Home
Up

 

 

 

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:17:30 -0800
Subject: Minutes
From: Zeitz Hudelson
To:
CC:

November 5, 2002

Dear Sheryl,

I appreciate that the League of Women Voters and many of its members have
participated over time in school district planning, while at the same time
maintaining impartiality and avoiding partisanship. That in fact was one of
the attractions when I decided to join. I must say, however, that the
statements made in the committee meeting about the School Board, as
summarized in the minutes you sent me, are certainly very partisan.

The topic suggested is not educational, but rather political. It could be
applied to the city planning process just as easily as to an educational
process, and in the case of Duluth , maybe more so. I suggest that the
League should be approaching the city planning group if this is to be a
topic sponsored by the League.

Also, I take issue with the statement that there is no vision on the School
Board. While I was a member, we spent many hours in planning sessions,
hammering out a plan which reaffirmed our moved to K-5, which placed the
elementary specialists as an integral part of the elementary program, and
which projected a middle school program city-wide once the pilot proved
successful. These three points were the wishes of constituents in November
1997, and those of elected at that point were ultimately successful in
convincing the entire Board to accept these principles. That was not an
easy task given the animosity on that Board.

There are people playing politics with the planning process. The truth is,
the issue of closing a high school at this time, rather than when the
population decline works its way upward to the ninth grade level, has! been
used by one board member to upstage a process in which he participated and
with which he seemingly agreed during that process. I urge you to be
careful about jumping on board with someone interested only in their own
selfish motives.


I regret that the meeting took the turn it did, and that it was scheduled on
the last weekend before one of the craziest elections I've ever seen. (I'm
originally from Chicago , so I've seen crazy.) I look forward to talking
this over with you, and I hope that you will be careful about what you do
here and that the League will discuss this further before others are
approached.

Sincerely,

Eileen Zeitz Hudelson

P.S. I can't figure out how to e-mail everyone. Could you and/or Rosie
please forward this to the appropriate people? Thanks.

 

 

LWV--Education Committee:

 

I spoke with Mike Akervik last evening, in his role as chair of the School Board. I outlined our discussion of last Saturday and proposed the idea of a half-day forum concentrated on planning efforts that have been successfull for school districts throughout the state.

 

I have to say Mike was pleased, if not even excited, that we are willing to assist the school board approach this issue once again.  He feels that the (and some of this is in my words not his--but the intent is the same) most recent crisis/fire-extinguishing work of the board has delayed the overall long-range vision of what we want to accomplish as a district.  The recent work has been to address the financial issues facing the board without a longer range vision in place with which to frame those decisions.

 

He thought a half-day forum listening to the success stories of school districts from other areas in Minnesota would be helpful, however, like Robin, he felt that it would be important to try to find districts facing the kind of challenges Duluth is facing.  He outlined those issues as being (not in any particular order):

1. excess building capacity

2. charter school enrollment decreasing public sch enrollment

3. declining enrollment throughout the district

4. grade configuration issues

5. need to decrease one high school

 

He and I agreed that it would be a challenge to find a district that mirrored all of our challenges, but that we could look for districts with similar issues.

 

So, I believe we have the beginnings of the school board wanting to participate.  We did discuss the need to warn the meeting correctly if more than 4 or 5 of the members wanted to attend (re: Open Mtg Law.)  The next steps Mike suggested for himself were to discuss the idea with Julio (this week, I believe), float the idea to board members at committee meetings next week--are we interested, should be ask the League to proceed?, and call me back when he gets a feeling from those he talks with.  (what English!)

 

I was pleased with the conversation, given my personal feeling that Board members may not want to continue with the effort saying they have more pressing and crisis-oriented matters to attend to.

 

Now, I want to take a minute and respond to some if Eilleen's concerns from her e-mail:

 

Hi Eileen--Sorry you could not be at the Saturday discussion with the education group--there was so much at stake with the election.

 

The topic suggested is not educational, but rather political.

I disagree--this topic is one for whicht the League has been calling for action since 1994.  The process for planning, with school distrticts as a model, is one that has been tried in a number of different ways in Duluth , none of which that has created a document that can be shared with stakeholders.

 

I take issue with the statement that there is no vision on the School  Board. . .These three points were the wishes of constituents in November 1997, and those of (us?)elected at that point were ultimately successful in convincing the entire Board to accept these principles. That was not aneasy task given the animosity on that Board 

The three points that you hightlighted are points that have successfully been adopted by the board, but is that enough?  Does that mean we don't have more planning to do, issues to address, futures to think about?  And notice that Mike and the education committee did not identify "animosity on the Board" as a current issue.  I believe that the hammering, talking, compromising, and organizational development of the board you were on is an investment that resulted in long-term growth and that we are enjoying the fruits of your labors.

 

There are people playing politics with the planning process. . .I urge you to be careful about jumping on board with someone interested only in their own selfish motives.

Maybe you could be clarify this statement, as I have no idea who you are talking about.  Harry Welty is the only person who keeps ranting about this issue.  He wasn't at the meeting, his name didn't come up, and if we need to be cautious about planning we need to be aware of where we are at risk.

 

. . .statements made in the committee meeting about the School Board, as summarized in the minutes you sent me, are certainly very partisan.

I think there is a difference between poinions and partisianship.  As I interpret the League By-Laws, educating voters as to the facts, helping voters have clear information on the issues, and creating positions with which we can lobby for fairness and equality are exactly what the League is about. 

 

I believe you letter is a great start to solidify the clarity of the issues, create a basis for clear facts, and reaffirm the issues that League holds most dear.  Starting with dialogue is a most imortant first step.

 

Jeannette Lang

 

 

 

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Sheryl Sanford Van Scoy

To: Karen Alworth ; Joyce Benson ; Robin Downs ; Jeannette Lang ; Rosie Loeffler-Kemp ; Colleen Michaelson ; Mary Ostman ; Joan Peterson ; Linda Rochford ; Judy Seliga ; Linda Wick ; Eileen Zeitz-Hudelson

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:34 PM

Subject: Fwd: Minutes