Board of Education Members Boycott Special Meeting

Four members of the Board of Education steered clear of a special meeting called for Thursday in order to protest the return of an administrative services consolidation item returned to the table.

Vice President Susan Connolly and Louise Hanrahan were the only members of the seven-person board who arrived for the meeting. Secretary Jason Catala, as well as Barbara Major, Bill Morse, and Ronna Stuller, did not attend. President Alvin Kinsall was also not present, but protesting members said he was not part of the opposition effort against the item.

The agenda for Thusday’s meeting included an item to discuss the board’s 4-3 vote of March 10 to approve a resolution from the City Council to establish a Consolidation of Administrative Services Oversight Board. The meeting was to be followed by a Lighthouse Project workshop, to begin at 7:30 p.m. “or at the conclusion of the special board meeting.”

The meeting included informal discussion with members from the Lighthouse Project, which seeks to train board members to understand the impacts of their decisions on student achievement. However, Connolly and Hanrahan agreed that there was not a quorum, our four-person majority, present and decided to adjourn both the meeting on administration consolidation and the Lighthouse Project workshop. The Lighthouse Project training was moved to the third Thursday of April, while discussion item on the administrative consolidation was adjourned to another special meeting at 5 p.m. on Monday at the .

Major said the four members felt the agenda was not in compliance with Robert’s Rules of Order, since an item can only be brought up for discussion after a vote has been taken if a member who voted in favor of an action wishes to change their vote. She said she felt that Dr. Nicholas Fischer, superintendent of schools, was forcing the issue by returning the matter to the table after getting a legal opinion.

“We’re finding that there’s a pattern of that, and we wanted to send a message,” she said.

Morse said he suggested to Fischer that the attorney’s brief could be included for the record at the regular April meeting. He said the protest was meant to be a show of support for finding savings through the proposed committee.

“I saw no purpose in having a meeting to re-discuss what we had already voted on,” he said.

Stuller said the board was informed Thursday morning that the meeting would still take place after the four members informed Fischer that they would not attend to discuss administrative consolidation a second time.

“The whole thing is very unfortunate,” she said.

In their Feb. 7 meeting, the City Council unanimously referred the consolidated services resolution to the Board of Education. This document describes administrative consolidation as “the most effective way to control costs” and references a 2003 administrative services consolidation study for the city.

The proposed Consolidated Administrative Services Oversight Board would include the superintendent, the city's chief executive, and a member appointed by them, as well as two non-voting members, one from the city and one from school administration, for “each area of consolidated services for which there is a service level agreement.” The oversight board would make recommendations to the City Council and Board of Education on “administrative services that may be consolidated and create service level agreements.”

On March 10, the board took up the question of approving the resolution after Stuller motioned to add an item to adopt it. A motion by Connolly to table it until the April meeting was defeated with the Catala, Major, Morse, and Stuller opposed. Kinsall made a motion to amend the item stating that it would be approved pending an attorney’s review and report back to the board. Kinsall later withdrew the motion. A vote on the main motion passed with Catala, Major, Morse, and Stuller in favor.

Connolly, an attorney, said Morse had requested the resolution be given legal review. However, she disagreed that the attorney's legal advice could be included in information presented to the board.

“I think especially the board member who requested it should be here,” she said. “It’s a mystery to me why they’re not here."

Fischer said the legal question relates to how the item was placed on the agenda as well as the effects of adopting the resolution. Connolly also said in an e-mail that the method of adoption was a matter the board's attorney needed to address.

"The 'boycott' was childish and will not change the fact that there are problems with that vote," she said. "An opportunity to fix those problems was squandered by petty politics and grandstanding."

Hanrahan says she was disappointed that the board could not hold its workshop on the Lighthouse Project.

“I think the Lighthouse Project is important, and hopefully next time they’ll come,” she said. “We need to focus on student achievement.”

Members who did not attend also expressed regret at missing the Lighthouse Project training, but said they were reluctant to attend due to the uncertain start time as well as prior commitments.

“It was something I wanted to attend,” said Stuller. “But because the start time was very indefinite…I did not feel comfortable going.”

Major, Morse, and Stuller said they also do not intend to go to the Monday meeting set to bring the item up again.

“I don’t know why they’re wasting their time,” said Morse. “This is getting on to being ridiculous.”

Catala and Kinsall were not available for comment on Thursday evening.

Correction: The original article said the resolution was on the March 10 agenda. The item was added to the agenda by a motion.