Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Ethics And Qualifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews qualifications, vacancies and code of conduct; agrees edits on background checks, conflicts and abstentions
Summary
Directors discussed consolidating board member qualifications and responsibilities, vacancy procedures, criminal background checks for board members, social‑media guidance, conflict‑of‑interest rules and the circumstances under which a board member must declare and potentially abstain from votes.
At its Sept. 23 work session the Bend‑La Pine Schools Board of Directors discussed revisions to policies addressing board member qualifications, vacancies and conduct, including criminal background checks, conflict‑of‑interest and abstention rules.
Directors agreed several text blocks should be reorganized so qualifications (GP‑2) are distinct from job responsibilities and vacancy processes (moved to GP‑3). They discussed changing language that listed specific stakeholders (for example, replacing “families” with the broader term “constituents”) so policy reflects that the board is accountable to all district residents.
The board reviewed a provision requiring board members to submit to the same criminal history background checks used for other district visitors. Members clarified that a failure to clear the check would not automatically remove a director but would require restricted access consistent with the district’s visitors policy (for example, scanning ID and supervision; no unsupervised contact with students).
Directors discussed conflict‑of‑interest language and a class‑exception clause allowing a board member to vote on a collective bargaining agreement when the benefit accrues to the bargaining unit as a class rather than to a single spouse, dependent or household member. Members emphasized that, when a conflict exists, a director still may choose to vote or abstain but must publicly declare the reason for an abstention.
On discipline and public censure, the board discussed a process for handling allegations against board members, referencing statutory procedures for removal or censure and asking staff to ensure the policy aligns with Oregon law. Members also debated social‑media language and whether the policy should say board members shall not “intervene in the administration” or use phrasing such as “shall not intervene in the management of the district”; directors favored the latter as clearer and less adversarial.
Several members asked staff to ensure policy references statutory vacancy triggers (for example, failure to attend meetings for a statutory period) rather than to restate statutory facts and to add a cross‑reference to Oregon law where appropriate. The board did not take formal action but asked staff to return the revised language for final review.
