Care to opine about Tuesday's OCR resolution now that you have the benefit of having heard the board's deliberations?
1. Whether the goals the board espoused Tuesday night are within a board's purview (investigation costs, student privacy, employee morale)
2. Whether you agree with its goals below, and
3. If so, whether the resolution has a chance of accomplishing these goals?
Problems IDed and Objectives the Board is trying to meet:
- Getting the OCR's attention after reminders and patience had failed to move matters forward.
- Sensitizing the local media to the unintended consequences of reporting stories which rush the public to judgment and impact reputations.
- Offering suggestions on how OCR can improve its process like requiring informed parent consent before interviewing minors, replying within the timelines set by the OCR, sharing evidence with both sides to ensure both sides have an opportunity to opine on the full record
- Correcting misstatements and misleading statements in the only official record which reports what transpired, whether it be asking that important facts that did not make it into the record be included, correcting quotes, IDing which facts are based on tampered evidence if any, etc
No need to repeat concerns some of you have already shared about secret agendas by right-wing leaners, general platitudes about social justice, or frustrations about past actions and "only if the board had"s.
So . . .
Ken Dauber (in your public comments Tuesday night you characterized this resolution as based on factual misstatements, part of a national partisan agenda and so not related to district issues, "fighting" not cooperating, a roll-back of civil rights in Palo Alto, and NOT serving students) - your thoughts now?
Gina Dalma (in your Tuesday night statement you called this resolution a defensive fight and, like Ken Dauber, not the best way to serve students) - thoughts now too?
Others who didn't speak?