Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mlo Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board agrees to move mill-levy oversight governance plan toward district policy; committee to refine language
Summary
Board members agreed in principle to convert the Mill Levy Override (MLO) oversight governance plan into a formal board policy, and tasked Director Patricia Nelson and Director Ott to work with the Mill Levy Override Oversight Committee to refine wording and return recommended language for board consideration.
Board members at the April 9 work session signaled agreement in principle to convert the Mill Levy Override (MLO) governance plan into a Board of Education policy, but asked district staff and committee members to refine the draft before formal adoption.
Director Patricia Nelson told the board the MLO committee and staff had reviewed the governance plan and the related ballot spend plans and recommended that the governance plan be elevated into policy so requirements tied to the original election question and spend plan are consolidated in one place. "The committee did not feel comfortable that it was their place," Nelson said of keeping the document outside board policy; she added that the intent of the proposed policy is to compile the requirements from the ballot question and spend plan so they are easy to find as staff and committee membership changes.
Chip X, identified in the meeting as chair of the MLO Oversight Committee, described the governance history and why a policy would give the committee clearer authority: he said the original spending plan was attached to the ballot question and later a governance plan joined funds together across levies. The committee recommended the policy in order to align oversight formally under the board and to allow the committee to adopt bylaws beneath a board policy.
Several directors raised wording concerns and asked for more work. Director Dara Haughley and Director Ott both said the draft reads more like committee bylaws and that language from the earlier governance plan or the ballot spend plan should be preserved where appropriate. Director Haughley asked that the draft not change the committee’s purpose and objected to wording she said implied the committee ‘‘ensures expenditures support the board priorities’’ rather than following the original ballot language.
President Malpakam and other directors agreed on a path forward: Directors Nelson and Ott will work together with the MLO committee to wordsmith the draft, bring it back to the committee for review (committee meets in April and May), and then return a recommended redline to the board. The board asked staff to upload the original spending plan and 2017 governance plan documents to BoardDocs so members can reference the source materials during revision.
Why it matters: The MLO funds represent an ongoing revenue stream created by voter-approved ballot questions; how those dollars are governed affects program staffing, positions funded by the levy, and future amendment procedures. The draft policy would make the oversight committee a board-established body with policy-level reference to the original spend plan and amendment rules.
Next steps: Directors Nelson and Ott will refine the draft with the committee, incorporate suggested text from the 2017 governance plan where appropriate, and return a redlined policy for board consideration. The MLO committee indicated it could review the revised draft in May.
