On June 26, I attended the District 12 Board of Education meeting. I was so impressed that the board addressed a community member's request for a change to board policy. What I was disappointed about was that in spite of former President Bisceglie's agreement on one point and disagreement on another. the board seemed to be in favor of doing nothing to change the policy.
It would be my opinion that when a board thinks to. in essence. censure an elected board member and do so by an agenda change during a meeting Sept. 26. vs. an actual predetermined agenda item, some scrutiny should be given to both parties.
Censure is not a subject to be taken lightly.
The community member requested that the following happen:
Before a board member is pursued for censure from the board the following actions must occur:
1. A sitdown meeting with the board president and the school administrator with specific dates of issues and a written plan to address these issues.
2. A board member threatened with censure will have, at the district's expense a consultation with legal counsel (a one hour consultation)
3. That no addendum to an agenda regarding personnel (including board members, although they are not compensated) be made prior to the meeting without full board knowledge of the addendum no later than the Friday before the board meeting on a Tuesday.
Based on the discussion, it was clear the board might not support an hour of independent counsel at the district's expense, but the first item had merit and the final requested item was not acknowledged in the discussion. Collaboration and negotiation are how change is made.
It would seem public servants deserve more consideration.