It looks like we're live. Welcome everybody to this work session of Public Schools Board of Education. This during this time, we're gonna work on policy governance, and we have with us today myself, Carrie Olsen. I represent District three and I'm the president of the board. Marlene, would you like to introduce yourself? Hi, I am Marlene de representing District five And Director Gaetan. Hi, Sat Gaetan representing Southwest Denver District two, And Director Erman Scott Esserman, representing the entire city at large. And, um, we've got, um,
attorney Johnson here if you'd like to introduce yourself. Hello all. Marcus Johnson. Uh, policy Governors director And Attorney Thompson, Erin Thompson, general counsel. Glad to be here. And we also have, um, listening in our chief of staff and, um, our project manager, Melissa Rosales. So I know they're kind of behind the scenes. So we'll, um, go ahead and get started. Um, attorney Johnson, would you like to kick us off? Yes. Yes. So to get started, um, with this daytime work session, we're going to be looking at, um, different PG policies. We're gonna start off with the public common policy and, um, go through and review that.
Um, we've been talking about this a little bit, but there's a couple of things that I wanna bring to everyone attention about this policy and see if we can get some feedback to get it more streamlined. Um, let me bring the policy up here and can you all see it because it's not actually showing on my screen. Yes, you all can see it. We can see it. Thank you. Okay. So first thing about the, and also I've seen that John went in and, and, and did some, uh, word crossing out and,
and adding words in it. I mean, director Youngquist. But the first thing that, um, about this public comment policy is that right now we have it set up to where, um, we have to have the regular board meeting agenda posted 48 hours before our work session. So we have to have it finalized 48 hours before the work session. So whoever's coming to public comment at the work session will know what's on the agenda. Therefore, they can actually speak about what's
coming up on the agenda. Um, as we all know that there's times where that, uh, agenda changes within that two to three week span between the work session and the actual regular board meeting. Um, so we were speaking about language to add into this policy in order to, to make it, um, either more streamlined or clearer how we're going to handle those. Um, those things, like if we have a, a policy ready to be voted on, voted into first reading,
and is not ready to vote into first reading until we finish our work session, so it wasn't already on the regular board meeting agenda, then how do we handle that? So there's been several, uh, suggestions and we need to discuss this. So there's one suggestion that we have all, every single regular board meeting, we have a space that's already sectioned for policy governance. And in that section we have it already scheduled that we are going to be speaking about policy, so
that way anyone who comes to the work session can always speak up on one or two of the policies that they deem necessary. Um, another thing that we could do is, um, basically say that the first read and second read are procedural. 'cause in the policy we have that if it's procedural, then we won't have a vote. I mean, a public comment session in the regular board meeting. So we can also say that the first and second read would be procedural
and only the final read would be, um, something that's not procedural that we will need to have a public comment on. Um, what, what are people thinking? The last work session we had, I introduced this 3.4 language. It seemed, uh, John went in and and scratched out executive session. Um, but I introduced this 3.4 language. Um, what do people think about it? What are people, what, what are y'all's, um, ideals on it? So you're asking for feedback on this piece right here. I section 3.4. Well, let's start over.
Overall, um, asking for feedback on do you all think is a good ideal? Um, before we work on the actual language, we have to decide whether we think it's a good ideal to say that first reading and second reading or procedural do we think is a good ideal to just have a, um, policy governance section at that's there at every regular, um, board meeting. Therefore, whoever sees that knows that they can come into the, uh, work session and speak about, uh, anything that has to do
with policy governance and the, and the actual policies that we're working on. So we can have that as a, as a standing, standing thing or, you know, so, so what are y'all ideals about that before we start working on the language itself? Because if we know where we're headed there, we can, we can craft the language the correct way. So I love the idea of being predictable, of having, oh, sorry. Director Gaetan, where did I speak over you? No, go right ahead. I, I probably was gonna say something similar. Go ahead. Good. I, I love the idea of having something predictable where people know that at every board meeting we're gonna be speaking about policy or so
that they could comment and comment on that. I think that idea is a really good one. I do too. I wanna agree with, um, Dr. Olson around that piece. Um, I want folks to start getting used to what to expect, um, and what they can sign up for when they're speaking, uh, a public comment and what they can prepare for. Um, uh, the other comment I wanna add is if, uh, attorney Johnson, if you can remind Mr. Youngquist not to scratch things out the way he did, not to line things out and just to add comments and not line things out, um, and allow you to do that
and make the corrections and the edits, if you would please have a conversation with him about that. Yes, I will. Um, Or maybe Dr. Olson can, I don't know. Oh, I, I can definitely mention it to him. And Marlene, I know Marlene, uh, agree with you, Dr. Olson and director got Don, about the situation of having something standing at the regular board meeting agenda, um, direct asman, do you have, um, an opinion either way? Yeah, I think there's a lot that, that makes sense If we're gonna be engaging in policy governance to have people be able to sign up for that.
And it seems to me we should ideally know at least 48 hours in advance what policy governance we're gonna be discussing. Right. I'm, I'm trying to sort of think of what are, what are last minute things that have come up mm-hmm. That we might want to have had open for, for public comment that we don't. Right. Because I, I think, and, and maybe I'm wrong, but I, two things.
One is that I think we've posted our policy governance discussions for work sessions and board meetings at least 48 hours in advance. Um, I'm not a hundred percent sure on that, but it, but it feels like we have, and, and I feel like there's, there's an issue here of a lot of the public getting used to the cadence, right? Not knowing if something is in first or second read, that there may be a better way that we can post that. I don't know if the diligent platform is gonna allow that, but Orthodox does. Um, where it's clear to the public where we are on different reads of policies
and what the next steps are. I think that that's still, um, that, that's still confusing for a lot of the public. And I'm not sure that this alleviates that and, and it's not necessarily intended to, but is a separate, right? It's not necessarily specific to public comment, although it is because it, if we're talking about the idea of, of allowing people that opportunity to plan, that's, that's sort of my, my rolling thoughts out loud on that. Thank you. Does that make Sense? Again, We're Go ahead. Somebody's about to chime
In. No, I was just saying, did that make sense? It does, it does. Um, but there has been several times where we haven't had the policy that we're working on, on the regular board meeting agenda. And then when we're in a work session, we work on a policy and we decide that we wanna take it into first read, and then we're in a situation where we have to have another public comment session before we can vote to take it into first read. So if we have something standing, especially if we have some standing, we're knowing that we're working on the GP policies, then we can have some standing that says GP policies
and we'll decide which one we working on and decide how far we get. We'll see how far we get. And then, you know, we'll allow people to come have public comment on any of the GP policies. And if they've been watching the meetings or keeping it along, they know which ones we're, uh, they, they know which ones we've been working on in the past and where we at with them. But that's, that's a, that's a good take. So good to hear about that. Now with that, we can start working on this actual policy. Okay. So this, this beginning of the policy,
I'm gonna go through the policy now. In the beginning of the policy, these red lines, these were more grammatical things, uh, grammar facing. It wasn't changing anything. What I do wanna point out under section one is that under section one, if you look at this portion right here, it states that the agenda for the regular board meeting identifying all action items shall be posted at least four, eight hours before the work session. I know here we do have that the online registration will be available no later than
48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. Um, do we wanna exclude weekend and holidays in this 48 hours that we're talking about here? That's one thing that I noticed when I was reviewing the policy. We don't have to, but I just saw it there. And maybe it'll be more consistent if we exclude those weekends and holidays and, and make it more, um, make it straightforward. Comments? Any thoughts? I see Attorney Thompson added, excluding weekends and holidays. I wonder if Attorney Thompson wants
to add a little bit about what was your thinking? Should we add that then to the up the part up above? Yeah. Uh, that was around the, the conversation that, uh, we had, um, 'cause like 48 business hours and then being a school district is that, that was confusing because like the, here at EGC, the doors open at 6:00 AM and close at 10:00 PM So is it that, or is it nine to five or is it some other, like, some schools are seven to three, so we just got rid of the 48 business hours, uh, to make it, um, clear that it's two days, two full days.
And then to try to bring back the business part of it, it excludes weekends and holidays. So it's still sort of the, the two day timeframe. So maybe what we could do is add excluding weekends and holidays to the part up above to make it consistent. Yeah, I agree. That's a good idea. Could catch Dr. Olson. Thanks. Okay, so that makes it more consistent. Um, after you all's review of, of section one, that's one, um, 0.1 down to 1.7. Do anyone have, um, anything that they wanna speak about
or change before I go into specifics of 1.5 and what, um, John added? Everybody's good. Okay. So under 1.5, um, I'll go ahead and read the entire thing to everyone just in case someone is listening and can't read it. But John added the, the last sentence there, but the entire thing says the total public comment period for it shall be limited to 30 minutes. The total open comment period, unrestricted to action items shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes. Each speaker may speak for no more than two minutes. Speakers represent a large group may speak
for no longer than four minutes. Any group organization wishing to speak on an action item shall designate one speaker or a small group of speakers to represent the larger group subject to the maximum time limit of four minutes. Now, this is the portion that, um, uh, Mr. Youngquist added. The board chair may direct an additional public hearing on a topic in which, which there is significant demand for public comment beyond what the 30 minute allows. I believe he meant to put allow, he just stopped right now. What I'll Say, uh, attorney Johnson, one of one instance was when we had a special public comment
regarding school closures. Uh, and I believe we voted on that in November and we had 53 people speak regarding the school closures. So there was an instant where we, we recognized that we had a topic that required more than the 30 minutes and we opened it up And then we, um, we knew about that beforehand, before that actual meeting. So my question is, yes, is that already captured
below when we state that, um, we can have special public hearings or additional public comment by a vote of the majority of the board? So in this situation up here, he's saying that, uh, the president of the board can make that change and make that decision right, and allow more. But here we're saying if there's a special public hearing or any additional public comment, the board can vote on it and the board, the majority of the board can make that change if they approve it. I, I, that's what I was gonna be my comment.
Marcus or Attorney Johnson, thank you for bringing that out. As we do have a provision for this down in four, and I wouldn't want to do this like on the fly during public comment to just say, it seems like there's a lot of people doing about this, we're gonna extend it because it's not fair to people who have signed up. Like how would we know to do that? For example, if we had something, how would we know to go to the next person on the list? Had they been notified that they were be being able to come and speak? I think we should leave it down here. Number four, under exception, so that we follow a procedure to be able to have more public comment instead
of just having it at the discretion of the board chair. Maybe during the minute the time right here that there's a procedure for it, I think it's a good idea for us to have a procedure to like around school closures or if there's something else. We don't know what will come up in the future board meetings, but we have to have a way for it to be tracked so that people know that it's gonna be extended and that they can come and speak on it. I have to agree with you Dr. Olson. I think the, that sentence that John Kean allows for, because it says significant demand that could happen right then
and there in the moment, you know, or it could happen before or after. Uh, so I, I would prefer a, a set scheduled procedure, which um, really, uh, the exception to that is already defined in section four. Um, so I prefer to just leave the language that's in section four and uh, remove that last sentence that John added that Mr. Young was added. I think it's also about equity of access because otherwise if we make a decision right there in the meeting, only the people who have actually come to the meeting are demanding to speak,
would be allowed to speak. And other people who might have wanted to speak but thought that they had to follow the rules to come wouldn't be able to. So I think it's better to have a process. So it's equity of access in my mind as well. Correct. Very good points. I'd agree. And I'm just, I'm curious to check in with, uh, with directory youngquist to figure out sort of what he was driving at here. 'cause we may be missing that. Yep. I know that, um, attorney Johnson's gonna follow up with Mr. Youngquist after this meeting to just figure out like if there were things we missed and what we discussed.
So, good point. Thank you. That sounds great. And I will follow up with him. Um, I will get him over an email soon as we finish with this meeting about a couple of things, and this will be one of them, but it seems like, uh, for this call, there's a consensus that, um, we would like to remove this sentence because it's already, um, in section four and it's, it is procedurally better in section four. Alright. Um, anything else that you all after your review of, of section one wanna speak about
or believe that we need to change your or increase the language on? Okay, hearing none, let's go down to section two. And I, I did have a chance to meet with director see on this, and she gave me comments, so I'm just gonna make sure everybody, everybody's aware of her comments. So in section 2.2, and I'm gonna read it just for the people who's listening, um, each individual shall state their names and the action item they are speaking about. Speakers must limit their comments to matters
that are strictly relevant to the action item they sign up to speak about. Due to the purpose of the consent agenda being limited to action items that are non-controversial or routine in nature, public comments will not be held on the consent agenda. Now, one of the things Director Seal was concerned about is that sometimes the consent agenda, and I'm I'm summarizing this right paraphrase, sometimes there are some, um, controversial things in the consent agenda that people wanna speak about. So what she says is, um,
maybe this section should be removed to allow all citizens to speak about consent agenda items if they wished any opinion on that be. And, and her main point was that sometimes the things on the consent agenda agenda, um, are controversial and not routine. And sometimes the things on the consent agenda have been positive things that people wanna come and thank us for. I think of the times when we've been thanked for air conditioning through the bond and public comment. So I, I would agree it's not always controversial. Sometimes it's, it's gratitude.
I think of some of the things that tend to be on, there are things that are happening at schools through some of the bond money and people have come to thank us. Granted, not in a while, but I do remember that happening previously And we did have a couple people who spoke about the property. Um, was it at the church? So, so my question here would be I think that that, um, a Lot of the same things That, that when we talk about the consent agenda, that On your finger really That, that it would seem like if there are, um,
if there are folks who wanted to weigh in or, or be appreciative of that sort of thing, that could happen during open public comment, right? Because we're we're identifying the public comment about agenda items versus when we're offering open public comment. And it would seem like an open public comment could be an appropriate place for, for somebody to weigh in on that, right? I think the, um, the easement at the HEA and TJ property is one of those situations where people might have wanted to be heard.
Um, uh, lemme ask a different question actually while I'm thinking about this. This, what, what do we gain by excluding public comment on consent agenda items? Just to chime in, um, a lot of times the consent agenda items are not posted 48 hours before the work session. So I wanna chime in on that also and let y'all think about that. But they could be, they could be posted 48 hours ahead of time And so that's what would have to, that's what would have to have to happen. So people have a chance to speak on it.
But, uh, there's a comment there Dr. Olson, if you wanna Yeah, I was just gonna read it. Um, I understand from Melissa Rosales, the run through the FAC and that generally happens after a work session, so the timing would be a little off. Oh yeah, thank you. Finance and audit committee. I forgot to not speak in acronyms. I just worry about, um, limiting what people can talk about. But we're already saying, I guess where I'm confused is we're already saying that we're limiting, um, consent agenda items for public comment in the prior language that we just looked at.
So I feel like this is repetitive. Um, so help me, attorney Johnson understand the difference between what was added here by Director Sia and the language we just covered. Um, well this language in 2.2, this has always been there. So she just added a comment that we shouldn't limit to consent agenda items. So she, she didn't add this language just due to, due to the purpose of consent agenda, that has always been there. She wants to remove that sentence. Yeah, she wanted do, Can we go back up
to the other section that we just covered? We just was talking, are you talking about the 48 business Hours? Well, we're saying that we would exclude, well we're saying that we would exclude items like con uh, consent agenda items from public comment. Okay, so we, we talk about it here and then maybe you're speaking of section four down here? No, there's another section I think up above. Oh, maybe the, this section 3.4, the language that I add, right? This was suggested language
that I added at our last work session. The board never voted on this language, this was just for the board to consider at the time. And since then is when I had, If keep this line, if we keep 3.4, we're basically suggesting to, uh, our constituents and parents and families that consent agenda items will be excluded. So if we keep this line then, uh, and we remove the other one, um, we're still saying the same thing. Yeah, we'll have to remove them both places.
If the board, uh, don't wanna exclude 'em, we'll remove them both places. And part of when I, when I made this suggested language, part of it was because I was thinking we could remove it up top under the 2.2 and just have it here. And then I had the meeting with director, see, and she would, that, that's where she, uh, stated her opinion that we should give, that the board should give people an opportunity to speak on consent agenda items. So this was drafted, thinking that we can remove it from 2.2 and then Director Seal, then I met with Director Seal after that.
So we'll remove it in both places basically. I, I'm still thinking about whether or not I agree, uh, with that. If we're, if we're saying if we agree with 3.4 and we're saying we wanna exclude procedural routine items, which consent agenda, agenda items by definition are part of these procedural routine matters that we vote on? Um, very rarely except for the bond issue. As Dr. Olson mentioned. Very rarely do we get folks talking about
other consent agenda items. Um, so if, if we go that route and we're adding consent agenda items as part of the list of items that folks can speak on, um, it really limits the number of people that can show up to public comment on some of the substantive items that we need to hear voices from or about. So I, that's my concern is we start, we start making that list longer and then we start limiting the voices. And if we limit the voices, um,
that is even further concerning to me. Are we gonna expand the time then if we keep adding items to that list, are we gonna expand the time? And if we're not gonna expand the time, then I would rather not allow consent, consent agenda items to the list. Uh, I'm still wondering what we gain by excluding consent agenda items, items, like what's, what's the purpose behind doing that If we keep, the way I'm thinking about your question is if we keep consent agenda items off the list
and we go with this public comment policy that we have now, which is limiting the number of people that can show up to speak on items and issues. Um, just as I was saying, just moments before, uh, we're gonna limit the voices. We're already limiting the voices on certain topics. So if we add another item to that list that reduces the number of voices that can speak on bigger issues than consent agenda item issues. So, um, to try to paraphrase, so you're basically saying
that if we add the consent agenda items we're, and we're staying within that 30 minute time constraint, we're limiting the amount of people who can speak up on the substantive items. The items that, um, are not more procedural, like most of the percentage in the items are mostly procedural. Correct. With, with that being said, um, you want, do you have anything to say direct asman according to that? Yeah, I, I, I hear very much what you're saying. Um, And, and I don't know that I wanna, that I want
to judge what's more important or less important for us to hear about, right? That, that if this is a matter of it's a consent agenda item, that that community feels like they wanna be heard on that I, I don't know that, that it's up to us to determine that, that something is, is more controversial or should be spoken on, more spoken than another. Um, and I, and I'm concerned about, uh, about any place that we, that we place limits, um, on,
on what it is people can speak on, right? I don't wanna start determining for, for other people what they think is important or relevant. I just have to say Director esmo, we're already doing that with this policy. This the majority of this policy is dictating to the public what we will and will not hear about from them and whether they will or will not ask questions whether they we will or will not engage with them during this time period of public comment. I mean, that's what this policy is. And so now that we've limited the time to these 30 minutes
we should be hearing on subject matter such as policy and we should be prioritizing that over other items that are routine such as consent, agenda items, just sharing my thoughts. Okay. And I'll tell y'all what, um, since we, um, have everyone's thoughts on this item, we can bring this back in the, um, work session where the whole group is here. That way we can get everybody to chime in and if need be, have a vote, which way we want to go, and if we wanna pull out that consent agenda item thing
or, or leave it in. Sounds like a plan. Everybody could agree with that. Yes. I do think we need to hear everybody's voices on this. I do. Um, director Gaan, to your point, I do wonder if 30 minutes, I, I know we, we work so hard to limit public comment, but I wonder if we do need to consider extending the time for public comment given that we are such a large district. So I'll just put that out there. We don't have to revisit that, but to your point, like do we have time enough in all of our public comment to hear from all the voices, you know,
thinking about are we being too restrictive to be able to hear what people wanna say? I'm also thinking if there are things on the consent agenda that we start to hear that people are concerned about and a lot of people have something to say that could also be pulled into a separate vote and pulled off the consent agenda item. Because then it isn't by nature something that's not controversial or something that's just routine if a lot of people are starting to show up and wanting to talk about it. And I know that we've had that happen in the past as well, that something's been on the consent agenda
and we've heard that a lot of people wanna come and talk about it. So we've voted on it separately. And also, um, once again, if we can, I will make sure to get everybody email so everybody can know what we gonna talk about about this in our regular work session. Um, but like, um, Melissa pointed out some things run through the finance and audit committee and it is just one being time. We have that after we have the work sessions, so they wouldn't have that opportunity to even speak on it. Okay. Okay. So we'll come back, uh, to that.
Let's go, uh, any other comments on section two? Any other comments on section two from y'all? Um, read through. Okay, let's go ahead and look at section three, um, on posted agenda items. Okay, this is something we, we've been talking about whether we should keep it as, um, um, essential items, essential or routine items, uh, that there is no need to have a public comment on. And I know the consent agenda, we'll talk more about that later. Um, but what, for right now we have this section, uh,
3.4 that basically said this section applies through two substantive items, agenda items and excludes. Procedural or routine matters such as consent, agenda items, executive sessions, meina garments, uh, and the first and second reading the policies. I think that with us saying that we can have a policy governance section at every regular, um, board meeting that is a standing session that's gonna be there every time. I think that'll help with the first and second reading of policies so people can know
that they can come speak about those, um, meeting or drawings. Of course we wouldn't have, we wouldn't wanna public comment on that because send agenda items is something that we're gonna bring up into the entire board. And it looks like the only thing that was, um, that was left was executive sessions, which Mr. Youngquist crossed out during his review of this. Um, what do y'all think about the public comment on executive sessions? I like, it's definitely up to the board, but I'm gonna give my opinion.
Um, I don't think it's necessary to have a public comment on whether or not you all go into executive session. I think that's a board opinion, a board decision. I mean, Do you know, um, Mr. Youngquist reasoning for um, deleting that? No, I do not. Um, and he didn't add any notes, he just deleted it. Now he did add another section that we'll touch on right after this. Yeah, I don't think we can address that without knowing his rationale behind it. Yeah, I'd like to, I'd like to hear more about that because it dawns on me that
if we tell people they can't comment on executive session, they're gonna come anyway to comment on executive session. Like they'll leave that in. Like, and, and why would we not want that? Or is it just because it's what you said Attorney Johnson, it's just the work of the board. So Yep. Maybe we can flag that and hear more from Mr. Youngquist and you know, director C and director Qba as well, like what their thoughts are. And so for, if, if we do take that out, what it would stand as is that 3.4 would just keep the example of meeting adjournments
and we can bring that back to the entire board at our next work session and have this, have these things, specific things that we're gonna touch on, right? That way we can move the policy forward instead of going through the entire policy. Sounds good. Alright. Now the next thing John wrote and, and we can wait for him to be here also, is that the board must vote to approve the bypass of a full public comment on agenda items during a regular board meeting for a vote that was not anticipated and and included on the posted agenda.
So that would give us the flexibility to say we added this agenda item and while our policy states that we're supposed to have a public comment, we would vote in that meeting to say, actually no, we don't wanna hear from you on this. Is that, is that what the intention of this is right here? Am I reading that right? Uh, I think that's what it's intended. I can't be a hundred percent sure, but I think that's what, that's what it's intended. So maybe that's another flag we could have to hear from more from Mr. Youngquist on this because I'm thinking if we have, if we post, if we're gonna vote on something,
we've posted a public comment, we have people show up for that and then in that meeting they're gonna hear from the board to say, actually no, we don't wanna hear from you and we already have people signed up to speak. I'm just wondering what the reasoning for that would be and how that would look. So thank you for adding that. And Mr. Or Director Esman, I saw you come off mute too. Yeah, I'm also, I'm, I'm confused 'cause I'm not sure that that's what it means. I think that that, that, that like, that that what the first part seems to say, but then it says for a vote that was not anticipated and included on the posted agenda.
So I don't know if the vote was not included on the posted agenda. Right. It it, like, I don't know the circumstances under which he suggesting we wanna bypass and I don't know what full public comment means versus partial public comment or Right. I there, there's just a lot in here that, that I can't define what it means. So we'll hold that one for talking on the full board and get hear more from Mr. Youngquist on this. Great. Okay. Thank you. That sounds great. That sounds great.
Okay. And, uh, this is an old comment, so yeah, we could pull that with the rest of the board to touch on that. Um, this is an older comment. We've already been speaking, um, on this topic about special public hearing and additional public comment. Do anyone have anything they wanna speak about on section four or five at this point? Okay, maybe Not necessarily to put in the policy, but I know one of the things that, um, vice President Delarosa and I have talked about is how will we know when something's rising to this level as board leadership
to be able to work with staff to be able to schedule that. So we might not need to have this in the policy, but to think about, you know, do we, will our, will we say to our colleagues, like, make sure you sure you reach out to board leadership if you're thinking there's something that's coming up that we need a special public comment on just to think about how those would work. Procedurally, I do think we need to have this in here, but just thinking about the nuts and bolts of how that would work. Okay. That definitely is something that can be put out to the entire board. Okay. If, if nobody has anything else on this policy,
um, we'll bring it back to the rest of the board to answer those specific questions we need answered. And then I think the policy, once we get those specific questions answered, we can move forward with this policy moving the, um, revisions into first reading. Okay. Now the next one we're going to speak about and we started, um, on this policy before, let me go ahead and pull it up so I can share the screen. Is the board leadership roles we started and, and if you all had a chance to review it, I did add vice president, treasurer
and secretary roles to it from our last conversation. Um, we could fill that out more, um, of what you all think should be in those. Um, we started with the board president and we were actually going through line by line and getting comments, um, that way. Um, one thing, uh, so we, we have changed some of the policy, um, from when we started to review it and we were actually going into section one from our last daytime work session that we worked on this. Okay. Um, I'm gonna suggest that we start with section one
and just flush out what the board president's role is. So right now on 1.1, we have facilitate, uh, board conven convenings including board meetings, work sessions, executive sessions, and public comment section. So that only board issues as defined in board policies are discussed. We have conducted board meetings so that deliberations are fair, open, thorough, efficient, and orderly chair board meetings, uh, with the commonly accepted authority of that position as described in robber's rules of order
and a accordance with the law ensure that monitoring of board policy is placed on board meeting agendas when circumstances arise there require monitoring outside of the normal schedule. Anyone have any comments about that section? Uh, attorney Johnson, I have um, a question for you and General Counsel Thompson. I'm curious and help me both of you understand, um, if this is, uh, repetitive, if it's even needed. Um, there is already definitions, uh, according
to state law on the, uh, president's role. Do we need to repeat that? Is it needed in our policy or do we, does it suffice that we know it exists and it's just a given that that's part of the definition of the president's role? I mean, um, so there are some state statute requirements for the board president to fulfill. Um, this is actually outside of the statute, right? So some of these items here are actually going above and beyond. So like, for example, the statute doesn't mention
Robert's rules at all. So while, while there are some statutory requirements, this, this would be in addition to that. And so the statutory statutory requirements do not need to be repeated in our policy. Uh, you know, it, they don't have to be because they, they would continue to control whether or not they're mentioning the policy or not. I'll pull up the statute now so I can, uh, let you know exactly what is included in the, the statute. And do, do we need to mention it in this policy? Say as a, just a bullet point at the bottom
of the policy? Yeah. Mark, scroll down to the bottom. It it should, it should show us it is, It's mentioned. Okay. Duties of the president. Is there any other role in state statute that's defined other than the president's role? Uh, the secretary, well, they're all, they're all mentioned. Um, the vice president, basically it only says we'll do the president's role when the president is unavailable. There are a few things that the secretary has to do. Oh, president, vice president. So then, so there should be another one. Hold on. And so basically, Eric, I'll drop this language in here
so everybody can see it. And I thought that the secretary and treasurer had their duties to find as well. Let me take a look While you're looking. Would you like me to read this out loud for a viewing audience? Sure. Um, what Attorney Thompson put in the chat is the president of the board shall preside at all meetings of the board. He shall sign any written contract to which the school district may be a party when such contract has been authorized by the board. And he shall sign all official reports of the district except when otherwise provided by law Item two. In the absence or inability of the president, the vice president shall have and perform all the powers in the duties of the president.
Right now I'm sending secretary, language Secretary. The secretary of the board shall cause written notice to be given to each member of the board on all special meetings of the board. He shall cause minutes of each meeting of the board to be kept and preserved. He shall cause all notices of election to be published and posted. So when required by law, he shall be custodian of the seal of the district and shall attest to any written contract to which the district may be a party when such contract has been authorized by the board. And shall affix the seal here too. He shall perform other such duties as may be assigned to him by the board.
Two, in the absence or inability of the secretary, the assistant secretary, if any, or officer of the board designated by the president, if there is no assistant secretary shall perform the duties of the secretary. Okay. And actually the treasurer one is too long to pose. I've limited that to a thousand characters. Um, so I'll just read it from here if, if the board's interested in hearing that. Okay. Um, so then Marcus also at the very end there where you, where you cite to 1 0 5 Section 1 0 5 Also add in, uh,
sections 1 0 6 and 1 0 7 'cause those are contained addition as we speak. Alright. Alright. Section 1 0 7. The treasurer of the board shall account for all monies belonging to the district or coming into its possession and shall render a report thereof when so required by the board. And all cases were monies belonging to a district remain in the custody of the county Treasurer. All warrants or orders drawn on the county treasurer in payment or lawfully incurred and properly authorized obligations of the district shall bear the written or facsimile signature of the treasurer of the board. And if required by the board the written counter signature
of any other person designated by the board. In all cases where the monies belonging to a district are withdrawn from the custody of the county treasurer, such withdrawn monies and all other monies belonging to the district shall be deposited by the treasurer of the board or such other custodians authorized and appointed by the board to the credit of the district in one or more deposit depositories designated by the board. All checks and payment of lawfully incurred and properly authorized obligations of the district drawn on any such depository shall bear the written or facsimile signature of the treasurer or custodian. And if required by the board, the written counter signature
of any other person designated by the board, the board by appropriate resolution may authorize the treasurer or any custodian employed by the district to deposit or cause to be deposited. Any monies derived from food services or operation of a lunchroom or from their school activities or any other monies received by the district. As such depository as it may designate and may likewise authorize the treasurer or custodians employed by the district to sign checks drawn on any such depository and payment lawfully incurred and properly approved expenditures. The treasurer shall perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the board.
And the absence of an ability of the treasurer and the assistant treasurer, if any, or an officer of the board designated by the president, if there is no assistant treasurer or other custodial supported by the board shall perform the duties of the treasurer. So under this state law, I don't even know if Kim c can be our treasurer since it says him Right. Excuse Nor can I be the president? 'cause it says him. Yeah, I I was about to suggest that in a front on world it might make sense to refer to that person as they Yeah, For Sure. Moving forward Sure. Consistently across all our policies.
Definitely. So, so sorry everyone, let me just harp on this for a minute. So back to my question, it's not necessary for us to repeat any of that in our policy. Our policy is really just to add duties and responsibilities to each of those roles to go above and beyond as defined by this, by state law. Is that what we're doing Here? I, I, I, oh, I don't know if the board, 'cause sometimes the board likes to put things that are captured in state law in the policies just for, I guess accessibility, uh, so that people don't have to jump
to multiple sources to see what the entire policy, uh, is about. Uh, but you are correct, um, director guides on that. It is not necessary or required and it, it won't change the district's legal obligations and they are referenced at the, the bottom of the policy. Okay. Just, but if add, Dan, so I know how I'm thinking of this policy as we're reading through it. Thank you. Yeah. But as a board, if you find something important in the statutory language that you wanna add in the policy, so it could be very clear, you definitely can add it in the policy. That way if the public is going to read the policy,
they, they have it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so back the roles of the president. Um, is there anything that, that you wanted to add, uh, or any of you all wanna add, um, to this section one? And maybe I should go ahead and and let everybody see the entire, read the entire thing to go to sections two and three and four. That way you can know what's in there before we start. That way it won't be repeated if it's already there. Okay. So I'm gonna read the rest of it that way we know everything that's in the board president's section
and then ask if we wanna change or, or, um, add anything or delete anything. Okay? So section two of that make all interpretive decisions that fall within the topics covered by board policy on governance process and board superintendent relationship, except where the board specifically delegates portions of this authority to others using any reasonable interpretation of the provisions. And those policies reframe from making any individual, individual interpretive decision about policies created by the board in the ends.
And executive limitation policy areas reframe from exercising any authority as an individual to supervise or direct the superintendent. Uh, serve as the liaison between the board and the superintendent on board operational issues including development of board meeting agendas represent the board to outside parties and announcing board stated position and in stating decisions and interpretations within the areas delegated to the president, delegating this authority, authority to other board members when appropriate, but remaining accountable for its use.
Five sign all contracts authorized by the board, six sign all official board reports. Seven, maintain all monitoring data, data and reports for executive limitations and ends policies and compiled data for annual evaluation of superintendent. So, um, I put a note there, said secretary or president. And basically what I was saying was the maintaining all monitoring data and reports, um, do the president actually maintain that?
Now? Is that something our secretary does? It seems like when we, what we just read, the secretary, um, maintains that. Um, anyone, anyone have, uh, any concerns about me moving that first portion of that where it talks about monitoring that data and reports, um, maintaining all monitoring data and reports to the secretary section? Anyone have any concerns with that? Yeah, because that's really not the reality. The reality of it is it's, it's, uh, staff that is supporting us that's actually helping, uh,
maintain the, and I guess I a definition as to what is maintaining look like? Is that compiling the data in a, in a drive, in a Google drive? What does that, what is actually does that look like? And if it's, that's, if that's the case, then really it's staff that helps support us that's making that happen on our behalf, on behalf of the president. So if we were to move it, um, we'd be setting that expectation onto the secretary. And that's not the reality. I, I don't know Carrie, uh, Dr. Olson, do you wanna weigh in on that? Yeah, I think I, I agree with you.
Staff definitely is the one that, you know, helps get all that together and really compiles that for us for our consideration. And I'm thinking like, who would be the one person on the board that would make sure that we always have that? So staff is the one that does all this work, but then who would be the person on the board who makes sure that we have all that from staff? So like who are the buck stop with, with this? And again, thinking beyond our seats and the staff that we have, who would we say would be responsible for making sure that,
that we get that Right now we don't have any problems and we always get it in a timely manner. And staff has been amazing. Just thinking to make sure who would be the one person. But I'm open to hear from everybody else. Um, quick question right now, is Lori maintaining this? Is she keeping up with this right now? Who, Uh, Lori Atwood know Lori? Okay. There is staff and Dr. Murrow's team that maintain the monitoring data and reports for us to consider and then we look over the data and what we get.
But we, but there's, Lori Atwood doesn't do this. There are other people on Dr. Murrow's team that do that. Yeah. So when, when, when, when I see this to say maintain and compiled it, so when the board votes to accept a monitoring report, those end up in the board's, uh, meeting minutes. And so those are preserved on board docs. So Lori does compile. So I know it like it depends on what you mean by compile, right? Is it what Marcus and Laney are doing to get those monitoring reports ready? But I really read this to mean making sure
that those reports are publicly available and at the board's disposal. So Sure. I agree with you there. I hadn't thought about it that way. I was thinking about the internal process. Yeah, I think because this is for the secretary, my guess is that this language is really about is is are these minutes being published, uh, for in our, in the board's minutes? No, Definitely needs to be wordsmith then. We need to wordsmith this if we're expecting it to be, it's still sitting under the president's role. Is that, is that right? Marcus or Attorney Johnson? Yes.
Yes. This is under the president's role. Correct. So maybe with the information from this discussion we just had, um, attorney Johnson, you can go back and, and wordsmith this and figure out where you know where it should go and how we should say it. And then we can also get input from our other colleagues. And I should mention, I think you all remember when we first discussed this director, QBA and director Sia and I all had an interest in working on this. And tomorrow director Sia and I are meeting with, um, attorney Johnson to talk about this policy in particular.
And I think Director Qba has given some of her feedback to director CI might be mistaken on that, but I know that director, um, QBA had some specific feedback she'd like to give as well. So just to let everybody know, we'll continue to gather that. And I, I recall one thing at the top spokesman can be and okay, spokesman it, it was a note that I had that said the spokesman part can be added to the body of the policy and I think that it is already here
when it said represent board to outside parties and announce a board stated position. Is there anything under the president's that, um, board president portion that you all think that we should add or that you all think should be removed from what we just read? Yeah, I wanna go back to number two. Number two at the top. Um, I'm concerned about any individual board member making an, uh, all interpretive decisions, um, without input from the rest of the board.
Um, I'm concerned with, with placing that authority on a single individual. Um, I I will say EE even when, when below we're, um, we're having the, the president represent the board to outside parties, um, that's an announcing board stated positions. It's not in creating positions on behalf of the entire board. Correct. And, and that interpretive decisions is talking about with our, uh, governor's process and BSRs
and as part of policy governance, um, it does state that the board chair or the board president does make those decisions and they're the ones who make that interpretive decision if it needed to be interpret interpreted and they can use any reasonable interpretation to make that decision. So that's part of policy governance. Um, if you all wanna change that, um, of course, you know, you all are the board. Um, you can, you can make those tweaks and make it to a vote. But part of policy governance says that that's belongs
to the board chair. Yeah, there, there is, I I may have made clear once or twice in the past. There are parts of policy governance that I just don't agree with. Um, and this, this happens to be one of those. Yeah. This language is um, in what other policy? In what other gp, attorney Johnson or do you, do you recall Dr. Olson? It's in, it's already existing in another gp. So just keep mental note of that Director Sterman. 'cause it comes up again this exact same language. Okay. And I'm not saying I agree with you, actually disagree with you. I think it does need to be in this policy as part
of the work that the president does. Um, but I'm just sharing with you that this language does come up in a different gp. I'm just not remembering the number of that gp. I do not remember the gp. Um, that also speaks about this, um, attorney Thompson. Do you remember the GP that also speaks about, um, this section too? No, I'm looking for it right now though. Yeah, I don't remember it. I don't recall having one. Um, but Director Gaan, you believe that,
um, the board chair should have this ability to interpret those policies? Yeah, I, I do. And if I just think it's repetitive, so either we're gonna have it that this language in section two here under president's role or in that other GP policy. Um, I do agree having had been in this role, um, it, it's one of those responsibilities, um, that while you're not you, you do refrain from having full authority over,
um, speaking on behalf of the board, uh, in terms of how you define gp because gps already defined by the board, which is what we're doing now. We're going over our GPS and defining it as a board. Um, but there will be cir circumstances and issues that will arise where the president has to sit in a one-on-one with an individual board member. And at that point the president will need to interpret, uh, a GP or any other policy depending on the
issue or the item that they're discussing. Um, that's just part of the responsibility of a, of being a board president is, um, having to make that interpretive decision. But again, it's based on written policy and based on written gps, which we are working on right now. So in a sense, they're being defined by all of us as we're working through them right now. Dr. Olson, do you have a position on this or any thoughts? Yeah, I, I, I appreciate what all the topics that have been brought up and I think in the beginning it says make all interpretive
decisions, but then the 2.1 is refraining from making individual. So to me that calls out that if a board president is called to make an interpretive decision, they should be thinking about not their own individual, um, perspective, but the will of the board because we always, you know, think of one voice and think about bringing everybody in. So it says make all interpretive decisions. I'm wondering if we can add somewhere in here that in making a deci interpretive decision, the board chair thinks about the will of the entire board and what we've discussed
or what people like, what others think instead of this 1.2 0.1 individual interpretive decisions. Because there might be a time to director GA's point where a board chair might need to make, uh, an interpretive, um, decision on something quickly and they would need to be thinking about what would be the will of the full board. But I don't know how they would, you know, make sure that they capture that. But that's something that I'm thinking about and I do think that this is something we need to bring back to the full board and director.
Mond, I also appreciate your comments on this as well. I, I think as, as you both talk about it. I think there's something to be said for, I think the issue is make all interpretive decisions as opposed to, to what, what you and director Gatan have spoken about right now, which is about extenuating circumstances when you might have to, which is not how this policy reads. Um, I, I don't necessarily have a problem with, with, if there are circumstances where that's the case, but rather a blanket making all interpretive decisions, Lemme uh, The nuance that needs to go.
That's a really good point. That's a really good point. Director Sterman. So I think maybe that's the language that needs tweaking is the start of that, of number two. That's a really good point. Also, I wanna share that I thought that this language sat in the board policy, the GP that speaks to, uh, violations, uh, committed by board members. But it's not, it's it, I just looked at our GPS and it's sitting in the president's role in gp. So just wanted to share that with you all. Uh, let me say this, in the first section
of two is only talking about governance's process and board superintendent relationship, and those are board facing policies. 2.1 is speaking about ends and executive limitations. And the reason that it is saying that the board president is not going to be able to interpret those because those are on the superintendent's purview. So the superintendents give the interpretation of the ends and executive limitations through their reasonable interpretation. Makes sense. And that's, that's the distinction between the two. So what this policy is right here is basically saying is
that if, I dunno, let's say the board has a disagreement of GP five and if the president should be signing everything, let's say the language was ambiguous. If, if that language is confusing, the board president gets to interpret that and that person gets to use any reasonable interpretations. Okay. Now 2.1 is saying that that person can't make any individual interpretations, uh, about the board ends and executive limitations.
But those, because the, any reasonable interpretations come from the superintendent, if that makes sense. It, it makes sense and it continues to, to be problematic in some way need to take back. Right. Gotcha. Um, Gotcha. Understand. Okay. And we definitely, um, do you all wanna suggest language, any language now that the rest of the board can review or do you wanna wait until the rest of the board? We're at a work session and I know we do have a meeting tomorrow about this also. Yeah, I think we should wait until a work session instead of suggesting language.
'cause I'd like to make sure we capture everybody's voices on this. Okay. Sounds great. Sounds great. Um, is there anything else that you all would like to discuss under the president's role? Hearing? Nothing will scroll down to vice president's role. And, uh, just like the statute with the vice president's role, when I went into add language, um, it, it basically stated that the vice president's role is to do what the president does when the president is not available. Um, so you will see that, um,
the only language I really added other than what was there that basically says in the absence or inability of the president, the vice president, president shall preside over board meetings and shall have all the powers and duties of the president. And I added support the president by assistant with specific assignments which facilitate effective board process. Um, and we can, you all can do anything you want with that language. Um, what I was thinking when I added that language is I know that our vice president has specific assignments
that she does with Dr. Olson that helps Dr. Olson and Dr. Olson's progress and, and her process of doing things. So, and I believe that that has been the, what the vice president have been doing in the past also. So I added that language. But of course it is definitely up to the board. Any comments? Thumbs up or thumbs down? Thanks for doing this to get us started. Yeah, that one's pretty good. It's pretty, uh, simple and uh, straightforward. Although does it articulate what the vice president actually does?
And can you elaborate, elaborate on that a little Bit? Yeah, I'm just, I'm just wondering if there are things that are missing, right? Like I know that, um, that at least currently the vice president assists in agenda development. Um, uh, I just, I I don't know if there are specific roles that that would be worth codifying that, that I may may not be familiar with. Yeah, I think um, that's a really good point. Director Sterman, I, we could specifically call out the agenda development. I know that um, in both the times I've been the chair this,
the vice president has always attended the agenda setting meetings and that's been really helpful. So I wonder if we just supports the president by assisting with specific assignments that have that facilitate board process, especially the development of agendas or, um, I don't know somehow calling that out because I think that's, um, really helpful. Maybe including agenda development or, or do we the word Wordsmithing. But I think it would be important to make sure that we have that in there because that's always helpful. Okay. And and we can come back and wordsmith that too.
Um, agenda development and is that something that we're going to continue to have vice presidents in the future also work on? Everybody believe so. Okay. I think that's important. Alright. Anything else you all think that we should have, uh, included with the vice president and yes, we can work on the language. I can work on the language and make sure that it's clear and then let the board review anything for now not hearing anything. Okay. Now let's go down to the treasurer. It looks like.
Um, just a time check. We got about nine minutes left. Um, looking at the treasurer, I'm just gonna read it um, out loud quickly. Works with superintendent or superintendent. Doesn't need to ensure clear financial reporting is presented to the board chair, the finance and audit committee. Thank you Scott. Fidel, Dr. I mean Director Esman appreciate you confirms the financial reports provided, uh, comply with the board's policy and expectations. Create and present the board's annual operating budget. Anything you see, anything you all see that the treasurer
or our treasurer doesn't normally handle or anything that we are missing? The only thing I'd wonder about is in four in creating and presenting the board's operating budget. I know that, um, director Erman did this in the past and Director C has done this, but to codify for the future that based on input from the entire board, that they will create the board's annual operating budget. So it's not just saying they get to go off again thinking of the future board, you know, based on input from the entire board, they will create
and present a board at uh, operating budget. I saw a thumbs up from Director Erman. Okay. Okay. Sound great. And we definitely couldn't revise that to make a state state that clearly anything else you all see and we'll have time to think about it. And again, we have a meeting about it tomorrow too. Okay, now let's go over the secretary, uh, with our last couple of minutes. Um, so what we have here is review agenda items prior to posting to the community review draft minutes of board meetings prior to posting to ensure that accurate
and official meaning minutes are kept of all board meetings, oversee the timely distribution and public posting of board agendas and meeting materials serve as custodian of the board's official documents and historical records. And um, I believe this one, this number one Mr. Youngquist added and then he added the beginning of uh, number two. Is there anything here that you all believe that our secretary, uh, doesn't handle? Uh, so I think I would, again, kind of back
to our previous comments. I'd love to know a little bit more of director or Mr. Youngquist thinking for one and two, um, thinking about reviewing the agenda items. So then the flow would be that the president and the vice president meet with, um, the superintendent or their designee to create the agenda and then it would go through the secretary before it would be posted. I'm wondering how that would work. Just a question. I Uh, I think it also follow up, it feels like, um, both three and four are much more staff related.
So I don't know if we wanna say right, like, and I don't know 'cause I haven't served as secretary, but, but I don't know what that means to serve as the custodian of the board's official documents in his historical records. Do they have then access to board docs or, or when we upgrade that, are they the ones directly responsible for that they're responsible with? I'm unclear on on how much three and four is actually the work of the board member versus the work of staff. I agree. I thought about the same thing when I looked at
that and I wonder if, again, it's back to some of our previous comments like the secretary will ensure the timely distribution and public posting of materials and we'll we will ensure there's a custodian of the board's official documents. 'cause the secretary doesn't actually do it. The staff does. But would that be the person who says, uh, yes we are for sure keeping these, I don't know, just a question. Uh, I think what's missing, so I agree with the both of you and good questions. What's missing here is I know the secretary does sign maybe
not all official documents and contracts, but there are some, is that correct Dr. Olson, that a secretary is signing with the board president so that we need to have language around, um, what's expected in terms of signature on contracts and uh, other documents? Yep, that's a really good point. So the, they serve as signatory along with me on all the items that we vote on Including, um, graduation, um, diplomas, high school diplomas. Is that correct?
That's correct. And we, yeah, we definitely could craft some language around that. Um, yeah, we definitely could craft some language around what they're assigning and we'll talk more about if they are actually ensuring that these, uh, postings happen and and ensuring that we have a place for the documents and historical records so we can follow up on that. Okay. Um, we're not gonna have time to start GP six because we got three minutes left. Any other last second comments from anyone?
I'd just like to say thank you Attorney Johnson. You did a lot of behind the scenes work to get us to this point and thank you so much for that. No problem. No problem at all. And once we, uh, discuss it, 'cause we do have a meeting tomorrow and we'll discuss more, I'm gonna send out a email to the board tomorrow or Wednesday to make sure that everyone is on the same page. Make sure everyone get a chance to come back and review this and it will have questions that we have brought up during this meeting so the board could think about that before we go into our, uh, work session. Sounds good.
Perfect. All right. All right with that, this, um, meeting of the board of education is a work session on policy governance is ended. Thank you everybody for attending and watching. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Have a good rest of your day. Bye.