Jim.Jacumin@ncleg.net
Hugh.Blackwell@ncleg.net
Dear Mssrs. Jacumin and Blackwell:
Although the school board membership is supposed to be non-partisan, it is rumored that you both have continued to support and guide school board members like Mr. Rob Hairfield and Mr. Tim Buff. I am disheartened that you would both continue to support someone who has been shown to have racist tendencies, and I am disheartened that you seem to be so out of touch with your constituency that you have not offered to help right this matter.
As you are aware, the Burke County School Board majority has been the focus of several scandals: Ms. Tracy Norman lived out of her district for a year and a half without notifying anyone, Ms. Norman changed the lines on a district map that had been voted on previously at then chairman Tim Buff's direction, Ms. Norman becoming chair person and then limiting both the opportunity for and the content of public comment at monthly meetings. Ms. Norman and Mr. Buff have allegedly threatened school employees as well. Just this week several schools reported that Ms. Norman contacted them to get lists of teachers who took the day off to go to Monday's school board meeting. Ms. Norman spends much of her free time in the central office reviewing personnel files for no other reason than to have information to intimidate school employees.
I do not think you understand how grave the situation is. I have written about several issues on my blog, http://www.barkburke.com/, and hope that you find the time to read my entries and the comments that follow. Several school employees have commented that they feel they have targets on their backs.
It has been my experience that corporate boards, non-profit boards and public body boards are charged with overseeing the administrators of the body they serve. The majority of the Burke county school board seemed to have taken over administration of the school system themselves. The most recent actions of the board in prematurely terminating Mr. Burleson's contract are just the tip of the iceberg.
Since the Burke County Public Schools system is the largest employer in the county, it seems to me that it would behoove you to take this matter seriously and try to find a way to assist us in removing these people from the offices they hold. Our teachers, principals and students are suffering. It is difficult to attract business to this area when such buffoonery and intentional destruction of the school system is allowed to occur.
I understand that Mr. Jacumin has a "blank bill" that could be used for such a local bill. I am told that these kinds of bills are passed by other legislators as a courtesy.
Please consider my request and the other requests that you will receive regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
I am,
Catherine Thomas
Attorney at Law
1660 Plantation Court
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
DRAFT:
AN ACT to provide a procedure to recall elected officials on the burke county board of elections
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
"CHAPTER ___
"RECALL OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.
"Sec. 1. The Members of the Burke County Board of Education who were elected in the 2007 election may be removed from office in the manner provided for in this act.
"Sec. 2. Any registered voter of the County may file an affidavit with the Burke County Director of Elections containing the name of the elected official whose removal is sought and a general statement of the grounds alleged for removal. The Director of Elections shall provide the registered voter filing the affidavit with petition forms for demanding the removal of a County elected official. The petition forms shall:
(1) Be signed by the Director of Elections.
(2) Be dated on the date of issuance.
(3) Be addressed to the Burke County Board of Elections.
(4) Contain the name of the person to whom the form is issued.
(5) Contain the name of the official whose removal is sought.
(6) Contain a general statement of the grounds on which the removal is sought.
(7) Provide a place for signatures.
The Director of Elections shall promptly deliver a copy of the petition issued by the Director of Elections to the County Clerk, who shall enter the copy of the petition in a record book kept for that purpose. The record book shall be maintained at the Office of the Clerk.
"Sec. 3. To be effective, a recall petition must be returned to the Board of Elections within 30 days after the filing of the affidavit. To be sufficient, a recall petition must bear the signatures of at least twenty five percent (25%) of the registered voters of the County as shown by the registration records of the last preceding general municipal election.
"Sec. 4. The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to one paper. Each signer shall add his or her signature and the signer's place of residence, giving the residence address including County. One of the signers of each paper shall take an oath before an officer competent to administer oaths that each signature to the paper appended is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
"Sec. 5. The Board of Elections shall investigate the sufficiency of any petition and certify the results of the investigation to the County Commission. The Board of Elections may employ persons as it deems necessary to undertake that investigation. The County Commission shall reimburse the Board of Elections for the reasonable cost of the investigation. The Board of Elections may adopt rules concerning the validation of signatures appearing on the recall petition.
"Sec. 6. The Board of Elections shall complete its investigation and issue its certification of the results of the investigation within 15 days after the filing of any petition. If, by the Board of Elections' certification, the petition is shown to be insufficient, it may be amended within 10 days from the date of the certificate. The Board shall, within 10 days after any amendment, complete an investigation of the amended petition. If the certification of the results of the investigation shows the amended petition to be insufficient, a copy of the petition shall be returned to the person filing the petition, without prejudice to the filing of a new petition.
"Sec. 7. Upon a determination that a sufficient recall petition has been submitted, the Board of Elections shall submit the petition to the County Clerk, who shall submit it to the Board of Education and shall notify the officer whose removal is sought. If the officer whose removal is sought does not resign within five days after receiving the notice, the Board of Elections shall order and fix a date for holding a recall election. Subject to the remaining provisions of this section, an election shall be held not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after the petition has been certified as being sufficient. If any other general or special election is scheduled within this period, the Board of Elections shall schedule the special election at the same time. If the provisions of general law prohibit the holding of a special election during this time period and no general or special election is otherwise scheduled during that period of time, then the Board of Elections shall schedule the special recall election for a date within 10 days after the last day of the period of time during which special elections are prohibited by general law.
"Sec. 8. The Board of Elections shall cause legal notice of the election to be published. That notice shall include the general statement of the grounds on which the recall is sought as alleged in the affidavit and shall make all arrangements for holding the election in accordance with general law. The recall election shall be conducted, returned, and the results declared as in other elections in Burke County. The County shall reimburse the reasonable costs of the recall election to the Board of Elections.
"Sec. 9. The question of recalling any number of officials may be submitted at the same election. But as to each such official, a separate petition shall be filed and there shall be an entirely separate ballot.
"Sec. 10. The ballots used in a recall election shall submit the following proposition:
"[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
The recall of (name and title of official)."
"Sec. 11. If less than a majority of the votes cast on the question of recalling an official are for recall, the official shall continue in office for the remainder of the unexpired term and, except as provided by Section 13 of this act, shall be subject to the recall as before. If a majority of such votes are for the recall of the official designated on the ballot, the official shall be deemed removed from office.
"Sec. 12. If an official concerning whom a sufficient recall petition is submitted to the County Commission resigns before the recall election or is removed from office as a result of the recall election, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner provided by law for filling vacancies in that office. An official removed from office by the voters as a result of a recall election shall not be appointed to fill the vacancy caused by that official's own removal or resignation.
"Sec. 13. No recall petition shall be filed against an officer who has been subjected to a recall election, and not removed thereby, until at least six months after that recall election. No recall petition shall be filed against an officer during the first three months of the term of that office.
"Sec. 14. If the recalls of a majority of the members of the Burke County Board of Education are effected at a single recall election, the successors of the officers recalled shall be elected by the registered voters of the County at a special County election, and the successors shall serve for the remainder of the terms of the officers recalled. The members of the Board of Education who have not been recalled shall call that special election, which shall be conducted by the Burke County Board of Elections under the laws then governing elections in the State. If the recall of all the members of the Burke County Board of Education is effected at a single election, they shall continue in office for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of calling a special municipal election for the election of their successors as provided in this section. That election shall also be conducted by the Burke County Board of Elections under the laws then governing elections in the State."
SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the ____day of _________, 2009.
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
1/6/2009 School Board Comments Clarified
School Board Comments Clarified
I was one of the speakers at the December 15 Board Meeting at Draughn High School. I had much to say and only five minutes to speak, so I wanted to clarify my comments from that meeting for anyone who may be interested, and to comment on the Board Meeting held January 5th.
At the December 15 meeting I asked the Board to post the draft policies and any ancillary documents relating to the Board meetings on the School Board website. The following is an excerpt from my comments: “My first concern is the public’s access to board minutes, non-confidential attachments to board minutes and access to current board policy and procedure. The December 3, 2007 Minutes reflect that the Superintendant indicated that the current board minutes with attachments were available online. On March 3, 2008 the Superintendant indicated that the current board policy manual was online. I am sure you are all aware that the Board Minutes have not been posted online since June, 2008. Of the available minutes online, there are seldom ancillary documents posted with the minutes. Additionally, procedures followed by the Board that should be part of the current policy manual are not included online either.”
I also asked the Board to clarify its policies – I specifically said “My second concern is the clarity of posted board policies and procedures. Having reviewed policy manuals of other districts, I know that it is possible to adopt clear and specific policies that give the public notice of what is expected of all of the parties that have business with the school board.”
My third point was concern regarding the language in the draft media policies. At this meeting I commented on draft versions of the policies that had been published in The News Herald, and urged the Board to enlist the help of the NCHSA (North Carolina High School Association) in customizing the policy, because the draft that I had access to did not appear to have any legal review. I knew that the NCHSA had reviewed policies in the past for Burke, and I contacted NCHSA to see if they were helping draft this policy (they were not). Another speaker at the meeting (who is also a lawyer) must have been referring to the same policy I read when he called the draft policies “ludicrous.”
My concern at the time was that the Board had not submitted the policy to their attorney, and I thought that perhaps they were trying to save money by drafting the policy without legal guidance. I specifically said: “The NCBSA has developed sophisticated and valuable expertise in assisting local school districts in keeping their policies current and in compliance with legal mandates. The NCBSA is a resource that the board has relied on in the past as a source of policies, and it seems prudent that they are consulted regarding policies of such significance to our community.”
At the time I spoke I was not aware that the draft that I was publicly commenting on had already been scrapped and a new draft had been submitted to the Board. The newer draft (draft #5) had obviously been reviewed by Board Attorney Jonathan Jones and had come a long way in addressing my concerns. Although embarrassed that I did not have the current policy (not for lack of trying), I was pleased that some legal guidance had been implemented in the newer version.
At the January 5th Board meeting , Mr. Richard Avery, another local attorney, spoke generally about his concerns regarding the language in the draft policies (Draft #5), that policies were already in place to deal with the issues, and that all that was needed to address parental concerns was an “opt out” provision added to the current policy. Mr. Avery’s comment period was abruptly cut off by Ms. Norman before he finished, because he had reached the five minute mark. His was the only public comment.
In spite of Ms. Norman’s obvious intent to close the matter regarding Mr. Avery’s comments and concerns, I was pleased that the Board Attorney later addressed the Board regarding the need to hear the public’s opinions (including Mr. Avery’s legal concerns) about the language in the proposed policies.
I was also pleased to hear that Ms. Norman planned to update the Board Policy Manual. She has charged Mr. Rick Sherrill with that task. For what it is worth, I am personally very impressed with Caldwell county’s online policy manual and found it very professional and progressive (who knew?), and hope that Mr. Sherrill will consult that Policy Manual as one of his resources for the Burke Manual.
I was extremely impressed with Mr. Tony Cox, the new Assistant Superintendant in charge of Finance and Auxiliary Services. He seemed incredibly professional, approachable and capable. As a parent I appreciated that he referred to his department as the “Caregivers” since his department is responsible for the care and safety of the children while they are in school.
Although this meeting was much more “tame” than previous meetings, I urge the citizens of Burke County to continue to attend the Board Meetings. It is your right to address the Board with your concerns, and to hold the Board members accountable for their comments and decisions.
Catherine Thomas
Morganton, NC 28655
I was one of the speakers at the December 15 Board Meeting at Draughn High School. I had much to say and only five minutes to speak, so I wanted to clarify my comments from that meeting for anyone who may be interested, and to comment on the Board Meeting held January 5th.
At the December 15 meeting I asked the Board to post the draft policies and any ancillary documents relating to the Board meetings on the School Board website. The following is an excerpt from my comments: “My first concern is the public’s access to board minutes, non-confidential attachments to board minutes and access to current board policy and procedure. The December 3, 2007 Minutes reflect that the Superintendant indicated that the current board minutes with attachments were available online. On March 3, 2008 the Superintendant indicated that the current board policy manual was online. I am sure you are all aware that the Board Minutes have not been posted online since June, 2008. Of the available minutes online, there are seldom ancillary documents posted with the minutes. Additionally, procedures followed by the Board that should be part of the current policy manual are not included online either.”
I also asked the Board to clarify its policies – I specifically said “My second concern is the clarity of posted board policies and procedures. Having reviewed policy manuals of other districts, I know that it is possible to adopt clear and specific policies that give the public notice of what is expected of all of the parties that have business with the school board.”
My third point was concern regarding the language in the draft media policies. At this meeting I commented on draft versions of the policies that had been published in The News Herald, and urged the Board to enlist the help of the NCHSA (North Carolina High School Association) in customizing the policy, because the draft that I had access to did not appear to have any legal review. I knew that the NCHSA had reviewed policies in the past for Burke, and I contacted NCHSA to see if they were helping draft this policy (they were not). Another speaker at the meeting (who is also a lawyer) must have been referring to the same policy I read when he called the draft policies “ludicrous.”
My concern at the time was that the Board had not submitted the policy to their attorney, and I thought that perhaps they were trying to save money by drafting the policy without legal guidance. I specifically said: “The NCBSA has developed sophisticated and valuable expertise in assisting local school districts in keeping their policies current and in compliance with legal mandates. The NCBSA is a resource that the board has relied on in the past as a source of policies, and it seems prudent that they are consulted regarding policies of such significance to our community.”
At the time I spoke I was not aware that the draft that I was publicly commenting on had already been scrapped and a new draft had been submitted to the Board. The newer draft (draft #5) had obviously been reviewed by Board Attorney Jonathan Jones and had come a long way in addressing my concerns. Although embarrassed that I did not have the current policy (not for lack of trying), I was pleased that some legal guidance had been implemented in the newer version.
At the January 5th Board meeting , Mr. Richard Avery, another local attorney, spoke generally about his concerns regarding the language in the draft policies (Draft #5), that policies were already in place to deal with the issues, and that all that was needed to address parental concerns was an “opt out” provision added to the current policy. Mr. Avery’s comment period was abruptly cut off by Ms. Norman before he finished, because he had reached the five minute mark. His was the only public comment.
In spite of Ms. Norman’s obvious intent to close the matter regarding Mr. Avery’s comments and concerns, I was pleased that the Board Attorney later addressed the Board regarding the need to hear the public’s opinions (including Mr. Avery’s legal concerns) about the language in the proposed policies.
I was also pleased to hear that Ms. Norman planned to update the Board Policy Manual. She has charged Mr. Rick Sherrill with that task. For what it is worth, I am personally very impressed with Caldwell county’s online policy manual and found it very professional and progressive (who knew?), and hope that Mr. Sherrill will consult that Policy Manual as one of his resources for the Burke Manual.
I was extremely impressed with Mr. Tony Cox, the new Assistant Superintendant in charge of Finance and Auxiliary Services. He seemed incredibly professional, approachable and capable. As a parent I appreciated that he referred to his department as the “Caregivers” since his department is responsible for the care and safety of the children while they are in school.
Although this meeting was much more “tame” than previous meetings, I urge the citizens of Burke County to continue to attend the Board Meetings. It is your right to address the Board with your concerns, and to hold the Board members accountable for their comments and decisions.
Catherine Thomas
Morganton, NC 28655
Comments to the School Board 12/15 (5 minutes!)
My name is Catherine Thomas and I would like to comment on three things tonight: 1- public access to school board policies, procedures and minutes online, 2- clarity of board policies and 3- the drafting of board policies.
My first concern is the public’s access to board minutes, non-confidential attachments to board minutes and access to current board policy and procedure. The December 3, 2007 minutes reflect that the Superintendant indicated that the current board minutes with attachments were available online. On March 3, 2008 the Superintendant indicated that the current board policy manual was online. I am sure you are all aware that the board minutes have not been posted online since June, 2008. Of the available minutes online, there are seldom ancillary documents posted with the minutes. Additionally, procedures followed by the board that should be part of the current policy manual are not included online either.
My second concern is the clarity of posted board policies and procedures. Having reviewed policy manuals of other districts, I know that it is possible to adopt clear and specific policies that give the public notice of what is expected of all of the parties that have business with the school board. In my own dealing with the superintendent’s office regarding the transfer and athletic policy, I was extremely frustrated trying to navigate through the requirements of parents and students by relying on the posted policy. Although the policy explains how the determination of the transfers and athletic eligibility is determined, it does not provide any information as to the actual process one must go through, including the procedure to appeal decisions the school board has made. Another example is the application of some kind of notification timeline that Chairman Buff referred to at the last board meeting that required a speaker to request to be added to the board agenda at least 48 hours prior to a board meeting. Reviewing the minutes of March 19, 2007, it appears that there was some discussion among the board regarding requests to be added to the agenda. However, in spite of attempts to adopt a policy, there was never a policy adoption, a clear explanation of the expectations of a person who wanted to be added to the agenda or a motion to incorporate any changes into then current board practices at that meeting or any meeting since.
My third concern is the drafting of the current Media Polices. I support the modification of the current policy and I appreciate the work of all parties who have spent their blood sweat and tears trying to draft a policy that will be fair to all views espoused. However, I am concerned about the viability of the policy.
It is my understanding that the Superintendant is working with the Media and Technology Advisory Committee to make changes to these policies. It is not clear to me what procedure is being followed in drafting this policy, but it would be extremely helpful if the process by which this policy is being drafted as well as the drafts of the policies offered, were available online. According to past board minutes, the drafts should be posted online as attachments to board minutes. I have gathered from letters to the editor and listening to past board meetings that the Media Committee is the group drafting the new policies. However, according to Board Policy 9.6100P, the Media and Technology Selection Policy, the Media and Technology Advisory committee’s mandate is not to draft policy, it is to review the use of books in the class room.
I was able to review the current drafts of the proposed policies recently, and although it was evident that there had been a sincere effort to write policies that accommodate all of the parties’ concerns, as an attorney I had questions as to the substance of the policies. I contacted the senior staff attorney at the North Carolina School Board Association and asked her if she had been working with Burke county on these policies, and she replied that she had not. She indicated that the NCBSA was currently reviewing some policies for Burke County, but that the media policy was not one of them. When I read some of the language from the draft policies to her that I was concerned about, she stated that the language I read did not reflect the model policies of the NCBSA. She said that it is generally problematic for a school board to draft policies in parallel with the NCBSA’s review of policies, because often the policy adopted does not comply with statutes or the NCBSA has tested the policy in other venues and had found that the policy is easily challenged. So, I urge you to share the drafts of the media policies with the NCBSA so that they may offer some guidance to whomever is drafting the policies. The NCBSA has developed sophisticated and valuable expertise in assisting local school districts in keeping their policies current and in compliance with legal mandates. The NCBSA is a resource that the board has relied on in the past as a source of policies, and it seems prudent that they are consulted regarding policies of such significance to our community.
In sum: Regarding public access: I would like to see the Minutes and all missing attachments to the minutes that are for public view to be maintained online. Regarding clarity of policy and procedure: I would like for the board to clearly explain the procedures that are used in place of policies, and for those procedures to be added to the website, and regarding the drafting of the media policies, I would like for whomever is leading the process of drafting the new media policies to enlist the services of the NCSBA so that the individuals who have put so much time and emotional energy into the drafting of these policies won’t have wasted their time on points that have already been settled by the constitution, law or past practice of other NC schools.
My first concern is the public’s access to board minutes, non-confidential attachments to board minutes and access to current board policy and procedure. The December 3, 2007 minutes reflect that the Superintendant indicated that the current board minutes with attachments were available online. On March 3, 2008 the Superintendant indicated that the current board policy manual was online. I am sure you are all aware that the board minutes have not been posted online since June, 2008. Of the available minutes online, there are seldom ancillary documents posted with the minutes. Additionally, procedures followed by the board that should be part of the current policy manual are not included online either.
My second concern is the clarity of posted board policies and procedures. Having reviewed policy manuals of other districts, I know that it is possible to adopt clear and specific policies that give the public notice of what is expected of all of the parties that have business with the school board. In my own dealing with the superintendent’s office regarding the transfer and athletic policy, I was extremely frustrated trying to navigate through the requirements of parents and students by relying on the posted policy. Although the policy explains how the determination of the transfers and athletic eligibility is determined, it does not provide any information as to the actual process one must go through, including the procedure to appeal decisions the school board has made. Another example is the application of some kind of notification timeline that Chairman Buff referred to at the last board meeting that required a speaker to request to be added to the board agenda at least 48 hours prior to a board meeting. Reviewing the minutes of March 19, 2007, it appears that there was some discussion among the board regarding requests to be added to the agenda. However, in spite of attempts to adopt a policy, there was never a policy adoption, a clear explanation of the expectations of a person who wanted to be added to the agenda or a motion to incorporate any changes into then current board practices at that meeting or any meeting since.
My third concern is the drafting of the current Media Polices. I support the modification of the current policy and I appreciate the work of all parties who have spent their blood sweat and tears trying to draft a policy that will be fair to all views espoused. However, I am concerned about the viability of the policy.
It is my understanding that the Superintendant is working with the Media and Technology Advisory Committee to make changes to these policies. It is not clear to me what procedure is being followed in drafting this policy, but it would be extremely helpful if the process by which this policy is being drafted as well as the drafts of the policies offered, were available online. According to past board minutes, the drafts should be posted online as attachments to board minutes. I have gathered from letters to the editor and listening to past board meetings that the Media Committee is the group drafting the new policies. However, according to Board Policy 9.6100P, the Media and Technology Selection Policy, the Media and Technology Advisory committee’s mandate is not to draft policy, it is to review the use of books in the class room.
I was able to review the current drafts of the proposed policies recently, and although it was evident that there had been a sincere effort to write policies that accommodate all of the parties’ concerns, as an attorney I had questions as to the substance of the policies. I contacted the senior staff attorney at the North Carolina School Board Association and asked her if she had been working with Burke county on these policies, and she replied that she had not. She indicated that the NCBSA was currently reviewing some policies for Burke County, but that the media policy was not one of them. When I read some of the language from the draft policies to her that I was concerned about, she stated that the language I read did not reflect the model policies of the NCBSA. She said that it is generally problematic for a school board to draft policies in parallel with the NCBSA’s review of policies, because often the policy adopted does not comply with statutes or the NCBSA has tested the policy in other venues and had found that the policy is easily challenged. So, I urge you to share the drafts of the media policies with the NCBSA so that they may offer some guidance to whomever is drafting the policies. The NCBSA has developed sophisticated and valuable expertise in assisting local school districts in keeping their policies current and in compliance with legal mandates. The NCBSA is a resource that the board has relied on in the past as a source of policies, and it seems prudent that they are consulted regarding policies of such significance to our community.
In sum: Regarding public access: I would like to see the Minutes and all missing attachments to the minutes that are for public view to be maintained online. Regarding clarity of policy and procedure: I would like for the board to clearly explain the procedures that are used in place of policies, and for those procedures to be added to the website, and regarding the drafting of the media policies, I would like for whomever is leading the process of drafting the new media policies to enlist the services of the NCSBA so that the individuals who have put so much time and emotional energy into the drafting of these policies won’t have wasted their time on points that have already been settled by the constitution, law or past practice of other NC schools.
Dress Code - February 5, 2009
The School Board is considering implementing a dress code at the high schools and has begun drafting a dress code policy. Associate Superintendent Rick Sherrill presented a first draft of the policy to the board at the meeting on February 2. After some discussion of the merits of the policy, Ms. Norman commented that she didn’t think that the draft policy should be included on the Burke County Public Schools website for public review, because people would not understand that it was just a draft. She went on to elaborate on how she wanted this policy to be drafted “in a respectful way.” When Mr. Wilkinson stated that he wanted the public’s opinion on the policy, Ms. Norman responded with a rant about people starting rumors about policies and said something about people who write letters to the newspaper because they like to see their name in print. Mr. Buff went so far as to have Mr. Sherrill “look in to the camera and tell everyone on TV that this is a draft.” Several of the Board members (Wilkinson, Armour and Barnard) indicated that they had no problem with posting the draft on the school website, as long as the public understood that this was a draft policy. Those same members wanted to hear the public’s comments about the draft policy and the dress code in general.
I don’t think it is too presumptuous to assume that I am perceived by some on the Board as one of the folks who “likes to see their names in print” so I’ll indulge those members by stating my opinion in print. I remind the board chair that when I spoke at the December 15th board meeting, I asked that ancillary documents be posted on the website if they were presented to the board. The board has caused the previous confusion by not posting updates of the media policies as they were drafted. The only access the public had to the media policy before I spoke to the board was the draft that was published in the News Herald in November of 2008. By the time the “second reading” rolled around in December, that policy had been updated/modified two times, but citizens who were unhappy about the previously published policy had no idea the document had been changed.
Ms. Chairperson, the problem is not that people get “carried away” with board policy making or that people like me are “disrespectful.” The problem is the lack of transparency the board demonstrates when making policy. If you do not want people like me making judgments about the language in a policy, then allow the public access to the drafts, (or at least explain to the public in a forum that the public has access to) that the board is considering drafting a policy, and the reasons why that policy is being considered. The dress code policy has many facets – good and bad – and the citizens of Burke County should be aware of the Board’s motivation and action every step of the way. You will get cooperation from the public when you let the sun shine on the board’s activity regarding the drafting of policies that affect the public.
Catherine Thomas
1660 Plantation Ct.
Morganton, NC 28655
I don’t think it is too presumptuous to assume that I am perceived by some on the Board as one of the folks who “likes to see their names in print” so I’ll indulge those members by stating my opinion in print. I remind the board chair that when I spoke at the December 15th board meeting, I asked that ancillary documents be posted on the website if they were presented to the board. The board has caused the previous confusion by not posting updates of the media policies as they were drafted. The only access the public had to the media policy before I spoke to the board was the draft that was published in the News Herald in November of 2008. By the time the “second reading” rolled around in December, that policy had been updated/modified two times, but citizens who were unhappy about the previously published policy had no idea the document had been changed.
Ms. Chairperson, the problem is not that people get “carried away” with board policy making or that people like me are “disrespectful.” The problem is the lack of transparency the board demonstrates when making policy. If you do not want people like me making judgments about the language in a policy, then allow the public access to the drafts, (or at least explain to the public in a forum that the public has access to) that the board is considering drafting a policy, and the reasons why that policy is being considered. The dress code policy has many facets – good and bad – and the citizens of Burke County should be aware of the Board’s motivation and action every step of the way. You will get cooperation from the public when you let the sun shine on the board’s activity regarding the drafting of policies that affect the public.
Catherine Thomas
1660 Plantation Ct.
Morganton, NC 28655
January 10th, 2009 : The Mike is Hot!!!!
I was astounded that Ms. Norman, Mr. Buff and other Board members stated at the January 5th Board Meeting that the Media Policy issue had been “blown out of proportion.” I think that the Citizens of Burke County ought to do themselves a favor and access the recording of the School Board meeting on November 17th, 2008, Part 2 that is available on the Burke County School Website: http://www.burke.k12.nc.us/boeaudio/. I have listened to this recording and am incensed at the comments of particular Board Members.
This particular recording is of the meeting at which over 30 students, parents and former students came to speak to the Board about the Proposed Media Policy. Most of them were responding to Ms. Norman’s own words at a previous meeting that certain books should be “pulled” from the schools. Many of the former students communicated with each other via Facebook to arrange to speak at the meeting. Although the Board denies ever mentioning “banning” books, it is public record that Ms. Norman made the statement that some books should be “pulled.” And I am happy to write that the Media Policy drafts are becoming more reasonable and constitutionally sound with every draft that is written.
Listening to the November 17th meeting , you’ll hear lots of crowd noise, exasperation from the public attendees regarding the right to speak at the meeting, threats by then Vice-Chair Tracy Norman to have the room cleared, and most distressingly, comments from the Board Members themselves regarding the public attendees. Apparently the Board Members didn’t realize they were being recorded, and that their comments would be accessible to the public.
At about 5 minutes into the audio, while the crowd is situating itself, some of the Board Members engage in what seems to be “small talk”. Mr. Barnard opines that the group who has come to speak has been recruited. Mr. Hairfield says “of course they have been recruited to speak, do you think they came because they were homesick?” Mr. Hairfield remarks once they have heard three people speak the Board can go on standby because they’ll all sound the same. As the non-speakers are leaving the room, Mr. Hairfield remarks “Shoot to kill if necessary.” (5’24” into the audio) Then Mr. Barnard says, “I mean you can find out . . .... “
At 5 minutes 48 seconds into the audio, Ms. Norman remarks “Eric, you need to get a copy of the email that’s been sent out to recruit them. There’ve been emails and if you trace back where these. . . Trace back where they . ... what their high school English class is, their English class. Trace back to their English class. English class.”
I don’t know who “Eric” is. Why does it matter to Ms. Norman who recruited students to speak? Americans have the right to organize. Americans have the right to dissent. Even teachers.
This is not a new tactic. Any time there is audible dissension in the audience at a school board meeting, the meeting is stopped and the chair and vice chair demand to know who made the remarks. At one Board meeting Ed Redman stood up and took the blame for a comment he did not make. When I asked him why, he said two things: “they are acting like a bunch of Nazis up there – I was waiting for them to bring out the police dogs, the bright lights and to start shooting hostages until someone confessed. We would have been sitting there all night if someone hadn’t ‘confessed,’ and I figured it might as well be me.” When I asked him why he thought the exclaimant didn’t confess, his reply was “He was probably a teacher. Can you imagine being on their (Buff and Norman’s) list?” Enough said.
Catherine Thomas
This particular recording is of the meeting at which over 30 students, parents and former students came to speak to the Board about the Proposed Media Policy. Most of them were responding to Ms. Norman’s own words at a previous meeting that certain books should be “pulled” from the schools. Many of the former students communicated with each other via Facebook to arrange to speak at the meeting. Although the Board denies ever mentioning “banning” books, it is public record that Ms. Norman made the statement that some books should be “pulled.” And I am happy to write that the Media Policy drafts are becoming more reasonable and constitutionally sound with every draft that is written.
Listening to the November 17th meeting , you’ll hear lots of crowd noise, exasperation from the public attendees regarding the right to speak at the meeting, threats by then Vice-Chair Tracy Norman to have the room cleared, and most distressingly, comments from the Board Members themselves regarding the public attendees. Apparently the Board Members didn’t realize they were being recorded, and that their comments would be accessible to the public.
At about 5 minutes into the audio, while the crowd is situating itself, some of the Board Members engage in what seems to be “small talk”. Mr. Barnard opines that the group who has come to speak has been recruited. Mr. Hairfield says “of course they have been recruited to speak, do you think they came because they were homesick?” Mr. Hairfield remarks once they have heard three people speak the Board can go on standby because they’ll all sound the same. As the non-speakers are leaving the room, Mr. Hairfield remarks “Shoot to kill if necessary.” (5’24” into the audio) Then Mr. Barnard says, “I mean you can find out . . .... “
At 5 minutes 48 seconds into the audio, Ms. Norman remarks “Eric, you need to get a copy of the email that’s been sent out to recruit them. There’ve been emails and if you trace back where these. . . Trace back where they . ... what their high school English class is, their English class. Trace back to their English class. English class.”
I don’t know who “Eric” is. Why does it matter to Ms. Norman who recruited students to speak? Americans have the right to organize. Americans have the right to dissent. Even teachers.
This is not a new tactic. Any time there is audible dissension in the audience at a school board meeting, the meeting is stopped and the chair and vice chair demand to know who made the remarks. At one Board meeting Ed Redman stood up and took the blame for a comment he did not make. When I asked him why, he said two things: “they are acting like a bunch of Nazis up there – I was waiting for them to bring out the police dogs, the bright lights and to start shooting hostages until someone confessed. We would have been sitting there all night if someone hadn’t ‘confessed,’ and I figured it might as well be me.” When I asked him why he thought the exclaimant didn’t confess, his reply was “He was probably a teacher. Can you imagine being on their (Buff and Norman’s) list?” Enough said.
Catherine Thomas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
