The Superintendent's Contract Extension

The previous ESO article described open government and the process of decision making.  This opinion piece describes the lack of transparency and closed government decision making by the School Board (SB).

The 20 June issue of the Rappahannock Times (RT) Erin Kelley reported that School Division Superintendent Melvin's contract had been extended until 30 June 2015 at the last Regular School Board Meeting on Monday, 11 June.  This was a surprise because I attended that meeting and did not recall any vote or announcement concerning that topic.  Perhaps I hadn't listened closely enough.

My careful reexamination of the SB agenda found, within item IV. Consent Agenda; sub-item G. which stated "Approval of Personnel Action."  Not much transparency there.

Other concerns about transparency include:

- Why was a contract, with slightly over a year remaining, extended?

- Why was such an exceptional issue considered without any public notification?  The Code of Virginia permits certain narrowly defined specific personnel matters to be considered in a closed meeting (Section 2.2-3711 A 1). The Code does not prohibit public notification of an intent to discuss a contract extension.  Section 2.2-3712 A mandates that prior to a closed meeting, there must be a "…recorded vote in open meeting approving a motion that (i) identifies the subject matter, (ii) states the purpose of the meeting and (iii) makes specific reference to the applicable exemption from open meeting requirements…" 

- When and how was a decision reached to even consider offering a contract extension?

- Do the minutes of any open Board meeting report a vote, pursuant to Section 2.2-3712 A, which permitted a closed SB meeting to begin discussion of a contract extension?

There are other questions which could be posed.  In my opinion, the contract extension process appears to have been entirely opaque.  There doesn't appear to have been any public notification that an issue of the leadership and financial magnitude of extending the Superintendent's Contract was to be considered, was under consideration, or that an extension had been agreed to.  The first public notification that the contract had been extended appeared in the RT a week after the decision was made and prior to the draft minutes being published.(More about Board Minutes in a future fact article.)

I suggest the SB meet with their legal counsel to review the decision process and to determine if they fully complied with the closed meeting provision of the Code.  Second, the SB owes the public a full explanation of both the timeline and the purpose of the decision to extend the contract.  I have no doubt that the SB has the authority to extend the Superintendent's contract; however they have an obligation to be transparent in the execution of their duties and to ensure that the public is adequately informed and afforded the opportunity to provide comments.

Clickener

What to Do With the Cannon?

The previous ESO articles have focused primarily on open government and communications.  This opinion piece is focused on what open government and the process of decision making can look like.

The last Regular Meeting of the Essex County BOS (Tuesday, 5 June) had a routine agenda.  However, under new business the County Administrator and two members of the Board introduced their concern about the 1864 federal cannon located near the Essex County War Memorial.  In brief summary, the cannon, previously repaired at least three times, was described as badly deteriorated from a lack basic maintenance.  The carriage was described as near the point of collapsing.  The barrel, all 800+ pounds and parts of the carriage, were considered to be a potential danger to any child or adult who climbed on or leaned against a wheel, the axle, or the barrel.

An excellent Rappahannock Times (RT) article by Erin Kelley on the front page of the 13 June edition brought the concern to the attention of the public.  Shelba Notebook by Richard Carter, in the 20 June edition, devoted a three column opinion piece to his views on the both the governance process and the proper way to resolve the cannon issue.  The 27 June edition of the RT contained two letters to the editor (full disclosure – I wrote one of the letters) and an exceptional and well written feature article by David W. Gaddy.

"What to do with the cannon?" is important because, in my opinion, it provides an exceptional opportunity to not only see how local government should work but it enables the public to actively be a part of the decision process.  I consider the BOS process so far to be a classic decision model - identification of a specific problem, preliminary research, initial professional consultation, notification of the public of an issue, and seeking public input prior to considering a decision.  The remaining steps are identifying the potential courses of action, additional research, and reaching a BOS decision.. 

Some have accused the BOS three person committee of wanting to give away the cannon; others are appalled by the thought of a "reproduction" replacing the old federal cannon.  I was present at the Meeting on 5 June.  I heard a number of possible courses of action discussed.  There was NOT, repeat NOT, a motion to take any action or commit any county funding.  There was, after affording an opportunity for the members of the public who were present to comment, a motion to carry consideration of the cannon issue forward to the next Regular BOS Meeting.  That motion was approved.

This issue is important because the process is an example of transparency and open government at work.  No closed meetings, no rush to take action - simply an opportunity for the public to become aware and informed about a significant pending decision.  The RT has done our community a great service by giving extensive coverage to the issue.  Additional detailed background information is available in a collection of letters and articles in large binders at the Woman's Club of Essex County and, I've been told, at our Essex County Museum.  However, the most accessible information is Mr. Gaddy's comprehensive article which I encourage you to read.

Please become a part of the process.  Contact you District Supervisor and share your suggestions or recommendations with them.  The BOS has to make a decision which they believe will be in the best interests of all the citizens of Essex County both for the present and into the future.  Although the final decision may not be what you personally prefer, it should be a made with the BOS's consideration of all available public input. 

Clickener

   

Transparency and Open Government

ESO promised to provide comparative evaluation data for the Web Sites in the nearby counties.   WARNING – Essex County, as of mid-June 2012 did not compare well with the nearby Board of Supervisors (BOS) or nearby School Boards (SB) in the critical measures of TRANSPARENCY and OPEN GOVERNMENT! 

Please note that the Essex County SB launched the preliminary portion of their new web site on Tuesday, 26 June.  Their original goal was to release the new site on 30 June.  The SB, the School Administration, and particularly the Data Systems staff have made a considerable step forward.  Also, keep in mind that a number of the features and accesses to information announced as goals have still not been released.

It's ESO's opinion that a lot of sunshine is needed to make the electronic communications process of governance TRANSPARENT and OPEN in Essex County!  We'll show you what shutters should be opened, what shades to pull up, and the drapes to be pulled open.

First the SB.  Based upon the review and report by Sunshine Review, a nationally recognized independent transparency and open government advocacy web based organization, Essex County received a D Grade and ranks last among eight (8) counties in the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck.  The summary table provides an overview:  PLEASE double click in the center of the space below to view the table.

The old (prior to 26 June 2012) Essex SB web site is the basis for the rating.  ESO considers that improvements have been made.   But because the new web site is still under development, we will not request Sunshine Review to evaluate the new site until October 2012.

Some of the essential missing information includes (opening shutters, pulling up shades, and opening drapes):

• A School Board Calendar for the July to June school and budget year.  All planned regular and Budget Meetings should be included

• A procedure to announce special and emergency SB meetings and budget meetings to the  public. The Code of Virginia requires that an announcement be made but doesn't mandate a specific procedure for the notification.

• Timely publication of all BOS meeting minutes. The Code of Virginia requires publication of the  preliminary/draft minutes within five (5) working days of each meeting.

• Improve the Budgets process. Establish procedures to seek public involvement earlier in the budget development cycle, provide much more budget information as required by the Code of Virginia, and publish the draft budget on the web site. 

The list is much longer than space permits; therefore, our focus will shift to the BOS.

The Essex County BOS web site received a D- Grade and ranked last among eight (8) counties in the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck.  PLEASE double click in the center of the space below to view the table.  The summary table provides an overview: 

The BOS web site is missing many documents, publications, etc.  The overall appearance and navigation are badly outdated.  The only bright spots are the Treasurer's Office and the Commissioner's Office which offer online access to key information and functions. 

A short list of some essential missing information includes (opening shutters, pulling up shades, and opening drapes):

• A BOS Calendar for the July to June administration and budget year.  All planned monthly and Budget meetings should be included

• A procedure to announce special and emergency BOS meetings and budget meetings to the public. The Code of Virginia requires that an announcement be made by doesn't mandate a procedure.

• Timely publication of all SB meeting minutes. The Code of Virginia requires publication of the preliminary/draft minutes within five (5) working days of each meeting.

* Improve the Budgets process. Establish procedures to seek public involvement earlier in the budget development cycle, provide much more budget information as required by the Code of Virginia, and publish the draft budget on the web site.          

The entire BOS list is much longer than the one for the SB.  That is no surprise because the assigned Grade was just barely above an F.  


 The SB has taken the initiative in open government and transparency while the person(s) responsible for the BOS web site, despite recommendations to do so, appear(s) to be complacent.

Communications is a common theme in issues which require attention by the BOS and the SB.  EOS is not aware of any initiatives to add Face Book or Twitter (or BOTH) to their communication with the public.  It is EOS's belief that a reliance on the "way things have always been done" is a decision to be uncompetitive in economic development.  It is a decision not to recognize that many citizens under 40 and most citizens under 25 seek information and communicate through digital devices.  It at a minimum is a failure to open the shutters, pull up the shades, and pull open the drapes.  Those failures will keep the public in the dark.

More information about letting sunshine into the Essex County Government will follow.


Clickener and data from Sunshine Review

Sunshine Review Sources

One of our sources for facts, Sunshine Reviewii, is a widely respected independent National Open Government Organization. Sunshine Review evaluates the transparency of state government and local government (both Boards of Supervisors and School Boards). The following summary report card provides a starting point to evaluate how Transparentiii our Essex County government is. As citizens, we have the right to expect a high level of Transparency if we are willing to demand transparency and to pay the cost of providing open government.

The Essex County Board of Supervisors web site iv has a Sunshine Review score of D-.v The Essex County School Board web sitevi has a Sunshine Review score of D.vii Compare the Essex County Scores with the overall or average grades for our Commonwealth and local government units below.

Virginia on Sunshine Review viii Transparency report card

Our D- falls far below the state average C for Boards of Supervisors' websites. The D of the Essex School Board is well below the state average C. Please note that the Essex County School Board announced in May that a new website is being developedix with an "available on the web" target of July 2012.

Our next article will look at the surrounding counties.

WARNING – Essex County, as of mid-May 2012 does not compare well with the adjacent Board of Supervisors or adjacent School Boards in the critical measure of TRANSPARENCY! It's our opinion that a lot of sunshine is needed to make the process of governance TRANSPARENT in Essex County! We'll show you what shutters should be opened, what shades to pull up, and the drapes to be pulled open.

[1][i] Code of Virginia – Freedom of Information Act Virginia Code § 2.2-3700 (primary source)

[1][ii] http://Sunshine Review: Bringing State & Local Government to Light | Official Site

[1][iii] http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Transparency_Checklist

[1][iv] http://www.essex-virginia.org/ex_gov.htm

[1][v] http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Evaluation_of_Virginia_county_websites

[1][vi] http://www.essex.k12.va.us/

[1][vii] http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Evaluation_of_Virginia_school_district_websites

[1][viii] http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Virginia

[1][ix] http://www.essex.k12.va.us/agendasb.pdf Essex County School Board Agenda for May 14, 2012 Item VII Informational Item sub item C New ECPS Website Demonstration and Minutes (to be published) of the May 14 School Board Meeting

Clickener and Sunshine Review

Let's Get Started

Although there are many topics involving governance, (def: 1. exercise of authority; control. 2. a method or system of government or management.) within Essex County, Virginia it is the opinion of the ESO editorial staff that access to information (i.e.transparency) and completely verifiable/sourced information (i.e. facts) should be the fundamental obligations of government and the basic expectations of our citizens.

Of course the major issues of financial management, providing essential government services, staffing concerns, contracts for goods and services, efficiency of government operations, and ultimately the effectiveness of the operations will be examined, but without transparency and access to facts, our citizens are left in the dark (shutters closed, shades pulled down, and drapes pulled shut) and government can't be held accountable.

Facts are slippery things, sometimes deliberately hidden, sometime not available by lack of initiative. It's ESO's opinion that full government transparency, guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act with certain enumerated exceptions will make facts available.i Our first task is to look at what is expected, how well Essex County Government is meeting the standards, and how well comparable counties (i.e. similar counties near Essex County) Boards of Supervisors and School Boards are meeting the same expectations.

Clickener and Sunshine Review