Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lionheart Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers press State Board over Lionheart charter changes; board moves limited discussion to sealed session
Summary
Public commenters clashed over proposed Lionheart Classical Academy charter changes, including concerns about undefined 'community' members and a contested allegation about a teacher taking a student for an abortion; the board voted to discuss a reputational matter in a sealed nonpublic session and asked Lionheart to return with clearer board‑composition categories.
Members of the public told the State Board of Education on Sept. 16 that proposed amendments to Lionheart Classical Academy’s charter need clearer definitions and greater parental input, while some speakers accused the school of mishandling a sensitive student incident.
Rachel Regal, a parent at Lionheart, told the board she opposed changes to the school’s charter that she said would make the definition of ‘‘community’’ members vague and allow nonlocal donors to influence governance. "I come here to oppose the changes to the charter," Regal said, saying the draft removes distinctions about major donors and fails to define who may serve on the board.
Founders and parents spoke in support of the amendment. A founder who identified himself as Leo said the school had just received a $5,000,000 gift to start an endowment and asked the board to approve an additional board seat, praising parents’ commitment and the school’s academic and financial performance.
The public record also included a charged allegation from Margaret Svensson, who said a teacher took a handicapped student out of school "for a medical procedure in abortion" and that staff did not notify parents or report the matter to social services. The allegation was presented in public comment; no investigation outcome or board finding was recorded in the meeting minutes.
After hearing testimony and reviewing the charter request, the board discussed whether the Lionheart matter implicated reputational-harm provisions of the Right-to-Know law and voted to go into a sealed nonpublic session to address that issue. When the board returned to public session it said Lionheart appeared in compliance with its charter and bylaws but asked the school to return next month with a cleaner charter draft that spells out categories of board members (for example, business, finance and fundraising experience) to ensure continuing diversity of skills and clearer governance going forward.
The board made no final decision on the charter amendments at the public meeting; members said they expect Lionheart to submit revised language for consideration at the next meeting.
