For whatever reasons, the New Glarus School District continues to disregard basic requirements of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law. In October, the board was questioned about the ambiguous and misleading descriptions of items on its agendas. Board members and the district administrator were provided with information about the attorney general's "Open Meetings Compliance Guide" so future agendas would comply with the law.
Likewise, information has been given to the board indicating that every one of its committee meetings - every "formally constituted subunit," according to the law - must be preceded by proper notice to the public, particularly Committee of the Whole meetings. "Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting ... in such form as to reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof," the law states.
The New Glarus district has been pushed to publicly post time, date and place of its committee meetings, but there is resistance by the district administrator to furnish specific agenda detail. State law states responsibility for ensuring proper public notice rests with the "chief presiding officer" and, to his credit, Board President Chris Bowie shows he is receptive to complying with the law. As a citizen elected to this position, Bowie has the responsibility but we can reasonably expect the full-time district administrator to properly advise the board president of legal requirements for conducting board meetings.
Significant matters were on the Committee of the Whole agenda for Jan. 12: Possible reductions in state funding that would affect New Glarus, a state grant to study merger with another district, issuing of layoff notices to staff, and spending $20,000 for a remediation-based reading curriculum for all seventh-graders that some parents question - on top of nearly $80,000 already spent for the elementary school. But unless a citizen marched into the school administration building to request an agenda, they likely wouldn't have known about those items because the agenda wasn't properly provided to the public.
A closed session of the board was scheduled for Jan. 15 in a New Glarus hotel to discuss "administrative team goals and implementation and refining of board district goals and objectives for the administrator," but it was cancelled in the late afternoon because of a complaint that the meeting wasn't properly noticed and that a portion of the discussion had to be done in public - not in secret.
Additionally, it is becoming clear some board committees are conducting business without required quorums. I won't belabor the point of why citizens have the right to understand the full context of school board decisions. In some cases the context of decision-making is even more important than the final result. That context includes Committee of the Whole discussions leading up to the board's final vote.
It is a mystery to me why this district has to be pushed into compliance with the law. The appearance given is that the district would prefer to be left alone to do what it does, without troubling interference from citizens who would want to be better informed about what the district does and why. For example, many parents question the district's adherence to direct-instruction techniques that are helpful for challenged students but totally inappropriate for higher-achieving students.
Particularly during the two recent funding referenda, the board and the district administrator have voiced sentiment that they are committed to improved community relations. To date, I haven't seen mere words turn into meaningful action. If there isn't a sincere desire for improvement within district leadership, then it is time for change.
Likewise, information has been given to the board indicating that every one of its committee meetings - every "formally constituted subunit," according to the law - must be preceded by proper notice to the public, particularly Committee of the Whole meetings. "Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting ... in such form as to reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof," the law states.
The New Glarus district has been pushed to publicly post time, date and place of its committee meetings, but there is resistance by the district administrator to furnish specific agenda detail. State law states responsibility for ensuring proper public notice rests with the "chief presiding officer" and, to his credit, Board President Chris Bowie shows he is receptive to complying with the law. As a citizen elected to this position, Bowie has the responsibility but we can reasonably expect the full-time district administrator to properly advise the board president of legal requirements for conducting board meetings.
Significant matters were on the Committee of the Whole agenda for Jan. 12: Possible reductions in state funding that would affect New Glarus, a state grant to study merger with another district, issuing of layoff notices to staff, and spending $20,000 for a remediation-based reading curriculum for all seventh-graders that some parents question - on top of nearly $80,000 already spent for the elementary school. But unless a citizen marched into the school administration building to request an agenda, they likely wouldn't have known about those items because the agenda wasn't properly provided to the public.
A closed session of the board was scheduled for Jan. 15 in a New Glarus hotel to discuss "administrative team goals and implementation and refining of board district goals and objectives for the administrator," but it was cancelled in the late afternoon because of a complaint that the meeting wasn't properly noticed and that a portion of the discussion had to be done in public - not in secret.
Additionally, it is becoming clear some board committees are conducting business without required quorums. I won't belabor the point of why citizens have the right to understand the full context of school board decisions. In some cases the context of decision-making is even more important than the final result. That context includes Committee of the Whole discussions leading up to the board's final vote.
It is a mystery to me why this district has to be pushed into compliance with the law. The appearance given is that the district would prefer to be left alone to do what it does, without troubling interference from citizens who would want to be better informed about what the district does and why. For example, many parents question the district's adherence to direct-instruction techniques that are helpful for challenged students but totally inappropriate for higher-achieving students.
Particularly during the two recent funding referenda, the board and the district administrator have voiced sentiment that they are committed to improved community relations. To date, I haven't seen mere words turn into meaningful action. If there isn't a sincere desire for improvement within district leadership, then it is time for change.
