Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rama Schneider, who is a member of the Williamstown School Board.
[V]ermont’s recently enacted school governance merger law, Act 46, has placed districts across the state on differing paths and timelines leading to an end that shares policy goals of equity, high standards, efficiency and accountability and transparency. For most districts the way forward lies in the creation of a unified district which is an involved and well defined process that includes a lengthy study committee and a finalizing public vote. In between those actions, however, is approval of the study committee’s report by the Vermont State Board of Education (VSBE) — no approval, no public vote.
The VSBE and its members in order to fulfill their responsibilities to the people of Vermont must themselves strive to achieve the same goals they and the Legislature are expecting of the state’s school districts: equity in application of decision making, high standards for their own actions, efficiency in operation and decision making, and accountability to the public through openness.
I don’t believe the VSBE is meeting the standards right now, and I base this claim on two recent decisions.
At its regular meeting of July 24 the VSBE went into an illegal executive session so as to receive legal advice regarding Act 46. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt this was not a proper executive session because at my instigation the Vermont Attorney General’s office sent a letter to myself and VSBE Chairman Stephan Morse stating that fact in plain language. Vermont’s open meeting law requires before a board enter executive session for confidential legal advice that there be a “specific finding that premature general public knowledge would put the public body or a person involved at substantial disadvantage,” and no such finding was made prior to removing the public from the board’s discussion.
My complaint to the Attorney General was prompted by the fact that the full membership of the VSBE with the complete approval of our secretary of education felt that they needed to discuss legal interpretations of the school governance law without letting school board members and the rest of the public know what the attorneys were saying.
My problem was not over some technicality or oversight of a simple to correct action. My complaint to the Attorney General was prompted by the fact that the full membership of the VSBE with the complete approval of our secretary of education felt that they needed to discuss legal interpretations of the school governance law without letting school board members and the rest of the public know what the attorneys were saying. Obviously this knowledge would not have disadvantaged anybody anywhere. Instead immediate disclosure of the lawyerly thinking would have been to everybody’s advantage.
Certainly this did not live up to expected high standards or accountability and transparency.
OK, the above transgression was cured to some extent by disclosure of the executive session discussion’s contents at a following VSBE governance subcommittee meeting held on Aug. 12. And that leads us to the second VSBE decision that I am being very critical of …
My understanding of what VSBE Chairman Morse told me on Aug. 12 was that the legal advice received on July 24 was regarding how to interpret Section 822 (“School district to maintain public high schools or pay tuition”) of Vermont’s Title 16, the state’s education statute. Section 822 allows the local school board to both maintain a high school and tuition students out under differing circumstances. The legal discussion vis-a-vis this law was twofold: Is there a distinction between the district board’s authority when dealing with public schools and that same authority in regards to independent/private schools, and could an authority provided by law specifically to a district board be overridden by articles that create a unified district? (For the record, a plain reading of the law by this decidedly non-lawyer is yes and no.) A more complete description of this discussion can be found at the AOE website.
The end result of the governance subcommittee meeting was a proposed policy statement to be taken up by the full VSBE that intended to clarify the issue. The proposed policy would have had the VSBE accepting unified district proposals that included maintenance of a public high school while also allowing high school choice to other public schools. This issue is a question in more than one supervisory union because folks are trying to figure out if and how they can move forward in bringing choice and non-choice districts together under one administrative and board umbrella. Folks just want to know: Can they bring forward a district merger proposal that mandates a hybrid system?
Unfortunately, and this is the primary problem as I see it, the Vermont State Board of Education opted in favor of punting a decision rather than acting in an efficient manner and make a decision. With a 4-3 vote the VSBE indefinitely tabled the motion. Vermonters from across the state will be left with a huge “what if” dangling like an orphaned participle — if I had a lawn mower I’d mow my lawn if I had a lawn. The real shame is this question could have been answered definitively.
The Act 46 section on goals states in part “[This] legislation is designed to encourage and support local decisions and actions that [provide for equity, high standards, efficiency and accountability and transparency].” Local school districts need to be able to feel confident that the VSBE is on board and accepts these same goals for themselves as well as the districts on which they, the state board, will sit in judgement. At this point in time I see much room for improvement on the part of the VSBE.
