“An open school board meeting scheduled for Aug. 21 was anything but open.The meeting was called to talk about a study of the high school’s four-period day. It began at 6:30 p.m. but minutes into the session Jim Adsley, board president, called for a closed executive session. A majority of members present concurred and the sole public audience member, Jamie McNett, had to leave the room.By 7:15 p.m. voices could be heard coming from behind the closed doors, but McNett was standing alone at the front of the school district office. Dan Blanton, assistant superintendent, walked by to water a plant. McNett said something about finding a radio so he could listen to the Mariners game.As it turned out, McNett had time to listen to the entire game. The closed meeting lasted nearly 3 1/2 hours until 10 p.m., when McNett was finally let in the room. The meeting adjourned at 10:50.The South Whidbey Record reporter stopped by at 7:15, saw the closed doors and left. Later, the newspaper protested the closed meeting, claiming it was a violation of the state Open Public Meetings Act.Adsley, contacted after the meeting, said he closed the session to discuss contract issues with Dr. Roy Kruger, representing the educational research firm, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) of Portland.Superintendent of Schools Dr. Martin Laster declined to comment on the executive session except to say, It was not advertised as such.Board member Bob Riggs arrived half an hour late only to find a closed session was in progress. I was surprised it was being discussed in executive session, he said.While state law allows some contract matters to be discussed in private, The South Whidbey Record maintained that in over three hours the discussion must have ranged far beyond contract details.McNett concurred. They went way, way, way beyond that, he surmised.Another board member, Wendy Alexander, said she was careful not to vote on Adsley’s motion to go into executive session. I was not going to OK it, she said. Also present at the time the motion was made were board members Ray Gabelein and Barbara Schneeman.At issue is the study of the four-period day that NWREL was hired to do for the school district. Board members differ on what questions should be asked, and how much leeway the firm should be given in conducting the study.Laster found himself in the middle of a dispute over how much teacher input should be obtained during the study. Adsley said numerous teacher meetings were added that might draw teachers out of the classroom. He suggested that move extended the scope of the contract with NWREL. He worried it would cost a lot of extra money for new steps to get a conclusion.Riggs saw it differently. Marty (Laster) didn’t intentionally extend the scope of the contract, he said. That ain’t how it developed. NWREL is working with the district.Adsley criticized study delays that have already occurred, and emphasized the board’s unanimous goal to implement any schedule changes by fall 2002. The board has an obligation to see this study is done, he said.Adsley has expressed concern about what he sees as drawbacks of the four-period day, particularly the overall reduction of time spent in the classroom as the year is broken up into two semesters.Adsley said the board took no vote Tuesday, but NWREL was asked for more information about the study’s time frame and cost. Last spring the board approved $20,900 to pay for the study.Laster said he left the meeting knowing that the board majority wanted the scope of the study reduced.As for the teacher meetings, Laster admitted that is a point of difference with the board majority. But he added that he, the entire board and NWREL all expect staff involvement, adding that the extra meetings were proposed by NWREL.The board wanted a tighter timeline, Laster said. He now estimates that any proposed schedule changes for fall 2002 will have to be known by Dec. 1, rather than the earlier target of March 2002.The board received NWREL’s report on student attitudes about the four-period day last Saturday. According to the 49-page report, 85 percent of the students consider the four-period day a success. The four-period day has been in use for about 10 years.Still to come are the results of parent, teacher and community surveys. “