[Vision2020] Board of Trustee Minutes--reply to Phil

[Donovan Arnold]

Michael Curley wrote:

"But, as I said in an earlier post, I think one of the
big problems with the bond issue was the failure of
District leadership to provide a consisitent,
rapid-response information source for questions and
issues that arose once the bond was announced."

I could not agree more Mr. Curley. Thank you for your
reasoned response.

What can you tell me about this "People's First"
award? Did the public vote in it? 

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold 

--- Michael Curley <curley at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Donovan:
> I guess if an organization intends to use its
> minutes as an
> information tool, then I agree with you--it probably
> needs to
> expedite an "unofficial" approval process and get
> the minutes posted
> even before the next meeting, subject to official
> approval at the
> next meeting.
> But, as I said in an earlier post, I think one of
> the big problems
> with the bond issue was the failure of District
> leadership to provide
> a consisitent, rapid-response information source for
> questions and
> issues that arose once the bond was announced.  I
> should also
> acknowledge that the District received an award for
> its openness to
> public participation and comment during the entire
> process--and yet
> there were still questions that deserved answers.
> I can certainly understand why someone would want to
> read the
> minutes, but it really isn't that unusual for an
> organization to take
> 60 days to even approve minutes, let alone get them
> posted.  You will
> note the minutes of the April 11 meeting (and I
> believe there was
> also an April 19 special meeting) are not yet posted
> either--whether
> they have been approved or not.
> Certainly the "next time" the District is fairly
> warned that some
> members of the public would like more immediate
> posting of
> significant information.
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 1 May 2005 at 12:16, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> 
> > Mr. Curley,
> >
> > There was a meeting between March 10, 2005 and
> April
> > 26, 2005. It was on April 11, 2005. So the minutes
> > should have been reviewed, edited, and approved at
> > that time.
> >
> > MSD has 400+ employees. There is no reason why the
> > minutes for the meeting should not have been
> written
> > up and posted.
> >
> > I have never seen it take 60 days to print up
> minutes
> > and post them on a website. Even college and high
> > school student governments are faster. Now if 18
> year
> > olds can do it, I would tend to think so could
> adults
> > with Masters degrees. If not, they have access to
> over
> > 500 students that probably could.
> >
> > I do not see any point in having minutes if you
> are
> > going to wait 8 weeks. It might as well be 8
> years.
> > Minutes are so you can go back and look and see
> what
> > happened at a meeting.
> >
> > As to whether the minutes actually had any value
> to
> > the public regarding their vote on April 26, that
> is
> > up to each voter. But they cannot make that
> judgment
> > if they do not have access to the information.
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Take Care,
> >
> > Donovan J Arnold
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Michael Curley <curley at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > > Phil:
> > > Unfortuately for some reason unknown to me, I
> cannot
> > > retain the
> > > string of your conversation with Keely about the
> > > March 10 school
> > > board meeting minutes being posted on the
> website.
> > > (see
> > >
> >
>
www.sd281.k12.id.us/Board_of_Trustees/minutes/05-03-10Spec.pdf,
> > > if
> > > you're interested).  You suggested that it was
> the
> > > "content" of the
> > > meeting minutes that caused it to be posted in a
> > > less timely manner
> > > than other minutes, but Keely said "no" and you
> > > asked "why then."
> > >
> > > Not to answer for Keely, but let me review a
> couple
> > > of things before
> > > she does so that you have some information from
> > > which to evaluate her
> > > answer--and future postings.
> > >
> > > Minutes of meetings are pesky things.  They
> aren't
> > > really minutes
> > > until they are approved at the NEXT meeting of
> the
> > > group.  They are
> > > prepared and circulated for review and
> CORRECTION
> > > prior to the
> > > meeting, and they MAY be approved in exactly the
> > > form in which they
> > > are circulated, but they also may contain
> absolutely
> > > incorrect
> > > information.  I'm sure you'd be very upset if
> you
> > > were a board,
> > > commission or committee member and minutes were
> > > posted BEFORE you had
> > > a chance at the next meeting to amend them that
> > > said:  "Phil Roderick
> > > said he favored proposition x" if indeed you
> said
> > > you did NOT favor
> > > proposition x and the secretary/minute-taker had
> > > erred.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the point is, thus, that "official"
> meeting
> > > minutes should
> > > not be used as an informational tool when the
> public
> > > needs or wants
> > > answers immediately.  Of course, concomitantly,
> the
> > > public should not
> > > look for the answers there either. 
> Additionally,
> > > minutes are not
> > > really supposed to contain DETAILS of discussion
> at
> > > a meeting.  They
> > > should NOT for example say:  "Mr. Roderick said
> that
> > > he thought xyz
> > > about resolution 05-123."  We may all THINK
> that's
> > > what minutes are
> > > about, but they aren't (you want the cite to
> Roberts
> > > Rules of Order,
> > > post me offline).  They SHOULD give the details
> of a
> > > motion or
> > > resolution that is presented, that "discussion
> > > ensued," and then the
> > > vote was taken--and the results.
> > >
> > > It is laudable the District posts its Board
> minutes
> > > on its website.
> > > I doubt they intended the particular minutes to
> be
> > > the "information
> > > sheet" on the bond or any other issue, and it
> isn't
> > > the place where
> > > any of us should look for TIMELY information
> about
> > > them.
> > >
> > > And, then, there is the question about who has
> the
> > > technical
> > > knowledge to post the minutes (yes, some
> students
> > > are quite capable,
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com