After an hour long workshop full of questions to an attorney and charter school expert, the Brookings-Harbor School Board voted 3-2 Wednesday night to deny a modified proposal for a charter school for grades 5-8 which would emphasize an alternative learning method.

The Kalmiopsis Elementary School library held a standing-room-only crowd as charter school supporters, district employees, parents and community members listened to board member Brad Peters, Board Vice-Chair Carol Slewing and Board Chair Jamie Ryan reject Riverside Charter Academy’s proposal. Board members Bob Horel and Allene Fewell voted in favor of the proposal.

Peters said he wouldn’t be a responsible board member if he cast a favorable vote.

 “It’s just not good business with what we have going on right now,” Peters said, refering to the school district’s overall financial situation. 

Slewing said as elected officials, it is important to listen to the community and to those who elected them. 

She said she received many phone calls, read Letters to the Editor and articles in the Curry Coastal Pilot from those opposed to the school.

Ryan said she feels that the modified proposal hasn’t met the required criteria. She specifically cited financial and enrollment concerns.

Horel voted in favor of the proposal because he doesn’t like the proposal being in the state’s hands, an option proposal authors can exercise.

Fewell thanked the Riverside volunteers for their time and effort, said it is unfortunate that the state lost its charter school funding, and said that she hopes Riverside will try again.

Now that the proposal has been denied, it is up to the Riverside board and planning team to decide how to proceed.

Riverside regroups

“Right now we’re regrouping and looking at what our best options are,” Riverside project director Annette Klinefelter-Dingle said. 

“It’s been such a mean-spirited process. We’re all community volunteers who want to have choice. Since there have been such personal attacks against people and allies, we’re not really sure where we’re going to go next. The nastiness has risen to a level where it’s not fun.”

If Riverside organizers decide to move forward, the planning team can submit a request for a review of the decision by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), which would attempt to mediate a resolution. 

If the mediation is unsuccessful, the planning team could seek state Board of Education sponsorship. ODE would have 180 days to make a decision. 

“I think what (the vote) means at this point is that we are trying to make the best use of our resources and the best choice was made for expenditures of district funds,” Ryan said. “In the future, the charter school can appeal to ODE, so it’s still not over. I’m not sure if they’re going to do that or not, but at least for now I think that it puts the district on more solid footing.”

Parent Katherine Johnson had been vocal in her opposition to the charter school.

“I’m happy that they voted it down,” Johnson said. “I’m still disappointed that two board members still decided to say no. It concerns me that they (Horel and Fewell) haven’t done their homework, and didn’t listen to what was said prior to the vote in the workshop.

“It means at this point that we’re not going to see our district put in any financial situation that could basically cause more budget cuts to happen to the kids as a whole.”

Klinefelter-Dingle said that Riverside volunteers are disappointed with the vote.

Workshop Q&A

The work session immediately before the vote was an online phone conversation with Andrea Hungerford of Hungerford Law Firm. Hungerford is an attorney for the district and a member and founder of a charter school in Oregon City. 

She answered board members’ questions about how charter schools operate, and about the revised proposal.

Hungerford said she thought the planning team met a fair number of the state requirements, but areas of concern were financial feasibility for multiple years, enrollment numbers and whether Riversides’ program was really unique. 

“I thought that the workshop was very helpful and informative,” Ryan said. 

Klinefelter-Dingle had a different opinion.

“I found everything that she said to be status quo,” Klinefelter-Dingle said. “There was nothing that was incredibly surprising about her commentary. It was more about her personal opinion about whether or not we could generate and bring in homeschooled students. It was more specific to her personal opinion than to more specific legalities associated with charter schools.”

Riverside planning team member Linda Bozack agreed.

“I think she was trying to be very thorough but (some) of the information she had I didn’t feel was totally accurate,” Bozack said. “She implied that Riverside was expecting the district would take care of start-up costs. I think it’s important that people know that, no, we weren’t expecting the district to cover start-up costs.

“Also she made a comment as far as meeting the state requirements ... she wondered if Riverside’s program would be really unique to what the school has now. I’m not sure if she ever looked at expeditionary learning. Expeditionary learning done correctly and done with a complete school ... is very different to what is going on now. Although the teachers have done parts of it ... what we’re looking for is the whole school doing it. It’s a different experience that the kids would have. It is unique.”

Oregon charter school law does not stipulate a timeline for when the planning team would need to submit a request for mediation.