Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears first readings of employee-evaluation and misconduct policy updates; 30-day comment period announced
Summary
Vice Chancellor Davis and compliance staff presented first readings of two policy revisions: technical updates to Board Policy 4.9 (employee evaluation) and amendments to prohibited-conduct definitions; both will return for a second reading after a 30-day comment period.
The Workforce and Organizational Effectiveness Committee received first readings of two board policy revisions during its meeting: a five-year review and technical edits to Board Policy 4.9 (employee evaluation), and amendments clarifying prohibited conduct definitions across related policies.
Vice Chancellor Davis introduced Ashley Atterberry, associate compliance officer, and said the employee-evaluation policy (Board Policy 4.9) was undergoing a routine five-year review. Staff described the recommended changes as largely technical: updated formatting and language to delete outdated wording and to align with statutory and collective-bargaining requirements. The presentation noted that Minnesota Statutes require annual evaluations and that collective bargaining agreements include evaluation provisions; Davis and staff said compliance with the evaluation requirement has been inconsistent across the system and that the policy revision is intended to renew attention to that obligation.
The committee also reviewed proposed amendments that broadened the framing for misconduct (moving beyond language limited to specific forms of violence), clarified definitions and application of policy (including online conduct and property), and aligned certain definitions with the 1B.1 student-conduct policy. The revisions add and clarify prohibited conduct definitions — including exploitation, sharing of sexual images/deepfakes, and Title IX harassment — and add retaliation as a defined prohibited act. Staff said the changes were intended to reflect recent state and federal regulatory changes and to improve readability (example: converting a long affirmative-consent paragraph into bullet points).
Trustees asked how the policy changes would reach students and staff; the committee asked Atterberry to provide a brief explanation at the second reading in June of how highly read policies are made visible and accessible to students. Vice Chancellor Davis and the presidents present (referred to as president liaisons) said campuses took part in the review and supported clearer, more readable wording.
No action was taken; the revisions were announced as first readings and subject to a 30-day public comment period before returning to the committee for a second reading.
