How (old) Policy KE worked

Continued from livesteam.com/richland2 for March 22, 2022 at (1:56:35 )

Contrary to the explanation of the superintendent, here's how old Policy KE worked. A member of the public could complain to any board member, and that board member had to forward the complaint to the superintendent. 

A complaint to a board member is not a complaint to the board.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the superintendent should investigate it and respond to the board member. If the member of the public was not satisfied with the superintendent's decision, then he could register a complaint with the Board, and the Board was required to hear the grievance at the next Board meeting or a special-called board meeting.

This forced the superintendent to be accountable to the board. As he should be!!!

The chain-of-command was not violated, because the superintendent could always reach down for information. Presumably, the person complaining had already started up the food chain.

At 1:57:00 the superintendent unnecessarily referred to a past meeting when a person spoke at a board meeting and made some very harmful statements about an employee. What he failed to say was that the person had contacted the school over the prior week-end and, by the time of the following Tuesday night's board meeting, no one from the school or the district had contacted him. That's two business days!

The revised policy would not have helped at all, because the parent HAD contacted the school!!!

At 1:59:20 the superintendent again said that the (now-old) Policy KE lets a complaint go straight to the board. This is where I would have pulled a "Joe Wilson" and shouted "LIAR". That is simply untrue. More than "simply" untrue. It is a lie. 

Re-stated - the old KE allowed a person to complain to a board member. The board member had to forward it to the superintendent. If the superintendent's decision was unsatisfactory, the person then could file a complaint with the Board, and the Board was required to hear it. Under the new KE, now the board has the option to hear it or not.

Then Trustee McFadden asked how long the entire appeal process might take. The answer? Up to ten days at each step. Then the superintendent said it's not an unreasonable period of time because, in my words, people are busy.

Then Trustee Scott stated that Richland 2 runs Richland 2, and it doesn't have to accept the model policies from the SCSBA. She stated the proposed revisions were not in the best interests of the community, teachers, school board members. And she is concerned that the board is NOT obligated to address the complaint. RIGHT!!! 

What Trustee Scott should have done is make two motions. One: removed the defamation clause; Two: remove the option for the board not to address the complaint.