|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View Los Altos High School District’s board is considering an expanded policy on meeting conduct, which would lay out more detailed procedures for how to handle disruptions during meetings.
The school board held an initial discussion of the updated board bylaw on Monday, Jan. 13. A vote is expected at the board’s next meeting, scheduled for Jan. 27.
The new policy details the circumstances under which the board president can stop someone from addressing the board and remove them from a meeting, as well as when the board can clear the room and continue a meeting with a more limited audience.
An existing bylaw already gives the board these powers, but includes limited details on when they can be used. The update the board is considering is more thorough.
It explains that the board president can terminate someone’s right to address the board and remove them from the meeting if they engage in an “actual disruption” of the meeting or threaten someone’s safety. The president needs to provide the person with a warning before removing them, unless the person is using force or engaging in a “true threat of force,” in which case a warning is not necessary.
The policy then provides definitions of what constitutes “disrupting” a meeting and a “true threat of force.”
Similar to the existing policy, the board is also given the power to clear people from the room in the case of a disruption, with the exception of non-disruptive members of the media, who the policy states would be allowed to stay. The board is also given the option of allowing other attendees who weren’t participating in the disruption to remain.
Under the new policy, the board has the ability to recess a meeting or move it to another location, which isn’t part of the existing rules.
At Monday’s meeting, board members seemed in favor of these expanded rules. Trustee Thida Cornes said that while she hoped the board would never need to use these provisions, she understood that having a procedure was necessary.
What raised more questions among board members was a separate part of the new bylaw that would restrict commenting time. The draft policy stated that the board would limit the total time for public comments on each agenda item to 20 minutes. The board president would have the power to adjust that time “in exceptional circumstances when necessary to ensure full opportunity for public input.”
Cornes and other board members expressed concerns about limiting public comment in this way.
“The opportunity for individuals to express their views is essential to the trust that MVLA has cultivated over the years,” Cornes said.
Superintendent Eric Volta told the board on Monday it was his understanding that the existing policy had been 30 minutes. Board members generally said they favored sticking with 30 minutes, rather than reducing it down to 20 minutes.
Volta said he would bring a version of the new policy with a 30 minute limit back for the board’s review at its next meeting.
The existing bylaw does not actually specify a time limit, but Volta told the Voice that 30 minutes had been the board’s practice and that the new policy would now codify it.
At Monday’s meeting, board member Catherine Vonnegut noted that regardless of the technical limit, the board typically hadn’t taken advantage of it in the past, instead allowing for more than 30 minutes when a lot of people showed up to speak on an item.
Cornes and fellow board member Alex Levich echoed that the important part is that the board has the discretion to extend commenting time to allow people to speak.
Makes sense. You wanna be open to the public, but we all know that some members of the public get, ahem, heated, and there’s no reason we should have to suffer through their abuse.
AH – is this ‘typical’ that school administrators ‘just wing it’ when interpreting existing Written Board Policy? (nowhere was ’30 minutes’ written)
Most of this Policy is just a restatement of existing state code. In the case of “actually disrupting” maybe it’s good to add – it was a state court published opinion that made that part of the state meeting legal framework (case law). Wave a 3rd Reich flag, give a vile group’s “salute” toward an administrator – ah – annoying an administrator is not ‘actual disruption’ (nor is “standing around” Pack-Em-In to the fire marshal limit!)
30 min is good and generous – the Board Majority always, just ALWAYS can by Majority Vote override the chair. Standard parliamentary procedure.