Tag: St. Louis Public Schools

Emily Hubbard’s letter on SLPS “board leadership”

St. Louis Board of Education, photos of members with St. Louis Public Schools logo, from SLPS website

I have added a graphic with link to Board of Education webpage but have not altered the letter in any way.

A letter to St. Louis:

With no joy and much trepidation, I must speak out about the state of the Board of Education.

I expressed into the public record when I ran for board president in April the notion that “board leadership” was a concept outside of our bylaws, which state that the board only has power when the full board is officially and legally meeting, etc., etc. I have expressed this concern internally all last school year. Two board members cannot legally act as if they are the board or they are speaking for the board. No board member should be engaged in the work of administration, whether directly or indirectly. After at least a full school year of our current illegitimate structure of “board leadership,” our board is not aligned, does not have a shared moral objective, and the district is embarrassed and in disarray with an unknown (to me at least) number of district leadership changes in the three weeks leading up to the start of school on August 19.

For the sake of the children of this city, I am calling on President Antionette “Toni” Cousins and Vice President Matt Davis to resign not just their executive positions but their seats on the board. Their illegitimate, reactionary, over-reaching “leadership” of the district must end. The lies and coercion must end. What is wrong and is hidden must be exposed and made right.

I ran for school board with “leadership that empowers” as one of my key goals, and that has not changed. So even though this is deeply uncomfortable and scary and unpleasant, and I am concerned about potential retaliation beyond the verbal upbraiding and loss of committee seats I have already experienced, my conscience will no longer allow me to keep silent. When “unity” is employed to hide dysfunction, it becomes coercion

For a long time any criticism of Dr. Scarlett was squashed as well as framed as criticism of the board president, which was also unacceptable. Speaking specifically about the hiring of all her friends into district positions, we all had brief access to resumes before we voted to approve the hires brought before us, not to mention I believe they all had linkedin pages. If I recall correctly,, the votes were all unanimous. So we the board are responsible for those hires. We had the information to ask questions, to act, and chose not to pursue vigorous action. Given the previously mentioned reactions to questions and criticisms as well as the “board leadership” structure, I hope I may be forgiven for assuming that serious interrogation of those hires as they were presented to us would have negative consequences without a change in the results.

It is the gift and burden of the board to be ultimately responsible for the work of the district. As I strive to bear that responsibility, I must reckon with the ways in which I have failed to act in the most effective ways to achieve the best results for our children and our employees. I can no longer be silent. Today, that responsibility includes demanding the resignation of “board
leadership” as well asking the children of this city, their parents, and the taxpayers for forgiveness for my and our collective failures to do our best for the district. I promise I’ve tried, but I should’ve been able to do more.

But as I’ve called on Ms. Cousins and Mr. Davis to resign, and repented of my own failures, I must also call on all of us—the adults in this city—to repent. We have allowed this misappropriation of power to continue at the expense of our children and the employees who serve them. Every individual and entity in this city that has allowed Ms. Cousins and Mr. Davis to act outside of the authority given them by our own board bylaws should reckon with what their passivity has cost our city’s children. “Nobody wants to lose local control” necessitates everyone locally using what power and responsibility they have to hold us accountable, not to be silent in the face of dysfunction.

If they choose to remain on the board, I ask that everyone who interacts with them in the context of “board leadership” require them to point to a board discussion, board vote, or board policy that legitimates their authority to act or speak.

Thanks so much for your time. I’m sorry it took me so long to be brave.

Emily Hubbard

STL City Budget Hearing Fail, Public Denied Opportunity to Speak

Old black and white photo of St. Louis City Hall

The Budget Committee of the Board of Alders (BOA) had a public hearing today, June 5th, 2024, on the 2025 Budget for the City of St. Louis. The hearing, per its City Calendar Notice, was to include public testimony both in person at City Hall and by Zoom. At least two Alders participated by Zoom.

6th Ward resident and local government transparency advocate Gerry Connolly planned to testify by Zoom. He confirmed his participation with BOA staff. He wrote his notes. He logged on to the hearing.

The hearing began with Mayor Tishaura Jones presenting on her office’s budget. Then it was time for public testimony. But Budget Chair Cara Spencer announced a recess. People who had taken time off from work to make their voice heard were told they would have to wait 39 minutes.

When the Budget Committee reconvened, Alders heard in person public testimony. Then it was time for testimony by Zoom. It was Gerry’s turn. I’m not sure how many others had planned to testify via Zoom.

But Gerry was not allowed to speak. No Zoom testimony was taken. No explanation was given. It was yet another Sunshine Fail, Transparency Fail at City Hall.

Gerry was told he could submit comments by email. He was angry, and rightfully so, but he hurridly transformed his notes for three minutes of testimony into written, expanded comments.

Since Gerry’s testimony is not available as a part of the online public record, and while the Budget Committee Chair may not be interested in what he has to say, others may be interested. I asked him if I could publish his testimony on my blog and he agreed. I have made a few edits for formatting purposes and add links.

Below is Gerry’s testimony on 2025 Budget for City of St. Louis which he submitted by email.

———-

Gerry Connolly.
6th Ward resident
38xx Botanical Ave
St. Louis, MO 63110

June 5, 2024

Honorable members of the Budget and Public Employees Committee,

I had planned to provide this testimony via Zoom at today’s Budget Committee meeting. However, due to the fact the committee failed to take any public testimony today via Zoom, I am submitting my comments in writing. 

Public Testimony in opposition to Board Bill 1

I am testifying against Board Bill 1. The City should allocate financial resources from within the budget as recommended by the Board of E and A necessary to implement the policy recommendations described in items 1 through 7 below.

  • 1) Fix the City’s “Sunshine portal, The Public Records Center, which hasn’t been consistently functional for 6 months. Make the responsive records of all city government bodies available in the Public Records Archive. The St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) and St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) currently do not make records available to the general public in the Public Records Archive. Only requesters may view responsive records via their portal user accounts.There may be additional City entities that do not make records available to the general public.
  • 2) Open government and transparency must be consistent across city government. The Board of Aldermen (BOA) must update the decade old transparency ordinance:
    1. Post meeting recordings to Youtube for government entities currently missing. These include the Airport Commission, Affordable Housing Commission, Mental Health Board and Senior Fund.
    2. Standardization of meeting notices, both physical and online. The official agenda (not just the text) must include the resolutions to be voted upon. The meeting packet must include the draft minutes of prior meetings, if applicable. All other documents utilized during a meeting should be posted online. The BOA’s posting of many budget presentations on the BB 1 webpage should serve as a model for all departments.
    3. The following city bodies do not operate consistently in a transparent manner: Board of Estimate and Apportionment (E and A); Charter Commission, Reparations Commission and Detention Facilities Oversight Board. The persistent violation of Missouri Sunshine Law by the Board of E and A is cause for alarm. The Board of Aldermen’s silence on the Sunshine violations by the Board of E and A has been noted.
  • 3) Continue to reform of how development incentives are awarded. Ordinance 71620 was a step forward in the system for awarding tax breaks to development projects. However Ordinance 71620 (BB 64 in the 2022-23 BOA session) had major flaws that subsequent legislation has only addressed in part (See BB 98 and BB 236 in the 2023-24 BOA session). More changes to the ordinance are needed.  All provisions in Ordinance 71620 must be enforced by the BOA. SLDC did not follow the mandated procedures for the 15 projects, with development costs over $10 Million, that were approved in the 2023-24 BOA session. The non-compliance included a failure to consult St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and affected tax districts. Every effort must be made to shield SLPS from the impact of tax breaks.
  • 4) All development incentives must be authorized by an ordinance approved by the BOA. Incentives that presently do not require approval by ordinance include, but are not limited to:

    1. Bond issuances authorized by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA), Industrial Development Authority (IDA) and Port Authority.

    2. Certain tax abatements authorized by the Port Authority Commission (PA) and Enhanced Enterprise Zone Board (EEZB).

    3. New Markets Tax Credit (NTMC) program, currently authorized by the SLDC board of directors.
  • 5) The Land Reutilization Authority’s lot sales policy must be modified. In 2023, the Land Reutilization Authority adopted new sales policies for LRA-owned property, per the recommendation of SLDC staff. In the category of sale of lots for the purpose of building one home, a lot whose area is less than 4,000 sq. ft. is ineligible for sale under the new policy. LRA eliminated the opportunity to provide housing, strengthen the fabric of a neighborhood and grow the city’s tax base.

    The LRA sales policy must be modified in order to restore the ability of homebuilders to purchase lots under 4,000 sq. ft. and construct much-needed housing.

    The Jones administration, SLDC and the Community Development Agency (CDA) frequently cite the Economic Justice Action Plan (EJAP) as a guide for City policy and program spending. SLDC included citations from the Economic Justice Action Plan (EJAP) in the LRA board resolution adopting the new sales policies.

    It is noteworthy that the EJAP planning process, conducted by consultants to SLDC, did not include the participation of the general public or Board of Aldermen. Only narrowly focussed public outreach was performed.

    I have not heard an explanation of the rationale behind the new sales policy in any setting- SLDC website, development board meetings or at BOA committee meetings. The BOA should investigate this matter.
  • 6) All fee revenues from SLDC’s Sales Tax Exemption Fund should be transferred to the City’s General Fund and included in the annual appropriation to the Affordable Housing Commission
  • 7) Eight reforms for the BOA to enact for Local Taxing Districts (LTDs). It is possible that changes to Missouri law will be necessary in order to accomplish some of the recommendations.

    1. The budgets of the 100 plus LTDs in the City likely exceed $50 Million with taxes and/or special assessments imposed on the public. The vast majority of LTDs operate routinely in violation of Missouri Sunshine law. Enact all recommendations of the 2019 Missouri Auditor’s report on LTDs. Read the audit report here (See pages 9 – 18 for recommendations)

    2. Place all policing duties funded by LTDs under the command of SLMPD.

    3. Extend community oversight of surveillance technology to all LTDs.

    4. A representative of the following must be appointed to the board of all single site LTDs: Mayor, Board of Aldermen and Comptroller.

    5. Prohibit developers from controlling single site districts.

    6. Document all City of St. Louis resources allocated to the LTDs. Such resources include:

    (i) City funds expended on projects of the LTDs.
    (ii) City staff attending LTD meetings.
    (iii) Work performed by City staff to support the activities of LTDs. (Examples of City staff: SLMPD personnel when working for the City; Neighborhood Improvement Specialists).

    7. Establish robust Conflicts of Interest regulations for people serving on the boards and committees of LTDs.

    8. Establish a limit on the number of LTD boards on which one person can serve. (Some individuals serve at least five LTD boards).

    I would be happy to discuss the above recommendations by phone, in-person or at a committee meeting. My contact information is below.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Gerry Connolly

    cc Honorable members of the Board of Aldermen
         President Megan Green
         Clerk Terry Kennedy
         Mayor Tishaura O. Jones
         Comptroller Darlene Green
         Budget Director Paul Payne

School Board Candidate Profiles Updated

St. Louis City voters will elect two new School Board Members from three candidates on April 4th. No excuse Absentee Voting (what Missouri calls early voting) begins Tuesday, April 21st at four locations. No incumbent School Board Members are on the ballot.

School Board Candidate Profiles are posted here. Not much to see.

One candidate doesn’t have a candidate committee filed with Missouri Ethics Commission.

Only one candidate has a website. I don’t count Facebook. Don’t use it and will not encourage people to use it.

One candidate lives in a tax abated development. Tax abated means public school kids helped pay for it.

Future campaign finance reports due/may be due:

8 Day Before General Election Report. Close: 3/23/2023. Due: 3/27/2023. Required if Committee made Expenditures (paid or incurred) or made Contributions for the election. Noon Friday, Missouri Ethics Commission will conduct a webinar on how to complete this report.

Mandatory April Quarterly Report. Close: 3/31/2023. Due: 4/17/2023.

30 Day After Election Report. Close: 4/29/2023. Due: 5/4/2023. Required if Committee made Expenditures (paid or incurred) or made Contributions for the election. If this report is required, it must be filed prior to taking office. If debt exceeds $1,000, Committee may not file Limited Activity for this report.

Additional Campaign Finance Reporting

  • 48 Hour Report of Contribution over $5,000: Due within 48 Hours after receipt.
  • 24 Hour Notice of Late Contribution Over $250 Received Less Than 12 Days Before Election: Due within 24 Hours after receipt.
  • 24 Hour Late Expenditure Report by Continuing Committees (PACs including ward committees): Due within 24 Hours after paid or incurred.

2023 School Board Candidate Profiles

St. Louis City School Board candidates needed their own page in addition to inclusion in New Ward Profiles.

You can now find Profiles for the three School Board candidates here.

The School Board is elected at-large in citywide elections, not by district/ward. The next School Board election is April 4th. In this election, the top two of three candidates will join the Board.

Information on the current School Board here.

School Board Candidates Forums

6:30 pm Sept 21st New 4th Ward Democrats Meeting at SEIU Local 1 Hall 2725 Clifton. Open to public. Agenda includes St. Louis City School Board Candidates and presentation by Andrew Arkills on the impact of TIFs on public school finances.

6:30 pm Oct 6th School Board Candidate Forum at Vashon High School Auditorium, 3035 Cass. Sponsored by St Louis Public Schools Foundation, SLPS Parent Action Council, League of Women Voters

More Information on School Board Candidates

School Privatization at Neighborhood Level

How does your neighborhood association support the public schools within or near its boundaries? In Lafayette Square and Soulard, they don’t. They do, however, support private charter schools*.

This weekend was Lafayette Square Neighborhood Association’s Patriot Day Run. It was a fundraiser for LSNA, BackStoppers®, and Charter Athletic League, founded at Lafayette Preparatory Academy.

Lafayette Prep is a private charter school located in Lafayette Square. The school is considered an important neighborhood asset and is on the agenda for monthly LSNA general membership meetings.

According to LSNA Board Meeting Minutes, fundraising for Charter Athletic League is not the first time LSNA financially supported private schools. In March 2021, they donated $250 to Lift for Life Academy fourteen blocks away in Soulard/Kosciusko neighborhoods. In March 2022, Lift for Life asked for $1,000. The Board approved $333 and then asked members at the next general membership meeting to donate and reach the $1000 goal.

I looked at LSNA Board and General Membership Minutes for 2021-2022 and found no mention of their closest public schools: Peabody School (it is mentioned on their website’s resources for residents page), seven blocks east, and Sigel School, seven blocks south.

Humboldt School, St. Louis, 19th Century
Humboldt Public School, St. Louis, 19th Century

Soulard has a longstanding relationship with the neighborhood’s two private charter schools- Lift for Life Academy and Soulard School. Some examples. In February 2022, the SRG Board voted to buy a table ($250) for the Soulard School Trivia Night. In May, there was a pitch for the fundraiser at the SRG general membership meeting. Lux Living SoHo Apartments says it will donate $100,000 to Soulard School. Mardi Gras Foundation awarded a grant to Soulard School for landscaping.

There is no relationship between the neighborhood and Humboldt School, Soulard’s remaining public school. aside from Trinity Lutheran, which adopted the school for school supplies, special events, volunteers. Humboldt is five blocks from Soulard School and eleven blocks from Lift for Life.

*Charter schools are private schools funded with public tax dollars taken from public schools.