Residents from District 5 pressed the Oklahoma City Public Schools board on local representation for the bond citizens oversight committee, urging the board to reject a recently announced appointee they said does not live in District 5 and lacks the deep community ties residents want in an oversight role.

"District 5 is without true, authentic representation," said Derek Scobie, citing election returns and arguing that District 5 precincts provided a larger-than-expected share of bond votes. Scobie warned members that taking straw polls around the horseshoe approached the edge of legality and urged the board to allow each of the four sign-ups to speak rather than limiting the number who comment.

Shontae Alexander, who identified herself as a former District 5 representative on the citizens oversight committee, recounted multiple concerns: denied on-site visits for community members, excluded communications, frequent policy revisions she said were used to stall transparency, and a subcommittee of three members that she said was given privileged access to financial details without reporting to the full committee. "Poor practices went beyond process," Alexander said, urging the board not to confirm the current group appointment.

Guardian and community member Vernona Dismuke said the oversight structure should ensure district-based or attendance-area representation, calling district-rooted voices "basic fairness and basic respect." Parent Anton Duane Bates Bay added his support for local candidates and urged the board to choose someone who grew up in the community and will prioritize District 5 families.

Board members did not take immediate formal action on the comments during the public-comment period. The speakers urged the board to review the policy that allows non‑District 5 residents to serve on the oversight committee and to consider a policy change that would require oversight members to be residents of the district whose projects they oversee.

The public comments put two issues on record: a community demand for district‑based representation on the bond citizens oversight committee and citizen allegations of restricted access to financial information and opaque committee practice. The board later noted concerns about the oversight policy during other agenda items; whether the district will change the appointing policy was not resolved at the meeting.

The board received these public comments during the meeting's public-comment period; no vote on the oversight committee appointment occurred in the segments of the meeting that recorded public comment.