Robert Berg Calls for Increased Transparency at School Board Meeting

Below are comments made by resident Bob Berg at the May 5 meeting of the Scarsdale School Board: The School Board and the Administration began this year chanting the mantra "Transparency." And, indeed, compared to years past, this year started out very transparently – with our new Superintendent and our Board placing a new and heavy emphasis on full and public disclosure and discussion.

Transparency and full disclosure were critical to the community's support of the $18.5 million facilities bond which passed overwhelmingly last December and to the proposed budget -- which hopefully will be overwhelmingly passed in two weeks.

However, I detect – and I am greatly concerned about -- significant back-sliding into the McGill "Dark Ages" recently with regard to transparency and full disclosure.

Let me give you two recent examples:

Under the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law, the School Board must make the documents scheduled to be discussed at a board meeting available to the public prior to and at the meeting during which the records will be discussed. Now, making documents available to the public means making the actual full text of the documents available, with extremely narrow exceptions. That means you may redact certain individually identifying information such as a person's name and address under certain circumstances where that information cannot be disclosed by statute. But the rest of the UNEXPURGATED document must be available for public inspection.

Let's take a concrete example. In tonight's agenda, Item 4.5 is an item requiring Board action. It is a Stipulation of Settlement involving an out-of-district placement of a special education student. Attached to the supporting memorandum from Eric Rauschenbach to Dr. Hagerman, dated April 22, 2015, are 11 pages that are completely blank except for the bold-faced designation "confidential" at the top and the agenda packet page number at the bottom of each page.

Everything else has been redacted. What is this document? Why has everything been redacted?

I assume that this document is the actual executed stipulation of settlement. the only thing that should have been redacted is the name of the student and any other information that could identify the student. Everything else must be disclosed, including the amount of the settlement and the name of the educational facility at issue.
That's what the open meetings law and the freedom of information law require, and that's what the district has done very recently – such as in the beginning of this year. Indeed, at various board meetings in January 2015, similar stipulations of settlement were presented to the board, and the full text of the stipulations, except for the student's name, was provided in the agenda packet.

Why do we have this sudden newfound lack of transparency in violation of the law?

Now for my second example, let's look at the issue of the tuition-free enrollment of approximately 100 non-resident staff children in our schools each year. this has been a very hot button issue in Scarsdale and was the subject of considerable charged discussion in 2013.

Some residents felt that staff should be charged tuition for enrolling their children in the schools. Other residents felt differently. Some residents wanted to know what the cost to taxpayers is of enrolling 100 non-resident staff children tuition-free.

Dr. McGill always maintained that there was zero cost to taxpayers. Other residents didn't believe him.
The teachers felt strongly that this perk needed to be continued and were appalled that it was being discussed.
It was such an important issue that, for the first time, a new article was added to the final collective bargaining agreement, signed on June 18, 2013. That article provided that "effective with the 2013-2014 school year, a joint committee shall be formed to study the policy and practice with regard to nonresident staff children of unit members attending the schools of the district. The committee, which shall be made up of equal numbers of designees appointed by the president of the STA and the superintendent of schools, shall issue its findings and recommendations to the parties no later than October 1, 2015. The committee shall include board of education representation."

Ever since, there had been radio silence about that issue. Then, suddenly, and without any discussion whatsoever, a very brief mention was made at the April 13, 2015 board meeting that:

"Oh! By the way, the final open contract item with the teachers has been decided – the one about nonresident staff children. and then a two paragraph joint statement between the board and the STA was read: The statement reads, in relevant part: "after thorough and careful consideration of the issue, the board and the STA agree to continue the existing tuition-free policy and practice for nonresident staff children of unit members attending district schools. The board, superintendent Dr. Thomas Hagerman, and the STA support this decision as the right one for our community."

That's it! That's the only thing our residents have been told!

None of the questions or concerns raised in 2013 by the community has been publicly addressed.

Now, I understand that while collective bargaining is underway, the details of the collective bargaining sessions are confidential. But that's over. The contract is final.

The board and the administration need to tell our residents what "thoughtful and careful consideration" of the issue was given. the board and the administration need to tell us why they decided the way they did, and what are the relevant facts underlying their decision.

What are other peer districts doing in this regard?

What cost/benefit analysis did the district conduct in order to reach the decision to maintain the status quo?
What are the monetary and other costs (like class size and ability of residents to enroll in limited enrollment programs) of maintaining the status quo?

Personally, I don't have any information to know if I support or oppose this decision. this decision hopefully is the right one. But residents now have a right to know all the facts and the reasons behind the decision.
That's why issues like this have to be discussed openly, fully, and transparently – certainly at least now, after the fact.

Instead, I get the uneasy sense that the administration and the board have tried to slip this one under the rug. And that concerns me – we should not revert back to the dark ages.

Thank you.