The Springfield Board of Education will add a public meeting to its schedule in order to continue a discussion about its legislative priorities — requests the board will make to Springfield's state lawmakers.
The board, with a 7-0 vote during a Tuesday meeting, approved postponing a discussion of the legislative platform until Jan. 23. When it reconvenes next week, it will consider an updated list of priorities assembled by board member Kelly Byrne.
“My whole goal here is to try and find a document where we have as much agreement as possible,” Byrne said during the meeting. “If we are going to spend $60,000 on a lobbyist to lobby for us, this is the document that will drive those decisions.”
Byrne said the list included some priorities in an original document, with some items added based on conversations with other board members. Byrne said board member Judy Brunner recommended presenting a second draft of the list, even though it was brought to the agenda for Jan. 16 late.
The list was organized into a series of bullet points under four categories: Beliefs, state legislative priorities, funding and local control.
Byrne said he tried to eliminate ideas and priorities where board members would have wide disagreements.
“I think a lot of the statements meant to reflect increasing local control,” Byrne said. “It would allow us to use our revenue to make the decisions what we think are best for our students, setting aside the rest of the districts in Missouri.”
While school board members had initial disagreements over specific parts of the list, they were grateful for Byrne taking the initiative to assemble a list of statements that already had consensus. The board was unable to agree on a similar platform last year, board member Maryam Mohammadkhani said.
The board would like to move quickly. Missouri’s legislative session opened during the first week of January, and the legislative priorities had been pushed back from the previous two Springfield Board of Education meetings because of loaded agendas.
Board member Shurita Thomas-Tate her support of the platform would not depend on agreement with every detail.
“I’m OK with there being something on the platform that I may not 100% agree with,” Thomas-Tate told Byrne. “I really do appreciate you putting together a platform, where you took the time to think about what we all as board members may be able to come to consensus about. That’s important.”
