Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Advisory Committee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses creating a standing community advisory committee to advise trustees
Summary
Trustees discussed a draft concept for a standing advisory committee made up of community leaders, business people and the superintendent to advise the board on major issues; no action was taken and the idea was left for further public input.
Board President Emil Barham and Superintendent Gary Woods proposed forming a standing community advisory committee to provide policy recommendations and community perspective on major district issues. The proposal was presented as a discussion item on April 15 and drew questions about membership, authority and the relationship between elected trustees and volunteer advisors.
Barham and Woods said the committee would be strictly advisory and have no statutory or decision-making authority; its task would be to research and debate specific questions assigned by the board and then return recommendations. Woods described examples from other districts in which advisory groups tackled bond-measure strategy, curriculum adoption or other complex topics and then reported to the elected board chair. The proposed structure discussed at the meeting would include the superintendent and up to 11 community members; the superintendent would select five of those members and each board member could nominate 1 community representative to bring additional voices and local knowledge into the advisory process.
Trustees asked procedural questions: how members would be appointed and removed, whether advisory recommendations could supplant staff work, whether the committee should publish minutes, and whether by-law or conflict-of-interest rules would apply. Several trustees expressed support for tapping longtime community members and local businesses and acknowledged tension between broad community input and the board’s ultimate decision-making responsibility. Board members suggested collecting public nominations and returning a detailed proposal that would include membership criteria, term lengths, code of conduct and a formal reporting path to the board.
No vote was taken. The board encouraged the public to submit nominations and suggested staff and trustees would return a more detailed proposal for future consideration.
