“Most folks come looking for a conversation and this will give them a chance for that,” Vandal said.

Why not simply engage taxpayers at the board meeting as intended in the first place. Take the structure of township meetings, planning comission , county commissioners , city council….It is very simple. The boards discuss an issue……People are given the opportunity for input on that issue….Staff professionals ae consulted (i.e. superintendent and other administrators) the board makes motions and takes action…..and they move on to the next issue. This is real public engagement. This is what is needed. Less than this is inadequate.

Read the http://www.ISD47.org site carefully….our district has a meeting “in the public” not a “public meeting”. Either is apparently acceptable under the law, yet our district elects to use the less responsive “meeting in the public” rather than the truely open, transparent, and responsive “public meeting” format. If the board is genuinely interested in increased public participation this is the direction that is needed.

cheers, Foregoer.

The problem is that the proposed change in procedures only restricts the options that are already available to anyone wishing to communicate their thoughts to the board.

As things stand we currently have (at least) the following options:
1) Address the board publicly at a meeting in the presence of a quorum.
2) Address less than a quorum of members by contacting the chairman and asking for a less public meeting.
3) Address individuals by e-mail or phone or written letter.

I’m sure there are other ways I’m not listing here.

It is our contention that the new proposal does not expand upon any of these options but rather eliminates option 1, the most formal and most important option if the public is to be afforded the opportunity to publicly express their opinions on board actions.

We suggest that the board move in the opposite direction by allowing public input on each agenda item as it is discussed by the board members. This would be the format of a true public meeting, rather than the current status of board meetings being held as “meetings in the public” as opposed to “public meetings”. This is a choice that our school boards of past have selected. It is a policy that has worn out it’s welcome.

Most other public boards, such as planning, zoning and county commissioners, city council, township hall, act as public meetings with a period for public input on each agenda item, followed by board actions. There is actual dialogue between the public and the board members. There is nothing to preclude the board meetings being held as actual public metings. They should be….

Parent/taxpayer participation is effectively non-existent under the current structure because as we all know there is no opportunity to participate in actual 2-way communications on agenda items. The proposed modification to the public input process would further reduce the already pathetic level of public participation.

It would be good to let the board know you are against this and why at the next meeting. You would need to speak up at the public input time but as you prefer this method it should not be a problem.

I would have to say that Jan Solarz and the rest of the board seemed interested in so far as looking for a more welcoming way to have the community speak.

I hope you and your family enjoy the summer. I know that the weather is less than enjoyable as of late.

bw if your car cost under $1,000.00 you qualify.

I know many BMW’s that are 97 with 350,000 miles that would not qualify.

Regarding cut and paste, this is just the default for this blogging template…..Might be able to change it but haven’t tried very hard yet…..