Shut Out: The Baltimore City School Board Community Panel Violates the Open Meetings Act
“Every school in Baltimore should have a Board of Directors who care about the future of our children and are willing to give of their time, talent and resources…Those who have and will accept this challenge are the leaders that should serve on our school board because they believe in the possibilities of our students. That is why this session, in Annapolis, I put forth Senate Bill 1012 and House Bill 562 to gain control of the appointees to our Public School Board...” — Mayor Catherine Pugh’s State of City speech, March 16, 2017 [emphasis added]
SB1012 and HB562 established the Baltimore City Public School Board Community Panel (BCSBCP). After decades of joint mayor-gubernatoral control, appointments to the the City School Board officially returned to local control on October 1, 2017. 1
The Board is critically important. It is charged with overseeing the $1.3 billion dollar budget, with hiring and firing the CEO, with setting policy and purchasing curriculum, and so much more.
The BCSBCP was supposed to make the appointments process more visible. During debate on SB1012, Baltimore City School Board Commissioner Cheryl Casciani told WMAR, “If not a lot of people know, it can appear to be a very closed process when in fact there’s no barriers to entry right now.”
The problem? The assertion that there are no barriers to entry is untrue. The Baltimore City School Board Community Panel did meet, but secretly.
Silence, and then New Board Commissioners
Mayor Pugh announced the appointment of two new School Board members in January 2018.
A Maryland Public Information Act request to the Mayor’s office in July 2018 revealed that the Baltimore City School Board Community Panel did indeed meet, but failed to provide public notice, an agenda, and minutes of the meeting. You can review the responsive MPIA documents — all 162 pages — here (please note that pages 3–24 are redacted).
A Private Panel for Public Schools
Instead of a deliberative body, the Mayor’s office, with assistance from Baltimore City Schools, pre-vetted candidates. Of the 27 applicants, only 5 were forwarded from the Mayor’s office to the BCSBCP for full consideration.
The Mayor’s office sent pre-formatted questions to the BCSBCP to be asked of candidates, including “What do you think of an elected school board?” and “What issues would you like to work on? (If marketing, what would you like do? Looking to see if they are critical or supportive of the school system.)”
The BCSBCP is the public’s only access to the appointments process. Parents and community have very limited access to the Board, in contrast to other jurisdictions. After November 6, 2018, Baltimore City will be the only jurisdiction (of 24) without any democratic control of its school board. We must wait until November 2022 to elect two members of our Board.
Violation Found
On October 3, the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board found that the BCSBCP violated the law. “We find that the Panel, an entity created by State statute, was subject to the Act, met to discuss public business without giving notice, and thereby violated § 3–302 of the Act. This matter illustrates the problems that arise when a statute or order creates a temporary advisory board without either placing it within a larger entity or assigning it staff. As explained below, the Panel does not have a fixed membership or a parent agency. We ask the Mayor’s Office to convey this opinion to the next Panel that the Mayor convenes.”
The opinion notes that “Our staff transmitted the complaint to both the City and the School Board. Each, by counsel, disclaimed responsibility for staffing the Panel…”
Shirking Responsibility
The declaimation of responsibility for the BCSBCP is troubling given Mayor Pugh’s testimony at the February 21, 2017 hearing before the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee on SB1012, and her statements at a mayoral forum at the Belvedere in February 2016. At each, she discussed the need for local, for mayoral countrol, of city schools.
During her campaign, Catherine Pugh repeatedly promised more funding for Baltimore City schools. She did so in response to a questionnaire from the American Federation of Teachers, at the mayoral forum above, at the Baltimoreans for Educational Equity forum, and so on. Yet her budget devotes $509 million to the Baltimore Police Department but a mere $278 million to city schools.
Similarly, although the Baltimore City School Board’s website notes that it “believes that effective and strong leadership is best supported by a consistent, open, and comprehensive policy development process…” it too said “not it” via counsel in response to the Open Meetings Act Complaint.
So which is it? Does Mayor Pugh truly want control of city schools, or merely a legislative victory? And does the School Board— which violated the Open Meetings Act in hiring current CEO Dr. Santelises — believe parents and the community are partners or not? Is the Baltimore City School Board Community Panel truly an independent advisory body or merely a rubber stamp?
- Why didn’t Baltimore have local control? In 1994, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the state for violating Article VIII of the state constitution which guarantees a “thorough and efficient system of free public schools.” Baltimore City joined the suit the next year. In the fall of 1996, a settlement was reached. The settlement replaced the Superintendent with a Chief Executive Office (CEO) and moved control of appointments to the City School Board from a solely local process to a joint mayor-gubernatorial appointment.
