This epigraph, by Hartford Public Schools Board of Education Chairman Phillip Rigueur, was spoken in the context of a Board Bylaws change being considered by the BOE.  It was a conversation we all wanted to hear, but it wasn’t to be.

The issue surfaced during a May 1, 2023 Policy Committee meeting and a discussion on Rigueur’s little Legislative and Advocacy Committee (“Look Out Legislators, Here Comes the Board of Ed!”).  Board Member Walker initiated the conversation with the idea that board committees ought to seek the input of other stakeholders, such as teachers or community members.  Which is what routinely occurs when members of non-profits are routinely brought to committee meetings on behalf of the Superintendent’s agenda.  However, Mr Rigueur took this as a coup attempt, misconstruing Mr. Walker’s proposal as a means to get outside votes into committee meetings.  “Board Committees are for Board Members,” he declared.  Except when they are not.

First of all, no substantive votes take place during committee meetings.  Christ, there have been instances where only one board member was at the damn meeting!  Second, Mr. Walker merely wanted non-voting stakeholder input on issues before the committees, sort of as an advisory person or group.   Still, Mr. Rigueur felt threatened, which is among the insecurities which brought down Napolean.

We next find our heroes discussing this bylaws change at the June 5th Policy Committee meeting.  There was agreement that participation by folks from outside the boardroom walls would be a great idea.  Here’s where things got even worse.

Bethany Silver, HPS Chief Performance Office, while assisting the board in crafting the new bylaw language, read in a book somewhere that when committees invite non-board members to participate at meetings, they are invited “at the discretion of the committee chairperson.”  Ms. Silver stated that the BOE “follows Robert’s Rules consistently” (whereby I fell out of my chair laughing) and Robert’s Rules state that this may occur “under the control of the presiding officer.”  She only read part of the passage.

The 12th Edition of Robert’s Rules, chapter 9, section 29 states: “Some bodies, especially public ones, may invite nonmembers to express their views, but this is done under the control of the presiding officer subject to any relevant rules adopted by the body and subject to appeal by a member.”  A relevant rule adopted by this body is Board Bylaw 9121, item 4, which states the Chairperson shall “appoint board committees, subject to board approval.”   If selection of the members of the committee itself is subject to board approval, and not at the sole discretion of the Board Chair, then a relevant trail of logic would follow which would lead us to require board approval for visiting members of the committee.  Not some Napoleonic dictate.

This meeting represented what the Board calls a policy’s “First Reading.”  Following the first reading, the policy proposal is presented at the Regular Board for a brief horse and pony discussion.  It’s a ridiculous step, but…they do it.

This bylaws change proposal, with the language, “at the discretion of the committee chairperson,” arrived at the June 13th Regular Meeting like the ugliest debutante you ever did see.  Once again, the voting and non-voting aspect of the issue got tangled like Ralph and Norton.  It didn’t help that Ms. Silver presented a new defense for the autocratic way of doing things.  Ms. Silver stated the Freedom of Information Act “directs us to add the statement,” meaning the language, “at the discretion of the committee chairperson.”  What?  The FOIA?  The Freedom of Information Act directs school boards on how to conduct their meetings? No. That’s bullshit.  You’re fired.

As is the Board’s practice, after introducing the first reading of a new or changed policy at the Regular Meeting, the proposal is then sent back to the policy committee for a “Second Reading.”  This proposal was sent for it’s second reading with lingering questions over the “at the discretion…” language and with Mr.  Rigueur’s, “I’m very interested to see how that conversation goes.”

However, there was no further formal conversation, no board typical second reading.  BoardDocs lists the June 5th first reading policy meeting, then there is a June 13th policy meeting listed – the same day as the Regular Meeting just discussed.  I suppose, at the discretion of the chairperson, Board practice can be altered and ignored at any time.

This policy, with the “at the discretion of…” language, next appears back at the Regular Meeting, on July 18th, listed as a “Second Reading & Adoption.”  Lacking a formal second reading, the discussion on the bylaws change took off again at the Regular Meeting.  Board Member Browdy stated that “I won’t vote for it because it says, ‘at the discretion of the committee chair,’” and “if we value the voice of the public,” we should remove that language and make the policy “outlast us.”  Mr. Walker stated that allowing community members to attend committee meetings should be done by board approval, not left to the “discretion” of one individual.

The Board was then scolded by acting Chair A.J. Johnson, channeling his inner Chairman Rigueur, for prolonging the discussion on the issue, and a vote was called for.  Ms. Browdy stood tall and voted “Nay” on the policy.  Somebody got to Mr. Walker and he joined the rest of the Board in voting “Aye” and democracy and common sense died at the BOE on this date.