Dear Ms. Peay and Chair Ingram,

We are writing as parents of students at Downtown Montessori Academy to formally document several governance concerns arising from the board's recent conduct. We understand the CSRC is monitoring this situation closely and that the city attorney's office is examining questions of open meetings and records compliance. We hope this account is useful to that work.

The parents' meeting of 6/8/2026

Approximately 120 parents and community members attended a meeting with the DMA Board of Directors on 6/8/2026, both in-person and virtually. Board President Michael Moore presided. We wish to document the following specific statements and actions from that meeting.

Mr. Moore stated that the board had obtained a written legal opinion concluding that DMA is not subject to Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law and therefore is not required to publish board minutes or make governance materials available to the public or to parents. He cited this opinion as the basis for the board's longstanding practice of conducting closed meetings and withholding minutes.

Mr. Moore did not disclose to parents at any point during the meeting that he had received Chair Ingram's letter of May 18, 2026 — a letter in which the CSRC explicitly directed the board to provide public notice of meetings, conduct open meetings, maintain minutes, and respond to public records requests, and which requested specific records including board meeting minutes and IRS Form 990 documentation. We learned of this letter only through the CSRC's response to our subsequent public records request. The omission is significant: parents were given no indication that the CSRC had already raised these concerns directly with the board.

When parents raised the question of board representation, Mr. Moore stated that there are currently two open seats on the board for which any interested party may apply. However, he declined to commit to reserving either seat specifically for a parent representative. As of the date of this letter, no application or information about these board vacancies has been posted on the school's website or otherwise made available to parents.

The Parent Advisory Committee

Mr. Moore described a Parent Advisory Committee currently being developed with the assistance of Board Consultant Denise Patton. When parents asked about the committee's role and access, it was made clear that the committee would be advisory only, with no voting rights and no standing representation at board meetings. Mr. Moore offered that a parent representative might attend one upcoming board meeting but made no commitment beyond that single occasion.

We note that Ms. Peay's correspondence of June 17, 2026 referenced "the name of parent who will be elected to the Board when that happens" — an expectation of actual board membership, not merely advisory participation. The board's current position falls short of this. A purely advisory committee with no board access does not constitute meaningful parent representation in governance, and does not fulfill the recommendations made by Evident Change in two consecutive annual reports.

Summary

To summarize the specific discrepancies we are asking the CSRC to consider:

1. The board is asserting a legal exemption from Open Meetings Law compliance based on a private attorney's opinion, while the CSRC's own position, as expressed in Chair Ingram's May 18 letter, is that the board is expected to comply.
2. The board did not disclose to parents that the CSRC had already requested records and raised governance concerns directly with the board.
3. Two board seats are described as open, but no application process has been made available to parents, and the board has declined to commit to parent representation.
4. The Parent Advisory Committee as currently structured does not provide the meaningful governance participation that the CSRC and Evident Change have recommended in successive annual reports.

We remain committed to working constructively toward the governance improvements Evident Change has recommended and the CSRC has signaled it expects. We ask that the CSRC continue to pursue the open meetings and records questions with the city attorney's office, and that the board be held to the governance standards its charter contract requires.

We are happy to provide any additional documentation or firsthand accounts that would support the CSRC's work.