Board urged to assert authority

Testimony of: Peter F. Gimbrere
Father of a third grader enrolled at Monocacy

PROCEDURAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE MONOCACY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

A. The Board Should Ensure That a Fair, Equitable, and Timely Process That Fully Involves the Community is Followed While Any Decisions Regarding the Closure of Monocacy Elementary School Are Made

1) No one can logically disagree that the proposed closure of Monocacy Elementary School constitutes a significant boundary change. The Board has traditionally handled any proposed boundary changes with full due process, fair time frames, and transparency on decision making.

2) The Superintendent’s proposed procedural timeline contained within his October 23, 2009 recommendation regarding the proposed closure of MES is inconsistent with the process and timeframes afforded to other school communities, past and present. His proposed time frame affords the community less than ten months between his recommendation and the closure of the school in August of 2010. This is less than half the amount of time afforded to all other communities.

3) Example #1: Woodward High School was the last school closed within Montgomery County. The input, discussion, and decision process on that closure started in January of 1985 and the school was ultimately closed in June of 1987. That is a time period of over two and one-half years. The timeframe suggested by the Superintendent for the closure of MES is under ten months, leaving little to no time for appropriate input and discussion from the community, PTAs, advisory committees, and other stakeholders. Ten months is significantly shorter than two and one-half years.

4) Example #2: The Carl Sandburg Learning Center is proposed to be consolidated in 2011 or 2012, over two years from now. However, this years CIP budget appropriates funds for a workgroup to form and begin working the consolidation issue close to two years prior to the Superintendent even making a final recommendation on the proposed consolidation in the fall of 2011. With Monocacy, there is no evidence that the Superintendent created any sort of workgroup, advisory committee, or any other vehicle for any input prior to making his recommendation. Again, ten months is significantly shorter than two years.

5) Example #3: The Germantown Elementary Schools. Both the Superintendent’s recommended 2011 Capital Budget and the 2011-2016 CIP appropriate facility planning funds in order to conduct capacity studies during the 2010-2011 school year which will be used to determine how to proceed with any changes to those schools in the 2011-2012 school year. To our knowledge, no such capacity studies were conducted prior to the Superintendent proposing to close Monocacy. And, again, the citizens of Germantown were afforded two years of process time as compared to ten months for the Monocacy community.

6) Example #4: Takoma Park Boundary Changes: Here is the timeline for this proposed change: Boundary study authorized in November of 2008. Advisory Committee meets from March 2009 through June 2009. Board review and action in November 2009. Implementation of changes in August of 2010. Again, a period of over two years between the proposal and the change. Why is Monocacy not receiving this same level of due process?

Conclusion: These examples make crystal clear the disparate and rushed manner in which the Monocacy closure decision is being fast-tracked. It is incumbent on this Board to ensure that the Superintendent’s misplaced zeal is reigned in and that he is forced to move forward in a consistent and fair manner on the Monocacy closure issue. A two year time frame would allow for appropriate community input and discussion and would have Monocacy closing at the earliest in August of 2011. Any time frame shorter than the two years afforded to all other communities within Montgomery County can only be characterized as arbitrary and unreasonable, and will be argued as such should the members of the Monocacy community be forced to appeal a premature closure decision to the State Board of Education. I urge the Board to utilize all means available to you to ensure that the closure process and time frames are established in a non-arbitrary and reasonable fashion.

B. The Board is Responsible for Establishing School Closure Procedures, Not the Superintendent

1) It is a fact that due to the length of time between the last school closure and now, there are currently no detailed procedures in place for the Board to follow in school closure situations.

2) To fill that gap, the Superintendent has unilaterally created proposed procedures and timelines for the Board to utilize in the Monocacy situation. His suggested course of action is contained within his October 23rd recommendation. However, as previously established, his proposed timeline and process is arbitrary as well as inconsistent with previous practice.

3) More significantly, Title 13A, Subtitle 2, Chapter 9 of COMAR clearly requires that the Board, not the Superintendent, establish the procedures to be used in making decisions on school closings.

4) In doing so, the Board is required to follow Board Policy Regulations related to policymaking that require, amongst other things, a thirty day comment period between the promulgation of any policy and the adoption of the policy.

5) To date, the Board has not proposed closure procedure policies or otherwise tentatively adopted any closure procedures. Once you do, by the provisions of your own policy setting regulations (Section C.1.e.4), the public will have a minimum of thirty days to comment on the proposed policy. Only then can the Board vote on the policy.

6) Accordingly, as no proposed school closure policy is currently in front of you, the Board is clearly precluded from voting on school closure procedures on November 19th. To move forward with the vote at that time would illegally limit the public’s ability to comment in direct violation of your own Board regulations.

Conclusion: In closing, the Board has the responsibility and the authority to establish procedures, including timeframes, to be utilized in school closure decisions. The Superintendent has no such authority. I urge the Board to assert the authority given to you over this issue and to make sure that due process is afforded the Monocacy community.