listed the RCW code.
However, even this practice has recently changed. On April 14th the Pasco School Board met in executive session. Concerns by the public were raised because the agenda stated Ms. Thornton would be meeting with the board. Because the reason for the meeting was RCW 42.30.110(g) it was suspected the superintendent decision was to be discussed and some people were concerned that since Ms. Thornton had been attending almost all of these executive meetings she may be swaying the board's decision. The board was questioned about this and after the regular public meeting Ryan Brault announced the board would be meeting in executive session under RCW 42.30.110(g). Ms. Cloud quickly and hastily corrected him and said it would be (i). RCW 42.30.110(i) states:
Since this incident, PSD has ceased altogether to include the code that would give the public a clue as to what the executive meetings are about on their agendas.
To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
This subsection (1)(i) does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present.This means that a board may meet in executive session with an attorney to discuss sensitive litigation matters that could cause harm if discussed publicly. Note that the provision specifically states that merely having an attorney present is not reason for an executive session. However, once again the board interpreted this broadly and used it so to have Ms. Thornton, who is an attorney as well as an assistant superintendent, attend this meeting. It is hard to believe this meeting was solely to discuss litigation against the district but as it was an executive meeting, no public record of the contents will ever be available.Two days later the board announced the superintendent decision.
Since this incident, PSD has ceased altogether to include the code that would give the public a clue as to what the executive meetings are about on their agendas.
The school board continues to meet in frequent executive sessions. In fact, there have been executive sessions after virtually every single board meeting since the decision. It is clear they have not learned they must discuss things in open meetings, even if they know their decision will be unpopular. When asked, they believe that their actions were legal and honest and that they still have confidence in the legal council Ms. Thornton gives, even though the Attorney General's office has weighed in on the matter indicating otherwise.
This isn't just a matter of opinion, this is a matter of law. PSD is breaking it.
*Update for August 12, 2015: It appears as though our objections may finally have had a small effect on the school board as, during the board meeting of August 11, 2015, the RCW codes were once again included in board minutes. However, only the legal codes were mentioned in this meeting and listed on the agenda, the board and district still failed to provide the specific reasons for this meeting to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment