Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brandon Valley School District board affirms superintendent decision in KLD complaint
Summary
At a meeting, the Brandon Valley School District 49-2 board entered executive session under South Dakota Codified Law §1-25-2.1 and voted to uphold the superintendent’s decision on a complaint filed under district policy KLD, directing the hearing officer to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the board’s decision.
At a meeting of the Brandon Valley School District 49-2 Board of Education, the board entered executive session citing South Dakota Codified Law §1-25-2.1 and later voted to uphold and affirm the superintendent’s decision in a complaint filed under district policy KLD.
The motion approved the superintendent’s decision and directed the hearing officer to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law “consistent with the board’s decision,” a board member said when offering the motion.
Board members moved into executive session after the presiding officer said, “enter into executive session per South Dakota codified law 1 dash 25 dash 2.1,” and the board recessed for a closed discussion. After returning from executive session, a board member asked for a motion “to uphold and affirm the superintendent’s decision related to the complaint filed pursuant to policy KLD and direct the hearing officer to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the board’s decision.” Another board member seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a roll-call vote. The transcript records five members answering “yes” during the roll call; no nays or abstentions were recorded in the meeting transcript.
The transcript does not record details of the complaint, the superintendent’s underlying decision, the hearing officer’s findings, or any additional terms of the board’s direction beyond instructing the hearing officer to prepare findings and conclusions consistent with the board’s action. The board then adjourned the meeting.
Because the board conducted an executive session under the South Dakota statute cited on the record, specifics discussed in that closed session are not included in the public transcript excerpt provided to reporters.
