cozmic co-inky dink? Daily news Reporting, Editorial Board and 4LAKids all in alignment!
Proposal would limit LAUSD meetings
BOARD: Officials say move would save time, money, but critics say it would reduce transparency.
By Connie Llanos, Staff Writer | LA Daily News
3 September 2009 -- The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education is considering changes to its meeting schedule that could include holding fewer public sessions and eliminating special committees to save time and money, officials said Tuesday.
The changes, which would take effect this year, were proposed by board president Monica Garcia, who said they were necessary as the district looks at doing business with less money and fewer resources.
"We have eliminated so many people in this district ... we need to look at how we use our resources more efficiently," Garcia said.
She said holding various committee meetings is costly for LAUSD and time-consuming for board members who have other full-time jobs or want to spend more time in their communities and schools.
Just a week after approving a plan to allow independent operators like charters and nonprofits to compete to run new and failing schools, some board members questioned whether now is the right time to cut back on public discussion.
"What message does this send to the community?" board member Marguerite LaMotte asked.
"We are giving away our schools and now we want to get rid of transparency ... so we can do whatever we want in the dark of night," she added.
The proposal would eliminate all committee meetings and replace them with weekly board meetings. The time allotted to speakers could be reduced under the new plan and the fourth meeting of every month would be used to discuss districtwide issues by the entire board.
Board member Steve Zimmer also questioned the timing of the meeting changes, and he asked instead for the board to study ways to bring more parental involvement, such as hosting meetings in different sections of the city and providing child care for parents.
LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines did not say whether he supported the new plan but encouraged the board to spend more time discussing issues "away from the cameras."
Parent advocates, who opposed the idea, were also disappointed that the board placed such an important issue onto a special board meeting agenda just 48 hours before they were scheduled to gather.
"We are all for efficiency, but not at the expense of transparency," said Bill Ring, a longtime parent advocate.
"We just passed a resolution that gives control of our schools to a lot of different stakeholders ... We need to have more conversations, not fewer."
The board is scheduled to vote on the issue later this month.
Public snub: LAUSD school board should not decrease interaction with community
Daily News Editorial Board
3 September 2009 -- THE Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education isn't known for its accessibility to the community. The board has placed strict limits on members of the public who wish to speak during regular meetings - going so far as to limit the number of speakers allowed to weigh in on an agenda item.
Now it seems there's an effort to limit public interaction even more. LAUSD board President Monica Garcia's proposal that the board hold fewer public meetings and eliminate its special committees might not be an attack on democracy, but it surely isn't supporting it.
Garcia argues that holding the committee meetings - standing committees include Charter, Finance and Curriculum - is expensive for the district and time-consuming for the board members who have other full-time jobs. She suggests members could spend time freed up from all those bothersome meetings out in their communities and schools.
Critics of the plan, including some board members and parent advocates, say it's not a good idea - and not just because Garcia sprung the proposal on them just 48 hours before Tuesday's meeting.
Board member Marguerite LaMotte said it sends the wrong message to the community. "We are giving away our schools, and now we want to get rid of transparency," she said.
She's got a good point. With the district taking the first tentative steps toward real reform with the schools choice plan, the board ought to be more engaged, not less. In fact, more meetings might be in order. It's sure to be a bumpy start to this innovative and completely new plan to allow outside operators to bid for and possibly win the right to run new and underperforming schools.
There are other concerns as well.
It may indeed be smart to rejigger committees and consolidate meetings, but not if it decreases the opportunity for people to interact with the board as a whole.
These seven board members were elected to represent the public and get paid, not handsomely, but sufficiently, to handle the demands of the job. Meetings are part of the job they asked the public to give to them, and always have been. If they don't want to spend the time, they ought to step down from the board and let someone not bothered by the pesky public meetings to fill in.
As well, many of the standing committees have members who are not board members, and that's a good thing.
The Charter Committee, for example, has an education expert from the University of Southern California, and a charter school operator. Other committees have teachers and principals. Other viewpoints are important, not just for inclusiveness, but for the competition of ideas as well.
Garcia's reasoning that the district needs to save money and do business differently is absolutely on target. But given the size of the district's budget, this is small potatoes indeed.
The board is scheduled to vote on the issue later this month. Hopefully, it will choose not to snub the public and will vote in support of the public's right to watch what the district is doing and its ability to speak out.
No comments:
Post a Comment