Emergency Board Meeting, Feb. 25, 2021
Before Dr. Goldson presents her re-opening plan, Joshua Thomas points out they haven’t voted
on board agenda and notes that per BOE policy, Thomas, Stafford, Murray, Burroughs,
and Ahmed asked for emergency meeting to include CEO reopening plan and policy
on school attendance, climate change action workgroup, school to prison
pipeline workgroup, equity learning hubs, and a variety of other items; those
items were not placed on the agenda but he moves to adopt agenda as presented.
CEO Goldson
presents her reopening plan.
At the conclusion of the report, Chair Miller then reads
rules for public comment.
Ahmed requests clarification as to whether they will be
discussing or commenting on the reopening plan.
Miller states she “can go back” and opens floor for
questions and comments. Questions cover a variety of topics including: school
preparedness checklists; concerns about safety of students carrying computers
to and from school; COVID testing protocols; air quality testing reports; and
clarification regarding how input into plan was obtained from school staff and
labor partners.
David Murray
states he thinks it is important for BOE to have say in plan and suggest
modifications, so he makes a motion to have plan come back to next regularly
scheduled meeting for March 11 for approval and furthermore would like to move
to direct CEO to enter into negotiations for an MOU on reopening with labor
partners who would like to do so with board member Shayla Adams-Stafford being
board liaison at those negotiations. Ahmed seconds.
Goldson
notes they are adhering to all negotiated contracts with their labor partners.
She also cites House Bill 1107 that states CEO is responsible for overall
administration of school system and day-to-day administration of the system.
Dr. Miller offers Murray a chance to amend his motion, and
he declines.
After request for legal clarification from Boozer-Strother,
Roger Thomas urges board to
“move with caution” regarding having board members directly participate in
labor negotiations. He agrees that Murray’s suggestion to gain input on
reopening plan is beneficial to board and that a team/collaborative approach is
useful but also notes that Goldson has correctly stated the duties of the CEO
as codified in law. Therefore he urges extreme caution around that issue as
well.
Dr. Miller asks Murray again if he would like to amend or
withdraw motion, and he again declines.
Adams-Stafford
asks if collective bargaining units were part of reopening plan. Goldson
explains that yes, they were. The labor partners wanted to select individual
people to be part of the 81 members of the planning group themselves. When the
administration prepared the supplemental guide, they sent it directly to labor
partners and met with them to go through it.
Upon a request for clarification from Valentine, Roger Thomas states that if
board decides to not accept CEO’s reopening plan, that will require a
2/3 vote, and he does believe the reopening plan falls within the scope of the
CEO’s duties.
Burroughs
states he hears concerns that collective bargaining colleagues have a seat at
the table and that seems to be only point of contention. He reminds board that
Pat Fletcher used to be board liaison to collective bargaining. He does not
feel strongly one way or the other about motion.
Board takes vote on Murray’s motion:
Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Queen,
Thomas: YES
Boozer-Strother, Jackson, Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine,
Williams, Miller: NO
Motion fails.
Public comment.
[calls for removal of SROs from schools, return to elected board, admonishment
of board chair and members for not meeting, student mental health, and other
issues]
Miller is going to end meeting. Joshua Thomas raises point of
order regarding discussion on Murray’s motion. He notes that MD state law
prohibits student board member from voting on collective bargaining, so he
suggests that board members could vote once more but it does change outcome of
earlier vote. Also notes he does support full voting rights for student
member—"So for board members who like to follow the law, I think we should
follow the law.”
Roger Thomas
agrees Joshua Thomas’ statement is correct and asks for clarification from
sponsoring board member on intent. He did not understand the motion to include
revision of current negotiated agreement. He also reminds board they can take
vote to resolve dispute over whether or not student member can vote on
particular issue.
Murray
states this is “clearly part of the collective bargaining process” and that student
board member also cannot vote on issues of school closings and reopenings.
Miller asks for clarity from board
lawyer for ruling on whether earlier motion carries or another vote is needed.
Roger Thomas states if plan is
to be brought back to board for further review and discussion, his opinion is
that student member vote does count.
Murray asks to call the roll for a
vote on whether or not student member can vote. Seconded by Queen.
Valentine asks if student member can
vote on whether or not that member can vote. He is concerned that if this is
the case, a board member could put up for a vote whether or not a student
member vote counts if they don’t agree with that student member’s vote.
Roger Thomas reads from statute
on student board member voting rights. Upon further questioning from Valentine,
he states yes, student board member did have right to vote on Murray’s motion
under statutory requirement.
Miller asks again if vote stood;
Thomas says yes.
Josh Thomas responds to
Valentine’s questions. He points out that in meeting 2 weeks ago there were
agenda items the board counsel advised the chair to put on the agenda and the
chair chose to not have meeting at all, so he doesn’t appreciate members using
rules to work one way in their favor. Miller states he is out of order. Thomas
says he will not be interrupted.
Roger Thomas reminds board that
school reopening is not subject to collective bargaining.
Since there is a motion on floor
that has been seconded to vote on whether student board member can vote on
Murray’s motion, Roger Thomas clarifies for Miller that vote should be taken.
Adams Stafford states that she would
like to have an opportunity to bring additional questions about the plan. The
board is learning about the plan along with the public. She would like more
time to read it, talk about plan, and ask questions and come back to provide
insight and oversight because we have questions/thoughts that may not have been
considered. Board would ask school system to engage in conversation with labor
partners and the collective bargaining units of those partners who they
understand were not actively involved in the development of the reopening plan.
Miller then gives student board
member Jackson the
opportunity to comment. She notes that student member is subject to the will of
colleagues and a pawn of those with full voting rights because the student
member does not have full rights. She further points out that she is one of the
only board members who will experience the full impact of this reopening plan
because she is a student. And the fact that she cannot have a vote or whatever
this discussion is, in her words, “abysmal.”
Adams-Stafford asks for point of
clarification from Jackson on her vote of no to talk about reopening.
Jackson says she stands by her
vote--they can discuss her decision but student members shouldn’t have their vote
debated because they don’t vote in favor of whatever side their colleagues
would prefer. If student member doesn’t vote the way you would prefer that
doesn’t mean the student member’s vote should be nullified.
Sonya Williams states as chair Dr.
Miller has authority to make decision and move the meeting on.
Miller asks to table issue and come
back to it at next meeting. Take vote to table.
Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Thomas: NO
Boozer-Strother, Jackson, Monteiro,
Shephard, Valentine, Williams, Miller: YES
Queen abstains, because she asked
for original motion to be re-read and still has questions
Roger Thomas notes that motion does
not carry because student member’s vote count, so need vote of 8 to pass.
Because vote failed, Burroughs calls
vote for motion on whether student board member can vote. A vote of yes would
be to exclude, a no vote would be to not exclude.
Queen asks for clarification again
on Murray’s original motion. Board staff rereads motion.
Goldson states there are board
approved negotiated agreements that they will continue to execute until the
conclusion of those agreements. There is one labor agreement that gives PGCPS
opportunity to discuss memorandum, and the board designee has already done
that. We are now being asked to do additional MOUs, but we already have
negotiated agreements with our labor partners, which we will willingly continue
to execute and have not violated since the pandemic started in March.
Roger Thomas points out that school
closing and reopening is not part of collective bargaining. Dr. Goldson agrees
and notes school was never closed. Our 134,000 students will tell you--it’s
been open.
Take roll call on whether student
board member can vote on motion.
Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs,
Harris, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES
Boozer-Strother, Jackson (determined
her vote does not count), Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine, Williams, Miller: NO
During his vote, Murray raises point
of order that student member should not be allowed to vote. Murray points out there are
legal definitions of elected and appointed; the board had the same debate in
executive session several months ago. Based on those legal definitions, she
does not fit into category of elected or appointed. Roger Thomas agrees that
student member is neither elected nor appointed which means her vote does not
count on this specific issue.
Motion carries.
Go back to vote on Murray’s initial
motion.
Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs,
Harris, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES
Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Shephard,
Valentine, Williams, Miller: NO
Motion carries. Reopening plan and
MOUs will be on March 11th agenda.
Meeting adjourns.