Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suffolk board certifies closed session on student-assignment review and upholds closed-session discipline recommendation
Summary
The board convened a closed session under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to discuss student scholastic record matters and later certified the closed meeting. During the public meeting the board voted to uphold the closed-session recommendation on a student discipline matter.
The Suffolk City School Board held a closed session Oct. 9 under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to discuss a student-assignment matter and subsequently certified the closed session before taking follow-up action in public: the board voted to uphold a closed-session discipline recommendation.
Closed session authority and subject
At the start of the meeting the board voted to convene a closed meeting citing the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Va. Code 2.2-3711) to permit discussion of matters that would involve disclosure of information from a student's scholastic record, specifically regarding the assignment of a student to Turlington Woods School. The motion to convene a closed session was made and seconded on the record; Board Chair Howell and the other board members recorded affirmative votes to enter closed session.
Certification and public action
After returning to open session the board read and moved a resolution certifying the closed session under Va. Code 2.2-3712, stating that, to the best of each member's knowledge, only matters lawfully exempt from open-meeting requirements were discussed and only those public matters identified in the motion were considered. Board member Breedingham moved certification and board member Slingla seconded; the certification resolution passed on a recorded vote.
Upholding the closed-session discipline recommendation
Later in the public meeting a motion was made to "uphold the recommendation from the closed session for this student discipline." The motion was made by Board member Brittingham and seconded by Vice Chair McGee; the board voted unanimously in favor.
What was decided — and what was not disclosed
Per law and board practice, details about the student involved and the substance of the disciplinary recommendation were discussed in closed session and are not part of the public record. The open-meeting votes that were recorded were limited to procedural certification of the closed session and the board's public vote to uphold the recommendation that had been developed during the closed session.
Ending
The board's certification and the subsequent vote to uphold the disciplinary recommendation concluded the closed-session business and cleared the way for the board to proceed with its regular agenda.
