TUSD Board President Violated Open Meeting Law on August 8, 2016 . . . Shall We Vote?!?

School boards are governmental bodies.  As such, each school board member should really know, understand, and follow the law.  At least one member of the TUSD School Board--who happens, unfortunately, to be the president--does not seem to know or, at the very least, follow the law.  She is not a lawyer, and legal counsel did not advise her properly (or she failed to ask for legal counsel before exposing herself to legal issues), so . . . there's that.  Still, she has been on the TUSD SB for over a decade, so . . .yeah, there's that too.

So . . . are we ready to drop the excuses?  I sure am.  To that end, for educational purposes, here is a brief overview of some pertinent law.

A.R.S. § 38-431.09(A) asserts: ". . . any uncertainty under the Open Meeting Law should be resolved in favor of openness in government. Any question whether the Open Meeting Law applies to a certain public body likewise should be resolved in favor of applying the law."

The AZ Open Meeting Law Handbook § 7.5.2, Circumvention of the Open Meeting Law, advises: ". . . .  Public officials should refrain from any activities that may undermine public confidence in the public decision making process established in the Open Meeting Law, including actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from public view."

And last, for now, Handbook § 7.7.7, Calls to the Public, makes clear:  "In 2000, the Legislature clarified the limitations on open calls to the public during public meetings. . . .  Members of the public body may not discuss or take action on matters raised during the call to the public that are not specifically identified on the agenda."

There was a great deal of uncertainty regarding the requirement that speakers during Call to the Audience state their address.  Legal counsel told the TUSD SB specifically--two times in the course of two consecutive weeks--that it is not necessary for speakers to state their address under AZ statute.  Yet the confusion persists.  Open meeting law makes clear that all uncertainty should be clarified in the name of increased openness.  Instead, however, the TUSD SB president had a man removed from the TUSD SB meeting; she was snarky and overly defensive, and she silenced another board member who might have injected some logic into the evening.  In so doing, she undermined public confidence in the public decision-making process.

Last, the TUSD SB was not permitted to take action against the speaker, nor was it permitted to act on the matter of whether speakers should state their addresses before speaking in front of the TUSD SB.  The matter was not specifically identified on the agenda.  Was ejecting a person from an open public meeting "taking action on a matter"?  I think so.

The TUSD SB has lost the community's respect.  It has now begun to lose its legal moorings as well.

But the TUSD SB still has authority.  And the only way that we, the public, can take back control of our schools is by breaking up the TUSD majority and replacing them with independent, disciplined, critical thinkers this November.  So . . . shall we vote?

The Trifold in Progress...Getting Ready to Start the Race Soon!

No more excuses, TUSD

Judge Bury asserted in U.S. v. TUSD (Mar. 8, 2016): “Again, TUSD’s analysis ignores the most important marketing tool for any school: academic achievement. The Court notes that where TUSD operates A-schools, students attend, including students outside that school's district and even from outside of TUSD. Sabino High School draws approximately 53% of its students from outside the school's attendance area, and approximately 30 students enter as 9^th graders from outside TUSD. See also University High School and Dodge Middle School.”

The court's statement serves to destroy any excuses that TUSD leaders are just innocent victims of all the students that are leaving the district.  If TUSD leaders focused on raising student achievement district-wide (not in certain schools, as they do now), more students would enter the district in search of a high quality education.  Fewer students would leave in search of that same high quality education.

Systematic Decision-Making

Leaders should employ a decision making framework, a system for making decisions.  For a school board, improving student achievement is the priority.  As such, before making any decision, school board members should systematically address the question: How will this decision help to improve student achievement? 

Before acting (according to the article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/03/28/6-tips-for-making-better-decisions/#2e1996509f54), leaders should conduct a situation analysis; the decision should be subject to public scrutiny; there should be a cost-benefit analysis, a risk/reward assessment, an integrity analysis, and a timeliness assessment; and, perhaps most importantly, leaders should have a back-up plan. 

In a school district, when leaders fail to make systematic decisions that improve achievement, based on sound data and analyses, students suffer.  According to the many people I have spoken to on the streets of Tucson as I collect signatures to get my name on the November ballot, not all students in TUSD are suffering.  But many are.  And every student counts. 

My conclusion?  TUSD’s leaders need to employ a healthier decision-making framework.  They should start by establishing a decision-making system for themselves: collect data, analyze it, share the results, and use feedback to improve.  They could also follow the recommendations Texas consultants and others have provided to them at their behest.  Just sayin’ ;)