Lexington (MA) High School Senate

LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT-FACULTY SENATE

2002-2003

Moderator Muhammad Dhanani, Assistant Moderator Lawrence J. David, Secretary J.T. Scarry

<http://lhs.lexingtonma.org/senate>

Agenda

For the October 31, 2002 meeting

1. Announcements

2. Committee Reports

3. Elected Office Limits Bill

4. New Business

Minutes

From the October 24, 2002 meeting:

[Quorum reached, 7:50 AM]

[Minutes Approved, 7:50 AM]

[Agenda Approved, 7:50 AM]

Announcements

Dhanani: After the meeting, please put the tables back in rows.

Committee Reports

Rehman: The Oversight Committee met and with Senator Girondel we drafted a letter to the faculty reiterating some Senate policies; specifically, we are asking that there be absolutely no mandatory X-Block activites, and we are also asking that the Ten Minute Rule and the policy on having two recycling bins be properly published and enforced.

Vachani: Social Action approved many community service forms. The School Council met with Mr. Leonard, who was on the original committee that strengthened the graduation requirements in 1996. The reason, he told us, was primarily to boost academic acheivment; there was an impression that students were not learning enough, and were in the center too much. There previous requirements comprised only four years of English, two years of History, and three years of Science and Math combined; however, the changes left out lower achieving students.

Fiveash: Climate met to discuss recycling and surveying the school community about odd/even testing days.

David: A rump of the Policy committee met to discuss Senator Jehle's proposed bill. There was extremely poor attendance of the meeting, and I encourage our members to actually show up. Senator Jehle's proposal was to prohibit the overlapping of the positions held in student government; she feels that this produces scheduling conflicts and other problems.

Discussion of Open Forum on Graduation Requirements

Halperin: The ad hoc committee met. We are planning to hold the forum Thursday, November 7 in Commons II. We will begin with a presentation talking to the larger issues at stake, and then will break into smaller groups for discussion. Senators should come. In preparation for this event, we will have a table set up the Tuesday before to inform people about the forum and to have a suggestion box. We want to work with Communications to get the word out. The forum will be from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.

Finnegan: It would help the ad hoc committee if there was a way to figure out what questions should be asked at the open forum. More input would be helpful.

Kaffrissen: We will meet after school in room 229, and if anyone were interested we would appreciate attendance.

Informal Discussion of Override Issue

Dhanani: To provide background for those who are new to Senate, we had a bill called the Senior Finals Bill, which was passed by the Senate last year. Dr. Seasholes vetoed that bill, but the Senate overrode his veto. We then brought the bill before the School Committee, which as the Constitution is written is the final authority that either upholds the veto or the override. However, the School Committee was unwilling to deal with Senate overrides; they feel that the School Council should take that responsibility, yet the School Council is chaired by the principal, creating a palpable conflict of interest. If there is a way to clear out senatorial and administrative influences from the Council when this type of problem arises that would be less of a conflict, but it seems from various meetings that this is not a good way to resolve it.

Catsouphes: What is the School Committee's objection?

Dhanani: They think that they are not the proper people to deal with the issue.

Catsouphes: Is it not written in the very constitution of this body that they are they are the proper people?

Dhanani: A new bill was promulgated by the State House, namely, the Ed Reform Act, which changes the very nature of the School Council.

Halperin: For the edification of new senators, could the Chair explain the purpose of this august bill?

Dhanani: Had the Senior Finals Bill been passed, seniors whose teachers agreed could, if they met the conditions laid out in the bill, not take a final. In essence, it gave more flexibility to the faculty in running their senior classes.

Allison Burson: The School Council is working on a track parallel to that of the Senate. PAC thought that maybe the override should go to administrators, whereas Joanne Benton thinks that mayhaps the override should come into her own lap.

Kafrissen: The 3/4 vote, required in the Constitution for an override, was brought into being that teachers, namely 1/3 of the Senate, might defeat a "student bloc" of 2/3, yet this bloc has never arisen. As regards this state law, it says naught of the School Council becoming a 'Star Chamber', and gives the Council no great powers. To change where an override goes would require an amendment to the Constitution, and I see nothing that was said that leads us to that change. As I see it, all should remain as it was, though it would be acceptable for the principal to consult with the School Council or the PAC when the veto process occurs. Likewise the superintendent is a non-voting member of the School Committee, and they can consult with her before upholding or rejecting overrides. We ought to stick with the present situation. I think that the actual review of the override is in question, as only three members were present, and they never even debated the merits of the bill; their decision was poor.

Williams: If you look at [the Ed Reform Act] there are but few mentions of the School Council. In Paragraph 4, the Act states that the School Council shall assist the principal by making recommendations. In Paragraph 5, it states that the principal sets policy. The Boston schools delegated the powers of the principal to the School Councils, but the bill itself specifies nothing but an advisory role for this Council. The School Committee acted incorrectly, for the School Council is an advisory body, and their stance contradicts the text of the Act. A clarifying letter should be written to Dr. Seasholes and the School Council. Someone should check out whether Dr. Seasholes has actually delegated any power to the Council. I am in agreement with Senator Kafrissen.

Allison Burson: With regards to Dr. Seasholes, remember that he is but an interim principal, and it would make more sense to look at the prerogatives of the principal when we have a principal who might be here ten years, or more. Senator Kafrissen believes that the School Committee didn't want to discuss the issue, but the it really felt that the Constitution went against Ed Reform; I don't know whether this is true. I thought that the Committee was, in fact, embarrassed, and that it didn't have enough respect for either the Senate or Dr. Seasholes; the School Committee felt that it had to mediate but it actually needed to be told that it was supposed to look at the bill itself; it was uncomfortable. The Senate ought to listen and examine the situation, not say that the override was somehow illegitimate because only three Committee members were present.

Finnegan: I have a question: if the School Committee has accepted the Senate Constitution, isn't it obliged to follow it? If the Committee has not looked at the document and now seeks different avenues of appeal, that must be considered. We have old rules and new laws, and if there is a difference the situation must be resolved.

Allison Burson: The Senate Constitution was brought forth long before the Ed Reform Act; however, was it ever amended after the Act?

Girondel: No one has ever changed the constitution, and no one ever brought it up when questioning our power structure.

Kafrissen: The sole way in which Ed Reform might affect us is in its treatment of the School Council, and we can see clearly that this Council has no role except as an advisor. The School Committee charged us with writing and creating the Senate Constitution. There have been only three occasions when a principal's veto was overridden by this body, and two vetoes were sustained by the School Committee and one was rejected. The School Committee is not a mediator, but the final voice in this matter.

Vachani: As to whether the School Council should have the power to look at overrides, and whether they would rather have it come to them at all, while I have not been on it for a long time, I know our School Council was in place before the Ed Reform Act, so it may have some quirks that are not accounted for by that law. Regardless, the Constitution says that such situations are to be resolved by the School Committee, and the Council has a different purpose.

Bogart: The point was made that it was strange to have an override, and then to return it to the School Council of which the Principal is the head. I totally agree with Senator Kafrissen on the responsibility of the School Committee based on past practice. If the veto, after it has been overridden, goes right back to the principal who vetoed it, we as a body have no purpose other than as a complaining voice. The School Committee should deal with the override issue.

Lessin: Why did Dr. Seasholes veto the bill?

Dhanani: He thought that it came too far into academics and was against our Constitution, but in reality it was done on a teacher-to-teacher basis, and allowed teachers more freedom and flexibility.

Allison Burson: Following up on what Senator Lessin said, what does the Senate Constitution say on this matter?

[Chair reads from Senate Constitution, Article 6]

Finnegan: I move that the Executive Committee send a letter to the School Committee regarding the School Committee's refusal to play its role in the override process. [Motion seconded] I did not vote to override the veto, but it is an important issue for the Senate as a whole. We must explain to the School Committee why they are the appropriate body to have this power, based on the issues brought up in discussion today. The Executive Committee should definitely consult with Dr. Seasholes before this letter is sent.

Kafrissen: The Executive Committee should add references to the Senate Constitution and references to the appropriate sections of the Ed Reform Act in its letter asking the School Committee to play its historical role.

Allison Burson: As the School Committee cannot undo what has been done, they have already rejected the override. The letter should focus more on the issue of clarifying the power of the Senate.

Wong: Ms. Burson said that the Committee actually vetoed the bill, while other people said they refused to look at it; which is the case?

Burson: The Committee said that it did not want to look at the Senior Finals Bill and thus upheld Seasholes's veto.

Williams: The Committee expressed three separate opinions; first, that the override was not under its jurisdiction, then that the override was so the Committee would veto the bill anyway, and finally the three members reverted to their first stance. I wrote a letter to address the problem. If the bill really does go against our Constitution, then we should just change that issue and resubmit it with Dr. Seasholes's blessing.

Richardson: Reading the Constitution, I see a legislative and executive power, but nothing to mediate between the two. I wish to know which body acts as, in effect, the judiciary to determine whether people are in fact complying with the terms of the Constitution?

Kafrissen: The School Committee is this body, for it is not attached to either side and is the court of final appeal. State law gave them final say in school issues, and they still have this general mandate.

Shield: I move to end informal discussion.

[Motion passes by voice vote]

Kafrissen: One final point: I can see nothing in writing giving the School Council any power whatsoever, neither in the law itself nor in the explanatory attachment. It cannot just decide that it has this power, and I have not seen anything saying it does have power.

Finnegan: After the fact, the intent of my motion was to focus on the School Committee's role as arbiter, not on the Senior Finals Bill override. To look at that bill, we must restart the whole process.

Catsouphes: I move to end discussion.

[Motion passes]

[Senate adjourns]

List of Senators Absent from the October 24, 2002 Meeting

Senator Inouye

Senator Jehle

Senator Kresser

Senator Ludwig

Senator Robertson

Senator Smith

Senator Zagaeski