The podcast of the meeting is available at http://cmsbears.podbean.com or via the iTunes store (it's a free podcast).
One change from my last posting. The Superintendent interviews that are to be conducted by the various committees appointed by the board will NOT be open to the public as previously stated. While they certainly could be open to the public, the Open Meetings Act does not require that they be open to the public, therefore our school board has somehow decided (since there was no vote or open discussion about this) that they will not be open to the public. However, the school board IS required to conduct their interviews in a public setting, therefore the public can watch those interviews on April 7.
Since I'm not feeling the transparency here, I might also point out that while the Bernalillo school board gets dinged by the Attorney General's Office for discussing the job description for a new superintendent in an executive session versus an open meeting (see March 8, 2012 posting of the news article), our school board somehow managed to develop our superintendent's job description/criteria without any meeting at all. According to Dr. Patterson, the Board's consultant, the criteria for the job description were developed via emails between him and board members.
My understanding from Dr. Patterson is that the resumes for the candidates are public information. Therefore I have officially asked for them pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
In other Board matters, Superintendent Hancock discussed the latest buzz word that we will all be hearing more and more. New Mexico is now one of 46 states that have adopted the "Common Core" standards. According to Mr. Hancock, this is basically a retooling of what was going on in the 70s, only now it has a new name. Anyway, our students will be required to go to these standards starting this August for the elementary students and next August in the high school (this according to the Special Education Director). I didn't catch where the middle school falls in the adoption of the standards.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Margo, thanks for taking the time to talk on the phone and thanks for pointing me to the podcast. Thanks for keeping up with that too. Certainly was nice to have. The school should do that itself, obviously, but thanks for taking it on until someone at the school decides it’s a good idea.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, like we discussed on the phone, I have a definite opinion about how clear the open meetings act is on this issue. I’m not a lawyer but, as they say, I played one on TV.
1) Does the Open Meeting Act require the board to interview Super applicants in public?
a) NMSA 10-15-1(B)…is a quorum of members present? (presumably there will be)
b) NMSA 10-15-1(B)…is the board there to formulate public policy, discuss public biz etc.? (Yes, the hiring of a super.)
2) Therefore, the meeting must be open to the public, UNLESS THERE IS AN EXCEPTION NMSA 10-15-1(H)….
3) in this case, is there an exception for “limited personnel matters”? NMSA 10-15-1(H)(2)
a) Is the board discussing the hiring of any individual public employee? NMSA 10-15-1(H)(2)
(yes, a new super.)
b) it’s the same exception that applied to screening the applicants at the last special meeting. The only difference is that this time the applicants will be there themselves.
c) And besides, what else could “discussing the hiring of” mean but , well…discussing the hiring of?
d) there is also additional and clear textual support for the specific inclusion of what we think of as “interviews” in a closed meeting (meaning, yes, that the candidate is alone with the board in the room) because the law says “Judicial candidates interviewed by any commission shall have the right to demand an open interview.” NMSA 10-15-1(H)(2). What do judicial candidates have to do with our issue? Well if the law gives would-be judges a special “right to demand an open interview,” that clearly implies that other kinds of interviews can be closed.
e) and of course there are all sorts of other reasons why the board can invite people into closed meetings that qualify under the exclusions: discussion of specific personnel with the principal, discussions with school personnel about students when confidential info might be disclosed, going in with a teacher’s union negotiator, etc.
d) the board, in fact, CAN hold a “closed meeting only,” and not even have to “go into” one from an open meeting. Meanwhile the committee meetings could have been scheduled by the committees themselves, based on general direction from the board, without any notice to anybody other than the other committee members and the applicants.
At any rate, as we discussed, I feel very strongly that the board should not conduct their interviews in public. That takes a process that is already pretty poorly designed to lead to the best hire, and makes the process even worse. Besides that I think it’s really unfair to the person they finally hire.
Wendell
Well, I haven't even slept at a Holiday Inn Express in a while, but here's my take on it from the perspective of a parent and someone interested in the goings-on at our school:
ReplyDeleteThe laws that you are citing continue to refer to "the discussion" by the board of hiring, etc. The board has already made it quite clear that it will be discussing these candidates in executive session. My understanding of opening the interviews to the public is that the board collectively will be asking each applicant the same question, then hearing their response. From what I have heard these questions are more general in nature and deal with the candidates' philosophies, views about education, and goals for our school (and hopefully how those goals will be achieved). I see absolutely no reason why these questions would be inappropriate to ask in a public forum. And I certainly want to hear the views of each of the finalist, as I know one of them will end up being our superintendent.
Remember, too, that among the job descriptions for the superintendent is to be an effective liaison with the public. Each of these candidates should be qualified and adept at expressing themselves in a public forum openly, honestly and concisely. Any argument that they would be more open or honest behind closed doors would cause me to wonder why they couldn't be that way with whomever is in the public forum. Also, from the candidates' perspective, when they are interviewed in a public forum they should have some comfort level that they are not being treated differently than any other candidate.
As we have seen with so many elected officials, often it is the smooth talker that is willing to say whatever they think that audience wants to hear that gets elected, then does whatever they want once in office. That could very well be the case with either a public or private interview process. At least in a public forum, everyone hears what the candidate said, not just the board, thus removing what could be adverse speculation from the backs of the board.
I certainly hope that the school board uses its vast reach of connections to do its due diligence on each candidate by checking references and track records with previous employers. A 45 minute interview is nice, but knowing how that person was perceived in their prior jobs is WAY more valuable information and should carry more weight than whatever sound bites would be provided in either public or private interviews.