Board Watch 9.19.22

Boardwatch
Written By KidsFirst RPS

Happy Wednesday, Board Watchers! We’re going to present Monday’s meeting a little out of sequence. To honor  Hispanic and Latin American Heritage Month (Sept 15 - Oct 15) we’ll start with what the School Board has dubbed the “Latino Community Taskforce.” This also allows us to keep all three legal counsel discussions together, which will hopefully make them easier to understand. Here’s what we cover below:

  • Latino Community Taskforce

  • RPS Foundation Update

  • Surplussing Land

  • Legal Counsel: In-House?

  • Legal Counsel: Pro-Bono Representation?

Latino Community Taskforce

On August 1, Vilma Seymour delivered public comment on behalf of the Richmond Region League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). She proposed the creation of a community-wide commission to study the academic and non-academic outcomes of Latino and English-Learner students, which lag behind RPS student performance as a whole. The proposal’s timeline reflects the community’s urgency to get this important work underway. They ask that the Board adopt the proposal by August 29, and name participating members by September 30th. 

It was added to the agenda for the August 15 meeting.

The August 15 meeting, though, was another long, inefficient meeting. And while the Board did agree to create the committee - they did so without any discussion at all. Here is the motion, from the meeting minutes:

4.06 Receive for action formation of Latino Community Task Force.
As presented for review at the August 1, 2022 School Board Meeting, Ms. Doerr motioned to approve the formation of the Latino Community Taskforce for Richmond Public Schools. Ms. White seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

A few days later, news of RPS’s SOL scores dropped, and derailed all existing Board priorities. After a month-long discussion of curriculum, the Board finally revisited their Latino Community Taskforce discussion… a mere 11 days before LULAC’s September 30th deadline. Nevertheless, we had high hopes that we’d finally get some clarity around this project: who would participate, and when? 

What we got instead was immediate confusion. Evidently, “approving the formation of the Latino Community Taskforce” was not an agreement to form the taskforce as laid out in LULAC’s proposal. Upon this realization, the 5th District Rep immediately made that motion. 

But several members had questions about who would participate. Instead of 1 LULAC official and 1 RPS Board member co-chairing the taskforce - could there be 2 Board Members? How about 2 of each? Agreed. There will be 4 co-chairs leading this committee.

The second district representative scrutinizes the membership list: Will teachers serve on this commission?

Richmond LULAC’s president, Dr Rachel Gomez, steps up to the podium to clarify her proposal. “We have already identified most people that are interested in serving on this commission, including two ELL teachers. We have an extensive list already of folks who we can see really adding value to our commission.”

This ruffles feathers.

The 7th District Rep worries other community advocates may be excluded. The Chairwoman agrees with her colleague, and shares concerns that Northside and East End communities are not represented. (This implies that the participants LULAC recruited only represent the needs and interests of South Side, though the audience is not aware of any evidence supporting this claim.)

This friction is an unintended - but predictable - consequence of the Board’s continued delay on this matter. Over the last month, the Board lost focus and shifted their attention to curriculum. These community organizers, meanwhile, had not. They carried on recruiting participants absent timely feedback from the Board. Now, a month later, the Board receives this news with suspicion. Are LULAC’s membership assignments an attempt to minimize the Board’s influence? Does it disrespect the Board’s authority, or disadvantage their districts?

The 5th District rep defends the integrity of the proposal: “I would not have supported this had I believed that all of these people had been pre-identified. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.” Her support gets the conversation back on track.

They agree to a so-called “friendly amendment” (to clarify or enhance the motion on the table) encouraging flexibility for membership and community participation. Motion passes.

RPS Foundation Update

The RPS Foundation is a community nonprofit that has been in active partnership with RPS since 2001 “to actively develop philanthropic resources and community relationships that support the goal to improve student learning and achievement in preparation for success in college, career, and community.”

Their update to the Board on Monday night was pretty straightforward. (Most of those details are available for your review, here.) Some foundation highlights discussed this evening:

  • Managing the $287k “Fox Fire Fund,” and strategically releasing funds to meet current and anticipated needs.

  • Supporting the “Dreams4RPS” strategic plan, by funding projects like: building home libraries, establishing book vending machines, restoring the beloved Lit Limo.

  • Funding community priorities, like:

    • Investing in arts and music programming with events like the East End Festival.

    • Offering ongoing RRHA Scholarships (usually $20k/year), and

    • Supporting the families of deceased RPS students through the “Honoring the Memory” fund. 

The Board is largely appreciative of this community support, but they have a lot of questions for the Foundation’s Executive Director, Ty Toepke. He spends much of the Q&A explaining to the Chairwoman that his role is not to fund full or part time RPS staff, present itemized lists of how RPS spends the Foundation’s donations, or provide status reports on RPS projects they’ve contributed to (like the creation of STEM labs in district schools). 

Instead, the Foundation works with the school district to identify specific needs, source donations to meet them, and pass along this funding for “major gifts.” RPS then coordinates the roll out of those philanthropic projects.

This discussion is helpful context for us, as audience members, but the Board should know all of this. Both the Chair and Vice-Chair are “Ex-Officio Members” of the RPS Foundation Board. Either they are uninformed because they’re not attending the Foundation’s Board meetings, or they’re not effectively relaying their Board colleagues' questions when they do.

Ordinarily, this friendly exchange may have gone without notice. But after the Board’s interrogation of NextUp last week, there appears to be a pattern of Board members misunderstanding their relationship with these non-profits. These community partners exist to support RPS students and staff - not serve the RPS Board. 

So when the 2nd District Rep desires $7k of undesignated funds to go to tutoring? Mr. Toepke can take it under advisement… but he ultimately answers to his own Board.

Surplusing Land

RPS owns two unused parcels of land, each with an old, poorly maintained school of historic value to the city.

  • Moore Street (a portion of the land at Carver Elementary) - In the past few years, both YWCA and VCU have expressed interest in developing a child development/daycare on the site, the latter offering “free or reduced rates for children in the Gilpen area.” (source) Currently, Ms White says the Moore Street School Foundation would like to see a performance arts center installed.

  • 13 Acres (a portion of the land at Holton Elementary) - 13 Acres has great advocates in the Hermitage Road Historic District Association, who have had it added to the national register of historic places. Its future, though, is less certain. It “continues to deteriorate, and awaits its next chapter of service to the community” (Source)

Ahead of the pandemic, the (2017-2020) School Board agreed to surplus these properties to the city. From there, the city manages their sale and returns any proceeds to RPS.

But this plan has hit a snag. The city cannot sell the property until the land has been separated (“sub divided”) from the part of the land actively housing an RPS school (Holton, Carver). The Board is advised to work with the city (and whatever buyer they find) to determine the necessary zoning designation and draw requisite boundaries. Then attorneys can create a clean title with all this information, and the city can formally “accept” the surplus. 

Jonathan Young, who serves on the Board’s Vacant Property Committee (VPC), explains that this is a bit of a “chicken or the egg” scenario, since a routine land sale starts with a complete property description, and then finding an interested buyer. They’re advised to do the opposite. 

To move forward, it’s up to the current Board to do something they’re (frankly) not very good at: cooperate with the city. 

Moore Street

Rep. White wants Moore Street School off RPS Books. She claims it is a financial drain on Carver Elementary School. (The Chairwoman assures her - and us - that this is not how school budgets work.) 

Rep. White also believes the Moore Street Foundation has worked with the city attorney to ensure that a performance art center moves in. The Board’s attorney RPS Chief of Staff caution: the city could decide to sell it to someone else, or they could also decide not to sell it at all.

She motions to cooperate with the city to find a buyer. Motion Passes. (Gibson abstains.)

13 Acres

The Vice-Chair refuses a colleague’s suggestion to make a similar motion for 13 Acres, the property in her (3rd) district. She says her constituents have expressed concern about how that property will be used. She won’t pursue next steps until she and the community know the plan/buyer. (Of course, the whole point of the evening’s presentation is that no plan - buyer, land-use, or boundaries - can be determined without taking this step to cooperate with the city.) The land will sit, the historic landmark will decay, and RPS will forgo an approximate $11M profit unless a majority of the Board moves forward without the Vice-Chair. 

Note: the value of 13 Acres is greater than the Board’s anticipated profit from the sale of Arthur Ashe Jr. Athletic Center, which is $8-10M.

Legal Update: In-House Counsel

The conversation about 13 Acres bleeds into the Board’s discussion about Legal Counsel.

The Vice-Chair is indignant when the Board Attorney responds to a colleague’s questions about how real estate transactions work, and explains the city’s surplus process: “This is a matter that is with the city, and - respectfully - our legal counsel has told us as it pertains to Arthur Ashe that there was a conflict of interest. I’m unsure why there would be a difference on this issue.” Adding: “This is something that we really need legal counsel in order to make an informed decision where we go next.”

(For her part, Board Attorney Lilly explains that there’s no conflict because there’s no discussion of litigation on this issue, but offers to “remain silent going forward” if that’s the pleasure of the board.)

Later in the agenda, Vice-Chair Gibson motions to hire in-house legal counsel, consisting of a senior and junior attorney. The motion does not get a second, and fails. 

She and the Chairwoman agree that the Board clerk also needs additional support. So Gibson then motions to hire a deputy clerk: 

“This conversation has highlighted a problem that needs to be addressed. Clearly right now we’re not able to govern because we don’t have anybody able to do anything - right? We had 2 school board clerks when I joined the board in 2017. Many folks on this body voted to eliminate that job. We are now feeling the impact of it. And we’re not the only ones feeling the impact of it. People who submit FOIA requests feel the impact of it. Our board clerk is feeling the impact of it. We need additional support. The situation is not tenable.” 

White seconds her motion.

When the superintendent states: “I would need to know the funding source if we’re going to add a position to the budget;” Gibson offers a quick reply: “Mr. Kamras, my hope would be that you come to the Board with a funding source for that.”

The Vice Chair’s suggestion means the superintendent will need to do one of two things:

  1. Defund an academic priority. A curious choice given the “emergency” status of RPS academic performance. 

  2. RIF one or more staff from the central office. The division is committed to “holding schools harmless” - so if the Board directs the superintendent to reallocate funding for new Board staff, those salaries would be paid for by firing (or neglecting to hire a replacement for) one or more central office positions. This suggestion is particularly alarming given the (escalating) volume of central office vacancies. As one audience member notes…

Rep. Doerr recommends paying for new Board staff from the School Board Budget: “I think that if we’re asking schools, etc, to go with limited resources” then the Board should, as well. Rep. Jones agrees.

In what feels like a desperate attempt to make a motion that will “stick” - the Board Majority revisits another avenue to (fire and) replace the existing Board Attorney (who visibly shakes through much of this discussion.) The Chairwoman asks if her colleagues still support an earlier vote to solicit new outside counsel? 

They do, but instruct her to narrow the scope of the RFP. They specifically need to find legal counsel without a conflict of interest (COI) that would interfere with possible litigation against the city. 

The Chairwoman agrees to release an RFP for a new attorney, without a COI. 

KFRPS Note: An expert we consulted warns that “neither in-house nor external counsel would eliminate the possibility of COI due to the nature of human beings and their relationships. The potential for COI can never be fully eliminated.” 

Legal Update: Pro-Bono Counsel

During the Board’s August 15 discussion of the Arthur Ashe Jr Athletic Center, the Chairwoman brought forward a legal opinion offered by Thomas M. Wolf, of Miles and Stockbridge PC. (His wife, Carol Wolf, represented the 3rd district on the school board from 2002-2008. She has made her position on this conflict known.) 

Monday night, the Chairwoman asks her colleagues if they’d like to secure Mr. Wolf’s pro-bono services to represent them in litigation on this matter. “If we decide to move forward with new legal representation, both sides are in agreement with that.” Adding, of Ms. Lilly: “Our current legal services are in support of our decision moving forward.”

Relevant questions may be “Has Mr. Wolf ever sued a city on a property title issue?” or “What is his experience with municipal law?”

Instead, the extent of the Board’s analysis is:

2nd District Rep: “Free legal service. That’s good.” 
Chairwoman: “I think so.” 

Of the many consequential legal discussions had this evening, accepting this free service gets the least amount of scrutiny. 

We did our own research here, and found that he has expertise in civil litigation, commercial litigation, construction law, and construction litigation. He also has experience in land use, zoning and dispute resolution.

The latter, in particular, is what we’re rooting for. 

The City may win litigation against an underdog school board with pro bono legal representation - but neither side looks competent or compassionate with their heels dug into petty politics. Neither will have the support of their constituents while it is their children who are deprived of an athletic facility, and RPS is refused the compensation to build a new one.

Things we’re watching:

  • Good Trouble: The Board will discuss Liz Doerr’s resolution to reject the Governor’s anti-trans policies on October 3rd.

  • Release of the June 11 Retreat Minutes (When they’re loaded, they should be available here.)

  • NextUp RVA? Mariah White instructed the Board Chair to add the NextUp contract as an “action item” (vote) to the agenda. We’d expected it this week, but maybe this was added to Oct 3rd as well? Or maybe the Board’s hostility toward their nonprofit partner was silenced by community pressure. Guess we’ll wait and see!

KidsFirst RPS
Next

Board Watch 9.12.22 (Pt 2)