Update: The Board of Education voted 3-1, with Shana Segal dissenting and Todd Collins absent, on Oct. 20 to eliminate Zoom access for public comments for the next three meetings.
The Palo Alto Unified School District is preparing to temporarily ban members of the public from addressing the school board via Zoom – a prohibition that was inspired by a series of lewd, racist comments that disrupted a City Council meeting this week.
The district's Board of Education has scheduled a special meeting on Oct. 20 to eliminate Zoom access for public comments for the next three board meetings, according to a report released Wednesday. Extending the suspension of Zoom comments beyond December would require an additional vote by the school board, according to the report.
The report calls the suspension "a temporary measure to address immediate concern."
"The safety and effectiveness of our virtual communication platform are paramount, and this suspension will allow us to address and mitigate any issues that have arisen," the school board report states. "Thank you for your understanding and cooperation as we work to ensure a respectful and productive environment for all participants during our meetings."
The decision comes days after various public commenters made lewd, racist and anti-Semitic comments at the Oct. 16 meeting of the City Council, comments that were repeatedly denounced by Mayor Lydia Kou. Two school board members participated in a discussion at that meeting focusing on Cubberley Community Center, with Board member Todd Collins attending the meeting and board President Jennifer DiBrienza commenting virtually by Zoom.
District Superintendent Don Austin said Thursday that the board is looking at ways to respond to the recent "Zoom bombing" trend, which has disrupted meetings throughout the region.
"Right now, there's enough real debate about topics local and beyond," Austin said at the Thursday morning meeting of the City/School Liaison Committee, which consists of members of the school board and the City Council. "It's terrible that some people are using this as an opportunity to do some things for sport that are really awful."
In restricting comments, the school district is following the lead of Redwood City, Union City, Milpitas and several other cities in the Bay Area which recently banned public comments by Zoom in response to lewd and racist comments made by members of the public at meetings.
The Palo Alto council, for its part, is not planning to make any changes at this time. City Manager Ed Shikada told this publication that the city will continue to accept virtual public comments at City Council meetings for the time being.
Comments
Registered user
Green Acres
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:09 am
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:09 am
This terrible! NO zoom bombings have happened at school board meetings, yet they rush to stop public comment! Please let the Board hear of your opposition!
There's an easy technical fix - just delay zoom comments (a "tape delay") by 2 or 3 seconds before letting them through, with a person to monitor the undelayed comments on headphones. If a comment is a zoom bomb, the monitor can just kill the comment before it is heard by anyone else.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:19 am
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:19 am
This is happening all over the Bay Area and in fact the nation so we might learn from what others are doing.
If nothing else, the city clerk who deals with the public commenters should immediately cut off comments from those only giving their first name initial or other vague identifiers.
Registered user
another community
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:34 am
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2023 at 11:34 am
If the board sticks to PAUSD related topics and doesn't wade into international politics, then maybe "Zoomers" will stay on topic. The delay idea sounds like something worth trying, but I suppose "agility and innovation" have to take a back seat to expediency in this case. It is too bad that well intentioned stakeholders have to pay the price, but such is the state of affairs these days.
[Portion removed.]
Registered user
Barron Park
on Oct 19, 2023 at 3:49 pm
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2023 at 3:49 pm
Let people comment through the chat. Their questions can still be answered and their comments recorded.
Racist, anti sematic, and rude comments should not be tolerated
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:00 am
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:00 am
Enable comments via chat please, it is very simple and manageable - don't shut people out because they can't make it to the meeting in person.
Registered user
Meadow Park
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:16 am
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:16 am
PAUSD just looking for another way to stifle community input/discussion. Wouldn't be surprised if they try to eliminate Zoom participation entirely. Then they can shorten, again, the amount of time for speakers to talk.
Your ideas make more sense when you're just talking into the echo chamber.
Registered user
another community
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:52 am
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2023 at 8:52 am
The moderated chat idea seems solid. As teachers we did it all the time during the pandemic. It actually allows those too shy to speak a way to voice their opinions. It is not easy to manage or validate a flood of comments, but at least nonsense and hateful comments can be ignored.
I hope, as Morgan states, that this is not a ploy by the Board to silence even more voices.
Registered user
another community
on Oct 20, 2023 at 12:34 pm
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2023 at 12:34 pm
PAUSD is being proactive, and considering nipping it in the bud before hateful rhetoric comes their way.
Zoom bombings have been a problem since the pandemic, when Zoom usage strongly increased. People are more aware recently because of media coverage.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Oct 20, 2023 at 4:10 pm
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2023 at 4:10 pm
@Jennifer
Nipping in the bud is great, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not so much. PAUSD already has a transparency problem, so moderation should be the first thing tried.
Registered user
another community
on Oct 21, 2023 at 3:26 am
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2023 at 3:26 am
@Modoman
Transparency is not a priority. Controlling the narrative is the order of the day and Mr. Austin's actions and words on behalf of the board have made that patently clear.
His contract was renewed and thus there is no reason in his mind, or in the minds of most board members to be authentically transparent. If they say they are transparent, then they are transparent.
I don't see the board pursuing a moderated ZOOM approach because they don't need to, nor do they need to explain why they don't need to. Cutting off ZOOM is the path of least resistance. It is also expedient given the platform ZOOM provides to extremists of all stripes. The leadership style exhibited by Mr. Austin and the Board precludes the "moderated access" solution.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2023 at 3:45 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2023 at 3:45 pm
PAUSD board leadership does not want community input.It’s ironic that DiBrienza weighed in via zoom, but does not want to extend that courtesy to the people who elected her and to whom she is supposed to represent.
In addition to the public, this board is actively trying to silence the one board member who received the most votes in the last election. They only care about ramming their own agenda through.
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 22, 2023 at 7:19 pm
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2023 at 7:19 pm
This is a worrying development. Although there was much angst expressed by the Board during this meeting about being champions for democracy and so on, on the same morning the Board Policy Review Committee was reviewing this little gem:
“Communicate directly with the Superintendent as appropriate whenever a staff member, parent or community member raises a question or concern -that implicates student well being or other issues related to district business that, in the board member’s best judgement, are best addressed by the Superintendent or designee - and direct people to communicate to the appropriate person closest to the situation”
There is no recording of the meeting where this revision of Board policy was discussed on Monday. This directive is supposed to influence Trustee behavior. Given the vague and overly broad wording of this proposal, anything and everything you say to any Board member is to be reported immediately to the Superintendent. Any sensitive matter, any opinion, any criticism you might have is clearly within the purview of this policy.
How can these Trustees talk about equitable participation over Zoom, while on the same day, speaking about this policy which will have a massive chilling effect on citizen participation?
Is this even legal?
Who wrote or proposed this strange policy?
Is it wise for Trustees to chill participation of stakeholders in this way? Aren’t they further deepening their own disconnection from the operations of this institution? Doesn’t this open additional legal risk? Whistle blowers are an important safety valve.
Here’s the link to the agenda:
Web Link
Registered user
another community
on Oct 24, 2023 at 12:18 am
Registered user
on Oct 24, 2023 at 12:18 am
Anyone can claim to be a “champion of democracy”. North Korea is known as the “Democratic People’s Republic”. It is a very fluid term. As I stated before, Mr. Austin and the Board spend a lot of time and energy attempting to control the narrative.
There was a time prior to this current Board and Mr. Austin when several board members, not just one or two, would visit campuses regularly to seek input and feedback from teachers and staff. They were approachable, had children in the district schools, and gave stakeholders due respect. More like representatives than rulers if you will. The Board cared deeply about what happened on the ground. They did their own research above and beyond glossy reports from site principals, or self-serving newsletters and websites emanating from 25 Churchill. If you attended the Board meetings you felt like a member of a community, not an adversary or a nuisance. Sure, there were folks that were thorns in the side, but for the most part the Board and Superintendent handled vocal critics with grace and respect.
Mr. Austin and the Board that hired him brought a new philosophy. Maybe they feel it to be democratic, but it is not the democracy taught in the classrooms they oversee, nor is it the democracy that many are accustomed to. As a great political philosopher once asked: Is it better to be feared or to be loved? His answer was it is best to be both, but if one must choose between the two, chose fear.
Discount all the propaganda and grandstanding. Look at attitudes and actions. I think it is clear which way this current “leadership team” leans and there is no real impetus for them to change, at least in their minds.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 24, 2023 at 1:52 am
Registered user
on Oct 24, 2023 at 1:52 am
Cutting off “zoom bombers” shuts off every voice too. Let peace, free speech and democracy prevail. There will always be a dissenting rude, line cutter. We are stronger than hate! Show it! Please allow a public forum to be . After all Zoom was the good when absolutely necessary for some kind of normal for our children distanced learned. Let us speak. Be doomed those Zoom bombers. Like they have any pier over truth?!! Don’t let them win while silencing the rest of the whole of us.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 24, 2023 at 8:21 am
Registered user
on Oct 24, 2023 at 8:21 am
This is all about controlling the narrative. This board is not focused on PAUSD students as a whole or on teachers. They are wildly unpopular if you look at results of the last election. These policies are intended to silence critics including and especially the newest board member who won by a large margin. [Portion removed.]
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 24, 2023 at 4:16 pm
Registered user
on Oct 24, 2023 at 4:16 pm
While I understand the board's concerns, this was a disappointing move.
There is no way to know that these offensive zoom bombers would attend school board meetings. Yes, they've gone to city council meetings -- but this doesn't mean that they will care to go to school board meetings. Notable, Palo Alto City Council and Menlo Park City Council, where this zoom bombing has actually happened, continue to allow zoom comments.
Cutting out zoom comments has a serious silencing effect on participation, *especially* for a school board where commenters, generally speaking, have children or are students themselves, and might not be able to leave their houses in the evening.
Kudos to the *one* school board member who had the courage to vote against this.
Registered user
Greater Miranda
on Oct 24, 2023 at 5:15 pm
Registered user
on Oct 24, 2023 at 5:15 pm
And, thanks to the chilling effect of these weird board policies they’re considering, I can’t state my views about any of this to any Board member because I am most certainly subject to the negative consequences of my opinion being reported directly to the superintendent. The Board is deliberately choosing the positive spin vortex of 25 Churchill. As a taxpayer, I’m not comfortable with willful blindness as a risk management strategy. We can do better. We will all end up paying the price in legal settlements.
Registered user
another community
on Oct 27, 2023 at 6:47 am
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2023 at 6:47 am
Caution to any teacher or staff member who expresses concerns to a board member about questionable policies or maltreatment. Mr. Austin is not a neutral arbiter and putting him in that position would make a flawed system even worse.
When it comes to Uniform Complaint Procedures, 25 Churchill regulates itself, thus misbehaviors on the part of administrators are often pigeonholed. Essentially there is no advocate for staff at 25 Churchill with any real leverage. For the most part the unions are anemic in this realm too.
I have seen complaints regarding administrative malfeasance turned around with the complainant the one subsequently rebuked. The effect is demoralizing and the message clear: Don’t bother making a complaint, because it will go nowhere.
A single board member dissenting against the possibility of Mr. Austin being the gatekeeper is disheartening, but kudos to them for attempting to shield stakeholders who should be free to voice concerns to a neutral party. Preferably a neutral party with some teeth.