The board discussed options Tuesday for how to populate the district’s nonvoting student board seat, and the superintendent recommended a clear, uniform selection process to begin with students’ return in the fall.

The superintendent outlined three commonly used approaches: use the student-council election, add the student‑board position to the student-council ballot, or run an application process with candidate review by the board. “One is they use the student council…another is an application process,” the superintendent said while inviting board feedback. She said her recommendation was to establish a dedicated position on the ballot so the role would not automatically be filled by the student-council president.

Board members discussed continuity and workload as factors. One member said a single dedicated representative offers continuity; another suggested pairing junior and senior representatives to preserve institutional memory. The superintendent noted previous years’ student representatives have been “fabulous” but also busy, and asked the board to be deliberate about defining expectations and attendance requirements.

Timing and next steps: board members asked for formal role language (attendance, expected preparation with the superintendent before meetings and outreach responsibilities) and agreed the board should make a decision in August so schools can run their fall elections or nomination processes. The superintendent proposed advertising the position early in the school year and indicated principals and student‑government advisors will be involved in messaging.

Discussion vs. direction vs. decision: the board’s exchange produced direction for staff to draft a recommended process, candidate criteria and an advertising timeline; the board did not take a formal vote Tuesday and did not finalize the policy. The superintendent said she would prepare draft language and bring it back for approval in August.