At the January 14, 2023, Rochester Community Schools’ work session, there was a lot of talk about the urgency to pass a non-binding, disclaiming resolution directed at me for breaking established “norms” by escalating my concerns about the risk our board faces from the letter sent by Superintendent Shaner threatening to sue the board.
The “urgency” was used as an excuse for voting then and there instead of
- Stopping to confirm facts
- Informing the public there was new business being discussed,
- Following MASB best practices as laid out in the preceding 6+ hours of training
Part One lays out the facts that were inaccurately portrayed in the motion.
Where Was the Urgency?
During a phone call on December 22, 2022, I was informed by Trustee Bull and Bueltel about the letter from Superintendent Shaner threatening legal action against the board. During this call, both Bull and Bueltel acknowledged I would want to address this situation publicly. They asked me to wait on making a public comment to give them some time to figure out the next steps. I was reluctant to agree to this and at the end of the call, I told them I would think about it and get back to them.
On December 23, 2022, I emailed both Bull and Bueltel my thoughts and questions on the letter sent by Shaner and ended it with “While I wait to hear back on this matter, I will withhold making any public comment about Superintendent Shaner’s threat.” At no point was there an agreed-upon timeframe as Bull and Bueltel claimed on January 14, 2023, when making the case for passing the Disclaiming Motion.
In the email on December 23rd, I wrote “I would ask that we convene a public meeting in order to discuss this threat and consult with our legal counsel. As I understand it, we cannot have this sort of meeting in a closed session as per MCL 15.268(e) it is unclear that discussing it in public would have a detrimental financial effect. https://www.masb.org/appeals-court-provides-guidance-on-closed-sessions.aspx What is the mechanism for scheduling something like this? Given the potential risk to the district, I don’t think we can delay.” It was not until January 8, 2023, that I got a response from Bull that stated “I will seek legal guidance as to whether we can schedule a closed meeting to discuss this matter; I believe we can, as it pertains to a personnel issue (which are typically protected from public discussions).”
The problem is that Bull did not reach out as she said she would (as Bueltel confirmed in an email sent January 25, 2023); she in fact reached out to our General Counsel (Collins & Blaha) on January 11, 2023. This is an important date as The Detroit News article was published on January 10, 2023.
So, when Trustees Bueltel, Bull, Anness, and Gupta claimed there was a sense of urgency to pass the Disclaiming Motion because of violating a non-existent agreement on a time frame, there had been nothing done for 19 days. And then the action they took was to mislead the community, disregard legitimate concerns, and potentially exposed the district to further risk of lawsuits.
Read Part Two of Setting the Record Straight