Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSAD 60 public commenters press for apology and a formal acknowledgement protocol as board discusses instructional-materials concerns
Summary
Public commenters asked the MSAD 60 board for a public apology over alleged defamatory social-media posts by a board member’s relative, and board members agreed to draft a simple public-comment acknowledgement protocol while also discussing community complaints about age-appropriate instructional materials.
Several public commenters used the board’s first public-input session on April 2 to press for accountability and procedural changes.
Resident Jesse Chic opened public comment by asking board member Josh Taber to publicly apologize and to contradict social-media posts by a close relative that alleged a named staff member was on probation and should not have had a renewed contract. Chic said the relative’s use of school-specific terms led the public to assume insider knowledge and asked Mr. Taber to "condemn his mother's post" and publicly assert that the staff member "is not nor has never been on probation or at risk of having a contract non-renewed." A person in the audience who identified themself as the author of the posts said, "I'm the one that made all of the statements... I apologize," at the meeting. The transcript does not record a formal apology by Mr. Taber.
Separately, the board reviewed a written public-input letter from a teacher (Audrey Pascowski) describing that staffing reductions may result in the loss of her job and asking the board to consider her for other positions; she noted she is completing a professional license in health education. Board members discussed the broader effect of staffing reductions on programs and on per-school allocations.
During the superintendent/administration update and later discussion, board members considered adopting a public-comment acknowledgement protocol so speakers receive a brief acknowledgment, are told who will follow up, and hear a timeframe for response. Members stressed the need to avoid turning acknowledgements into debates, noting prior attorney guidance to limit back-and-forth during public comment. Several board members volunteered to help draft a short protocol for consideration at a future workshop or meeting.
Board members also raised concerns about the process for screening instructional materials after multiple community complaints. Administration acknowledged a few challenged items were inappropriate and said staff had followed up; members asked whether there are gaps in the materials-review process and discussed possible training or process changes for the review team.
What’s next: the board asked administration and the policy committee to prepare a short public-comment acknowledgement protocol and to return with proposals for materials-review improvements and any needed training.
