Board Meeting, March 11, 2021

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riqcecLanC4&t=811s

 

Dr. Miller presents the report of the Board Chair. She takes a point of personal privilege and praises PGCPS leadership and personnel. She notes she was excited to serve on the board but acknowledges her brief time on the board has been marked by controversy and that she understands why Dr. Thornton left in the middle of his term. Dr. Miller outlines what she calls three “egregious offenses” of recent board actions.

1. Contract steering: creating and awarding a lobbyist contract to “save a friend who is about to lose their home” but later finding out the contractor did not exist; this contract did not go through the regular procurement protocols. Miller goes on to report that 2 board members presented contracts not sanctioned or needed by the board at this time; contracts were for acquaintance of the board members who did not live in the county. Dr. Miller states she believes they live in California and Arizona.

2. Waste of taxpayer dollars: creating unneeded positions through a reorganization of the board office. A cost analysis revealed it would be $200,000 over the board budget and there is an appearance of cronyism with the hiring of two new staff members. Miller states one has been accused of lying on a recertification application and has little to no experience in education as compared with other highly qualified applicants. The other hire was the governor’s nominee for the state board, but he withdrew after being vetted by the state senate. Miller points out this is all public information, and she is not calling names.

3. Abuse of prestige of office: Miller points out that if you follow the money, it looks like the BOE is returning to “pay for play” politics of the past. She states that if you pull the campaign finance reports for all board members elected in November 2020, they all received significant contributions from a certain contractor.

Joshua Thomas attempts to jump in and the two begin to argue about whether this is appropriate for discussion. Dr. Miller states the board has an obligation to be transparent, and the public has a right to know what’s going on with their tax dollars. Lawyer Roger Thomas responds that Dr. Miller has to make it clear that these opinions are her own and that she is not speaking on behalf of the board.

Dr. Miller resumes her statement. She states that the donations by this contractor to these board members began to flow after a contract was signed. The contributions made by this contractor were the highest or one of the highest amounts the members received. At the last board meeting, there was a board action voted on to expand the contractor’s agreement to add more work. Miller asserts the board members who had received donations should have recused themselves.

In sum to those who questioned her decision to cancel a meeting and request an audit, she urges the public to demand answers and “start with the former vice president.”

 

Dr. Goldson presents the CEO’s report. 42,000 students are going to return to school. She asks that parents make sure students have all mandatory vaccinations before returning to school, and that parents make sure their contact information is up to date in Schoolmax. Several PGCPS students and staff were spotlighted for achievements.

 

Public speakers included Tonya Wingfield, who noted her concern a committee established to undertake a board office reorganization which she contends was in violation of a board policy and did not meet the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The subsequent actions, including posting of positions were also irregular, and the reorganization will divert millions from school resources. She has filed an appeal with the State Board of Education. The other speakers focused on reopening.

 

Raheelah Ahmed presents the report of the policy committee and recommends support of the Governor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (HB0015/SB0085) and Student-Organized Peaceful Demonstrations – Student Discipline and Policy (HB0753). Sonya Williams asks for clarification regarding how committee is operating and how they are deciding which bills to recommend for support. Board votes unanimously to support recommendations.

 

Dr. Goldson introduces item 5.1 CEO’s PGCPS reopening plan and notes it received commendation as being one of the best in the state of Maryland.

David Murray presents Operations, Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee’s amendments to the CEO’s reopening plan which include:

1. 100 percent of schools meet basic Federal and state health and safety standards before beginning in-person learning and maintain them throughout in-person learning

2. health and safety checklists be completed and posted publicly for each school

3. before end of school year, 100 percent of schools will have conducted in-person walkthroughs with health officials and Board members to review/document health and safety standards

He makes motion to adopt Goldson’s reopening plan with amendments.

Miller notes this will require a 2/3 vote or total of 9 votes to pass the plan with amendments.

The discussion about the amendments reveals that the CEO’s reopening plan covers amendments 1 and 2 and that she has already committed to posting the checklists publicly. Dr. Goldson does not agree with the third amendment: she is trying to limit the number of visitors in the building for purposes of contact tracing and to minimize exposure to students, and is concerned it sends a message that the health and safety measures are not trusted. Virtual visits like those being conducted by Belinda Queen would be possible and preferred. Burroughs asks about the process for teachers to get exemptions for return under ADA (high risk, underlying conditions), and Goldson explains there is paperwork that can be completed and a review process to determine eligibility.

Burroughs asks if Murray would be open to a friendly amendment to remove item 3. Murray responds that he is thinking about that but he does think the third recommendation is reasonable. Goldson responds that it is not about whether it is reasonable, it is the fact that we are still in a pandemic situation and having to contact trace other adults is the issue. She states she “is fine if you do not want to make a revision to it” and we can go forward with the voting process.

Dr. Miller asks if ASASP has taken a position on the reopening plan and notes that principals and custodial staff have been coming into buildings and wants to get a feel for why one group is more resistant to returning. Goldson explains there are 4 labor partners: 3 labor partners’ staff have been in building since pandemic started—food service workers (handed out more than 1.5 million meals), custodial staff, and bus drivers who have been delivering food, along with school administrators and staff who have come in to pick up mail and distribute materials. 27 percent of staff have been in the buildings throughout pandemic. She reiterates that EVERYONE’s safety is a priority.

Pamela Boozer-Strother expresses confidence in Goldson’s plan. Belinda Queen speaks of her family’s experience with COVID and fears about returning to the building.

Murray agrees to strike third amendment after second suggestion from Shayla Adams-Stafford.

Williams also thanks Dr. Goldson for her work on this plan and points out the reopening plan was ranked as one of top three in the state.

Vote is taken on reopening plan and amendments minus the third one. Everyone (aside from student board member Ninah Jackson, who the lawyer states cannot vote on this matter) votes yes except Valentine who votes no. After vote is taken, he asks to change vote to yes to make it unanimous.

 

Item 6.1 is about the approval of an award for the Employee Evaluation Performance Growth Platform System. It passes unanimously.

 

Raheelah Ahmed presents the recommendations of the policy and governance committee, which is Policy 5113: Student Attendance, Absence, and Truancy. It updates language policy and signals board’s support for lawful absences, including broadening definition of family, military-related visits, civic engagement, college visits, and student mental health days.

Jackson asks Goldson how administration could implement this. Goldson responds she has directed General Counsel to look at adding 1 mental health day per semester for students, as well as a measure so that taking that day will trigger some additional support from a professional school counselor or mental health professional. Williams asks about different between lawful/unlawful absences. Goldson explains it is the difference between being allowed to make up work or not and also notes in response to Williams that chronic absence is defined as 9 or more lawful/unlawful absences. Chronic absenteeism also affects a school’s star rating. Adams-Stafford likes how culturally responsive this policy update is but asks about the use of terms of lawful and unlawful and whether nomenclature could be updated to excused/unexcused. Ahmed clarifies that the use of that nomenclature was retained because it is used in Maryland state law. Dr. Goldson adds that the terminology is also related to truancy, which is a legal action, and that the retention of the terms was also to signify that truancy falls on the parent/adult. Adams-Stafford states that just because it has been so for a long time doesn’t mean we can’t change the trajectory and suggests that if the board has the power to change the nomenclature it do so. Queen adds her experience as a foster parent and struggles getting kids to school.

Vote is taken and passes unanimously.

Adams-Stafford requests that a discussion about changing the terminology of lawful/unlawful absences occur at a future policy meeting and Ahmed agrees.

 

David Murray introduces the next item: the establishment of the Science of Reading Work Group, which will provide recommendations for pre-K – 3^rd grade reading and phonics instruction, evaluate curricula, provide recommendations for professional development and instruction, and establish basic practices for screening dyslexic and struggling readers, among other goals. There is broad recognition of the importance of early literacy among the board members commenting on the proposed group with questions regarding timeline, group members, goals, and the fiscal note of $100,000 that was included in the proposal.

Williams asks about the fiscal note, and Murray responds that they will follow all school system procedures, and the contract will come before board. He answers affirmatively that it will be competitive. Murray and Williams then have a conversation about the timeline of group’s activity, potential delays due to need for competitive contracting, and if the canceling of board meetings impacted the group’s schedule. Murray further explains that the $100,000 was an amount that he thought was a “good competitive number” to get someone qualified and competitive to look at a large school system and large literacy program and provide professional support to a volunteer group.

Valentine asks if Murray would be willing to remove the $100,000 from the proposal as it seems arbitrary and is coming at a time of fiscal uncertainty. Murray explains that the fiscal note is just leaving that $100,000 in reserve. The current school system budget is $2 billion and is set up so that only 1 in 3 students are proficient in reading, so he cannot have another year go by without doing what he can to improve those literacy rates. Valentine follows up with Goldson about reading levels in the system and whether there are staff who could support the group with no additional cost to the system. Goldson states they do have amazing staff in curriculum who could assist, and K-5 reading English language arts curriculum is already under audit by Maryland State Dept. of Education so don’t need to pay someone to do that. Recent MCAT scores have also revealed increases in RELA scores in all grade levels.

Murray clarifies that this is not an indictment of PGCPS.

Additional board members also comment on the importance of literacy. Thomas states that if board can approve a $2-3 million evaluation tool with very little questions or concerns surely they would not have concerns about putting aside up to $100,000 for the benefit of students and reading.

Ahmed and Williams discuss the purpose of focus work groups, which is to come up with actions to be considered by board’s committees. Ahmed describes her frustration with this discussion, noting that it did not occur with the climate work group, which had lofty goals but was supported. Upon later questioning by Valentine she clarifies that there was no fiscal note attached to the climate work group.

Miller comments that majority of board members are supportive of the work group but the topic of the fiscal note and questions about the basis for that figure are recurring. Murray asks if it would be amenable to Miller if the fiscal note is removed and instead it states an RFP would be put out. Miller agrees.

There is further discussion around the purpose of the focus work groups and their intent. Miller calls for the vote since it is now 10 pm. The motion passes unanimously.

 

The third item in governance is the school to prison pipeline work group, proposed by Burroughs. Valentine asks if the $55,000 fiscal note attached to the group can be removed. Burroughs is unwilling to remove it. The contract will follow all procurement rules and policies of the board. The amount was based on careful selection of the Advancement Project; initially the price tag was greater, but the student focus groups will be done through the newly established PGCPS Social Justice Academy. He has selected a diverse group of stakeholders to participate in this work group. He also explains that Pamela Boozer-Strother provided a Powerpoint presentation she had seen from the Advancement Project at a forum about dismantling the school to prison pipeline, so he, members of the administration, and Boozer-Strother had met with the group. It is a local Prince George’s organization as well.

Boozer-Strother thanks Burroughs for his work on this group and states her support of this fiscal note. She sees it as bridging conversation gaps about such topics as SROs. Jackson also echoes Boozer-Strother’s sentiments and expresses her support. Williams compliments this focus work group proposal as adhering to the board policy and that it justifies the fiscal note., which allows her to support it.

The motion to establish the work group passes unanimously.

 

The board then moves back to executive session.