Was school board member
Katy McElwee-Stevens
censured because she requested a line-item budget? Perhaps those who believe in the service level matrix will do anything to defend it. Getting nosy and doing your job isn't without risk when you serve on a school board in Minnesota.
South Washington County Schools will soon be asking voters
to fork over $180 million, yet wastes money to have a law firm “investigate” and
strong arm school board members. This is happening in our school district and in Duluth
and Farmington. Censure of school
board members may be at epidemic levels around the state. Take a look at
this article from the
Duluth Lincoln Democrat, the official voice of the Welty for School Board Campaign:
Censure is infectious
January 11th, 2015
Our
Attorney, Kevin Rupp, belongs to a law firm that has become expert in
the sanctioning wayward school board members. They were behind what
ended up being a failed attempt to remove the Farmington board member in
2010 that got Judy Seliga-Punyko so excited as she contemplated
removing Gary Glass.
They’ve
been in the news over the weekend for advising the South Washington
County School Board which just censured one of its own. Here’s one of several summaries in the news.
Unlike
my censure this one involved data relating to an employee. The board
member in question passed on information which she came by in the course
of being around the schools. However, this info was also given to board
members by the attorneys in data private confidence. The majority chose
to believe that this widely rumored private data had come from the
legal counsel. Unlike Art or me the South Washington County Board member
who was censured seems quite stricken and pledges to mend her ways.
As
it happens a Fox News station made a public data request that makes the
whole issue of private data highly suspect because they were given a 99 page file
on the employee whose privacy the Board was intent on preserving. That’s
a third longer than Mary Rice’s report on Art Johnston and the alleged
misdeeds far exceed anything leveled against Art. The actions of this
School Board support my contention that one of the chief functions of
data privacy laws is to cover up misdeeds. The primary protection
accrues to bad guys and bureaucracies that make use of the privacy to
quietly leverage embarrassing information to get rid of bad actors.
Its
clear from the report, should it be true, that few school districts
would want such a fellow to become a principal. But keeping this
damaging information under wraps is almost as good as a positive
reference. This Board member who got the information in an entirely
predictable manner now faces the prospect of removal if she ever lets
any more cats out of the bag. I’m inclined to think this action shameful
rather than think of it as being law abiding. Some laws are very flawed
and so it seems to me is this use of data privacy.
My
offense thus far – the one I was censured for – did not involve any
personnel’s private data. My mistake was to report the sale price of our
District’s Central property which could have put the sale in jeopardy.
Like the South Washington board member I am much abashed – about this
justification for my censure. I feel no shame for handing over our
attorney’s advice on how to deal with Art Johnston which was also among
the reasons the majority of my board voted to censure me. You see we too
have a bad actor. I blame this one for an overzealous campaign to
harass Art Johnston and boy did it ever bear fruit – nine months of hell
to put another notch on Kevin Rupp’s gun belt.
This
explains why I feel no shame for handing over the legal advice relating
to Art to the press. I believe our attorney is actively protecting a
bad penny to help the Board majority remove Art. And now Mr. Rupp may
have an entirely more personal reason for removing my only ally from the
School Board. I’ve made no secret that I believe the new school board
will lean far more closely to my views on the District’s sorry finances
and management. I think Mr. Rupp would love to put his finger into the
Duluth school board election by helping remove a Board member who has
more reason than ever to question our hiring a generously paid character
assassin.
Of
course, that’s not the only service Mr. Rupp has provided our District.
Among his other triumphs is helping negotiate one of the richest
teacher’s contracts in Minnesota. Last year Duluth was about 15th out of
300 school districts in terms of teacher’s salary and that was for one
of the poorest districts in the state. That’s not the best way to go
about hiring more teachers and reduce our horrendous class sizes but it
is a good way to assure teacher burn out.
Should a law firm have the authority to remove wayward board
members who refuse to toe the line?
Fear
of censure or the embarrassment of removal should not be a consequence for
disagreeing with the administration. These political witch-hunts are often
ordered by the s
chool administration and majorities on school boards who wish
to purge
trouble makers.
It is no coincidence that the attorney for the Duluth School District is a partner in the same law firm on contract to represent District 833. How much are taxpayers forking over to this
law firm to censure board members?
Serving on a school board is becoming risky business. It is imperative that school board members be allowed to communicate with their constituents, request information from the administration and voice opinions contrary to the
school board majority. Voters become disenfranchised and the democratic process undermined when
law firms rather than voters control our school districts. Take a look at these articles from the
Star Tribune and
Pioneer Press regarding a Farmington school board member before you decide to throw your hat in the ring and run for
South Washington County School Board.
Farmington school official won't face a felony case
Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN) - Friday, December 31, 2010
Author: SARAH LEMAGIE; STAFF WRITER
The
Dakota County attorney's office will not pursue charges against a
Farmington school board member accused of violating state law, saying
that there's no evidence he committed a felony.
The
school board censured Tim Burke earlier this month after an attorney
for the board said an investigation showed evidence that Burke illegally
disclosed private personnel data and information discussed in closed
board meetings.
The
board asked the county attorney to consider criminal charges against
Burke, but the offenses described in a report on the investigation fall
short of felonies, said Phil Prokopowicz, chief deputy Dakota County
attorney. The county attorney's office doesn't usually prosecute
misdemeanors, so the report was handed off to Farmington's city attorney
this week, Prokopowicz said.
The city attorney could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The
board ordered the investigation after months of mounting tension
between Burke and other members. Several members say that Burke has
persistently bullied district administrators and burdened them with
unnecessary data requests. Burke has said that administrators have
dragged their feet in providing public information.
Burke's
attorney, Fred Finch, said that Burke hasn't broken any laws and that
legal advice given to the school board was based on a "fundamental
misunderstanding" of the state's open meeting and data practices laws.
SARAH LEMAGIE
Edition: METRO
School board tables discussion of budget cuts - But reason for delay unclear; 2 members lack information
St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) - Thursday, January 27, 2011
Farmington
school officials have a plan to close a $1.8 million budget gap for
next school year -- but the school board won't hear it just yet.
At
a meeting earlier this week, four board members voted to take the
budget-cuts proposal off the agenda. Disclosing the reason would violate
data-privacy laws, they said, vowing to inform the other two members
during a later closed session.
"Hopefully,
it doesn't turn out to be anything serious," said board member Brian
Treakle, who moved to delay the budget discussion. "But it's serious
enough that we had to do this."
Board
member Julie Singewald said Wednesday that she remains in the dark and
voiced concern about delaying an important discussion about balancing
the budget.
"I
am frustrated because as board members, we should all have the same
information going into a meeting," said Singewald, who, along with
member Julie McKnight, argued in favor of hearing the budget proposal.
Data-privacy
issues are a sensitive topic in Farmington, where last month the board
voted to censure member Tim Burke for allegedly violating data-privacy
laws by calling out employees publicly. Burke had repeatedly charged
administrators with a lack of transparency.
Three
new members -- Treakle, Tera Lee and Melissa Sauser -- have since
joined the board, changing its dynamic. This week, Burke joined the trio
to vote for pulling the budget discussion.
District
finance director Jeff Priess said he also does not know why the board
wanted to hold off on reviewing his proposal. He said his
recommendations were partly informed by an October report by Madison,
Wis., consulting firm Baker Tilly, which suggested various ways to
reduce district costs by as much as $1.1 million. Those suggestions
included requiring employees to contribute toward their health coverage,
sharing human-resources professionals with neighboring districts and
eliminating the director of administrative services.
Priess said he would not be comfortable discussing the proposal in detail before sharing it with the board.
On
Monday, Treakle made the motion, seconded by Burke, to pull the budget
item from the agenda. Treakle later said he heard about some of the
administration's recommendations last week and made the decision to pull
the item after consulting the Minnesota School Board Association and a
district attorney.
"I
have grave concerns about delaying any potential savings that we have
in this district for reasons that aren't touching our kids," Singewald
said at the meeting, pointing out that the board could hear the
presentation without acting on it that night.
Still,
board members argued for holding off until after a closed session. Lee,
the board chair, said she would schedule such a session shortly.
"Why
this information is being withheld, I don't know," Singewald said in an
interview, adding, "This is coming from people who were touting
transparency in the district."
At
the Monday meeting, Singewald expressed concern that some board members
might be conducting board business outside of scheduled meetings in
violation of Minnesota's open-meeting law. The members who pushed to
delay the budget discussion seemed to have decided on that move
beforehand, she said.
Treakle and Lee strongly denied that suggestion.
"The law does allow people to talk and exchange information," Treakle said, "as long as they are not building consensus."
Edition: Dakota County
Section: Local
Page: B1
Dateline: Farmington
School board members are threatened with censure when they step out of line; but look at what happens when the average citizen wants information. We have submitted multiple
data requests to District 833 and have been asked to pay up to $1,500. What are they trying to hide? Whatever it is, it's more than two stay-at-home moms can afford.
