Budget briefing, behind the scenes
I heard a rumor on Monday that the Baltimore school board would be meeting that afternoon for Dr. Alonso to brief members on the budget. When I called the school system and asked (a.) if there was a meeting and (b.) if I could attend, the answer to both questions was no. I was told that the CEO was giving a briefing to board member Kalman "Buzzy" Hettleman, who was heading out of town and will miss the big board meeting next Tuesday where the budget (containing $50 million in cuts and a massive reorganization of the system) is publicly presented.
But as I later found out, there was a period of the briefing when five board members -- a quorum, or majority, of the nine-member body -- were present. Apparently the meeting started with four: Hettleman, Robert Heck, Jerrelle Francois and Maxine Wood. And then George VanHook showed up, making it an official board meeting that should have been posted and open to the public. While the board is permitted to meet in closed session to discuss legal and personnel matters, state law stipulates that policy briefings must be public when a quorum is present. And even for closed session meetings, public notice is supposed to be given (which, in Baltimore, means a notice is taped to the door at North Avenue, so you have to be in the building to know about it).
Janet Johnson, the board executive, said VanHook was only in the room for about 20 minutes on Monday, maybe less. He came late and left early. Another board member present estimated that VanHook stayed closer to an hour.
Johnson said she typically tries to monitor who will be attending board committee meetings, briefings and other gatherings to make sure that a quorum is not present. The board has several three-member committees that meet privately all the time on topics ranging from finance to special education. And this week, Alonso scheduled multiple briefings for board members individually or in small groups, to prepare them for what's coming.
On Monday, Johnson said she was only expecting a few board members for what was billed as a finance committee meeting. (Hettleman chairs the finance committee.) "The third was fine, the fourth was scary, the fifth came in and left," she said.
Turnout was better than she anticipated because board members were so curious about what Alonso had to say, they didn't want to wait until later in the week to be briefed. After last year's fiasco, where the board approved a budget filled with errors and discrepencies, I don't think anyone would argue against strong board involvement in the process this time around.
But the law is still the law.
I asked Jack Schwartz, assistant attorney general with the state's Open Meetings Compliance Board, about what's supposed to happen when a public body inadvertently ends up with a quorum. His response:
"The general rule is that you have to give notice of meetings, and a meeting consists of a gathering of a quorum. If a situation arises where there was no anticipation of a quorum but it turns out that unexpectedly a quorum materializes and no notice was given, then the members of a public body need to be conscious of that fact. I’d say the response under those circumstances can be that enough people leave so there’s no quorum, or they can avoid the conduct of public business."
In other words, the board members should have turned the conversation from Alonso's PowerPoint to social banter (perhaps about Hettleman's upcoming trip?), or someone should have left right away -- not 20 minutes, or an hour, or however long it was, later.






Comments
Thank you, Sara! This is very interesting!!
Posted by: avalon | March 6, 2008 9:32 PM
There really seems to be two stories here - one seems like either an honest mistake (too many people show up for something and it becomes something it wasn't designed to be) or maybe, by design, meetings were scheduled with 1 less than is needed to make them official meetings by design. Who knows the truth with the people on the Board? I will say that as Sara points out it seems a bit crazy (even for our school Board) to suddenly realize that someone else showed up and to start discussing Buzzy's vacation plans (although that might be more interesting than most school board meetings). However the connotation that there was some denial of the meeting and possibly an unwillingness to release minutes doesn't make me too happy.
The other story is the new budget which is going to rock this failing school system to its core. I have heard Alonso say that if we are comfortable with the speed of change than we must not be moving fast enough. I think the train just lurched into light speed and I for one couldn't be happier. It's time that the spineless Board be pressured to do what they are supposed to do - set policy - and let Alonso set implementation. I implore them to get out of the way and let the changes happen and not to get involved in the small details since this is where they manage to stop progress. For those on the board and elsewhere who say that change is happening too fast I wonder if the students who attend the many failing schools would agree. Do they think we can wait another year or three to improve things in real, meaningful ways? Do they think that we should go slow in closing failing schools? Do they think we should go slow in moving money from the pit that is central office to the schools? Do they think that it's more important to have mid level do nothings pushing paper than more teachers? I doubt it.
Sara - did you read the letter that Alonso sent out this week - I admit it, after reading it I felt like I drank the Alonso Kool Aid. for those of you who haven't seen it look here (a Spanish version is also available) http://www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BA5137B13-A1CE-42FC-9C49-CEF53446061E%7D/GRTKIDSENG.PDF
Posted by: Teacher643 | March 7, 2008 6:57 AM
Good on you for reporting the unreported meeting. It's a shame this doesn't warrant an article itself. I'm proud of the progress our board is making, but meeting behind closed doors is wrong. I know, I know - the budget is the bigger story. But when we can lose $60 million from our schools budget without noticing, transparency is a zero tolerance issue. I hope the board gets asked about this on the record tonight.
Posted by: Campbell McLean | March 11, 2008 12:46 PM
It looks like they posted a notice for a meeting on-line this time (for a March 18th meeting today) rather than just putting it up on the door.
It is on the main page of the BCPSS home site - under latest news.
Posted by: Michelle | March 18, 2008 12:09 PM