Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to keep written public comments and advisory groups as trustees review Policy 1.300
Summary
Hundreds spoke during public comment at the March 18 Ann Arbor Public Schools board meeting urging the board not to curtail written public commentary or remove standing time for longtime advisory groups; trustees called the draft a first briefing and asked for language revisions before a vote.
At a packed hybrid meeting March 18, hundreds of residents urged the Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education not to scale back written public commentary or remove standing agenda time for board‑designated advisory groups, citing concerns about accessibility and protections for marginalized families. The item under review is Policy 1.300, the district’s public‑participation policy, which the governance committee brought to the board for a first briefing.
"They're the heart of our school," said a Burns Park PTO representative, reading a letter that urged the board to address teacher pay and retention while preserving avenues for parents and community members to speak publicly. Multiple speakers warned that eliminating written comments or the board’s regular space for recognized groups would silence people who cannot attend meetings in person because of childcare, work schedules or disability.
Assistant Superintendent Janice Parks told the board there was "no intention to eliminate public commentary or affinity groups" and said staff would follow up on individual allegations about student safety and building conditions. Trustees emphasized that the draft policy does not abolish organizations but would remove a standing, designated slot from regular meeting agendas and replace it with a request process: groups would seek time from the board president, executive committee or a trustee and, if scheduled, could get an expanded 8–10 minute slot.
Trustee Aisha Mohammed (speaking during board discussion) said she opposed the draft as written, calling the change a new barrier for marginalized communities that historically have relied on the regular, predictable space to speak directly to the board. "These groups were approved for a reason," she said, warning that moving to a case‑by‑case scheduling system risks leaving community members uncertain whether they will be heard when a crisis arises.
Other trustees said the governance committee and outside legal counsel had raised concerns that led to the proposed language, and they asked colleagues and community members to submit suggested revisions. The board did not vote on the policy at the meeting; President Feaster and the governance committee invited trustees and the public to submit edits for consideration at a second briefing.
What’s next: The governance committee will collect suggested language and legal input and return the revised draft for a second briefing before any formal board vote.
