Today the Tribune jumps in with both feet:
Committee considers New Albany-Floyd County school closures
Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning of the article, which I'm assuming was written by Tara Hettinger.
---
Resources for Results to give recommendations to NA-FC board in the fall
(NO ACCESS BEYOND THIS POINT ... The Evening News and Tribune attempted to go to the latest Resources for Results meeting Monday. However, New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corp. Superintendent Dennis Brooks escorted a reporter out, saying the meeting was not open to the public. He said since the committee was created by him, the open-meetings law, which requires them to be open to the public, does not apply. When a reporter was escorted from the meeting, Brooks said that the minutes were public and available in his office. As of press time, the minutes had not been provided to the paper. Dave Rarick, director of communications for the corporation, said the minutes may soon become public. If so, they will be on the corporation’s Web site, which is www.nafcs.k12.in.us. An inquiry has been made by The Tribune to the Hoosier State Press Legal Association about access to future meetings.)
Secretive. Covert. Sneaky.Those three words have reverberated within many parents and residents living near Silver Street Elementary School — one of the schools being considered by a committee for closure.
That committee, Resources for Results, was started in May 2006 by Superintendent of New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corp. Dennis Brooks. He said he asked school employees, current and retired, school board members, parents and other community members to dedicate their time for about two years to look into ways to better use the resources the school system has.
By keeping open urban neighborhood schools and stop using so many buses, and have children walk to school and gain some exercise, the school system would be doing the right thing, not only for the community, but help in doing its part in cleaning up some of the polluted air we all take for granted.
ReplyDeleteRandy, in response to your comment in an earlier post, I do hope that your thoughts were tongue in check about one school.
There's an abundance of good information out there explaining why maintaining and investing in walkable neighborhood schools is economically and socially the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThe whole secrecy M.O. is disturbing on a lot of levels but, importantly, has kept the resources committee from hearing much of that reasoning for almost two years prior to making recommendations.
Not only has the public trust been violated but the decision making process has been flipped backwards, weakening any real chance of fully informed discussion.
It's been mentioned among concerned citizens that talks with the school corporation should be handled as cooperatively and congenially as possible. It'd be nice if corporation leadership could at least show enough respect to return the favor.
Spend two years, in secret, coming up with a recommendation. Then hold 1 open meeting and claim, "We gave the people a chance to comment".
ReplyDeleteEdward~
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%! Well said.
Bluegill~
Right on! It is the right thing to do! As for the secrecy, it was posted on their website ... if you hunted and dug around and were fortunate enough to find it. It certainly wasn't listed on their calendar events. I should think that even closed door meetings *coughs* should be posted as meeting on an overall calendar of events. I'd also like to know why so many committee members have been "feared" into keeping so quiet.
We are taxpayers, therefore the employers of the Corporation - we have every right (regardless of legal loopholes) to know what "our employees" are doing.
I know my trust in the Corporation is gone. When confronted, we're told the PR-man wasn't "in-the-know." That's just wrong on so many levels.
And your comment about giving us, the public, one choice to comment ... EXACTLY!
Quoting from Wave 3, "they say all community meetings are closed to the press and the public. If they weren't, they say it would change the dynamic of communication and decision making."
That's not very diplomatic. Evidently, a) we're all considered idiots or b) our reasonable solutions wouldn't jive with the Corporation's intentions. Or is there a c) I'm not seeing?