The following statement was read by Superintendent Dr. Robert McDowell at the Hastings School Board meeting on Wednesday, April 27.

It’s his response to a April 20 article in the Hastings Journal. When contacted for comment by a reporter compiling that article, Mc-Dowell refused comment.

Last week there was an article published in the Hastings Journal related to the school district. I feel it is important for me to publicly address this situation in my capacity as the District’s superintendent to clarify the school district’s response to the issues raised in the article.

While one of the lead statements in the article centered on transparency, the contents of the story were essentially a compilation of only partial emails or partial emails from different strands pieced together, which does not share the entire context of the underlying issue addressed in those emails. Further, as the story alludes to, the emails quoted in the newspaper are only a few taken from numerous emails sent by a single board member to various board members, staff and now media outlets. For data privacy reasons, it would not be appropriate for the school district to disclose all of the email correspondence that would be needed to give the full context behind what the newspaper did choose to quote.

The remainder of this statement will address some of the key issues referenced in the Hastings Journal editorial. While I am reluctant to comment publicly on these issues, the reality is that it is appropriate for me to offer a public comment at this point.

Treatment of New Board Members – As to allegations regarding the treatment of new school board members, it is important for the public to understand that newly elected school board members are provided with access to a number of resources to enable them to perform their elected duties. School districts are complex organizations and not unlike positions in any large organization, it takes a while to gain a full understanding of how school districts work and the role of individual school board members. For example, the school board acts as a body. This is reflected throughout School Board Policy 209. This means that individual board members do not have authority to act on their own unless the full board has delegated them with authority to do so.

Prior to taking office, soon to be members of this school board were provided individual meetings to receive an overview and small onboarding process which among other things included being provided access to school district email, being included on school board messaging, set up with initial Minnesota School Board Association (MSBA) training, and provided mentors. Board members have been provided wide latitude in access and opportunities for information reflective of their duties. In the roughly 100 days since new board members took office, there have also been multiple sessions with Teamworks to establish good board governance practices. Every effort has been made to ensure the individual board members understand and practice their role efficiently and effectively. The school district will continue to make efforts through continuous education and training opportunities and mentorship. Veteran school board members and administration have worked with new board members to bring them up to speed on process, procedure, legal issues, and other matters. Recently, the District’s legal counsel sent confidential correspondence to the full board providing guidance and advice on board governance issues that have been raised in recent weeks. The purpose of this letter was to provide legal guidance to the full school board.

Reimbursement – It is important that the public understand Board members are afforded reimbursement of appropriate expenses established under law and government auditing practices. There have been allegations regarding the reimbursement of certain Board members for attending the MSBA’s annual conference earlier this year. The MSBA conference is a valuable event attended by school board members and administrators from across the state. There is no merit to the assertion that the reimbursements provided were illegal in any way. If the board as a whole would like to end the practice of reimbursement board members who chose to stay at a hotel for the conference, that is a discussion we can certainly have. However, the past practice has been to provide reimbursement for conferencerelated expenses, including lodging. This is a practice in other school districts across the state.

Resistance – Turning now to the allegation that newer school board members are being met with resistance with respect to requests for information, the District’s administration has made significant efforts to provide Board members with access to information. Unfortunately, there have been requests made that are simply not reasonable in terms of the type of information being requested and the time period in which a response is expected.

As School Board Policy 209 notes, seated school board members do not have authority to act on behalf of the school board as a whole unless they are delegated authority to do so. As such, individual school board members do not have the authority to direct the work of administration. This includes directing administration to respond to burdensome requests for information that are not specifically related to matters pending before the school board, especially with the expectation of receiving an immediate response.

School Board Policy 209, the Code of Ethics for Board Members, contains a number of provisions regarding the role of an individual board member. By way of example, the policy provides that:

• Board members will recognize that their responsibility is exercised through the actions of the Board as a whole and that they are not responsible for running the school district themselves.

• Board members will work through the superintendent, not over or around the superintendent.

• Board members will recognize that the authority to act rests with the school board in legal session, not with individual members of the school board.

• Board members will guard the confidentiality of information that is protected under applicable law.

Thefts at the Middle School – There have been statements about thefts occurring at the District’s middle school. This issue was handled at the administrative level as a management issue. It was followed up on in an appropriate manner. The school board as a whole has not directed administration to provide any additional details regarding this situation. Therefore, unless directed by the board as a whole, individual school board members would not need, or be provided data that would not be available to the general public. This concern was addressed appropriately by administrators and communication was distributed to the HMS parents/guardians.

Access to Legal Counsel: It is a common misconception that individual board members have their own access to the District’s legal counsel. Legal counsel represents the district and/or board as a whole. For this reason, there is a designated set of individuals who have authority to contact legal counsel on behalf of the District. Consistent with School Board Policy 202, unless otherwise given authority by the board chair or board as a whole, the board chair has authority to directly contact the District’s legal counsel. The vice chair could directly contact legal counsel to discuss an issue concerning the chair. By way of school district operations, only the superintendent is afforded direct access to legal counsel. Other administrations may reach out to legal counsel with permission of the superintendent. Individual board members have a process to work through the board chair and/or the superintendent to access information from legal counsel, if the information is necessary for the board or school district to conduct its work. The process is not new and is the common practice used by school districts throughout the state and nation.

Superintendent Evaluation: As to recent allegations regarding the process for evaluating the superintendent, there is no Minnesota statute that requires specificity on how a school board is to evaluate a superintendent. The MSBA has created model policies on various topics. MSBA Model Policy 304 simply establishes that a school board is the responsible party for a superintendent evaluation. The 300 series model policies provided by MSBA are not required by state statute, and are intended to serve as examples for Minnesota school districts. However, the ISD 200 Policy Committee has added a review of the MSBA’s 300 series model policies and will consider recommending them to the full board.

Transparency: The school district and school board as a whole are and will continue to be transparent within the limits of law and policy. It is critical for the public to understand that Minnesota school districts are subject to a number of data privacy laws protecting information on students and employees. This means that there are often situations in which school officials cannot share details regarding a specific student or personnel issue. It is also important to note that individuals who request access to information should not have the expectation that they will receive an immediate response. While district representatives strive to promptly respond to information requests within reason and within what the law requires, district administration is currently dealing with a small group of individuals who have unrealistic expectations in terms of access to information. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the Hastings community are respectful and understanding when it comes to limitations on the district’s ability to share information and they do not place unreasonable demands on the time period in which they receive information. The inability to provide information based on state or federal law, or within the timeframe set by a requester does not demonstrate a lack of transparency. The district has and will continue to comply with all laws governing access to government data.

Teachers Contract: As to allegations regarding the approval of the teachers’ contract, the school district worked with legal counsel to rectify a procedural issue related to the approval of the new teachers contract. The board followed the process recommended by legal counsel and the process was completed in an open school board meeting. The timing created a unique situation for new school board members to be part of the contract approval process. New board members were afforded the opportunity to meet with administration and be provided the documents of the negotiations. Two of the three newly elected board members took advantage of the opportunity to get information about the contract and discuss questions.

Email Access: Finally, as to the allegation that some board member email accounts have been accessed more than others. The school district has had to review emails, including board member emails, in order to respond to recent data requests. The district has a very strict process for who may access email accounts. There are two people in the district who have the authority to access emails for proper purposes. The superintendent and individual school board members do not individually have access to the email accounts of others. It should be noted that some of the requests that required a response from the school district specifically asked for information related to specific individuals.

In summary, it has been just over 100 days since new board members were seated, and even after training, work sessions, legal explanations, and individual conversations, it's expected that there will be questions and opportunities for understanding. The district remains committed to the community and has worked diligently to ensure all board members understand their role so the focus can remain on providing a safe learning environment that promotes the equitable and quality public education our learners deserve.

Photo by Bruce Karnick