I have purposely steered away from writing an editorial ahead of last week’s appeal hearing over Rotan ISD’s public comment policy.
While I still have no desire to opine about the officials’ decision — that would be petty since they voted against me — I am, however, quite inclined to reflect a little sunshine into the board’s darkened cloak of dastardly deeds for deceptive deliberation.
Spoiler alert: while I am always open to the possibility of my own incorrect analysis, I was under no disillusion that Rotan ISD was going to amend a policy that would better serve its citizens.
That’s not really what Rotan politics is all about.
From the same old seats filled with the same decision- makers at city hall, down the pothole-riddled streets, around the broken water pipes and onto the city’s eastern border, where a completely different set of narrow priorities makes conversely inconsistent leadership just as audiologically challenged.
It is often hard to hear those that speak from so far down your nose… and a growing nose it is.
Now, how about a bit of irony?
During his line of questioning of me during the meeting, Board President Britt Sipe made a few admissions, like “a natural aversion to or mistrust of the government is the natural thing.”
Sipe said, “I think we should all have that skepticism in our hearts. I’ve witnessed, over my lifetime and reading history books, that government has a tendency to incrementalize their influence into things.”
Sipe, along with six other government officials, proceeded to vote unanimously to uphold a determination that voluntarily limited public comment despite a statutory alternative for improved public engagement.
And they wonder why nobody comes to town hall meetings and why it takes a failed bond election to still only earn a slim margin of half victory at the second attempt. Could it be because citizens are tired of trying to speak over the roar of hypocrisy?
It reminds me of another public official who recently uttered one of the single funniest quotes I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing. I am not telling you who said it. At least, not in this editorial, because knowing would only distract you from the comment itself.
The interview subject looked me straight in the eyes and said: “Just because I haven’t given you the answer doesn’t mean that I’m not transparent.”
This ranks up there with holding your bond election ethics training in executive session, like Rotan ISD did ahead of the 2024 bond election.
Which is an ironically unethical thing to do.
Moral grey-areas have become commonplace among the Rotan ISD Board, which is exactly what occurred during last week’s grievance appeal hearing. Anytime the board’s attorney shows up, public transparency and an adherence to the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) become mere suggestions, ones that are routinely discounted as such.
Seeing this coming, both myself in an email ahead of the hearing and the DMC publisher shortly after the meeting was called to order, each warned of executive session’s narrow scope in this matter. However, when the cases and opinions support the board’s goals, they are held up as gospel, but when they warn against their considered actions, orders and opinions are treated as imaginary.
We pointed to: Finlan v. City of Dallas, where the court held that the attorney- client exception is narrow. It does not permit a “comprehensive discussion of public business” just because an attorney is present, the wording of which was woven into the AG’s TOMA Handbook.
John Cornyn’s Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0233 went on to clarify that Section 551.071 is intended to allow for private legal advice, not private policy- making.
With this information in mind, in my March 2 email to the administration I wrote: “Per the definition of ‘deliberation’ in § 551.001(2), any verbal exchange between a quorum of the Board regarding the weighing of evidence or the reasoning behind a decision must occur in open session.
It is procedurally improbable for seven members to reach a consensus without such an exchange; therefore, I expect the Board’s discussion on the merits to be held publicly.”
Both the publisher and myself requested that, to ensure accountability, the executive session was recorded, a common practice among ethical, savvy public entities. However, in the response email I received, Superintendent Edgemon wrote: “Your citations with regard to the posted attorney/client consultation are noted. At this time, neither the Board President, nor I have plans to announce those citations at the meeting…” He then went on to write: “Our Lawyer will advise our board accordingly. Finally, I appreciate your request for the board to record its closed session, but because the closed session is only going to include an attorney/ client consultation we will not record the session.”
The resulting outcome: seven trustees listened to presentations, asked clarifying questions, then retreated into executive session with their attorney, only to return with a decision void of public discussion. How do you think that happened?
Situations like these only go to support my point that too often are entities allowed the opportunity to remain transparently ambiguous, as well as supporting Board President Sipe’s statement that “government has a tendency to incrementalize their influence into things.”
Perhaps we should simply change the terminology to reflect the actuality, in that laws are becoming more optional and government officials no longer serve in office, they merely dictate from it.
Publisher’s Note: I grew up in this district. In fact, I was practically raised in the Superintendent’s office because my mother was the Business Manager for this district, and then I spent more than six years working there myself. You learn a few things in that time about how decisions get made and how they get avoided.
One thing I can tell you from experience is that when a school board’s attorney walks into the room, one of the first considerations on the table is precedent. Will this decision create an expectation going forward? That’s a fair question for any governing body to ask. But I’ve also seen that concern used to talk a board out of doing the right thing simply because no one has done it yet.
If I had been sitting on that board, my response would have been simple: if the precedent is a good one, if this is a way to show our citizens and parents that we truly are welcoming and encouraging communication for those willing to show up and speak up at board meetings, then setting it early is something this district should be proud of.
I also would have had the courage to look the person who went through this process in the eye and explain why I agreed or disagreed with the decision. That is the bare minimum a citizen deserves when they follow the rules, exhaust every level of the process and show up in good faith. A silent vote is not an answer.
Good leadership doesn’t wait for someone else to go first. — Patricia Hurt, Publisher