Rochester school board censures trustee for op-ed

Rochester Faculties trustee Carol Beth Litkouhi was convicted Nov. 10 for a column revealing a attainable tax enhance that had been privately mentioned by the varsity board and others in Oakland County.

In a 5-2 vote, Litkouhi was faraway from all committees and liaison roles for one 12 months for her op-ed printed by the Detroit Information on October 30, entitled: “Oakland County’s Hidden Tax Debate: The Push for a New College ‘Enhancement Millage.’”

Within the column, Litkouhi highlights the implications of a attainable provincial election that might come to a vote in 2026.

“Many of those conversations are taking place quietly, with out public discover or taxpayer enter. Oakland County faculty boards are quietly being requested to assist inserting one other enhance on the poll,” she wrote. “I used to be even requested to not publicly point out the proposal till after the boards had accomplished their voting.”

The Rochester College Board thought of making its views on the proposal public a violation of Bylaw 1001, which states: “Board members shall not take any non-public motion that might jeopardize the board or administration and shall not share any doc or data not already shared by the district, together with however not restricted to confidential or privileged data.”

Litkouhi’s column was regarded by different board members as a violation of these inside rules.

In response to the statutes, there aren’t any sensible penalties of the disapproval apart from the ban on committee and liaison assignments.

Trustee Jayson Blake verified that the potential millage was mentioned.

“Each precinct in Oakland County spoke to their members and took their temperatures to see if there was a necessity for a countywide millage,” Blake mentioned. “We had been requested to not say something whereas members had been being questioned.”

He added, “Almost 200 board members throughout the county had been surveyed about their curiosity, however not a single board member has betrayed the belief of their superintendent on this manner.”

Blake, board chair Michelle Bueltel, vice chairman Jessica Gupta, treasurer Julie Alspach and trustee Barb Anness all voted in favor of the censure. Litkouhi and Trustee Shelley Lauzon voted in opposition to.

“Throughout the nation, no different board member felt the necessity to dictate their private opinions to the neighborhood and that is precisely what Carol Beth Litkouhi did: she wrote an op-ed,” Alspach mentioned.

Litkouhi disputed the truth that what she mentioned publicly was confidential.

“I’ve not launched any confidential data. Every part referenced in my article is already public. Oakland faculty paperwork, district monetary data and communications all topic to the FOIA (Freedom of Info Act),” she mentioned in the course of the assembly. “How can I be punished for one thing that must be made public anyway? Simply because somebody asks you to not discuss public data doesn’t make the data confidential.”

She additionally disputed that discussions in regards to the matter had been non-public till the article was printed.

“Different faculty districts have dealt with this appropriately. They’ve already mentioned this millage at open conferences weeks earlier than my op-ed was printed,” Litkouhi mentioned. “How are you going to name this confidential when the dialog is already taking place in different faculty districts?”

Rochester father or mother Tim Peterson was amongst many who supported Litkouhi earlier than the board voted.

“Any of you attempting to silence her must be ashamed of yourselves,” he mentioned.

“Punishing her for talking brazenly is flawed. It sends a horrible message that trustees might be punished for expressing opinions or being clear with the neighborhood we serve,” mentioned Trustee Louzon.

President Bueltel mentioned there have been different points past simply disclosing a coverage dialogue that was meant to stay non-public.

“The choice to publicly share data that has not but been launched by the district creates important challenges for this board, for the superintendent and for the connection between the board and the superintendent,” she mentioned. “It not solely misrepresents the work of the district, or on this case the work of the county, but in addition damages relationships, restricts the circulate of data to all board members and erodes the belief important to efficient governance.”

Within the column, Litkouhi claimed the proposal can be a brand new $1.5 million tax for six years, with no restrictions on how the cash might be spent, and would generate $10.8 million yearly in Rochester.