On 622 report & other things.

On 622 report & other things.

tl;dr

  • The 622 report raised some concerns with parents. They are listed at the bottom.
  • The board has sent a bill for court costs, but are going to discuss rescinding it.
  • A few parents met with Trustees to discuss a solution to the current situation.
    • The CPOSD76 would like to hold a meeting for the purposes of deciding when to submit the amendments to the petition.
    • The CPoSD76 would invite the board to attend, and if the CPoSD76 are satisfied with the outcome of the discussion with the board, would hold a vote to cease action on the petition.
      • The Board would have to attend in majority, and be able to make official statements. (Understanding that not ALL statements would have to be official.)
      • The bill for court costs would have to be rescinded.
    • The Meeting would be open to any signatory to the petition, member of the CPoSD76 group, or resident of Medicine Hat, with concerns over the policy, or procedure.
    • Date of meeting TBA
  • We have 3 choices before us:
    • 1. Amend the petition, and follow the process of forming a committee in the school act.
    • 2. Have the meeting with the school board, and see if that satisfies the concerns.
    • 3. Select 3 or 4 people to represent the interests of the CPoSD76, and have them address the concerns to the board.
  • You can message an option number through facebook, or by using the contact form on the website.

It has been an interesting week. A report on the review of SD76 Policy 622 came out at the end of the last SD76 public board meeting. However, prior to that there was a invitation by a Trustee for a meeting with members of our group to discuss common ground and perhaps how we might come back from the brink on this policy. That meeting was set for Tuesday May 2nd.

On April 25th the board released their report, and immediately on the 26th a request for a statement was made by multiple media outlets. I Shared with the 557 members of our Facebook group that report, and requested their thoughts on it. I also met with numerous residents of Medicine Hat in person, to get their feedback. I began to write up a statement on behalf of the group.

On Friday April 28th I received an e-mail from the Lawyer for SD76, requesting I pay costs for the appeal. The stated reason being that, even though costs were not brought up during the appeal proceedings nor were they mentioned in Justice Tilleman’s decision, according to sd76’s lawyer, the Alberta Rules of Court states that SD76, as the ‘winning’ party, was entitled to seeks reimbursement for costs. This seemed to me counter intuitive to a reconciliation process. Thus I delayed the statement, and let the group know it would be delayed.

In the time between the April 28th and May 2nd I asked several signatories about the request for costs, (and consulted a lawyer.) The unanimous consensus from the signatories was that they too saw the request for costs counter intuitive to a reconciliation process. Some were more colorful in their answers than others. Thus, I held off on making any statements until after meeting with members of the board on May 2nd.

The May 2nd meeting saw a majority of the board in attendance. The meeting was not an official meeting of the board, and as such no official decisions were made. There were 2 other CPoSD76 representatives also present.

Overall the meeting seemed to be positive, with a positive outcome. There was some airing of grievances by both parties. A lot of clearing up of misunderstandings and mis-communications. Everyone conducted themselves in a professional and respectful manner, with everyone working towards the goal of coming to a consensus on how to move forward from this issue. Both the board members and the concerned parents understood that neither could make any decisions without first going back to their respective parties with the proposals.

A proposed process by a Trustee was that the concerned parents would arrange a meeting with the signatories/members of the public, and they would invite the board to attend that meeting, and address the issues and concerns that they had. The concerned parents in turn stated that they would be open to that idea, but they would have to bring it back to the other concerned parents, to decide if they wished to follow that process. It was also stated by the concerned parents that for that process to work, a couple of conditions would have to be met.

  1. If the board accepted an invitation and came, it would have to be a majority of the board, so that the board would be able to make official statements.
  2. The request for court costs would have to be rescinded, as that is perceived by the concerned parents to be a hindrance to moving forward.

The board members agreed to bring these requests up for discussion at their next available opportunity.

So, the proposal, to you the concerned parents is this:

We set up a town hall style meeting for the purposes of inviting the Board of SD76 to attend, and decide based on the feedback/participation of the board if/when we should file our amendment to the petition. We let you decide if you wish to move forward with the petition, or if you are satisfied with the feedback from the board, and that your concerns have been heard. Details on the date of the meeting will be forthcoming.


As for a statement on the 622 Review Report. Some of the concerns over it have been mentioned here before, some others have been shared with me since. To summarize those:

  1. Not all council’s had the relevant information available for parents when requested. (Particularly in regards to Admin procedures)
  2. Some council’s had expressed that they didn’t even need to consider it.
  3. One council shut down a parent that tried to raise a concern.
  4. At least one council did not have a Trustee present for their discussion.
  5. The process did not allow for proposed changes to go up to the board, but for feedback to be given to the board on proposed changes.
  6. The conflict of interest of council members, who are also staff, not being able to contradict the board, has not been addressed.
  7. A question on what the review process will be if the yearly review is removed, has not been answered.
  8. Some parent councils do not seem to have the details or understanding of what exactly their part in the process is.
  9. A lack of source information for the conclusions drawn in the report.

Due to the purpose of the meeting, I was not able to raise all of these issues. Over all the Trusstees did agree that communication between parent councils, parents, and the board was in need of a review, and that more readily available information was necessary. There was also mention of how best to engage parents, and the timing of parent council meetings.

 

You must be logged in to post a comment