One parent who knows his SDCL 1-25-2 reminded the board that "discussing a difficult issue is not legal reason for a closed session." Indeed, school boards like other governmental entities around our state seem very quick to shoo out the public and close the doors the moment any agenda item even hints at the topics statute lists as justification for executive or closed meetings.
A quick review of the executive/closed session law is in order:
1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings --Purposes--Authorization--Misdemeanor. Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purposes of:(1) Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The term "employee" does not include any independent contractor;
(2) Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the educational program of a student;
(3) Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
(4) Preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or employee representatives;
(5) Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, when public discussion may be harmful to the competitive position of the business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open official meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a majority vote of the members of such body present and voting, and discussion during the closed meeting is restricted to the purpose specified in the closure motion. Nothing in § 1-25-1 or this section may be construed to prevent an executive or closed meeting if the federal or state Constitution or the federal or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
As noted here previously, a perhaps pivotal word in this law is right at the top: "Executive or closed meetings may be held...." In my various dealings with school boards, I've heard them refer to executive session as something the law requires them to do. Normally may means an action is permitted yet optional, not obligatory. However, my lawyer friends may point out (and I welcome their enlightenment here) that in statutes and contracts, may and the seemingly stronger shall sometimes get mixed up and must always be read in context (generally good advice for any document).
Whether SDCL 1-25-2's may means may or shall, school boards may feel another reason to resort to executive session whenever possible: us. Sure, I've seen boards not want to face difficult issues or state their reasons for their actions on the record. But I've also seen boards dealing with out litigious society. Just like teachers and administrators, boards face perhaps more immediate public scrutiny than any other elected body. Sometimes parents have a legitimate beef, but sometimes they just have an axe to grind. For every parent who has a legitimate complaint about the board's unfair treatment of a student or teacher, there are others who just want their little all-stars to get more playing time or force mythology into the science curriculum. And all too many of those parents will use frivolous lawsuits to get what they want.
With respect to last night's Madison Central board meeting, the staff and board might well have been able to discuss certain aspects of the hacker case with the parents in open session. However, a sharp-eared parent could likely have found in such a discussion some specific detail that constituted a litigable violation of FERPA the professional code of ethics, which I've heard some parents try to interpret as grounds for firing a teacher who mentions his employment on a blog (uh oh...).
So rather than give motivated parties and their lawyers more material to work with, school boards generally keep and discussion of student or personnel affairs secret. Sure, they're covering their backsides, but our overly litigious society has a lot to do with it.
We still would prefer an open discussion of the hacker issue, the punishments issued, and the remedies undertaken by our public school system. (The Madville Times prefers open discussion of darn-near everything... which is why, contrary to previously stated desires, I'll likely never run for school board: I couldn't keep my mouth shut!) We would like to know just how fairly the punishments were dealt out and whether some students were given a free pass by the administration. But as long as SDCL 1-25-2 has that interpretable may in it, we can expect school boards and other public bodies to keep taking advantage of it to hide from difficult issues, difficult parents, and difficult bloggers.
I imagine they went into executive session under the guise of it pertaining to "disciplinary issues" because there may be the potential to sneak a name out here or there.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do agree in a need for more open discussion. The board needs to first, admit something was wrong in the first place and second, let parents know what is being done to prevent it from happening again.
Of course, they could do what another local governing body (Lake County) has a habit of doing. Whenever there's an issue of controversy that's discussed at a meeting, the board will listen to both sides and table the issue for discussion "later," which generally translates into discussion after all interested parties have left the room except for the diligent press sitting in the room waiting for a decision.
Let's not forget that these students broke the law. In my book, they are lucky that all they are facing is merely a short school suspension. I'm concerned that this situation is being taken too lightly. These students knowingly obtained the use of, accessed, and exceeded authorized access to a computer system without the consent of the school district. These students also used or disclosed passwords to a computer system without the consent of the school district. This is an unlawful use of a computer system.
ReplyDelete"The board needs to first, admit something was wrong in the first place and second, let parents know what is being done to prevent it from happening again."
People for some reason want to point the finger at the school district because their security wasn't strong enough or because it was too easy to get around rather than hold the students accountable for something that they did wrong. That is ridiculous. I suppose if the lock on my door isn't strong enough or my windows aren't locked tightly enough and someone breaks into my house, that it's my fault because my security system wasn't strong enough to keep them out.
Students who are juveniles are strictly protected under Federal FERPA Laws which requires school districts to protect the names of students. Also, while Charlie Johnson accused the board of using executive session illegally, it was pointed out at the meeting that the board can meet for discussion of suspensions and expulsions. It was also pointed out at last night's meeting that the board was not yet informed of the details of the suspensions, so while many parents met with the principal and superintendent prior to the board meeting, the board said they didn't have details yet that the parents wanted to know. It sounds like the board is going to reveal more information in the near future. By the way, what these kids are accused of could be both a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on which laws you look at. Some school districts simply turn these computer hackings over to law enforcement. Some districts give the kids zeros for homework and tests taken during suspension periods (Madison gets 50% of earned grade). We have to remember that these students are growing into adults and if they pull this at their job, they'll be shown the door. Better to learn a short lesson now, take a penalty and move forward. Kids will be kids, but adults with careers will be terminated if they hack through security systems. Good lesson learned. Short term pain for long term gain.
ReplyDeleteWere the suspensions meted out fairly to everyone concerned, or were some kids given harsher penalties and others none? I don't know, just wondering. If the suspensions hurt a GPA that affected a studet's participation in extracurriculars, were those students treated differently? Again, just asking. If the punishment is fair across the board to everyone concerned, then fine. If not, there is a big problem and parents have a right to be concerned.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Anon, that's exactly the question parents appear to have brought to the board Monday night, about fair treatment of all guilty parties. From all accounts (particularly from the letter to the editor from Charlie Stoneback in last night's paper), the board and staff have declined to offer any answers to that question. But some parents involved say the school did some profiling first, checking the computers of some kids already tagged as troublemakers, kids whom they could easily suspend, but after a few computer checks and suspensions realized they had a bigger problem than anticipated.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't it be nice if instead of playing rumoring guessing games, we could just hear straight from the sources what went down and why? As Stoneback said, people aren't asking for lists of student names or any FERPA details. They just want to know how things are being dealt with, a very reasonable request from the folks paying the bills.