Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays vote on officer-election policy after members debate abstentions and presiding officer language
Summary
School board members sent proposed changes to the policy governing election of board officers back to policy committee after debate over whether members may abstain and who should preside when new members are sworn in.
Davis County School District trustees voted to table a proposed amendment to the board—lection policy after members expressed differing views on whether abstentions should be allowed and who should preside over organizational meetings.
The policy under review (referred to in discussion as 1B-15) would switch officer elections from an open voice vote to paper ballots, disallow abstentions in rounds after the first, and require the parliamentarian to announce tallies that go into the minutes. The policy committee had recommended the changes for full-board consideration.
Several board members said they were uncomfortable prohibiting abstentions. "I like to preserve the ability to abstain," said Ms. Powell. Others said, because the board is a small voting body, too many abstentions could prevent a majority from being reached. "I would prefer to compel the board member to vote than to go to a coin toss," said another member who supported limiting abstentions.
The members also debated who should preside over the organizational meeting when newly elected members are sworn in. The draft language said the incumbent president would yield to the business administrator to preside temporarily during the election; some members noted there will not always be an incumbent available and suggested the business administrator should preside from the outset. Board counsel Ben Onofrio told members the policy had been reviewed by the policy committee and that the committee had asked for added transparency in the minutes.
With no consensus on the abstention language and several practical questions remaining about presiding authority and deadlock scenarios, Ms. Hogan moved and Ms. Price seconded a motion to table the item and send it back to policy committee for revision. The motion to table passed.
Board members asked that the policy committee consider additional deadlock procedures (several members suggested multi-round voting and fallback tie-breaking methods used in other jurisdictions) and return with clearer language on whether abstentions are permitted in the first round only, whether successive rounds prohibit abstention, and how the clerk or business administrator will preside when there is no incumbent.
No final policy change was adopted at Tuesday—s meeting; the board deferred the matter to allow policy committee to draft replacement language that addresses the concerns raised.
