Unanswered questions dog Mat-Su school board, administration

The public’s right to know is at the heart of our form of government. But it is something that should never be taken for granted.

In Alaska, public access to government is enshrined in Sec. 44 of the state constitution, in what is commonly known as the Open Meetings Act. The Act requires that meetings of government bodies – like city councils, borough assemblies, and school boards – be open to the general public.

Suzanne Little was a state senator from the Kenai Peninsula in the mid-90s when she was at the forefront of a statewide effort to revise the Act. Thirty years later, she is still passionate about public business being conducted in the open.

“Open public meetings are essential,” she said. “The cornerstone of our democracy is the public’s ability to know about, and participate in, government functions.”

That right of the public to know is under assault by the Mat-Su School Board and its compliant school district administration. Recent controversial decisions by the board, including the silencing of the student representative who had the temerity to express an articulate, well-reasoned contrary opinion, have been instituted without explanation or any kind of public accountability. According to Katie Gardner, deputy superintendent, the decision to reduce the role of the student rep came out of a meeting of the Board Policy Committee during the board’s summer retreat. But there was no mention of the committee meeting on the public agenda for the retreat. In fact, there is no record of any meetings of the policy committee, despite the legal obligation for one. The district’s chief communication officer, Jillian Morrissey, says, essentially, “nothing to see here.”

“There has never been a notice to the public in the past,” she said. “And this new group of board members maintained decades-long past practice.”

Others have a different recollection. Former board members Debby Retherford and Sarah Welton, who have a combined 24 years of school board service, including time spent on the policy committee, remember plenty of committee interface with the public.

“We almost always set the next (committee) meeting date at a board meeting, so it’s right there in the minutes,” said Retherford, who served on the board from 2012-18. “And while it may not have been published in the paper, I’m sure it’s on the (school board’s) public calendar. Or at least ours were.”

Welton agreed.

“We gave public notice during the times I was on the policy committee. Sometimes we had people who were not on the committee observe or bring us information to discuss or review,” said Welton, whose 18 years on the board ended in 2021. “The biggest problem is that no one understood how to be a board the last couple of years. They didn’t want to listen or pay attention to how protocol works in government. They knew better.”

Regardless, administration’s “because it's always been done that way" rationale would hardly pass legal muster if a concerned citizen filed a lawsuit against a blatant violation of the state’s open meetings requirements. Considering the board’s complete unwillingness to answer questions about any of this, court seems a likely destination. But secrecy, lack of transparency, and potential for expensive litigation do not end with the policy committee. The outrageous investigation in September of teachers and students a couple days after they were involved in pro-student testimony at that month’s board meeting has still not been satisfactorily explained.

That’s not for lack of effort either. At least three reporters asking questions about the incident were stone-walled for weeks before administration finally released a tepid, well-manicured prepared statement. Problem is, the statement raised more questions than it answered about what appeared to be a politically motivated, school board-ordered, administration-sanctioned attempt to intimidate those who spoke out. So what guarantee do parents have that their child won’t be targeted next by a similar investigation? Will it be administration’s position going forward that any complaint, from anyone, will be investigated, regardless of validity?

The board’s new bad-faith anti-activism policy that enabled this latter-day McCarthyism needs to be reconsidered. All it does is open the door to bad actors and a mountain of legal expenses, for which borough residents would have to foot the bill.

So where are the adults in the administration who are willing to say no to an out-of-control school board? Who thinks it’s acceptable to stiff-arm due process and fundamental decency in order to bully some kids and teachers? Parents deserve answers. So do all residents.

Mark Kelsey is a retired longtime journalist living in the Wasilla area.