We need transparency in future decisions

There have been many decisions made lately without consulting the public. From the closing of an elementary school to redistricting boundaries.

A motion was made by board member Michael McNamee and supported Jeanne Frank to close one of our 5 elementary schools.

Some may say "what is the big deal?" I was sent an email by a citizen who obtained an email via the Freedom of Information Act. In this email both Mr. McNamee and Mrs. Frank clearly were communicating in regard to closing an elementary school.

This would not have been so controvebrsial if they did not specifically state their plan to make a motion and support prior to the meeting, without public input.

Myself and board Treasurer John Folske voted against the measure citing the fact that not enough information existed to make a decision.

We did not know how much money would be saved, what school would close, and overall we voted blindly on the issue. In my view it was a repeat of the Riverview East decision, except a tad worse.

Riverview was an administrative decision and both myself and Mr. Folske made an attempt to go through a more open process back then, but again met a roadblock.

In this case there was no warning of a decision. There was no talk in public.

In future decisions we need to have a more open process. There is a difference between having an open process and talking about having an open process.

Now the board is talking about privatizing custodial services as well as redrawing district boundaries.

My simple question is this: if the board is doing the right thing then why do it behind closed doors or behind an email? I am not against individual board members communicating; I've done so on several occasions, but in this case it was done in a manipulative way.

I will always be for more open government. I urge my fellow members of the board to be more open to listening to the public in coming decisions and to keep them involved in the process.