Board member Bob Todd refuses to submit to new policy restricting access to system info, schools

How much internal school system information may a board of education member see before he has to ask permission from the full board?

Does a school board member have to seek advance permission from the superintendent before he visits a school in the system?

Those questions have led to a split vote on a school system policy change and acrimonious words between opposing school board members since an Oct. 20 meeting.

At that meeting, two section items of the Board Operating Procedures policy were discussed. Proposed for inclusion in the board handbook, the measure was subsequently adopted on a 3-2 vote.

Voting to tighten up controls on information and access were Chairman Terri Smith and members Janet Smola and Lee Wright. Supporting the older, more open policies were Bob Todd and Marion Key.

Todd cited his objection again Oct. 28, saying he cannot support or comply with the terms of the policy as written and adopted.

Commenting on the issue Oct. 28, Todd said he wanted Fayette citizens to understand why he voted against the procedure, adding that he cannot support or comply with the changed policies.

“Sections 2.7.7, 2.7.8. and 2.7.9 of the handbook related to board members requesting information and visiting school/departments are absurd since they violate state law (Open Records Act) and the roles of boards of directors in the public and private sector. Apparently Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Smola and Mr. Wright are unable to distinguish between a request for information and attempts at micro-managing the system,” Todd said.

“They apparently are also unable to distinguish between visits by board members to departments and schools and micro-management. Any rational person understands a visit to see how the system is operating and to gain feedback is reasonable and necessary to a board member who wishes to fulfill their responsibilities,” Todd said.

“The most outrageous part of the document is the proposal that the role of the superintendent, to whom I voted to pay a considerable amount of salary, be reduced to that of a scheduler of appointments for board members. I am capable, and hope that other members are capable, of scheduling their own appointments. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of organizations understands that the most efficient operational procedure is to schedule your own appointments.”

Todd maintained that the promoters of the policy are building “straw men” to cover their attempts to control other board members’ access to information and feedback about school and school system operations.

“I challenge all of them to cite me one instance in which there has been a violation of SACS or any other standards in relation to any of these items,” said Todd. “Clayton County is cited as the reason for these items being in the handbook and worthy of support. They need to read all of the reports about Clayton. Apparently board members there are in trouble for issues unrelated to these three topics.”

The sticking point came with sections 2.7.7 and 2.7.8 of the operating procedure that addresses board support for the superintendent as chief executive officer and his/her role as general supervisor of all school system employees.

Section 2.7.7 says, “Board of Education members shall schedule appointments to meet with staff, or request information, through the Superintendent’s office.”

Section 2.7.8 notes, “All information requests will be evaluated by the Superintendent; if he determines the request to require a significant expense and/or unreasonable amount of time to gather and duplicate, the Superintendent will present this request to the entire Board of Education for consideration.”

Todd told board members he had concerns with those two items as well as with section 2.7.9 which states that, “The Superintendent will, in a timely manner, make all information obtained during such meetings and/or data requests available to all board members.”

“As board members, we’re at the top of the chain of command. But now if I ask for information, I may have to wait for the board to okay it or get the superintendent’s recommendation. Yet any citizen can get the information through an Open Records request in 72 hours,” Todd said.

“And anyone can visit a school by signing in and stating their purpose. If I’m correct, I can’t do that without the superintendent arranging it. I’m not used to that protocol. Board members till now have been able to drop by a school. That’s the protocol I’m used to,” Todd said.

Chairman Smith said that, as written, the Board Operating Procedures were in compliance with Georgia School Board Association (GSBA) and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) standards.

Board member Smola said the provisions were no problem for her, adding that violations of the two section items were what got the Clayton County School Board in trouble.

“I appreciate that this document provides us with the guidelines not to overstep those bounds,” Smola said.

Responding to Todd’s comments, Smith said the need for the policy originated from a needs improvement area of the assessment that was done in conformity with the Board of Distinction recognition Fayette County Board of Education received last year.

“What distinguishes you from a citizen with an Open Records request is that you are one of five people with the authority to have the superintendent do something. What the (GSBA and SACS) standards are trying to do is protect school system employees from having to deal with five board members as if they are five bosses,” Smith said. “We can’t be in compliance with the standards unless we go this route. To be in compliance and not get ourselves in a mess, we have to be a school system that delineates our position with the superintendent.”

Speaking next, board member Lee Wright maintained that the perceived discrepancy dealt with one’s interpretation of the two sections. Wright said he would have the same problem if he read the statements that way Todd did, adding that the policy statements are needed and that the wording could be worked, if possible, to make it more acceptable.

At the end of the discussion, Superintendent John DeCotis recommended approval of the policy with the caveat that the two section items be reworded. Smith apparently agreed, adding that other section items needing rewording could be included. Smith then made a motion that the policy be adopted.

The vote was 3-2, with Smith, Smola and Wright voting in favor and with Todd and Marion Key in opposition.

Clarifying the motion after the meeting, Smith said any board member wishing to propose a reworded section item could present it for a board vote.