A Statement from Candidate Hemann Regarding the Most Recent BOE Proceedings

In the past months, during which I decided to make a run for one of the open seats on the BOE, I have chosen – likely to the detriment of my “campaign” – to remain quiet, especially in the public sphere, on many of the topics washing across this page.  I never wanted my candidacy to be centered on what I was against, but rather a presentation of myself, my demeanor, and my attitudes towards the open and respectful dialogs. Even as I have learned more of the issues facing the BOE, I have been reluctant to publicly voice strong opinions – until I have had the opportunity to hear more from both sides.  It’s far too easy to complain and rare is a situation as simple as one side – or the other – would have you believe. Understanding the motivations and interests of all positions is vital to good decision making.  It is my hope, through the questions I have answered -via this group and the various candidate forums I have taken part in – that my desire to be sincere, forthright, and thoughtful has shown though.

This past week I attended the BOE meeting, in person. My primary goal was to simply observe the process – I freely admit that I have not been a strict observer of BOE’s proceedings in the past – and get a feel for how the meetings run not only from a parliamentary process perspective, but also as a body that interacts with the engaged citizens/parents that attend.

I’m sure no one will disagree that attending a meeting which, in large part, can only be observed and has limited opportunity to participate in, is not a rousing way to spend and evening and admittedly most of the proceedings were routine and mundane – as they should be.  It was during the segment of public comment towards the end of session that I began to understand some of the frustrations other parents have discussed with me anecdotally.

I don’t like to rant, and let me first say that I absolutely understand the need for rules in a deliberative proceeding, both to maintain order but more importantly, to prevent chaos in the chamber.  (I even bought my own copy or Robert’s Rules, plus a concise, essentials summary of the same just to brush up on long-expired skills, lol) But even without deep understanding of parliamentary procedures, it is possible to set expectations and enforce those rules without a proceeding becoming a confrontational exchange.

It is this lack of respect for fellow parents that I saw on display nearly every time a new speaker came to the podium.  Of note was when a parent, among several other thoughtful questions, asked about the plans to improve the low proficiency numbers for 9^th grade geometry – a topic that had come up earlier in the session. That parent also admitted that his question had likely been discussed earlier but he had not been able to arrive earlier.  In any situation I have been in control of, a simple reply beginning with “yes this was in fact discussed earlier in detail, but briefly we plan to…” and ending with “you can view the entire presentation once the meeting is posted on-line to learn more of the details.”  It would have not taken more than a minute and resulted in a parent feeling heard, and respected.  Instead, the same amount of time was spent repeating various versions of “your question has already been answered” in a tone and manner more suitable to a stubborn lawyer in a deposition.  It was adversarial, it was confrontational – and most importantly, it was unnecessary.  There was no time saved – we’d already been there two-plus hours – and there was not a long line of parents clambering for the podium.  It was one parent getting told that he was not worth the effort of a respectful reply.  An opportunity to meaningfully engage with a parent was lost in that moment and, judging by the bee-line they made for the door upon adjournment, will not be had again. 

Fortunately, the overall timbre of the meeting was not that contentious. Yet somehow in the attempt to run a professional meeting, it’s very running acquired an asymmetrical balance to the public that elects it. One that, frankly, felt more like subjects coming to plead before congressional committee than a session of questions to the PM of the British Parliament – a model I’d suggest should be much more closely followed.

I come to a prospective position on the BOE with a beginner’s mind, open to all the possibilities that we can be but, like any new job or position I have interviewed for, I also have much to learn.  Between analytical skills learned as an engineer, people skills honed by a career in leadership, tough (tough) skin from a life in the maritime industry, and the acceptance that sometimes the job is to just let somebody yell at you because they are that frustrated. I feel I have much to offer the board and I hope that the voting public agrees to let me exhibit that after elections next month.

But in addition to my brain, my voice, and my reason, I can also guarantee you my respect.

Thank you,

Neil D Hemann