BY DANI TIETZ
dani@mahometnews.com
Newly-elected board member Ken Keefe presented suggested policy changes that would allow for various channels of communication between the public and the board.
Currently, board policy 2:240 states, “Anyone may propose new policies, changes to existing policies, or elimination of existing policies. Staff suggestions should be processed through the Superintendent. Suggestions from all others should be made to the Board President or the Superintendent.”
Keefe suggested that the channels should be opened to include all board members, not just the board president, and to eliminate the Superintendent.
“So a board member would then bring (the policy change) to the entire board,” Keefe said.
Lori Larson was concerned about the elimination of the Superintendent.
“I don’t agree with that,” she said.
Keefe clarified, “All it’s saying is that this is what is required for the path to be. So it’s not saying that the Superintendent doesn’t have a voice, by any means, in fact, it lays out in the new policy the same exact responsibilities for the Superintendent to consider the policies and provide information to us about the policy suggestion.
“All it’s saying is that if there is a staff member who has a suggestion for (i.e.) our medicinal cannabis policy, they are not required to first go to (the superintendent) and then (the superintendent) brings it to (the board). It would just allow them to bring the policy directly to us.”
Larson replied, “The reason I am not in favor of it that way is that she has access to all of these buildings at any point in time; that is her job and that is what we have paid her as our CEO to do. If we take her out of it, it concerns me.
“We aren’t easily accessed all of the time. We’re pretty accessible. But we go (on vacation) and we take time away. She’s on call all the time. We are not.
“So I think if we take her out of that, we cut the rope a little bit by making it shorter.”
Keefe reiterated that it was not taking the superintendent out of the process of developing policy. The policy change would just not require the staff to solely go to the superintendent or for the public to only go to the board president.
“It allows anyone, including (the Superintendent) to go through any board member,” Keefe said.
Larson said that the problem is that the employee(s) will go from having one boss to seven.
“If I were a person going to a job, and I have an employer, I would report to one person. What that looks like to me is now I report to seven,” she said.
Larson believes this will be troublesome for the negotiated contract between the union and the district because the contract says that the employees report to one (the superintendent).
Keefe said the policy doesn’t talk about reporting to anyone.
“It is engaging with any one of the seven (board members),” he said.
“Consider if we had a male superintendent and we had (a male) board president, and we had an issue with sexual harassment of a female employee. They may feel more comfortable coming in speaking with a woman about that and this would then give them the option.
“If you are restricting them to only certain people, then you’re running into a problem with their comfort level.”
Larson said that as she has fielded community concerns during her two years on the board, she has directed constituents to Dr. Hall, if they have not already followed the chain of command.
She also said Dr. Hall has reported to the board on comments made throughout the community and on staff.
“It’s not like it just gets nixed,” Larson said.
Meghan Hennesy said that she believes “every board member is just a person and every board member has access to the community in different ways.
“This is simply bringing ideas forth,” she said.
Larson said that already happens.
Keefe said community members come to Larson because they want to speak with her.
She said that isn’t the case.
“I keep a paper log, they will say what should I do with this?” she said.
Larson said she will ask if they have gone through the proper channels with the information or a concern.
“It’s better to give them the tools that they need to use and tell them to access that,” Larson said. “I don’t want to police everything. I want to hear what they say and push them in the right way.”
Hennesy suggested that the language in the policy states that changes “can” be brought to any board member.
As the Chairman of the Sangamon Valley Water District Board, Hennesy said that all board members are equal; her role is not to speak for the board or be the board, but instead to make sure the agenda is set and that the meeting runs smoothly.
“I don’t have a stranglehold on how communication gets flowed to other people, other board members, our attorney,” Hennesy said. “All of those things, all board members have equal access and equal say when it comes to ideas for proposing policy changes.”
“I think I understand what you (Keefe) are trying to do, and I completely agree with the idea that if you have a funnel for communication that is too narrow, you have the opportunity to miss really good ideas and really good opportunities to communicate and engage with the community.
“I don’t know that we want to shut down that idea, that discussion that thought. So expanding the funnel is not expanding the policy, it’s expanding the way that we get ideas and mechanisms for reviewing policy, making sure policy is in check, making sure policy is comprehensive enough to cover what’s going on in the community.”
Larson clarified that she wasn’t opposed to expanding the funnel, but didn’t want to take the superintendent out of the funnel.
Hennesy said including the superintendent only expands the funnel.
Hennesy said there are other places within the board policy that dictate a small communication funnel, and those policies also need to be looked at.
“It is very specific about one or two people, I’m going to call them the gatekeepers, to information and information flow and that is contrary to what I have experienced on other boards,” Hennesy said.
“That is another area in terms of policy that we need to take a look at.”
Keefe also suggested that the board develop and utilize policy change forms.
“The idea here is to have a uniform way to present this to the board members and to the public.”
Keefe said the document will help the district keep a record of policy changes and the rationale behind those changes.
Larson thought the form was an “awesome” idea.
Keefe also wants to update the policies that allow for immediate changes or suspension of policies. He also suggests that special conditions should only be approved by unanimous vote.
“In my opinion, policy change is something that should be intentionally done slowly and carefully,” Keefe said. “Really the only thing that I think should get a pass for ‘we’ve got to get it done tonight’ is to comply with the law.”
Keefe believes that a suspension of a policy contradicts the purpose of a policy.
“I tried to think of an example where we would want to set our policy aside for certain circumstances,” Keefe said. “We could always exercise our emergency policy changing purposes, but to simply set aside our policies, that strikes me as problematic.”
Hall said that during her time in another district, a board policy had to be temporarily suspended a residency policy to help a child who needed to be part of the school district.
“Because we work with the public and kids, a lot of really unique things come up,” Hall said.
Keefe questioned making an exception to a policy for a single student.
“I’m in agreement with you that 99.9 percent of the time we have these to follow them, but we work with families and kids,” he said.
“Sometimes it doesn’t fit into the box to make the best decision for a kid.”
Larson said that she would like to see the word unanimous taken out where Keefe talks about the emergency policy change and replaced with a three-fourths or two-thirds present.
“I’m not for unanimous,” Larson said.
Larson also wanted clarification about Keefe’s proposal for substantive policy changes.
The proposal states: “Substantive changes to a proposed policy requires that a new UPCF be submitted before a subsequent meeting where the adoption process will begin anew. Minor changes may be made during discussion or at the same meeting that the board will decide on adoption without restarting the adoption process.”
Keefe said when significant changes are made to a proposal, time should be given for board members and the public to review the changes.
Hennesy said that she’d like the board to discuss what vote result is necessary to make a policy change.
“What is the number that this district is comfortable with?” Hennesy said. “And then we can think through extensions and exceptions and people on vacation. Policy, like you said, is something that should change at a glacial pace; you just until a board meeting where all the members are present to make a policy change unless it’s an emergency”
“Right,” Larson said. “Exactly.”
“Our policies should have enough detail and enough process and procedure behind them to take care of most exceptions,” Hennesy continued. “And if they don’t, then that’s the work that needs to be done in addition to this.”
“Right,” Larson said.
Keefe’s proposal will be discussed and presented again to the full board and the public at the June 24 school board meeting. If minimal changes are required, the board could vote on the changes during the July 15 meeting.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://mahometdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Keefe-communiction-policy-change-suggestions.pdf” title=”Keefe communiction policy change suggestions”]
