Submitted by John Arbeeny, Lakewood.
I attended the 13 December 2021 Clover Park School District (CPSD) Board meeting which was conducted “virtually” rather than in person. In the past, minutes of such meetings have not been published for weeks or months after the meeting which made them somewhat irrelevant for the public to stay abreast of District issues that affect them. Therefore, I plan to present my observations of these meetings in a more timely fashion. What follows are not minutes of the meeting but rather a discussion of substantial items that I observed during the meeting. I have several recommendations to improve the performance of the school board and the CPSD in general in future Board meetings.
The most immediate observation was that the virtual format was beset by technological problems. Room lights going out, lost video, a board member losing audio and poor sound quality combined with numerous interruptions which all contributed toward disruption and a fragmented meeting. Likely none of this would have occurred had the Board conducted an in person meeting at the administrative building as was past standard operating procedure.
Swearing in of David Anderson took place publically, initially outside at the entrance to CPHS parking lot, with about 50 supporters in attendance. This was in contrast to the past President Schafer’s prior decision limiting attendance to 6 supporters for swearing in virtually inside the administration building. After the opportunity for the people to personally witness David Anderson’s swearing in David Anderson was again sworn in for the virtual zoom audience inside the administration building as was Alyssa Pearson.
Officers were elected as follows. Pearson: President. Jacobs: Vice President. Veliz: Legislative Representative. All were passed by a 3 to 2 majority with Anderson and Wagemann dissenting.
The public was well represented with over 80 people signed up to participate via Zoom. Yet there were only about 6 who signed up to speak. This was due perhaps to the unfamiliarity of signing up using the “chat” option on the screen. This is the first time in memory that public comments have been allowed during a virtual Board meeting and demonstrates the dampening effect that it has on public comment participation. There were numerous technological problems with the 6 public comments taking up the better part of an hour.
I was one of the 6 who participated in public comments. The main thrust of my questioning to the Board was how they arrived at the decision to hold this meeting using a “virtual” format allegedly for “safety and civility”. In response to my public comment there were two explanations, somewhat conflicting, provided by Board members and Superintendent. Either past President Schafer made the decision unilaterally or as President Pearson related, it was done through Board member “consensus” without a vote. In either case the decision would seem to violate the spirit if not the letter of Board Policy 1400 and 1430 which may require a vote of the entire board.
“The board will establish its regular order of business, but may elect to change the order by a majority vote of the members present.” CPSD Policy 1400
“The board president may interrupt or terminate an individual’s statement when it is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive or irrelevant. The board as a whole shall have the final decision in determining the appropriateness of all such rulings by the presiding officer.” CPSD Policy 1430
It may also violate RCW 42.30.050 which permits re-entry of the public not involved in interruptions of a Board meeting. This decision to go “virtual” was never made or addressed during a regular Board meeting as an agenda item or with a vote of approval by Board members. This may be an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violation. More on this in a future article.
“Interruptions—Procedure.
In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.” RCW 42.30.050
David Anderson raised an objection to the meeting’s Consent Agenda and requested that the minutes of 8 November 2021 be removed from the Consent Agenda as they were not complete with respect to the censure of Wagemann. The minutes only stated that Wagemann had requested a “public hearing” while comments of other Board members were totally missing. Discussion by other Board members claimed that the minutes aren’t a transcript of events. However David showed in Board policy that minutes can be expanded for controversial items of which the censure qualified.
“When issues are discussed that may require a detailed record, the board may direct the secretary to record the discussion. Audio or video recordings will be maintained on file as follows:
If the recording is transcribed verbatim (word for word), the recording must be retained for one (1) year; or
If the recording is only used as a reference to create written minutes, the recording must be retained for six (6) years.” CPSD Policy 1440
When Banner was questioned why recording of the meeting had not happened on 8 November 2021 he replied “Nobody asked”. David Anderson suggested that in the future that all meetings be recorded, especially on controversial issues where the public has a right to know why, not just how, their representative Board members voted. Those Board member statements should be reflected in the meeting minutes.
Procedurallythe removal of the 8 November 2021 minutes from the consent agenda was handled improperly by President Pearson as required by Robert’s Rules of Order which is addressed in Board policy 1400.
“All board meetings will be conducted in an orderly and business-like manner using Roberts Rules of Order (Revised) as a guide….”. CPSD Board Policy 1400
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the consent agenda must be approved unanimously and any Board member may remove a consent agenda item without any vote thereon. Upon that removal the consent agenda must be passed unanimously and the removed item discussed and voted on based upon its own merits. This did not occur. After discussion, President Pearson conducted a vote 3 to 2 to put the 8 November 2021 minutes back into the consent agenda which the Board did not have authority to do. This was followed with a vote 3 to 2 to accept the consent agenda which violated the unanimity required.
As an aside, a “public hearing” is something of a special meeting in that it requires public notice, its own time and place, a statement of the purpose, presentation regarding purpose, opening up for public comment on that purpose alone, closing of public comment, and closure of the public hearing. A public hearing represents the testimony, not just “comments” of the public on that particular item. None of this took place during that 8 November 2021 regular public Board meeting despite Wagemann’s request for a public hearing and Schafer’s assertion that a “public hearing” had occurred which it hadn’t.
There were several “faux pas” by President Pearson that got corrected by Director Jacobs and Superintendent Banner. Most glaring was her tendency to go directly from a motion and second to a vote without permitting discussion. It would be very helpful for the District to conduct Director training in Robert’s Rules of Order. It would also be beneficial to have in attendance a parliamentarian and attorney to deal with procedural and legal issues at meetings.
David Anderson during his comments brought up the issue of the CPHS mascot change and need for further Board study. This was supported by the other Board members for a future Board meeting. Superintendent Banner suggested that the 31 December 2021 deadline was not absolute and that some leeway was possible as long as the Board showed that they were dealing with the issue especially in consideration of the upcoming holiday season.
The consent agenda and individual items were for the most part purely administrative issues relating to contracts for broken windows, computers, accepting donations to the District and early learning partnerships. There was one individual item, the Bezos Academy that generated some Board discussion. Bezo Academy is a youth head start type program to take place at “surplus property” the District owns in the Southgate neighborhood. Discussion addressed the status of the surplus property but did not delve into the program itself. What is obvious is that preschoolers who attend the Bezos will be relatively few in number and at such an early age they will not be able to influence the District’s academic performance for years to come.
Board comments addressed personal visits to Christmas light celebrations and other related holiday events. Not once during the meeting was the issue of the District’s academic performance mentioned.
Great letter. It’s sad that the majority of the school board is on a power trip rather than representing the parent and students of the school district. The school board should be concerned with education and safety; not their power agendas.
This seems less like an observation and more of a long complaint. While this finds a better avenue to for a solution, i will continue to wait the ‘weeks or months’ to get a more impartial report of the events.
My take is: If you genuinely believe that CPSB is breaking state law, contact a state department; posting about it in the local newsletter makes you look like an old man shaking his fist at the sky. You clearly know how to navigate state law, board rulings, etc. But instead you wait for somebody else to do something? Or are you looking for validation? Airing grievances to local publication is usually not the first step to any legal proceedings that im aware of — but correct me if im wrong.
Regardless, you’ll have to forgive me as im still new to the newsletter and am very surprised by the number of emotional reports that stem from the school board’s longer term constituents.
Happy holidays!
“…….you wait for somebody else to do something….”? Really? How about attending (virtually) the entire 13 December 2021 Board meeting, taking notes and taking the time to write and publish this article? Who else has done that to this point? Why haven’t you written your own take on the meeting or are you waiting for someone else to do it?
Reporting to the public the issues that are occurring within Board meetings is the first step in fixing them. You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken. My experience as a Lakewood Council member and Deputy Mayor (2003-2008) allows me to “…… know how to navigate state law, board rulings, etc.” Indeed, when an official body, like the Board, fails to “navigate state law” they open themselves up to a lawsuit.
The first step in resolving these issues is to get the “new” Board to start correcting past mistakes, start operating its meetings in a manner consistent with policy, the RCW’s as appropriate, and in the best interest of the public. At this point, despite members’ years (decades) on the Board, that first step is training on Board operations, policy, the law and to have the experts, a parliamentarian and attorney present at every meeting. I said that in the article didn’t I?
Okay Steph Anonymous,
You asked. You are wrong.
Mr. Arbeeny’s letter is both an observation and a complaint. Why should the public not complain about a school board that is dysfunctional as they ignore their own policies, state laws, and Robert’s Rules of Order?
If the old boy’s / old girl’s network of long term board members have brain one, they will wake up after reading Mr. Arbeeny’s letter this morning, and make a concerted effort to comply with their board policies, laws, and Robert’s Rules of Order in order to avoid future public criticism.
If that happens, then the problem will have been solved efficiently at the lowest possible level without involving the State of Washington and expending legal fees.
If the board ignores the opportunity in front of them to adjust their behavior to meet required expectations then you are now right. The public, including Mr. Arbeeny, can consider filing a formal complaint with authorities.
Mr. Arbeeny, “hold their feet to ther fire”. Go ahead and “shake your fist”. Students need the very best environment to learn how to become productive citizens as they move into the challenges of adult life.
Joseph Boyle – Former Lakewood Resident – 50+ Years
John Arbeeny,
You are doing an amazing job for the students, and citizens associated with the Clover Park School District by sharing your school board meeting observations.
There is no excuse for any organization other than perhaps “Procrastinators of America” to belatedly publish their minutes any time beyond one week following a meeting. Waiting weeks and months to publish meeting minutes is an obvious sign of dysfunction and demonstrates a need for any board member(s) responsible for publicizing the minutes to either elevate their performance to an acceptable standard or to resign from the board.
To me I see your common theme as an attempt to motivate the school board to operate so they follow board policiies, laws, and Roberts Rules of Order, and lastly to do what is right and helpful to the students during their association with the Clover Park Schools as they prepare for adult life. If we toss in an expectation that board members use the not so common, common sense, then the board will have greatly improved.
Keep up your effort to “hold their feet to the fire” as the students and public deserve a functional school board.
Joseph Boyle – Former Lakewood Resident 50 Years.
Thank you, Mr. Arbeeny, for your observations and informed analysis which contribute to transparency regarding the CPSD School Board of Directors’ conduct of business for the critical mission of the education of our children. If mistakes were not brought to light, they would continue to be repeated. Board Directors are seated by their constituents, the voters, and have the responsibility to represent the community in the most professional, conscientious manner possible. Transparency is the guiding light of democracy.
This article is another biased take from the Lakewood Cares group member that comes together to figure out how to hold power in the City of Lakewood. This group has operated undercover plotting and planning to take over the Lakewood City Council; they lost lawsuit after lawsuit, and now they are attempting to take over the school board. A simple search of J. Arbeeny’s name along with Pad Finnigan Dave Anderson and Paul Wagemann and everything you need to know about them and how they have operated in the shadows for years; they are shameless and don’t care one iota about the children and families in the district. They figured out how to use some parents’ complaints, twist them to fit their narrative, and played on your fears. Read the Tacoma news Tribune Article and then reread it. Google their names, and everything you need to know about this group and their associates will pop up. You will then know who is writing this article to “inform” Lakewood’s residents. New day same tricks.
Lakewood CARES did in fact “take over” the Lakewood City Council in 2006 with three of its members on the Council who nominated and voted in the first black woman Mayor in the history of Washington………among many other things that benefited all of Lakewood (sewers in Tillicum, Initiative and Referendum, support for CPSD building bond issue, new police station from existing revenues…no new tax, etc. etc. etc.). Put that in you pipe and smoke it! Yes CARES “took over” the Council and Lakewood is still here no worse for wear……although it may be time to take another look at the current Council.
John Arbeeny, you are quite the revisionist, explaining why CRT and EDI trigger you. The truth is the same black woman you say Lakewood Cares got elected as if you did something for her and as if her community wasn’t already behind her is also the same woman you and your crew tried to have removed from the council for being “too old.” In reality, she refused to play your game, so you turned on her. Is this the same one that you are referencing? (Google Claudia Thomas, Arbeeny, and Finnigan). They tried to replace her with someone they could control. Claudia Thomas loved her community and the City of Lakewood and did the best she could for every resident. You also seem to have forgotten letter after letter you wrote angry because slumlords were required to maintain their rental properties and the ongoing lawsuits you all like to use as weapons of retaliation when you don’t get your way. You use the court system as a weapon, not for formal arbitration; you are all childish and petty. Or the fight against street lights and sidewalks. You seem to have forgotten these things. A little google search and everything pops up. Good cop and the bad cop is the game you like to play with the citizens of Lakewood. All of these things I found on the internet are written mainly by you, Dave Anderson, and Paul Wagemann. Wagemann has become a leper; no one wants to touch him. He was voted out of WASSDA and censured by the school board because of his harmful ideology and blatant fabrications, all to gain political power. You are all sad old men. How could you use the school district as your muse to play political games? You and your group are a pitiful bunch.