SPS board votes 4-3 to reduce, by half, how long a board member can speak on each topic

The Springfield school board voted 4-3 to reduce by half the amount of time each member is allowed to speak on a specific agenda item.

Starting with the June 11 meeting, members will have a total of 10 minutes per topic to comment or ask questions. They receive an initial five minutes and then once every member has a chance to weigh in, they have the option of another five minutes.

Members previously had a total of 20 minutes — 10 minutes initially and 10 minutes for any follow-up — meaning it was technically possible, if highly unlikely, for the board to spend 140 minutes on a single agenda item.

The shorter time limit was sought by board vice president Judy Brunner, who also requested an electronic timer be displayed in the meeting room.

"I have given a lot of thought to how to keep the business of the board moving forward and I'm not the only one doing that," she said. "I think everybody wants that to happen."

Brunner said with two meetings most months, members have two chances to discuss an item prior to the vote. She said materials are provided in advance of each meeting and Superintendent Grenita Lathan is available to respond to questions by phone, email or in person.

"Our current procedure does allow for questions to be submitted in writing with a response that goes to everyone," Brunner said. "I appreciate those questions, I do, and I appreciate the quick turnaround in terms of the answer."

The change was supported by members Shurita Thomas-Tate, Susan Provance, and Danielle Kincaid, the president of the board.

"Having time constraints puts the onus on board members to be succinct and to think through their responses in a way that is meaningful and purposeful and not just a speech of your thoughts," Thomas-Tate said. "I am for open, public conversation but the public need not know my every thought."

There was significant pushback from board members Kelly Byrne and Maryam Mohammadkhani — who tend to talk more than others — and Steve Makoski.

"When I first got on the board, we had some very long meetings and some non-productive discussions that went pretty long. That has not really been the case recently," said Byrne, elected in 2022. "I don't see a need for it. I also don't think it's a good look."

Byrne described it as an effort to "shut down" discussion that ought to take place in public. He also referenced the number of split votes on the board.

"If you were to find yourself in a position where there were often votes that you fell on the unsuccessful side of then you may be regretful to not be able to have a voice," he said. "It's important that we all be allowed that freedom to speak our minds."

Byrne said even though emailed questions and one-on-one conversations with the superintendent were an option, most discussion should take place in public meetings.

More: SPS used pandemic aid to hire 181 employees. With funding gone, how many jobs will remain?

"What this is proposing is further putting our business in the dark. What I heard was we can ask questions by email, we can have small meetings, we can meet individually, great. We can do all those things," Byrne said. "We only have one opportunity to ... speak publicly in front of the community."

He added: "It's important that people who choose to listen are able to hear these things happen out in the daylight, very important, and I don't think we should do anything that would have the appearance of not casting a light on our business."

Makoski said he preferred the 10-minute limit, which was set based on Robert's Rules of Order. "I like what we have today and so I would like to stay the course."

He acknowledged there was an argument for tightening up the meeting, noting the length of earlier meetings and the number of administrators and staff required to attend, making for long days.

Despite that, Makoski said dialogue on the board needs to happen in the "public forum." He said there have only been a few times he came close to using the entire 20 minutes allotted.

Mohammadkhani said she was "quite disappointed" by the proposed change, saying the board needs enough time to ask questions after presentations that may precede a vote.

"In order to formulate and make an educated vote, sometimes it requires a Q&A session," she said. "But if we try to put a limit of Q&A on a presentation I'm expected to vote on, I think we're going to get into a situation where we're going to have to cut off the presenter."

She noted there are times when presenters, who are usually administrators, do not get to the point fast enough or directly answer the question.

"You have to cut them off and it turns into a congressional hearing or the dialogue can be abrupt. It can be seen as rude, disruptive," she said. "But, here's the thing, it won't bother me but most people don't have my disposition."

Mohammadkhani said the proposal prompted an existential question about why she fills a seat on the board. She said it was to "govern and provide oversight." Then she read an article from The Progressive, a magazine, outlining corruption and wrongdoing that had come to light in other districts.

"I'm not in any way implying that any of this is happening here but why do we, why do I exist? Because the only thing that stands between this document, all these cases, and the students and staff, is the board of education," she said "And I cannot support something that I feel would limit my ability to do this very important task."

More: At SPS meeting, Mohammadkhani said she plans to use new RNC role to improve public schools

After Mohammadkhani read an excerpt of the article and commented on it, Thomas-Tate said it was an example of why limits are needed.

"What we're doing in our discussions is trying to ask and answer questions that help us to make informed votes. I don't know that it requires 10 minutes of a speech in order to do that," she said.

Several board members including Mohammadkhani and Thomas-Tate said there may be situations when more time was needed for discussion.

Kincaid said extending the time limit was an option.

"If there is a topic that a board member passionately wants to discuss for an extended length of time, we can always suspend the rules in order to provide additional time on that," she said.

"I just reject any suggestion that those of us who can succinctly make our point in five minutes somehow are not fighting for our students or the district when a majority of us at the table are able to limit our conversations and our comments to a reasonable period of time."

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: SPS board votes 4-3 to cut in half the amount of time members can talk