Board workshop erupts over proposed rewrite of advisory‑committee policy

A proposal to rewrite Policy 10‑70, which governs the school board’s advisory committees, prompted an unusually large public response and detailed board discussion at a Nov. 5 workshop. The redline would have shortened chair terms and changed how committees transmit recommendations to the board, among other provisions.

Supporters of the draft told the board they were aiming to modernize oversight of dozens of volunteer advisory bodies. Opponents — including ESE, diversity, parent‑university and area advisory chairs — said the changes would remove institutional knowledge, discourage volunteers and reduce transparency. “This red line derecognizes realities and proposes plowing ahead without regard for the consequences,” Jackie Luskin, ESE advisory chair, said during public comment.

Why it matters: advisory committees are the primary mechanism for parent, educator and community input on issues ranging from testing to special education services, school facilities and student programs. Changes to how committees operate and how their recommendations are recorded can affect committee continuity and the board’s ability to track volunteer input.

What was in contention: major draft changes included shortening allowable consecutive years of service as a committee chair, a reworking of the cataloging process for committee recommendations and new language on removal and succession that opponents said would give the superintendent or district staff too much control. Several chairs said the draft stripped important protections and practical steps that help committees function — notably exceptions for ESE, ESOL and gifted advisories that reflect their different membership and voting rules.

Public and board response: more than a dozen committee chairs and members urged retaining longer chair terms and restoring wording that requires district staff to catalogue and present approved committee recommendations at committee‑report meetings. Many speakers asked the board to preserve a four‑year limit for chairs, rather than a proposed two‑year cap, saying two years is too short to develop expertise and stable handoffs.

Board direction: after hours of testimony and debate, board members recorded a set of consensus preferences for the next draft rather than approving the redline at the workshop. Summaries captured during the meeting included: keep four‑year chair terms, retain waivers for ESE/ESOL/gifted advisories, restore or require cataloging of committee recommendations by district staff and require the superintendent to establish a clear, transparent removal process for volunteers (the board asked staff to draft language but did not adopt specific due‑process wording). The board also agreed a most‑tenured committee member should facilitate meetings if both chair and vice chair positions become vacant while the committee holds elections.

What’s next: staff will revise the redline to reflect the board’s preferences and return it for further consideration; the superintendent’s office and general counsel will draft the removal‑process language requested by the board. The board asked staff to provide a clearer, plain‑English version for later review and to circulate supporting materials (task‑force notes and previous workshop feedback) before the next hearing.