Back in April when the District 150 Board of Education decided to discontinue live broadcasts of the board meetings, they presented it as a cost-saving measure. I had this to say:
In other words, this move has little to do with cost savings. It’s simply a further manifestation of the district’s desire to minimize, if not eliminate, public input and public access to the school board meetings.
Last night, board members admitted that was indeed the case. From Peoria Story:
Board members acknowledged that the reason they stopped the broadcasts was not, as was initially reported, to save money, but because they objected to negative comments from the public during the public comment portion of the meeting. “It (the money) was never my reason,” Jim Stowell said. “Nor mine,” board president Debbie Wolfmeyer said.
And the Journal Star adds these quotes:
“. . . The board has tried, but I think the board has the responsibility to try to shape the message they want to convey to the public. . . . I’ve heard the same four people at 70 percent of those meetings. . . . and I doubt that very few of them, if any, have any children in the district.” . . .
“I was in favor of taking the broadcast off until we could do something about how to answer people or how to tell our own story – we don’t answer people or questions or rebut anything, so all the public really hear is what other people are saying,” board member Martha Ross said, wanting to revisit the idea because community members have asked her to do so. “It’s their only connection to what’s going on at the school district.”
I would submit that these board members don’t quite understand the concept of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. They think they should get to take our money and feed us back a message they “shape” and “want to convey to the public.” All dissenting opinions should be censored or effectively hidden from the public.
The Board was not entirely honest about their true motives for eliminating the live broadcasts? I am shocked! Not! I also find it humorous that it was suggested the Board President should decide what responses could be given to those addressing the Board. Do folks really believe Wolfmeyer is capable of making such decisions?
Just more evidence that this Board of Education is completely inept. Did it ever occur to them that they openly admitted that they lie to the public and in fact think there is nothing wrong with that. $165+ million dollar budget these people oversee. It’s scary.
Maybe these same four people have the guts to get up and say what the rest of us can’t. And NOT having children in D150 certainly gives one the freedom to speak without them or their children suffering the repercussions of exposing the truth.
A few of “those four people” have more knowledge in their pinky finger about the best interests of children than some of the board members do collectively.
Trivia question: Which past District 150 board member said this in the FIFTH year of her term: “Gangs? I didn’t know Peoria had gangs…”
I am really having a hard time understanding last night’s comments from board members as to why they do not want to televise the public comments and/or air their meetings live. Jim wants the board to work harder at “shaping” the message they want to convey to the public. As Elaine Hopkins mentioned in her article, Jim’s example of letting the public see the attire that students made out of duct tape is not exactly what the public wants or needs to hear about an educational institution. The board has plenty of time at every meeting to shape their message. Instead all we usually hear is seven people casting their “yes” votes with little or no discussion. Actually, at every meeting they do shape the message and our concept of their leadership abilities and their lack of effort to make their decisions transparent. For instance, at the last board meeting they voted to buy a software program to replace the person who used to call subs every morning for teachers who are ill, etc. At no time did they discuss the cost of this program. Maybe the cost will appear in the minutes–but just maybe they should let us know up front. At least, at the last regular board meeting there was some discussion and some response to the issues brought up by the speakers. I am still taken aback by Dr. Lathan’s request that we stop sending so many FOIA requests so that they can get their jobs done.
Added Stowell: “. . . The board has tried, but I think the board has the responsibility to try to shape the message they want to convey to the public. . .
How about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No need to shape that Mr. Stowell!
I am still taken aback by Dr. Lathan’s request that we stop sending so many FOIA requests so that they can get their jobs done.
If the District published their checkbook register on-line, it would cut down substantially on the FOIA requests. Of course, this is a Board of Ed that is so archaic that they don’t even think public comments should be televised – so fat chance of that happening. It does serve as a great paradox though between those School Districts who are truly open and transparent and, well, District 150.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Checkbook_register_online
Following Jim’s “logic,” now that he no longer has children attending school in the district should we consider him to be qualified to make decisions for District 150. In fact, how many current board members have children in the district? Of course, I do not agree–I do not believe that one has to have children in the district to be a board member or to be a speaker. Being a taxpayer is a great qualification for having an opinion about District 150 issues.
Well, I suppose we’ll see how well the board shapes its message when it finally deals with Julie McArdle’s lawsuit.
They’ve done such a fine job of that the last few years, I’m sure that whole affair will turn out just wonderfully.
(pause…must…extricate…tongue…from…cheek)
Stowell, however, is correct in this sense…if they don’t figure out how to shape their message, every time they meet they will continue to look like idiots to the general public.
To follow Jim’s logic…if you must have a child in the district to make comments then you must have a child in the district to spend most of your property taxes to this same district?
I don’t have kids in the district and I don’t work for the district, but I live in the city….. can I have my tax dollars back now, please?
The negative comments about people who don’t have children in D150 coming before the board to speak indicate a disregard or complete lack of understanding of basic human rights. The culture of keeping people in their place didn’t work out so well with McArdle. Also, how is requiring teachers to live in-district going to generate any money unless these teachers build new homes? If I buy a house in D150, I pay the property taxes that the previous homeowner paid.
Do I pay taxes that fund District 150? Then yes School Board, I DO have a voice in this. I am paying you, you work for ME, and every other tax paying resident.
School board members do not get paid, they are volunteers and I don’t blame them for expecting a little respect from the public (however naive that may be).
I do think we ought to understand that these are truly the purest public servants and I would suggest everybody, at least once a year, e-mail them and thank them for their service. Treat them with respect, not like they are somehow your servants.
Anyone can listen to the entire meeting on my blog, http://www.peoriastory.com.
It concerns me that some of these board members lack a basic understanding of democracy as a process. And they are supposedly in charge of the education of Peoria’s children.
Their apparent lack of understanding of the democratic process is a more serious failing than their goofy financial management.
Let’s say I move to a home on Forrest Hill. That means I reside in Dist. 150. That means part of my property tax goes to Dist. 150. Even if my children are grown, and out of school. I think I would be eligible to make comments about Dist. 150 issues at Board Meetings.
Let’s say I move to a RENTAL home on Forrest Hill. That means I reside in Dist. 150. That means part of my RENT is used for the landlord to pay for their property tax that goes to Dist. 150. Again, even if my children are grown, and out of school. I think I would be eligible to make comments about Dist. 150 issues at Board Meetings.
So, to me, it doesn’t matter if you have children going to Dist. 150 or not…as long as you pay some kind of tax, you have a right to speak up at Board Meetings.
Ya gotta give respect to get respect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrV0c9ETnWo
“the board has the responsibility to try to shape the message they want to convey to the public. . . ”
Actually it is the board’s responsibility to shape itself in response to the message the public wishes to convey to them.
Jim, Debbie, it is time for you step down. You do not meet the requirements of a public servant.
I would agree that if you pay property taxes in 150, you have the same right as others to have your voice heard. Those without children at home can care about schools as much as those who have chldren at home.
As for “shaping messages”, that is a perfectly valid goal.
As for “shaping messages”, that is a perfectly valid goal
Providing it’s an accurate portrayal of reality.
is there a way to impeach these people? They can certainly skip the trip to China, they know all they need to about abolishing free speech.
Dennis in Peoria – don’t you live in Pekin (but work in Peoria)? – does that mean, because you don’t pay property taxes, you don’t (or shouldn’t) have the same right as any others to be heard about D150 issues? Or is it just that your opinions don’t matter as much, then? (Nothing personal – it’s just the same argument used against some members of the Chamber of Commerce) Incidentally, I don’t believe there is a requirement (in the Open Meetings Act, School Code, etc) about allowing individuals to address a school board – NOR are there any restrictions (such as being a D150 taxpayer) as to whom may speak.
But while we’re at it, what about Steve Ptacek, who also lives outside the district – does he “qualify” to be heard – or does he at least get some consideration since he is a principal in the district?
D150 is funded not only by property taxes, but also by state and federal taxes. So, does anyone who pays a state or federal tax have the same right as others to have their voice heard at D150 meetings? Maybe those who pay state and federal taxes just have a “lesser right” to speak – because far less of those tax dollars make it to D150 as compared to someone who pays property tax? (if you agree with that one – you know what’s coming next)
Aren’t we all part of the same larger community? How about, instead of arguing about who has a right to be heard, or how much weight to give an opinion BASED on such facts as where the person lives or whether or not they have kids (and whether or not they go to D150) – we instead try and evaluate the comment/argument itself under its own merits?
Jon – Perhaps to test your theory we should send a few District 150 parents to a Morton or Washington School Board meeting and start telling them how we think they should run their schools. Or better yet start infiltrating their committees. What a blast that would be!!!
None of us speaking on this blog were the one(s) who suggested that there should be qualifications for speakers. We are just all responding to Jim’s suggestion that the speakers don’t have validity if they don’t have children in the district. Of course, no one suggested allowing only taxpayers. Clearly, being a Peoria taxpayer can’t be a critera since so many district employees do not pay taxes in Peoria–which, of course, speaks to Rachel’s desire for residency requirements. Jim’s attitude seemed to be that he would like to choose who can and cannot speak. Others seemed to want to restrict what we are allowed to say. I think they are treading dangerously on some freedom of speech issues.
Defending the constitution with the spirit of a civics class is interesting reading and this commenter agrees with most all of it. However, there’s always the reality. There are especially two and a 3rd and 4th to a lesser extent who get up and gripe EVERY single meeting. And no one can honestly disagree with the fact when these people get up time after time, it becomes almost a joke on the whole system of public comment. One meandors aimlessly, the other has an obvious bitter grudge against the system that paid this person and gives this person a nice pension. While there is a civics lesson in all this, there’s also a place for manners, civility, and common sense as well, right?
Lets see, is this the same board that did whatever Hinton said to do? Hinton did not live in the city and pay taxes. He took his own kids out of Dist. 150 schools!!! Why did they listen to him? Wolfmeyer needs to go! She doesn’t have a clue on how to communicate and serve the taxpayers in Peoria.
“None of us speaking on this blog were the one(s) who suggested that there should be qualifications for speakers.”
Sorry, Sharon, I guess I misunderstood you when you wrote:
“Being a taxpayer is a great qualification for having an opinion about District 150 issues.”
Maybe you’re weren’t talking about that as a “qualification” to be a speaker at a D150 meeting – just as a qualification to have an opinion. I didn’t realize one needed to “qualify” to have an opinion. Let’s see… if I have to qualify to have an opinion….but I don’t have to qualify to speak at a board meeting…then some people speaking at a board meeting might actually not even have an opinion….
Of course, I might also be misunderstanding you (or maybe it’s just Elaine) when you criticize the Board for listening to some members of the Chamber of Commerce – because not all live in D150 boundaries and don’t pay property taxes. So, rather than discussing the issue at hand (close Woodruff, start charter school, etc.) the focus turns to the speaker, and their “qualifications”.
Jon, you do bring up a good point…does someone who lives in District 150, with or without children (whether they attend D150 schools or not) have more or equal rights to address the board than someone who doesn’t live in Dist. 150?
Each person going to the podium gets 5 minutes to ‘shape’ their message.
How long does a Board Member get when discussing an issue to shape their message?
If live TV broadcasting does not return, perhaps a local radio station can be persuaded to carry the BOE meetings live. WCBU does City Council, plus a short talk show before the meetings. And they broadcast all citizen comments, although at end of meetings.
Jon, I forgot how much you enjoy sparring. Yes, I did state that being a taxpayer is a great qualification–but I didn’t say it was the only one. I believe I’ll still hold to my opinion that Chamber of Commerce people have the right to speak but that the Board of Education should be careful about bending to their every whim. Few, if any other than the Chamber, came to the podium in favor of closing Woodruff or of opening a charter school–but the opinions of two or three carried much weight. It is possible that the board yields to the opinions that might bring out the most votes–and we can argue all day as to whether or not that translates into what is best for the district.
As for Hinton, I believe he MAY (no proof) have done the opposite–lived out of the city but sent his kids to 150 schools but MAY not have paid tuition.
Sharon, one of Hinton’s daughter’s wanted to go to PHS so she used her grandmother’s address.
Why does the BOE have the right to publish on the internet the names and addresses of those who speak at meetings? This is a privacy issue. However, when D150 mentions employees in the minutes, they don’t include addresses.
Let me add, Ken Hinton was dead set against his daughter attending PHS.
How does the minister on the school board feel about the bearing false witness about the reason for not broadcasting live?
Sharon – you don’t think grandparents, parents and others who couldn’t attend a sold out style show for charity might want to see it? You state “it’s not exactly what the public wants or needs to hear…..” So you do speak for “the public”…… I stand corrected, because last night I said nothing about restricting who should make public comments. I stated everyone has a right and we, as the board -individually and collectively, should listen. I stated we all have published phone numbers and e-mail and that I have never been not willing to talk about an issue. I stated that all public comments are published in the minutes and that, through committees and other avenues, we have worked at becoming more responsive and inter-active (credit to Ms.Petelle on the later). I stated that some who feel compelled to always speaking aren’t representative nor reflective of our community, yet assume they represent “the public”. We have many issues to tackle and I, for one, am thankful for Dr. Lathan for taking on this enormous undertaking. One issue that is unfortunately entrenched is “public perception” which is to a detrimental degree influenced disproportionately by those who constantly think they speak for “the public”. As an advocate and fiduciary for the district, I don’t think we serve the greater good by broadcasting these “public representatives” across the widest spectrum possible. Will I listen? Sure. I look forward to more direct interaction with “the podium”. There are many other erroneous characterizations about what was discussed last night on this thread. Anyone wanting to chat more can call. Also, I have a daughter at RHS this year, but then you have previously said it is always easier to make a statement that is wrong because the blogs correct it. If you and others want to characterize “what I mean” or “my attitude”, I would appreciate asking me first before speculating erroneously as so often happens. Elaine did last night, but still couldn’t get it right. I do; however, thank her for airing the whole meeting from last evening.
Initially, which board members voted to end live broadcasting and not show “taxpayer” comments at all? It was stated that the reason was to save money. Hmmmm, have we as taxpayers heard an apology? Also, many of us stand behind what few stand up and say at the board meetings. We just can not let people know who we are because we want our jobs. Under Hinton, if u spoke up, u were gone. I hope that changes.
Jim–I stand corrected for sure–I thought both of your daughters had graduated. Honestly, I do believe that every speaker’s comments reflect the thinking of some segment (some more than others) of the public. I don’t believe any of us have ever said that we represent “the public.” I believe we (I) have said that we sometimes say things that the public should hear. That is where you and I disagree. You do not believe that the public has a right to hear the voices of those who speak at the podium. I do. That is why you were instrumental in bringing about this change. In the e-mail that I FOIAd from Wolfmeyer to the board members, she definitely gives you the “credit” for coming up with the idea. I have so far made it a habit to speak only about information that I have gathered from FOIAs and will probably continue to do so. Having taught before the blogs and before FOIAs, I, as a teacher, was kept in the dark and misled about much of what goes on in District 150. Also, we suspected unfair practices of all kinds but had no avenues through which to get at the truth. The public has been kept completely in the dark. Certainly, the positives and seldom the negatives were revealed. The problems about which I speak so often began long before the current board was elected. I believe many of the problems began because the the past (and current) board’s public relations efforts (the shaping of the message, if you will) kept the public from knowing about the festering problems in the district. I do not understand why you want to hide the problems from the public–for the most part, the problems will not be solved without the public’s help. You do not have to own the problems. For instance, you are not responsible for the behavior of students; you are not responsible for their poor attendance. As a board member, you are only responsible for the consequences (the setting of policy and seeing to it that policy is followed). I would love to hear your explanation of “the greater good.” I did miss the part where you stated that all have a right to speak, etc. You may stated that all have a right to speak but stressed that you get tired of hearing them (especiallythe 4 of which you spoke)–go on and on for an hour and a half. (Curious who are the four–or maybe I should ask, Who is the fourth?) You still haven’t explained how four people with 5 minutes each can speak for an hour and a half. 🙂 Have you listened to Elaine’s recording–I know that when I speak off the cuff (and write off the cuff), I often say things I don’t remember saying. By the way, if anyone had planned to support your decisions, etc., on the board, I was certainly at the top of the list. I am sorry that common ground is so difficult to find.
Jim — What would it take for you to believe “the public” has spoken? When we had hundreds of combined speakers and petition signers against shorter school days, you may recall that you dismissed us all as “a very vocal minority.” I’m not sure what more the public can do to get the board’s attention.
I can vouch for you that you’re accessible and always willing to talk about an issue. However, that’s not true of all board members (read: Debbie “It’s-not-my-role-to-meet-with-my-constituents” Wolfmeyer).
CJ – I think you are confused – I used the “vocal minority” expression with respect to the Glen Oak site issue. I was equally against shortening the school day and wanted our teachers to help. They did and I am thankful. I stand with Dr. Lathan when I ask some to “meet us half-way”, “give us a chance to get to work” and “let us show you how we expect to be held accountable”. Sharon – it was that 4/5 dominated the comment section – which could last up to hour plus every meeting. This prevented the scheduling of student or teacher recognition/performances that were good for the public to see.
Hintons son went to Glasford school from what I remember. He refused to send his kids to Dist 150 schools. It would indeed be interesting to see how many administrators live in Peoria and actually send their kids to Dist.150 schools. They don’t think the schools are good enough for their kids.
Jim – I would have to agree with CJ that you are accessible and willing to discuss the issue, although sometimes with a dose of snark. I also see you at a lot of school events too which compels me to give you a “pass” on the snark. 😉
That said, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the four regular public commenters are more representative of public opinion than the spin the board is interested in putting out there.
I am not so sure if dist. 150 employees feel the schools aren’t good enough, its more religous beliefs and/or safety in the schools. Dist. 150 teachers are the best but they can not always control what happens in the halls etc.. If you have ever vistied a Dist. 150 high school during lunch you know what I mean. Scary.
The above comments show why videos and recordings of board meetings are valuable.
To the person who wondered why WCBU-FM will not broadcast the meetings, I asked them to do that, and they refused.
Videos of regular meetings (but not the July 19 special meeting) are posted on the WMBD-TV website. The District 150 watch group now videos these meetings.
The board NEVER VOTED to stop the live broadcasts — it just announced a decision, which makes me wonder if this issue was discussed illegally in a closed session. So much for transparency.
Sharon Crews – thank you for a most honest and thoughtful post.
Not speaking for “Jim” but a dose of snark comes more from the blogs more than it ever comes from the School Board. As for public speakers who seem to speak at EVERY board meeting come hell or high water, whom exactly does that Mexican guy represent when he gets up and rattles incoherently for over 5 minutes? I say the heck with the TV portion of the Board meetings. Interested? Then go to the meeting. Why is everything in this society “drive up”. Sometimes, one has to get of their butt and do something. That I will give credit to the Mexican guy. He shows up.
Sharon, seriously, use paragraph breaks. Thanks.
Jim Stowell: “I think you are confused – I used the “vocal minority” expression with respect to the Glen Oak site issue.”
You seriously think that statement makes you look any LESS out of touch?
That project was opposed by a MASSIVE number of neighborhood residents. That you think it was only a minority speaks volumes about how out of touch you are.
Just because there seems to be a few regulars who show up to voice their opinions and concerns doesn’t mean that there are not people who agree with them. A lot of folks may be perfectly happy to let those ‘regulars’ who are dismissed for being ‘regular’, to voice the concerns they share. There is a good chance that when you dismiss or silence someone, anyone you are dismissing and silencing many more people than just that one person in the room.
Emtronics, Snark is universally accepted as a form of expression on blogs. Snark coming on professional letterhead from a school board member isn’t acceptable and increases the public’s perception of our school board as petty, incompetent and arrogant.
There was some consumer research that I was privy to, done a few years back. It basically went like this. Having someone who actually calls to complain about a product or service is a pretty rare experience. If you get that one call, you can be certain that there are many more who are just as a dissatisfied. So it was imperative to make things right for that one who called.
Those who are dissatisfied? On average before the Internet was widespread, those dissatisfied people told a dozen other. So now you had 12 more who might never try what you had to offer or would be going in with a negative opinion in the first place. One can only imagine the damage a dissatisfied person could do today.
How do you respond? Dismiss? No. Write off? No. You can’t because doing so only makes it worse. Did we have regular complainers? Sure. The challenge is to take those regular complainers and convert them into regular supporters. It can be done. The obvious solution isn’t always the best solution. You have to listen to them to get to the core of their problem.
District 150 needs to tackle the naysayer problem head on. Not by dismissing them but rather by finding how to satisfy them. Convert the chronic complainers into chronic supporters. Yes… that does involve making the District a little better.
After listening to the audio from the meeting (thanks Elaine for making it available), I believe the Board is hampering Dr. Lathan’s efforts by not broadcasting the meetings live. It appears that she wants to be accessible to the public. On the other hand, it is clear that certain Board members are tired of listening to certain members in the community and want to “shape the message” that is conveyed to the public. One way to shape the message is to eliminate the public comments from the broadcast. Don’t these Board members realize they are not doing Dr. Lathan any favors by using this approach?
BTW- I found Stowell’s comments to be quite disturbing. Yes, Jim, I am concerned about you wanting to “control the message”. Your words, not mine.