A View on (Not) Following the Rules at Council Rock

Considering what’s happened at Council Rock recently, following the rules does matter.
THAT GOES AT THE TOP TOO.

Click the picture for a video to see what I mean.

Taxpayers Beware: Richboro Redistricting Would Create a Geographically Segregated Council Rock School Board — May Have Gigantic Cost/Tax Consequences for Years

One of the consequences of the proposed redistricting Richboro Middle School could have a much bigger impact on the future than simply the question of where students will go to school.  What is being proposed could potentially shift the power in Council Rock toward one of the two high schools.  With that power would come the potential for major new projects at Council Rock High School South, along with all sorts of costs for the public to bear.

In a way, the vote on this redistricting shift could be the most impactful vote this School Board will make.

Here’s why: If all students from Richboro Middle got sent to Council Rock High School South, then five Board members would represent geographic areas which send all their students to South, and only four from North.

The present structure of the Board has four members whose area-represented students attend North, three with all their students going to South, and two who have a split of students going to both high schools.

Under the present system, there is not a majority of five members whose allegiance is to one school more than the other. When an issue affects one of the high schools, there are enough Board members with ties to the other High School to make sure there remains some equitable balance between resources spent for North and for South.

However, once there is a Board with five members whose voters all send their children to South, this balance of power shifts.  The potential for votes of 5-4 for big projects and programs at South grows.

This is in no way to impugn the two current Board members who hold those positions with constituencies split between North and South, Bernadette Heenan and Robert Donnelly.  There is no indication I have that these two individuals would act in any way other than the overall benefit of both high schools and the entire School District.

However, this geographic power shift would create the potential for a more divided Board in the future. An active group of voters in the areas feeding CRHS South could push candidates for Board seats who would promise greater attention and greater resources for South.

The hit on the expenditures for the District could be huge.  All of a sudden, the issue of whether a $6,000,000 swimming pool should be built at South would not necessarily be judged as whether it’s in the best interests of the District and whether taxpayers could afford it.  Five Board members with allegiance to the voters from South could pass the project on a 5-4 vote regardless of cost impact.

Similarly, the issue of a stadium at South could get pushed through. Currently there is no stadium on the grounds at South and both schools’ teams share a stadium at North.  If there is a 5-4 majority pressing for a stadium to be constructed at South, how many millions could that cost taxpayers?

After all, these five Board members from South areas could tell their constituents that all the benefits are going to them, while the expenses must also be shared by the taxpayers from the northern areas.

This shift would even have the potential of impacting the educational program.  With a 5-4 majority there could be pressure to ensure favoritism toward South for educational programs, technology equipment and perhaps even teacher assignments.

This may all sound like an imaginary scenario, but the fact remains that a vote to redistrict Richboro Middle School does open a door to permit this kind of divided District environment in the future.

Could the taxpayers of the District afford the potential impact of a Board with a majority having greater allegiance to one of the two high schools?  Could the District itself?

We shouldn’t just trust that it wouldn’t happen. It could.

Council Rock High School South Capacity Figures Magically Change When It Suits the Latest Need — Don’t Official Documents Matter?

At a community forum November 4th, the Administration presented a slideshow justifying a proposed realignment so that all students graduating Richboro Middle School (RMS) would attend Council Rock High School South.  Currently, some students from RMS attend South and others attend North, depending on the address of residence.

The Superintendent claimed the capacity for South was 2,380 students.  However, when the building was planned, all the official documents showed it was being built with a capacity for 2,000 (it had originally been designed for 1,600 but actions by the School Board increased that by 400 for a total of 2,000).  The documents includes minutes of School Board meetings on January 27, 2000, and June 15, 2000, as well as Act 34 documentation for the school project.

Now, there was a provision written into the Act 34 documents that South was expandable to 2,400 students, but the approved capacity was 2,000.  The expansion up to 2,400 was not part of the construction then, nor done since that time. Taxpayers should be concerned that this move of more students into the building could encourage people to push for added facilities to be built to accommodate them.

If the official documents approved for the construction showed a capacity of 2,000, how could there all of a sudden be room for 2,380 students as was being claimed in the presentation?  The District cannot play both sides of the coin — using one figure for official approval but an altogether different number when it suits its needs.

The statement was made that this figure of 2,380 capacity was determined by assigning 25 students into each instructional space.  What’s humorous (or questionable) about that is that at a meeting just the following night about high school scheduling, planners discussed space limitations.  They spoke of the need to keep an eye on how many students could fit into a room, since not all classes could take a full complement of kids, sometimes for facilities reasons. So a flat 25 students per instructional space might sound good and easy but not mesh with reality.

The plan for RMS students to all come to South did not mention any need to build facilities to accommodate the added students, but that doesn’t mean this wouldn’t somehow get pursued.  You can bet it would become a demand if the addition of those students led to the reality (or even perception) that the building was overcrowded.

The Superintendent was asked whether any new facilities were to be constructed at South should this redistricting happen, including a swimming pool (which North has but South does not); his response was simply that students at South would not be taught swimming.

The slideshow contained projected numbers of students in future years, including some minimal growth pattern (37 students to grade 9).  In the year 2014-15, these figures showed that South might have 2,219 students. Well, by the official number of 2,000, that would be overcrowding.

That raised two concerns from some attendees, some of whom have been involved in District activity for many years.  First were the vagaries of projecting future enrollment, and one audience member indicated that based on looking at projections using 3rd grade student increases would result in more students than the Administration was showing.  A difference of 5% could push Council Rock South up against even the 2,380 capacity figure that was being claimed to justify this move.

But the other bone of contention was this discrepancy between what was shown as the capacity and what was being claimed. The Superintendent even stated at one point that ““I don’t know if that’s right, 2,000, 2,380 as far as capacity.”  Well, forgive me, but as a taxpayer, I think Government agencies are bound by the documents and records they create.

If the school was built as planned for capacity, that figure is 2,000.  If it was somehow built larger and can really accommodate 2,380, then the District should answer why money was spent to build a larger school than had been approved at the time (presumably costing more).

But since the official documents state the capacity is 2,000, any plans to house upwards of 2,200 students in this building must be considered overcrowding unless and until the School District can justify this discrepancy with certainty.  I think the public should be concerned that this overcrowding (to accommodate this RMS redistricting) could become the foot in the door that will lead to an expensive expansion of facilities at South.

When Are Enrollment Projections Valid and When Aren’t They?

At last night’s forum on possibly redistricting so that all Richboro Middle School students get sent to Council Rock South (as opposed to the current system of splitting them into the two high schools by geographic location), figures were presented about future enrollments.  The Administration was using these numbers to indicate how all the students would be able to fit into the capacity at South.

Some of the numbers were based on current students enrolled at different grade levels, but others were based on added students entering the schools. These future assumptions of enrollment raise a question:

When does this Administration and Board consider future enrollment projections valid and when do they not?

At the time the 10-year master plan to renovate all the elementary and middle schools was unveiled, I questioned the logic of renovating and continuing to maintain all ten elementary schools when projected enrollment figures showed an anticipated decline of about 500 or more students. That would be more students lost than the current enrollment at several of the schools presently (four have populations below 500, with one below 400).  When I asked why this master plan didn’t even discuss the possibility of closing one of the schools should those trends bear out, I was told that these projections are uncertain and shouldn’t be used to make any determination such as potentially closing a school.

It should be noted that I wasn’t asking for the plan to specifically promise or guarantee to close a school, just that a reduction in schools would be considered as opposed to keeping all ten open if these trends bear out. After all, renovating a school is costing about $12,000,000 at this time and certainly more in a few years. Between the cost avoidance of not fixing one school, not running it afterward, and savings on administrative staff, the savings to taxpayers would be significant.  Despite my comments, the possibility of someday considering a reduction in schools did not get put into the plan.  So in that case, projected enrollments weren’t dependable.

But at last night’s meeting, selected enrollment figures were projected and used to try and show that all the students from Richboro Middle School could fit at South.  This drew some consternation from some attendees, claiming that the projections showed problems vis-à-vis the high school’s capacity.  Those concerns would be exacerbated if the projections somehow were understated.

Several members of the audience raised objections to the capacity being claimed for South, saying that the original figures when the school was built had stated a capacity of 2,000.  The Superintendent said the capacity was higher, based on an analysis done by the District’s Facilities staff, saying that with 25 students per instructional space the capacity was 2,380.  But early in the meeting, the Superintendent said “I don’t know if that’s right, 2,000, 2,380 as far as capacity.” And was based on the 2,380 capacity that the District projected that 2,219 students could fit at South in 2014-15.  But again, that projects a growth pattern projection for several years out.

So the District is used projections to plan a decision it apparently wants, but refuses to even include in the master plan the possibility of considering reducing schools at some point in the future if projections come true.  It makes one wonder what the motivation is. Shouldn’t the possibility of reducing costs (and tax increases) when/if feasible be at least documented when plans are being drawn up?

Academic Standards Committee Meeting to Cover High School Scheduling Thursday at 6:30 p.m.

The agenda for the Academic Standards Committee meeting 6:30 p.m Thursday, November 5th (before the regular Board meeting at 7:30 features a discussion on High School Scheduling.  This issue can have significant ramifications for students, so the meeting may be worth attending — both for parents who will have students facing these issues and wanting to understand the process; as well as parents whose students may have encountered problems and conflicts with the existing method.

There are occasions where students want to take certain classes in a field they plan to pursue in college but are unable to do so because the time it is offered conflicts with another course needed for graduation.  It can become a juggling act to try and fit in the necessary classes and the desired elective choices with the availability.  The frequency with which some courses are offered, as well as the day and time, can impede the ideal mix of classes for students.

And if a bunch of students who might want to take a class cannot do so because of conflicts, that could potentially drop the number of students below the class-size minimum threshold, meaning other students could be impacted and also have to go back to the drawing board.

The potential redistricting of all Richboro Middle School students to attend Council Rock High School South (as opposed to the current split between North and South) could also have ramifications on scheduling at North.  If enrollment drops due to fewer students and fewer courses are offered, that could increase the difficulty of scheduling for students attending CRHS North.

The topic sounds innocuous but the implications are significant and may warrant interested parents (and perhaps students with ‘horror stories’) attending this meeting of Academic Standards.

Public Forum Wednesday. November 4th, on Decision Affecting Students from Richboro Middle School (Now and in the Future) — and How That Could Impact the Two High Schools

Parents of students attending Richboro Middle School (RMS) — and parents of students in any of the Elementary Schools which feed RMS — may want to be aware of and attend a special forum being held at Council Rock High School South on Wednesday, November 4th. Up for discussion is a plan to alter the high school assignment of youngsters graduating from RMS. Currently some of those students are assigned to CRHS North and others to Council Rock South. The discussion will focus on a potential plan to assign all students graduating from RMS entirely to South.

A decision like that could have ramifications for all Council Rock students depending on the impact at the high schools, and so may also be of interest to parents whose students aren’t among the Richboro Middle population.

The District’s website mentions this forum, but the language may not make it particularly clear to parents of elementary students how important this issue (and thus their attendance) may be. The website states:

Parents are invited to a Forum to discuss enrollment trends in our middle schools and high schools at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at Council Rock High School South in the school auditorium. This forum culminates discussions over the past four years on high school attendance boundaries and the potential to move all students at Richboro Middle School to Council Rock High School South.

An announcement that was issued in the newsletter of the Council Rock North PTO, however, makes it a bit clearer that elementary students’ parents may have a stake in attending:

Wednesday, November 4 – Community Forum to discuss enrollment trends in the district – 7pm – Council Rock South Auditorium – The potential redistricting of Richboro Middle School beginning in the 2011-2012 school year (with current 7th grade students) will be discussed. Redistricting would effect ALL STUDENTS, not just those who attend Richboro Middle School. I encourage you to forward information about this meeting to all your friends and neighbors. While parents of   students currently in elementary school may feel like high school is far off in the future, redistricting will affect this population more than any other current student. Attendance at the forum is encouraged to learn more about this topic and share your opinion before the school board makes a decision.

Questions may arise about the capacity and impact for Council Rock South to handle a greater influx of students, and on what impact might be felt on programs at Council Rock School North if fewer students attend there. Also, based on some issues, I have heard from at least one parent that there are those who would prefer their children to continue being assigned to North rather than to South.

Council Rock School District has three middle schools but two high schools. Until a couple of years ago, students graduating from RMS were assigned to either the North or South High School based upon their address. (All students from Newtown Middle went to North and all students from Holland Middle went to South.)

A couple of years ago, the issue seemed to come to a head as some parents complained that their children were being separated from their friends (who might live a block away but on the other side of the high school assignment border) and that they were lost and in the minority at the High School. People opposed to a shift in the school assignments held that no empirical evidence was being provided that this was harmful or a problem, and that preparing students for change in life was a good thing. Largely due to the urging of Robert Donnelly on the School Board, a survey was taken and students were allowed to opt out of their assigned high school, provided that the parents provided transportation to the other school.  The number of students who made this opt-out seemed small in practice.

This ad hoc solution apparently hasn’t resolved the issue for some people, leading to this grander redistricting plan. The question of whether this grander solution to a perceived problem will have other repercussions should be fleshed out before it gets implemented and voted.

When issues like this crop up, it should be remembered that School Board members can bring any item up for a vote during a public meeting, regardless of whether it is already on that meeting’s agenda.  All it takes is someone to make a motion and another to second it. So a forum like this may be important to make points heard before any vote gets taken. Parents with concerns should also not hesitate to contact their School Board members before any possible chance they’ll have to vote on this.

Update on Hatboro-Horsham Teachers’ Contract and Merit Pay

I’ve written a couple of times about the contract negotiations at Hatboro-Horsham, where the School Board is trying to inject some element of merit pay into the salaries teachers receive.  Here is an update from the Intelligencer on-line, posted on the 19th of October, reporting little movement in those contract talks.

But the bargaining position of the School Board appears not to be backing down from this mechanism in its contract proposal, including raises tied to superior performance and reductions tied to unsatisfactory performance. (The District’s website has a side-by-side comparison of their proposal vs. that of the teachers’ union.)

According to the Intelligencer’s post:

School board member Barbara LaSorsa reinforced the district’s position that any new contract should base raises on teachers’ performances. She said many of the district’s residents have jobs with performance-based raises.

I think the tying of teacher’s salaries or raises to some sort of merit-based accountability at hatboro-Horsham would be a step that could impact future contracts at Council Rock, so their result should be watched closely.

Facilities and Finance Committee Meetings Canceled Tonight — In a Budget Year Like This, Who Needs Meetings?

Among the public meetings the Council Rock School Board holds are committee meetings such as Academic Standards, Facilities and Finance. These occur monthly and are an opportunity for some in-depth discussion and examination of issues, generally in more detail than can be given during the regular Board meetings.

I have attended many of these Committee meetings, mostly the ones on Facilities and Finance, and often have found more details about projects, gotten a better understanding and occasionally even made suggestions or comments that the Board could take into consideration.

Meetings of the Facilities Committee and Finance Committee were scheduled for this evening at 5:30 and 7:00 respectively.  They have both been canceled — no reason was specified publicly, although the superintendent indicated there was nothing urgent to discuss.  This is the second time in the last three months that Finance has been canceled (August 26th was as well).  You would think that in a year with this many questions about budget, revenue, expenses and such that there would be plenty of need to keep up with all the latest information.  You would also think it would be important for there to be a public forum to ask questions about those topics.  Well, apparently the Board and Administration don’t share those thoughts.

Keeping the public involved doesn’t appear to play a role in whether to hold these meetings at Council Rock.

More on the Sunshine Act and the Public’s Right to Know

As I have posted recently, Council Rock School Board’s adherence to provisions of the Sunshine Act occasionally is less than ideal.  At the October 15th meeting this matter of the Sunshine Act crept up again, this time in regards to notice given about an Executive Session.

As a principle, all meetings of School Board officials are considered public.  However, in recognition that certain items are of a particularly sensitive nature, the Sunshine Act does allow certain items to be discussed in private, away from the prying eyes of the public.  Examples include personnel matters, litigation, contract negotiations, purchase or lease of real property, or items of confidentiality.

However, it must be noted that in moving a meeting behind closed doors, the Board is making a decision to deny the public a chance to monitor what is discussed.  To assure the public that this denial of public scrutiny is being done justifiably, the reason for this private Executive Session must be given.

Council Rock’s solicitors have generally used a one- or two-word reason for the session, just saying it was for reasons of “litigation” or “personnel matters.”  However, this kind of general term is insufficiently detailed for the public to be kept properly informed.  This point is backed up by the Pennsylvania School Board’s document “Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law – a guide for public school boards.”

Why should the public care?  Well, as a recent example, the issue of extending the teachers’ contract for a year was largely sprung on the public with virtually no advanced notice.  There had been no information that the Board and Administration were even considering it, much less negotiating it. Had the public known, perhaps there would have been more upfront opportunity to question whether it was in the District’s best interests, to question what benefits were being negotiated away and to confront Board members earlier before this contract extension was revealed shortly before the Board voted to approve it.

The use of an unspecific description such as “personnel matters” occurred again at the October 15th meeting.  Since no action or vote was about to be taken based on that, I did not interrupt the meeting for this perceived violation. However, I pointed it out during the second round of public comment that this type of description was not sufficiently detailed as required. Although it is the solicitor who announces the reason for an Executive Session, the solicitor works for the Board and therefore it is in their power to direct him to properly advise the public.  I read excerpts from the PSBA document and stressed the need for them to direct the solicitor to make pronouncements which comply with the intent of the Sunshine Act.

This isn’t a Board policy which they can choose to follow.  This is the law.  And the Board cannot take lightly the rights of the public.

Here is an excerpt from the PSBA document clearly addressing this (the underlining and ellipsis is in the document, not added by me), discussing a ruling by the Commonwealth Court in the case of The Reading Eagle v. Council of the City of Reading:

However the public does have a right to know what matter is being addressed in those sessions. To decide how much the public is entitled to know about litigation or personnel or real estate, the court relied on Hinds County Board of Supervisors v. Common Cause of Mississippi, 551 So. 2,d 107 (Miss. 1989). In that case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that specificity was necessary because:

“The reason given, of course, must be meaningful. It must be more than some generalized term which in reality tells the public nothing. To simply say ‘personnel matters’ or ‘litigation’ tells nothing. The reason stated must be of sufficient specificity to inform those present that there is, in reality, a specific, discrete matter or area which the board had determined should be discussed in an executive session….When a board chairman tells a citizen he may not hear the board discuss certain business, he is taking liberties with the rights of that citizen, and the reason given for citizen can understand. To permit generalized fluff would frustrate the very purposes of the Act.”

Commonwealth Court then determined that the General Assembly intended that the public be able to determine, from the reason given, whether they are being properly excluded from executive sessions and concluded that the reasons must be specific, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private.

Let’s see if this changes from now on.

Clarification/Correction on State Increase in Basic Subsidy Funding vis-à-vis Council Rock Budget

A week ago I posted about a concern with the Council Rock budget not receiving as much money in the State’s Basic Instructional Subsidy as had been projected, meaning a hit to the School District’s budget for 2009-10. The reason for that post was that Council Rock’s budget had shown an increase of 3.5% from 2008-09, whereas the State ended up providing just a 2% increase. The difference of about $200,000 was a shortfall that would hit programs or use more local taxpayer money, I thought.

I mentioned this at the last School Board meeting, and followed up afterward asking for clarification. I was advised by the District’s Business Administrator that subsequent to the passage of the 2008-09 budget, the State had added another 1.5% to last year’s Basic Subsidy. So the actual figure received last year was higher than what that budget had originally shown. Since this year’s budget document just showed a comparison to last year’s budgeted amounts, it appeared the figure for 2009-10 was an increase of 3.5%, but it was really 2% higher than the actual final subsidy for last year.

This Council Rock will be receiving the figure it projected at the beginning of the budget cycle, and there is not shortfall in this area.

I suggested to the Administration that a clearer picture for the public might be to show actual figures from the prior year as well as original budget figures, so that increases in actual expenditures or revenues can be seen easily.

Accountability and the Sunshine Act

I think it is important for the public to hold its elected officials and Boards accountable for the execution of their duties in accordance with laws, policies, etc.  At the October 1st meeting, I interrupted the Board meeting due to what I perceived to be a violation of the Sunshine Act.  The Board’s solicitor, Derek Reid, said “I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Rasiej’s interpretation of his right to interrupt the meeting.”

The Sunshine Act seems pretty clear on the public’s right to object when it perceives a violation — note that the law specifically says a perceived violation, so just the perception is enough.

Any person has the right to raise an objection at any time to a perceived violation of this chapter at any meeting of a board or council of a political subdivision or an authority created by a political subdivision.

So how could I not have had the right to interrupt when I did?  The law states any person has the right at any time.

Since the Sunshine Act makes governmental bodies responsible for the proper administration of meetings, its provisions would cover whether meetings are properly conducted.

The Council Rock School Board policy on meetings states that they will be conducted under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. During the October 1st meeting a motion with a statement made by Jerold Grupp ran counter to Robert’s Rules. Since those rules form the framework for properly holding meetings, I would perceive breaking those rules as a violation of the Sunshine Act.

After some extended discussion of the policy to let Board members call in their votes remotely, Paul Anagnostakos asked whether in the interest of time if there were any more concerns the motion should be shelved (as Policy 006 had been) or whether they wanted to go ahead and vote. After Mr. Grupp was recognized he asked to call the question.  He stated his understanding was that per Robert’s Rules since he was recognized and asked to call the question that no second was needed and it would actually go to an immediate vote. (He also acknowledged he may be wrong and looked for someone to second it.)

At that point I went to the microphone and objected.  I cited a Pennsylvania School Board Association document on the Sunshine Law states that six of nine members must vote to stop debate.   (The intent is to prevent one or a few members from stifling debate by others.)

At that point came Mr. Reid’s challenge of my right.  He continued by saying to the Board, “You can decide whether or not you want to call the question,” and then Mr. Grupp noted he hadn’t gotten a second and told the Board president it was up to him whether to see if the policy had the votes. Paul Anagnostakos said he had no problem with that and called for a roll call vote, without asking to see if anyone had any further comment (thus in effect, calling the question).  The vote on Policy 006.1 passed 7-2.

Here is information from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition:

The motion to close debate immediately is called the motion for the Previous Question. Like the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate, the motion for the Previous Question requires a two-thirds vote, and is undebatable.

The proper wording to close debate on the immediately pending motion is to say, “I move the previous question.”

Because it closes debate and brings the assembly to an immediate vote, something that is frequently desired or necessary, the motion for the Previous Question is quite commonly used in meetings. Frequently, however, the motion is made in a non-standard form, by a member saying, “I call the question,” or “I move we vote now.” If otherwise properly moved, the chair should treat these as motions for the Previous Question. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 193, 1.17 to p. 194, 1.5]

Cutting off debate infringes on the right of members to speak.  Therefore, no member or group of members can force an immediate end to debate if even one member with the right to do so wants to speak, except through the proper adoption of the Previous Question. This requires seeking and getting recognition and then moving the Previous Question, after which it must be seconded and adopted by a two-thirds vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 189-201]

I think this episode demonstrates a lackadaisical attitude as to how rules are followed.  It’s time for the Board to be accountable for adhering to its rules and to the Sunshine Act.