This item comprises 32 new draft policies posted ambiguously to the agenda with no introduction, opening presentation, explanation or identified purpose.
Minus context, the public is left to reverse-engineer it to uncover the hidden purpose, which is the wholesale replacement of Policy 1020: School Board Meetings & Rules of Order - a cornerstone of Board governance and rules on public participation.
There is no declaration of this, no mention of Policy 1020, no actual ‘review’ or thoughtful ‘rulemaking’ process demonstrated.
It has the look of Neola having simply asked AI to identify which of the company’s off-the-shelf, copyrighted templates partially match Policy 1020’s content, even if only vaguely, then having submitted the resulting templates to the Board in piecemeal.
For the $138k the Board committed to Neola amid acute budgetary crisis, this agenda item fails the integrity test for its lazy delivery, disregard for transparency, lack of thoroughness and minimal stakeholder accessibility.
In addition, the decision to advertise June 8 as an ordinary ‘Board Workshop’ on BCPS’s own platforms (Board meetings page, public meetings calendar, and even the workshop’s agenda document!), while quietly tucking away on CivicPlus that it was to actually be a Rule Development Policy Review Workshop, further clouded claims of ‘transparency’. This was only remedied on Friday, in response to stakeholder pressure.
This is an item aimed, in part, at minimizing public participation at Board meetings, presented in a manner calculated to minimize public participation in its development.
This item comprises 32 new draft policies posted ambiguously to the agenda with no introduction, opening presentation, explanation or identified purpose.
Minus context, the public is left to reverse-engineer it to uncover the hidden purpose, which is the wholesale replacement of Policy 1020: School Board Meetings & Rules of Order - a cornerstone of Board governance and rules on public participation.
There is no declaration of this, no mention of Policy 1020, no actual ‘review’ or thoughtful ‘rulemaking’ process demonstrated.
It has the look of Neola having simply asked AI to identify which of the company’s off-the-shelf, copyrighted templates partially match Policy 1020’s content, even if only vaguely, then having submitted the resulting templates to the Board in piecemeal.
For the $138k the Board committed to Neola amid acute budgetary crisis, this agenda item fails the integrity test for its lazy delivery, disregard for transparency, lack of thoroughness and minimal stakeholder accessibility.
In addition, the decision to advertise June 8 as an ordinary ‘Board Workshop’ on BCPS’s own platforms (Board meetings page, public meetings calendar, and even the workshop’s agenda document!), while quietly tucking away on CivicPlus that it was to actually be a Rule Development Policy Review Workshop, further clouded claims of ‘transparency’. This was only remedied on Friday, in response to stakeholder pressure.
This is an item aimed, in part, at minimizing public participation at Board meetings, presented in a manner calculated to minimize public participation in its development.