2005-06-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the School Board should have supported the former Superintendent. He said Mr. Gaines is imminently qualified. As there were no further speakers the public hearing was closed. Mr. Schilling made the following statement: '7 wouM like to begin my remark; by acknowledging and thanking all of those who came before us this evening. The purpose of a public hearing is to "hear" the public, audi hope that we as a body have heardyou. I am concerned that for some reason, this pubfic hearing was scheduled on the same night and at roughly the same time as the Charlottesville High School graduation ceremony. This schedufing conflict most fikely precluded the participation of many interested citizens who are in some way closely affifiated with a CHS graduate. Even our City Manager, Mr. 0 'Connell, cannot be present here, due to his son's graduation tonight. Through this schedufing error, we have potentially denied many members of the pubfic an opportunity for pubfic expression. What an unfortunate oversight. Thanlffully there is still time to rectify this situation. In considering the comment; that we did hear tonight, I am not entirely certain how they are received by City Council. Will councilors weigh the number and the persuasiveness of the received comment; in order to decide whom to appoint to the board? Or, is this hearing merely a "courtesy" to the public, wherein councilors acknowledge comment; with a nod, and then go on to appoint whomever they had previously decided to choose ? If it is the latter, then we shouM make this clear to the pubfic. But, if it is the former, and this council is sincerely considering whom to appoint to the school board based upon comment; received from the public, then we must ask ourselves: "Why are we appointing School Board members instead of letting the public have a real voice in the process by directly electing the school board via a ward- or district-based election process?" If pubfic input is so valuable and is strongly considered in the school board appointment process, why appoint at all? Do we not trust the citizens of this community, the citizens who elected this very body, with the decision of who should run the city schools, as most localities do across the Commonwealth and across the country? Or do we deem only some of our citizens worthy of trust? We should ask: Why is this council so hesitant to relinquish the power of appointment? Are we five that smart, that good, that intuitive ? It is clear, upon reviewing the many comment; I've received from resident; across the political and socio-economic spectrum, that this council, and previous council; have failed the public, in that we have maintained and supported an appointment process that has left the public dissati,fied and that ultimately has harmed some of our most vulnerable citizens: the children of Charlottesville. We can no longer afford to allow a $60 million dollar organization, entrusted with the futures of our children, to be run by political appointees who may in fact be placed because of patronage rather than qualification. We can no longer foster the complete lack of direct accountability to the public, which our appointed school board members currently enjoy. We can no longer tolerate a failing "underclass" in our Charlottesville City School,'; we require school board members with a strong and workable vision that is clearly communicated and acceptable to the public whom they hope to serve. And, thus, we can no longer pretend that one private 15-minute interview with council, and four or five two-minute replies at one public forum adequately reveal the qualification or aptitude of any particular candidate for a position on the Charlottesville City School Board There is simply too much at stake and the citizens of Charlottesville deserve better than this.