Susan Mims
cc: Board Members, Dr. Grohe

Susan:

On balance, I certainly have no objection to -- indeed commend you for -- attempts to bring more "parliamentary procedure" to the meetings.

I sense that you want to attempt to make the meetings run more efficiently -- and thereby shorter.  Good idea.

Incidentally, while you're at it, you might see if there is some way we can hold the briefings/reports to something closer to the scheduled time.  (Otherwise put, see if we can make sure ahead of time that either (a) an adequate amount of time is provided, or (b) that someone negotiates a lesser, though adequate, time with the presenter ahead of time.)  I appreciate that the overruns are often the responsibility of a Board member, including myself.  But I am talking about presentations which, uninterrupted, take longer than was scheduled (or than seems to me, at the time, as necessary).

So long as the concerns I am about to express are consistent with what you have in mind I won't vigorously protest our not discussing the changes in public, although my preference/instinct would always be to err in favor of discussing more, rather than less, before our public/s -- including, indeed perhaps especially, our procedures.

1.  Recognizing speakers.  While I certainly share your desire "that all Board members be active participants in the meetings" -- and have sometimes called on them myself for comments when none were forthcoming -- I have never felt it a problem "that all Board members have equal opportunity to express their views."  It seems to me you have been quite open to comments from any of us, and I never had a sense that you had discouraged anyone from speaking.  So long as that remains the practice, and Board members (including myself) are called upon whenever they wish to speak, if you are more comfortable with a more formal procedure of recognizing us first, or even maintaining a list of those who wish to speak and going through it in order, it wouldn't be my style, but I can't object to its being yours.  If, however, the procedure is intended, or used, to curtail Board members opportunity to speak, I do now, and will if it ever occurs, raise objection to the practice.  I simply assume that's not your purpose and won't be your practice.

2.  Consent items.  You propose that questions about consent items be resolved before the meeting.

This raises both substantive and procedural problems, I think.

Substantively, the open meetings law serves a purpose.  We are supposed to be raising questions and getting answers in a way that makes both available to any member of the public who cares to know about it.  Jerry's answers to a couple of my questions were recently circulated to the full Board.  I certainly have no objection to that.  But it seems to me consistent with what I am here suggesting:  if any member of the Board has a question about a consent item I think I would like to hear it -- and the answer.

We talked at one point about abolishing the beginning "open discussion" session in favor of permitting public comment on agenda items.  I don't know if we are going to do that.  Whether or not we do, it seems to me we cannot forclose public questions about our "consent agenda" if any exist, and should not impose limits on ourselves for the reason just mentioned.

Procedurally, we have a problem with our agenda setting practices of which consent items are simply an example.

A consent agenda (for any multi-person body charged with passing on lengthy agendas) can be a good practice.  My experience in that regard relates to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Communications Commission.  In both of those instances, however, unlike our own practice, there is participation in the agenda in general, and the consent agenda most particularly, by all members -- and sufficiently early to make meaningful participation possible.

Members have complained about items from me being placed on the bench the evening of a meeting.  (Although, I note, there has never been objection to such items when they originate from the Superintendent or staff.)  For now, let me support their concern.

There is a very short fuse between the late Friday afternoon or evening when we get the Board agenda packet and the Tuesday evening meeting -- especially if one is out of town over the weekend and has a full day Monday.  This is complicated by the fact that, aside from you and Matt (and Barb), the other Board members indicated at our first "retreat" this fall that they did not wish to receive e-mail.  Thus, even if a Board member is willing to go to the expense and hassle of running off letters and envelopes and getting them to the Post Office on a Sunday -- as I am doing with copies of this e-mail -- they are not picked up by the Post Office until  Monday and then delivered, if one is lucky, on Tuesday.

I am assuming that, if Board members don't want e-mail, and they don't want any information memos on the bench Tuesday night, postal delivery is the only option available.  (Telephone tag is not a realistic alternative.)  As a practical matter, however, it gives them little more time (if any) to consider the item than they would have had if seeing it for the first time Tuesday evening.

Thus, additional time would relieve (a) both my concerns about the short time between receipt of the agenda items and the meeting, and (b) the resulting Board members' concern about finding memos from me on the bench when they arrive at the meeting.

Because I like to think in terms of solutions rather than problems here are a couple of proposals.

(1) Would it be possible to hold the agenda-setting meeting a week earlier (that is, the Wednesday immediately following one Tuesday Board meeting the agenda would be proposed for the following meeting -- including the consent items)?  Assuming that packet was delivered two days later (Friday, as now, but one week earlier) it would give us a full week, not only to give the items more of the time and study they deserve, but also consent, in fact, to items for the proposed "consent agenda" (by not raising any objection during that week to their being on a consent agenda).

(2) Could we, perhaps, spend some time at every Board meeting setting -- or, if not "setting" at least discussing informally -- the agenda for the next Board meeting (including possible consent items)?  Not only would this give Board members more time to think about what's coming, but it would also give the media and public a little more notice as well.

Of course, I recognize, as I must, that items would arise during that week that would have to be "added starters."  I say, "as I must," because that is often what causes me to write memos -- like this one -- when I do.  But presumably the bulk of the agenda (such as the items that are annually, or seasonally, brought to the Board's attention) could be identified in advance.

Thanks for your efforts to improve the process.  I hope these thoughts are useful in that direction.

Nick