The policy committee of the Newburgh City School District Board of Education agreed to send a draft policy to the full board establishing one ex officio student board member and two alternates, with selection left to the district’s student government.

The committee said it will forward the draft as written for the next stage of review but directed staff to work with legal counsel to finalize the language and to revisit representation concerns next year. The committee also discussed logistics including attendance, the role of an adult adviser, and a plan for alternates to rotate into meetings when the primary student cannot attend.

Committee members raised questions about campus representation and the selection method. “My rationale for student council was that there’s already a vehicle there for picking their leaders,” said one committee member. Some members, however, pressed for ways to ensure each of the district’s three campuses is heard if the elected student leaders all attend the same campus this year. Board member Ray said students had told him they preferred “one member per campus” so each campus would have direct representation; he suggested using alternates or holding a campus-level vote later in the year if needed.

Miss O’Neil, who identified herself as a student-government adviser and described running the executive council across three campuses, told the committee the executive council members she spoke with were “very excited about the idea of sharing the responsibility” of rotating as the student board representative. She suggested moving student-council planning to align with board meeting dates and noted current student-government structures that could provide input to the student representative.

Committee staff summarized procedural options. A staff member explained that the draft allows one ex officio student board member and two alternates to attend when the primary cannot; the committee agreed that alternates should rotate to give all students experience. The committee also discussed notification procedures if a student could not attend; options included reporting absences to the district clerk, superintendent, or the student adviser.

The committee directed staff to send the current policy draft to the full board for the next reading and adoption step, with the understanding the district counsel will review the policy language and staff will bring recommendations next year on ensuring campus-level representation.

Members asked staff to document the selection mechanism in the policy or its regulation so the selection method is clear to students and families and to confirm that the chosen process complies with state guidance. The committee noted the selection and implementation timeline must meet the district’s administrative deadlines for appointment by July 1.

The committee’s discussion combined public-staff input, adviser recommendations, and board-member concerns but stopped short of changing the draft’s core structure; the committee’s direction was procedural—send the draft forward for formal board consideration with legal review and a follow-up report on representation.