Who dreamed up this one? Did a board member propose that BEDI be re-visited? Or did Administration (meaning the superintendent) come up with this?
This is a blatant attempt to muzzle Trustees. As you read the following, pay close attention to the wording in the proposed revision: "...assumes personal legal responsibility..." Those four words will have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of board members.
On the other hand, maybe this revision should have been passed before Holmes and Manning stepped into the spotlight in the courtyard at R2i2 on January 28th and spoke in front of the WIS-TV camera. When the Chair and the Vice Chair stand on school property in front of R2i2, is there any doubt that both of them are speaking on behalf of the board?
Here it is. If you were a Trustee, what would you say to this?
"Policy BEDI News Media Services At Board Meetings
Issued 9/17
"The board believes that one of its paramount responsibilities is to keep the public informed of its
actions. Therefore, the press and public are welcome to attend board meetings.
"The superintendent or his/her designee will send a copy of the agenda in advance of all official
board meetings to
members of the working press who request it. In the event that representatives of news media
are unable to attend a meeting, they will be provided a summary of important board actions
upon request.
"When individual board members receive requests from news media representatives for
information about board meetings meeting content, members will refer the information-seekers
to the board chairman. The board chairman is the official public spokesman for the board
(except as the board specifically delegates this responsibility to others). Individual board
members may speak to the media so long as they are not speaking on behalf of the board.
When speaking as an individual, the board member will express such to the media and
assumes personal legal responsibility for his/her media statement."
indicates changes
Underscore indicates added content
It is already adequately covered in Board Policies that trustees, by themselves, do not speak for the board.
If Administration proposed these revisions, why does the superintendent want the hammer - the threat - of "personal legal responsibility" added to the Policy?
Trustees should vote on this revision at the next following meeting. And the vote should be 0-7!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment