Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Committee of the Whole; SPECIAL Meeting - Jan 21, 2008
Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 12:59 AM (4,515 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Livonia Public Schools School District

Committee of the Whole Meeting
Monday, January 21, 2008
7:00 PM
Board Room, 15125 Farmington Road, Livonia


I. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATIONS

II. CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
King, Chair; Oke, Bailey
A. AED Donation to Frost Middle School
D. McDowell
AED Donation to Frost Middle School Attachment
B. Pfizer Glassware Donation
D. McDowell
Phizer Glassware Donation Attachment
C. Gift--Buchanan PTA
D. McDowell
Gift--Buchanan PTA Attachment
D. Information Regarding District NCA Accreditation
C. Worthen
Information Regarding District NCA Accreditation
E. Overview of New High School Integrated Language Arts Units
S. Alles
Overview of New High School Integrated Language A

III. BUILDING & SITE COMMITTEE
Oke, Chair; Lessard, King
A. Recommendation from Bid Results for Cell Phone Service
R. Hosman
Recommendation from Bid Results for Cell Phone-Te
B. Recommendation from Bid Results for Telephone Service
R. Hosman
C. Recommendation from Bid Results for Web Hosting Service
R. Hosman

http://www.boardbook.org/APPS/BBV2/PUBLIC/...=MjAwMTEzNjg%3D

Livonia Public Schools School District

Special Meeting
Monday, January 21, 2008
8:30 PM
Board Room, 15125 Farmington Road, Livonia


I. ROLL CALL: Tom Bailey, Robert Freeman, Steve King, Daniel Lessard, Cynthia Markarian, Gregory Oke, Lynda Scheel

II. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATIONS

III. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Recess to Closed Session Action Sheet

IV. ADJOURNMENT

http://www.boardbook.org/APPS/BBV2/PUBLIC/...=MjAwMTE3MTg%3D
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmmkay?
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
III. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

Recess to Closed Session Action Sheet

A. Superintendents Goals and Objectives


It is illegal and in violation of the Open Meetings Act to discuss this in a closed session. This information must be discussed in an open public meeting. If it is for the evaluation of Liepa's contract then it must say just that for it to be legally considered for a closed session.

Isn't this how we got the LI forced upon us? In these so-called "closed sessions" that should have been open public meetings?

When will the Board of Ed begin operating in a legal and ethical manner?



mmmmkay?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sourapples
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
mmmmkay?
Jan 21 2008, 04:46 PM
III. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

Recess to Closed Session Action Sheet

A. Superintendents Goals and Objectives


It is illegal and in violation of the Open Meetings Act to discuss this in a closed session. This information must be discussed in an open public meeting. If it is for the evaluation of Liepa's contract then it must say just that for it to be legally considered for a closed session.

Isn't this how we got the LI forced upon us? In these so-called "closed sessions" that should have been open public meetings?

When will the Board of Ed begin operating in a legal and ethical manner?



mmmmkay?

Another closed session to discuss what?

You gotta know that they talk about all sorts of stuff in those meetings that is not allowed by the Open Meetings Act.

I sure hope any board member who is in there at that time gets the hell out so they don't end up in some lawsuit again. Haven't we already had enough of this for years now already?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Sourapples
Jan 21 2008, 12:00 PM
mmmmkay?
Jan 21 2008, 04:46 PM
III. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

Recess to Closed Session Action Sheet

A. Superintendents Goals and Objectives


It is illegal and in violation of the Open Meetings Act to discuss this in a closed session. This information must be discussed in an open public meeting. If it is for the evaluation of Liepa's contract then it must say just that for it to be legally considered for a closed session.

Isn't this how we got the LI forced upon us? In these so-called "closed sessions" that should have been open public meetings?

When will the Board of Ed begin operating in a legal and ethical manner?



mmmmkay?

Another closed session to discuss what?

You gotta know that they talk about all sorts of stuff in those meetings that is not allowed by the Open Meetings Act.

I sure hope any board member who is in there at that time gets the hell out so they don't end up in some lawsuit again. Haven't we already had enough of this for years now already?

I would like to encourage everyone to contact your Board of Education immediately and let them know about this potentially illegal meeting
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
I think everyone should be 100% sure that this is in violation of the Open Meetings Act prior to making accusations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
I'm pretty sure all negotiations are done in closed meetings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Pu...MtgsFreedom.pdf

You can read what legally falls under a "closed meeting". Looks like this is legal. Be careful to throw stones without knowing all information pertaining to the situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
Closed meetings may be called without a two-thirds vote for the following reasons:
(1) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public
officer, employee, staff member or individual when the person requests a closed hearing;
(2) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of a student of a public school when the student or guardian
requests a closed hearing;
(3) strategy and negotiation sessions necessary in reaching a collective bargaining agreement when either party requests a
closed hearing; and
(4) partisan caucuses of the State Legislature.
(5) for a compliance conference the department of commerce conducts under MCL §333.16231, concerning an
investigation of certain licensed medical professionals.
(6) to conduct searches for a university president, until the board has narrowed the search to 5 candidates.
Other reasons a public body may hold a closed meeting are:
(1) to consider the purchase or lease of real property;
(2) to consult with its attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the public body’s position;
(3) to review the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office when the candidate requests
the application to remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a
public office have to be conducted in an open meeting; and
(4) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.
Minutes of

Where do you see that it is legal to hold this meeting in a closed session? Certainly if there will be talk about labor negotiations, that can be done in closed meeting, but I do not see anything that makes me thing that the superintendant's goals and objectives can be discussed in a close meeting. I would think that is public information.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 01:51 PM
Closed meetings may be called without a two-thirds vote for the following reasons:
(1) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public
officer, employee, staff member or individual when the person requests a closed hearing;
(2) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of a student of a public school when the student or guardian
requests a closed hearing;
(3) strategy and negotiation sessions necessary in reaching a collective bargaining agreement when either party requests a
closed hearing; and
(4) partisan caucuses of the State Legislature.
(5) for a compliance conference the department of commerce conducts under MCL §333.16231, concerning an
investigation of certain licensed medical professionals.
(6) to conduct searches for a university president, until the board has narrowed the search to 5 candidates.
Other reasons a public body may hold a closed meeting are:
(1) to consider the purchase or lease of real property;
(2) to consult with its attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the public body’s position;
(3) to review the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office when the candidate requests
the application to remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a
public office have to be conducted in an open meeting; and
(4) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.
Minutes of

Where do you see that it is legal to hold this meeting in a closed session? Certainly if there will be talk about labor negotiations, that can be done in closed meeting, but I do not see anything that makes me thing that the superintendant's goals and objectives can be discussed in a close meeting. I would think that is public information.

I think it depends on what they are discussing. If it is something negative, it falls under 1. Negotiations definitely fall under #3. Possibly #2 under the second part, or #4.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
livoniarocks
Jan 21 2008, 01:57 PM
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 01:51 PM
Closed meetings may be called without a two-thirds vote for the following reasons:
(1) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public
officer, employee, staff member or individual when the person requests a closed hearing;
(2) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of a student of a public school when the student or guardian
requests a closed hearing;
(3) strategy and negotiation sessions necessary in reaching a collective bargaining agreement when either party requests a
closed hearing; and
(4) partisan caucuses of the State Legislature.
(5) for a compliance conference the department of commerce conducts under MCL §333.16231, concerning an
investigation of certain licensed medical professionals.
(6) to conduct searches for a university president, until the board has narrowed the search to 5 candidates.
Other reasons a public body may hold a closed meeting are:
(1) to consider the purchase or lease of real property;
(2) to consult with its attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the public body’s position;
(3) to review the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office when the candidate requests
the application to remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a
public office have to be conducted in an open meeting; and
(4) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.
Minutes of

Where do you see that it is legal to hold this meeting in a closed session?  Certainly if there will be talk about labor negotiations, that can be done in closed meeting, but I do not see anything that makes me thing that the superintendant's goals and objectives can be discussed in a close meeting.  I would think that is public information.

I think it depends on what they are discussing. If it is something negative, it falls under 1. Negotiations definitely fall under #3. Possibly #2 under the second part, or #4.

Do you really think any of those apply to the superintendent's goals and objectives?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 02:05 PM
livoniarocks
Jan 21 2008, 01:57 PM
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 01:51 PM
Closed meetings may be called without a two-thirds vote for the following reasons:
(1) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public
officer, employee, staff member or individual when the person requests a closed hearing;
(2) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of a student of a public school when the student or guardian
requests a closed hearing;
(3) strategy and negotiation sessions necessary in reaching a collective bargaining agreement when either party requests a
closed hearing; and
(4) partisan caucuses of the State Legislature.
(5) for a compliance conference the department of commerce conducts under MCL §333.16231, concerning an
investigation of certain licensed medical professionals.
(6) to conduct searches for a university president, until the board has narrowed the search to 5 candidates.
Other reasons a public body may hold a closed meeting are:
(1) to consider the purchase or lease of real property;
(2) to consult with its attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the public body’s position;
(3) to review the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office when the candidate requests
the application to remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a
public office have to be conducted in an open meeting; and
(4) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.
Minutes of

Where do you see that it is legal to hold this meeting in a closed session?  Certainly if there will be talk about labor negotiations, that can be done in closed meeting, but I do not see anything that makes me thing that the superintendant's goals and objectives can be discussed in a close meeting.  I would think that is public information.

I think it depends on what they are discussing. If it is something negative, it falls under 1. Negotiations definitely fall under #3. Possibly #2 under the second part, or #4.

Do you really think any of those apply to the superintendent's goals and objectives?

I think that before the accusations start flying, we need to make sure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
I would rather question the reason for the closed meeting so that they might avoid moving forward with what may be illegal. I cannot imagine the BOE would want another accusation of an OMA violation. Hopefully someone will read this thread and think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yrraH NS
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Under the current circumstances, it seems that #2:
(2) to consult with its attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the public body’s position;

is most fitting...

As to why this part of the meeting is entitled "Superintendents Goals and Objectives", I could only speculate that he is trying to save his a$$.
After all, he's got the best lawyer (taxpayer) money can buy... <_<
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 02:24 PM
I would rather question the reason for the closed meeting so that they might avoid moving forward with what may be illegal. I cannot imagine the BOE would want another accusation of an OMA violation. Hopefully someone will read this thread and think about it.

That is what I'm saying..call the BOE and ask what section it falls under.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
livoniarocks
Jan 21 2008, 02:35 PM
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 02:24 PM
I would rather question the reason for the closed meeting so that they might avoid moving forward with what may be illegal.  I cannot imagine the BOE would want another accusation of an OMA violation.  Hopefully someone will read this thread and think about it.

That is what I'm saying..call the BOE and ask what section it falls under.

No need to call. I'm sure someone will read this and inform them...if they don't read it for themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoaterDan
Veteran
For whatever it's worth livoniarocks, we should always keep in mind that it wouldn't be the first time this board has flirted with doing something illegal and then stop either after consulting legal advice or getting challenged by the public.

The idea of limiting the topics at audience communication comes quickly to mind as one example.

I in no way mean this to be any sort of accusation in the particular case at hand, and I agree generally with your response. I'm only pointing out that at this stage in the game it's at least as reasonable to question the legality as it is to assume they know what they can do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
BoaterDan
Jan 21 2008, 04:37 PM
For whatever it's worth livoniarocks, we should always keep in mind that it wouldn't be the first time this board has flirted with doing something illegal and then stop either after consulting legal advice or getting challenged by the public.

The idea of limiting the topics at audience communication comes quickly to mind as one example.

I in no way mean this to be any sort of accusation in the particular case at hand, and I agree generally with your response. I'm only pointing out that at this stage in the game it's at least as reasonable to question the legality as it is to assume they know what they can do.

I was under the legal understanding that if it is to be considered legitimate per the OMA to be held in a closed session it has to be specified as one of the allowable closed session topics and stated as such on the meeting notice. Otherwise it can and will be questioned as something as simple as an error of omission, or something as nefarious as an outright attempt to violate the law.

It is up to the Board of Education to make sure it is corrected if in error, or move to open session if it is a violation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
Well, it is clear that Mrs. Scheel was informed about the concerns expressed here on this forum regarding whether discussing the Superintendent's goals and objectives is appropriate for a closed session. She made a point to state that this is part of the Superintendent's evaluation process. It is certainly appropriate that Dr. Liepa be given goals and objectives up front and that his performance be judged in part on how well he was able to meet them. It would also be appropriate to discuss how well he was able to meet these goals and objectives in a closed session. But unless his performance is being discussed tonight, I feel strongly that these goals and objectives should be discussed in public. I believe that the spirit of the OMA is likely about to be broken right now in the next few minutes. How unfortunate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Vanna White
Jan 21 2008, 08:52 PM
Well, it is clear that Mrs. Scheel was informed about the concerns expressed here on this forum regarding whether discussing the Superintendent's goals and objectives is appropriate for a closed session.  She made a point to state that this is part of the Superintendent's evaluation process.  It is certainly appropriate that Dr. Liepa be given goals and objectives up front and that his performance be judged in part on how well he was able to meet them.  It would also be appropriate to discuss how well he was able to meet these goals and objectives in a closed session.  But unless his performance is being discussed tonight, I feel strongly that these goals and objectives should be discussed in public.  I believe that the spirit of the OMA is likely about to be broken right now in the next few minutes.  How unfortunate.

It is indeed a questionable skirting of the OMA law, and SOP for the BOE. How close can you cut it without being in violation seems to be the only concern they have, not doing what is right. Too bad - credibility is lost when operating in this manner
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
livoniarocks
Jan 21 2008, 01:21 PM
I think everyone should be 100% sure that this is in violation of the Open Meetings Act prior to making accusations.


How could you be 100% sure of what goes on in a closed meeting, without being there?
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply