School Board to have special, closed meeting to discuss Garfield counteroffer
August 26, 2011 at 7:00 pm in West Central Tribune
WILLMAR The Willmar School Board will have a special meeting Tuesday to discuss the potential sale of Garfield School.
Continue Reading
As we already are aware, and the article confirms, an offer has been made to purchase Garfield school; and, it has been “opened.” Accordingly, the name of the entity making the offer, referred to as the “responder” in the statute (13.591) must be read and become public, regardless of whether there has been a “completion of the evaluation process,” including any counteroffer that may be made by the school board. Once the evaluation process is completed all aspects of the proposed contract of sale are public data. Final approval of any sale must be dealt with at a subsequent, but open meeting of the school board.
The scheduled meeting this Tuesday may be closed (13D.05 Subd. 3(c)(3)), but there is no legal requirement that it be closed. Closing the scheduled meeting “to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the sale of real property” is discretionary with the school board. The beginning of the scheduled meeting on Tuesday is public and it should only be closed by majority vote of the Board. They can’t close the meeting without a majority vote of the school board during the public part of the meeting.
I agree with the conclusion in the article that any claim that the Board made any request for proposals relative to selling the School is a stretch, if not outright bogus. However, whether there ever was a bona fide request for proposals doesn’t change the requirement to make public the name of the offeror, or the school board’s discretion relative to closing the meeting.
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
Let me ask you Mr. Johnson, if you were selling your house would you disclose to other potential buyers the name of someone who has made an offer or what that offer was for before looking over it with the other owner of the property? Why are we jumping on the School Board when they haven’t had a chance to offically view the offer? Don’t we expect our Elected Officals to do things the proper way, and if in fact the Board was to receive this information in any way other than the one they are using it would mean that they are making deals behind the backs of the public. Let them do their job and follow the proper protocal and if then they don’t do things correctly be critical.
It is interesting that 24 hrs prior to this article appearing the Tribune praised the work of the School Board and their going about due dilegnece in this matter. The story acknowledged that there were numorous rumors and gave the impression that even some negative comments regarding the potential buyer of the building. My question is what changed in 24 hrs Tribune? The School Board it appears still has not seen the offer though the Administration has. It appears that their following protocal is now something that the Tribune doesn’t like.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
It’s the buyers, I’d guess.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Our goals in seeking information from the school district are to make sure our public officials follow the law and to be able to use the information to tell our readers as much as we can about the situation using facts, not rumors. If anyone reading this is in possession of actual facts, let me know — 320-214-4340, lvanderwerf@wctrib.com
And @bac, please, don’t assume things about the views of the staff at the West Central Tribune.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I’m not assuming a thing, Linda.
Just questioning a few things.
LIttle bit ‘touchy’?
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
I see that my ‘assumptions’ weren’t all that far off, Linda.
Care to illuminate us on your latest position?
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
I am curious as to where exactly the School Board is not doing things correctly? Since the whole board has not seen the offer why would it not be correct to allow them to see it in closed session first before disclosing details?
Using the former Washington site as an example, everyone knew that ACMC was interested in the property but what if Family Practice also had interest and they ended up making an offer? Based on what the Tribune seems to want, the board would of had to disclose the offer and who it was from PRIOR to meeting thus giving ACMC the opportunity to come in with another offer that would be slightly better. That doesn’t seem fair or proper to do. (I understand that this is not how that sale went down, just using it as an example here)
When we purchase a house we are told if there are other offers but we are not told who they are from or what the amount is. If we would choose to make an offer we do so based on what we think it is worth NOT on knowledge of what another as already offered. If that is how it works for the rest of us, why then should the Tribune demand something different for the School District?
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
When the school district was in negotiations with ACMC to sell the old Washington building, I don’t believe they held any sort of information back from the public (please correct me if I’m wrong on that) So… why are they holding back on this sale?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
James the School Board has yet to hear the offer, that is where things stand right now, according the the stories that have been printed. It seems only right that until the Board has offically heard the offer it is best not to share details.
As for time for public input on the matter doesn’t the story state that there will need to be a public hearing on this matter?
I think it would be interesting if the paper would explore more closely where these rumors are coming from. I have heard several people speak of hearing this information from City Council members and given that the first comment is from one them I would have to assume that there might be some truth behind that.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5