Minutes 2014-12-16.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The Chair suggested a motion,which was made(Banks)and seconded(Mahoney)to accept the draft policy developed by the Chair for a one meeting trial at the February meeting. The Committee discussed the general vs. the specifics of the draft,whether this policy would be necessary,whether it has any benefits,and other alternatives for addressing the compliance issues such as car pooling in the spirit of congenial relationships. It was suggested that allowing remote participation improves the Committee's function and that members who are traveling or otherwise indisposed are able to be involved. Whether such a policy would be invoked,whether it works for government bodies with OML compliance issues, and how it works with speaker phones were points raised. It was suggested that the restrictions proposed are an insult to participants; the one-person restriction and the geographic distance were cited as examples of this restrictive nature of the draft.A member offered her opinion that there was no compelling reason for a group this size to use remote participation,that every vote would have to be by roll call, that this would apply to subcommittees as well,and that it takes energy and time away for issues of concern to children. She noted quorum issues,planning in advance,and the general impracticalities of working this into a group this size.Ms. Shrimpf confirmed that the Chair covered all the issues in his review of the questions and answers he read. The following vote was then taken: ACTION 2014#134 Moved(Banks)and seconded(Flood) To move the question and end discussion Vote: 5 in favor,7 opposed, 1 abstention(with 13 members present) This did not pass,and the discussion continued. Ms.Castagno expressed that she is disheartened by the School Committee's discussion. She emphasized that she has a disability,and without this policy,Wayland would not have a voice. She stressed that it is difficult not to take it personally. She also expressed that she,too,does not want to waste time on matters that do not concern the students at the school,but felt this School Committee could not be compared to a government agency.An amendment to the main motion was offered as follows: Weis Amendment#1 Amendment offered(Weis)and seconded(Gillespie)to accept the original draft developed by Ms. Castagno for a one meeting trial at the February meeting Whether the draft document was ready to be rolled out,whether a policy is the preference of the School Committee, separating out the ADA issues from the policy issues,whether it would make sense to have a subcommittee work through the issues and discuss it with other public bodies,and whether it would work with the current dynamics and training level of the School Committee were items discussed.To prevent wordsmithing related to some of the concerns at the table,the Chair pointed out that the draft he proposed is far from perfect,but the question is whether the School Committee wants such a policy or not.The following vote was taken: ACTION 2014#135 Moved(Flood)and seconded(Banks) To move the question on the amendment and end discussion Vote: 12 in favor,with one member out of the room This motion passed. The Committee then took a vote on Weis Amendment#1 as follows: ACTION 2014#136 Moved(Weis)and seconded(Gillespie) Amendment to main motion: To accept the original draft developed by Ms. Castagno for a one meeting trial at the February meeting Vote: 4 in favor,7 opposed, 1 abstention,and one member out of the room The amendment did not pass. Ms. Castagno expressed her interest in discussing the matter with the School's attorney. This was discouraged,and she expressed concern that she had no representation for her disability. It was clarified by general consensus that no one was against accommodating the ADA issue. Expressing concern that perhaps neither version was ready to be rolled out,another amendment was offered as follows: