School Board ‘Retreat’ Boils Over Amid Tensions Regarding Transparency, Recent Events

When most Americans attend work retreats, they can be guaranteed stale coffee and a private room to discuss workplace dynamics and changes to make the team more efficient. When East Lansing School Board members met for their retreat on Thursday, April 6, however, they didn’t get to enjoy a private room.

Due to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, which requires that no closed door meetings take place with a quorum of members, anyone who wanted to watch the board discuss how it communicates and works with each other could do so.

The board was, however, treated to dinner from El Azteco by Superintendent Dori Leyko.

With a total of three members of the public present (including this reporter), the session began like a normal meeting of the board in the lower of level East Lansing High School: roll was taken (all seven members plus the superintendent were present), the agenda was approved and time for public comment was announced (no one came forward).

President Terah Chambers introduced Dr. Dorinda Carter Andrews as the facilitator of the retreat. Carter Andrews is a faculty member in Michigan State University’s College of Education who also facilitated the mayor’s “listening session” in January. She remarked she had worked with previous boards in similar ways and identified herself as a 15-year friend of the district. She also has children at MacDonald Middle School and the high school.

Carter Andrews said the three-hour session would be interactive and would incorporate goals topics Chambers thought would be useful in moving the board forward: engaging in board development that strengthens member relations and fosters community, and exploring and identifying strategies for effectively communicating with each other and across stakeholder groups.

Carter Andrews then led the group in an icebreaker to kick off the retreat. Called “connection chain,” the activity was designed to highlight the similarities between board members. Discoveries included realizations that Trustees Chris Martin and Amanda Cormier both earned degrees in New York City, Treasurer Kath Edsall and Leyko both coached basketball, and Secretary Tali Faris-Hylen, Vice President Elizabeth Lyons and Martin are all diet soda fanatics.

Trustee Monica Fink did not participate.

Carter Andrews then asked the board to identify group agreements and norms for their time together. She provided some to help them start: stay engaged, speak your truth, experience discomfort (because, “It’s in the discomfort when we’re actually growing,” she said), and expect and accept non-closure.

Faris-Hylen added, “Don’t be afraid to ask questions and engage respectfully.”

Edsall asked her colleagues to, “use both/and thinking [by] remembering two things can be true at the same time.”

Finally, Carter Andrews asked the board to consider why they were there and what collective goals they had.

“To build relational trust within [the] group,” Leyko answered.

“We’re at a time when there’s not a lot of stability in our community,” Martin said.

“The previous board was a very experienced board,” Chambers said. “We have the opportunity to build something healthy and positive and to do new things.”

“[We are] a board in need of triage,” Fink said.

As the work on the board’s communication began, Carter Andrews articulated four methods of communication: passive, passive aggressive, aggressive and assertive. She also asked the board to identify the communication method that was most common and least preferred.

Six identified assertive as their most common method, whereas the group was split between aggressive and passive aggressive as their least preferred.

Fink did not participate.

It wasn’t until Carter Andrews asked the board to consider common communication challenges that frustrations visibly boiled over.

“Lack of communication and lack of collaboration,” Fink said, pointing to examples on the PowerPoint slide being projected.

“You feel like these are current issues?” Carter Andrews asked.

“And information silos,” Fink said.

“Monica, you want to expand on any of those three with an example?” Carter Andrews asked.

“Mine are in the minutes,” Fink responded.

Edsall responded, saying she had a level of trust in the system set up around the school board, saying “I know it’s handled” when it comes to the right people having the information they need. She then made a pointed remark concerning Fink’s earlier comments.

“The lack of collaboration and being ‘in the minutes’ is a problem right there,” Edsall said. The unwillingness to talk about it and to just come up with a motion at the school board table [and] shoot down people and ‘it’s in the minutes’, that’s a problem. That’s a lack of communication.”

“I have said the same thing for two years straight,” Fink said. “It is [all in a] four-page statement. I am not going to sit here and go through it all again. For two years I’ve said this. For two years you’ve shot it down, you’ve pushed back, you’ve acted like I’ve done something wrong and you still continue to do it. We are not going to sit here and play these games. I don’t need to repeat it, everyone has read the minutes. It’s public, it’s in the news.”

“In the minutes that I’ve acted as a board of one, those minutes in that I didn’t respond in the way you wanted me to respond in a board meeting,” Edsall said.

“What are you talking about?” Fink asked.

“I’m talking about the whole motion that you read in January with all of your evidence,” said Edsall, referring to Fink’s motion to remove Edsall as president of the board, a vote that was stopped when Edsall opted instead to resign the position of president. Fink’s motion to remove Edsall (found on page 5 here) concerned many times decisions were made by board members out of the public eye – sometimes without her – or public conversation was stifled. At the time she resigned, Edsall also apologized for having treated members of the district, including students, in an insensitive fashion over their concerns about violence.

“I’m assuming those are the minutes you’re talking about,” Edsall continued. “That you read through every bylaw I have ever violated and that acting as a board of one, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There was no communication about any of that.”

“It’s noted in the minutes,” Fink responded, “every time I try to put forth a motion, you said no. That’s not collaborative work and we have conversations outside ‘cause I have emails for it.”

“In which you scream the ‘f word’ at me dozens of times during those long conversations,” Edsall said.

“Kath,” Fink said, “when I had my campaign, you called me and told me that ‘this is exactly what the fuck you get for not doing what I told you.”

As Edsall was denying that accusation, Carter Andrews unsuccessfully attempted to regain control of the room and move the facilitation forward.

“You have issues and until we can actually sit here and be transparent and not think that because someone raises the issue, it’s them trashing the district, we’re not going to get anywhere,” Fink interjected.

Carter Andrews again tried to bring the conversation back to the objectives, trying to identify what both Fink and Edsall had offered to ensure both felt heard. Edsall clarified she felt the issue was that Fink had made a motion at a January meeting and did not receive a second, which caused Fink to be upset with Edsall and other members of the board.

“And as I’ve said repeatedly,” Fink said, “I am not angry. Everything I’ve ever submitted is not personal. You keep attacking me personally.”

“I have never once attacked you personally, Edsall said. “Never once. I asked you to understand due process. There are people in this room — and again, this will come back to your aggressive [and] assertive [communication]. The situation she’s bringing up now, she asked for a situation in a board meeting and to then, which would publicly disclose a student’s protected information and not only would it publicly expose that student’s information, she wanted to go back to an incident with a student who had done something really inappropriate and I explained that we couldn’t at that time that that became public say anything because that child had due process rights. So I explained that in the meeting.”

“And that would have been fine,” Fink interjected, “and that would have been professional. And that would have been collaborative if you left it right there instead of saying, ‘And I can say whatever I want to unlike what some people have to say,’ which is what you did.

As she was repeating what she said Edsall had said, Fink made hand gestures that could be interpreted as exaggerated “gang-like” motions.

“I didn’t do it like this,” Edsall shouted back, repeating the gestures.

“The point is,” Fink said over Carter Andrews, who was again trying to regain control of the room, “I kept it at board policy. I kept it in the minutes.

“You can see where I asked,” she said, pausing for a moment,  “no one has hurt my feelings in any sort of way, OK? I’m not upset, but if we are talking about being transparent, I keep saying this, we should at least second the motion so we can have a discussion. For transparency purposes, we should second all motions whether we agree with them or not just so we can have a discussion.”

Carter Andrews stressed it was good Fink expressed that belief but it was important that others feel the opportunity to disagree, if they wanted. The communication itself, and the way Edsall and Fink argued, was something Carter Andrews also wanted to explore.

“This is actually a teachable moment,” Carter Andrews said. “I would like to hear how others experienced that communication exchange. We heard verbals and we saw nonverbals.”

“I’m just going to say,” Trustee Elizabeth Lyons said, “I’m glad it came out. I’m tired of tiptoeing around. We know there’s an issue. We know there’s been some conflict and let’s get it out. There was some aggressive behavior, assertive behavior and it’s frustrating because I think we all want the same thing, right? That miscommunication was holding us back. And just as much as the people in the audience can misconstrue our words, we are misconstruing words as a board sometimes. And we need to be able to go back and have a positive conversation. So I’m glad it’s out because we need to have these conversations because, to tell you the truth, it’s tiring to be on this board when we cannot have these conversations and feel comfortable with everyone.”

“It always seems very reactionary,” Cormier said. “There’s an inherent communication issue but it does dominate a lot of the conversations we have.”

She compared the previous conversation to the one at the board meeting that Edsal and Fink had referenced.

“It felt the same way,” Cormier continued. “It just shut down the communication that was happening, because Monica spoke. And whether you meant it or not, Kath, it did feel like it was just because [Fink] said it, that we couldn’t have a conversation. It felt very defensive, which makes it hard to bring up things and think things aren’t going to go well at the table.”

Lyons replied she didn’t see it that way, and Carter Andrews validated both board members’ experience and thanked all eight individuals for being vulnerable.

Faris-Hylen and Martin both indicated the exchange felt destructive and made them feel anxious. Martin was recently named to the board to replace Debbie Walton, who quit without substantive explanation.

“We have enough big problems to solve and enough things to answer to the community,” Martin said, “and when interactions around this table and this group are adding to that load and that stress, it’s adding to an already difficult situation.”

Fink then asked to say one more thing before she intended to take a break from the proceedings.

“You guys know I put emails together, they are the longest novels I’ve ever seen,” she said. “And that’s because I try so hard to make sure I understand and I am clear. And it feels like, and I could be wrong, but it feels like there is a certain feeling. And I know that I don’t get all the communications and I know I don’t get talked to by all the board members, but also, there are certain things that happen that don’t need to happen.

“To bring up a concern, and again, because it’s hurtful, to be told that you’re trashing the district when all the work that I’ve done for the district has been for free,” Fink said. “Like, I don’t even have a kid in the district anymore. Where’s all the cooperation? Where’s all the he-he-ha-ha friendship? We can’t even sit down and say, ‘Hey, this is what we’re getting from our community, let’s have a talk about it,’ because, ‘No, that makes the district look bad.’ I’m upset. I have not been treated appropriately for what I have been trying to do. And I am not happy.

“We have elections, OK?,” Fink continued. “And Kath, I’m sorry you feel a certain way about me [for] putting forth a motion to have you removed. I would think that you would be able to understand that for the best interest and what was being asked for, I did the right thing. I listened to the community.

“This should not be personal. You should not be treating me in the manner in which you treat me,” Fink said, now raising her voice. “It’s not OK and I will no longer accept it. And I will do better to not be irritated with you, OK? And treat you better. We’ve had conversations back and forth for years. You know where I stand. Actually, all of you do. I have been very clear on where I stand on everything. When I say, ‘I want to talk about the violence,’ it’s not a dog whistle. I’m not trying to throw anybody under the bus. People were telling us that there were problems in the buildings.”

Fink walked out of the room after making her remarks. Carter Andrews acknowledged hurt existed between the members, and asked everyone to take a 10 minute break.

The second half of the retreat continued to focus on communication and disagreements among board members.

Carter Andrews asked participants to adhere post-it notes to three posters, naming practices they wanted to continue, stop and start. Again, Fink did not participate.

The loudest — and longest discussed — disagreements involved the question of which practices to continue.

Faris-Hylen wished to continue a group texting channel that existed between the board members. However, Fink didn’t think group texting was a good idea as it might violate the Open Meetings Act. (The board’s attorney has warned them this year about not conducting business out of the public eye because it violates the act.) The majority of the board agreed the practice is helpful, as long as no policy is discussed or decisions are made, as it helps board members decide things like who goes to which community council meetings.

This led to another airing of disagreements between Fink and Edsall, with Edsall saying board members should avoid attending those meetings unless their children attend those schools.

Another argument centered around the idea that the president of the board serves as a spokesperson for the board. Fink argued the president should share updates and the work of the board, and not personal opinions. What followed was another  discussion about whether Chambers had issued personal opinions in the name of the board.

Again, most board members argued Chambers had given them ample time to review past statements, while Fink said she had not been able to review, possibly because they came through the aforementioned group text chain.

Running out of time, Carter Andrews asked each individual to give one word to describe how they were feeling at the end of the session.

“Hopeful,” Fair-Hylen said.

“Appreciative,” Lyons said.

“I keep coming back to tired,” Cormier said.

“Optimistic,” Fink said, “because it can’t get any worse.”

“Eager,” Martin said.

“Discouraged,” Leyko said.

“Thankful,” Edsall said.

After the contentious meeting, ELi reached out to both Fink and Edsall to ask about their expectations going into the retreat and how they felt it went.

Edsall wrote, “I always go into events like this with an open mind. I feel the retreat was moderately successful. I enjoyed learning new things about people I’ve known for years and look forward to getting to know Amanda better, especially now that I have a better understanding of her communication style.

“I feel deeply that this STRONG board will move forward and continue to do great work for the district. Clearly, there are six of us [out of the seven members] willing to put in the effort to communicate with each other and most of us have a history of successful and respectful communication with each other. Hopefully, last night put to rest the narrative that Trustee Fink has been silenced and/or bullied by other board members. The reality is that when her opinions are dissimilar to others and when she doesn’t find support, she labels us as non-collaborative or hostile. There are multiple avenues where she can express her opinions or create opportunities for discussion, AND she rarely, if ever utilizes them. There are also multiple avenues for her to create solutions which are not utilized. The fact is we serve as a governing body and not everyone will consistently agree. However, I am confident we will continue to accomplish great things for this district.”

Fink responded with a much longer email that can be seen here in its entirety. In part, she said, “We can continue to try to deflect and lay the blame of the District’s problems at my feet for raising the community’s concerns but at the end of the day, I raised my concerns based on the information from the community’s input. Nothing personal and not a jab at anyone, but I can’t help but wonder, if we would have redirected all of this energy and time into the conversations I was asking for, would we be here now? I don’t want to focus on pointing fingers, instead I would like to focus on efforts that will benefit everyone and propel us forward together as a community. Before this can happen, we have to acknowledge that we are being told that harm has been and is being inflicted in our community. Not addressing the problems make conversations easier but they don’t prevent or stop the harm. The concerns being raised are valid and need to be addressed.

“At the end of the meeting last night, we were asked how we feel, and I responded ‘optimistic.’ I truly hold so much hope for the promise of this District and the work that is being done. Just because I highlight the concerns of the community doesn’t mean that I think nothing good is happening. Moving forward I hope that we are able to find a way to communicate that places the voices of our students, staff, each other and community over personal biases.”

The board meets tonight Monday, April 10, in the board meeting room in the lower level of the high school.