Special Board Meeting, March 1, 2021

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=5230&v=iFRE7OKzcA8&feature=youtu.be

[NOTE: There were Zoom link issues and the meeting started late.]

Dr. Miller is not in attendance due to prior engagements, so Vice-Chair Sonya Williams chairs the meeting.

The board approves the agenda unanimously.

Prior meeting minutes are adopted unanimously.

 

Public comment: all relate to removal of SROs from PGCPS high schools

 

Approval of FY2022 operating budget:

Murray presents the memo from the Operations, Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee with proposed budget amendments that include: STEAM program ($500,000), special education audits ($100,000), TAWS program ($2.1 million), Bridge to Excellence Schools, and English Tutoring ($10 million). Amendments offered from the floor of that committee’s meeting included free in-person summer school (already in CEO’s budget), grant fund for nonprofits to support at-risk students ($3 million), and option to start school two weeks early ($57 million).

Valentine states for the first time in eight years he will not approve the amendments due to projected budget deficits and that some amendments don’t seem complete or fully researched. Williams concurs that she will also not support them due to the timing of the introduction of these amendments. Boozer-Strother also doesn’t fully support the amendments due to projected deficit and because some of these ideas are so new that she doesn’t fully understand how they will work.

Burroughs states for the record that he submitted his amendments in January and if the board wasn’t shut down, this process wouldn’t have been rushed. He goes on to provide further details for his amendment, which proposed a $3-million grant fund for at-risk students.

Queen points out that all the budget amendments are for the ACADEMIC support of students.

Adams-Stafford provides additional context for her proposals, which include the TAWS program. This is the TranZed Academy for Working Students, which allows high schools who have left system in order to work and support family to re-engage with the school system. The special education audit will engage an external party to work with the system to audit special education services and highlight those areas that are working well and those that need work. Finally, the Bridge to Excellence schools need more support in order to ensure equity.

Vote on budget amendments is taken and passes.

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Monteiro, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES

Valentine, Williams: NO

Boozer-Strother, Shephard: ABSTAIN

 

The next item is the expansion of the community workforce agreements for capital improvement projects, which was a successful pilot project in 2020. The community workforce agreements and minority business enterprise help ensure that Prince George’s County residents and minority business owners have the opportunity to participate as contractors in the school system’s capital improvement projects. The expansion will include demolition of existing structures, asbestos removal and remediation, and paving projects.

The expansion passes unanimously.

 

The board then votes on positions on state legislation. The agenda includes a memo from Feb. 4 from the Policy and Governance Committee that recommends support of four bills:

·         Student Member Voting and Member Candidacy (PG 506-21)

·         Early Literacy and Dyslexia Practices, Guidance and Assistance (SH126/HB 237)

·         Commission on History, Culture, and Civics in Education (HB 140)

·         Mental Health Services (Counselors Not Cops Act) (HB 496)

Ahmed, as chair of the committee, presents the policy committee’s recommendations but includes additional items from the four in the memo posted on Board Docs.

Williams notes that the additional items cannot be voted on at this meeting as the board has not had an opportunity to review them, and they have not been posted to the public on Board Docs. The remaining items will be on the March 11 meeting agenda.

Ahmed is concerned about timeliness.

Burroughs raises a point of order and states that Ahmed can make any motion she wants because she is doing it on behalf of the committee. He notes that Williams can vote no or abstain if she feels ill prepared to vote on the additional items. He goes on to state that when asked for this special meeting, his agenda item was just legislative update—he did not specify which legislative items would be considered.

After Valentine requests a clarification from the board lawyer, Roger Thomas states that since the agenda only included the Feb. 4 memo from the policy committee, appropriate public notification has not be given for the remaining items. He agrees that items beyond those in the Feb. 4 memo should be brought back on March 11. He also declines to answer Valentine’s other question regarding the attachment document of a legislative summary that came from DJ Williams as that contract is subject to further review and potential litigation.

Ahmed explains that she approved the posting of the Feb. 11 memo yesterday, but its posting was denied by board leadership, so she sent it to all colleagues today.

Motion to approve the four items.

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Jackson, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES

Valentine, Williams: NO

Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Shephard: ABSTAIN

 

After vote is taken, Ahmed makes motion to reconsider and include the items from the policy committee’s Feb. 11 meeting.

Boozer-Strother asks if that would put the board in violation of the Open Meetings Act? The lawyer states that it could result in an Open Meetings Act complaint and finding of a violation.

Adams-Stafford suggest a substitute motion that would request a special meeting this week to consider the Feb. 11 meeting items.

Burroughs asks the lawyer to cite the language in the Open Meetings Act he is using to make his determination as he believes the lawyer is “totally incorrect.”

The lawyer makes another point that the board has also already approved the meeting agenda and if members wanted those Feb. 11 items on the agenda, the appropriate time to add them would have been during agenda approval.

Williams further explains that as this is a special meeting, the board needs to be careful about adding additional items that haven’t been posted for public review.

Board votes unanimously to approve Adams-Stafford substitute motion.

 

Consent Agenda includes 7 proclamations, and those are all passed unanimously. Items 6.8 (CEO’s Recommendation for School Safety and Security) and 6.9 (Policy 1100 Community Schools) are separated for individual discussion and vote.

 

Item 6.8 involves the approval of the CEO’s recommendations on school safety and security. The Policy and Governance Committee has another proposal from Ahmed called “Protect Our Students Proposal.” Overturning the CEO’s recommendations will require 2/3 of board or 9 votes.

There is considerable discussion about these proposals, which can be viewed starting here. These include questions regarding what happens if a situation escalates in a school and police are needed, the trauma some students feel when seeing armed police officers in their schools, other restorative practices that can be implemented in place of relying upon SROs, among others.

Harris notes there are areas of consensus between the CEO’s recommendations and Ahmed’s proposal and suggests a substitute motion to accept 1a (seek input from stakeholders about realignment) and 1d (annual data should include referrals to diversion programs) of Ahmed’s recommendations and table the other recommendations until April.

Vote taken:

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES

Boozer-Strother, Jackson, Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine, Williams: NO

Motion fails.

The board then votes on “Protect Our Students” proposal put forth by the policy and governance committee.

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES

Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine, Williams: NO

Jackson: ABSTAIN

Motion failed.

Williams goes back to CEO’s recommendations.

Burroughs asks about survey regarding SROs that PGCPS issued. He wants to know if this is how PGCPS will be doing business in the future. He has concerns about how survey was written. Dr. Goldson responds that she hopes they don’t continue to conduct business based on opinion surveys, but it was a follow up from the Sept. 17^th board meeting in which the board requested that she send out a survey. She would have preferred to not do it, but she followed up on the board request.

Discussion of survey continues. Dr. Goldson reiterates that her recommendations were not because of the survey; they were her actual recommendations that were reviewed by police reform work group.

Vote taken on CEO’s recommendations:

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Thomas, Queen: NO

Boozer-Strother, Jackson, Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine, Williams: YES

Williams states the motion passes.

Burroughs asks for clarification on how motion passed since HB 1107 states 8 votes are needed to pass a motion when the student board member votes. Lawyer Thomas agrees with Burroughs that 8 votes are needed so motion did not pass, but Dr. Goldson reminds him that this falls under supermajority vote. Thomas verifies that Dr. Goldson’s statement is correct. He goes on to explain that since board has failed to pass CEO’s recommendations, they could put forth a motion to overturn or reject the recommendations, which would require a supermajority. Otherwise it will have to come back before the board at the next meeting. Suzann King, who is board staff, asks if this is handled differently from other CEO recommendations because this is an “operations of plant” item.

Williams asks if there is motion on floor to reject CEO’s recommendation, and Boozer-Strother makes motion.

Valentine notes that in the past, when it came to operations, if Board did not have 9 votes, the recommendation of the CEO would still pass if there was not a super majority against it. The lawyer Roger Thomas then states that in this instance, yes, it did pass. Williams re-states that since there were not 9 votes opposed to the CEO’s recommendations, it did pass. The lawyer agrees that Boozer-Strother’s motion is not necessary.

Burroughs states that he has just heard 2 different things from the board’s counsel. He asked very specific questions regarding this vote and got one set of answers. When Valentine asked other questions, he got another set of answers, and the motion passed. He is not comfortable with what is going on.

 

Board then moves on item 6.9, the community schools policy, which is presented by Ahmed. The motion is to send the policy for public comment.

Motion passes unanimously with no discussion.

 

First reader items (Policy 5113 Student Attendance, Absence and Truancy; Science of Reading Work Group Proposal; and School to Prison Pipeline Work Group) are passed unanimously with no discussion.

 

Second reader items. The climate change action plan focus work group is introduced by Boozer-Strother. Motion passes unanimously.

Next is the equity learning hubs, introduced by Adams-Stafford. Valentine asks Goldson how if this passes it will fit in with the current school reopening plans and with the budget. Goldson states that based on community survey, all schools will be utilized starting April 8, so they will have to work with community partners to find other locations for the hubs. She points out Montgomery County’s hubs are funded by outside entities, and PGCPS will also have to find outside partners to provide financial assistance. She will remain optimistic that they will find community partners.

Valentine further asks how students will be selected for these hubs. Adams-Stafford explains they would work with community schools to leverage their relationships with families to identify students who have disengaged completely, are in situations that preclude them from participating in virtual learning, homeless, etc. Goldson notes the best place for the disengaged student is in the schoolhouse.

Williams asks what is the earliest these would be available to parents? Dr. Goldson states she is going to be cautious and doesn’t want to promise date. 

Queen asks for community to reach out if anyone knows of possible locations or funds for these hubs.

Motion passes unanimously.

 

As Williams asks for motion to adjourn, Ahmed raises point of order and asks to put forward motion to approve actions taken in executive session. Board staff Suzann King states that when she and the lawyer had discussed the item, he had said it should not be on agenda because it was not on list of items that Burroughs listed when he called the meeting. The lawyer notes the item he was present for during the executive session was on the agenda and can be voted on.

Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Queen, Thomas: YES

Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Shephard, Valentine (states he was not present for much of meeting), Williams: ABSTAIN

Jackson cannot vote.

 

Meeting adjourns.