Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Committees Taskforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superintendent task force on advisory committees seeks extension; chairs warn rushed schedule could undermine stakeholder input
Summary
Volunteers on the superintendent's task force told the board the 60-day timeline set for recommendations risked insufficient review of related policies and bylaws and asked that work continue into the fall; some board members urged sticking to the May report deadline to allow changes to take effect for next school year.
The superintendent's task force on advisory committees told the School Board at the May 9 workshop that its members had met frequently but needed more time to complete two robust options on committee structure and policy 10-70.
Cynthia Dominique, task force chair, said the group had met nine times, had recorded about 30 hours of work and produced surveys for committee liaisons and advisory chairs. "The consensus is that the current pace at which we're meeting is not sustainable for task force members," Dominique said and reported the task force passed a motion on April 9 requesting more time to continue the work into the fall.
Task force concerns: Members said they lacked critical records and bylaws for many advisories (some requests dated back to March 13) and wanted a public meeting at which task force members could present recommendations with context and field questions. The group also said members fear their recommendations would be disregarded if the board acted on a truncated timeline.
Board response and timeline: Board members split. Some argued the board had set a 60-day target and that an initial report by May 16 was important to move changes into effect for the next academic year; others urged more time so stakeholders could be heard. Superintendent Dr. Hepburn said he wanted the task force's work aligned with org-chart and priorities planning but left open the board-level timing discussion. Staff proposed a compromise that would bring task force proposals to a workshop on June 10 or June 24 and for the board to consider sunsetting or rule changes in the fall if substantial policy changes were required.
Why it matters: The task force's work aims to redefine how the district's advisory structure operates, how committee effectiveness is measured, and what support and transparency committees receive. Chairs say clearer bylaws, better document access and better-defined measures of effectiveness are needed to restore volunteer confidence.
Next steps: The task force asked to continue work, provide an initial report, and present recommendations and supporting documents at a workshop; several board members said they will confer and set a narrow set of dates for a mid-June report and an October or November deadline if more time is needed.
Ending: The task force chair asked that the board clarify whether staff will loop policy 11.64 through DAC once the task force's work is complete; several board members said they would seek to align the task force's recommendations with organizational priorities and upcoming rulemaking.
