Board Attorney Responds to Charter School Commission Overturning Local Decision
Beth Figueroa, Director of Authorizing for the Tennessee Public Charter School Commission, provided specific instructions to the parties regarding the Charter School Appeal hearing process. Her instructions were that “one representative of the sponsor’s governing board and the local board of education are permitted to submit a response to the recommendation, either by speaking in person at the Commission meeting or by submitting a written comment to be read into the record by a member of the Commission staff prior to the Commission’s discussion of the Executive Director’s Recommendation. . . . If a representative opts to speak in person, that individual will be provided up to two minutes to speak. If a sponsor opts to provide a written response, it shall be no more than one (1) page typed in length.” See also Rule 1185-01-01-.01(9)(a). Based on this directive from the Charter School Commission, the decision was made that JMCSS would be able to better communicate its concerns about the Executive Director’s recommendation in a carefully drafted one-page written response rather than a two-minute verbal response.
Although several Commission members during the hearing indicated that they would like to ask representatives of JMCSS questions and commented that JMCSS representatives were not there in person, Tess Stovall, Executive Director, immediately before the vote was taken reminded the Commission board members that the Commission’s current policy and procedures do not allow representatives additional opportunities to engage with the Commission except for either the 2-minute verbal statement or the one-page written statement. Director Stovall told the Commission that if the Commission wanted to change the process to allow for questions and answers, then it could consider that for future hearings. It was obvious that the Commission members were not aware of its own procedural rules.
It is apparent that the Commission had several concerns about the Charter School Application, and the Commission wanted additional input from JMCSS regarding the reasons for denial of the Application. It is unfortunate that the Commission made its decision based upon JMCSS not being present to answer questions based upon JMCSS’s compliance with the Commission’s rule of being limited to a one-page written response. If the Commission really wanted answers to its questions, it could have tabled its decision, waived its limitations on a response from JMCSS, and give JMCSS an opportunity to respond to its concerns about the Application.
Dale Thomas
Board Attorney
Jackson-Madison County Schools
