On the email

I have been asked by a few people to post the email I sent to the Board last week regarding the solicitor contract.  Here it is:

I will not be in attendance at Monday's reorganization meeting.  My step-father has passed and I will be flying to Arizona tomorrow to help my mom with arrangements.  I should be back for the meeting on the 13th.

As for the meeting on Monday, I have been happy to see the lack of public lobbying for leadership positions that we saw last year. On the other hand, I have not been contacted by anyone that is seeking a leadership position to ask for my support. Perhaps its that you just think I wouldn't vote for anyone.  If I was at the meeting on Monday I would ask those seeking leadership the following questions:

1) Will you take a leadership role in putting a plan in place to solicit private donations for the construction of the high school? This is an idea I first brought to the Board over two years ago and no leadership to this point has been willing to make a serious effort (hire someone, go after alumni, etc) to reduce the tax impact of the High School on our residents using this avenue.  If there is as much support for the project as many of you claim, then why has this not already happened?

2) Will you ensure that the public has access to the same information that the Board does in its weekly packets?  Our community is as involved as they can be when it comes to the Board.  That is a good thing.  Too often we seem to hide behind "pre-decisional" information as a way to not share something with the public.  It's ridiculous to think that our involved public should not have access to the same information we do. How else can they ask informed questions? This idea that we can't share something like the Auditor's Report or the 5-year Forecasted Budget until AFTER we vote on something is an insult.  This sort of "pre-decisional" information can be applied to anything and everything we vote on every month.  Why share an AIU contract with the public before it is actually voted on? That is pre-decisional. Why share bids with the public before they are voted on since they are pre-decisional until after the vote as well? None of this makes sense unless the Board is actually trying to hide something from the public. And since we aren't hiding anything from the public, why make decisions that make it appear as if we are?  Share everything in the packet except for that which is confidential (attorney/client material and negotiated contracts) on the internet so that everyone has a chance to see the job we are doing.

If the people seeking leadership answered "yes" to the above, I would vote for them.

As for our solicitor contract, I have said in the past that I think it should not be renewed.  The advice given and work done by the solicitor on the Zoning Hearing lawsuit was subpar.  I would urge each board member to go back and read the briefs from all the attorneys involved in that case.  After doing so it should be clear that we need better counsel.  There was that much of a disparity in the level of preparation and work put into each of those briefs.  Regardless of my stance of not wanting to do the lawsuit in the first place, it was embarrassing to lose the way we did. I took no joy in that.  I would urge the Board to vote "no" on the contract and to put an RFP out for new counsel to start the first of next year.  This one action would also start to rebuild trust in the Board since it would show some real leadership in ridding ourselves of people/staff that give us bad advice and service.


See you on the 13th.

James

There's nothing new in there really.   I have always been an advocate of transparency and sharing packets with the public makes a heck of a lot of sense. 

Putting together a private funding campaign was part of the proposal I put together a few years ago to find a way to build a school that would impact taxes much less than the current plan does.  At the time there was a majority on the board who thought the idea was a good one. 

The above email is actually the epitome of good boardsmanship according to our own policy.  The policy asks that if a member of the board intends to vote against something then it is suggested that they also make clear what changes would need to happen to turn that vote around.  As I said in my previous post about my resignation, I received no material response to the email (there was one that suggested they were "planning on calling").  I don't think that email is unreasonable at all.

Thanks for reading.

James