Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Complaints Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee orders staff draft to revise board member complaints policy after lengthy procedural debate
Summary
The Law and Licensing Committee discussed board policy 02/2005 on complaints against individual board members, heard audit office explanation of current practice, debated due-process and GRAMA concerns, and unanimously directed staff to draft policy revisions and return to committee.
The Law and Licensing Committee discussed whether board policy 02/2005 and related bylaws adequately protect due process, privacy and transparency when complaints are filed against individual board members.
“Okay. Debbie Davis. I'm the chief audit executive for the board,” Debbie Davis told the committee when invited to explain current practice. “When internal audit receives a concern against a state board member, internal audit will process that. We'll log it the same as we do any hotline. … At the end of the day, the preliminary analysis will say either refer to board leadership or do not refer to board leadership.”
Davis told the committee that internal audit has performed 46 preliminary analyses since the policy was passed and that preliminary analyses are intended to be high-level screens to decide whether a concern has merit and should be referred to board leadership.
Board members pressed on several recurring issues: when and how the board member who is the subject of an allegation should be notified; whether internal audit or board leadership should manage subsequent steps; how GRAMA (public-records) requests affect confidentiality during an open inquiry; and what procedural standards constitute “adequate due process.”
Board Member Lear urged that informal mediation steps be built into policy so some complaints can be resolved quickly without a prolonged, public procedure.
“I would like to build into this some kind of a... mediation,” Lear said, arguing that many complaints can be resolved through leadership conversations before formal procedures begin.
Other members said they favored notifying the accused board member early in the process but agreed the level of disclosure should be tied to whether a matter will be investigated further. Davis and other staff described current practice as protective of records while an investigative process is open and acknowledged that the classification of records may change once the process concludes.
Members also recommended the committee consider aligning board bylaws (article 4, section 12) with any revisions to board policy so that criteria, remedies and due-process steps are consistent. Several committee members said they want legal involvement (AAGs) when allegations reach a level that could affect a member’s reputation or rights.
After discussion, the committee unanimously approved a motion recommending that the superintendent direct staff to prepare a draft revision of board policy 02/2005 that reflects the meeting discussion and to return the draft as an action item to the April Law and Licensing Committee meeting. Staff cautioned that the April deadline may be tight given other rules work but agreed to aim for an April or May draft.
