Board Meeting, May 12, 2021

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3mo_4h2dfM

 

Roll call:  Jackson and Valentine are absent.

 

After the board prayer and pledge of allegiance is the adoption of the agenda. Adams-Stafford states she would like to amend the agenda to include the oral report of the academic achievement chair, which is seconded by Ahmed. Williams asks if that is proper since adding an agenda item requires that it be an emergency. Adams-Stafford responds with a citation from Robert’s Rules of Order. Williams states that is correct for general motions but still asks if it is a proper way to add agenda items. Ahmed notes that at a prior board meeting, time was promised for this report to be given.

Miller states that rather than “pontificating” on this item, she did tell Adams-Stafford the report could be read under the chairman’s report even though it was submitted late. Adams-Stafford responds by reading board bylaws, which state the board chair is responsible for setting the agenda and that committee chairs are required by board policy to present oral reports on their activities. The academic achievement committee is supposed to report to the board in May. She also disputes Miller’s characterization that she turned in the report late, stating “I don’t turn in anything late.” Adams-Stafford goes on to explain the board chair violated bylaws by not involving all members in the agenda-setting process. Adams-Stafford states she has been working around the clock to rectify this oversight but has been met with refusal from the board leadership. She concludes “yet again, this board’s ability to function is being impeded by the actions of our board chair” and urges them to put aside their grievances with fellow board members and do what is right for students. She asks her colleagues to amend the agenda to include her three-minute report.

Burroughs is recognized next and cites the board policy that the academic achievement committee is to provide an oral report in May. He also states there is no requirement that oral reports be sent in advance, and in the time this debate occurred, the report could have been given.

Miller responds that there is no debate. The report will be given.

Burroughs asks, who will be giving the report? There is a back and forth, with Burroughs stating then there shouldn’t be a problem with the motion because it sounds like we are all in agreement.

Thomas has some questions, asking Adams-Stafford when she notified the chair about her report. Miller states that they are not going to continue pontificating about this motion. She acknowledges that Adams-Stafford brought the omission of the report on the agenda, and she was told that her report would be given today. She would like to move on and too much time is being spent on this item.

Queen states that she does not have the time for this drama. This is about the kids. She has a lot going on in her household. The public is watching. All the attitudes and power grabbing, let it go. My time is valuable.

Miller points out, for the public’s information, this is the second time this board has voted to not go into executive session, which is when this issue could have been discussed.

Motion to put report of academic achievement committee on agenda passes, although Miller notes she had placed it under the oral report by the board chair, to have been read by Adams-Stafford. It is placed on the agenda as item 2.9.

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

Abstain: Boozer-Strother, Miller

No: Williams

 

Approval of board meeting minutes for April 29, 2021. Motion passes unanimously.

 

Reports of the chair and CEO follow.

As part of the board chair’s report, Miller begins to read the report of Academic Achievement Committee.  Ahmed and Adams-Stafford interject points of clarification, but Miller states they are out of order. Ahmed continues stating she is making a point of clarification, and the board voted to have Adams-Stafford give the report. Miller continues asserting Ahmed is out of order and tries to read the report. Queen insists that the board voted to have Adams-Stafford give the report, and Chair Miller is actually out of order. Thomas states point of order and asks what is going on? Miller states she is just trying to read the report they voted should be given. He asks her to please stop and let Adams-Stafford read her report.

Miller addresses the public and points out the disruption and disrespect continues. Certain board members want to denigrate the responsibilities and duties of this chair, that is the same group who voted not to go into executive session. Adams-Stafford states you cannot talk about these topics in executive session by law, and we are asking you to just follow the law. There is a bunch of talking and yelling over each other. Miller continues to try to read the report but talking continues. After a few more sentences of the report, Burroughs interrupts with a point of order. Queen pleads with the board members to just let Miller finish reading the report.

 

Public comment is next. Before they proceed, Thomas raises a point of order and asks about item 2.9 as that is next on agenda. Miller states “I just read the report.” Thomas asserts he is not going to be be cut off. Did we not vote to add 2.9, yes or no? Shame on you, he ends. Burroughs offers a point of order and cites board policies for the public. Williams explains that yes the policy says the chair of the committee shall present the report but items have to be submitted 5 days in advance. She explains that Adams-Stafford requested guidance on presenting this oral report on Monday. Thus an agenda item could not be added unless it was an emergency. Dr. Miller has asked that all agenda items be presented 15 days in advance so they can be reviewed.

Adams-Stafford notes for the public that this is not about her presenting the report. There is a continual effort on the part of the board chair to silence the voices of the committee chairs in presenting their reports, which is in violation of policy. Board members are continually left out of agenda-setting meetings. Williams provides a point of clarification on the process, noting that policy and OBAFA (operations, budget, and fiscal affair) committees have not asked to make presentations. Miller states the concerns have been well articulated and moves meeting forward to public comment. Thomas interjects there is an item 2.9. Miller states he is out of order. Thomas argues this is good for the public to see as she disregards the vote of the board. Queen asks that the public be allowed to speak, and they can go back to item 2.9.

Theresa Dudley of PGCEA states she didn’t have a headache until the meeting started. She is at a loss for words and implores the board to get it together and work for the betterment of the children. She cannot believe that they are arguing over something so mundane and petty when they have millions coming into the school system in Federal money. She thanks Dr. Goldson for continuing to work for the school system’s children and working with educators and labor unions. She is also concerned about comments at the last meeting regarding school choice. She ends with a plea to the board to get it together. Parents don’t give a rat’s behind if you are appointed or elected, you have to improve service.

Donna Young has concerns about the April 28 meeting where there was a contract on the agenda. Only certain members were in attendance and voted on this contract. The chair, vice-chair, and CEO were not present, and they are the ones who have that contracting authority. She doesn’t understand how some board members can financially bind the board to an agreement. Programs are to be presented to the CEO, and it is the CEO’s responsibility to implement and fund them. She was concerned when she saw on Facebook that board members were soliciting funds for programs that were to be implemented or were intended for implementation. She believes the board is doing above and beyond what they are in place to be doing.

Janna Parker planned to speak on the English Language Learner Focus Work Group recommendations, but she expresses her dismay at what has transpired in this meeting. The board is not following policy. The board member of District 9 is laughing at the exchange, which is not decent. She did not expect to be watching this behavior of the board; this is public. Can you just do what you are supposed to do and not argue like children. It’s disgusting, and they have to do better.

Selma Basmaci is ESOL department chair at Oxon Hill High School and speaks in favor of the ELL work group recommendation.

Maritza Solana of CASA also offers support for the ELL work group recommendations.

Tonya Wingfield states there is a group of elected board members who are failing to follow board policies. There are mounting ethics violations. She has seen board members on Facebook talking about their accomplishments and using board clips while asking for financial donations. That is not allowed. The April 28 meeting was without a quorum. The board chair presides over every meeting and decides who is chair in absence of vice-chair. You cannot subvert the board bylaws with Robert’s Rules of Order. She also finds it disturbing these same board members broke the law by having a fellow board member sign a contract against state law. No administrative vote can subvert state law. In regard to policy changes, every policy has to have CEO recommendations, and there are items on the agenda without those required documents. The consent agenda is reserved for the CEO for administrative items. Policy amendments are not administrative items. To all the board members, when you cast affirmative votes for these you are failing your fiduciary responsibilities. She ends by saying that although she and Dr. Goldson have had their problems, Dr. Goldson is doing well navigating all this.

 

Consent agenda is next.

4.1 proclamation to observe National Caribbean American Heritage Month (June), passes unanimously

4.2 Mental Health Action Day (5/20), resolution presented by Ahmed, passes unanimously

4.3 approval of policies be placed for public comment, presented by Ahmed from Policy and Governance Committee [Note: these are available in BoardDocs for review and will be available for public comment.]

·         Policy 0114: School Uniforms

·         Policy 1500: Parent and Community Advisory Council

·         Policy 5122: Interscholastic and Extracurricular Activities Academic Requirements for Participation

·         Policy 9340: Policy Development

There is some confusion about Policy 5211, Student Demonstrations.

Williams notes that there were substantial revisions by the administration to the policies after they were initially approved by the committee. She asks if it would be proper to take it back to committee since some substantive changes were made so they can discuss and approve them. Ahmed’s understanding is that revisions are acceptable to sponsors. William reiterates that committee members should be allowed to review and comment on changes. Ahmed clarifies it was communicated to different members of committee. Williams states again we are doing something out of order and that has not followed the process. Her other comment is regarding how these policies align with the committee’s work plan. Ahmed admits she has a bad habit of not being able to say no to colleagues who come forward with ideas. There are a number of items on the workplan and if you have particular concerns send those policies to the board’s policy director. An unknown male voice makes a point of clarification on behalf of Mr. Cooper, the policy director, and explains the motion is to post the policies for public comment, at which point they will go back to the committee again.

Burroughs takes a moment to discuss his proposed revisions to Policy 5122.

Adams-Stafford thanks CEO Goldson and staff for working with them to revitalize the parent and community advisory council. Queen asks that a person who was recently approved by the BOE to serve on the advisory council be placed on the new council.

Everyone votes yes on motion except for Williams, who abstains.

 

Budget Consent Agenda has items that are voted on separately.

CEO introduces 5.2 – 5.8, which includes: expenditure requirements – June 2021; FY 21 Financial Review; and payments for various renovation projects.

Motion passes unanimously.

 

5.1 NCS Pearson, Inc. Contract 002-20 Modification. Ahmed requests clarification as to why they are adding services and why they are doing a change order rather than sending the product to bid, aside from the cost savings. Dr. Strader explains the Pearson Contract amendment will allow them to do student assessments within the existing benchmark program.

The motion passes with Murray abstaining.

 

5.9 New Glenridge Area Middle School Construction award of construction contract. Ahmed had questions about the increased price from the September 2020 approval. Mr. Matlock explains that this is due to the budget adjustment rolling up every year; the state has approved this budget. There is some discussion about how contractors are chosen and increased construction costs that require change orders and budget increases.

The motion passes with Ahmed voting no and Murray abstaining.

 

5.10 Board Legal Counsel Contract. Contract with Rosalyn Pugh of Pugh Law Group, LLC to provide interim legal services to the BOE

Ahmed makes motion to reaffirm the previous public action of the board approving the contract.

Williams asks when board members were authorized to solicit and select a temporary legal counsel. No response. Then she asks the process for selecting the legal counsel. Miller states she was not aware of this activity and there was no discussion with board leadership about this contract. She has asked to see the signed copies of the contract, but they have not been produced. Williams continues with questions: who negotiated price on behalf of the board and how the selected counsel’s experience in family law will translate to education law.

Queen states the attorney had put forth his resignation on May 3, so she is wondering what chairs of the BOE were doing to fill that vacancy.

Miller replies we were aware of the end date for our former legal counsel. He had agreed to stay on and assist during interim while they were putting together an RFP for a permanent counsel. The board leadership was putting together that proposal to bring to the BOE during an executive session. There was supposed to be an executive meeting on April 29, but it was not approved. Williams adds that when they received the resignation date of the former attorney, they did look for another contract held by a local municipality they could piggyback on for temporary legal counsel. Procurement could not find one that would meet their needs. Then they had the conversation with the former legal counsel about serving in an interim position, to which he agreed. This proposed interim contract was a surprise to the board leadership.

Burroughs states for the record that the former legal counsel gave notice of resignation in March with a last day of May 4. The board voted to direct the chair to ensure an RFP was released by Monday, March 22, which did not occur. It was clear to the board that legal counsel was needed, so they called a special meeting on April 22. The conversations and plans just now described by board leadership have not been communicated to board members. They voted to not go into executive session because they do not have an attorney. He agrees with Queen, they just have to do what is needed to get temporary legal counsel.

Miller characterizes this creation of the contract as an egregious violation of the law. A board member procured a contract without consultation with board leadership, and the contract was signed by an unauthorized board member. The board is not authorized to vote on a pro-temp or anyone else to sign contracts.

Murray argues the policy says “shall” sign, and when Miller did not, she was derelict in her duty. Miller and Murray begin arguing and speaking over each other.

Boozer-Strother asks who brought the contract to the agenda today and does Dr. Miller support this contract? Miller says she has not seen the signed contract. She has seen the contract on BoardDocs but not the signed one. She has asked Burroughs for the signed contract and to date, no one has produced it. Boozer-Strother clarifies, is the contract in BoardDocs the same one that was signed? Where are we? Williams states they are unsure if the contract in BoardDocs is the same contract that was signed, and it was placed on agenda to see if all of the Board approved of this contract.

Williams provides point of clarification about the letter from the attorney general’s office that people are referencing. That letter was signed by counsel to General Assembly, and there is a letter addressed to Julian Ivey, who is not on the board. After reaching out to the proper office to get an opinion, the counsel for the office on opinions and advice said that we cannot give individual legal advice to board members; the board has to submit a letter on behalf of board and have board counsel’s legal opinion attached. The April 28 meeting is under question and under review.

Queen reiterates the board needs an attorney. Why can’t we just vote on the contract if it was done properly through procurement?

Miller again states that there is a signed contract already out there. She asks the board member who has it to please provide a copy to the chair so they can move forward.

Burroughs states there have been a lot of inaccurate statements made. He asks the board to review the March 3 letter to the General Assembly, pointing out the letterhead clearly states Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General. He also points to an email written by Miller on Thursday, May 6, in which she wrote the lawyer would be a good choice to serve as interim.

Murray asks if Miller will sign contract or if they will be left without counsel. Miller says her question is when will Burroughs produce the contract obligating the board to something the board chair has not had a chance to review.

Williams asks if Ahmed would like to amend her motion since the action taken during the meeting is currently under review. She declines.

Boozer-Strother asks if the lawyer, Ms. Pugh, who signed the contract has produced it upon request since Burroughs won’t. Miller states Pugh’s response was that Burroughs has the copy. She also confirmed she signed it.

Adams-Stafford makes new motion to accept contract that is before the board.

Murray asks when she will sign the contract. Miller again reiterates her position. She will not be forced to sign anything until this egregious violation has been cleared up.

Ahmed cautions against Miller recognizing a board member and then interrupting. Miller responds that also applies to the chair.

Williams asks for the board member who took this contract to procurement to explain the process that was followed. Adams-Stafford asks Mr. Burnett to respond, but Williams and Miller state it should be answered by the responsible board member. Williams notes they were told it went through procurement but there has been no verification.

Adams-Stafford said why was this put on the agenda by board leadership if it can’t be voted on? Williams replies she is trying to understand how and when procurement viewed the contract. This item was placed on the agenda so the board could have this conversation to understand what has occurred.

Motion to approve contract posted on BoardDocs is put up for vote.

Yes: Adams Stafford [initially asks for recorder to come back for her vote]; Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Thomas

No: Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Williams, Miller

Abstain: Queen

Motion fails.

Miller states they will continue trying to obtain signed contract.

Williams suggests having a meeting with Ms. Pugh, asking her to bring her contract to void it, working with procurement to ensure proper contract, and having a special board meeting, if necessary, to settle the issue since the next meeting is not until June. This will take place in next two weeks.

Ahmed asks shouldn’t they go back to original motion if substitute motion fails? Additional discussion occurs over appropriate next steps and appropriate Robert’s Rule and parliamentary procedure.

Williams agrees to make her suggestion a motion.

After pushback from Murray and Burroughs who state that since Ms. Queen made motion to reconsider approving contract as per agenda, that needs to be voted upon.

Yes: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Thomas

No: Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Williams, Miller

Abstain: Queen

Williams’ motion is then voted on and passes.

Yes: Adams-Stafford, Boozer-Strother, Harris, Monteiro, Queen, Williams, Miller

Abstain: Ahmed, Burroughs, Murray, Thomas

 

Second Reader:

6.1 FY2022 amendments to the FY2021 Approved Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP)

Ahmed explains she will vote against it stating building three or four schools in five years using traditional financing is not good enough. P3 does not adequately address this need for new buildings because it is expensive and only provides a small number of schools. She also notes there will be no construction in District 5, and she has to stand up for her district. If the CIP office wants her support in the future, there need to be projects in District 5 and the recurrent themes of budget overruns and timeliness need to be addressed.

Williams asks about selection of schools for different phases. Shawn Matlock of the CIP office explains about the 2015 assessment of all school facilities that led to 2017 EFMP with four cycles. Those in first cycle had highest scores in categories of overcrowded, facility conditions, and educational adequacy. Another assessment of schools in cycles 2 and 3 will be undertaken to see how/if conditions have changed. Matlock expects that if second round of funding comes from state, can expect to get through all of cycle 1 elementary schools very quickly.

Motion passes with Ahmed voting no and Burroughs and Murray abstaining.

 

New business/first reader:

7.1 20211-2022 Board of Education Meeting Calendar, passes unanimously.

7.2 English Language Learners Focus (ELL) Workgroup Report, passes unanimously

 

Cannot approve actions taken in executive session because that session was not held.

 

Meeting adjourns.