Not every meeting has a theme, but this one features some interesting timing decisions. Or perhaps the theme is evading public discussion.
The public testimony is still scheduled for 5:00pm. The Board knows that having the testimony at this time creates a barrier to participation by working people. Perhaps that's the intent.
The proclamation for Cheryl Chow is presented for introduction and action at the same meeting. The Board repealed the policy that restricted the practice to emergencies so now they can (and often do) bring motions for introduction and action at the same meeting. Usually they do it when there is some urgency or if they wish to evade public questions about their actions. Take it from me, you do not want to question this proclamation. I certainly won't question it. I presume it was brought for introduction and action at the same meeting because there is some urgency and therefore immediate action is in the best interests of the District. I doubt they are rushing it to evade public discussion. The statement of issue reads:
Seattle School Board wishes to recognize the work of individuals in committing themselves to helping the children of Seattle achieve, and for dedicating their lives to working with children. Ms. Chow has shown her commitment and dedication not only through her work at Seattle Public Schools, but also in the greater Seattle community.The Board has not done anything like this in the past ten years, but it would be nice if they did. The statement of issue makes reference to multiple individuals, so perhaps this will be the first of a number of such proclamations to deserving people and organizations. Feel free to nominate anyone you believe also merits such recognition.
There is a motion for action to authorize the superintendent to approve applications for conditional certificate for one person, a Teach for America corps member. This has been brought for action despite the fact that it was never brought for introduction. The motion brought for introduction at the last board meeting was for a different candidate. They are not interchangable. The Board is deviating from their practice of introducing motions prior to action. This motion was never introduced. It came through the Executive Committee for the first time just last week, a week after the last Board meeting. I think it is interesting that motions for approval of conditional certificates come through the Executive Committee instead of the Operations Committee.