DISD Trustees: Public Servants or Masters of the Public?
Submitted by History on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 23:52.
At the last month's DISD Board of Trustees meeting, these public servants, decided to enact two board policies further reducing the public's opportunity to speak to them.
The first specifically states that Board Briefings are a time for the Board to hear from the Administration about issues. This puts in writing what I've experienced over the last four years as President of NEA-Dallas. Every briefing, with the exception of one, has just been a "dog and pony" show for the Administration to tell the Board what it is that they, the Administration, wants them to hear.
The Administration gets to speak to the Board at length on every issue. Why not hear from others that their policies, etc. are going to effect? If something is going to effect principals, then let's hear from principals. If something is going to effect teachers, then let's hear from teachers and so on. But, this Board has now decided that the only people that they want to hear from during this meeting is the Administration.
The second policy even more drastically limits public participation in meetings. The new policy states that if there are five (5) or more people signed up to speak on any given issue, then they will receive a total of fifteen (15) minutes.
It matters not that these people might be from different parts of town, have no idea who each other are, and whether or not they are speaking for or against. As Trustee Ranger noted during the discussions, how are you going to decide who gets to speak?
As President of NEA-Dallas I urged the Board to vote no on this policy amendment. If citizens are willing to give of their time and energy to come and speak to the Board about an issue, then the Board should have the respect for them to at least listen. I even urged the Trustees that when a large number of people want to speak to the Board about a given issue, then maybe they might want to hold a public hearing on that issue and listen to the people who pay the taxes that fund their school district. Seemingly, this fell on deaf ears.
The Trustees voted 6-for, 2-against with 1 abstention to approve the amendment. Trustees Ellis, Bingham, Medrano, Lowe, Flores and Garza basically told the public that they really don't want to have to listen to them. They only want to serve the public on their terms.
Trustees Blackburn and Ranger told the public that they do take what the public has to say seriously by voting no. NEA-Dallas appreciates their stance and hopes that the citizens in the Dallas ISD do as well.
Trustee Price, for some unknown reason, decided to abstain.
So, I ask you, are these Trustees public servants or masters of the public?
Speaking at Board meetings
Limiting public speaking at the board meetings is a fairly common practice. There is an agenda for this business meeting - budget items, personnel, policy issues. These issues can only be addressed by a quorum of the board in a duly called meeting. Boards, as a matter of good policy, also give the public an opportunity to speak to the gathered quorum - it works well for all parties. The Board and Administration get to here the same speaker, and the speaker gets to address all of those people at one time. But the business has to be done. The public can also express their opinions with letters, e-mails, phone calls, the media, or visits in person. If the issue is big enough, the board or administration might hold a special forum for those issues to be raised.
Whether the administration and board listen enough outside of the business meetings is one matter. But conducting the business of the meeting is the primary purpose of the meeting.
Special Forums
"Not from Dallas" accidentally hit it right about why people are upset. Some boards might hold a "Special forum" if a large number of people want to speak on a subject. That is the problem with DISD, they don't WANT to hear anything. So they ignore the public, and then they wonder why large groups get rowdy at meetings.
15-minute rule
I am sadly amazed at the people who do not understand the policy change. Before the last meeting, a person got 3 minutes to speak. That was it. Now, if a total 15 people had followed the rules and signed up to speak, then the board would have to listen to a total of 45 minutes of speakers. If the 15 spoke to 2 topics or 15 different topics it didn't matter, the board had to listen. Now it is different. Now if 8 people want to speak about the budget, the board will only listen to five. Again, I ask, who gets to decide the five? This is an elected board of a public school system. The public has a right to speak to the board. The action may not violate our rights legally ( I am not a constitutional lawyer) but it sure violates the spirit of it. And you can bet that there are going to be some pretty creative people who will try their best to test this policy. And you will all be able to see the board's reaction to these tests online. The meetings are now on the DISD website. But many of you are failing to see the bigger picture. This board doesn't want to hear any dissenting voices. It doesn't want to hear any complaints. All they want is to talk about how fabulous everything is, how we're going "achieve", how we're going to win the Broad prize, how we're going to be the best urban district, and play their fiddles while Rome is burning......(see Skyline, Roosevelt, SOC, Seagoville HS, P-Card, audit report, CEI, and lawsuit topics--and those are just a few of the problems the public knows about)
15 minute speeches
I agree with the comment made by the person that 15 minute speeches are reasonable. 15 minute speeches give you the right amount of time to be concise, to the point, and persuasive. Any college professor, educator, or communicator will tell you that 15 minutes are an adequate amount of time to prove your point. "Ranting" and I mean ranting for 45 minutes on a topic is proving nothing. The board wants substance in your argument, not just a bunch of yelling and ranting. The meeting would have lasted well into 3 or 4 am and it would have been in the same position it was had everyone spoke for 15 minutes and got their point across. I am a political science major and just because the board limited your time to speak, does not mean your rights were taken away. You got to speak right????
The board wants substance over yelling and that is what happened as I watched it on the tv. The Boards plan makes since-- alleviate the schools that are overcrowded and move those students to schools that are under-populated. What is wrong with that?
What's Wrong With That?
DISD Board must be anticipating the agenda budget item of relocation expenses for the families of the "property students" which are to be packed up and moved to the other side of town, to a non Magnet school. I figure that if the "property student" is placed in a box and set on a truck and transported to an alternate location there will be some compensation planned out in the budget to compensate the "property student" caretakers (aka parents) for the further expense of travel if the caretakers document and turn in expense reports to the true owners of the "property students". Further the budget compensation will propose, I'm feeling this one for sure, the reimbursement of wages lost due to the additional travel time to the new "property student" location. Did this answer your question of "what is wrong with that?". I must just say; our children are not property that the school district can place in another location, there has to be consent and agreement.
Break the darned thing up
The DISD Board and Administration are running meetings as if they were board meetings for a private corporation, and they are elite VIPs. They are, in actuality, public servants and public employees and neither group is doing a bang-up job.
Break the darned district into smaller parts--at least 5--and then citizens will have much more access to their elected officials and the district will have a much more difficult time operating in the shadows. Secrecy and exclusion from decision making have been the by-laws for decades. This 15-minute rule on a topic is ridiculous since there could be 100 people with disparate opinions on a topic.
There is some sacred cow operating here that DISD must stay in its current form with some board districts having many more citizens than others. All of them are too large for citizen input.
Break the darned thing up into at least 5 districts. The magnet programs can become charter schools. Federal monies such as Title I follow the kids anyway. Grant writers are a dime a dozen. So all the phony excuses come down to either ego or money.
[Ed Note: Keep in mind that the best (only) way to get the 15-minute rule nixed is to badger your elected official. I agree that something reasonable can be done--I just don't know what it is!]
15 Minute Restriction
I believe the 15-minute restriction is for a group of people speaking about the same topic. If we recognize that some people have an agenda of their own and can speak for hours on the subject and repeat themselves needlessly, maybe it is a good thing to limit speaker's time. After all, being concise is a virtue. If you are against or for something, say so and why and end of story. Longwinded statements do not persuade people. To the contrary, they build resentment and people stop listening.
15 Minute Limit
I really amazes me that some people would think one (1) person could speak for an unlimited amount of time or even for just fifteen (15) minutes!
Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes! The new policy limits the total amount of time given to the same agenda item to fifteen (15) minutes when there are more than five (5) speakers to that item.
You could conceivably pick only five (5) speakers, but if say, twenty (20), wanted to speak, then the fifteen (15) minutes would have to be divided by 20. That would break down to about 45 seconds each!
What a nightmare to figure out and how unfair is that to the taxpayers of the Dallas ISD.
Dale D. Kaiser
President
NEA-Dallas
Wow I guess I know who you
Wow I guess I know who you work for.
Face it DISD needs to be broken up TEA needs to come in and put the district out of it's misery. Everybody made fun of Wilmer Hutchins but is DISD really better. I know they have schools who are doing good like the Magnets which the superintendent is purposely trying to destroy, but for your average students DISD isn't getting it done did anyone read about the whole NCLB. I think that tells a lot about what this district is facing the people at the top just don't care they say they do but their actions prove otherwise. I really think that the city will take over you know like what happened in Chicago.
Freedom of speech
Too bad if someone is long-winded. The First Amendment does not apply to short speeches only.
This is not an attempt by the board to speed things up. It is an attempt to suppress public comment. Any idiot can see that! When over 40 people signed up to comment on Skyline, THAT got everyone's attention. If the new policy had been in effect, would it have had the impact?
Plus, what exactly --or rather, WHO exactly will define who and who does not "belong" in a certain group? The teachers at Roosevelt, the parents of Roosevelt kids and the students themselves may shwo up next time. They may speak about the same *issue*--but not from the same perpsective.
When Trustees rarely have meetings, and their board briefings are held during the day--when most taxpayers work--how will they know the true depth of feeling on an issue?
Look at your tax bill-- and think, you spend this much money--and they want to limit your input? THAT is democracy, you know, what thousands have died for?
[Ed Note: Not that I'm a particularly big fan of the 15-minute limit but keep in mind that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't guarantee you a platform any more than "Freedom to Pursue Happiness" guarantees you'll be happy!]
Time limits
The speaker's time is already limited to three minutes. They do not get to "speak for hours on the subject." If 50 people take the time to follow the rules already in place to sign up to speak to the board, then the board should listen. Who is going to decide the five? You? Me? District staff? Dr. Hinojosa? The action of the board sends a loud and clear message that they are not interested in hearing any voices other than that of the Executive Leadership Team or anyone the ELT deems fit to talk to them. The taxpaying citizens of Dallas should be outraged at the behavior of this board. But as long as they do not rise up, organize, and find better candidates to run against the trustees who no longer care to serve the public, then this is what you can expect. There are more changes coming that people won't like. I just wonder what low we have to hit before people in Dallas wake up and vote out those on the board who serve no one. The NEA's vision is a great public school for every student. Every tax payer should demand the same thing from DISD.
Agree with time limits
Imagine you are the next person in line to address the school board and the person in front of you is going on for an endless amount of time with no end in sight. I think you would be resentful that there were no rules in place to curb such behavior. While I'm not sure 15 minutes is enough time to address an issue with more then 5 people, I also don't feel spending 4 hours on one person's rant is worth the trustee's time either.
3-Minute Limit
As another poster said, it is a THREE minute limit PER speaker. They want to GROUP five or more people together int he "fifteen" minute box. Now, is THAT democratic?
And you know what? They (trustees) don't limit THEIR speeches to 3-5-15 minutes. Oh, Geez Louise, they go on and on and on about this basketball team, or that convention they went to. All while the audience waits....
And by the way, here is the First Amendment----
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You are right, Allen, it doesn't guarantee speech---oh, yes, it does! And more importantly here, it said we have the right to petition the government---but it must be in under three minutes, I guess.
So, the framers of the Constitution would be proud of this DISD Board? I think not!
[Ed Note: I think I've said this before: you can get a soap box and stand outside the door of the auditorium (or on a street corner) and speak for 3 hours! The First Amendment guarantees you freedom of speech--it doesn't guarantee you an audience.
Again, if you don't like it, go find those responsible and make them change it.]
Time Limits
I think that there might be some confusion about the actual effects of this policy. Without it, people were not allowed to speak for more than 3 minutes, but if 20 people signed up for 1 topic, each one of them would get 3 minutes. With it, they still have their 3 minutes, but if 20 people sign up, only the first 5 will get a chance to speak. People have never been allowed to give a 4 hour rant, and we aren't objecting to that. We are objecting to them preventing people from even speaking on the topic that they sign up for.
To me, this seems like it is the first step in preventing the public from having any say. If we aren't able to express our concerns here, where can we? Simply emailing the trustees lacks the impact of being able to speak and letting your feelings be shown. Unless they start having frequent community forums that people can go to and speak at, they need to allow the public, whom they theoretically report to, express their opinions.
[Ed Note: Good point. Yes, there are all sorts of ways to abuse this from the Board's perspective. You know, if I were an unscrupulous board member wanting to "shut people up" on an issue, I might seed the 15 minutes with my own speakers.
What the hard limit does is more of a disservice to the Board than it is an advantage.]