BOE Pres. O'Neill Says Open Meetings Act Violation was "Staff Mistake"

Maryland law states:

§3–211. (a) If the [Open Meetings Compliance] Board determines that a violation of this title has occurred: (1) at the next open meeting of the public body [In this case, the Board of Education] after the [Open Meetings Compliance] Board has issued its opinion, a member of the public body shall announce the violation and orally summarize the opinion; and (2) a majority of the members of the public body shall sign a copy of the opinion and return the signed copy to the Board. (b) The public body may not designate its counsel or another representative to provide the announcement and summary.

[ ] added to explain parties

At the February 10, 2015, Board of Education meeting, Board of Education President Patricia O'Neill announced the January 5, 2015, Opinion of the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board citing the Board of Education for a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

BOE President O'Neill used her statement of the summary of the Opinion to blame "staff" for the violation.

On the date in question, the Board of Education gave only 2 hours and 8 minutes notice for an off camera meeting with a Panasonic Foundation consultant.

The violation of the Open Meetings Act is actually the responsibility of the Board of Education and the Open Meetings Compliance Board was very clear on how the incident should have been handled.  From the Opinion:

The full Open Meetings Compliance Board Opinion can be read at this link.

Open Meetings Massachusetts Style

Here is an interesting news item brought to you from one of my favorite MCPS alums, who continues to follow this blog from a distance.

Massachusetts is trying to put some meat into its Open Meetings Act. 

Imagine.  A $1000 fine every time a public body violates the Open Meetings Act. 

The problem with the Maryland Open Meetings Act is the lack of a remedy.  Sure, the Montgomery County Board of Education and other public bodies look pretty foolish when they keep on violating the act.  Press coverage helps to let the public know how their tax dollars are working - or rather, not working.

Martha Coakley wants to put more substance into the Massachusetts Open Meetings Act, and is proposing to issue fines of $1000 for every violation.

Here is the text of Ms. Coakley's proposal. 

Massachusetts Definition of Intentional Violation Regulation A special thanks to my source who obviously learned about civic engagement when he was enrolled in MCPS.

The Neighbors Tune Out on TunedIn at Wootton

Here is the email sent around to members of one the the homeowners associations adjacent to Wootton HS and its TunedIn/ BBYO concert this Saturday April 28.

On Saturday, April 28th, Wootton High School will be holding a concert  
titled "Tuned In: Be the Voice that Rocks the World," a concert  
promoting political activism and civic engagement. This concert will  
be featuring many politicians, CNN's John King, and the musical groups  
Timeflies and Third Eye Blind. The Wootton High School Student Council  
is sponsoring this event and has informed us that there will be a  
higher than normal noise level through the evening.  The event will  
start at 8 p.m. and be over by 11:30 p.m.  Please plan accordingly.   
We will be locking the pool parking lot gate to prevent unnecessary  
traffic through the community that evening.

Yes, you are reading it right.  Bring earplugs, lock the gates, the kids from Wootton are coming!!

Wootton HS is such a good neighbor.  Civic engagement?  Political activism?  Not needed, just lock the doors and look the other way.

Two questions.

1.  Why isn't the community selling parking spots for this concert?  I bet the communities could raise enough money from parking at $25 a car to completely fund and outfit the swim team in new gear for the season?

2.  What type of notice went out to the adjacent communities that do not have a homeowners association?   Individual emails or no notice?  Bet those families off Scott Drive and Monterra Court will be surprised - unless they are planning on selling parking spots.

The Open Meetings Act Do-Over - Part 2

Poor Dr. Starr.

Remember a few months ago when we posted that Dr. Starr asked the Open Meetings Compliance Board to reconsider an opinion issued on July 26, 2011 that the Montgomery County Board of Education violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act when it convened a citizens committee to participate in the process that resulted in naming Dr. Starr as the new Superintendent of MCPS?

Here is a link to our December post.

Poor Dr. Starr is now even poorer.  To the tune of $ 9,915.15.

On February 29, 2012, the Open Meetings Compliance Board denied Dr. Starr's request for a reconsideration of its finding that the Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act again.  You can read the decision here. 

Specifically, the Open Meetings Compliance Board quoted an earlier opinion stating:

The Open Meetings Act contains no explicit authorization or procedure for reconsideration.. . . the Board will not entertain a request for reconsideration simply because a public body submits information that it could have provided in its response to the complaint and that merely expands upon a point already considered.

The Compliance Board then found:

Here, the County Board has not presented us with new facts, and so we deny the request.

Why the Board of Education decided to pursue this appeal doesn't make sense.  Is Dr. Starr unhappy?  Does the Board of Education plan on another search for a Superintendent of Schools shortly?    The taxpaying public will never know, because the Board of Education continues to think that it can conduct its meetings out of the public view.

As this blogger has said before, we would all be better off if the Montgomery County Board of Education learned to abide by the principles of the Open Meetings Act.

How much did this cost the good citizens of Montgomery County?   The Venable bill for the two attorneys on the case came to $ 9,916.15 for 16.7 hours of work, or $5,000 per day. 

And, we would have cash for other items - like textbooks, shop tools at Edison, and musical instruments.

Open Meetings Compliance Board to Brandman: No do over

The Open Meetings Act Do-Over

Poor Dr. Joshua Starr.

As soon as he arrives in Montgomery County, he is faced with a stream of Maryland Open Meetings Act complaints as a result of actions by his predecessor, Dr. Jerry Weast, and the esteemed Montgomery County Board of Education.

Dr. Starr had several choices.  He could reform the Board and ask them to heed the advice of the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.  He could read the law himself, and abide by its requirements.   Or he could continue to insist that MoCo and its Board of Education can't possibly be wrong.

Guess what?  Doesn't matter that Pat O'Neill was on "pins and needles" at the thought of having to testify under oath for the first time during her tenure as a member of the Board of Education in conjunction with another open meetings matter.   Dr. Starr and the MoCo Board of Education insist they are right.

Dr. Starr and MoCo's Board of Education hired the Venable Law firm, one of the country's top 100 law firms, to ask for a "do over" of an earlier decision by the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.   No more Reese and Carney.  They are serious, and are willing to fork over major dollars to have a partner who bills at top dollar at the firm draft a request to reconsider the issue.

You can read the request here.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76187932?access_key=key-l786sqkc0tt1avqivcc

Curious, isn't it? 

Do you think MoCo is pressing this with the Compliance Board because we may be looking for a new superintendent shortly?   Why is the Board of Education so concerned about this decision?

Better question.  How much did Samantha Williams and Venable charge to write this opinion?

I am not sure that I would classify the selection of a School Superintendent as an administrative or routine function, would you?  And even assuming that such business could be conducted in a closed session away from the public eye, is that really necessary?  It's not as if the privacy of any candidates is an issue.

I thought the school system is short on funding.  Apparently not when it comes to paying lawyers to get them out of trouble.

MoCo Board of Education Violates the Maryland Open Meetings Act during the Superintendent Search

Montgomery County's Board of Education did it again. 
This time, the violation of the Maryland Open Meeting Act occurred during the search for the new School Superintendent.

The State's Open Meetings Compliance Board found that the Board of Education violated OMA by creating a citizens committee to involve the public during closed deliberations.  The remedy?  The Compliance Board states that the Board of Education should make the minutes of the discussions of the improperly closed meeting available. 

Also in the opnion, the Compliance Board encourages the Board of Education to close its meetings more sparingly.

So - will Dr. Starr bring more transparency to the MoCo Board of Education table?  Time will tell.

While we are waiting, you can read the full opinion here:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/62051757?access_key=key-19v460gm2acqv0y50zl4

Board of Education Violates Open Meetings Act - Again

I've got to hand it to the Board of Education.  Today's mail delivered a decision by the State of Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.

The decision?  The Montgomery County Board of Education violated the Maryland State Open Meetings Act "in a number of ways."

Again?

Yes.

This time the Board failed to follow the state Sunshine laws when meeting in closed session to lease the Brickyard Middle School site to the County, who in turn is planning on leasing the site for soccer fields.

The general rule is that if a public body is meeting and the subject matter is covered by the Open Meetings Act, the body must meet in open session. While the Act sets out exceptions to this general rule, the exceptions themselves are to be “strictly construed in favor of open meetings of public bodies.” §10-508(c).

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Open Meetings Act is outlined in a manual published by our esteemed Attorney General, Douglas Gansler.

Apparently, despite running a world class school system and paying top dollar for legal opinions, the Montgomery County Board of Education keeps on violating the Act. 

Our taxpayer dollars paid for legal counsel that apparently can't read.  The decision states:

In claiming the exception in its closing resolution, the County Board replaced the word "acquisition" with the word "use."  That act was doubly problematic.  First, the change was incorrect under the plain language of the statute;  the exception applies to a public body's acquision of real property, not to diverstment of an interest. [citations omitted]  Second the County Board's citation to that exception created the impression that the County Board members who voted to close the session on the basis of the resolution would in fact be discussing the acquisition of real property.

An honest mistake or a deliberate misrepresentation?  The Compliance Board obviously didn't agree with Christopher Barclay and the Board.

Also from the decision:

We conclude that the County Board violated the Open Meetings Act when it convened a closed session on the basis of a resolution that did not meet three requirements [of the state law] when it discussed matters exceeding the scope of the exception it claimed, and when it did not include meaningful information about the session in the minutes of its subsequent open meeting.  The administrative exclusion, even had the County Board closed the meeting for that purpose to discuss the Brickyard site, did not apply.

You can read the Compliance Board's decision here.

Open Meetings Compliance Board

Looks like reteach/relearn is just for the elementary school set.

Note to Dr. Starr:  Read the State Open Meetings Act manual before you take advice from the Board of Education or Montgomery County Public School staff.  And better yet - find a lawyer who will give you better legal advice at a more reasonable price.  The taxpayers don't seem to be getting a good return on their tax dollars.

MCPS response confirms frequent purchase card rule violations

Chief of Staff Edwards and Deputy Superintendent Lacey among those implicated

Documents obtained this week by the Parents' Coalition confirm that several high-ranking MCPS officials repeatedly violated regulations by using MCPS purchase cards to pay for local restaurant meals that were not related to business travel. MCPS regulations allow employees to use the purchase cards for meal expenses incurred during out-of-state travel on official business, but not for meals and entertainment at local restaurants.

Responding to a request for details about travel and restaurant expense policies, MCPS Public Information Director Dana Tofig wrote "Board of Education (BOE) members, senior executives, and select staff have been issued purchasing cards that may be used for travel and restaurant expenses. Reference in the Purchasing Card User Guide to 'additional instructions under separate cover' pertains to travel policies and regulations approved by the BOE (enclosed)."  Tofig included a copy of MCPS Regulation DIE-RB, "Out-of_State Travel on Official Business", with his response.

Regulation DIE-RB, section D, "Subsistence", allows for reimbursement only for meal costs incurred during out-of-state travel. (A separate document, Regulation DIE-RA, governs travel within the state of Maryland and in the Washington metropolitan area. Regulation DIE-RA makes no mention of reimbursements for meal expenses.)  Purchase card expense logs obtained  by the Parents' Coalition show reimbursement claims for purchases from local restaurants by Chief of Staff Brian Edwards, Deputy Superintendent Frieda Lacey, and several other high-ranking MCPS employees.

According to Tofig, the officials authorized to use their MCPS purchase cards for out-of-state travel and restaurant expenses include the entire Board of Education, Superintendent Weast, and select high-ranking MCPS and BOE staff members.

MCPS Chief Operating Officer Larry A. Bowers determines which BOE members and MCPS employees are allowed to use their MCPS credit cards for travel and restaurant expenses, subject to the rules listed in Regulation DIE-RB.


MCPS Purchasing Card Use

Oh, to be on the federal payroll

Too bad the federal ethics laws don't apply in Montgomery County.

Here is a link to another blog citing to an article in USA Today about Air Force Employees who may have violated ethics standards by appearing in a video in which the pilots talk a product (in this case an advanced "dogfighter").

The blog discusses whether this directly violate ethics regulations that prohibit federal employees from misusing their position for private gain (see 5 CFR § 2635.702).

In Montgomery County Public Schools, our Board of Education and Superintendent let folks go traveling to endorse Promethean products and other fancy technologies. Principals run private businesses in their buildings - after all - this is all just part of the job, and we know we can't pay them what they are really worth.

Perhaps, if MCPS invested in people instead of products, we could pay our teachers and administrators what they are worth, instead of having them go out and sing for more money.

The bigger question - will Dr. Weast and Company accept stimulus money, with all its restrictions for disclosure? Perhaps we should ask to include a moral compass in with every electronic payment.

Security Webcast Scrubbed?

"I do have to start things off with some bad news ... Robert Hellmuth, the director of the department of public safety and security for the Montgomery County Public Schools has been called into a department of education meeting ..."
― Sam Pfeifle, Editor, Security Systems News

This webcast was broadcast live on Thursday, March 19, 2009. There is no record of an MCPS BOE meeting on that day.

(Related bad news is here.)

Hear it here:






The Essential Guide to Deploying HD Video Surveillance Webcast

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Education Presentations & Slid public schools

Government Courses - Another Missing Component in MCPS Education

What has happened to the teaching of US government to our high school children? Do they know that federal laws apply in MCPS schools? Are our children learning from the adults in the school building to follow rules and standards of conduct?

Apparently not if your child attends a school where they post or disclose personally identifiable information that is readily apparent for all to view.

I've seen this first hand at Blair. Every few weeks, our trusted Blair volunteer coordinator puts out a plea for volunteers to help stuff envelopes containing student interim grades for mailing to parents. When I have questioned this practice, I've been told that the letters are folded in such a way that the volunteers do not see the individual score reports, and that even if they view the letters, the parents are acting in accordance with school policies that let them perform these tasks. Pretty feeble justification, in my opinion, especially when the policy requires training of the volunteers, documentation of the hours, and requires that the the principal is responsible for:

Supervising the scheduling of the volunteer, determining the
role of the volunteer, and assuring that the volunteer has no access to
confidential student or personnel information.

Then, a few weeks ago, at Blair, I noticed the public posting of students who were scheduled to sit for the January administration of HSAs. Names, room numbers, and tests to be taken - names of those students who didn't pass the tests when they were administered the previous May. My student's name is not among the ones posted, so I don't have standing to complain. This time Blair administration won't get an e-mail from me - but I hope that some of the parents of kids named on the list will say something.

Is this an isolated practice? No. Just yesterday, I heard of another high school in Bethesda that will be posting names in the school hallways of students who owe financial obligations. I thought that practice was eliminated - after all, didn't Magruder and Richard Montgomery HS also do that a few years ago and were told to stop?

From the Department of Education website:

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g;
34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

. . .

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. (34 CFR § 99.31)

What can you do as a parent or student? Call your principal, show him/her the law, assume this is a mistake, but ask to get the information off the wall.

Should they refuse and you want to pursue this further? Contact the Department of Education Compliance office at the information on their website.

For additional information or technical assistance, you may call (202) 260-3887 (voice).

Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

Or you [use] the following address:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-5920

Board member walks out to avoid Open Meetings Violation

Board member Jennifer Abell walked out of a Charles County Board of Education meeting on February 6th rather than risk being found in violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

On January 30, 2009, the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board found the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education to be in violation of the Act. As of yet, no MCPS Board of Education member has spoken publicly about this violation and the MCPS Board of Education has not discussed this issue in Open session.

In sharp contrast to the demeanor of members of the MCPS Board of Education, Charles County Board member Jennifer Abell publishes a blog that details her activities to her constituents, including her refusal to participate in a meeting that should have been open to the public.

Has MCPS dropped American History from its Curriculum?

In the context of recent activity by the BOE and MCPS, I've begun to have serious concerns about whether our children will believe that American History and US Government are more than concepts in heavy high school textbooks. Despite repeated notices and parent activity, the Board and MCPS seem to disregard prior legal opinion and past challenges to its practices, without seeming to acknowledge that its operations are subject to state and local laws.

The BOE/MCPS decision to discuss the issued opinion of the state's Open Meetings Compliance Board in Closed session seems to directly challenge the recently issued opinion, given the presumption that meetings of public bodies are to be open in the public. While the new leadership in the White House embraces transparency and open government, MCPS appears to be digging in, and not admitting it could possibly be wrong.

Its also not the first time MCPS has been chastised by the Open Meetings Compliance Board for similar transgressions. Ever hear of Bradley MS? No, you wouldn't because that prime piece of real estate on Newbridge Road in Potomac was surplused by the BOE without public comment in 1994. Ever hear of River Falls ES? Glen Hills ES? Laytonia HS? Olney HS? No you wouldn't because those schools were given away in emergency closed meetings by the Board of Education in April, 1996. Remember the controversy in 2004-2005 over MCPS and the county council's efforts to "surplus" Kendale ES and Brickyard MS school sites? A call to the open meetings compliance board brought that decision into the sunlight, and saved 30 acres of school land from exiting the school systems inventory of future school sites.

And MCPS got in trouble with the open meetings compliance board again over its decision to close meetings in connection with the Sex Education curriculum.

From the article:

Rosanne Hurwitz, who heads one of the county's six PTA areas, asked the Attorney General's Office to investigate whether such a discussion would violate open-meeting laws.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Varga yesterday spoke with George Margolies, the board's staff director. Mr. Margolies told Mr. Varga that the board would discuss "the status of the litigation" with Mr. Weast and "the impact of the superintendent's decision in connection with the litigation," according to a letter from Mr. Varga to the open-meetings compliance board.
"However, Mr. Margolies assured me that discussion will be limited to issues in the context of the litigation," Mr. Varga wrote. "The board is aware that policy decisions in connection with the curriculum must be handled in an open session."

And lets not forget, that MCPS doesn't think "old laws" apply. Up until this year, MCPS was charging curricular fees for class related material. More specific materials may be found in the Parents Coalition Guide to Fees.

Even when MCPS acknowledges that it has made a mistake and indicated it will change the policy - implementation of the policy is delayed until the start of next school year .
I thought illegal was illegal - does something happen between now and next September that impacts whether the school system can flout the law and still charge illegal fees?
Don't we expect our children to obey the law? What type of example is set by MCPS and our esteemed Board of Education by constantly flouting the legal system?

Maybe Montgomery County is like Lake Wobegon - where all children are above average and the rules don't apply.