"The panel, which does not vote and operates by concensus ..."

I was doing a little research on one of APS' citizen advisory councils; the School Health Advisory Council, link. The SHAC is experiencing some inner turmoil. I searched APS' award winning website looking for some specific information about the turmoil and found only an ongoing failure to communicate.

The Journal presented what amounts to APS' spin, link.

Apparently some concerned citizens have gone to the SHAC to voice their concerns over the distribution of condoms on school campuses.

They have gone to the SHAC because there is nowhere else to
go. There is no Citizens Concerned About Condoms Advisory
Council; there is no venue where they can sit face to face with
APS senior administrators and board members, and have an
open and honest discussion about issues that are important
to them and to their children.

They will find no succor in the SHAC. They will have no effect
on whether the district will distribute condoms to their children
at school. They have no seat at the table where that decision
will be made.

There is a fundamental flaw in the SHAC. It is the fundamental
flaw in "advisory" councils in general; they carry no weight,
they have no decision making power. They are not even
allowed to vote!

Clearly, we cannot have citizen groups taking over decision
making in government. By the same token; we cannot have
government of the people, for the people, and by the people
if the people have no seat at the table at all.

At the very minimum, a seat at the table means a venue where
legitimate questions about the public interests can be asked
without obstruction and where council can be shared without
fear of retribution, retaliation and/or arrest. It means a venue
where there is a reasonable expectation that the leadership of
the APS will respond to those questions candidly, forthrightly
and honestly.

The asking of inconvenient questions is the source of the turmoil
in the SHAC.

Questioning is discouraged in APS advisory councils, and so
is "voting". It is a form of decision making where stakeholders
participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their interests.

Advisory councils are not allowed to vote because on occasion
they would vote (perhaps unanimously) in opposition to the
interests of administrators and/or board members. And rather
than have that on the table, they prefer consensus; of which
they can claim a 49.9% share (in the absence of controverting
ballot results) and a decision in favor of their own plan.

The most blatant and egregious example of administrative and
executive disregard for any opinion but their own, is that APS
teachers, despite their combined tens of thousands of years of
teaching experience, have no impact on decision making affecting
their interests or the interests of their students. They have never
been asked what they need from the administration and from the
board, in order to succeed.

We have lost control over our power and resources in the APS.

It is time to start taking it back.