July Non-Board Meeting Update
Reminder: Independent parent group — not affiliated with or endorsed by FASD.
No July meeting, new details about Harrington, and six open questions from June.
TL;DR
A placeholder for a July Board meeting disappeared from the school Google calendar on Tuesday afternoon. No agenda or public notice was posted, so as of publication there is no publicly noticed July Board meeting.
Chalkbeat Colorado wrote about FASD’s move to Harrington and linked to a DPS relocation memo. The memo models FASD growing to 300 students and paying a $1,239-per-student facility-use fee. Our charter authorizes enrollment up to 504. The missing piece is still the Facility Use Agreement.
Six of the seven items in my June “what to watch next” list remain open. The seventh—whether August strategic planning starts with mission and academics—was always an August question.
Parent Recap (What Didn’t Happened)
No publicly noticed July Board meeting
For several weeks, the school’s Google calendar included a placeholder for a July Board meeting. On Tuesday afternoon, the calendar entry disappeared.
No agenda or public meeting notice had been posted. As of publication, there is no publicly noticed July Board meeting scheduled for July.
New details about the Harrington move
Chalkbeat Colorado recently published a story about FASD’s move to Harrington and linked to a DPS memorandum recommending the relocation.
The DPS memo describes Harrington as a building with 30 teaching spaces and a rated capacity of 552 students. It says FASD projected enrollment of 234 students for the coming school year and describes a future enrollment scenario of 300 students, based on two full sections in each K–5 grade.
The memo also describes a facility-use fee of $1,239 per student:
At 234 students: $289,926 annually.
At 300 students: $371,700 annually.
FASD’s signed charter contract authorizes enrollment of up to 504 students. The 504-student figure is the school’s charter maximum, while the 300-student figure appears to be the enrollment assumption DPS used in planning the Harrington arrangement.
The Facility Use Agreement has not been made public. Until it is available, several details remain unknown, including:
The portions of Harrington allocated to FASD.
Whether 300 students is only a planning assumption or a limit created by the space allocation.
Whether FASD may obtain additional space if enrollment grows.
What services and expenses are included in the per-student fee.
What the agreement would allow if FASD later seeks to add middle-school grades.
The DPS memo also does not provide FASD’s complete cost of leaving the Gaylord Street building and opening Harrington. Open questions include whether the school recovered its security deposit, whether there were lease-exit or restoration costs, and what moving, construction, furniture, technology and security expenses FASD will pay.
Six open items from June
At the end of the June Board recap, I listed seven things to watch. Six remain unresolved. The seventh was intended to be evaluated during August strategic planning.
SAC bylaws and DPS notifications
The Board approved new SAC bylaws on June 24. As of publication, the adopted bylaws have not been posted.
I requested a copy approximately two weeks ago and have not received one.
The charter requires changes in the composition of FASD’s governing Board to be submitted to DPS Authorizing & Accountability within ten business days. Two new Board members were appointed on June 24. There has been no public confirmation that the required notification occurred.
The charter materials also include an earlier version of the SAC bylaws. Because the newly adopted version has not been published, the community cannot compare the documents or evaluate what notification or approval process may apply to the changes.
Policy review
There has been no public update on the limited policy review discussed earlier this year.
Harrington transition costs
The DPS memo identifies the per-student facility fee, but FASD has not published a complete transition budget or accounting of the costs associated with leaving Gaylord Street and opening Harrington.
MLO 2020 consulting
Earlier budget materials showed $84,838 in MLO 2020 funding allocated to consulting.
There has been no public explanation identifying the consultant, the scope of work, the deliverables produced, or how the expenditure supported the purposes of the MLO 2020 funding. This question was also discussed in the March facilities analysis.
Official parent survey results
The school’s official parent survey results have not been publicly shared.
August strategic planning
The remaining item is whether August strategic planning begins with the school’s mission, academic program, French-language model, staffing and long-term priorities. That question is not yet overdue and will depend on what occurs in August.
The “Since You’re Here…” Section
Unofficial reflections — offered in good faith (and with a grain of salt)
I want to be explicit: the section above is my attempt to keep things factual and balanced. This section is my personal perspective.
The absence of a July meeting would be less notable if the questions carried forward from June had been resolved through other public communications.
Instead, the SAC bylaws remain unavailable, required DPS notifications have not been publicly confirmed, the full Harrington agreement and transition costs remain unknown, and several earlier governance questions remain open.
The Board has demonstrated that it can meet during a school break when it considers an issue sufficiently important. It held a special meeting during spring break to finalize the School Director appointment. A July meeting was not the only way to provide transparency, but it was one available opportunity. A written update could also have addressed much of the outstanding business.
As I have written before, trust is infrastructure. It is built through routine actions: publish the document, explain the expenditure, confirm the required notice and close the loop on questions previously raised.
The Harrington move and the addition of two new Board members create meaningful opportunities for FASD. Those opportunities will be stronger if the community can see the agreements governing the school and understand the decisions being made on its behalf.
The Board may take a summer break. Compliance with the charter—and basic transparency—should not.
~ Greg
