The two "Kims" on Richmond School Board (Bridges in the 1st and Gray in the 2nd), could not have had more opposite responses to the recent concerns about the lack of a full line-item budget and the potential that the "Communications Protocol" violates the First Amendment.
First, the budget. Gray and her colleague, Dawn Page (8th), Finance Committee Chair, have provided their colleagues and the administration plenty of information concerning what is expected to be included in a line-item budget. Click here: http://www.tasbo.org/Budget%20Basics.ppt
Bridges, on the other hand, doesn't think any more information is really needed. And, inexplicably, the majority of board members and key administrators claim not to understand what is meant by the term "line-item budget." (If this is really true, it could explain a great deal about why it is Richmond's per pupil rate remains so high and teachers throughout the system frequently have to buy their own copy paper, among other supplies).
In response to statements from Antione Green, president of the Richmond Crusade for Voters, critical of the board's vote on the budget and "Communications Protocol," Bridges invites all Crusade members to contact their School Board members at the same time she attempts to minimize both issues by saying that she is weighing the "best approach" to deal with the "few offending words." Be sure and read the comments following the article. Click here: Crusade Admonishes School Board Articles/Archives Style Weekly Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture
Previously, Bridges has defended the RPS administration's lack of detailed budget information by claiming that a previous board decided to eliminate the line-item budget. Both Bridges and Supt. Yvonne Brandon have said that former board member (and former Finance Committee chair), Keith West (7th), was the prime mover behind eliminating the line-item budget.
After examining the minutes of last two years to determine when this vote took place -- and not finding any evidence that it did -- I contacted West to see if he had an inkling of when the board voted. After his initial shock and laughter subsided, I asked him to send me a statement. Here it is:
"It has come to my attention that individuals are claiming that while on the school board I put forward a measure against a line item budget. That contention does not square with my recollection. What I did object to was a budget full of fluff, commentary, and excuses. I am, and have always been, for accountability in public spending. I believe that accountability would be enhanced by making as much information public as possible. That would be up to and including placing every expenditure of the schools online with tools that [would] allow citizens to properly understand the spending of their taxdollars."
Still, throughout a series of intriguing postings on the Style Weekly website this weekend, Bridges does her best to defend the administration and maintains that the board already has a line item budget -- it is just missing a few details.
Gray, who did not post anything on the Style website, but nonetheless contacted me directly, says the board and administration could inspire far greater trust throughout the community by simply providing the information that she, Dawn Page (8th District) and Adria Graham-Scott (4th District) have repeatedly requested on behalf of their constituents.
Despite defensive counter-accusations from the board members who approved the budget -- (Bridges (1st), Murdoch-Kitt (3rd), Carr (5th), Smith (6th), Coleman (7th) and Wilson (9th) -- Gray remains calm and determined to get the detail needed to make informed decisions and to ensure that citizens are treated respectfully by the board. She and Page (who both voted against the budget)insist that no one is pointing any fingers, but both believe, as Gray said: "Board members and citizens have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent."
The following is my response to Bridges' statement that the board "already" has a line-item budget:
"To say that the board already has a line item budget, albeit one that is missing some of the "details" your colleagues, constituents and taxpayers have repeatedly asked to see, is akin to telling one's English teacher that you have read "A Tale of Two Cities" when, in actuality, all you did was read the Cliff Notes.
"I don't know how many times I need to state that the issue of concern here is NOT the so-called "Code of Ethics." The issue here is that the board is attempting to deny to any board member (and the citizens of this city who elected them), their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. Further, it is threatening to have the dissenting member(s) held accountable by the board's legal counsel.
"The First Amendment is abundantly clear: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ... "
"History instructs us that the Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and free expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society. But, in times of national stress — real or imagined — First Amendment rights always come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare and tumult in Russia in the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views.
"During the McCarthy period, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) used the infamous "blacklist" to ruin lives and careers. Similarly, leaders of the Civil Rights movement were frequently jailed (or worse) as they sought to exercise their First Amendment Rights in this nation in the struggle to end segregation and Jim Crowe.
"The Founding Fathers were indeed prescient. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect dissent from government suppression.
"No one individual or entity has all the answers. Reasonable people should be able to disagree and work together. This doesn't mean someone has to essentially take a vow of silence.
"But when the board moves to silence its own members by various punitive methods, you are crossing the line. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution. And, as Dwight Eisenhower once noted: "May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts or whereases, freedom of speech means ....
Amazing. Utterly astounding. The fact that every member of the current School Board failed to realize that "those words" in this "Communications Protocol" are in conflict with the basic guarantees of the First Amendment, is downright stupefying.
The issue here isn't about "Codes of Ethics." We already have one. We all swore oaths of office and promised to uphold and safeguard the guarantees of both the U.S. and Virginia State Constitutions.
The disturbing issue here concerns the board's willingness to attempt to restrict and violate the Constitutional right of any board member to speak on behalf of the citizens who elected them and to deny to those citizens their right to have their school board member speak to the issues of concern.
The Founding Fathers of this nation purposefully placed freedom of speech first. They also made a place at the table for the press and insisted that not only did citizens, but newspaper reporters, too, had a right to freedom of expression in order to help keep government honest.
And, as far as "best practices" go, I submit that the Courts across this nation have long respected the "Code of Ethics" known as the U.S. Constitution. I believe the Constitution trumps any "Code of Ethics" that someone dreams up.
RPS needs to stop blaming and punishing dissenting board members and members of the media for their troubles. Rather than trying so hard to change "perceptions" about RPS and wasting energy attacking anyone or anybody who dares to disagree with you "a liar," I submit that it would be far better for the sake of the children in this city were the board to concern itself with the work at hand.
You don't like what people in the media and blogs have to say? Fine. But, that doesn't entitle you to berate and belittle those who hold differing views or to restrict their Constitutionally guaranteed right to express them.
I am not alone in this view. Judge Murray Gurfein, a Nixon appointee, understood that the press has a very important role in keeping this nation free. The following is excerpted from his Pentagon Papers opinion:
``A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."
Similarly, U. S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan noted that the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to uphold the bedrock principle that "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Justice William O. Douglas pretty-much nailed it with this statement: "The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information."
And, Justice Hugo Black was always at his most succinct and eloquent when discussing the First Amendment: "Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
The issue here isn't about "Codes of Ethics." We already have one. We all swore oaths of office and promised to uphold and safeguard the guarantees of both the U.S. and Virginia State Constitutions.
The disturbing issue here concerns the board's willingness to attempt to restrict and violate the Constitutional right of any board member to speak on behalf of the citizens who elected them and to deny to those citizens their right to have their school board member speak to the issues of concern.
The Founding Fathers of this nation purposefully placed freedom of speech first. They also made a place at the table for the press and insisted that not only did citizens, but newspaper reporters, too, had a right to freedom of expression in order to help keep government honest.
And, as far as "best practices" go, I submit that the Courts across this nation have long respected the "Code of Ethics" known as the U.S. Constitution. I believe the Constitution trumps any "Code of Ethics" that someone dreams up.
RPS needs to stop blaming and punishing dissenting board members and members of the media for their troubles. Rather than trying so hard to change "perceptions" about RPS and wasting energy attacking anyone or anybody who dares to disagree with you "a liar," I submit that it would be far better for the sake of the children in this city were the board to concern itself with the work at hand.
You don't like what people in the media and blogs have to say? Fine. But, that doesn't entitle you to berate and belittle those who hold differing views or to restrict their Constitutionally guaranteed right to express them.
I am not alone in this view. Judge Murray Gurfein, a Nixon appointee, understood that the press has a very important role in keeping this nation free. The following is excerpted from his Pentagon Papers opinion:
``A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."
Similarly, U. S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan noted that the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to uphold the bedrock principle that "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Justice William O. Douglas pretty-much nailed it with this statement: "The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information."
And, Justice Hugo Black was always at his most succinct and eloquent when discussing the First Amendment: "Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
Richmond School Board Assaults Taxpayers and U.S. Constitution
Given the excesses of the AIG executive bonuses and the soiling of the U.S. Constitution after the eight long years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, I suppose I should not have been shocked by the most recent actions of the Richmond School Board. But, I was.
The news that in one single night, members of the Richmond School Board managed to approve a budget of more than a quarter-BILLION dollars without even a line-item budget, and then unanimously voted to impose a GAG rule upon themselves, is evidence, perhaps, that the greater illness afflicting this nation -- arrogance and ignorance fevered by the greed of privileged people --has infected local elected officials. (Some will certainly note that many elected officials in the City of Richmond have long been carriers of the contagion).
First, the matter of the budget. I can appreciate that the district has not had a full-time CFO/COO for more than a year. Surely, the 26 business/community leaders who signed the now infamous letter calling for an appointed vs. elected school board, could help the district find a most-needed CFO. I urge the Superintendent to reach out to them for this help.
I am certain that the members of this board, Dr. Brandon and chief legal counsel, Brad King, are all individuals who would no balk if a teacher at any of the 52 schools in the system walked up to them and asked for $261 to be used in the performance of their job, without specific details as to precisely how the money would be spent.
Imagine the eye-rolling and hand-wringing that would ensue if a teacher dared to submit a reimbursement request for $261, without the requisite documentation. And, if the teacher had the nerve to suggest that the money should be handed over sans documentation because requesting such verification was simply "micro-managing" and distrustful, chances are the teacher could end up unemployed, or at the very least referred for counseling.
Only vice-chair Kimberly Gray (2nd) and finance committee chair, Dawn Page (8th), demonstrated the common sense to vote against this budget and in so doing struck a blow for accountability. Would that their votes could serve to remind their colleagues that they were elected to represent the taxpayers and citizens of this city, not RPS administrators or their friends in City Hall.
Those who approved the $261.7 million request-- without the benefit of a line-item budget -- included Kim Bridges (1st), Norma Murdoch-Kitt (3rd), Betsy Carr (5th), Chandrah Smith (6th), Don Coleman (7th) and Evette Wilson (9th). All justified their actions by pontificating about the need to "trust" the Superintendent and how wanting a line-item budget was both just too much to ask and evidence of a desire to "micro-manage." Pity poor Adria Graham-Scott (4th) who abstained.
And, now, concerning the matter of the GAG Rule. As incredible and unconscionable as was the passing of a budget without the same degree of detail that the Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico County Board of Supervisors insist their School Boards deliver, the RPS board's other significant action of the night -- unanimously passing the "Communications Protocol" -- was a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution and is far more disturbing.
Perhaps, they just don't know any better -- or worse, their lawyer doesn't. Mayhaps, the board never bothered to ask the lawyers to render an opinion. Incidentally, the board voted to give a hefty 61 percent pay increase in the newly-approved budget.
While this "Communications Protocol" policy was motivated by high-minded goals, certain provisions of it clearly violate the Constitutional right to free speech.
Board members have pledged "fidelity" to the idea that they will "support the decisions of the majority of the board once a decision is made," meaning that they have agreed that they will not criticize a decision -- in public, or in the media -- once a decision has been made.
Should a dissenting board member decide to break the pledge of "fidelity" to this principle, the "Communications Protocol" promises they will be held accountable by fellow board members, the Superintendent and, significantly, "the district's chief legal counsel."
Talk about creating a "chilling effect." While wrapping itself in some "pretty words" about respect and civility, what this policy really does is attempt to legally sanction actions on the part of the board to squash the First Amendment rights and responsibilities of any colleague who disagrees with the majority and who refuses to be beaten into silence.
The Yvonne Brandon I have known for the past six years is an excellent and throughly professional educator quite capable of doing the job she was hired to do.
Pity the board that thinks she needs them to protect her from criticism. I believe she does want change and has the skills to bring it about. Unfortunately, she has some board members who believe the answer to criticism is to silence the dissenters. This is not about Dr. Brandon. This policy is a blatant effort by the board to codify their own past bad behavior. It is also a revealing glimpse of the lengths some members will go to bully their colleagues and silence their critics.
Unfortunately, the "district's chief legal counsel" is a party to this legal mish-mash and really should have known better. Implicit in the statement that the "district's chief legal counsel" will hold violators of this policy accountable is the not too subtle threat of legal action.
From the U.S. Supreme Court to local courts all across this nation, decisions abound affirming the right of free speech. According to one court decision from Virginia Beach: "Debate over public issues, including the qualifications and performance of public officials (such as a school superintendent), lies at the heart of the First Amendment." That decision states that the First Amendment "protects the ability to question and challenge the fitness of the community leaders, including administrative leaders in a school system."
Further, the courts have consistently rejected attempts to curtail the rights of elected officials to speak to the issues, including qualifications, integrity and job performance of other officials. Not only does the First Amendment trump documents such as this "Communications Protocol," but in one decision (Parker v. Merlino), the court explicitly states that elected officials may not "be punished or restricted for making public statements that the majority found offensive."
Regardless of whether these board members wish to understand their legal rights and responsibilities, the courts have consistently held that individuals do not surrender their free speech rights when they become elected officials. Nor, can any arm of the government impose greater restrictions on elected officials than on the general public.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted:
"The central commitment of the First Amendment ....is that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.' .... Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them."
And, if the above is just too much for the School members or their legal counsel to wrap their heads around, perhaps the Ancient Code of Mothers can inform. As in, "I don't care if all your friends are __________, I expect you to know the difference between right and wrong and say something to someone to stop them."
So, Mom, I am trying. But, I need members of the community to speak out as well. If this board doesn't wise up and remember it is supposed to serve the people, it is the duty of the people to make their displeasure known. As I have said before, dissent is as American as the 4th of July and as necessary to freedom and Democracy as the air we breathe.
The news that in one single night, members of the Richmond School Board managed to approve a budget of more than a quarter-BILLION dollars without even a line-item budget, and then unanimously voted to impose a GAG rule upon themselves, is evidence, perhaps, that the greater illness afflicting this nation -- arrogance and ignorance fevered by the greed of privileged people --has infected local elected officials. (Some will certainly note that many elected officials in the City of Richmond have long been carriers of the contagion).
First, the matter of the budget. I can appreciate that the district has not had a full-time CFO/COO for more than a year. Surely, the 26 business/community leaders who signed the now infamous letter calling for an appointed vs. elected school board, could help the district find a most-needed CFO. I urge the Superintendent to reach out to them for this help.
I am certain that the members of this board, Dr. Brandon and chief legal counsel, Brad King, are all individuals who would no balk if a teacher at any of the 52 schools in the system walked up to them and asked for $261 to be used in the performance of their job, without specific details as to precisely how the money would be spent.
Imagine the eye-rolling and hand-wringing that would ensue if a teacher dared to submit a reimbursement request for $261, without the requisite documentation. And, if the teacher had the nerve to suggest that the money should be handed over sans documentation because requesting such verification was simply "micro-managing" and distrustful, chances are the teacher could end up unemployed, or at the very least referred for counseling.
Only vice-chair Kimberly Gray (2nd) and finance committee chair, Dawn Page (8th), demonstrated the common sense to vote against this budget and in so doing struck a blow for accountability. Would that their votes could serve to remind their colleagues that they were elected to represent the taxpayers and citizens of this city, not RPS administrators or their friends in City Hall.
Those who approved the $261.7 million request-- without the benefit of a line-item budget -- included Kim Bridges (1st), Norma Murdoch-Kitt (3rd), Betsy Carr (5th), Chandrah Smith (6th), Don Coleman (7th) and Evette Wilson (9th). All justified their actions by pontificating about the need to "trust" the Superintendent and how wanting a line-item budget was both just too much to ask and evidence of a desire to "micro-manage." Pity poor Adria Graham-Scott (4th) who abstained.
And, now, concerning the matter of the GAG Rule. As incredible and unconscionable as was the passing of a budget without the same degree of detail that the Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico County Board of Supervisors insist their School Boards deliver, the RPS board's other significant action of the night -- unanimously passing the "Communications Protocol" -- was a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution and is far more disturbing.
Perhaps, they just don't know any better -- or worse, their lawyer doesn't. Mayhaps, the board never bothered to ask the lawyers to render an opinion. Incidentally, the board voted to give a hefty 61 percent pay increase in the newly-approved budget.
While this "Communications Protocol" policy was motivated by high-minded goals, certain provisions of it clearly violate the Constitutional right to free speech.
Board members have pledged "fidelity" to the idea that they will "support the decisions of the majority of the board once a decision is made," meaning that they have agreed that they will not criticize a decision -- in public, or in the media -- once a decision has been made.
Should a dissenting board member decide to break the pledge of "fidelity" to this principle, the "Communications Protocol" promises they will be held accountable by fellow board members, the Superintendent and, significantly, "the district's chief legal counsel."
Talk about creating a "chilling effect." While wrapping itself in some "pretty words" about respect and civility, what this policy really does is attempt to legally sanction actions on the part of the board to squash the First Amendment rights and responsibilities of any colleague who disagrees with the majority and who refuses to be beaten into silence.
The Yvonne Brandon I have known for the past six years is an excellent and throughly professional educator quite capable of doing the job she was hired to do.
Pity the board that thinks she needs them to protect her from criticism. I believe she does want change and has the skills to bring it about. Unfortunately, she has some board members who believe the answer to criticism is to silence the dissenters. This is not about Dr. Brandon. This policy is a blatant effort by the board to codify their own past bad behavior. It is also a revealing glimpse of the lengths some members will go to bully their colleagues and silence their critics.
Unfortunately, the "district's chief legal counsel" is a party to this legal mish-mash and really should have known better. Implicit in the statement that the "district's chief legal counsel" will hold violators of this policy accountable is the not too subtle threat of legal action.
From the U.S. Supreme Court to local courts all across this nation, decisions abound affirming the right of free speech. According to one court decision from Virginia Beach: "Debate over public issues, including the qualifications and performance of public officials (such as a school superintendent), lies at the heart of the First Amendment." That decision states that the First Amendment "protects the ability to question and challenge the fitness of the community leaders, including administrative leaders in a school system."
Further, the courts have consistently rejected attempts to curtail the rights of elected officials to speak to the issues, including qualifications, integrity and job performance of other officials. Not only does the First Amendment trump documents such as this "Communications Protocol," but in one decision (Parker v. Merlino), the court explicitly states that elected officials may not "be punished or restricted for making public statements that the majority found offensive."
Regardless of whether these board members wish to understand their legal rights and responsibilities, the courts have consistently held that individuals do not surrender their free speech rights when they become elected officials. Nor, can any arm of the government impose greater restrictions on elected officials than on the general public.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted:
"The central commitment of the First Amendment ....is that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.' .... Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them."
And, if the above is just too much for the School members or their legal counsel to wrap their heads around, perhaps the Ancient Code of Mothers can inform. As in, "I don't care if all your friends are __________, I expect you to know the difference between right and wrong and say something to someone to stop them."
So, Mom, I am trying. But, I need members of the community to speak out as well. If this board doesn't wise up and remember it is supposed to serve the people, it is the duty of the people to make their displeasure known. As I have said before, dissent is as American as the 4th of July and as necessary to freedom and Democracy as the air we breathe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)