There is a new bylaw amendment proposed on Wednesday’s Board agenda. It removes the provisions in the bylaws that require the elected Board members (teachers, staff, parents, administrative) to be recalled by their constituents before being removed from the Board. The change will now allow the Board, by a 2/3 vote, to remove any Board member.
If this bylaw change passes, the teachers, staff, parents, administration can elect their representatives, but just 6 people on the Board can remove them. Clearly, the Board has wanted Amber Lineweaver gone for months. But they could not do it without a recall by the teachers who elected her. This bylaw eliminates the constituents’ power and consolidates it in the Board. Why should 6 Board members be able to overrule a group of constituents–whether it be parents, teachers, or staff?
More importantly, with all the concern about election manipulation, why does this bylaw change have to be enacted NOW? Could it be that it would prevent the certificated staff from initiating a recall of Diane Bailey? To recap:
- Matt Rosso puts his name in for election against Diane Bailey
- Matt Rosso is terminated a week before the election for something he did 6 months ago.
- The Board decides not to hold an election, and to simply appoint Diane Bailey because she is conveniently unopposed.
- The Board changes the bylaws before the beginning of Diane’s term to eliminate the staff’s ability to recall her if they want other choices for their representative.
- The Board only mentions a possible bylaw change three days before the meeting, and has yet to even publicize the exact changes.
Those are a lot of coincidences to swallow.