Residents press committee for clearer process after naming task force work draws criticism

Two public commenters at the start of the meeting and several committee members later raised concerns about transparency and documentation related to the new-school naming task force.

"No agendas, no minutes, no attendance, nothing," Liz O'Reilly told the committee, saying she had filed a public records request and that the minutes posted for earlier task-force meetings omitted dissenting public remarks. Joseph Givens, another resident, said he and others who spoke previously found nothing in the minutes reflecting their critical comments.

Committee members discussed reconvening or expanding the task force, clarifying criteria and adding public checkpoints. One member said some task-force participants had felt sidelined and recommended more frequent public presentations of task-force work. Staff offered to bring a more detailed process proposal to the May 18 meeting that would outline scope, timeline and the number of names the task force would return to the committee.

During the discussion committee members suggested concrete process elements: define evaluation criteria for candidate names, limit the number of names sent to the committee (for example, a maximum of five), and add public checkpoints where task-force members present their rationale. Staff said the building project timeline allows more time than originally thought and agreed to return with a proposed schedule and scope of work for an expanded task force.

The committee did not make a final determination on the naming process April 27; staff will present a proposed process and timeline for committee feedback on May 18.