SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES # 2 A Reverie on Trust

Disclaimer

Just moments ago I received this unexpected email directed to all school board members from one of my daughter’s classmates:

As authorized by Minn. Stat. 123B.09, subdivision 6, I respectfully encourage and request the Chair, Clerk, or any three board members to call a special meeting open to the public on the Edison proposal before April 15 so that the school board can hear from families living in the district.

Respectfully,

XXXX XXXX (3rd generation ISD 709 former student presently living in District #2 with two young children)

By coincidence three of the Board members had just made use of that law – unnecessarily it seems. This is the letter I mailed out to all seven members of the Duluth School Board a couple of hours earlier:

Dear School Board Members,

The undersigned Members of the School Board of ISD 709, Duluth Public Schools, hereby request that the School Board shall have a Special Meeting on Monday, March 28, at 6:30 pm at the boardroom at Historic Old Central High School. In the event our request is not granted we demand that this meeting be called under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 123B.09, Subd. 6 which states: “Special meetings may be called by….any three members upon notice mailed to each member at least three days prior thereto.”

The following shall be the agenda for this Special Meeting:

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. ISD 709 Administration’s presentation of pros and cons of the sale of the Central High property
4. Tischer Creek Building Company presentation of a proposal to purchase the Central High property
5. Receiving of Public Comments Related to Property Disposal of Central High School/STC Site, 800 East Central Entrance, Duluth, MN
6. School Board Discussion of Said Property Disposal
7. Consideration of Suspending Policy 3195.
8. Adjournment

School Board Members, ISD 709:

Alanna Oswald Harry Welty Art Johnston

In the preceding post written late last night I was consumed with the last sentence of the WDIO story on a prospective sale of Central High. It indicated that our Chair was likely to put of a public discussion of the sale off until it was no longer practicable. That explains this response from three board members. We did not fully trust the Board majority to let the public weigh in on this decision. I would add that only one of the four other Board members, David Kirby, forthrightly expressed reservations about charter schools when he ran for office. In the 2013 election I was a candidate in two other successful candidates left open the possibility of their accepting such a sale. Ironically at that time I myself poured some cold water on a potential sale. I had my doubts whether some of these Board members were fully disclosing their intentions.

But I was wrong. Just before mailing the letter I called our Chair Harala and asked her to talk to me about our letter to give her a head’s up in advance. She texted back that she was in business meetings but that she would call me later in the afternoon. And she did. I explained my letter and she explained that she had, in fact, ordered a Monday meeting herself already. It will be on the same Monday night next week that we “requested/demanded.” After a brief pleasant chat she asked only that I send an email to our Board indicating that the letter had been complied with already. I also told Annie I would express my thanks to her for her open and transparent actions.

We are a new and fragile school board where trust is standing foresquare on thin ice. I for one was publicly censured by our last School Board. I’m bruised as are others, some of them by posts I’ve made to my blog. I feel that this Board has overcome many of its trust issues but that it will take some time -more than three months- to begin healing from the past two years.

In time I hope that a new two-sided division washes away. Already each of the two sides has one member who is struggling to remain an independent presence. That is healthy. Hopefully soon we all will feel free to act on conscience rather than a more tribal affiliation.

On the other side there was a deep suspicion that the premature leak of the sales offer to the news was meant to put pressure on the School Board and was proof that the Edison offer was in some way duplicitous. This suspicion raised my hackles because I have only respect for my fellow church mate who heads the school; my daughter who teaches at the school, and the happy children like my grandsons who attend the school. I tried very hard to hold my hackles in check.

I have since learned how the story was leaked and think it is instructive. On two previous occasions Edison has made an oral offer to buy Central but the offer was not brought to the School Board’s attention. There is an excuse for this. It was only an oral offer and our District has a policy passed in 2002, when I served on the Board last, that prohibits sales of schools to be used by other schools. (I can’t recall how I voted on that resolution and will be looking for the minutes of that meeting to find out)

However, for the Tischer Creek company making the offer they had felt burned and so refused to sign a disclosure agreement that would have prevented them from telling the Press in advance. I have been assured, and believe, that it was not the Edison Reps intention to let the cat out of the bag. However, there are more groups at play in this possible sale including the land developer who is poised to pave over the wetlands for a new Edison; The operators of the adjacent Snowflake Ski Area; and local environmentalists. This offer was a little too big to hide and it appears that the Snowflake operators called the press. In some ways it is good that Tischer Creek did’t sign the anti-disclosure statement because they could have then been accused of duplicity. As it is the public brouhaha that has been circulating by those cheering or panning the sale would have occurred any way. But those ISD school board members who are leary of the sale felt as though they were being pressured by the Edison crowd. If that is true, and it would likely have happened anyway, I explained at our closed meeting (I feel I can explain what I said at our closed meeting despite the disclaimer above) that they couldn’t be faulted for smart business instincts and that it was understandable that they had felt burned in their previous attempts to make an offer.

Of course no one likes to be stampeded so its also likely that the premature announcement of a sales offer backfired initially.

I, for one, hope that over the next thirty days we reach a decision that is thoughtful and sensible and public and that our initial trust issues fade into the woodwork.

I apologize for not proof reading this now. I’m burned out from a long morning following a lousy night’s sleep. I’m about to resume reading a third Erik Larson book to my honey, “In the Garden of Beasts.” Its very good.

About the author