The Carbondale Observer

I encourage interested readers to click over to school board member Amy Erickson’s blog (link) and take a look at the proposed transparency policy. I’ll quote from Erickson’s post:

Please review some of the proposed ideas or policy statements from that meeting below.

1. The public needs to turn in a request to address the Board in person to the Superintendent’s office 24-48 hours prior to a General School Board meeting.
2. Community may comment after opening the meeting and before the close (in General or Committee Mtg.)
3. The minutes should only contain pertinent information such as required in the OMA.
4. A draft of the minutes can be prepared and placed online 7 days in advance for review
5. Anyone can suggest the minutes to be amended
6. The meetings may be videotaped and broadcasted

Most of this seems okay, but there are two exceptions. If I read this correctly, point number one would require community members to submit a form in advance in order to speak at a school board meeting. To me, this seems designed to discourage public comment, rather than to encourage it. Citizen’s comments are taken at city council meetings with no advance notice, so why should notice be required for the public to comment at school board meetings?

If I read number two correctly, citizens would be allowed to comment at the beginning and end of meetings, which is good, but I see no mention of comment on particular agenda items. I’ll again refer to the practice used at city council meetings. Citizens are allowed to comment on each agenda item before a vote is taken. I’ll again ask, why should school board meetings be different?

I encourage the board to create a policy that encourages participation from the community. The board doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel – it can simply follow the example set by the city government. Unless the board can offer a compelling reason to limit public comment, they shouldn’t do it. If they can offer a compelling reason to limit comment, I’m eager to hear it.

The board meets tonight at 5:30 p.m. at the CES Administrative Office on Giant City Road, and the meeting is open to the public.

Again, I encourage readers to click here to read Erickson’s entire post. 

Comments are welcome.

Last week I wrote a post criticizing comments made at the April 28 District 95 school board meeting and I want to follow up with a transcript of those comments. The transcript is within the text of a letter to the District 95 school board from attorney Richard Fedder, who is assisting newly elected board member Amy Erickson. The entire text of the letter is below the asterisks.

You can also click here to view the letter as a pdf.

Last week’s post attracted several comments and I suspect this post will attract a few as well. So far, there have been no problems, but I know people can get passionate about schools, so I want to remind everyone of the comment policy. I will delete comments that are hateful or libelous. Hateful means racist, sexist, heterosexist/homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Libel is a little more nebulous, but you can click here for some guidance.

I believe in free speech and I use a light touch with comments. The best idea is to follow the example I’ve set in the posts. I make it a point to assume that people are smart and well meaning. I sometimes criticize ideas or behavior but I do not question or criticize character. I encourage others to do the same in their comments. As I said above, so far all the comments have been fine.

I’ll add one more thing. If the District 95 school board or any member of it wants to offer a response to Fedder’s letter, send it to me and I’ll post it. Of course, you can also leave your response in the comments.

Here is the full text of the letter:   Read the rest of this entry »

Before I began this post I knew it would be one of the most difficult I’ve written. It’s difficult because I don’t have much background knowledge on the school districts. I’ve followed the city council for over ten years, but I haven’t paid much attention to the school districts until recently. I’m going to do the best I can on this post because the school boards are important and they don’t get much coverage in the old media.

When people talk about the obstacles to Carbondale’s growth, there are a few items that are frequently mentioned. There is the claim that Carbondale is unfriendly to business, the perception that crime is high in Carbondale, the fact that taxes are higher in Jackson County than in Williamson. There is also another problem: the schools in Carbondale – especially the elementary schools –  don’t perform as well as the rural school and the schools in surrounding towns.

District 95 first attracted my attention back in March when the city was considering providing funding for a summer reading and math program at the district. Although I didn’t cover it on the blog, I also noticed that there was an active campaign for a seat on the District 95 school district. More recently, I heard about some disparaging remarks made by an incumbent board member to newly elected member Amy Erickson at the April 28 meeting. And last week, a letter appeared in the Carbondale Times criticizing some of the board’s incumbents for their behavior at that meeting.

I learned last month that the disparaging remarks made at the April 28 school board meeting were not included in the minutes of that meeting. I decided to attend the June 23 meeting. It wasn’t as eventful as the last two meetings, but there was some controversy over the minutes of the May meeting. I’m still learning about this issue, but I want to offer some preliminary comments.

First, it’s important for public bodies to keep accurate records of their proceedings. When one official publicly berates another official, that behavior should be part of the record.

Second, public officials must respect the outcome of elections. Even when their preferred candidates aren’t elected, public officials have a duty to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I’ve seen a transcript of the remarks made at the April 28 meeting, and they aren’t kind. It isn’t appropriate for public officials to behave that way toward one another. I’m not going to publish the transcript today, but I may post it in the future.

Third, all units of government, from Congress to the school board, should operate in the sunshine. There can be no accountability without transparency. I’m not alleging that the school board has violated the law; they haven’t. I have no information that would suggest that the school board has failed to publish the dates and times of its meetings or that the board hasn’t allowed the public to attend.

But sometimes it isn’t enough to do the minimum. It’s time for the school board to televise its meetings on channel 16. The city council and various city boards and commissions televise their meetings. District 95 should follow that example. Televising the meetings would enlarge the audience and it might encourage better behavior by the board members.

I’m going to continue to monitor District 95, and I’m going to continue to learn about the relevant issues. I expect to write more about this in the future.

Comments are welcome.

The Carbondale City Council passed the controversial District 95 summer reading and math program on a 4-3 vote at Tuesday’s meeting. Outgoing Mayor Brad Cole voted for the program, along with council members Steven Haynes, Michael Neill, and Corene McDaniel. Mayor-elect Joel Fritzler opposed the program along with council members Mary Pohlmann and Chris Wissmann. This was the expected outcome.

The citizen’s comments were interrupted by a tornado warning that forced the council and the public to the basement, then cut short when the meeting resumed. That’s probably for the best, as they were beginning to get ugly. There has been a passionate debate around this issue. Both sides have expressed their views. Now the issue is settled and we should move forward.

The council comments featured farewell speeches from Mary Pohlmann, Michael Neill, Joel Fritzler, and Brad Cole. All of them were pretty good. The city posts audio of city council meetings here. They should be available in a few days, and they are worth a listen.

I watched from home on Channel 16 but unfortunately I missed the consent agenda.

Comments are welcome.

The Carbondale Times is reporting on next week’s budget vote, which is expected to include a vote on the controversial District 95 summer reading and math program. I find this especially interesting because I expect the current council to approve the funds, but I think the council that will take office in May would reject the program. Here’s what I wrote earlier this month:

Councilwoman Mary Pohlmann said if the District 95 program is in the final budget, she’ll vote against it. Councilman and mayoral candidate Joel Fritzler also expressed opposition. Councilwoman Corene McDaniel pledged her support for the program, and Mayor Brad Cole said someone has to step in and do something about the schools.

That’s two in favor and two opposed. Councilmen Neill and Wissmann didn’t say definitively whether or not they will support the program. Councilman and mayoral candidate Steven Haynes didn’t stake out a firm position either.

I expect some version of this to pass. Wissmann may have tipped his hand when he pointed out that this program would cost $150,000 in FY ’12, just .375% of Carbondale’s $40 million FY ’12 budget. If Wissmann is in, the proposal only needs the support of one more council member.

We’ll see what happens, but I still think Wissmann will support the funding. I’m betting Haynes will support it too. In his race for the mayor’s office, Haynes supported continuing the city’s support for community organization. During his two terms on the city council, Haynes frequently took the lead in defending the Eurma C. Hayes Child Care Center. Supporting the District 95 funding would be consistent with Haynes’s past actions.

What if I’m right about Haynes and wrong about Wissmann, or vice versa? That would make Michael Neill tie breaker. Neill was appointed last year to replace Lance Jack. I have no idea how Neill will vote on this. He was on the council for a few years in the late nineties and early aughts, but I don’t remember him very well.

As I recall, Neill usually voted with then Mayor Dillard and then councilman Cole. They formed a majority because the council had only 5 members then. If my admittedly spotty memory is accurate, and if past actions are a reliable indicator of future behavior, I’d expect Neill to vote with Cole for the District 95 funds.

Last month I described myself as agnostic on the funding issue, but I’ve turned against it. The winning mayoral candidate (Fritzler) and two of the winning council candidates (Adams and Monty) are on record opposing the funds. That’s three members of the new council. Since there will only be six council members until Joel Fritzler’s vacant council seat is filled, the measure wouldn’t pass a vote in May. The lame duck city council should not commit future councils to funding this program.

I do think it’s worthwhile for the city to work with the school districts. Right or wrong, the perception of poor performance in District 95 drives some potential residents to other districts outside the city. Carbondale’s municipal government has access to sales tax money and District 95 doesn’t. If the district and the city can work together to design a full time mandatory program that would last most of the summer, why shouldn’t the city kick in some funds?

The problem is that too little is known about the current program, and what is known isn’t good. The program currently under consideration would last only one month, would only offer half-days, and would be voluntary. It seems hastily designed, and there is no escape clause. The council should refuse funding for the District 95 program on Tuesday. The new city council would be free to work with District 95 and city staff to develop a better program and consider funding it in FY13.

I’ll just add that one of the many disadvantages with segregating each government function into separate units of government is that it makes it difficult to achieve a unified, comprehensive approach to the city’s problems. We should seek more communication and cooperation between local units of government. Ideally we’d roll all these functions into the municipal government, but that’s a different post.

Comments are welcome.

Carbondale’s proposed agreement to fund a voluntary summer reading and math program at District 95 was the big issue at Tuesday’s city council meeting. During a public hearing on the city’s FY ’12 budget, one resident spoke in favor of the program. Five residents, including three city council candidates, spoke against the city funding the program.

I’m coming late to this controversy. The people opposed to the plan seem to share a number of objections: we shouldn’t give Carbondale’s tax money to another taxing district, education isn’t the city’s responsibility, there is no way to terminate the five year program early, there are no clear standards for evaluating success, and the program is voluntary (potentially missing the most at risk children).

Supporters say the poor performance of District 95 is an obstacle to bringing new residents to town, that the schools need help and the city has a responsibility to act, and that the city established a precedent for assisting school districts when it helped to finance the construction of the new high school. Supporters also point to the small cost of the program relative to the city’s Saluki Way donation ($750k over five years vs. $20 million over twenty years).

After the public meeting ended, council members spoke. Councilwoman Mary Pohlmann said if the District 95 program is in the final budget, she’ll vote against it. Councilman and mayoral candidate Joel Fritzler also expressed opposition. Councilwoman Corene McDaniel pledged her support for the program, and Mayor Brad Cole said someone has to step in and do something about the schools.

That’s two in favor and two opposed. Councilmen Neill and Wissmann didn’t say definitively whether or not they will support the program. Councilman and mayoral candidate Steven Haynes didn’t stake out a firm position either.

I expect some version of this to pass. Wissmann may have tipped his hand when he pointed out that this program would cost $150,000 in FY ’12, just .375% of Carbondale’s $40 million FY ’12 budget. If Wissmann is in, the proposal only needs the support of one more council member. Haynes will feel pressure from the black community to support the program. Even if Haynes doesn’t support is, I suspect Neill will vote with Cole.

Should the program receive the funds? I’m agnostic on the issue. I think the opponents raise some valid concerns. Some, like the lack of an escape clause or clear standards of measurement can be remedied. Others, like the idea that the city shouldn’t give money to another taxing body, cannot be overcome.

On the other hand, I think the city is trying to solve a problem that has undoubtedly stunted population growth in the city. It may not technically be the city’s responsibility, but the city government is the most competent and professional public organization in the region. If the city doesn’t act, no one will.

Comments are welcome.