Communication and Transparency

By Amy K. Koo

We should be able to express our political views freely, leverage a district newsletter to get everyone in the community on the same page, have a district Facebook page to foster two way communication, and have timely and accessible meeting minutes that capture the key points of public comment.

Being able to freely express political views is fundamental to having a real democratic government. As a school board candidate, I welcome any questions and feedback, good or bad, and there is no need to resort to bad behavior to make a point. One of my key priorities as a school board member would be to improve communication and transparency by encouraging two way communication through improved use of social media and other technologies as well as more timely and complete board meeting minutes. If everyone has a forum to express their views, genuinely feels heard, and the board makes decisions knowing who will be impacted and why, and communicates appropriately with all impacted parties, then we will have a school district that everyone supports and is engaged with even if they do not agree with every decision that is made.

Here are some of my thoughts on improving communication and transparency:

A monthly district newsletter that people can opt in to receive (email, Twitter, Facebook, district website). Dr. Milliken is already writing a monthly article that is being published in the Redwood Shores Pilot. That article can be part of this newsletter. Every school PTA sends out communications to their own parents and teachers which often highlights the special things that are happening at their school or donation or volunteer needs at their school. An excerpt from the PTA communications can be submitted to the district newsletter, so that everyone can see in a snapshot what is happening at our district schools, both highlights and areas of need. District Task Forces who want to provide updates or seek community feedback can do so via this newsletter. We can start getting engagement in our schools from everyone in the community which can foster increased volunteerism, donations, and business collaborations from non-district parents. This newsletter would also give incoming families, and families considering moving into the district, a much better view on the state of our district and its schools. Right now, the district is publishing breaking news on their website which is a step in the right direction. However that relies on people remembering to check the website on a regular basis. It would be easier if people could opt in to receive late breaking news via text, email, or Twitter so they can then click on the link to see the news.

The district could create a Facebook page that allows for public comment and that could keep the community apprised of upcoming events, community forums surveys, superintendent meet and greets, school open houses, parent education nights. That could supplement the district website as many more people go on Facebook regularly than would make an effort to go to the district website specifically.

Board meeting minutes should be more timely and accessible. I am glad that all the minutes from 4/18/13 to 9/19/13 were finally posted to the district website as of 10/24/13. It's going to take me awhile to read through all those minutes to see how well they documented the meetings that I attended. The meetings are audio taped, but to access the audio, one must go to the district offices and listen to the audio there. The audio recordings are also only available for 30 days and after that the district is not obligated to maintain those recordings. Going forward meeting minutes should be posted to the web as soon as they are approved at the following board meeting, and it would be great to have the audio version of the meeting minutes available online - that could require the district to move to digital recordings instead of analog. Hard drive space is becoming less and less expensive, so if the audio recordings were in .mp3 format, it should be reasonable to archive the audio recordings beyond 30 days.

Lastly, the meeting minutes don't effectively capture what the public has to say, and in order to foster that two way communication, the key point of the public comment ought to be archived. Take the 4/18/13 meeting minutes for example - http://brssd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1356615479080/1343888239998/6975098621194424255.pdf - where 12 people made public comments on the Enrollment Projections Update Agenda Item. By not highlighting those 12 key points, the minutes do not summarize the community feedback and short of attending the meeting oneself or listening to the audio before they get erased there is no way to know what transpired. The minutes say that "Mrs. Hungerford stated that Sandpiper does not have the space to accommodate an additional kindergarten class through the fifth grade." Had the public comment been shared, one would have heard that the district previously recommended that a 4th Kindergarten class be added at Sandpiper and the board rejected that recommendation at the 3/21/13 board meeting. If the district had already recommended a 4th Kindergarten class, they should have already verified that there was space to house this additional Kindergarten class through to the fifth grade. Mrs. Hungerford's statement either contradicts the previous district recommendation or it highlights that the district did not do its due diligence before making its recommendation. I spoke with the Superintendent of the San Mateo Foster City school district, and she said that the reason why districts have gradually shied away from having public comment details is because it is difficult to capture the key point appropriately, and the commenter will request that the minutes be changed and it can go back and forth repeatedly. That said, the San Mateo Foster City minutes do state more than just the names of the commenters - the minutes include the key topic that they were in support of or against. In reviewing the Palo Alto School district minutes, they highlight the key points of public comment and do not simply list names. If there is truly a concern about appropriately capturing the key point of public comment, we can request that people who make public comment write their key point down in 50 words or less, sign and date, and submit that for inclusion in the minutes. If the public comment at the meeting does not match what was written, the board has the right to exclude that key point, but if what was said does match the written key point, then it should be included in the minutes. If someone takes the time to craft a 3 minute message to the board, it shouldn't be that much more to ask that the person summarize their key point in 50 words or less. We would all be supportive of the improved communication and transparency.