OUSD Trustees Ready To Strengthen Tyranny Of The Board Majority

I just got off the phone with the Orange Unified School District Superintendent's office about what it is the Board of Trustees will be voting on tonight.

Today's OC Register article says this is what they're voting on:

The board will consider a proposal that would require the panel's president to decide whether proposed items should be placed on the agenda. A member can appeal the decision to the entire board if the president denies an item.

According to the OUSD Superintendent's Office, that isn't correct. That office told me the Board president already decides whether proposed items should be placed on the agenda. What is being changed is the appeals process when the Board President denies an agenda request.

I was told that currently, a trustee submits an agenda request to the superintendent, who then forwards it to the Board president. If the presidents decides against placing the requested item on the agenda, a trustee can override the president's decision if another trustee seconds the request.

That's what happened when Trustee Steve Rocco got his rant on "The Partnership" placed on the agenda. Fellow Trustee Rick Ledesma agreed to second his request and it got on.

What the OUSD Board majority will try to do tonight -- and I'm sure they'll succeed -- is require the support of a majority of the Board of Trustees to override a Board president's veto of an agenda request.

But that's just part of the story. The real effect of these proposed bylaw changes will be to muzzle dissenting Trustees who are out of favor with the Board majority, and to weaken elected trustees relative to unelected school district staff.

Here's the bylaw in question. The sections being changed are struck-through, and the amended language is bolded and underlined (it should be noted the agendizing procedure spelled out here differs from what the Superintendent's office represented as the current procedure):

Board members wishing to place an item on the Board agenda shall forward a copy of the item to the Board President Superintendent's Office within ten (10) working days prior to the meeting date. for consideration and placement on the Board agenda. The Board President will decide whether a Board member request is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and whether the agenda item is appropriate for discussion in open or closed session. If the Board President denies the placement of the item on the agenda, two Board members may override the denial and place the item on the agenda. The Board President's decision not to place an item on the may be appealed by the requesting Board member to the Board of Education for a determination by the Board on whether the matter is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and if so, whether the item is an appropriate subject for open or closed session.

The request for an appeal must be made in writing to the Superintendent's Office ten (10) working days prior to the next scheduled meeting date. Items agendized for appeal will be presented by the Board President.

So-- because they're mad at Steve Rocco, the OUSD Board majority is going to require an elected Trustee with an item to agendize to communicate with the Board President (also an elected Trustee) though the mechanism of the unelected and supposedly subordinate Superintendent -- replacing the present direct Trustee-to-President on agendizing matters. Then again, this is a staff-developed proposal.

And what's with this 10 working days requirement? Let's take a look at the OUSD Board meeting schedule just for this year:

• There were  14 working days between the January 18 and February 8 board meetings.

• There were only 9 working days between the February 8 and February 22 board meetings.

• There were only 9 working days between the February 22 and March 8 board meetings.

• There were 14 working days between the March 8 and March 29 board meetings.

If you go through the OUSD Board calendar, there are typically only 9 working days between board meetings. This proposed change kind of makes it hard for elected Trustees to agendize items of immediate importance, doesn't it. And isn't it interesting how that 10 business day requirement only applies to elected Trustees and not to unelected district bureaucrats?

And worst of all is increasing the requirement for overriding a Board President's veto of an agenda request.

Simply put, these bylaw changes are a naked attempt by the OUSD Board's five-member majority to silence the two dissenting Trustees: Steve Rocco because he is crazy and Rick Ledesma because he thinks for himself and actually asks questions instead of rubber-stamping staff recommendations.

Whether on a school board, city council or in a legislature, the minority party or bloc finds itself at the losing end of policy votes. The OUSD Board majority is in no danger of losing votes -- what they intend to to do deprive their dissenting, elected colleagues of even the opportunity to be heard on issues they want to address.

The fact that Trustee Steve Rocco wants to address weird conspiracy theories is beside the point -- these proposed bylaw changes apply to all Trustees, not just Rocco. And they're not going to automatically expire when Rocco is off the Board of Trustees.

OUSD Trustees Kim Nichols, Melissa Smith, John Ortega, Wes Poutsma and Kathy Moffat need to look beyond their dislike of Rocco and take the long view. They need to put their feeling aside and take a hard, sober look at what they are about to do and the implications for them as elected Trustees.

Someday they might be out of favor with the OUSD Board majority -- and thank to a short-sighted vote tonight, they'd also find themselves without a voice.

Comments

[Bladerunner]

Inartfully drafted. The rant on the partnership can be put aside because it is not something within the jurisdiction of the Board. I don't think having one or two trustees should be enough if its not within the jurisdiction of the Board. A Board is not required to nor should it take up irrelevant subjects.

however you raise a good point if it is a subject that is within the jurisdiction of the Board. Requiring a majority to hear an item thats clearly relevant is a different subject. The danger of a majority stiffling dissent is all too real. On the other hand, the tyranny of the minority is nothing to be scoffed about. Liberal agendizing would allow a kook like Rocco to agendize hundreds of items just to mess with the Board.

Solution---don't make it harder to address real relevant issues. Just keep out items not within the jurisdiction of the Board and limit the time and scope of items a board member can agendize(maybe 2 a meeting with the 20 minute cap they have for discussion).

SO I get your point Jubal, but what in the hell was Rick thinking of signing off on the Partnership rant?

[just...asking]

Rocco is still a nut!

But, a board shouldn't change rules because they can't handle basic meeting protocol's. Even with Ledesma's orignial support, the president can limit debate with super-majority support. Let him have a rant or two, who cares. If no action is followed up, and the other board members don't fuel the fire, it dies as it should.

The problem I see is when a board makes a majority ruling, even before any public discussion of the items merit has taken place. One would have to think that a majority of the board formed an opinion on an issue without a public forum. I believe some of these types of rules have seen court challenge and lost. Hope Rocco does not challenge as a trustee and look for public money pursue legal remedy against his own agency.