Looking at the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (an Advisory Committee to the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education) one finds the list of 2003-2004 members. The list totals 30 Committee members (with one 'terminated' in January, 2004).

So, for such an important subject you would expect full attendance, participation, and even replacement if the member didn't show up and do what they signed up to do. Yes, only active, committed, citizenry representing the diversity of views in the community for such an important Advisory Committee. And if that was not the case? Well that's really serious!! Why? Because the MCPS BOE Advisory Committee Policy 3.c.3. says so:

Any standing advisory committee member who is absent from 25 percent or more of the scheduled meetings during any one-year period will be considered resigned from membership 30 days after the committee notifies the Board of Education. The Board may, upon request, waive resignation for good cause; i.e., illness, emergency situation, or other extenuating circumstances. The individual shall be notified in writing by the Board whether or not a waiver has been granted.

So the actual committee members MUST have been in good standing, because well, the rules in place at the time (and today) say they will be 'considered resigned' if they weren't. And we know from reading the Report that there were 29 members.

So you ask, 'what's the point?'

Let's look at the votes on the new curriculum, shall we?

As stated in the Report, here's a list of dates when votes were taken, and the number of people who voted:

October, 2, 2003 (15)
December, 4, 2003 (14)
January 8, 2004 (19)
March 4, 2004 (20)
April 1, 2004 (16)
May 6, 2004 (17)
June 3, 2004 (19)

The Report states that among these dates anywhere from 9-14 committee members did not vote because, presumably, they were not present otherwise an abstention would have been noted for the legal record. That's almost twice as many people not there and not voting, than those who actually voted.

How could that be? If a member were absent more than 25% of the time they would be 'considered resigned' and therefore, replaced with someone else to work on such a matter of importance.

Well, why not? Maybe because there was a lack of volunteers. Can't be. The Committee turned away volunteers!

Did you catch that? The Committee turned away volunteers!! And logically, one must surmise that they knew some folks weren't showing up.

Now, why is that?