Board members on July 17 questioned an apparent change in practice: coordinators were included among positions announced and approved in closed session, and at least one board member asked why coordinators are now being brought for board approval when historically the board had not voted on coordinators.

A board member said for the record: "Since the board doesn't vote on coordinators, why do we vote on these coordinators?" Staff explained the practice change had been requested to include "coordinator and above" when bringing personnel to the board for approval. A trustee asked staff to bring back the relevant board policy so the board will follow written policy rather than ad hoc practice.

Why it matters: identifying which positions require board approval affects transparency and normalizes consistent governance; trustees signaled intent to review board policies and practice to ensure consistency.

Discussion vs. decision: the board directed staff to return with the board policy language and to include the topic in the planned board-policy review. No immediate change to individual pending appointments was made as a result of this discussion; staff confirmed they would present the policy at a subsequent meeting.

What happens next: staff will provide the board policy language on appointment approvals (director, principal and above; whether coordinator is included) and the board will consider policy revisions and a planned policy-review schedule so future practice is consistent with adopted policy.