Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Policy Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board lawyer: remote participation policy prevents remote voting except during state-declared emergencies
Summary
Board member Patty Mason asked for legal clarification about remote participation and voting; district counsel said the board’s existing policy (2302) does not permit remote members to vote unless the meeting occurs during a state‑declared emergency.
During the Sept. 16 work session, board member Patty Mason asked the board to obtain a legal opinion and read an extended letter asserting she intended to “fully participate … and do desire to vote” while attending remotely for family‑illness reasons.
Board counsel Brian Gatchel responded with an explanation of the board’s current remote‑participation policy language (policy 2302). He told the board that the policy distinguishes presence for discussion from presence for voting and that the section that permits voting is tied to a special rules subsection that applies only during state‑declared emergencies. As Gatchel explained: “Section E is entitled Special Rules for remote meetings during [a] state declared emergency. Everything in section e only applies during state declared emergency.” He clarified that, under the board’s written policy, a remote participant is not counted as part of the quorum and is not permitted to vote except during a state‑declared emergency.
Board members discussed prior practice and noted that some districts have different approaches. One board member observed the board had allowed remote voting in December 2024; counsel said that practice is not supported by the policy language and referenced case law addressing remote participation.
Board members did not take formal action to change the policy at the work session. The agenda included the remote‑participation policy as a first‑read item; the chair said the policies on the agenda would be moved to second read and placed on Thursday’s consent agenda unless the board requested revisions. Mason asked that the board formally request a written legal opinion; counsel said he would provide legal advice if directed by the board.
The discussion separated three things: (1) the member’s request for a legal opinion, (2) counsel’s public explanation of the policy’s current text, and (3) the board’s procedural decision to move the policy forward in the review cycle. No change to the remote‑participation policy was adopted at the meeting.
