New Westminster parents don’t want to lose out on their chance to speak up at school board meetings.
Parents turned out at the board’s Jan. 31 meeting (held online via Zoom) to push back against proposed policy changes they say would take away the public’s ability to participate in meetings — including reducing question periods and putting limits on “political” discussion.
School District 40 is currently reviewing its board operations policies, and superintendent Karim Hachlaf had proposed numerous revisions for the board’s consideration on Tuesday night. Those revisions are still in the draft stage.
Among those proposed revisions was one that would remove the current question period at the end of regular board meetings — one of two chances for the public to ask questions of trustees. There’s also a public comment and question period at the beginning of meetings, which would remain intact.
The idea of removing the second one didn’t fly with parents.
Parent Sarah Arboleda said she saw the changes as part of a “troubling pattern” of trying to limit participation by the public.
“These meetings do not exist to simply read out agendas, vote and have everyone go home within a tight and tidy time,” she said. “What I’d hate to see is changes being made to these meetings that make them far less informational, interactive and even useful because a small number of people have suffered bruised egos based on decisions that they’ve made.”
Parent Kathleen Carlsen said the end-of-meeting question period is useful for community members.
“That is the only time that the public can ask questions about what has just happened at the meeting, and it’s very helpful for clarification so that when people leave the meeting, they all have the same answers to the questions and they’re all on the same page,” she said.
Policy proposals still in draft stage: superintendent
Hachlaf assured parents and trustees the proposed revisions he’d presented to the board weren’t intended to be the final word on policy. Rather, he said, he put the ideas forward to get board feedback on them, and he’ll use trustee input to come up with another draft to bring back to the board table.
Parents’ concerns found some support from trustees, including Marc Andres, who said he finds the second question period “engaging.”
“I think it’s a good opportunity for people to speak and ask questions, and it is, I think, a thought-provoking way to end the meeting,” he said.
Trustee Cheryl Sluis agreed.
“I would not be in favour of eliminating opportunities for people to participate,” she said.
Trustee Maya Russell, however, sounded a note of caution about the end-of-meeting question period.
“I do not often find the second Q&A in the evening to be a meaningful engagement, and maybe we just need to look at how we’re using that time,” she said. “Where I think it’s particularly unsuccessful is where there’s a decision made and people are feeling powerless and upset, and it’s basically a time to yell at the board.”
Question period shouldn't be a 'political forum,' proposed wording says
A second proposed policy change that raised red flags for parents was a suggestion to add the sentence: “The question period is not to be used as a political forum.”
Parent Allison Clavelle said the inclusion of the word “political” was concerning, especially without a definition of what it meant.
“I think that a lot of the conversations that we’ve had in the public sphere in the last three years could be construed as political in nature,” she said. “I think about conversations about masking during COVID. I think about conversations around sexual harassment at the high school, and I really believe those are important conversations in the public sphere.”
Parent James Plett also questioned what “political forum” would mean.
“School boards are, after all, elected by the public, and school board meetings are forums, and the ideas exchanged could be argued as being political,” he said. “For example, you know, many people see the idea of removing the cop liaison program as being a political manoeuvre. Or masks? Political. Would such discussion be forbidden?”
Their concerns found sympathy from Sluis, who also flagged the words “political forum” as needing clarity.
“I think much of what we’re doing is political, and so I need some guidance in what we mean here, specifically, when we talk that it’s not just a political forum,” she said.
Hachlaf told the board he would take all their input into consideration as he reviews the changes to policies and said he’ll bring back a revision for their consideration at a future meeting. Ideally, he said, he’d like to have the policy changes finalized by the last board meeting before March break, if not sooner.
Follow Julie MacLellan on Twitter @juliemaclellan.
Email Julie, [email protected]
