- This topic has 12 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Fellow Trustees,
My heart is heavy as I watch the canceling of an event unfold that to me will represent the disparate treatment of our students across the district. This is the canceling of Prom across the district. While it appears that the district administration was aware that “some” parents were already stepping in to assure that their students received a Prom “like” formal I am concerned of the disparity of these events because they don’t now have the support of the district. Some of the students will receive the opportunity to attend a traditional prom yet other students may NOT have the opportunity to attend Prom at all for their High School.
From what I have gathered in the community one high school parent group is planning a traditional Jr/Sr Prom and another high school is planning a Senior Prom and will open any remaining space to Seniors at another one of the high schools. Another high school is planning an event I believe to be a Jr/Sr Prom but with limited capacity at the selected venue. How is this equitable? I have NOT heard of plans at one of the high schools. These events are private and while I am sure the organizers will do their best to get information out to their whole RRISD class they have no obligation and in many cases the ability to do so therefore this leaves many students that may not even get the information. I want the district to embrace these events and ensure that each High School has their own event so that ALL students are afforded the information and option to attend THEIR Prom. I am sure these community groups would be more than willing to share information with the school and have the full support of the board to provide an event to ALL students that would like to join in this OPPURTUNITY.
The city of Round Rock hosted a Daddy Daughter Dance this weekend so this must be very confusing to our Juniors and Seniors that see the city is capable of hosting such a large equivalent event, but the district is not or will not?
I plead with my fellow Trustees to pause and truly think this through. This event is OPTIONAL, this event is a right of passage, this event is OPTIONAL, this event is one that many students look forward to during their educational years, this event is OPTIONAL, this event is one where everyone is welcome, this event is OPTIONAL, this event is one that parents look forward to as a celebration of the 13 year long journey, this event is OPTIONAL, this event embraces all students, this event is OPTIONAL, this event provides closure to many students as they prepare to transition, THIS EVENT IS OPTIONAL.
ACTION: I request that the RRISD Board of Trustees place District Wide Prom Discussion and Possible Action on the next Board agenda and discuss how long-standing district wide sponsored OPTIONAL events like Prom should be ensured to be equitable across the district even during COVID. I ask that the board ensure that all our Junior and Senior students have the OPPURTUNITY to attend Prom with their peers from their High School class. I would ask that the board discuss ensuring that a Prom is held for each of our traditional High School’s and that the school PARTNER with PARENT groups (what a concept) that may already be planning these to ensure that ALL our students that would like to attend are kept informed and provided the information they need to purchase tickets, etc. If a school does not have a parent group already planning Prom, then I would like the district to plan a Prom as usual. I am asking for the board to discuss this because I believe our community values this tradition and I believe the only way to ensure that all our students have this opportunity is for the district to support this event.
THIS is it, THIS is our opportunity to SHOW our community we are serious about equity to ALL of our students across the district at every High School! There are already organizations that help with many aspects of Prom (clothes, hair, makeup, etc.) but only the district can ensure that the Prom event itself is an equitable opportunity!
A huge thank you to all the parents that have already started to plan these events that the district traditionally would be supporting.
Earlier this week I was surprised to see RRISD offer quarantine/medical suggestions in official communication about the private prom plans currently in the works at some high school campuses by parents, unrelated to RRISD. Some interpreted this as a directive. This led to concern in the community about possible punitive action that could come to students who participate in these non-RRISD related prom events. Because I do not want that to happen and because I share Trustee Bone’s lack of equity concern that is about to play out across our high schools, I think it important to get ahead of this and clear things up for the community.
All of our students have had a school year mired in fear, distance, isolation, learning loss, etc. Some have lost a loved one to Covid-19 and for many, their mental health has suffered tremendously. This year’s senior class has paid a particularly high price because this is it for them…there is no hope that next year in RRISD might be better. There is no next year for them in RRISD. I would like to see all of our efforts being put towards salvaging everything possible for these students in the remaining weeks of the school year, including prom. I don’t believe RRISD should be offering quarantine/medical suggestions in official communication regarding this or any other private event nor do I believe that students who attend these private proms (or any of the many other private events held in our area) should be required or threatened with quarantine just because they attended.
Concern about lack of equity really needs to be considered here as well. When parents plan a prom, they do not have access to information to reach every senior and/or junior student. Some kids will inevitably be overlooked. Some high schools will be overlooked altogether as I believe is currently the case for at least one of our high schools. A student’s access to prom should not hinge on knowing (or their parents knowing) the right people who are planning it. All students should have access to prom, not learn about it on social media after the fact.
Earning a high school diploma can be done on-line. But becoming a Raider, Warrior, Dragon, Maverick or Tiger can’t be done on-line. Our school district has rich traditions and culture that has shaped generations of our students who have gone on to become contributing members of society. It all started here for them with meaningful rites of passage…fine arts trips across the country, winning and losing in sporting competitions, those great big mums at homecoming, banquets, NHS induction and prom…just to name a few. These rites of passage are important to many students and a big part of why their families choose to live here.
Given the fact that our understanding of who is most at risk for Covid-19 in Mar 2021 has evolved tremendously since Mar 2020, our practices and decisions should evolve as well. I do not favor standing in the way of these important rite of passage events any longer. ALL students should have access to them and they must be optional. I trust families to decide whether they are willing to accept the risk of their child attending prom. For some families, it would be unwise to attend because their student may be medically vulnerable or have a high risk family member at home.
As I look around, I see other organizations have evolved. Last weekend the city of Round Rock Parks & Rec Dept successfully held the annual Daddy/Daughter dance at Kalahari Resorts. And according to their website, the PIE Foundation is planning to hold their annual Gala (fundraiser that tremendously benefits RRISD students) at the Dell Diamond in May. These are meaningful and optional community events and like prom, should be made available to those who are willing to accept the risk.
I believe our students deserve a prom and whatever else can possibly be done to salvage this school year. We should leave our seniors and their families with good memories and a positive impression of RRISD as their days in RRISD come to an end.
Dr. Presley told the Board that not a single principal wanted to facilitate a prom. To me it is a very slippery slope for the board to force a principal to facilitate an off campus event against their will. Additionally, our policy on school functions, Board Policy FMD (Regulation), would seem to apply. It says: “All social functions which are school-sponsored shall be under the direction of the principal as assigned by the Superintendent. All school-sponsored social events must be reviewed and approved by the principal before they are held. “
The district has never been involved in Prom, or Homecoming, or Project Grad for that matter. There has not, to my knowledge, ever been district taxpayer money spent on these events.
I am officially denying the request to put the Prom discussion on the agenda. Per board policy BE Local your next step, should you wish to continue, is: “Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.” A consensus is not defined in our policy. The only other instance in my time on the board, and during my presidency, that this policy section was invoked by a trustee, a consensus was defined as a majority.
Thank you for weighing in here Pres Weir. I appreciate you sharing FMD as it’s helpful here. I respect your decision to deny our request based on this policy the professionalism with which you are doing so.
My preference would be for things to have never gotten to this point. When RRISD weighed in on one particular non-RRISD related event (prom) in official communication it opened the door for scrutiny. Resentments about the inconsistencies in access to extracurricular activities between campuses have been building all year and, for many parents, the lack of equitable access to off-campus prom events was just the last straw.
My understanding is that RRISD employees in the finance dept have played a helpful role in facilitating the organization of prom events in recent years. I understand the district’s reluctance to officially endorse a prom event this year. However, it is still my hope that a basic level of administrative support will be offered by the high school campus leaders to prom organizers to ensure all students have access to this rite-of-passage (off-campus) event as has been requested by the organizers. I am extremely uncomfortable with access to these events being limited to those students whose parents have personal connections to event organizers. I’m confident that a happy ending can be achieved without this coming to the dias in a board meeting.
After research I feel as a Trustee I have the right to have this topic added to the agenda. Per TASB documents regarding Trustees and agendas items I was pointed to the Texas Attorney General Opinion Number DM-0228 (1993) conclusion statement:
“This conclusion does not mean that a commissioners court cannot adopt a procedure for placing items on the agenda. The net effect of any procedure adopted, however, cannot be to preclude a member of the court from placing an item on an agenda so that it may be discussed publicly. While votes on any particular matter may be subject to majority rule, we cannot condone the implementation of any procedure that would effectively preclude a duly elected representative on the commissioners court from at a minimum providing a public forum for discussion of any particular issue.”
The TASB document titled “Juggling More than One Role as a Board Member” that referenced this above opinion states “However, a board member does have a right to place an item on the agenda for discussion by the entire board (including herself) at a subsequent, properly posted board meeting.”Also, another TASB document titled “Roles and Responsibilities of Individual School Board Members” that references the above opinion states “The attorney general has noted that a board cannot adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda.” I would like to be clear that I feel that I am being precluded from placing an item on the agenda. Our own policy is clear that if two board members would like an agenda item it is absolutely the right thing to add it. I do not know why one Trustee would feel they have the right to blatantly deny an agenda item of two other Trustees, this is not a good precedence in my opinion. Are we going to make all Trustees take their agenda items to a majority vote?
I would ask that the board president quickly remedy this issue and add the discussion item asked for by both Trustee Weston and I to the next possible agenda. I do not feel this game of kicking the agenda item down the calendar until it is a moot point is acceptable. Please point me in the right direction if I am incorrect or mistaken about the rights of individual Trustees. The Attorney General’s Opinion is very clear to me and every reference I read from professional organizations regarding agenda topics for school boards in Texas states it only takes ONE member to get something on the agenda so we should also possibly review our own policy if it is not in compliance with this opinion.
Per board policy BE Local
The following applies for placement of items on the agenda:
1. When a Board member requests that a subject be included on the agenda for a meeting, the request shall be made in writing to the Board President and the Superintendent. The Board President shall reply with an approval or a denial in writing. If the Board President approves the request, the Superintendent shall include the requested subject on the agenda. If the request is denied by the Board President, the Board member may bring the request to the entire Board using the provisions at item 2, below.
2. Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.Yes I know our local policy and have obviously followed it because the Board President denied the agenda item. The policy referenced above is BE Local key word “Local” and I take the position that the Attorney General’s opinion mentioned above supersedes the local policy. In fact as TASB stated local school boards “CANNOT adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda”. I feel this policy is precluding me from placing an agenda item and therefore not affording me my right as an elected Trustee. I do not believe I should have to take this to the Attorney General to get an opinion when there is already one that is readily used (i.e. TASB) in this situation and clearly stated.
I will ask yet again that the agenda item be added in a timely manner to the next possible agenda and not use this debate as a time delay. This AG’s opinion has been pointed out and brought to the attention of the board. I feel it should be taken into the utmost consideration in this decision. If the board can clearly tell me why this opinion does not apply in this situation then I will concede and ask for a majority vote at the next meeting but I fully feel I deserve an answer as to why I do not have the right to get an item on the agenda as afforded to me by the State of Texas? I will clearly state I am ONLY asking for “District Wide Prom Discussion” be placed on the agenda.
As you have said before, board members should abide by policy and following policy is good governance.
Our local policy, BE (Local), was developed by TASB, was reviewed by the legal department, is common policy for hundreds of school districts across the state, and has not been ruled as violating any law by any court or AG opinion.
There are a couple of TASB publications that address this process. The one you’ve cited “Juggling More than One Role as Board Member” advises a board member does have a right to place an item on the agenda for discussion by the entire board at “a subsequent, properly posted board meeting”. There is no requirement that the item be placed on the next agenda.
Another TASB publication, “Roles and Responsibilities of Individual Board Members” advises that there can be a procedure like BE (Local):
Placing an Item on a Future Agenda
For districts using TASB Policy BE (Local), local policy permits a single board member to request that an item go on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. In planning an agenda, the superintendent and board president must ensure that all trustee requests appear on the present agenda or are scheduled for a future agenda. No item may be removed from an agenda without the permission of the requesting trustee. The attorney general has noted that a board cannot adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda.
A board president or superintendent who chooses to delay or deny a board member’s request should consult with the board member about the request. If a board member believes that his or her item is being improperly kept off the board’s agenda, the board member may raise the issue during a board meeting. Because the item does not appear on that board meeting’s agenda, the board is not permitted to discuss the merits of the matter; the board is permitted to vote, however, on whether to place the item on a future agenda. Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 551.042.TASB’s policy guidance is that a process can delay or deny a request and still permit the matter to be raised to the board as a whole.
As for Attorney General Opinion DM-228, the Attorney General acknowledged that a board can establish a procedure for board members to get items on agendas so long as the procedure does not have the “net effect” of precluding a board member from placing an item on an agenda. The current policy does not have this net effect because it allows a board member to submit a proposal for an agenda item for the Board’s consideration at the end of a board meeting.
I also found subsequent AG opinion DM-473 (1998) regarding a City of Dallas rule that required 5 members (one-third) of the city council to place an item on the agenda. Specifically, this AG opinion determined that the City was authorized to adopt reasonable rules of procedure for its meetings as long as they are not inconsistent with the constitution, statutes, or city charter provisions. The AG found no basis for finding the rule invalid under the Open Meetings Act or inconsistent with the constitution, general laws, or city charter provisions.
Similarly, the Round Rock ISD Board of Trustees has adopted a procedure for placing an item on an agenda, in accordance with all AG opinions and state law, not to mention the guidance TASB consistently provides statewide.
RRISD board policy BE Local:
The following applies for placement of items on the agenda:
1. When a Board member requests that a subject be included on the agenda for a meeting, the request shall be made in writing to the Board President and the Superintendent. The Board President shall reply with an approval or a denial in writing. If the Board President approves the request, the Superintendent shall include the requested subject on the agenda. If the request is denied by the Board President, the Board member may bring the request to the entire Board using the provisions at item 2, below.
2. Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.President Weir,
If you recall at the meeting on Thursday March 4th, 2021 per board policy you are stating above, I asked for the item to be added to a future agenda and asked for other board members to agree (consensus). Trustee Weston verbally agreed that this issue needed to be addressed, and other members nodded their head so that is consensus especially as I looked around every Trustee looked supportive and not one member objected, not one verbally or physically objected, and you did not state that consensus had not been achieved so you are now not following board policy (BE Local referenced above) by denying this. If you as the President needed more than what took place on March 4th for consensus then that was your duty as Board President to have clarified that at the time of consensus NOT after the fact. I again fully believe I have jumped through every policy and hoop and you are still denying this agenda item. I should not be made to bring this yet again to board since I have fully followed the policy you outline. Please follow board policy. The meetings are recorded so please go back and review Thursday March 4th, 2021 meeting where I already abided by BE Local #2 that you reference above. Again, as President you had every right to acknowledge on March 4th that I did NOT have consensus but to say this now is not in line with our policy. Again, NOT one member of the board, not even you President Weir said that they objected to this item. President Weir you did say we would start with a board update, which “start” implies there will be more to come, and it is not uncommon for the board to ask for information in a board update and then have the item on the next agenda. You did not say that I was being denied my agenda request and if you as President needed more for consensus it was your duty to get that at the time. The President should make it very clear that the item is being denied at the meeting but as you have already stated, you are denying this after the fact and you have not mentioned that there was not consensus at the March 4th meeting so maybe you had just forgotten that I had asked per policy and this can be quickly resolved. I hope you can understand my frustration as I feel I have done everything in policy and yet expected to do even more. This goes beyond just this topic if we are going to make an agenda item this difficult to get on an agenda, I think it is very dangerous precedent and hope other Trustees think of the precedent this sets.I would also stress that our Board precedent is already set for this policy. The policy states “Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.” Many agenda items have been placed on past agendas through the exact same type of request I made on March 4th the board has not taken a formal consensus so to say I needed that would not be in line with what the board has historical done. And note that the word “only” means that those other agenda topics from the past that have been placed on past agendas could “only” have been done with consensus. My whole point is that historically consensus appears to be defined as a majority of the board NOT objecting or disagreeing then the item has consensus and is placed on the agenda. It does not appear from an historical standpoint a Trustee needs to get a majority to verbally agree. Silence in the past has been taken in favor of the agenda item being added to a future agenda. I do not understand why the way this policy has been implemented in the past is now attempting to be changed for this agenda item.
Now since, like you have pointed out, I have followed our local policy I expect this to be added to the next agenda.
Dear Trustee Bone,
Thursday was a very difficult meeting. I was overwhelmed with emotion and not able to really function there at the end. My guess is that I may not have been the only trustee in that mental state. I personally would have (if I had been able to speak and function) asked for the Board Update, and the additional info to be provided therein, before I made a decision as to whether I would support it being added to the agenda.
Please ask again for it to be placed on the agenda at tomorrow’s meeting. Then, we can give trustees another opportunity to respond when we are all not coming off possibly the most stressful meeting we have ever had (and hopefully will ever have). At that point, if there is an objection, we can vote (as we did back on June 4th at minute 2:32:00 when Trustee Chadwell asked for an agenda item and there was an objection raised).
President Weir,
I would like to point out what I believe is a major flaw in your reply about the AG Opinion DM-473 (1998). The DM-473 (1998) was in regard to the City of Dallas which is a home-rule city where they can make up their own laws as long as it does not go against state law BUT our school district if I understand correctly is not under home-rule we are under general law, so I believe opinion DM-473 (1998) does not apply to our board. I also believe therefore TASB does not use opinion DM-473 (1998) but instead references DM-228 (1993). Please do not use DM-473 (1998) when reviewing my issue here. Please let me know if this is incorrect.
Trustee Vessa,
Thank you for acknowledging that this agenda item was brought up during future agenda items in the Thursday March 4th, 2021 meeting like our BE Local policy requires. While I appreciate last Thursday was a difficult night for you there are six other Trustees. The President is expected to follow our policy and it is dangerous in my opinion to start looking back and deciding to not follow our own policy due to how people may or may not have felt at a certain time. The President should have control of the meeting and ensure the board is in a capacity to perform their duties so if this was not the case it was not in my control.
While I know and am sensitive that adult feelings were hurt last week, the parents and students that have multiple emotions regarding prom are my focus. By stripping my right as a Trustee to get this on the agenda through our policy it is taking away the right of the public to hear the board discuss this topic. The community, especially our amazing Seniors, I feel has the right to hear our discussion. These Seniors and their families have put years of sweat equity into this district and deserve the boards time to discuss this event and the email that was sent out by the district regarding this event.
The board has an obligation to run by our policies and as a Trustee I have the right to demand that our policies are upheld. The excuses that keep flowing forth on this thread are exhausting. So please enough is enough put this on the next possible agenda. Not one Trustee will be forced to say anything about this item when it comes up on the agenda but it will afford those Trustees that would like to discuss this the appropriate forum.
Trustee Vessa, I appreciate your suggestion and if you look at the agenda for the next meeting (March 11) the agenda does not have an item to discuss future agenda items, just as the meeting on March 8th. I have followed policy and in my opinion it is the responsibility of board leadership to ensure it is followed through.
Per policy BBE (Local), the Board gets to interpret its policies.
“The Board has final authority to determine and interpret the policies that govern the schools and, subject to the mandates and limits imposed by state and federal authorities, has complete and full control of the District.”I have handled this matter per policy in the manner of previous board presidents, including last summer when Trustee Chadwell had a request that did not make the agenda. As Trustee Vessa pointed out, please see June 4, 2021 at the 2 hour, 32 minute for the precedent for how consensus was reached. I will also point out that you yourself were in an agenda setting with me and Trustee Feller where a requested item by Trustee Vessa was not put on the agenda after there had been discussion regarding the item when she brought it up in a meeting during the request for future agenda items. You did not have an issue with the policy at the time that Trustee Vessa’s request was denied. This is exactly the steps she would have been asked to take had she wanted to continue to push for her request to be added to a future agenda.
Consensus of the Board of Trustee has never been reached by silence.
I would like to be clear that you did not have a second trustee on March 4, 2021 specifically agree and ask that it be included on the agenda. The only trustee who responded after you said you hoped that someone else wants to talk about this issue was Trustee Weston. I will refer you to the 2 hour, 53 minute, 17 second mark of the meeting where she says, “I’m interested in that as well, but don’t know if it needs to be an agenda item or if we can just ask our district to look at that to make sure everybody has access. So I don’t know Amy if you that that can happen successfully offline. I’m open to that as well. I think it need to be addressed.” At which point I asked Dr. Presley about the weekly board update and he replied that he could include it. I specifically waited until after he had given us the administration’s information in writing, per the meeting, before I denied your request. At which point I let you know that you could ask for board consensus.
I spoke with board counsel on Tuesday after our legal update to see if it was permissible for me to ask for future agenda items at the end of our meeting today since it was not on the agenda. The answer was yes, and I am fully prepared to give you the opportunity today to ask for full board consensus.
It has always been my practice to include those trustees who are doing agenda setting in the conversation about what goes on the agenda (see my note above when you were included in an agenda setting that denied another trustee’s request.) I will ask the full board if they wish to cease the practice of generally proposing agenda items at the end of the meeting unless they’ve submitted written requests to the Superintendent and me first and instead interpret the policy where I make all the decisions before it goes to Step 2 of the policy. In the meantime, I ask that we defer discussion on this further until today’s meeting.
- The forum ‘Round Rock ISD Trustees Message Board’ is closed to new topics and replies.