Special School District board defers grievance hearing after procedural, notice disputes

The Board of Directors of the Special School District on May 13 voted to defer consideration of grievance hearing matter 2024‑01 to its July 15 meeting after questions about proper notice and whether the item could be taken in executive session.

Board members initially voted to move into an executive session to review the personnel committee’s handling of the grievance. Board attorney Andre told the board: “Under the statute 42 17, there is a provision permitting executive sessions for investigative proceedings regarding allegations of misconduct.” The board took a roll-call vote that resulted in approval to convene an executive session.

The grievant, identified in the meeting as Whitney (the district’s attorney in this matter), urged that the record and procedure be handled openly or, at minimum, that she be given a full opportunity to present and answer questions. She told the board she had been living under the grievance for months and that committee members who had reviewed the matter should not assume others on the board had sufficient background: “I have been 6 months working with this hanging over my head ... I would like to make myself available for questions, for information, for anything like that.”

Members of the board and counsel debated whether the item met the statutory exception for executive session and whether the meeting notice had cited the applicable exception. Some board members and the grievant said they believed the matter had not been noticed with sufficient specificity for an executive session; others, including counsel, said the agenda item’s title and supporting documentation were adequate to put the public on notice of the grievance hearing topic and that the grievant could waive confidentiality and ask for a public hearing.

Because several board members and the grievant expressed concern that the personnel‑committee materials and the transcript of the committee proceeding had not been distributed or made accessible, the board voted to defer final consideration. The board directed staff and counsel to provide each member a copy of the approximately 300‑page transcript and to arrange for brailling of the transcript for board members who require it. Board attorney Andre and other staff agreed to prepare a written summary of the process and the personnel committee’s recommendation to accompany the transcript.

A final public action on the grievance was made by motion and roll‑call vote. Jamar moved and Ronnie seconded a motion to defer the matter to the July 15 board meeting; the roll call recorded unanimous approval among members present. The board also recorded that, at the July meeting, it would determine whether the item would be heard in public or in executive session after formally citing any governing statutory exception if an executive session is chosen.

The board’s stated next steps are: distribute the grievance hearing transcript to all board members (and provide brailled copies where required), circulate a written summary of the personnel committee’s process and recommendation, and revisit the matter at the July 15 meeting with the full board able to decide whether to proceed in public or in executive session.