|
|
| School board comment procedure changed |
|
|
11/21/2014
By Tom Marshall
Senior Advocate writer
The Montgomery County Board of Education tweaked the existing procedure for public comment heading into Tuesday night’s regular meeting.
At a special meeting last Thursday, the board approved changes to the procedure it had been operating under.
The major changes are the creation of two separate public comment periods (one for agenda items, another for other comment) and stricter enforcement of existing rules.
The comment period for agenda items will come toward the beginning of meetings so the board can consider them before taking action.
There was no such period previously.
Another period will be set aside toward the end of meetings for the public to comment on any other item.
The board also directed chair Kenney Gulley to more stringently enforce elements of the existing procedure. That means the three-minute period for individual public comment will be enforced and Gulley can cut off anyone who makes abusive or harassing comments.
Gulley will have the option to grant more than three minutes at his discretion. A total of 15 minutes will be allowed for all public comments.
The board also directed Gulley to not recognize any individual who does not completely fill out the sign-up form without a brief description of what they plan to talk about.
The sign-up form was already in place.
For the past several months the board allowed an open forum to the public in which the time period was not enforced and comments sometimes deteriorated into lengthy remarks concerning superintendent Josh Powell, school employees and the board.
Powell said he was disturbed when a teacher recently told him that she had to get her child away from a meeting before the public comment portion was scheduled because of the public’s conduct.
Powell blamed the problems on “extremist, silly people pushing their agenda against the district.”
He defended the procedure and said the answer is more strictly adhering to it.
Gulley told fellow board members it has been difficult to balance an open dialogue with the public against the sometimes abusive and accusatory remarks being made.
Gulley told the board that he wants to dispel the perception that the board is trying to quash public comment.
He said he could have done a better job in the past controlling meetings.
“Where do you go too far,” Gulley said. “That’s what I have trouble deciding.”
A local parent, Bobby Stinnett, has criticized the board and its procedure several times for what he claims restricts the public’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
Having a policy in place that says “You will not be allowed to make disparaging or critical remarks” shuts down any negativity towards you or the board. It only allows praise,” he wrote in a letter to the editor last week. He has said the board simply cannot enforce a procedure that says you are not allowed to be negative or critical.
“Critical comments or complaints are processed through the district’s complaint procedures, which afford individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process,” the Advocate previously reported the policy notes.
Board attorney Shelly Williams reminded that board meetings are business meetings and not an open forum for the public. She reminded Gulley that he has wide discretion in controlling the tenor of meetings.
“You can’t permit disorder,” Williams told Gulley.
As business meetings, Powell said he elects not to address some members of the public who present false information concerning himself, staff and the board.
In other action the board:
• Voted to accept new guidelines from the Kentucky Dept. of Education concerning the evaluation of the superintendent.
The board had the option of adopting its own system of evaluation, but agreed to follow the KDE recommendation.
• Was presented with a request for a change order for the McNabb Middle School renovation project.
Those involved with the project reported that miscommunication will necessitate additional money needed for drainage.
A full cost estimate was expected at Tuesday’s meeting.
The board also discussed the possibility of including an amphitheater as part of the project and where it might be located.
|
|
|
|
|