Letter to the Editor / PIO – Action vs. Discussion?

Hi Larry,

Job descriptions require public hearings.  We must hold hearings for possible future action on policy adoption.  This is not a policy adoption until we take action in the regular meeting.  We do not take action until the superintendent is ready to make a recommendation. This is a required hearing.  So proposals or ideas not up for future policy adoption are called workshop items for discussion.  These items MAY become policy at some point and they may not.  I don’t know where the drug testing discussion is going to go for example.

We vigorously discussed this new job description at our last meeting even though the superintendent removed it from the agenda.  It was a first read but we unanimously rejected the language so it is back for another “first read” because it is new.  It was modified after the superintendent heard from the board.  I as chair, informed the board that I wanted to discuss it, I put it back on the agenda and we did in fact discuss it.   You can go back and watch the meeting.  After a second reading the job descriptions MAY be voted on after we return to the regular meeting. So for review, hearings are required opportunity for discussion, both board and public (no discussion at the hearing is legally required).  The board is always first in any discussions. That is the practice.  The board has all discussions among itself first then we allow members of the public to weigh in.  Then the board may discuss the item more if it chooses or close the hearing.  This is how our public hearing process works.  There is never action at a hearing.  When we return to our regular meeting and vote on action items we also have discussion on debatable items and then take a vote.  So to recap:  First reading, rejected, another first reading, (May 10th) then a second reading (May 24th) and finally (maybe) a vote.  Four opportunities for discussion.  In my view this one is a little over kill because after all we added 73 positions to the district in the last 2 budget cycles without this much discussion.  I appreciate your suggestion to look at other school districts.  I am doing that research also.
I hope this helps,

Thanks,
Andy

 

Chairman Griffiths:

Thank you for the clarification.  You write that “Public hearings are for members of the public to also speak to the item AFTER the board has had their discussion.” (Emphasis added.)  Might I ask,”When did the Board have that discussion of  the REVISED position description?”  I thought that it was going to take place at tomorrow’s meeting.  Obviously, that is not the case.

Please forgive me if I remain suspicious.  If the intention of the School Board is simply to discuss the revised PIO position description at tomorrow’s meeting, I would have expected it to be included in the Workshop portion of the agenda alongside the discussion of the Athletic Drug Testing Proposal. That would have indicated that the two matters were interchangeable in the sense that they both were being treated as discussions.  Such is not the case as the two issues are being treated differently.

While the Board may not vote on the matter during a “1st Reading” at a “Public Hearing”, that hearing, as I understand it,  is the first step, not in a discussion process, but in an adoption procedure.  That is why I consider it an action item.  The net effect of the hearing process is actionable, not discussable.

I congratulate you on the background work that you are doing, specifically “reviewing the other seven agencies in Monroe County who have this position in place….”  I would suggest also looking at school districts comparable in size to MCSD as their needs and objectives align more closely with ours than that of a Sheriff’s Department, for example.

Of course, all of that research should be shared with your colleagues in an open discussion before the position is adopted.  I look forward to hearing that discussion.

Larry Murray

 

Dr. Murray,
The item you reference is NOT up for action.  It is up for a first reading during public hearing.  Public hearings are for members of the public to also speak to the item after the board has had their discussion.  After the public hearing I will close the hearing and resume the regular meeting.  Again, this item is not up for action at this meeting.  I am currently reviewing the action plans contained in our board approved strategic plan (specifically board approved strategic objective #3) to see how the new description aligns with those board approved objectives.  I am also reviewing the other seven agencies in Monroe County who have this position in place and comparing duties and salary ranges.

Thanks,
Andy

 

Gentlemen:

The agenda for tomorrow’s meeting clearly identifies drug testing in the schools as a discussion item which it should be according to your promises to the public.

You also promised the public a discussion of the revised PIO position description.  Unfortunately, your agenda identifies that “discussion” as, in fact, an action item.  I hope that one of you will pull that action item as I believe Mr. Davidson did at the last meeting.  I believe that we are all in agreement that the revised PIO position description deserves a thorough review, not some sort of implementation as implied by its inclusion at a public hearing.

Larry Murray

“Illegitimi non carborundum.” -St. Lawrence O’Toole, Bishop of Dublin, and a favorite quote of Jimmy Hoffa
Dr. Larry Murray
Fiscal Watchdog and Citizen Activist
3632 Fox Street
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
(305) 872-3087

[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]