Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sartell-St. Stephen board debates formalizing meeting rules of order
Summary
Board members discussed adopting formal meeting rules based on policy 203.1 and MSBA guidance, with members split between always using formal procedures and reserving them for particularly contentious items.
SARTELL, Minn. — Members of the Sartell-St. Stephen School Board spent part of a March work session debating whether to more strictly follow the district's written meeting rules and to adopt additional procedures recommended by the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA).
Board Chair Trisha opened the discussion by referring to district policy 203.1 and showing slides summarizing the policy and MSBA officer-training suggestions. She told the board the policy exists “to provide specific rules of order to conduct meetings of the school board,” and read elements of section 3 that govern discussion of motions and recognition of members.
The measures discussed include recognizing speakers in order, alternating who speaks first on an issue, allowing a member to speak only after being recognized by the chair, and granting the maker of a motion the first opportunity to explain it. MSBA-style recommendations mentioned during the discussion included giving members who have not yet spoken priority to speak, ensuring equitable time for proponents and opponents, requiring relevancy to the motion, and keeping debate impersonal.
Board members disagreed on whether to apply those rules at all work sessions or only for more formal meetings. Matt (board member) argued for consistent application: “Either we follow it or we don't,” while another board member said making the policy a “gray area” would be unhelpful and suggested alternating the starting speaker each meeting to avoid the same people always speaking first. Several members said a randomized speaking order had worked in other districts.
No formal motion was made or vote taken to change policy at the meeting. Several members acknowledged parts of the suggested procedures were already contained in policy 203.1, while other recommended practices would require either an agreed board practice or a formal policy change.
Board members said they would consider discussing specific language that is not already in policy at a future meeting. Staff did not present draft policy language or a timetable for adoption during the session.
Ending: The discussion concluded without action; the board members asked staff to keep the topic on a future agenda so they could consider whether to adopt additional procedures from MSBA or to retain the current, more informal practice at work sessions.
