Board reads employee complaint and debates new policy for handling complaints against trustees

Board President Adam Lipsky read into the public record a formal written complaint filed with HR on Jan. 27 that alleges defamation of character and a hostile work environment resulting from public social-media activity by a trustee. Lipsky said legal counsel advised the board to establish a governance process because existing district policies did not clearly outline how to handle complaints against sitting trustees.

Nut graf: The board’s policy committee presented recommended language intended to fill a procedural gap so the district can investigate complaints involving an elected member. The proposed policy outlines an initial review by board officers, appointment of an investigator, an investigatory report, limited public and closed-session procedures, and a board vote on disposition. Trustees raised multiple legal, due-process and governance concerns during debate.

Policy details in the draft call for the board president and vice president to review a complaint and refer it to the full board if either believes the allegation could violate board policy or law. The draft assigns the board — not the superintendent — the responsibility to appoint an investigator, authorizes interviews of complainant, respondent, students and staff, and requires a written investigator’s report to be provided to the board president and vice president and to the parties before board consideration. The draft says the respondent would be given up to five minutes to address the board, would not be recognized to speak during the board deliberation but would still be allowed to vote, and that the board’s decision would be final and not subject to appeal under the policy.

Multiple trustees urged changes before adopting the policy. Trustee Shane said the board should preserve the right of an elected board member to participate in deliberations and in closed-session legal review; he asked for language prohibiting a district employee from being appointed as the investigator in complaints about a trustee. Trustee Sandra Herndon raised constitutional and civil-rights concerns, requested clarification on who advised the committee (Miller Johnson was identified as legal counsel) and warned that the policy’s language could create civil-liability exposure; she said the policy should not strip due-process and appeal rights from a trustee.

President Lipsky said the proposed language reflected counsel’s analysis of a “governance gap” and that the committee intended a process to protect both complainants and trustees while complying with the Open Meetings Act. The policy committee agreed to reconvene and refine the draft; trustees asked legal counsel to provide a written opinion on privilege, redactions and appeal rights before calling the item for a second reading.

Ending: The board did not adopt the policy on first reading; members requested additional revisions and legal input. The formal employee complaint was read into the record at the request of the trustee named in the complaint; the board instructed counsel and administration to return with a revised policy and legal clarifications before further action.