Sometimes watching the discussion portions of BOE meetings is like watching C-SPAN. Like, what is going on, and why am I wasting my time with this? Is this really what governance looks like?
Why can’t they just pass this stuff in an efficient manner?
Lucky you, I’m here to tell you why.
Remember when the Business Administrator, AJ, told everyone that it was improper to approve the appointment of professional services at the reorganization meeting?
First off, he was wrong. But equally striking is the result of his actions. The continued refusal to bring up professional appointments in a board meeting means we’re stuck with the line-up we have now, and that includes Matt Giacobbe’s law firm, which has overseen a doubling of our legal spending and given bad advice that has led to many validated ethics complaints and lawsuits. This has conveniently lined his own pockets at the same time.
On the (packed) agenda for the February 26th meeting were two items for New Business, one of which was professional services. At least one BOE member, following the 48-hour rule, gave advance notice to AJ and the rest of the board that this would be brought up. Of note, the Superintendent is not being held to the same standard and can place walk-in resolutions on the agenda at will, which she did at this meeting. When Mrs. Bradford denied the discussion of New Business at the end of the meeting, Ms. Akiri then made the motion to have the attorney present at the next meeting. She had done this at a previous meeting as well. The reason for doing so is to – with the consent of a Board vote – pause the attendance of the attorney until such time that AJ finally agrees to put professional services on the agenda.
Mrs. Stanley’s use of the handy-dandy Point of Order declaration (whispered in her ear by the law firm at a previous meeting) and claim that this motion was improper (there’s that word again) was nothing more than partisan theatrics. She knew full well that there was the intention to finally bring up the subject of the board attorney. In addition, the motion brought forth was merely about having the attorney present at the next meeting; nothing more. And yet somehow, Mrs. Stanley felt completely comfortable voting on the walk-in resolution, which is something that would have budgetary impacts. Did she not want more time to prepare before deciding on an issue with fiscal implications?
Let’s get real here about what is going on and about what is ‘improper’. Let’s support the board members who would like to limit the attorney’s presence, so they are not sitting through student presentations, teacher award ceremonies, athletic team recognition, consultant presentations, and more. I get that Mrs. Stanley may have a fondness for the attorneys who are personally representing her in her defense of several ethics complaints, but this law firm needs to go. If AJ can’t be required to put professional services on the agenda, then by all means, Ms. Akiri, fire away.
Related Notes on the 02/26/2024 Meeting: