From my mailbox today:
"there are many disturbing rumors floating around that there were some closed door, hush-hush, nontransparent meetings that took place prior to the vote last Tuesday. This process was supposed to be open to the public, transparent and legitimate. It feels just the opposite. If there is an OUNCE of truth to these allegations, I feel that we, the parents of these students, are owed an apology. I think an explanation is in order. This is about elected officials acting inappropriately, unethically and immorally. I am asking that a full investigation be conducted and the public be made aware of the findings."My response:
I understand that you are unhappy with the outcome of the vote and your representation during the process. There isn't anything I can say that will take that away. I can say that a conversation between two board members that doesn't happen on the dais does not constitute a closed door, hush-hush, nontransparent, secret meeting. When I walked around CL19 while I spoke on the phone with Jennifer Bergel and told her that I just couldn't see her point about CL19 being three different communities, or later that evening called Joe Guzman to ask that he listen carefully to the case I would make on the dais the next night to keep CL19 together, it was not a closed door, hush-hush, nontransparent, secret meeting. When I stayed behind with Tom Marshall after meeting with residents to ask him what he thought of the data that they had presented, or when I pulled Tom Reed aside to ask him his priorities to get a sense of what I might propose by way of a compromise between members... these are not closed door, hush-hush, nontransparent, secret meetings. These are your representatives doing their jobs, and it should not be scandalized or criminalized.I should add that compromise is not corruption.
Correspondence to or from any member of the School Board is available to any member of the public via the Freedom of Information Act. That's every single email. All you have to do is call the LCPS Public Information information office and ask for it.
Would you say that this confusion about whether or not the decision was made according to the "rule of man" rather than the "rule of law" is the result of wealthier communities' extensive participation in---and therefore, influence over---this process?
ReplyDeleteI do not live in CL19, but it was really great to see that a board member visited the neighborhood to understand whether or not it made sense to split it.
I want to thank you for that, and for constantly expressing the wish that people from poorer communities would come to speak at the meetings.
Because people were fairly unanimous in their desire to stay at their current school in my neighborhood, I felt as though supporting a move to Douglass might just vilify me in the eyes of my neighbors. But given the outcome, it seems like it might have been just the right thing to do.
There are a number of reader comments addressing the very issue of fairness under this article: http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/school_board_adopts_new_leesburg_boundaries999/
-Somewhat Disillusioned
Thank you for your comments "Somewhat Disillusioned and for expressing a counter argument to your community majority, as several others have claimed to do on the thread you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteA question for Mr. Stevens...given this much disagreement immediately prior to the vote, wouldn't it have made more sense to delay the vote to re-assess the boundaries criteria for all Leesburg schools and not just the few that were modified at the very last minute? Look at it this way -- we started the process with a goal to keep every school at no more than 25% ELL/FRL, and overnight that plan is thrown to the wind and one school is saddled with over 30%. I realize you did not vote for this plan, but I do hope you understand that is a fast way to lose public trust and feed the rumor mill by leaving many questions unanswered. Many of us are more concerned about that than the actual outcome of the vote.