The Suffolk City School Board on Oct. 23 approved a revised norms and protocols policy and directed the Policy Review Committee to add language to handle the situation in which both the chair and vice chair are alleged to have violated the board's norms.

Board members voted 5–2 to approve ordinance 25/26-40 “as is” while sending it to the Policy Review Committee for the additional provision requested by board member Riddick addressing simultaneous charges against the chair and vice chair. The motion to approve and refer was moved from the floor and seconded; the board recorded Jenkins and Riddick voting no and the remaining five members voting yes.

The move grew out of repeated concerns about inconsistent implementation of the norms and what some members described as a lack of a formal investigative trail. Board member Riddick urged that the policy include a formal documentation process so that future boards would have an unambiguous record of how complaints were received and investigated. "There really needs to be like an official trail of when the complaint was received, a documentation of the investigation," Riddick said during discussion.

Board counsel said the substance of Riddick's concerns appeared to be implementation rather than the written policy: "It sounds to me as though it's more an issue of implementation versus the actual language of the policy," Attorney Waller said, suggesting the board could adopt guidelines to flesh out procedure. Riddick and several other members insisted the protections be embedded in policy so they remain binding across future boards.

On a separate item, the board considered ordinance 25/26-41, a proposed amendment that would set a five-minute limit on board-member comments at meetings. That proposed change prompted a wide and sometimes heated discussion about why the limit was proposed and how it would be applied. Some members said the limit was intended to improve meeting efficiency; others said the limit targeted particular exchanges and would unfairly constrain members' ability to report on constituent work.

Instead of adopting the five-minute limit tonight, the board voted to send ordinance 25/26-41 back to the Policy Review Committee for further deliberation. The motion to send the item back passed with a 6–1 vote; Dr. Brittingham cast the lone no vote.

Board members emphasized that returning the item to committee would allow the committee and counsel to draft clearer language — including whether and how yielding time, pauses for staff answers, and parity with chair and staff remarks should be included.

The board's action leaves the board chair with the current authority to manage meeting order and time in the near term; several members noted the body can later overrule a chair’s ruling by motion.

The board’s decisions on both items drew extended debate and repeated requests that any added language reduce ambiguity and protect consistent application for future boards.