QuickTake:

The board’s “world café” approach to a discussion about attendance was meant to foster deeper conversations among board members and district administrators. But in doing so, the board made it impossible for the public to fully access the conversation.

A recent breakout discussion format during a Springfield Public Schools board meeting may have violated Oregon public meetings law, because the public could not access the full conversation.

At an Oct. 27 work session, school board members broke out into three, rotating small groups to talk with administrators. Brian Richardson, Springfield Public Schools’ director of communications and community engagement, called it a “world café”-style discussion, and said the format was meant to facilitate better conversation among board members and administrators.

Oregon law requires public meetings to be open to the public, and the district says it is in compliance with the law. But the nature of Monday’s simultaneous small-group conversations made it impossible for the public to hear most of the discussion.

Jacob Arnold, communications and news specialist with the Oregon School Boards Association, said this style of discussion is common among Oregon school boards, especially in work sessions, and meets the legal requirement of being open to the public.

But Steven Wilker, an attorney at the Tonkon Torp law firm in Portland and an expert in public meetings law, said the board’s “world café”-style discussions Monday “certainly raise a question about compliance with the public meetings law.”

The conversation in question

The last topic of discussion at the Oct. 27 Springfield Board of Education work session agenda involved student attendance. 

Administrators had already presented to the board on topics including the district’s behavior management practices and family liaisons that support low-income students. 

For these presentations, the board members sat in their typical places at the front of the board room, facing the audience, and administrators sat in seats facing the board members. Everyone spoke through microphones.

The configuration changed when the board came to the attendance discussion. The board members and administrators moved tables and chairs so that two or three administrators sat across from one or two board members at three separate tables. Every 15 minutes, the board members rotated to a new table.

There were no microphones, all three groups had conversations at the same time and members of the audience were 6 to 10 feet away from the tables.

When a Lookout Eugene-Springfield reporter asked to sit at the tables to hear better, Richardson declined the request.

Richardson said if he let a reporter sit at the tables, he would have to allow any member of the public to sit at the tables.

Snippets of conversations were audible from the front row of the designated audience area, but voices were lost in the buzz of the simultaneous conversations.

One board member, Nicole De Graff, attended virtually, and her conversations with administrators were recorded. There was also a recording of the board room, which visually showed all the board members and administrators. But the six other group conversations between the board members and administrators, as they rotated through the tables, were not recorded individually.

Richardson did not say whether the district had concerns about accessibility.

“We utilize this small group format to encourage deeper dialogue and collaboration,” Richardson said. “Small group conversations are more intimate and allow board members and subject-matter experts to explore ideas, ask questions, and share perspectives in a setting that supports meaningful exchange. I saw the Board express their appreciation of the information shared at the end of the meeting.”

Board Chair Jonathan Light said the format was relatively new to the board, although he had seen it used in workshops and seminars. Light said it is usually used to help individuals feel more comfortable about chiming in with a question or comment.

“As with any new practice or procedure the board will be discussing and evaluating the effectiveness of this format for use in our board meetings,” Light said in a statement.

Board members did share positive feedback at the end of the conversation Monday, praising administrators for their nuanced approach to improving attendance. All the handouts administrators gave to board members are posted in the board packet.

Jonathan Gault, president of the Springfield Education Association, the teachers’ union, was at the Monday board meeting. He’s been regularly attending Springfield Board of Education meetings since 2018 and has seen this format before.

“I can’t say that I’ve been concerned, but I would appreciate a creative effort to make these conversations more accessible for attendees and the general public,” Gault said.

What the law says

Oregon public meetings law states that all meetings of governing bodies “shall be open to the public” with some exceptions, like executive sessions. 

Richardson confirmed that Monday’s meeting was a traditional work session, which are information-gathering meetings where board members hear presentations, have discussions and ask questions. The Springfield Board of Education does not make formal decisions in work sessions. All work sessions, however, are subject to the same public meeting requirements.

Wilker, the attorney, said if members of the public cannot hear a conversation during a public meeting, it likely violates the requirement that meetings to be open to the public. He also pointed out that the law requires accommodations for those with hearing disabilities.

Governing bodies also must provide an audio, video or digital recording or written minutes from all meetings. These minutes or recordings do not need to cover the whole meeting, according to Oregon law, as long as they “give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants.”

But it gets tricky: Although the law requires minutes of “the substance of any discussion on any matter” during the meeting, it doesn’t require a record of every individual board member discussion, wrote Arnold of the school boards association. The law also does not require a certain volume level for speakers, and not every word must be heard or recorded.

Lilly is a graduate of Indiana University and has worked at the Indianapolis Star and in Burlington, Vermont, as well as working as a foreign language teacher in France. She covers education and children's issues for Lookout Eugene-Springfield.