Verbatim: Queen Liliuokalani School supporters condemn DOE, BOE handling of proceedings
The following letter to House Speaker Calvin Say and Kaimuki Rep. Barbara Marumoto was sent by Brian Kang and Lyle Bullock, Jr. on behalf of Friends of Queen Liliuokalani School (QLS). The Kaimuki residents are requesting intervention by the Attorney General to look at how the Board of Education and Department of Education have been handling the school closure process. Friends of QLS members are concerned that the public is not receiving fair involvement in the process.
Dear Speaker Say and Representative Marumoto:
We write on behalf of a group of dedicated parents, staff and community members supporting Queen Liliuokalani School. We are very concerned with the Board of Education’s (BOE) and the Department of Education’s (DOE) handling of the Kalani Complex Elementary Schools Draft Consolidation Report (the “Report”). The BOE and the DOE have shown, as described in greater detail below, a blatant disregard for the clear and unequivocal requirements of the Hawaii Administrative Rules casting a long shadow on the legitimacy of these proceedings. We would like to request that you ask the Attorney General to provide an opinion as to the legitimacy of the BOE’s and DOE’s actions with regard to the Report.
For example, by holding the hearing for the Report on December 13, 2010, the BOE is not following its own administrative rules and this constitutes improper rule-making in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 91-1. The Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) Title 8, Subtitle 2, Part 1, Chapter 38 governs the consolidation of public schools. HAR § 8-38-1 sets out the purpose of this chapter, which include: to provide procedures and guidelines to determine whether a school should be consolidated and to ensure that parents and other parties are informed of proposed consolidations and are given the opportunity to express their views at a public hearing. HAR § 8-38-4(c) specifically provides that:
“Upon receiving the report, the oard shall review the report and direct the superintendent, who shall designate a department official as the hearing officer, to conduct a public hearing within sixty days 1 of the oard’s receipt of the report to receive community input on the report.”
In the instant matter, the Superintendent forwarded the Report to the Board on August 31, 2010, with a request that the Board authorize the Superintendent to conduct a public hearing. As such, the public hearing on that Report had to take place within sixty days of the Boards receipt of the Report, in any event no later than October 30, 2010.
By scheduling the Proposed Hearing 44 days after the Board received the Report, the Board is ignoring its own clearly articulated, unambiguous administrative rules.
Furthermore, according to the minutes of the Board’s meetings, we note that the December 13, 2010 hearing had not been approved by the Board. Indeed, DOE assistant superintendent of School Facilities and Support Services Randy Moore, stated that he merely received a memo from BOE Chairperson Garrett Toguchi telling him to “go ahead” with the hearing approximately one month before the hearing. We note that HAR § 8-38-2 defines the “Board” as the Board of Education, and does not provide authority for the chairman to unilaterally order a public hearing. By never placing this matter on the board’s agenda, the BOE completely deprived the public of the opportunity to further testify and comment on the proposed closure and whether the hearing should have been held at all.
Finally, HAR § 8-38-4(d) provides that the Superintendent shall submit a summary of the public hearing and the Superintendent’s recommendations to the Board within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. It is our understanding that the hearing closed on December 16, 2010, and as such, the Superintendent’s recommendations should have been submitted to the BOE by Tuesday, January 18, 2011. The Superintendent submitted her summary and recommendations to the Board 13 days late, on January 31, 2011. The DOE has not met this obligation either.
Given these repeated violations of its own Administrative Rules, there is a serious question as to the legitimacy of all of the BOE/DOE’s activities in connection with the Report, and we find it extremely unfortunate that the Board and the Department have not upheld the integrity of the rules and this process.
While we disagree with the Department’s reasons for seeking the closure of Queen Lili’uokalani School, we should all be able to at least agree that any process to permanently close a school (thereby significantly affecting the students, parents, faculty and community associated with the school) should be fair, open, and strictly follow the intent and clear requirements of the DOE’s own administrative rules.
We note that other schools are being considered for closure by the DOE, and it would be extremely unfortunate if the experience at Queen Lili’uokalani School is repeated, and the Department and the Board continue to disregard the requirements of the rules in connection with the proposed closure of those schools. As such, we respectfully request that you ask the Attorney General to issue an opinion on these matters.
Very truly yours,
Brian Kang
Lyle Bullock, Jr.
Related Stories:
Verbatim: Closing Kamiloiki, Queen Liliuokalani schools comes at what cost to our keiki?
Queen Liliuokalani School supporters make a strong case for survival
Video: Queen Liliuokalani Elementary School supporters share testimony
Verbatim: History and tradition argues strongly against closing Liliuokalani School
DOE to decide on Queen Liliuokalani School closure following public hearing
A concerned community rallies to perpetuate Queen Liliuokalani’s legacy in Kaimuki