Silver Board discusses narrowing first public‑comment slot, adding open comment period

Silver Consolidated Board of Education members discussed revisions to the district’s public‑comment procedures during a September 15 work session and regular meeting, agreeing to draft changes that would reserve one public‑comment period for items on the meeting agenda and keep a second, more open period for other topics. Board President Montenegro opened the discussion and asked for input on whether the district’s two public‑comment periods should differ in scope. Board member McMillan said, “I would be open to having 1 be maybe the first public comment period be limited to agenda items, and then the second 1 being open to anything that is brought forward to the board.” Why it matters: The board currently constrains both public‑comment opportunities to agenda items only; several members said allowing a second, open period would give parents and community members a clearer channel to raise issues that do not appear on the agenda. Board members also raised operational concerns — chiefly time limits, how to prevent personal attacks, and how to maintain consistency across written policy and the agenda layout. What was discussed: Board member Clement and Board member McMillan both supported keeping an initial, agenda‑limited period while adding an open forum later in the meeting. The board noted existing policy language on speaker conduct and time limits: Policy B2150 sets a five‑minute cap per speaker and a 30‑minute total allotment, while the board’s agenda outline currently breaks public comment into two blocks (20 minutes and 10 minutes). Superintendent William Hawkins and administrative staff said they support creating space for community members to bring non‑agenda items to the board and urged clear communication about other pathways for raising concerns (for example, contacting principals or central office). Hawkins also reminded the board the district should maintain an online submission pathway for remote participants: “if there's someone who wants to present a public comment during that time, that they're able to submit the public comment online during the board meeting,” he said. Operational details discussed: Board members proposed several approaches to manage meeting time if participation is large — for example, reducing per‑speaker minutes depending on the number of signups (one suggestion was cutting to two minutes if ten people are signed up). The group also discussed removing the email‑comment route that was created for fully remote meetings but noted the district likely must retain a hyperlink or online submission method to satisfy policy or statutory requirements. Next steps and direction: The board did not take formal action. Board President Montenegro said she and board clerk Lisa will draft policy and agenda edits and bring them back for a first reading at the next meeting; the board acknowledged that any formal policy change would require the board’s first and second readings before adoption. As discussed, staff will also reconcile inconsistent wording across the district’s policies and the board agenda (for example, B1700 vs. the agenda language that currently divides the 30 minutes into 20/10).