The Mexico Public Schools Board of Education (BOE) got into a lengthy discussion about the process for allowing the public to speak at meetings with no action taken.

The discussion took place at the regular BOE meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 16. Board Member Matt Pilger requested the item be put on the agenda. Pilger said he’s received several comments from the public about the district’s policy to speak to the board and would like to see it changed.

Mexico Public Schools does not have an open comment period for district patrons or students. Instead, the district has established a policy and procedure a patron must go through before the issue reaches the BOE.

The patron must first request a meeting with district Superintendent Melissa Chastain to resolve the issue. Chastain or her designee can either waive the meeting and send the issue to the BOE or she has 20 days to respond to the request. If the superintendent doesn’t meet with the patron or the patron is not satisfied with the meeting’s results they can request the item be put on the agenda. That request must be at least five days before a regular meeting. Furthermore, BOE members are restricted from bringing up items not on the agenda and must give a 48 notice to any questions or concerns they have according to the policy.

However, that comes with a list of 12 different rules to which the request can be disqualified. Some of the reasons include addressing an issue the BOE has already addressed in the previous three calendar months or if a patron has previously violated district rules. Ultimately the BOE president can deny the request under the rules.

“I understand it’s a business meeting but there are other school boards that allow their patrons a little bit easier path to make comments at school board meetings,” Pilger said. “A lot of community members have mentioned this to me and to other people saying the process to speak at a meeting is a lot.”

BOE President Keith Louder said the district has to follow the policy because they established it under the direction of state statutes. Louder said the state requires the district to have a public comment policy but doesn’t dictate how that policy should operate. Louder admitted the policy is restrictive.

“If you have something that comes to mind and you want to say it and you want to say it now this seems very restrictive,” Louder said.

Some other board members questioned Pilger about other school districts and asked if they were allowing open comments. The two other school districts within Audrain County, Community R-VI and Van-Far, both have open public comment periods. Community R-VI’s policy says a patron can talk about an agenda item or, “other matters related to the district.” Van-Far also allows an open public comment period but has some stipulations. Only items on the agenda may be discussed and there is a time limit. The BOE president can also terminate the discussion.

Louder said he’s not in favor of a change and used his personal experiences as a guide. Louder, a teacher and coach, said he’s had experiences where a parent has taken an issue straight to administration without approaching him first. Louder believes there should be a process followed.

“It was limited but it’s happened to me,” Louder said. “It comes to me and I don’t even know where it came from, I haven’t had an opportunity. To have the opportunity for people to go to the source first and then work through that is an appropriate thing to do.”

Pilger said BOE members are not obligated to respond to anyone’s comment.

“Watching these other school board meetings you don’t have to respond to what the person is saying at that time,” Pilger said. “You can go and do the research and you can choose to come back and respond to that or you can listen and hear what they have to say. At least you’re hearing their concerns. I feel like we’re not hearing some concerns out there by our current policy.” 

Board Member Scott Nichols disagreed and said if the issue is that important to someone they’ll go through the process. Nichols piggybacked off of Louder’s points and added that some cooling-off time is often needed and the policy helps with that. Nichols also said the policy helps him be a better listener when he’s prepared.

“I’m just as guilty as other people,” Nichols said. “I’ll get hot-headed about something and voice my opinion right then and I don’t sleep on it for 24 hours and that’s a bad deal.”

Nichols is also concerned with some people not following the rules. Board Member Michelle Stephens concurred and said changing the policy will have negative effects.

“I think we should be able to find a happy medium,” Stephens said. “If we go full on open forum that’s a slippery slope down a path we don’t want to take. It does open us up to things being thrown out that maybe should have gone through a different channel.”

Chastain said she would have concerns about the chain of command.

“I think that would affect our climate in a very negative way,” Chastain said. “I would not want to see that for my staff. We want to hear people’s voices and certainly want to sit down and have conversations. We have a lot of things we need to improve and we all know that. I don’t think that’s going to solve anything.”

Pilger also believes the policy limits public participation.

“If you look around the room right now we’ve got a lot of employees of the district out here but I don’t see a whole lot of community members,” Pilger said.

Nichols disagreed and said he thinks the only people who would show up would be social media talking heads.

“I think you would get the people who post on Facebook or the people that like to complain,” Nichols said. “All those people have a place and have a right to voice their opinion but I feel like they’re already doing what they’re going to do.”

Nichols said if there were more public attendance he might think differently.

“Maybe I would think differently if we had the room packed with people from the community,” Nichols said. “We would love to see this room full of community members.”