Reader concerned with Carmel Clay Schools’ lack of transparency around SEL/DEI committees

Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.

Dear Editor:

Last fall, Carmel Clay Schools initiated the development of two parent advisory committees: one for Social Emotional Learning (SEL, now called “Skills for Success”) and one for Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI). The school’s DEI coordinator, Terri Roberts-Leonard, leads the DEI committee, and the school’s mental health coordinator, Stephanie Whiteside, leads the SEL committee.

The school’s original recruiting document claimed that members would receive information on the SEL/DEI initiatives, as well as making recommendations, reviewing Panorama survey data, and to provide perspective, feedback, and suggestions. Due to the concern over random, unidentified parents accessing student SEL data, one parent filed a public records request (October 2021) for the names of school and committee members, the selection criteria, and verification of a background check and/or a non-disclosure agreement. The school refused to provide these records for months and a complaint was filed under the Office of Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (OPAC).

The school’s law firm responded to the complaint that committee members had concern about their identities being revealed. The response to Mr. Luke Britt, Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), also indicated 23 and 26 members sitting on the DEI and SEL committees, respectively. Additionally, 40 staff members participate on the DEI committee and 25 staff members on the SEL committee. Building principals are considered “ad hoc” participants.

Just before Christmas, Mr. Britt issued a response refuting the school’s belief that they could operate outside of the transparency laws so long as the committee did not involve the school board directly, based on outdated guidance from the Open Door Law Handbook. Mr. Britt responded to each party that “groups specifically established by a public agency’s chief executive for the purposes of taking official action on the agency’s public business qualifies as an Open Door Law body.” Mr. Britt then updated the handbook to reflect the true intent of transparency laws and encouraged the school to revisit the issue.

In January, the school continued to hold these meetings closed door, despite OPAC guidance, and would not produce the requested public records. Another complaint was filed with additional information provided to PAC that Stephanie Whiteside had admitted in an email that “everyone selected demonstrated some knowledge and support of SEL.” This time, Mr. Britt wrote a formal opinion, 22-FC-34, May 25, 2022, highlighting the school’s improper use of the committees to “establish secret committees populated with agreeable stakeholders for the ease and comfort of vetting controversial topics” and that “It will not happen right now on the PAC’s watch.”

Mr. Britt continued, “The law simply does not contemplate a public agency hand-picking groups of select community members as an established deliberative assembly to operate behind closed doors to receive information, deliberate, make recommendations, or set policy outside the view of the remainder of the public. Contrary to CCS’s arguments, this position is in no way dissonant from the rest of the Open Door Law.” Finally, he wrote “to the extent a community member chooses to avail themselves of the responsibility of establishing policies of a public school system, they cannot hide their identities or activities while doing so. Therefore, the roster of members and their selection … is public record.”

In a last-ditch effort to avoid disclosure of the names, Carmel Clay Superintendent Michael Beresford emailed committee members advising them of the pending disclosure. He said, “Feel free to contact me if you have questions.” The participant list was later released in July, and it appears that six names were removed from the list: two names are absent the SEL list, and four  from the DEI list. Who are the six individuals who asked to have their names removed and why?

Over a year later, there are other items not fulfilled from the original records request, including the 65 staff members from the SEL and DEI groups, without citing a statutory exception. If this is what Carmel Clay Schools considers a “transparent” process, they are catastrophically headed in the wrong direction. They are intentionally obfuscating the goals of these committees who have intimate access to our children, but we as parents and community members are once again left in the dark.

Jennifer Hendrix
Carmel