Letter to the GCEL

Mrs Locke, Mrs Gates, Members of the GCEL,

Having received the minutes of the June 15, 1999, meeting of the Governor's Commission on Early Learning, I wish to convey to the commission my disappointment at an obvious attempt by the commission to ignore the input of the citizens of this state who have voiced their concern at the direction and agenda of the commission.

First, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to remind you that you are an appointed body, and, therefore, represent no one in this state aside from those who appointed you.

In a footnote, on page 5 of the meeting minutes, is stated,

Due to number of speakers and limited time at the meeting it was not possible to link each speaker with their specific comments. …

This statement is totally illogical. The time allowed each speaker under public comment has nothing to do with the ability of the comments of each speaker to be recorded and reflected in meeting minutes. The comments of each speaker should be identified and recorded in the minutes as meeting activity.

Under public comment in the minutes, it is noted that while the comments of Jean Hueston are specific to content, again the comments of those concerned about the direction and agenda of the commission were generalized in a statement that can only be identified as a political spin of the truth:

Several other audience members spoke out against the Commission's involvement in insuring all children age 0-5 go to school ready to learn.

That the commission members even considered accepting this, as written, is offensive. No individual present at that meeting, got up and stated that they did not want children "ready to learn" when they entered school; they did, however, convey concerns as to how that nebulous term was being defined and whether it was the role of a government agency or commission to define it.

Again, I call on the commission to revise the minutes to reflect the actual comments of the individuals who spoke.

That the commission was quite willing to include specifics of those comments which favored the commission's work, but ignored those comments which showed concern about the direction and agenda of the commission, is unconscionable and confirms that the work of the commission is not more than to achieve a political agenda at all cost, even if that means ignoring the concerns of the citizens of this state, even if that means walking on the rights of parents. That is exactly the reason citizens in this state are concerned about the direction and agenda of the commission. This is not the first time the commission has failed to accurately record the comments of a citizen concerned by the agenda and direction of the commission.

Other activity that occurred during the commission meeting is also cause for concern. Apparently, one citizen present raised the issue of the constitutionality of elected legislators sitting on the commission and thereby violating their constitutional charge. In this vein, Representative Kessler was reported to have stated that she was sitting as a volunteer, not a legislator after first stating that she represented her caucus, not her district.

Representative Kessler, nor the rest of the appointed legislators on the commission, would be on the commission were it not for their elected office. They are sitting on the commission as legislators — elected by the people of this state. I, too, question the constitutionality of their doing so in such circumstance that they abrogate their constitutional charge to non-elected commission members when they can be outvoted, and by their presence on the commission, give leverage to those policies pursued by the commission.

It was stated, during the meeting, that the purpose of the commission is to support parents. This was stated in various ways. However, the meeting minutes and prior meeting minutes also state that the goal of the commission is to reach ALL parents and include ALL parents. This represents a presupposition on the part of the commission that it has the authority to define terms and to ultimately require parents to meet those definitions as defined by the commission. This is further supported by the facilitated focus group session at the June meeting "to define parent education and support", and in that endeavor, define "parents and families." This is antithetical to our representative governance structure in which the rights of the people supersede the wants of government bureaucracies. It is the inherent right of parents to oversee the upbringing and education of their children according to their beliefs which, under our state constitution, shall not be molested.

I am also given to understand that when citizens present at the meeting sought to listen to the activity of the facilitated focus groups, they were denied that right by commission members. The open public meetings act makes it very clear that meetings of state agencies, commissions, etc, must be conducted openly before the people. Any citizen who wishes to listen to the activity of facilitated focus groups engaged in by commission members has the right, under state law, to do so.

If the work of the commission cannot be open and honest, if the work of the commission cannot withstand the scrutiny and concern of the citizens of this state, then one can only come to the conclusion that the commission goals are antithetical to the best interests of the citizens of this state.

Sincerely,

Lynn M Stuter

╪