Board Meeting, July 28, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1WSCoqKrE
Miller introduces the new student
board member, Alvaro Ceron-Ruiz, and the newly appointed member, Judy
Mickens-Murray. She notes Mickens-Murray was also appointed to the board in
2002-2006.
In addition, Miller notes that
Bill Shelton will be participating as a parliamentarian.
All board members are present
during roll call except for Joshua Thomas.
Approval of the agenda is next,
with Miller noting the CEO requested the policies labeled as agenda items 6.2
(Policy 1500, Parent and Community Advisory Council) and 6.3 (Policy 5122,
Interscholastic and Extracurricular Activities Academic Requirements for Participation)
be pulled. Miller states she will grant that request and once they have gone
back to committee, they can be put back on the agenda at a future meeting. Williams
makes the motion, and Valentine seconds.
Ahmed comments that she would like
the agenda to go forth as presented. She assures the board members that the
policy committee has worked together with administration to compromise on
policies. She goes on to state her concern about the parliamentarian being
present at the meeting as his presence was not voted on by the board.
Queen asks for clarification on
the policy numbers being pulled and asked for clarification from CEO on
reasons.
Goldson notes that she actually
just asked for item 6.3 to be tabled because there was a paragraph included in
the policy that they thought would be removed but was not. The other item is
fine.
Miller then restates the motion:
adopt agenda as amended, with 6.3 being tabled at the request of the CEO.
Williams moves, Queen seconds.
Valentine asks Ahmed if there is
any time sensitivity to item 6.3.
Ahmed yields to Burroughs, who is
the sponsor of that policy.
Burroughs responds that it is an
important policy that has been delayed already. He explains when he started
drafting this policy, he had a very different idea of what it would contain, but
he has compromised. Burroughs also states that if an item is to be tabled, it
should be done during discussion as the board is a deliberative body.
Goldson has no comment.
Vote is taken on agenda approval:
Yes: Monteiro, Mickens-Murray,
Valentine, Williams, Miller
No: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Boozer-Strother, Burroughs, Ceron-Ruiz, Harris, Murray
Abstain: Queen
Absent: Thomas
New motion to approve agenda put
forth by Burroughs and seconded by Boozer-Strother.
Unanimous approval to adopt
agenda.
Approval of the June 24 and July
19 meeting minutes is moved by Harris and seconded by Valentine. There is no
discussion, and they are approved nearly unanimously, aside from Queen, who abstains
because she was not in attendance at one of the meetings.
Miller next reads a statement to
the BOE and the public. There have extensive concerns relative to the actions
and activities of board members. An ethics panel made up of five members
prepared an extensive report that was delivered to the board office on July 23.
It includes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of action
as a result of certain board members being recommended for removal or censure. During
executive session, the Board voted to concur with the report and
recommendations. The next step is the report will be sent to the Maryland Board
of Education for review and make recommendation to the Governor for signature.
We have followed the procedures outlined by the ethics panel, and we did take
action to vote to concur with the panels’ recommendation. She then reads an excerpt
found in each individual report: should the Board of Education fail to consider
or vote on these conclusions, recommendations, and findings by August 31, 2021,
the ethics panel is of the belief the board will have failed in its statutory
duty to properly enforce the state law governing conflicts of interest and on
ethical violations. It will then consider the option of reporting the board’s conduct
to the state ethics commission, which can compel local boards of education to
comply with requirements of state law. If the state ethics commission petitions
a circuit court to compel compliance, a court may grant any available equitable
relief.
Burroughs makes a point of
order: how many board members voted to approve this?
Miller responds that as stated in policy,
those who were subjects of the report were not allowed to vote. She asks
Williams to read the appropriate policy (Policy 0107) regarding eligibility of
voting.
Burroughs again asks, how many?
Miller states six members were
eligible to vote and unanimously concurred. There was a quorum. Seven members
could not vote per the policy.
Burroughs asks if she is aware of
the provision in state law that requires seven votes to pass.
Miller declines to answer because
she does not have the provision in front of her to read.
Burroughs asks how many votes are
needed to pass something.
Miller responds, do you know the
answer? You have the right to challenge any decision made during executive
session.
Harris then asks, for the
record, for the six board members who voted, can you indicate when you received
the ethics panel findings outside of Dr. Miller or Board Member Williams? He
calls on Board Member Valentine.
Miller replies that she thinks he
is out of order. You can make a statement, ask question of chair but you can’t
ask other board members for their position.
Shelton responds that according to
Robert’s Rules of Order, anything discussed in executive session should not be
revealed to the public. Only the actions taken can be disclosed.
Harris amends his question to ask
if Miller can inform for the record when the findings were sent to his colleagues.
Miller responds that she is not
going to repeat what was discussed in executive session. She is not going to
debate with Mr. Harris. Your question was addressed in executive session.
Adams-Stafford then asks if
Miller was aware that our ethics policy is not currently in compliance with
state policy? The ethics policy has not been renewed since 2017.
Miller affirms she is aware. That
is a responsibility of the board as a whole. She has had staff working to
revise and update the handbook. It has not been completed because of all the
controversies happening on this board. The entire board is responsible and
other members have not worked on it or provided input.
Adams-Stafford continues, asking Miller
if she was aware the lawyer advising the ethics panel wasn’t voted on by the
board. Miller does not respond. The documents of the ethics panel were supposed
to be confidential but were leaked to news media and delegation and they have
received reports they came from members of the board. Miller states she does
not know what Adams-Stafford is talking about. The findings from the panel were
received in the board office last Friday. The staff disseminated the documents
to the appropriate people. She goes on to state she finds these comments
inappropriate; and again, these matters were discussed in executive session.
Adams-Stafford states she has one
more question and asks if Miller was aware members received the copies of the
tentative findings only fifteen minutes before the meeting. Miller does not
respond.
Ahmed then makes comments to the
public. We live in a democracy where majority rules. On the board, that means a
vote of 7 or 8 (depending on if the student board member can vote). Six members
of the board voted to support a report with findings against other members of
the board. Six members is not a majority. She continues that when a majority vote
is not held up, that causes the disfunction and chaos. Ahmed then refers to
policy 0107, which has provisions for majority votes. She has found this mentally
and emotionally taxing. It is not what she imagined board service being like.
Please have some grace with us as we work to be a better board. There are some
folks who still have hope. I will do my best to keep moving forward.
Shelton states he was not in the
executive session but there seems to be a failure to make a distinction between
a quorum and a majority.
Williams makes a point of order.
It’s her understanding in the normal process, discussion is for the motion on
the table. The comments have been a result of the comments of the chair. She
asks Mr. Shelton to provide clarification.
Shelton responds her point is well
taken. As a parliamentarian, he does not interrupt the chairperson. As long as
she is allowing the discussion then it can take place. Now if someone wants to
object or call the question, that can end discussion.
Williams states she is objecting
because there is no motion on floor.
Miller leads a moment of silence
for PGCPS staff and community.
She then informs the public the
board calendar indicated the board would be meeting on August 19. Due to
several board members having conflicts, it will be changed to August 12. The
next public meetings will be Thursday, August 12 and Thursday, September 2.
Next is the CEO’s report. She notes they are
closely monitoring the pandemic and announces upcoming vaccination clinics for
students ages 12 and up. The school system’s website and social media provide a
great deal of information. Please contact the communications team if you have
back-to-school questions. She encourages the community to sign up for text
messages and alerts from the updated school information system. This is an update
to the system, so people should sign up for the new school year.
Item 2.9 is the Climate Change
Action Plan Focus Work Group interim
report by Pamela Boozer-Strother. She is asking for board approval to change
membership of board. Two student members are now alumni, and a new current
student will be added. She also requests a timeline extension of a few months,
pushing the final draft due date to January and the first reader to February
2022.
Adams-Stafford asks if there is a
cost implication with extending the work group.
Boozer-Strother answers that staff
time has not been quantified for any of the work groups, but that may be a
cost. She would welcome that calculation if other work groups have that
information. Otherwise, this is an all-volunteer group with no external
consultants so there are no costs outside of administrative or board office costs.
Valentine moves to approve
amendments to group; Queen seconds.
Williams commends the work of the group
and the active participation of students. She notes the work is aligned with larger
county initiatives.
Motion passes unanimously.
Public comment is next.
Sarah Christopherson responds she
is confused by comments of District 5 board member-since when do officials accused
of misconduct get to vote on whether or not they are investigated? She is not
familiar with that form of democracy except in the Trump Justice department. Last
month a PGCPS parent sent her a meme from the District 1 representative. A
white male doctored a photo of two of his female board colleagues by
superimposing a crying Michael Jordan face on them and posted it to social
media with the express intent of bullying and humiliating them. The PG NAACP
condemned the act. She notes she has heard this is not an isolated incident but
a well-established pattern by this board member. My pre-teen knows sharing
memes like this is unacceptable, and he would be disciplined by the school
system. The District 1 representative must resign.
Timothy Meyer would like to
correct the myth of board disfunction. He notes some members do their jobs,
meet with schools, and genuinely listen. Now to the rest of you. You all know
the incident. It was wrong, offensive, and unacceptable. It was bullying. For
those who laughed it off as millennial humor, shame on you. This is a Board of
Education. Not a frat house. Keep your bullying and bad behavior out of
District 3. Our parents will call you out every single time. At Mount Rainier
ES, we don’t tolerate bullies. We demand a real apology. You’d think some of
that dirty money that brought an ethics scandal could have bought a better
apology writer. Let’s also address the pathetic attempt to distract by filing a
complaint against the chair. What if one of your child’s teachers acted this
way? Or a principal? Or one teacher did this to another teacher. We are calling
on PGCEA to speak out and condemn this behavior. The board can follow the PGCPS
anti-bullying policies just like staff. Elected officials should speak out, or
let your silence condone it. Finally, we ask the offending board member to
apologize to all of PGCPS who have done so much to persevere over the last year
and a half. All of us deserve better. Enough is enough.
Daniel Muth is nearly at a loss
as to how start this testimony. The board is so far out of the bonds of civility.
David Murray should go. Either by his own resignation or otherwise. Beyond this
the huge lack of respect for the position is troubling. And the lack of serious
thought. Public education is serious and a sacred trust. People can have disagreements.
He has disagreed with Dr. Goldson, Mr.
Matlock, and Ms. Boozer-Strother but he knows they are serious, thoughtful people.
The BOE is not a vehicle for political gamesmanship.
Joseph Jakuta thanks the board for
approving the amendments to the Climate Change focus work group. They have
learned a great deal and have heard directly from the students. While we had
hoped to complete work earlier, they need more time to understand the issues.
Tonya Wingfield has read the
WJLA and Maryland Matters articles. She had to respond. The details of the complaints
are aligned with ethics complaints she has filed. As Attorney Ivey suggested,
she looked up the information in the public domain. She did send her concerns to
the board members before these complaints were filed. She definitely asked
board members to make those corrections and they failed to do so. This has
nothing to do with “adult differences.” These complaints were based on board
members’ failures to uphold their oaths of office. The discussion of leaks is
very perplexing, especially considering that in August 2020 the ethics panel
found the former District 4 member, Bryan Swann, in violation of an ethic rule.
There was an executive session, and there was no mention in the board meeting.
Somehow, that night, Lindsay Watts reported on it and even talked about what the
board did in executive session. I don’t understand why board members are now
challenging this. It’s time to accept responsibility and do right, because our
children deserve better.
McKenzie Allen speaks as the
executive director of Maryland Public Charter Schools. She shares the group’s
work in the county and provides information about a regional alliance of public
charter schools in PGCPS.
Donna Goodman notes the comments
by her District 5 representative about majority rule are concerning. She is
very interested in the procurement process. One of the first things Dr. Miller
had to deal with when she came onboard was an illegal contract. It appears
board members who have been on the board longer than Dr. Miller and should know
better are not following the correct procedures and policies. She asks the members
to get out of their cliques and vote for what is best for the children. She
also has concerns about the contract for the attorney posted on the agenda.
Four people bid on the contract, but only two technical scores were provided.
The scores for all four should have been provided for full transparency. She also
has questions about the scoring. She concludes that integrity matters.
Janna Parker states she has been
showing up for years to school board meetings, and more than just swings. She
wants to touch on Trump actions. In the leaked ethics panel report, there was
an extremely Trump “anti-union” section that wasn’t read. It went against
unions in general, in a county that is pro-union and Democrat. Finally, when we
talk about racist attacks, she finds it very interesting that PGCPS had
lobbyists who were white man, but somehow a black woman is unqualified and
homeless. That’s not a racist attack? She has been in conversations with the
District 3 board member who made extremely inappropriate comments about the
LGBTQ community, despite being in that community. The conduct of the whole
board has been disheartening. The ethics panel report that was leaked has numerous
false statements. You are really trying to remove elected officials based on
false information? Just because you lost an election. I hope it’s worth it, she
finishes. When it comes out that it’s all crap, when the lawsuits come through,
I hope it’s worth it.
Theresa Mitchell Dudley is
disturbed the purpose has been lost with the board of education. Not with Dr. Goldson.
She has been doing the work while the bullets are flying above her head. Dr.
Goldson has worked with PGCEA. The disruptive chaos is causing people to not
want to work for PGCPS. News flash: Act like professionals! She wants to say
thank you to Dr. Goldson. We should be talking about so many other things, like
the influx of money we are getting, community schools, etc. Think about what
you are doing. Our children, our families, our parents, our teachers are
watching.
Daniel Greene congratulates
Ceron-Ruiz on his election to the board. He is tired of the controversy and
negativity and just wants to provide some positivity. He really appreciates the
work of the chair and her allies in standing up against the progressive and
elected members. [Note, this is all sarcasm]
[Miller steps away due to technical
difficulties and Williams continues the meeting]
The next order of business is
selecting the chair and vice chair for the 2020-21 standing board committees. Each board member
selected their first and second choices. The committees will have the following
members:
Academic Achievement: Thomas,
Valentine, Ceron-Ruiz, Adams-Stafford, and Monteiro
OBFA: Boozer-Strother, Queen,
Harris, Murray
Policy and Governance: Ahmed,
Ceron-Ruiz, Burroughs, Williams
The chair is an ex-officio member
of each.
The candidates for chair and vice
chair for each committee then explain why they should be selected. Each
position is uncontested so there is no vote needed.
Adams-Stafford will serve as chair
of the Academic Achievement committee with Thomas as vice chair.
Queen will chair OBFA with Harris as
vice-chair.
Burroughs will chair Policy and
Governance with Ahmed as vice-chair.
Judy Mickens-Murray is given the
opportunity to choose which committee she would like to sit on, and she chooses
Policy and Governance.
Queen makes a motion to approve
the committee, Harris seconds.
Valentine states he looks forward
to working with his colleagues and continuing collaborations.
The motion passes unanimously.
[Miller returns to the meeting.]
The budget consent agenda is next, which
includes the contract for legal services. Miller provides background
information about the RFP process. Four firms submitted proposals, of which two
were selected for interviews. The panel (made up of Miller, Williams, Burroughs,
Ahmed, and Thomas) selected the Robertson Law Firm.
Ahmed makes a motion to award the
contract; Burroughs seconds.
Valentine recuses himself from the
vote as he has a relationship with the law firm.
Adams-Stafford thanks the panel
for working together.
Vote is taken. Miller, Valentine,
Williams abstain. Everyone else approves the contract.
Items 6.1 through 6.6 are next on
the agenda. Items 6.2 (Policy
1500, Parent and Community Advisory Council), 6.4 (Policy 5143, Bullying, Harassment,
or Intimidation), 6.5 (Policy 5151, Student Journalists and School-Sponsored
Media), and 6.6 (Policy 5211, Student Demonstrations) are voted on as a group.
They are approved with Mickens-Murray the sole nay vote. She notes her “no”
vote is due to the student demonstration policy.
Items 6.1 (School to Prison Pipeline
Focus Work Group) and Item 6.3 (Policy 5122, Interscholastic and
Extracurricular Activities Academic Requirements for Participation) are discussed
separately.
Burroughs makes a motion to
approve Item 6.3, and Ahmed seconds.
Goldson explains that in a memo
dated 4/22, administration made a comment on a specific paragraph, and they had
come to an agreement it would be removed. However, was still in the final
draft. The reason for the request to table was there was no funding source
indicated in the policy, and the school system is already providing those
academic support programs.
Burroughs provides context. The
policy will allow students who fall under the required 2.0 GPA to continue in
their sport or extra-curricular activity for another quarter under probation.
The paragraph in question states the CEO will implement tutoring, mentoring, counseling,
and other supports for these students. He believes we should not further
disconnect disconnected youth but keep them in school. He did not agree to take
that paragraph out because it is the meat of the policy.
Queen provides her own experience
as a parent, and the need for allowing students to participate in these
extracurricular activities.
Mickens-Murray asserts she does
not want to lower our standards.
Williams has questions about its
implementation and the fiscal note, plus the actual logistics.
Valentine states that he doesn’t
think the system should lower its standards. If you want to play sports in
college, you have to maintain a certain GPA.
Adams-Stafford asks if the
existing support programs are not meeting student needs?
Dr. Goldson states she would
prefer to just reserve her comments for the end and then the board can vote.
Shelton remarks that it is not typical
in meetings for hands to keep going up and then be called on. Generally, you
see five hands are up, they speak, that’s it. You guys keep adding yourself in
and that will make for a long night. If that’s the way you do it, that’s fine
but it’s not normal.
Miller and Williams explain it is
board practice that members have 5 minutes in the first round and 3 minutes in
the second round.
Adams-Stafford asks to reclaim her
time. She asks if anyone is keeping track of the order in which people have
raised their hands. She continues with her experience as a teacher and the
importance of extra-curriculars and sports. Queen and Ahmed also speak to their
support of the policy revision.
Mickens-Murray appreciates the
conversation but what she has heard is that this additional academic support is
limited to those in extracurricular activities and that’s not all students. She
wonders if there are attachments to this policy that show the sponsors looked
at data.
Goldson notes that Burroughs is
correct, he did not lower the 2.0 GPA. She agrees with Valentine that coaches
DO make sure their athletes have tutoring available. They do a fabulous job. We
don’t need to lower our standards. NCAA will not take our students if they don’t
meet the requirements. We are coming out of a pandemic, and I want to make sure
we have tutoring for ALL students. She is asking we table the policy. She can’t
make a financial obligation because the budget has already been approved. 98
percent of kids are coming back in the fall and we have to focus on them all.
Burroughs clarifies the policy
does not lower the 2.0 threshold but simply says the CEO will implement tutoring
etc. It’s not creating new programs. He explains he met with the coach of
Potomac HS and 15 other coaches who wanted this revised policy while principals
were not in favor.
Williams makes a substitute motion
to table it. Mickens-Murray seconds.
No: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Thomas
Yes: Boozer-Strother, Ceron-Ruiz,
Monteiro, Mickens-Murray, Queen, Valentine, Williams, Miller
Policy is tabled.
Item 6.1 is the school to prison
pipeline work group. An amendment is made by Ceron-Ruiz to change Ninah
Jackson to alumni and add himself as the current student board member to the
group. Burroughs seconds.
Williams votes no; Valentine
abstains. All the other board members approve, and it passes.
The next order of business is to
confirm actions taken in
executive session that included discussion of the CEO’s end-of-year evaluation,
discuss a matter regarding a former employee, and receive the report from
ethics panel, among other items. Williams adds they also voted to appoint staff
members to positions.
Adams-Stafford, Burroughs, Harris,
Thomas, Ahmed, Ceron-Ruiz, and Murray vote no.
Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Miller,
Valentine, Mickens-Murray, and Williams vote yes.
Queen abstains because some of the
items involved her.
The motion fails.
Shelton clarifies the failure
to approve the actions means the actions taken in executive session are
essentially null and void.
Mickens-Murray asks the parliamentarian
a question. In closed session, a vote was taken that seven members could not
vote on. In open session, these same people are voting to not approve the
actions because they have a biased interest. What happens in that situation?
Shelton states for reasons
unbeknownst to him he was not allowed to participate in executive session. That’s
fine. He is surprised to learn that you now have people voting on those actions
who were not allowed to vote earlier. It doesn’t make sense. He does not know
why the board has to take another vote to approve actions when they were
already voted on in closed session.
Adams-Stafford replies the
confirmation of action taken in closed session is required by state law. She
also contends the vote taken in closed session was not lawful.
Ahmed states she wants to change
her vote to abstention.
Shelton responds that if it is
state law, that takes precedence over parliamentary procedure. He also states
that members can’t change their votes at this time. They would have to make a
motion to reconsider.
Williams asks the
parliamentarian if they can separate the items voted on in executive session
and vote on them separately. Shelton says he thinks that would be permissible
if the body wants to do that and it’s not contrary to the rules.
This raises questions about how to
vote on the closed item sessions without disclosing the items publicly and the ability
of the student board member to vote.
Adams-Stafford puts a motion on
the floor to table the vote on actions taken in executive session until they
have their new lawyer onboard to provide advice, especially because the vote on
ethics panel report in closed session was in violation of state law. Harris seconds
the motion.
Miller asks Goldson if she had a
comment. Goldson apologizes--she
states “I was acting like the parliamentarian.” There’s nothing to table
because you already voted. Sorry.
Adams-Stafford amends motion to
table discussion, not vote. Shelton states that’s correct. The vote already occurred.
Vote to table discussion until the
lawyer is onboard.
Yes: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs,
Ceron-Ruiz, Harris, Murray
No: Boozer-Strother, Monteiro, Mickens-Murray,
Valentine, Williams, Miller
Abstain: Queen
Absent: Thomas
Williams puts a motion on the table
to have a meeting immediately to dispense with this matter in executive session.
Ahmed raises a point of order
asking if a motion is needed for that or if chair/vice-chair can just call
meeting.
Monteiro seconds.
Queen states it’s her
understanding that the vote that was previously taken stands. Miller says it’s
not trying to change the vote, just have discussion.
Burroughs moves to adjourn. Ahmed
seconds.
Board staff member Ms. Berkeley asks
where they are with Williams’ motion that was seconded because that was not
voted on.
Mickens-Murray asks if she can
make substitute motion to reconsider vote.
Shelton responds that the motion
to adjourn is superior to everything and is not debatable.
Yes: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed, Burroughs,
Ceron-Ruiz, Harris, Murray
No: Boozer-Strother, Monteiro,
Mickens-Murray, Valentine, Williams, Miller
Abstain: Queen
Absent: Thomas
Motion failed.
Williams asks if they can just
have a vote to reconsider actions taken in executive session. Mickens-Murray seconds.
Ahmed makes a point of order that
it is not appropriate for anyone other than the motion maker to make a motion to
reconsider. Shelton agrees. The motion to reconsider can’t come from the person
who lost the initial vote. Only the person who was on the prevailing side can
make a motion to reconsider. There is confusion and discussion about who was on
prevailing side and which motion is being reconsidered. William clarifies she
is asking for motion to reconsider the approval of actions taken in executive
session, which would allow Ahmed to change her vote.
Burroughs makes point of order.
Williams voted yes on motion to approve actions taken in executive session,
which lost the vote. Can she make the motion to reconsider? Shelton says if she
lost that vote, then it is inappropriate.
Williams says she understands the
situation now and will stick with her original motion to go back into executive
session to discuss.
Valentine clarifies with Shelton that
motion is appropriate. Valentine seconds with that information.
With further discussion, Valentine
clarifies to Burroughs that if the motion to go into executive session fails,
he will vote to adjourn. Valentine calls the question.
Yes: Boozer-Strother,
Mickens-Murray, Monteiro, Queen, Valentine, Williams, Miller
No: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Burroughs, Ceron-Ruiz, Harris,
Absent: Murray, Thomas
Miller states the motion carries.
Burroughs disagrees; according to state law, when student board member can
vote, 8 votes are required.
Burroughs moves to adjourn, Valentine
seconds.
Motion passes unanimously. Meeting
is adjourned.