Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates code of conduct, seeks separate process for complaints and censure
Summary
Trustees discussed a first reading of board policy updates that would create a code of conduct and a formal process for complaints about trustees. Members asked staff to separate political censure (board action) from investigatory procedures for complaints the public or staff might file.
At the first reading of proposed board bylaw and policy updates on March 12, 2025, trustees discussed a draft code of conduct and a process for board-member discipline. Trustee Ryan urged caution about adding a board-level investigatory procedure that could be used politically; Trustee Muirhead and Superintendent’s counsel raised that staff currently lacks a clear mechanism to handle complaints about board members that are submitted by staff or members of the public.
Trustee Ryan said establishing a built-in process that allows staff or community members to initiate an investigation “adds a lot of process” and risks politicizing censure requests. He suggested limiting formal censure to motions raised by board members and not designing an elaborate investigatory process initiated by the public.
Trustee Muirhead said the policy committee discussed the issue and that staff had been uncertain how to handle complaints directed at board members; the committee sought to provide a clear written process so staff would not be placed in the role of investigating trustees. Legal counsel advised trustees that some complaint pathways are statutorily required when they involve protected-class discrimination or employment matters, and that other investigative responsibilities fall to external authorities (for example, a district attorney or grand jury) depending on the allegation.
Trustee Ratermann and others recommended separating two concepts in the policy: (1) the board’s internal political remedy (censure) and (2) an investigatory mechanism for complaints originating from staff or the public. Trustee Canova, among others, characterized censure as a political act that is often symbolic; some trustees and a public commenter said a documented process provides transparency to taxpayers. Trustees asked the policy committee to return with revisions that clarify the distinction; the item was sent back to the committee for redrafting and possible re-numbering through CSBA guidance.
What the board asked staff to do: trustees directed the policy committee to rework the draft so the censure action and the investigatory/complaint pathway are more clearly separated (for example, separate policy/bylaw numbers or subparts) and to consult CSBA numbering and language. The item will return for further board consideration at a future meeting.
