New year, same issues.Amid community division new Ministry initiatives offer hope
By Andrew Zwicker
A new year has come, but lingering disputes between communities at the SD20 school board table remain. This past Monday, the board held its first meeting of the year following a tumultuous and at-times heated final month of 2010 and, although it was clear dramatically differing opinions based around the Planning for the Future document weren’t diminished over the holiday season, the road to progress appears to be slowly and steadily emerging.
Chairing the first meeting since three Warfield and Trail area trustees broke ranks and sent a letter to the Minister of Education Margret MacDiarmid calling for the termination of Gord Smith as chair and the dissolution of the board itself, Smith said he wasn’t fazed by the letter and is looking forward to continuing the Planning for the Future process.
“You know nothing has really changed,” he said. “The board chair serves at the pleasure of the board. If there is a board motion to remove me as chair, I’ll step down. If there is no motion, I’ll happily keep serving.
“The board operates according to the will of the majority, rather than the tyranny of the few or the one. I’m not taking any of the issues personally. The three trustees have decided this is their preferred course of action and it’s their right to do so, but the board will continue to operate as best it can. We’re encouraging all trustees to participate and cooperate and I’m confident we can achieve the best result for the students.”
The letter, which also claimed political intervention in the board processes by the city councils in Rossland and Castlegar, as well as calling the school board negligent in its actions by postponing community consultation meetings scheduled for January, became a hot topic for discussion at Monday’s night’s meeting in Trail.
Mark Wilson, one of the signatories of the letter in question, made a motion to send an additional letter to the Minister, “saying we’re working on it and that we are facing difficult times, but that the board is trying to do its best.”
That motion (of which the three signers of the initial letter voted in favour) was ultimately killed as all others opposed it, as well as condemning the initial letter and questioning the logic behind it.
“I think that letter has put this board and this district into a very odd place. I do not want to embrace that any further,” commented Mickey Kanakin. “Personally, I would like to see us get over this particular situation and leave the dog lie.”
“I’m really disturbed by this letter,” said Mac Gregory. “Just because the vote is 6-3 doesn’t mean the three are correct. The strength of a good board is strength in differing views. Perhaps the three in the 6-3 are just out of touch with what is going on in the rest of the world.”
Castlegar Trustee Bev Maloff went a step further, questioning whether perhaps Wilson and the City of Trail were in cahoots in their two separate letters.
“Did the City of Trail help you write the letter to the minister?” asked Maloff. “The wording is very close to what they put in their letter. You said stall and delay and they said delay and stall. I’m not surprised, Mark (Wilson), that you signed the letter. When you ran for trustee, your campaign was a strong voice to Trail students, say ‘no’ to any Trail school closures and parity for Trail.”
Wilson explained why he participated in the writing of the letter, noting that, “this new direction, as some of us trustees have stated, feels like we’re doing a do-over… I think what’s happening is, some of the trustees are throwing out these red herrings, saying Rossland and Blueberry are the main issues in Planning for the Future but what we’re talking about is the whole scope of Planning for the Future.
“The Fortis building, TMS (Trail Middle School) , utilizing that space, working out our maintenance shop, new configuration of Castlegar Primary. These red herrings have been thrown out to scare everyone and politics has come into it.
“Honestly, it’s like were back in 2004, when it was the deliberation on the high school in Trail when it became political and the MLA had to step in and sway votes at that point. That letter was written in an honest, open fashion for the betterment of the whole district.”
Later in the meeting, as the board discussed timelines for the Planning for the Future process, Wilson requested that the board act promptly to reinstate the cancelled public consultation series of events originally planned for January and to re-schedule them for February. Ultimately, that motion failed as the board noted that it didn’t make sense to re-schedule the meetings until the board comes to a consensus on the direction it will be taking next.
That potential new direction will have to factor in how the board plans to deal with the latest initiative handed down from the education ministry called “21st Century Learning.” That initiative, which involves students and schools making use of emerging technologies and e-learning to provide expanded learning opportunities, came to the board after SD20 staff scored the various scenarios put forth in the latest version of Planning for the Future.
“The reason the board decided initially to postpone the January consultations was that it wanted to incorporate this new additional information,” explained Smith, referring to the 21st Century Learning initiative and the ministry’s focus on the neighbourhoods of learning concept.
“The problem is that, obviously, we have a recurring theme here as the process evolves in a transparent way. Certain groups are latching on to certain recommendations, mid way through the total analysis, and declaring the analysis complete and are urging the board to implement. The (Planning for the Future document) currently in the public domain is by no means a completed analysis. It is simply a summary to date. “
The next steps for the board as they try to re-position the Planning for the Future process will be to set a date for a meeting of the whole committee in the next several weeks. At that time, the goal will be to discuss the board’s direction going forward on the facilities report and set a strategy. If it falls within the strategy, the public consultation sessions will be rescheduled at that time. Until then, the public is welcome to offer and submit feedback as they wish to the board via mail, telephone or the SD 20 website.
Comments