The Long, Long Slog at Last Night's Seattle School Board Meeting

I will put up a separate post about what was actually discussed at the meeting but I'm gonna start with the problems with this current Board and how they hold meetings. 

Long Meetings

Last night's meeting was about 5 hours. After a day of work, are you ready for a 5-hour meeting? Most people would not be mentally sharp for five hours.

Recently someone in SPS came up with the brilliant idea of combining Board meetings with Work Sessions. And mind you, not putting the Work Session at the END of the Board meeting but rather, inserting it in the middle. 

I think the idea was to allow staff who needed to be at the Work Session AND the Board meeting to have one fewer long day. 

Last night the Board did one better. They inserted a review of a couple of Strategic Plan goals in the Board meeting (again, in the middle) and THEN had a Work Session and THEN had a few last Board meeting items.

I note that the student member of the Board, Luna Crone-Baron, stayed for the ENTIRE thing. 

Public Testimony

Oh, and did I mention what I believe is the new (but unspoken) Board policy around public testimony? "We're special so WE will decide when public testimony starts, no matter what the agenda says." 

Public testimony has generally been started at 5 pm but got moved at some point to 4:30 pm. Now understand, if you sign up for public testimony, you darn well better be ready at 4:30 pm because the Board is a busy group. 

However, this Board is NOT - as in past boards - honoring that time. Past boards would do the work of the meeting UNTIL the set time for public testimony and then stop that work and begin public testimony. THIS Board does not. And I mean not even within 5 or 10 minutes of the published time. Last night they started public testimony more than 30 minutes late.

So disrespectful to the public's time and energy. President Hersey never apologizes or promises to do better. And why? Because this Board really DOES NOT care what the public has to say. I note there were like five people signed up to speak. Well sure, why would you sign up if you have no idea of what time the testimony starts? That's not equitable or inclusive or any other buzz word. That's just myopic and wrong. 

Board Members Who Love the Sound of Their Voices

There are only two of them and it's Liza Rankin and Chandra Hampson. It's a good thing that I'm not at meetings because as I watch them at home, I'm generally saying to the screen either "Wrap it up" or "You're STILL talking?" or "For the love of God, get to your point!" I should get out a stopwatch for speaking time for directors but I know who would win for longest amount of speaking time and it's those two. 

Last night Rankin was the worst. She is the legislative representative and in her Board comments, she stated that it looks like there are going to literally be a couple of thousand bills put forth in the next legislative session. She also mentioned that SPS seemed to have better alignment in terms of what they are looking for from the legislature as other area districts. This is all good except she struggles mightily to string sentences together coherently. 

She then veered off into the visit of the Governor and Mayor to Ingraham High to talk about safety. (She still has never said, "Ingraham is in my district" assuming everyone knows this.) She did mention that the kids said that they are kids and the adults need to be the ones to find solutions.

What was weird is that she mentioned that the Rainier Beach High School kids didn't get to meet with the Governor or Mayor. I would venture that is because 1) the district has not revealed the nature of the recent threat to RBHS that caused the district to cancel a basketball game and school on Wednesday there and 2) no student was shot dead at RBHS but if that happens, I'm sure those electeds will show up. Don't know why she thought this was important to say or signal.

Board Members Looking at their Laptops

I think all electeds do this. I can see why - they are checking where they are on the agenda or looking at supporting documentation. Naturally President Hersey needs to be looking at the agenda to keep the meeting moving. 

But it's odd when you see some directors just not seeming to listen to other directors speaking. I note that Director Harris tends to be looking at other directors when they speak. I'm not going to name names here but watch any Board meeting and you'll see who is looking at their laptop the most. For public testimony, the camera is generally on the speaker so it's unclear if board members are listening attentively.

Directors Repeatedly Thanking Each Other and District Staff

I DO think it a good idea to mention when people do a good job especially staff to call out good work. But this Board takes it to a high art. 

Rankin started her Board comments thanking Hampson for something. After the vote for Board president, Sarju thanked the winner. After the Superintendent announced the Board got an award for their work, Hersey then thanked him and thanked everyone in SPS, including parents, as it was a team effort. And on and on. 

Abstaining from a Vote

I'm not sure what onboarding happens for board directors to explain voting but this Board uses abstention votes more than any other board I have ever seen.

The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

Simply put, an abstention refers to the decision by a board member (or member of another body) not to vote. The board member isn’t voting for the issue nor against it.   

 Let's go to Robert's Rules of Order:

- According to Robert’s Rules, abstention votes don’t count as a “yea” or “nay.”   

- Voting is a duty and a privilege, so why would a board member want to abstain from a vote? A board member might have one of the following reasons for not wanting to vote:  

• There’s have a conflict of interest  
• Don’t want to reveal what they’re thinking about an issue  
• Disagree with one or more board members and don’t want to air their disagreement  
• They’re too conflicted on an issue to cast a meaningful vote  
• Failed to research the matter sufficiently, and they don’t feel right about voting on it  
• They’re simply not focused enough on board activities   

It doesn’t happen often, but board members don’t always state their reasons for abstaining from a vote.   Active abstention refers to a board member who verbally and clearly states their intention not to vote on a motion.   

By contrast, passive abstention refers to veiling the decision not to vote. 

Last night this was on display when the Board had to vote in new Board officers. Let's keep in mind what Robert's Rules of Order says:

In the usual situation, where the rules require either a “majority vote” or a “two-thirds vote,” abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the rules explicitly require a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote.

I think that if a member of the Board abstains then that member should give an explanation. They don't have to but if they don't, I personally would be very suspicious that that person is trying to game something.

All this came into play during the voting for new Board officers. Cutting to the chase they are:

Brandon Hersey, President

Liza Rankin, VP

Michelle Sarju, Member-at-Large

Here's how it played out. According to Board policy, the Superintendent acts as Secretary of the Board and guides the election process. A vote is taken for each nominee because one person has to get to four to win. Abstentions do not count as votes. 

Jones first took nominations for president and Hersey was the only one nominated.  Rankin nominated him and, in her apropos style said, "There are lots of personalities up here." 

The vote was a unanimous yes. 

Jones moved onto nominees for Vice President.  Director Leslie Harris nominated director Vivian Song Maritz. Harris noted that she had a good conversation with Director Rankin but said "it was not a secret that this Board is polarized" and that Song Maritz had a more "neutral perspective" and was one of the first Asian women in leadership on the Board with a great attention to detail. Rivera-Smith seconded that nomination saying Song Maritz had "proven herself" in her short time on the Board. 

Hersey nominated Director Liza Rankin saying both Rankin and Song Maritz had potential but "in this season on the Board, I'm excited with Rankin." Hampson seconded the nomination saying that Hersey and Rankin had "collegial leadership." She continued saying, "One of the things I value the most is self-reflection and growth, humility and self-sacrifice." Sadly, even though she went on and on, she never gave any examples of what she said. 

The first voting was for Song Maritz. Sarju abstained as did Hersey and there were three ayes and two nays. So Song Maritz lost.

Then there was the vote for Rankin. This time Sarju did vote and it was a yes with three other ayes so Rankin won.

The last office to vote in was Member-at-Large. Harris nominated Song Maritz, saying democracy is a good thing and so is standing up and being counted. She noted that being on the school board has never been a stepping stone to higher office. Not sure what that all meant in the context of the election.

Director Sarju was then nominated by Director Hampson. 

There was much more pointed discussion for this office. Rankin said she didn't think the Board was polarized especially as compared to other boards in the nation. She said Sarju ran for Black students and has held to that. "When we don't agree on the Board, it's more about personalities...including me."

Hampson said Sarju is "an important voice on the Board." She might be but she seldom says anything. You can go back and listen to Board meetings or Work Sessions and you will rarely hear Sarju say anything including announcing community meetings in her district. Not speaking doesn't mean she isn't a good director but it sure is hard for the public to know for sure.

Amazingly, Sarju spoke up for herself. She said it was not about her but she agreed with Rankin that "we are not polarized." She said colleagues around the country have been forced out of their board positions. She said she was not against Song Maritz's nomination. Then she said her abstention on the vote for Song Maritz was "exactly that." 

Do I get what she means? Not in the context of Robert's Rules of Order which I will reprint below for context:

On the other hand, if the rules explicitly require a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote.

So the point above, sadly, was not explained at the meeting, just the part that a member would need four "ayes" to win. So Sarju voting to abstain on the Song Maritz vote was the same as a "no" vote even if it was not recorded as such. 

Director Crone-Baron said even if she couldn't vote, she did support Sarju. She also said that she didn't think the Board was polarized and that she had respect for both nominees. 

I'm just going to point out that when you are in the majority and your majority's causes/choices ALWAYS win the day, naturally you might not believe the group is polarized. That the minority of Song Maritz, Rivera Smith and Harris don't make a stink about it or present hostile demeanors doesn't mean all is well. But the majority know that.

The vote supported this point on polarizing and I'm not sure who could have missed it. The vote for Song Maritz was first. Rankin, Hampson, Hersey and Sarju ALL abstained. The other three - the minority - voted "aye." So Song Maritz lost again.

Then they started for vote for Sarju and Harris asked if they could vote by "acclimation" and they did with Hersey voting very loudly "aye."