Jersey City school board reverses course, resumes filming of public comments

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
November 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM

The Jersey City school board, which in January decided to stop recording the public comment portions of its meetings on video, has reversed course.

Board of Education President Sangeeta Ranade said she decided to resume recording public comments on video as a response to the howls of criticism she received for turning the cameras off in January.

Not recording those portions of the meeting "led some to feel they were not being heard," Ranade said today in an email to The Jersey Journal.

At last week's board meeting, Ranade gave a short speech about why she decided to "turn the cameras back on" and was drowned out by dozens of audience members who jeered her while she spoke

Read more:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... g_of_public_comments.html

Let me say, they are not my team, I did not create them, they are their own people. I just read today's print version of the Jersey Journal, and the the paper just printed the ACLU story on the present Board. I find it amazing that people who want this city to move forward and rebrand itself, would vote for a board that has embarrassed the city. You are voting for people who Parent for Progress, wants team players. You should remove that sign of "Stop Electing Idiots," because that is what you are advocating, team player equals "rubber stamp."

Quote:

Not to want to burst your bubble Yvonne, but you and any team you are associated with will never get my vote - Attending meetings could also mean that some people have too much time on their hands.

As for all of what was being said, we still don't have the best educational system making giant leaps forward in providing the best education - its a case of 'in one ear and out the other' with all DoE boards we've had.

It still is a case of stop electing idiots, because they ALL seem to talk the talk, but fall over walking the walk!

The whole system of electing candidates and 'teams' should be abolished as history shows it to be a waste of time and money and the end benefactors (our kids) always seem to lose out.

A change could be to recruit successful educators and business administrators in education and let them figure out what is best for our kids, they then can illustrate a clear educational business plan to move forward.

People on the school board like other past members, example - former Councilman Mariano Vega, use the school board as stepping stones to higher office. They know if they award contracts to friendly firms those firms will support them down the road. It is the reason I have endorse the Children First Team (Verdibello, Lyons, Richardson), because they are always at meetings. They are activists. It is not about "Stop electing Idiots," it is about who attends meetings and what are they saying. Sadly, their comments are not recorded so the public is clueless.

My only comment is STOP ELECTING IDIOTS that have no idea what they are doing, are inept, unqualified, politically motivated, lack solutions or know how to troubleshoot problems and overcome them and basically know what our educational needs are.

The only and main reason our educational needs / standards of the city is crap can squarely lay on the shoulders of the DoE - We elect idiots, don't learn from past idiots in the role and have no idea to learn from history or analyze the statistics and evidence where its going wrong or could be better improved.

Maybe we should encourage the DoE to visit / study how a successful city manager's their school district.

Obviously this current JC board is clueless as many other's have been and suspect future one's will be too.

Let's get real here, has public comments harmed the city counsel to the point they cannot function? Of course not! The people on the board, excluding Roman and Valentin, do not know how to deal with democracy. They do not want anyone to ask questions. More than not videotaping the public, they refuse to answer questions. There comment is, we will answer later. I wish the people who comment on this board, attend a meeting.

ACLU chides Jersey City school board over public comment policies

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is accusing the Jersey City school board of placing "impermissible restrictions" on the public's right to comment at its meetings and of creating a misleading representation of meetings by not recording public comments on video.

The civil liberties group aired its complaints in an Oct. 7 letter from attorney Iris Bromberg, who asked the board to record the public comments portion of its meetings on video, a practice halted earlier this year when the board made changes that curtailed public participation in the monthly meetings.

Bromberg also chastised the board over its policy that requires members of the public to refrain from public comments that "may be considered slanderous" and not factual.

Read More:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... olicies.html#incart_river

I still have difficulties reconciling that an otherwise progressive board wants to take us backwards by ceasing to broadcast the public's comments at school board meetings.

has decorum really been improved?

civic jc articulates this issues well -

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... letters_story_left_column

its now time to reverse and restore broadcasting the public's comments.


Are the views of the public really less important?
Aug 10, 2014 | 1

Dear Editor:

In a closed meeting on January 14th of this year, the Jersey City Board of Education ended its policy of broadcasting the public comments portion of its monthly meetings. Several concerned citizens have challenged the decision in court. Mayor Fulop has criticized the Board?s move, calling it a ?step backward? for governmental transparency. We wholeheartedly agree. The Board of Education should reverse this decision. Back in March, Civic JC emailed Board President Sangeeta Ranade and asked for an explanation of the policy. According to Ms. Ranade, the rationale for the video-casting ban is threefold: First, in the past, videotaping and broadcasting public comments contributed to a ?hostile environment? in which some parents were ?booed and shouted down.? Second, the Board?s attorney felt that the Board might be liable in the event that a televised speaker made a defamatory statement. Third, according to Ms. Ranade, a majority of school districts in New Jersey also do not broadcast public comments.

We believe these arguments have no merit. The third argument is the easiest to dispose of. It is of no importance whatsoever what other boards do or don?t do in the state. The question should be this: Is the policy a good one? We think not. And what about rudeness and intimidation? Of course where it happens, it should be discouraged. But the Board?s solution throws the baby out with the bathwater; public comments often bring to light issues unknown to the Board and public at large. For instance, at a meeting earlier this year, we heard about unheated classrooms, insufficient teacher prep time and unsafe school buses.

Those who couldn?t attend the meeting should have had the opportunity to hear these important comments too. But because of the Board?s policy, they didn?t. If the Board is concerned with rudeness and intimidation, it should enforce its own rules on decorum. Turning off the cameras and sending the message that public comments are less important than the views of the Board is not only an insult and disservice to the public but a hindrance to governmental transparency. Finally, at the March 20th Board meeting, we asked that the Board?s attorney cite the legal authority for its fear of lawsuits based on defamation. Attorney Ramon Rivera was unable to provide one. Instead he spoke of his ?concern? about the ?risk? of litigation. This is not the kind of legal argument that would hold up in court. In addition, our follow-up email to Ms. Ranade requesting such authority went unanswered. Thus, we can only conclude that such legal authority does not exist and that the argument is specious. The public comments of concerned citizens are a vital part of every Board meeting, raising important issue that everyone, including those at home, should hear. By its action, the Board has demoted these comments to second-class status. The Board should reinstate the broadcasting of public comments effective immediately.

Aaron Morrill
President, Civic JC

Matt, I have a time slot of 29 minutes from Comcast. I am not the Board of Education which can run a full program but chooses not to videotape speakers. I must edit in order to satisfy Comcast requirements. However, I would love to have more time so if you will tell Comcast to give me the same privileges as the Board of Ed, then I will place all comments on my program. There has been times I have spoke at a public meeting but I did not add my comments to the show. I did this when I went to Trenton to video tape public officials and the public on renewing Public Broadcast for the State of New Jersey. I deleted my comments in favor of public officials for broadcast.

Ugh, what nonsense.

Nothing about the new policy prevents people from speaking. Setting limits on time in a public meeting is not illegal. These people are obviously just wasting taxpayer dollars by dragging this into litigation.

Quote:

This is curious. I spoke during the public comment period at this meeting but my comments appear nowhere on this video.

Frankly, I don't care whether my comments were videotaped or not. But it is the height of hypocrisy to scream and cry about transparency and the 1st Amendment, and then only include the remarks of commenters with whom you agree on your video.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND SHARE!!!!
Appoint Lorenzo Richardson to the newly vacated seat on the Jersey City Board Of Education

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/appo ... ce=s.icn.fb&r_by=10085845

I did request to tape, it is still "illegal to tape" but many people showed up with cameras.

Did you request advance notice to tape?

Did they limit your ability to tape in any way?

I ask because in addition to the streamlining of public comments, the board also restricted the ability to tape, which I think is the most dubious of all the challenges. But it does not look like that restriction has been enforced.

I brought my camera and videotape the public comments. [!IFRAME FILTERED! ]

Jersey City School Board Meeting from Speak NJ on Vimeo.

BREAKING: Lawsuit says Jersey City Board of Education infringed on rights of public

The Hudson Reporter
Feb 20, 2014

JERSEY CITY ? The legal department for the Jersey City Board of Education said it will not comment on a suit filed in civil court on Feb. 19 claiming the board violated the state Open Public Meeting Act when it voted to limit public speaking at meetings.

The Open Public Meetings Act, also known as OPMA or the Sunshine Law, protects ?the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies? such as the Jersey City Board of Education. The law, enacted in 1975, also provides that ?adequate notice? be given to the public about meetings and that agenda and minutes of meetings be promptly made available to the public.

The board voted at its January meeting to limit the time members of the public can speak at meetings.

The suit contends that the board failed to give adequate notice of the change to allow public participation in the change of policy and failed to provide minutes of the meetings at which the board made the changes.

The suit alleged that board members or the school administration had met in secret at some point prior to the vote to discuss the change.

?The Public Comments item was originally on the Jan. 16 agenda that was published to the JCBOE website just days prior to the meeting but then omitted from the agenda distributed on January 16 without notice or explanation,? the suit claims, adding that the minutes for Jan. 14 and Jan. 16 were still unavailable at the time of the filing of the lawsuit.

?This lawsuit unequivocally shows that the Jersey City Board of Education violated the law and violated the public?s trust,? commented Lorenzo Richardson, a BOE candidate who ran for a seat last November with the Children First team. ?The people of Jersey City have a right by law to fully participate in the decisions and policy-making of this board as it pertains to our children and the $600 million budget at the board?s disposal. The court must enforce that the Jersey City Board of Education immediately rectifies this illegal action and bring the Public Comments policy before the public with proper notice and with the intent to approve a policy that will uphold the public?s freedom of speech and rights under the law.?

The plaintiffs, who are all parents of Jersey City Public School children, are asking the court to void the board?s vote on the Public Comments policy, declare that the Jersey City Board of Education did indeed ?violate the law? and provide injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the OPMA law by the Jersey City Board of Education.

Read more: Hudson Reporter - http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... ublic-?instance=top_story

Lawsuit alleges Jersey City school board acted illegally by limiting public comment

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal
February 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

The Jersey City Board of Education misinformed and disenfranchised the public last month when it curtailed public comment at school board meetings, three vocal district critics say in a civil lawsuit filed yesterday.

The lawsuit seeks to find the district in violation of the state Open Public Meetings Act. The plaintiffs want a Superior Court judge to void the board's decision from its Jan. 14 caucus, when the board made the changes to its public comment policy, and all actions the board took at its subsequent regular meeting on Jan. 16, when the changes went into effect.

Lorenzo Richardson, a frequent district critic who unsuccessfully ran for a BOE seat last November, called the board's actions "illegal."

?This lawsuit unequivocally shows that the Jersey City Board of Education violated the law and violated the public?s trust,? Richardon said. ?The people of Jersey City have a right by law to fully participate in the decisions and policy-making of this board as it pertains to our children and the $600 million budget at the board?s disposal.?

The plaintiffs in the suit are Monique Andrews, Anna Christodoulakis and Felicia Palmer. In last year?s school board race, all three supported Richardson, who came in fourth place in the race for three three-year terms.

Palmer said Richardson is not a plaintiff because he plans to run for the school board again this November.

According to district spokeswoman Maryann Dickar, the nine-member BOE on Jan. 14 approved a measure placing limits on public comment at board meetings. At the time, BOE President Sangeeta Ranade told The Jersey Journal that she wanted to ?streamline? the often lengthy, raucous meetings and allow more time for parents who aren?t regular speakers to have their say.

Before the changes went into effect, the board held two public comment sessions at each regular meeting, one at the start of the meeting and one at the end, with each member of the public allowed to speak for five minutes at each session. Now, there?s only one session at the beginning, with members of the public limited to one five-minute comment.

In addition, all public speakers now have to give the district 24-hour notice that they plan to speak, and the public comments are no longer recorded on video to be aired along with the meetings.

Critics said the move was nothing more than an attempt to silence them.

The plaintiffs allege that the BOE never voted at its Jan. 14 caucus to curtail public comment at its meetings, so the changes aren?t legal. They also say the district issued multiple agendas for the meetings in an effort to confuse the public.

Asked to comment, Ranade noted that the minutes to the Jan. 14 caucus show the board indeed voting on the policy change.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... comment.html#incart_river

And they have no Political aspirations either, right, and they're not influenced by the administration,right.......Stopping the Public from excersing their right to speak at BOE meetings is also right....They new what they were getting into and what was entailed. If it was too time consuming they never should've run... and if it encroaches on their time to much they could always step down.... Let's see what other restrictions they place on the taxpaying parents, (of course as long as it doesn't adversely affect their time)...

Quote:

It has nothing to do with altruism. My point is that they have professional lives outside of their BOE responsibilities. They are entitled to want to use their BOE time efficiently.

Bogart, while it is true these board members are not paid, they carry Political Clout and most(not all) use their position for future Political gains,they are not all as altruistic as they would have you believe.Most get their marching orders from the people in office .

So I guess, you are alright with proxy meetings and items placed on the agenda concerning money with no followup information.

The people serving on the Board are doing so as unpaid volunteers in addition to their other work and family obligations. Any step to make their service more efficient will encourage more people to be willing to serve.

Let's face it-- the more time someone wants to speak at a public meeting the less likely it is that they have anything constructive to say. Important, constructive comments can be scheduled in advance. It is mainly people who view these meetings as ego-boasting free entertainment who will not have the discipline to plan ahead.

I received this petition on restoring taping of public comments. If you care please sign.
http://mail.aol.com/38289-111/aol-6/en-us/Suite.aspx

I attended the last Board meeting. What is forget to post, a comment by the Board President, saying the board will have future "proxy meetings" it is not necessary to attend all meetings. They don't want the public there and they are trying to avoid meetings themselves.

John Paff, who leads the open government arm of the state Libertarian Party, says the BOE is within its rights to place reasonable limits on public comment.

?Although it?s very clear what they?re trying to do, it?s not improper,? Paff said. ?What they?re really trying to do is suppress public comment.?

The requirement that speakers give 24-hour notice is troublesome, Paff said.

?It?s not really fair because a person who comes to a meeting, it might not occur to them (to comment) until he hears someone else speak,? he said. ?It really undermines the ability of the public to participate.?

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... ts_publ.html#incart_river

JPHurst: Please remove the most annoying moving images under your name as it is disruptive to the reading/concentration process. I will continue to skip your posts until you do.

@MattSchapiro
I am neither one of the multiple choice options you describe. And many others aren't as well. I am against this school board policy enforced by one person without the consultation of other school board members, as Marilyn Roman stated.
(a) I have attended almost every school board meeting in several years
(b) I have NEVER been disruptive and never have spoken off topic for political agendas. These two options you presented shows a disconnect on the happenings of the meetings in its totality.
__________________________________

1) School board meetings have only been chaotic during political or school board elections. And BOTH sides of political coins contribute to this showboating. When Dr. Epps was in office, many members of his circle said the same thing about Fulop's team. I was against the corruption and censorship during Dr. Epps reign. Video recordings became frequent when Fulop's team attended school board meetings and advocated for change. And I was grateful for that!! I too was for the change. However, to twist this argument and state that those against the current school board regime do not deserve the right to be videotaped is ludicrous.

Sometimes I don't want to hear what others have to say at school board meetings. But I still respect their rights as members of society.

This ban is a matter of public safety, public record and transparency.

2) After reading the policy again today, I noticed that it restricts the public from recording as well. If the school board approves of the public to record, even then you can't video record the audience EVER!!! See policy: http://www.jcboe.org/boe2013/images/p ... in/policy/9000/9322.2.pdf

Why does a member of the public have to notify the school board if they want to record? What is the justification on this? Do they want the option to say NO to a member of the public who they do not like?

3) To address the comments about showboating and negative comments discouraging public participation... There was less public participation under Dr. Epps. The spin using this reason is totally incorrect. I can attest to numerous parents approaching me thanking me for voicing their concerns on TV. One parent went as far as crying because she felt like no one was listening to her due to her lack of education. Using the excuse that too many speakers discuss nonsense is censorship and bias. What is important to one person may not be important to another person. Democracy.

4) Video and audio recording at same time is called the McGurk effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect). Both together provide an impactful message to the brain. If video taping of audience while speaking hadn't been so important, then why ban it in the first place? It is obviously more important to the agenda of the school board than they lead to believe.

A possible reason for a ban on video recording can be so no one becomes a visual brand of parental representation except school board members. People identify with visual stimuli over audio stimuli

5) New York City Council require a feasibility study relating to the webcasting of public hearings and meetings.

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Legis ... 175D0CD616&Options&Search
_____________________________________


6) See my Revised Open Letter to Sangeeta Ranade:

This week only 2 days before the school board meeting, you decided behind closed doors to ban the video taping of public comments without the collaboration of the entire school board and without any public input. School Board Marilyn Roman publicly asked why weren?t the other board members consoled about this huge decision. You mentioned several folks told you they would be encouraged to speak publicly if there were no recording. And, further stated, perhaps that is the reason for low turnout at board meetings. So then what is the reason for the low turnout when previous Superintendent Dr. Epps restricted videotaping? And whom exactly did you poll influencing you on your decision behind closed doors?

We, the public, want the video taping service reinstated because it is a matter of public record, safety and transparency. Numerous parents feel alleviated and more confident in speaking when they see their same issues being raised on TV or Internet. The news media, Legislature, teachers? unions, safety advocacy groups, community leaders, residents and other parents need access to this type of public record, whether it be any of the following: parents voicing their concern over lack of communication and protocol regarding a PS38 child bringing a loaded gun to school, the Teachers Union?s President speaking about district wide issues, students speaking out about not being heard. Everyone can?t attend these meetings. To restrict the community?s access is the old way of thinking.

We would like alternate solutions to your totalitarian decision of banning the recordings, similar to the decisions made by School Board Presidents Sterling Waterman and Sue Mack. One suggestion is to allow each speaker the option to be recorded or not.

The Parent Advocacy Group would like to invite everyone to the next school board meeting on Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 6pm SHARP to talk about what this means to him or her. One must call no later than 24 hours prior to meeting, put his or her name down as a speaker by calling the Board Secretary: 201-915-6074. Also email the NJ Joint Committee of Public Schools to include Melanie Scholtz on your disapproval in Jersey City School Board President?s lack of transparency, safety disregard and banning of public record: mschulz@njleg.org. And lastly, we ask that people email, info@parentadvocacygroup.com or post their views on https://www.facebook.com/groups/parentadvocacy.

We will collaborate with others in advocating for the revision of the Sunshine Law, making it mandatory to record public meetings online, on community friendly media outlets and on email news blasts, not solely 2 newspapers.


January 17, 2014


Yours truly in service,
Akisia Grigsby
Founder, President
Parent Advocacy Group
akisia@parentadvocacygroup.com
twitter.com/ParentAdvocacyG
facebook.com/groups/parentadvocacy
201-589-0850
cell: 917-690-2358

Joshua, the format has been changed. You can only speak at the public portion, but you must register the day before. You cannot speak on business matters later. What I found outrageous, the board would not respond to comments asked by parents, especially the parent who asked why PS# 38 was not on lockdown. This parent was in the building speaking to the principal and had no clue there was a problem. The protocol is lockdown because another student could also have a gun. You cannot presume there is not another student who also have a gun. I was very angry the board and Dr. Lyles did not answer this parent question.