How many Red Clay Board Members does it take to make a quorum ?

If four Red Clay board members showed up at Brandywine Springs Elementary School PTO meeting to engage in conversation regarding the feeder-pattern for the new Cooke Elementary School would that constitute a quorum? 

Advertisements

16 responses to “How many Red Clay Board Members does it take to make a quorum ?

  1. Publius e decere

    Yes

    Like

  2. Publius e decere

    Who were The Four?

    Like

  3. write this down: publius is right.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. First, kilroy needs to get his facts straight, and, second, people need to actually look at the law rather than pontificate.

    Kilroy’s error: four Red Clay board members showed up at Brandywine Springs Elementary School PTO meeting to engage in conversation regarding the feeder-pattern for the new Cooke Elementary School

    “engage in a conversation”; didn’t happen. The only person on the agenda was Kenny Rivera, who read a prepared statement. There weren’t any questions. There was no discussion. The other board members in different parts of the room did not engage in any discussion of the issue, even with smaller groups of parents.

    Here’s the definition of a meeting from Title 29 of the Delaware Code:

    “Meeting” means the formal or informal gathering of a quorum of the members of any public body for the purpose of discussing or taking action on public business either in person or by video-conferencing.

    The members did not “discuss” anything; the members did not “take action on public business.” In fact, the four individuals in the room (only one of whom had been invited to participate in the meeting) did nothing more but show up and listen.

    If you want to declare that a “meeting” then you would have to declare the funeral of a Governor, wherein a quorum of the GA showed up to be a public meeting.

    You’d have to declare the ground-breaking ceremony for Cooke Elementary School to be a public meeting (check the photos; there were at least five board members in attendance).

    You’d have to declare the Red Clay (or Christina, et al) Christmas parties to be a meeting if everybody showed up at some point in the evening.

    You’d also have to declare any UD basketball game (assuming the members had seasons’ tickets) to be a meeting, apparently, because according to kilroy a quorum of public officials would be under one roof.

    Moreover, kilroy’s other assertion–that board members “violating their oath” should be “required” to step down–isn’t even in the law. All that Title 29 provides for illegal meetings is the nullification of any votes or decisions taken, and that a portion of the members’ salaries who knowingly engage in a public meeting be withheld. Which is pretty tough when you’re talking about an unpaid board …

    The purpose of FOIA and public meeting laws is to keep elected officials from having private discussions with each other about actionable issues; that’s even what it says in the preamble to Title 29:

    It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy;

    What’s interesting is the path that kilroy, and John, and publius, have traveled to get here. Kilroy is justifiably concerned with the historical precedents of other Red Clay boards meeting and making decisions in secret.

    When that morphs into a paranoid rant (and, yep, that’s what it is) over three individuals who decided to come out and watch a fourth make a presentation, and who didn’t engage in any discussion or answering of questions, and that becomes the reason for melodramatic calls for people to step down because they’ve “violated their oaths,” then I call bullshit.

    I also call bullshit on John, because he knows as well as anyone EXACTLY how elected officials routinely skate quite legally around the edges of FOIA, how many substantive conversations occur behind the scenes but in ways that never leave a documentary trail to be FOIA’d. I’ll guarantee you that over the years such conversations (sometimes in the form of chained phone calls, other times in meetings of three people where one provides the views of a fourth and then calls that person immediately thereafter) have happened in CSD as well as the GA, UD, DNREC, DSU, ad infinitum ad nauseam.

    What’s really going on here is this: a lot of people (including kilroy and John) are upset that Red Clay took a different path on Priority Schools than CSD has chosen, so they’ve been looking for ways to lambast the board members as cowards and appeasers.

    It’s a crock–and all of you know it.

    [For the record, even though every person reading this blog already knows it–my wife serves on that board, and she attended the meeting to listen to the statement. And you’re absolutely right: I’m as sick and fucking tired as I know John Kowalko’s son must be some days to watch you guys turn on people who are working just as hard as you claim to be for public education.]

    Like

    • Steve,

      you are absolutely right, 4 board members in a room where public business is discussed by them is a meeting. It is not good faith, in my opinion, to knowingly attend a meeting about a public issue related to schools where it is reasonable to conclude discussions about public school policy issues will occur. It is for that reason that our board declared a FOCSD meeting later this month a board workshop and will notice it.

      Title 29 demands that those in public service leave no room for interpretation in my opinion. Best to err on the side of caution. Appearances are what they are. I can tell you are roiled, but I assure you it’s not for no reason that others raise concerns.

      You are free to impugn those you feel are impugning, but don’t suggest you really know how others feel about what others do. You couldn’t be more wrong about why I feel about what Red Clay is doing. In other words, you and I are in possession of different information upon which we form our opinions.

      Yours nor mine is superior, just different.

      Like

    • kilroysdelaware

      If this topic was about Christina School District board members Steve wouldn’t make such a lengthy foolish rant! Steve you are at your lowest point ever! Nobody was attacking your wife and a person I consider a friend. The intent of my blog post was to bring attention to the possibility of improper action of a school board and a conflict with of their oath of office. I don’t always agree with Publius but it amazes me that despite our disagreements on the issues he doesn’t stoop as low as you! I don’t consider Publius a friend as I do you. However, I respect Publius for his honestly how he “feels” on the issues.

      The obvious solution to your views and opinions on any of the issues is start a blog of your own or join the editorial clones of the News Journal.

      Personally I suggest that you take some Chlorpromazine to realign your ego.

      Like

    • kilroy

      With all due respect, that’s-again–a crock. You choose to hide behind your “I just like to stir things up” meme, but you don’t own up to the fact that in two posts the information you posted was–bluntly–wrong. You got the facts wrong, you got the law wrong. You attacked all the board members who attended the meeting and asserted that they’d violated their oaths and should be forced to step down. And then–wonder of wonder–I’m the one at the “low point” when I call you on it.

      You are correct that I’m angry because it was the RCCSD in the sense that I know, like and respect not just my wife, but Kenny, Adriana, and Cathy, and your suggestion that by listening to the concerns of parents at Brandywine Springs firsthand (without discussing or seeking to transact public business) is not provocative blogging, it’s simply bullshit.

      And the way I can tell you know it is that you didn’t ever go back and explain why your original premise about the “violation of the oath” or the “required to step down” was correct. You always do that when you think you’ve got a case; and here you don’t.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Chlorpromazine … can you get this stuff in Colorado? I heard it is effective on carpenter bees.

      Not for nuttin, but it looks like the Red Clay bored has decided that the non-meeting meeting was in fact a meeting after all and not a plain old non-meeting.

      See link:
      http://www.redclayschools.com/files/_AOKaH_/9223b08732b27cb83745a49013852ec4/Board_of_Education_Meeting_-_1-21-15.pdf

      Like

  5. Currently our state legislators hold monthly “coffee” meetings and attend community meetings, they also provide their opinion on issues of concern to the residents they recommend and reply to residents concerns. I strongly encourage all board member to do the same, if a community group would like 1,2, or 3 Board members to attend, I have no problem with that, it happens all the time with our state legislators and elected county officials. I strongly recommend every board member reach out to the nominating area in which they live.

    OUR BOARD MEMBERS NEED MORE COMMUNICATION WITN THE COMMUNITY, NOT LESS.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Also, Christina had a Christmas party for board members? I wasn’t invited. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Correction to the word “recommend” on line 3, it should read represent.

    Like

  8. John: Perhaps that because some do not like those whose comments are based on what “they” believe is best for the children, even when the majority may not. Did they people not just elect you again!!!!!

    Like

  9. Holy fuckfire! How did I miss all of this?

    Like