Directors ask for discussion on redaction of stakeholder survey comments

Directors told administrators they want clarity on the district’s practice of redacting stakeholder survey responses before sending results to the board and asked for a future discussion on what data should be provided.

One director said some surveys appear "heavily redacted," and others noted that different districts sometimes provide more complete datasets. "I don't know that to be true," an administrator responded, noting statutory redaction obligations but acknowledging other districts may handle redaction differently. Board members discussed trade-offs between raw comments (which can be thousands of lines) and synthesized summaries. One director cited a nearby district that provided unredacted stakeholder survey results in searchable PDF form and said that format allowed board members to search by keywords such as "iPads" to see all relevant comments.

Directors asked administration to explain the legal basis for redaction and whether the board could routinely receive less-redacted or searchable datasets without violating statutes or privacy protections. Several directors said they want consistent expectations: what the board will receive and in what form. A director asked that the topic be placed on a future agenda so the board can decide whether to request different formats or more complete datasets.

Administration did not commit to a policy change at the study session; staff said statutory privacy constraints drive some redactions and suggested individual follow-up when board members have item-specific questions. The board agreed to place the issue on a future study-session agenda for a fuller discussion.