Tracking the Hiring of Brent Jones as Permanent Seattle Schools Superintendent

Update: well, well, look at that:

The Board Special Meeting previously scheduled for March 9 has been cancelled.

I hope between myself and Chris Jackins that we got the Board's attention in how they are handling the hiring of Dr. Brent Jones as permanent superintendent.

I get the feeling that for President Brandon Hersey and Director Chandra Hampson that they think they can pick which policies they follow and when. It doesn't work like that. 

end of update

 I previously announced that this Wednesday, March 9th, the Board is having a "Special" meeting. It's from 4:30-7:30 pm with no title to it and no agenda. My belief is that the Board is not even waiting until their next regularly scheduled Board meeting on March 16th. 

So number one, what's the rush?

If they had been sincere in having a superintendent search, at this point they would have likely named candidates and would have meet-and-greet meetings (even via Zoom). 

If they had been sincere in a superintendent search and given they have called it off, wouldn't it make sense to at least allow the public to weigh in on the decision? Or ask questions of Dr. Jones? 

But they are not being sincere; they are being authoritarian. 

As I said elsewhere, they are now operating on a "need to know" basis - they will determine what you need to know and when. 

Number two, it was pointed out to me by district watchdog Chris Jackins that the Board likely violated the RCW on school boards AND their own policy on public input at their meeting last Friday. I am adopting his language here and adding some of my own.

At the Board meeting on March 2nd, President Brandon Hersey announced the March 4th "Special meeting." He stated that this was for "authorization to negotiate an employment contract for a superintendent" AND that there would be no public comment at it. The meeting was for Intro/Action but there was no stated emergency on the agenda nor at the meeting.

So how did that March 4th meeting violate RCW 28A.320.015(2)?  

- The RCW references boards adopting policies and "The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors.”

As well, Board policy 1430 for "Audience Participation" states that "Written and oral comment will be accepted on items before the Board." 

And yet at the March 4th meeting was no reasonable opportunity for oral comment and no mention of the directors wanting input - written or oral. 

 The citation from Board policy 1430 would seem to illustrate what the RCW means by "reasonable opportunity."

Board policy 1430 also states:

"The Board recognizes the value of public comment on educational issues and the importance of involving members of the public in its meetings.” 

This implies that simply in terms of respectful good governance, the Board should allow public input on the March 4 action item.

- About "Special Meetings" which is in Board policy 1400 "Meeting Conduct, Order of Business & Quorum", it states "The district shall also prominently display the notice at the main entrance of the district's headquarters."

To note, there are two main entries to the JSCEE; one to the north from the street side and one from the south parking lots. 

The notice of the March 4, 2022 meeting was NOT "prominently" displayed and certainly not displayed at the main entrances.

 Jackins went to the building at around 10 pm on March 3, 2022 and checked those two entrances. There was NO notice on either door but a notice saying that Board notices would be posted under a covered walkway nearby to the north entrance which turned out to be inconspicuously located behind large lockers for bicycles.

- The Board can waive its own policies (and indeed, this Board seems more than willing to do that) but they have to say that they are and nothing of the sort was stated at that March 4th meeting. 

- The Board may be able to waive its own policies but bypassing state law is wrong. 

To note, just allowing public comment at the last minute at the meeting still wouldn't have satisfied the state law because there would not have been adequate notice to the public. 

As Jackins points out, the Board seems to be operating on the premise that because they previously had sought public input on the superintendent search, that satisfied for this meeting which was a totally different subject. Huh?

- When the Board adopted Jones' current interim superintendent contract, they explicitly anticipated NOT extending it. In fact, they said they could hire him in "another, yet to be determined, "executive position." So this change of discussion was NEVER even anticipated in the interim contract.

The SBAR also referenced public input related to the current Interim Superintendent [page 2, section 4.b], stating that “Public comment widely acknowledged the Interim Superintendent’s leadership”, that the School Board President had “heard voices throughout the community, and reviewed the professional performance of the Interim Superintendent”, and that “it is the opinion of the School Board President that Dr. Brent Jones is the person best suited to continue that leadership in the Superintendent position.”

And that's great except that by creating a NEW direction for the superintendent search, the Board should have solicited public comment. They didn't and again, that is a violation of their own policy and state law.

The Board should - at this very minute - be soliciting public comment on the ending of the superintendent search and the Board's determination to hire Brent Jones as permanent superintendent. 

But they are not.