As a follow up to my post the other day on the Grossmont Union High School District charter proposals, lots of media since then:
U-T: Support for charter plan urged
U-T EDITORIAL: Spectacle and substance at Steele Canyon High
NEHRING OP-ED: A plan for more charter schools in East County
On a side note, it seems the Grossmont donnybrook that took place the other night during the meeting on the Steele Canyon charter proposal, included some contentiousness over the election of board officers. President Jim Kelly retained his seat on a 3-2 vote, but only after an “attempted” nomination of board member Priscilla Schreiber. Attempted, in that – apparently – her nomination was somehow out of order, and a parliamentary challenge led to no one including the counsel knowing if Robert’s Rules is the official guiding light for an eight-decade old school board. Amazing.
I’ve always believed, strongly I might add, that local elected officials have the absolute right to unilaterally add anything they want to a public agenda, as long as it is done by the deadlines established under the Brown Act. They shouldn’t have to get approval to consider an issue from their respective mayor or president, and certainly not from a city manager, superintendent or district manager. No matter how ridiculous the issue may be, how inane, and sometimes how embarrassing for the lone proponent, let the issue be heard and considered. Let the votes fall where they may, or let the matter die for lack of a second.
When those elected at the local level cannot bring issues, motions or nominations to their boards without some bureaucratic buy-in, what is the purpose of local representation?
The same goes for the election of officers. What are those in the majority afraid of in having a vote, if they in fact have the votes to elect their people? Heck, if all five members are nominated for president, resulting in a 1-1-1-1-1 vote, so be it. Robert’s Rules even has a provision for that very unlikely scenario.
The Union-Tribune may have said it best in encouraging the Grossmont District to “summon up enough confidence in democracy to allow more than one person to be nominated for an elective board post.”