SD 27 Board of Education to discuss procedural bylaw amendments in more detail

School District 27 Board Chair Angie Delainey thanked the public for providing feedback on amendment

Esk’etemc First Nation Director of Education Calvin Dubray addresses School District 27 Board of Edu

More discussion is needed before School District 27’s Board of Education finalizes or discards the more controversial amendments to their procedural bylaw. Trustees agreed to take three proposed changes, which could restrict in-person access to public meetings, back to their committee of the whole after a Jan. 26 meeting that drew a nearly full public gallery of concerned community members. Several trustees joined the evening meeting online that residents could also partake or call in. The changes to the procedural bylaw were separated into two distinct amendments, with an overview provided by acting secretary treasurer Russell Horswill

The board approved final readings for the first amendment, which proposed that public information meetings be held electronically as determined by the board. It also included having the office of the secretary-treasurer work with the general public unable to attend such meetings to facilitate the use of district technology. Questions for all regular meetings must additionally now be submitted to the secretary-treasurer’s office by 2 p.m. on the meeting date in to be considered by the board. The board’s chair also now has the opportunity to defer certain questions to a subsequent meeting.

The second amendment, which sparked the most concern, would allow the board to limit in-person attendance at meetings, as long as they are streamed online. It also permits fully remote meetings, with delegates required to present virtually when physical access is restricted.

“I would like this to go back to committee because we got lots of feedback,” said trustee Michael Franklin, noting more research was necessary, after trustees provided first and second readings to the second amendment.

SD 27 school trustee Mary Forbes said she was pleased with the splitting of the motions and that she was also excited to get questions ahead of time at their regular board meetings.

“I think with the changes of splitting this notice of motion, this is going to create the opportunity for people to talk about it and come up with more solutions, thoughts and feedback,” Forbes added, thanking everyone for their attendance and encouraging people to continue to provide feedback and share their questions or concerns with trustees.

The board provided notice at a Dec. 15 regular meeting to inform the public that the board would be considering changes to their procedural bylaw at the Jan. 26 meeting, in which over 30 individual responses were received.

Attached to the meeting agenda was a briefing note to the board by Horswill and board chair Angie Delainey. In it, they stated that the primary purpose of the proposed procedural bylaw changes was to ensure meetings are “safe, respectful, efficient, and accessible while continuing to be transparent and accountable to the public.”

Horswill confirmed the board has already scheduled a meeting where all participants attended, through video or teleconferencing, when board members were travelling earlier this year to attend a conference.

“We heard you loud and clear,” Delainey said Monday night, noting that their procedural bylaw currently allows the board to close a meeting to the public by way of motion in extenuating circumstances such as road conditions. This practice, she said, has been done by other school districts.

“It may never come out of the committee,” Delainey said, of the second amendment, which will now be further discussed at a board of education committee of the whole meeting. “Most of the language that’s already in here is enabling language. So we can already do these things, but we wanted to have more clarity around when, how and why we would do it, which I understand may have been unclear to the public, however, we again thank you for providing your feedback and we would ask you to continue to provide your feedback.”

Question and comment period During the 10-minute question and comment period, several members of the public took the opportunity to voice their thoughts on the changes, proposed and adopted, to the procedural bylaw.

First was Director of Education for the Esk’etemc First Nation, Calvin Dubray, who took aim at having questions submitted by 2 p.m. He admitted he understood that would provide the board time to process, review and respond accordingly.

“But on the other side of that is the procedure for expecting response,” Dubray said, noting they had delegations a few months ago and have still not received responses to their questions.

Dubray also commented that technology, which is not sound in all communities, could bring its own set of challenges for the public accessing meetings.

“My question is, what if technology fails and people are online and all of a sudden it just shuts off? Is the meeting going to continue without our participation?” Dubray asked, adding that coming from a First Nations community, technology is not the way they sit down to meet and discuss things.

Dubray described in-person meetings as more meaningful for coming up with solutions together and important to read the tone of the room and people’s body language, which communicates many things video does not.

Delainey objected to the disruption when people in the gallery started clapping following Dubray’s comments and questions.

She said a three to five business day response would be given to submitted questions, with the expectation of a provided acknowledgement if it would take longer. As for Dubray commenting that some of their delegation questions have not yet received a response, Delainey said they are questions no one has answers to and encouraged Dubray to take them up with their IEC (Indigenous Education Council) table.

“We’re not looking at placing all of our meetings online all the time,” Delainey insisted.

The 10-minute public question period time limit was criticized as “disgraceful” by Dave Derose, who was the last person from the public gallery and meeting to speak.

“We’re going to spend some more time to answer the questions the public has brought forward and to offer our community partners,” Delainey noted. “As I said that [second amendment] may die at committee and trustees might ultimately decide to not make any changes and leave the language the way that it is, and if they need to make motions to close the meeting, then they can do that.”