Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Expenses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses changes to board members’ expense reimbursement policy pending Attorney General review
Summary
The committee postponed consideration of Policy 9.354 (Board Members’ Voucher Reimbursement of Expenses) and asked board counsel to seek an Attorney General opinion about mileage origin rules and statutory caps on allowances.
The Policy and Governance Committee on March 11 voted to postpone consideration of proposed revisions to Policy 9.354 (board members’ voucher reimbursement of expenses) and requested that board counsel prepare a request to the Maryland Attorney General for legal guidance.
Ms. Welsh reviewed staff edits and described a principal uncertainty raised by internal audit and legal counsel: whether internal audit may provide pre‑approval guidance on proposed expenses (internal audit said it should not) and whether mileage should be calculated from a board member’s home or the district office for tax and reimbursement purposes. Ms. Welsh said she had discussed the policy language with internal audit and recommended that board members “obtain guidance about the expenditure from the director of the board office.”
Board counsel told the committee that Maryland law places limits on allowances for board members. The attorney said Section 3‑1003 of the Maryland education code established a $7,000 cap on annual allowances for board members and noted the statute’s language is specific; counsel recommended seeking an Attorney General opinion to clarify whether certain reimbursements or conference costs could exceed that cap. Counsel also described the IRS and case‑law complexity for determining a board member’s principal place of business for mileage reimbursement and recommended a conservative interpretation until the Attorney General opines.
Board members raised practical concerns. Board member Boozer Struthers said the mileage question is especially consequential for members who live far from the district office and warned that current rules could create large reimbursements for remote members. Several members said the legal ambiguity and potential exposure warranted pausing policy changes.
After discussion the committee voted to postpone Policy 9.354 and instructed the board attorney to prepare a letter to the Attorney General addressing the committee’s questions. The roll call showed four votes in the affirmative. Members emphasized the request for a formal legal interpretation before the committee advances changes to the reimbursement policy.
Ending: The committee postponed the item and will resume consideration after counsel obtains formal guidance from the Attorney General’s Office.
