March 22, 2006
Minutes of the
Governing Board ASBA Training Session of Tuesday, March 22, 2006, beginning at
10:00 a.m. held in Conference Room A of the District Office.
Governing
Board Members Present:
President
Mrs. Dee Navarro
Mr. Tom Staley (arrived at 10:20 a.m.
and left at 11:53 a.m.)
Mr. Steve Campbell (arrived at 11:10
a.m.)
Also
Present:
Dr.
Mr.
Dr. Chris Reynolds, Assistant Superintendent
(left at 10:47 a.m.)
Mrs. Renee Raskin, Director of Business
Services (left at 10:47 a.m.)
Mrs. Andi Mayer, Assistant to the
Governing Board
President
President
Fleming introduced Dr.
POWERS,
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD
He reviewed
the powers, authority and responsibility of the Board, directing attention to
A.R.S. §15-341, which consists of responsibilities the Board shall do, and
A.R.S. 15-342, which consists of discretionary powers of the Board, or what
they may do. He went on to say that
almost everything in Title 15 is the responsibility of the Board. He also reviewed some case law and Attorney
General’s opinions with the Board.
He noted that
Board members only have authority when they are acting as an entire Board with
a vote and that individual Board members have no authority. He noted that Boards normally delegate that
authority to the superintendent, because of their expertise in education.
(Governing Board Policies BBA and BBAA.)
AGENDA AS A
MEANS OF ALLOWING MINORITY INPUT TO THE BOARD
Mr. Staley
asked if as a citizen, taxpayer, and parent, when going on campus, can the
superintendent limit me from going on a campus?
Dr. Williams responded, yes, you can be limited under certain
circumstances as a parent or a board member.
Discussion
followed regarding records, that they must be asked for by the Board as a whole
through an agenda item and cannot be given to an individual Board member at
their request. He noted that the Board
can set rights of access and can limit anyone’s rights to access of records and
that there is only that right when given by the Board as a whole entity, just
as the entire Board gives the President the right and authority to sign things
outside of a Board meeting to meet the business needs of the district.
Mr. Staley
asked, can I be asked by the district office not to visit a campus or ask
supervisors for information? Dr.
Williams responded, as long as that is uniformly applied to all Board members.
Mr. Staley
noted that there was an investigation done and the district office feels that
it has been completed and closed and I feel that it’s not – what are my
options. Dr. Williams responded, you
should take it to the Board as a whole and put it on the agenda.
Mr. Staley
asked, what if I can’t get it on the agenda without another Board members
approval? Dr. Williams responded, that’s
the very reason I’m making this presentation and would like to propose
furthering the opportunity for a Board member or any minority to bring items to
the Board on the agenda – giving the minority the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Staley
asked, if it doesn’t get on the agenda, what are the next steps? Dr. Williams responded, that’s up to you
acting as a member of the public. He
noted that if you can’t get it on the agenda as a Board member, you can then
act as a citizen, but not as a Board member.
Mr. Staley
asked, what if it’s non-public information regarding an investigation that the
district office has done and then concluded?
Dr. Williams responded, once the other Board members have not supported
the request, that’s it for your options as a Board member. He went on to say, then you may act as an
individual citizen, but if you receive information in confidence as a Board
member, you cannot share that information without endangering your position.
Dr. Williams
noted that the 5-7 day requirement of requesting items being placed on the
agenda is to give the superintendent time to research and prepare for the
items.
Dr. Williams
discussed Policy BEDBA – Agenda Preparation and Dissemination. He cautioned
that Open Meeting Law violations can be made when Boards discuss things with
each other as individuals to find out what other people are thinking, i.e., if
you ask two other board members to put something on the agenda and you begin to
discuss or poll why someone wants or doesn’t want the item on the agenda. He noted that when you bring an issue up, if
the President says no, the superintendents then goes to two other Board members
to see if they are willing to allow the item on the agenda. If the superintendent asks the two other
Board members and polls them, and the President already knows about it because
they said no in the first place, you are now talking about a quorum, which
could be a violation of the OML. He went
on to say, if the superintendent just gives the bare facts and there is no
discussion, it’s okay.
Mr. Staley
noted, I go through the superintendent and he asks the president. If the president says yes, it’s fine. If the president says no, the superintendent
must go to two other Board members and I am concerned that the superintendent
could influence those Board members. How
do you overcome that? Dr. Williams responded, that’s the reason I’m presenting
this – I want to propose a means for you to do this. He stated that he was proposing a means for
any person on the Board to suggest an item for the agenda. He noted that during the adoption of the
agenda, a Board member may make a motion not to discuss an item on the agenda. He stated that this process allows a person
on the Board that has a special issue to bring it to the other Board members
and then the Board as a whole decides whether they want to discuss the item or
not. He noted that this process has a
fairness, but also contains a risk, because Board members cannot say why they
do or don’t want an item on the agenda.
Mrs. Dee
Navarro asked, we don’t need to explain our vote? Dr. Williams responded, you are never
required to explain your vote and it’s probably better not to.
Mr.
Dr. Williams
responded, they must be specific enough to allow the public to know what the
Board will be discussing so they can determine whether they’d like to attend
the meeting.
Mr. Staley added,
I think it needs to be specific as possible, not general (dress code vs. every
student wears a yellow hat.)
Dr. Williams
encouraged those present to read an article from the ASBA Journal – Fall 2003,
regarding this topic.
Dr. Williams
suggested that the Board revise their policy regarding the use of Robert’s
Rules of Order and use a modified or smaller version for simplicity of running
the meeting.
COMMUNICATION
WITH THE PUBLIC BY THE BOARD
Dr. Williams
discussed policy BHD – Communication with the Public. He reviewed policies KDD and KDA and noted
that the superintendent is usually the appointed person to deal with the
media.
Mr. Staley
stated that if the media contacts an individual Board member, he felt it was
his responsibility to talk to them regarding his views.
Dr. Williams
added, as long as the perception is not that you are representing the Board as
a whole. He stated that it’s a good idea
to have the superintendent or a media person deal with the media and that most
districts this size or larger do just that.
President
Fleming noted that during the limited call to the public, the Board President
will often times direct the superintendent to respond or do additional
research. Dr. Williams noted that the
only time a Board member can respond to a community member is if they are verbally
being attacked.
EXPLORATION
OF THE JUDICIAL ROLE OF THE BOARD AND THE PITFALLS OF FAILURE TO DELEGATE
Dr. Williams pointed
out that our policies provide for many different complaint forms and suggested
that when Board members hear complaints from community members they refer them
to Board policy and the complaint forms therein. He encouraged Board members to become
familiar with those forms. He noted that
it is the superintendent’s job to handle these things – not the Board. He also noted that anytime you’ve had a
conversation about a complaint and a student name has been involved, you want
to get rid of it because you may be involved in a long-term suspension or
expulsion hearing for that student down the road and will have created a
conflict of interest for yourself by having prior knowledge of an
incident. He noted that this is one of
the Board’s judicial responsibilities, that Board members must be neutral, that
you cannot find out information about an issue beforehand and bring it to other
Board members. By referring these types
of situations to the superintendent it gives the district the chance to resolve
the problem at the administrative level and saves you from having to recuse
yourself from the decision-making process at a hearing due to a conflict of
interest or having prior knowledge, which would be the ethical thing to do. He noted that the Board does have a general
ethics policy and that it was up to each individual.
ROLE OF
PRESIDENT
Dr. Williams
reported that it is the role of the President to maintain order during a
meeting and that the President has the authority to make the meeting move along
and run smoothly. He stated that the
President must maintain focus of the meeting and may do so by calling people
out of order when the conversation is not relevant to the issue at hand. He stated that there should be courtesy
amongst Board members, that you may have an opinion you want to bring to the Board
and that it should not be presented to fellow Board members in an argumentative
way, and that actually as you speak or present an opinion, it should always be
done through the President. He noted
that with everything going through the President and not through the
superintendent or other Board members, it keeps dialogue from becoming
argumentative, creating conflict, or becoming personal. He stated that this is a diplomatic way to
keep it from getting personal, much the same process as used in the legislature.
He noted that
the Board has a policy on self-evaluation and suggested that at some time in
the future, Board members use that model, evaluate yourselves, give the forms
to Andi to send to ASBA and then a representative from ASBA can evaluate the
data and come up and discuss with the Board and offer suggestions. He stated that unless a Board has someone
there to help with the evaluation, it tends to be glossed over and isn’t very
constructive or valuable.
FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT
Dr. Williams
noted that he was familiar with this item both through the policy services and
being at Amphitheater the year before they got into so much trouble, which cost
them $1 million.
Mr. Staley
expressed that he was uncomfortable discussing this information since the Board
had not yet voted on this item. He
stated that he felt it was inappropriate because it might influence the vote. President Fleming stated that she had planned
on suggesting the vote on that item be delayed at the next meeting. Mr. Staley
left the meeting at 11:53 a.m.
Mr. Williams noted
that there is a lawyer in the Labor Department who has been advertising across
the nation trying to get employees to report violations of the Fair Labor
Act. The lawyer then represents those
employees and reports the violations to the Fair Labors Board and then gets a
portion of the money collected. He noted
that this movement is heading west.
Mr. Staley
returned to the meeting at this time and stated that he had been offended that
he was not allowed to request topics for the agenda for this training session
and that he had several legal questions he would have liked answered. At this time Mr. Staley left the meeting.
Mr. Williams
suggested that if the district does not have a proper way of documenting
employee work hours, it could have problems down the road. He noted that there are several ways of doing
it: paper time sheets, time clocks, and
other programs.
The training
session ended at 12:00 noon.
___________________________________