At the Jan 30 RIH BOE meeting, the new majority on the BOE tries to change history by forcing changes to the minutes of the Jan 5th meeting (another ethics issue, done behind the scenes, via email instead of by discussion at a public meeting as required). When district staff refuse to make their desired changes, the new majority on the BOE voted down the minutes. Good thing we have LiveStream meetings. Below is my letter to the BOE:
------------
Good evening,
At the January 30th Board meeting, 5 members of the Board of Education voted NO to the motion to approve the minutes of the January 5th Board meeting. There was no discussion, so there was no opportunity for the other 4 Board members or the public to understand why a majority of the Board voted down its own minutes. Since the meeting is live-streamed and the video is posted, what could be questioned about the minutes? I stood up at the meeting and asked why they did not approve the minutes, and I did not receive a response to my question.
I am now in possession of a January 30th email from the Vice President of the Board, Kim Ansh, directing a district employee to make changes to those minutes. I now understand what one Board member wanted to change. I don’t understand why 4 other Board members also voted no on this agenda item, and I don’t understand why there was no public discussion as is required. And here’s the thing,
1 - the email from the Board VP included a header “Deliberative Discussion - Confidential”. Sorry Ms. Ansh, but just because you say it doesn’t make it true.
2 - the email from the Board VP directs a district employee (first directed to Dr. Rui Dionisio, Superintendent, then Tom Lambe, Business Administrator and Board Secretary) to make changes to the minutes. One Board member cannot instruct district employees what to do. This seems to be yet another Code of Ethics violation by the Board VP who voted not to participate in School Board Ethics Training on January 5th when it was scheduled.
3 - the email from the Board VP suggests Mr. Lambe to add the word ’secret’ to the minutes. The word ’secret’ was not used at that point of the meeting (which you would all know if you went back to the video.)
4 - the email from the Board VP directed Mr. Lambe to add Ms. King’s name to a specific comment in the minutes. Ms. Ansh tell Mr. Lambe that the words “a board member” need to be changed to “Ms. King”. (Why Ms. Ansh is so eager to highlight Ms. King is another question altogether). Ms. Ansh cannot instruct a district employee to change the minutes.
5 - the email from the Board VP directed Mr. Lambe to change “Dr. Dionisio allowed the students to leave” to “Dr. Dionisio directed the students to leave". Ms. Ansh tells Mr. Lambe that the word “needs to be changed”. Once again if you had gone back to the video, the video clearly shows that Dr. Dionisio did not direct the students to leave (Contrary to Ms. Ansh instruction to Mr. Lambe to change the minutes, and contrary to Ms. Ansh’s husband standing up at the Jan 30 meeting and accusing the Superintendent of directing the students to leave). The video clearly shows that Dr. Dionisio said “Ms. Sullivan I’d like to ask the students, uh, allow them to be dismissed at this point” to which Ms. Sullivan responds “yes, I told them they could leave earlier”. So here not only does Ms. Ansh instruct a district employee to change the minutes, she instructs him to put something in the minutes that just did not happen.
A single Board member cannot direct district employees to do something via ‘confidential' email, and the Board as a whole cannot vote no to the minutes because they want the minutes to reflect alternative facts. The Board cannot change history.
Finally, as Judy Sullivan pointed out at the July 26, 2021 board meeting any and all proposed changes to the minutes must be discussed in public. What occurred at the January 30th meeting is not allowed under Roberts Rules or Board Policy.
I look forward to the minutes being properly discussed and approved at the Board meeting on February 13th, or to hearing a transparent discussion as to why the Board is refusing to approve them.
Kathie Schwartz
The link to excerpts of the July 26, 2021 meeting referenced in my letter above: https://youtu.be/K1x94U3F6kg