Board Watch 5/16: Top 5 Moments

Board meetings are long, and so is this blog post. So buckle up, we take you through the top 5 moments of last nights board meeting, and close with a few matters of board business to keep an eye on.

Wythe Approval

We’ve waited a long time to say this: WYTHE WON’T WAIT! The board unanimously approved a design contract last night with RRMM Architects to build a new George Wythe High School. Community engagement is ongoing, so please mark your calendars and make a point to have your voice heard in the ongoing design process:

Nobody can speak to this milestone better than Kids First RPS co-founder, Tisha “Wythe Can’t Wait” Erby, who took her appreciation - and a custom celebratory graphic! - to social media:

I’m so excited like I’m over here like we really gettin a freakin new building like omg when I seen @JasonKamras post about the new #Wythe I literally was in tears,cause I’m like #WEDIDTHAT, we all fought hard as hell for this and this is really freakin happening! #FALL2025

— Tisha #WytheCantWait Erby (@TishaErby) May 17, 2022

Richmond Virtual Academy Compromise

Richmond Virtual Academy (RVA), home of the owls, is officially evolving into it’s post-pandemic form. This virtual program was originally established using CARES act funding, and offered an alternative to in-person instruction for families awaiting vaccination options for children under 12, or wary of the COVID risk to immunocompromised family members. With this COVID-relief expiring, members of the board have been at odds with the administration’s recommendation to end the program.

There has been hours of public comment and board discussion on the matter, so apologies in advance for missing nuance in this summary. As our chair often says: “Charge it to my head and not my heart!”

• Admin is stretched thin on budget. We’re anticipating something like $22M less funding from the state, the board arbitrarily shrunk the superintendent’s needs-based budget proposal by $6M, and the federal covid money is expiring. So, fully funding a 70-person virtual staff requires pulling from the same operating budget that was designed to supply staff to our district’s in-person facilities, all while anticipating a decline in virtual student enrollment. In February, a compromise was reached to fund a 30-person staff, though this program addition was not accompanied by the $3M+ increase to the district budget required to fund it.

• RVA and its supportive board members want to see this virtual program carry on as a “school of record” - where per-pupil-funding will follow students out of their zoned school and into this specialty school. The 30-staff compromise has also been met with resistance, as it’s obviously a serious reduction in force (RIF). Many RVA teachers have delivered public comment suggesting this reduction is motivated by admin retaliation.

Clarity has been hard to come by, with the admin citing the board’s absent (or inconsistent) instruction regarding shuffling budget priorities and program/staffing expectations, and teachers accusing the admin of failing to poll students or confirm teacher assignments for the fall. Months of back-and-forth appear to have ended last night, but not before sparking fireworks on stage.

The superintendent, per board instruction, introduced a full RVA proposal, including a breakdown of anticipated staffing needs. 3rd District representative, Kenya Gibson, introduced an alternative staffing proposal drafted by the RVA principal. This proposal was uploaded for board review at 2:09PM Monday afternoon, mere hours ahead of the meeting.

This sparked a conversation about Robert’s Rules of Order - the governing principles adopted by the board. 1st District rep, Liz Doerr, cited the need to have “two reads of policy” before voting to implement them, especially when these policies have substantial budgetary impacts. Two-reads means policy is introduced at one board meeting, and voted on at the subsequent board meeting - allowing for further exploration, consideration, and constituent feedback in the interim.

Board Chair, 6th District’s Dr. Harris-Muhhamed, admitted to allowing this last-minute proposal on the night of the vote so that the board would “arrive in this place” and have an opportunity to discuss their dysfunction. Evidently, the intent was to expose a lack of superintendent-and-RVA collaboration. For his part, the superintendent assured the board that his team had consulted RVA admin, but that leaders often have to make unpopular decisions, he is not always in a position to satisfy every request principals make. He added that it is his responsibility as superintendent to consider staffing - and its impacts - from a district-wide perspective.

“I cannot help but feel a continued lack of support by this body, a continued lack of trust in this administration’s leadership, and a complete lack of fairness in how it administers its own board-approved policies, norms, and practices.” View this exchange, here.

In the end, a motion to accept Gibson’s last minute proposal failed. Jonathan Young then moved to accept the superintendent’s proposal. This passed.

Fox Non-Emergency?

Later this week, teams will begin shoring/bracing Fox - starting in the basement and working on up. RFD still working on their investigation, and cooperating with RPS. The superintendent introduced two items for the board to consider:

1. Guidance re:procuring services for Fox rebuild. Does the board prefer to contract services using a traditional Request For Proposal (RFP), which takes typically 6 months? Or does it want to extend Emergency Procurement authority? As we’ve seen with Clark Springs, emergency procurement comes with the benefit of speed, and still includes board review for contracts. Aptly-named Dana Fox, presenting on behalf of our departing COO, explains that emergency procurement is strongly advised because they need to act fast to prevent further decay. Very clear: this pertains to procuring a design firm that is qualified to work with historic properties and disaster rebuild. It does NOT impact the design itself.

2. “The Clark Springs Roof Matter” - Admin has long recommended a replacement for the roof of this 9-years-vacant school. They are currently playing whack-a-mole with a series of roof patches. Will the board prioritize use of a quarter of next year’s approved CIP funds ($600k) to replace the most compromised area of the roof? These funds are currently assigned to repairs in other schools.

Mariah White, representative for 2nd District (including Fox) weighed in: She opposes emergency procurement since speedy contract assignments do not allow time for community consideration, and does not give us the most bang for our buck. “Why are we rushing? Our children are in a nice building right now.”

She supports replacing the Clark Springs roof, as the leaks pose an ongoing threat to teacher’s classrooms.

This will be voted on in June. Board Chair instructs members ask their questions of the administration ahead of time, and be prepared to vote at the next meeting, which echoes her familiar refrain of “do your homework.”

Teacher Attrition

Like many Virginia school districts, RPS is feeling the impact of teacher burnout. Last night’s personnel presentation outlined 27 resignations and 18 retirements. Admin warns that the district will see an uptick in our job vacancy number as we near the end of the school year. The admin will present a recruitment strategy at the next meeting, with the hopes that our job vacancy number will be zero come the start of the fall semester.

On a personal note, I’m exasperated by board scrutiny about high turnover and job vacancies, particularly because these criticisms come from board members who voted to underfund the recommended needs-based budget by $6M, and defund maintenance this year by $2M. High poverty districts like ours are notoriously hard to staff - they missed a real opportunity to support teachers by way of supporting the administration’s request for funding to improve workplace conditions, compensation, and in-school supports - all of which could contribute significantly to teacher recruitment, retention, and overall satisfaction.

Arthur Ashe Center Discussion

Candidly, this sounds like it has the potential to turn into a real mess - and could reignite tensions between City Council and RPS. We’re the first to fully acknowledge that this is largely a land-use law debate, not a school-governance — and as we’ve learned through Wythe, Fox, and River City, this school board tends to get over its skis when it comes to facilities matters. This conversation should be viewed similarly. We’re reading Ross Catrow to learn more, and you should too.

Here’s what we learned: According to the Board Attorney, “RPS does not have title ownership” of any of its facilities (they do have the operational deeds— there seems to be a lot of conflation of titles vs. deeds). The city does. This means that typically, RPS can deem a property “surplus” and return it BACK to the city when they are no longer being used. If the city then sells the property, the proceeds come back to RPS. This process acknowledges that RPS invests in the maintenance and management of these properties, and ensures that schools can ultimately recoup those expenses. The Board Attorney appeared to be, like us, synthesizing this on the spot—she mentioned the City Attorney’s letter had just come that morning, and they hadn’t had a chance to meet. (Note: the City Attorney’s letter is just that - the City Attorney’s legal opinion. It is not necessarily the position of either the Administration or City Council.)

However, regarding the Arthur Ashe Center, the city and the School Board never had a formal agreement assigning RPS control and management of the property, and the city has both the title and the deed. The city now wants to repurpose the land as part of the Diamond District development project —which the board supports. But according to the Board Attorney, the City Attorney does not believe that RPS should be compensated for their nearly four decades of maintenance expenses, which both Reps. Gibson and Young objected to. They both requested a ‘strongly worded’ letter to the City on this matter, and other board members agreed.

This is an ongoing discussion with the city attorney. Perhaps there is an opportunity for collaboration. Board attorney will advise what, if any, legal options are available. And hopefully, all of us can learn a little more about land use in the next few weeks.

Multiple board members ask - where will the district meet student’s athletic needs? They express skepticism in the city’s track record of following through on promises to RPS students, citing unfulfilled promises to grant student-access to the (now Washington Commanders) athletic facilities.

Things to watch:

• Student Bill of Rights - The board will vote next meeting on the adoption of the Student Bill of Rights. This document consolidates student legal protections in one place, and is designed as a resource for students and caregivers. It was developed by Virginia Organizing, with significant community and school board member collaboration. Attorney Thompson has signaled support for 95% of the document, and we expect some discussion next meeting pertaining to relevant legislative or judicial action taking place at the state level. (I’m unclear which one, guess we’ll find out!)

• Facilities Condition Assessment - This is a measure being spearheaded by Cheryl Burke (7th) to fund a full audit of the buildings in our school portfolio. I’ll try to share more about this proposal, and why our district is in dire need of this kind of assessment, ahead of the next board meeting.

• Ongoing Concerns about Leaks - Board Chair denied a member’s request to discuss the board’s violation of its own code of conduct. This appears to be a response to a Richmond Times Dispatch article in which a reporter obtained confidential personnel information shared in closed session. The chair says if they look into one violation they need to look into them all - no picking and choosing; also that board members should patrol themselves. There’s no accountability without transparency, and that sort of feels like the point. 9th District Rep. Jones sums it up nicely: “We aren’t really being fair.”