Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Takeover Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative committee flags potential state takeover, considers added lobbying and legal readiness
Summary
After a staff update on activity at the state capitol, the committee discussed the practical and legal limits of a state takeover, the unlikely prospect of immediate unaccreditation, and agreed administrators should return with lobbying support options if threats escalate.
The St. Louis Public Schools legislative committee raised concerns about political activity at the state capitol and asked staff to report back if additional lobbying support is needed to counter any move to change district governance. The discussion took place during the committee’s Sept. 11 meeting.
Steve, a staff member who monitors Jeff City activity, described recent special-session developments — including congressional redistricting bills and a governor’s $300,000,000 line-item veto — and said protesters had been active at the capitol. "Veto session started yesterday. There were no veto overrides," Steve said, noting a recent special session and that some bills, without emergency clauses, would take effect 90 days after the governor signs them.
Committee members asked about the risk of the state revoking local governance or using accreditation as a path to takeover. "In order to unaccreditate a school, it would have to be financially [among other statutory triggers], and of those things, we are not on that list," Steve said, adding that treating the district differently from others would be legally questionable. Committee members said a previous motion at the state board proposing unaccreditation had failed to gain a second.
Board President Doctor Collins Adams said the district would vigorously oppose any attempt to change law or to act outside current statutes. "We would certainly vigorously oppose that," he said, referring to any action to remove accreditation or otherwise change governance without lawful process.
Committee members agreed they should be prepared to engage additional lobbyist support if an orchestrated effort emerges. Steve said he already uses several contacts in Jefferson City — named in the meeting as examples — and that he would return to the board if he judged outside help necessary. "Should that arise, believe me, I will come to you, and make a request," he said.
Members also discussed monitoring a possible legislative timetable: pre-introductory filing of bills around Dec. 1 is expected to clarify whether a coordinated legislative push will begin. Steve said he expected to know whether there is an orchestrated effort by the first week of December and would advise the board if additional resources are needed.
No formal motions to hire extra lobbying services were made at the meeting. Committee members asked staff to continue coordination with existing education-lobby coalitions (AFT, NEA, MSTA and other public-education partners) and to track any state-board actions regarding accreditation closely. Several members said legal remedies would be pursued if the district were targeted outside the statutory process.
The committee closed the item by asking staff to update the committee if circumstances change and to return with any specific requests for funds or contracted support well before the anticipated pre-filing date.
The meeting recorded a quorum (7 of 12) and concluded with routine adjournment business.
