Editor’s Note: This is a transcript of a presentation by Rachel Elliott during the public comment period at this week’s Upper Adams School Board meeting
I want to start off by giving my thanks and great appreciation to Shelley Hobbs, Joe Albin, and Courtney McCreary. Their input into the grants, budget, and curriculum are invaluable for our district. Their insight into understanding the ins and outs of our district cannot be matched. Thank you for all that you do for our community.
I’m here mainly to talk about the meetings that happened on February 3rd. My main thought and question while watching these meetings were, where is the lawyer? You were discussing policy that will have an impact on whether or not we are complying with state and federal law. Throughout the meetings, I heard “I am not a lawyer but,” or “I assume.” My father cautioned me long ago about when someone assumes anything. It can make an ass out of you and me. I suggest that for all future policy meetings we have our district’s solicitor here to make sure that our policies are following the law. That’s his job and that’s why we pay him.
I would rather my tax dollars go to paying the lawyer fees on reviewing policy than on possible litigation that could cost our district millions in a civil or some other kind of lawsuit. We need to only look at our neighboring district, Bermudian, to see that litigation happens unexpectedly and the need to protect the district by being diligent and use our solicitor as a resource. And yes, we need good policies that are thoroughly written out. Standard operating procedures exist in all workplaces for a reason. A school district is no different. We cannot depend on the goodness of people to see our students through rough times. Not everyone has the same values or views trauma the same way. Having it written out is logical and protects our district from potential litigation. And just having our superintendent’s input is not enough. He was unsure on his response to questions about Act 44, whereas the solicitor is more knowledgeable about these things. Again, we need our lawyer present to answer these questions. Our solicitor would have also pointed out that you need to attach all of the reference materials used in talking about policy to the Agenda Manager in order to comply with the Sunshine Act. The public has a right to see and access the materials you use to reference.
Another question that comes to mind is, does the solicitor review policy before it is brought to a vote? You’ve decided to bring the policy 218.1 to a vote without waiting 30 days. Why? Why not wait for the community to have time to read the policy or try to even get input from the community? This appears like you’re rushing policy through without giving the community any chance to review and ask questions. Is this the approach to all policies going forward? Is this complying with our own policies?
One last thing I would ask the board to consider, the policy on board member attendance. I completely understand the need to be excused if one is ill or an emergency happens. I have questions in regards to members not being here physically. We have a board member choosing to live abroad. In doing so, they have removed themselves from our community. This is not a one-time thing; this is now happening over multiple years. This is a choice that this member has made to live abroad, and that’s great for her. However, isn’t it detrimental to our district to not have someone who is actually living within the community participate in the school board? How can she stay connected to a community she is not living in? It seems other board members have also been absent frequently as well. I think the members of this community deserve to be represented by people who are physically here and committed to show up and serve.