RPS RECAP: Jan 17, 2023 (Pt 2)
Welcome back, Board Watchers. I’m glad I got an extra right’s sleep before recapping the rest of these meeting highlights; I woke up this morning with some fresh perspectives and analysis that I think Richmond really ought to start talking about now, while the GA is considering budget amendments.
Let’s start there, and work our way through the rest of our list:
GA Advocacy
So Conflicted - Auditors & Legal Representation
Inaction: Safety Protocols & Technology Taskforce
Chairwoman Rizzi’s First Meeting
As a reminder, each discussion is an essay all it’s own. Skip around for a quick read or two, or settle in for the whole series. Cheers!
GA Advocacy
Governor Youngkin signed his first budget last June, with mere days to spare before it took effect. As far as public school funding goes - it was a mixed bag.
It funded a first-of-its-kind grant for school construction and maintenance needs - a $1.25B drop in the state’s $25B bucket.
It offered 10% teacher raises over two years; but,
It also gutted Governor Northam’s At-Risk-Funding proposal, disproportionately hurting high-poverty districts like ours.
In all, Youngkin’s budget “resulted in a loss of $2,180,856 for RPS.”
Though these are 2-year budgets, the General Assembly meets every spring to consider adjustments. That’s where we are now. This is important to understand, and an important opportunity to seize upon, because RPS is in dire need of funds. And anything the State doesn’t cover, becomes a Richmond City budget burden. This is a problem.
The Superintendent’s Draft budget calls for a $35.3M increase in revenue over last year’s budget. $24.2M of this is for collective-bargain-negotiated increases to teacher and staff compensation. Both of those figures exceed the City’s $21M surplus - and they’re well, well, beyond whatever remains after returning $18M to corporate and residential property owners. (An act that, candidly, feels like malpractice in the context of this discussion.)
Even if the City can cough up the extra cash, it’s rumored that RFD and RPD are going to join RPS teachers in the boxing ring for increased compensation for their similarly-understaffed - and similarly hard-to-staff - jobs.
All this to say - true relief needs to come from the State.
RPS Director of Advocacy and Outreach, Matthew Stanley, drove this message home in his presentation:
The State can lessen the local burden to pay for staff (which is 90% of the RPS budget) by lifting their arbitrary “support staff cap.” This policy was leftover from the Great Recession - an attempt to stabilize the State’s investment in school staffing like nurses, social workers, custodians, food services, psychologists, bus drivers. But over the last decade, this state policy cost Richmond “over $47 million in state support.” That’s money we sorely need now - especially because of the pivotal role many of those positions play in addressing rampant chronic absenteeism in the district.
Richmond cannot fund the repair and replacement of their rapidly deteriorating school portfolio alone. It’s a $2B need, and at the rate we’re investing into our facilities ($9.5M proposed this year) - it’ll take us 210 years to work through our *current* maintenance list. America, Virginia, Richmond - we’re all still “new” by comparison to other countries. We’re not used to having old infrastructure, and we’ve proven that localities are not up to the task of figuring out how to fund this maintenance themselves. We see it in roads, bridges, and school buildings, too. That’s why school systems across the state quickly drained last year’s school maintenance/construction grant funds - and why Mr. Stanley is calling for the GA (and Governor) to pump an additional $2.5B into those programs now.
Given the dire need, and competition for resources - the whole Board, City Council, Mayor, and all of us need to be advocating for these State revisions, too. We have the benefit of proximity to this important seat of State power - it’s about time we use it.
There was very little Board discussion about this.
Chairwoman Rizzi wants to see LCI reform - which I explain in this agenda preview.
Dr. Harris-Muhammed asked about any potential easing of teacher licensing requirements to increase our potential workforce. (There’s no definitive movement on this at this time, though it is a priority for the Governor.)
Rep. Young crosses his fingers and toes that Delegate Bourne’s $15M proposal for Fox reconstruction relief goes through - since there’s a “general acknowledgement that [RPS is] going to come up short” on the necessary funds for this project. He must not optimistic of the budget trajectory, though, because he announces his intention to tighten RPS’s belt, and close 5 (unspecified) schools. *Sigh*
Ms. White must have heard the call-to-action loud and clear, though. She knows who holds the purse strings, and who it is that’s standing between her schools and the reading and math interventionists they need. And if this photo is any indication, she’s using her elected position and proximity to power to advocate for RPS students:
So Conflicted: Auditor(s) and Legal Representation
The middle chunk of the Board meeting ran together with a common theme of deteriorating professional relationships, and the reputational hazard associated with each. Now’s a good time to remind you that I only “feature” individual Board members when they take an outsized role in discussion. Carry on!
External (Financial) Auditor: Mr. Churchman presented to the Board at the last meeting. Though his findings were great - RPS financials got a clean bill of health - his reception was not. Former Vice Chair Gibson tried to send him away, complaining that she hadn’t had a chance to review his findings ahead of time. He was back on Tuesday with Gibson’s emailed list of questions, some of which left him befuddled.
She’s asking about RPS’ lack of an internal auditor. How did this impact Mr. Churchman’s audit? It didn’t. He’s focused on revenues and flagging areas of concern - not assessing RPS practices, processes, and policy implementation.
She’s still asking about our (mythical!) excess of chromebooks. The administration produced literal receipts confirming the district’s actual (reasonable) Chromebook investment. Mr. Churchman confirms the administration’s “Capital Asset Ledger” and found their chromebook investment, and recorded depreciation, were reasonable.
She’s asking about the purchase of 39 buses, and where that funding came from. She doesn’t remember approving that purchase. A: That’s an admin question. (Michelle Hudacsko: Purchased with CARES and ESSR funding, plus a recurring line item in the budget that allows RPS to replace 2 new buses a year.)
She asks about RPS requests for City funds - did the Auditor confirm our financial dealings? A: “We did confirm that. I’m not sure why it’s presumed that we didn’t.”
Mr. Churchman is professional, but confused. He appears to sense that these questions are barbs, but cannot make out whether or not he is the intended target. In any case, it’s clear that this digging-for-dirt line of questioning was not the response he expected after producing a positive, incident-free financial audit.
This brings us to the discussion about an…
Internal auditor: RPS’ senior auditor resigned this Fall following the (rather embarrassing) release of a sloppy Chromebook audit that wrongly suggested - in the former Chairs words - “fraud and waste.” The process to replace him has been ongoing, though we haven’t heard a whole lot about this personnel matter. Until tonight.
We learned that the then-Vice Chair made quite an impression on the RPS administration: stay out of this process. Gibson doesn’t want them hiring an auditor that is, or appears to be, friendly (bias) towards the administration.
The Chief of Staff complied, forwarding auditor applications directly to the then-Vice Chair, who had indicated she would lead this process. Apparently, this led to weeks (months?) of inaction, during which several auditors have withdrawn their applications. If any viable applicants remain, Ms. Gibson has not pursued them.
The Chief of Staff says that she has since forwarded auditor applications to the new Board leadership, and offers to refresh the job listing in the hopes of attracting more.
This “factual” non-update visibly frustrates Gibson, who didn’t anticipate her “stay out of it” commandment would be taken so literally. From her seat on the dais, she throws her hands up and seems to accuse the administration/COS of intentionally stalling the process: “let’s not be passive aggressive - let’s get some stuff done.”
Minutes later, we learn this “stay out of it,” “avoid the appearance of conflicting interests” mentality only applies to the administration…
Legal Representation: After weathering many (many) hostile comments from some Board members, Attorney Lilly&Co. have elected to end their legal representation contract with RPS. They’re gone come June 2023, and the race is on to fill that void.
The Board issued an RFP (request for proposal) for legal services back in September. There are a “number of bids,” and the Superintendent says he “defers 100%” to the will of the Board on how to proceed.
Here’s an oversimplified summary of a typical RFP process: a government body puts out a contract, asking individuals/companies to bid on the project. Those bids a reviewed for cost, competency, and quality, before being presented to the government body for final approval. This process follows the Virginia Public Procurement Act, which emphasizes the need for all procurement procedures to be “conducted in a fair and impartial manner with avoidance of any impropriety or appearance of impropriety.” Vetting bids and approving them are intentionally separated to ensure that elected officials do not “favor a particular vendor.”
We quickly learn that Gibson is frustrated. She wants to interview Legal bids herself. But legal counsel warns that doing so may create the appearance of impropriety. “The optics” of serving on a selection committee and voting to award the contract “are not good.” To avoid accusations of cronyism and/or nepotism, the Board is advised to stay out of it. (This is the same reasoning Gibson used above to justify cutting the Kamras&Co. out of the process to hire an internal auditor.)
Gibson disagrees. Besides, she knows now that legal services are exempt from the RFP process. She wants to know why Ms. Lilly didn’t tell her this when she made her original motion to solicit legal services? A:
Gibson didn’t ask the attorney if it was necessary. (It’s not.)
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to use the RFP process in this instance.
Ms. Lilly is a lawyer - her firm could have bid on this contract. Had she advised the Board to take a less transparent procurement method, then pursued the contract herself, she’d have created a conflict of interest. (Which, Ms. Lilly notes, is unethical behavior that Gibson regularly accuses her of! I suspect that hostility is why she is leaving her relationship with RPS.)
Gibson’s colleagues overrule her. They motion to continue with the original RFP process, and stay out of the vetting process. They’ll get their say-so when they vote to approve (or reject) any candidates brought forward.
So. I won’t linger long on this because I cannot be honest without being critical, and I don’t want to do that anymore than I absolutely have to.
The evening’s hostilities have been constant - and mostly from Ms. Gibson:
The external auditor has had his integrity questioned.
The Superintendent has had his integrity questioned.
The Chief of Staff has been called passive aggressive. And,
The Board’s attorney has been accused of not doing her job, or intentionally doing her job in a way that screws over Ms. Gibson.
Rather than using her political authority to address things like student achievement, she seems focused on finding ways to defame her political enemies, real or imagined. (Most, it appears, are the latter.)
The risk here is that the Board develops a reputation for being “difficult clients” - driving out talent, breaking down cooperative partnerships, and discouraging new ones.
The external auditor told us last meeting that he left an uncooperative relationship with the City.
The Board Attorney has already decided to do the same with RPS; and,
The school division gains nothing if (more of) our leadership follows suit.
INACTION: SECURITY PROTOCOLS AND TECH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
It’s Groundhog’s day on the dais. Once again, the Board discusses Safety and Security protocols, (falsely) claiming that the district does not have them, doesn’t follow them, or doesn’t train their staff well enough to follow them.
We hear again about mishaps like bloody halls (May 2022), a char-grilled historic school (Feb 2022), and a fatal shooting on an RPS campus (Oct 2022). These incidents are up to a year old, and the Board has asked (and received) detailed information about each incident, as well as the protocols in place to prevent them from happening again.
But don’t take my word for it - the evidence is scattered throughout a years worth of Board meeting minutes, like this one from August:
3.02 Receive for review emergency protocols.
Mr. Kamras provided the Board with the RPS Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan as well as the RPS School Crisis, Emergency Management and Medical Emergency Response Plan. Additionally, the Superintendent provided the Board with the most recent alarm testing reports from the District’s schools buildings, as well as an example of the data systems connections and floor plan layout for emergency response needs, as well as the KnoxBoxes recently installed at every building.
So far as I can tell, there are two reasons why we’re talking about this still:
The Board is not clearly asking for the information they need. Maybe they don’t know what to ask for? Maybe the hostile climate (outlined above) discourages the admin from asking clarifying questions? Maybe the Board keeps moving the goal posts? Or D, all of the above?
These discussions are performative. A year in, the Board should have had enough dialogue on stage and behind the scenes to get the information they need to take some action. A 6 year old shot a teacher two weeks ago and their Board has already taken action to install metal detectors. By contrast, our Board leadership saw a school burn down and repeatedly told community members that it did not constitute an emergency meeting (much less emergent action or procurement authority).
We see this inaction again in the discussion to restrict student access to phones, chromebooks, and/or YouTube. The Board broadly agrees this is a problem - with some calling it a crisis impacting our students.
A digital workgroup has met all year to assess these problems. On October 17th, they presented potential solutions in an agenda item labeled “Receive recommendations from working group on student use of technology and cell phones.”
They made no motion. Well, they made a non-motion motion. Again, from the meeting minutes:
“Ms. Gibson motioned that the Richmond school board seek to reduce classroom distraction and eliminate student access to violent content. To that end, the board directs the superintendent to present the board with options to restrict secondary students from using personal cell phone devices during the school day and curb student access to YouTube district-wide.” (Emphasis, mine.)
This week’s meeting was more of the same. Recommendations, cost estimates, national research, and various comparative analysis from statewide school districts. And then, Board inaction.
Can we hear more about Hopewell’s cell phone pouch rollout? How did they involve the community? Let’s set aside some funds in the excessively tight budget, just in case we decide to take action next time.
All good and reasonable suggestions… for the first discussion on the matter on November 8, 2021. Or the February 7, 2022 update. Or the March 7, 2022 update. Or the October 17, 2022 update. Or Tuesday’s update. If the point is to solve a problem, then at some point these elected officials need to act.
OR - cut these dead-weight agenda items unless and until there’s a motion attached. This “imperative!” 15-month discussion is going nowhere, and delaying other important business the Board needs to address.
To borrow Ms. Gibson’s earlier quote: “Let’s get some stuff done.”
Chairwoman Rizzi’s First Meeting
Stephanie Rizzi showed up prepared.
She must be doing some serious behind the scenes herding-of-cats, because I have never seen a spreadsheet of Board member’s “travel and district activity requests” + associated costs before.
She also has been proactive about scheduling a joint meeting with last year’s leadership’s arch-enemy, City Council. (Could we really see a newly collaborative Board relationship produce a new collaborative Board-City relationship? Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!)
Then she showed up with red ink, ready to cut agenda items that were easily deferred to a later meeting.
Then she enforced Public Comment rules.
Then she held everyone to their allotted 6 minute time limit per discussion item.
Then she consistently reminded Board members of the hour.
She was firm in cutting short her colleague’s unconstructive comments for Board guests, and members of the Superintendent's cabinet.
She was cheerful and apologetic about the meeting inevitably running past their 10PM Board “norm.”
Still, she did the absolute best she could do with an agenda that very much still bears the marks of a full year of unproductive meetings.
I am hugely optimistic about this leadership team. I don’t know where they’ll take us - but I can see the intention is for all 9 members to get there together. What a refreshing year this could be!
Thanks, as always, for following along and getting involved in our local school governance. Your interest and participation are so important!