Board members spent significant time reviewing the district’s committee structure and Board Policy 2-13, which staff said no longer reflects current practice. The discussion covered three models: committee of the whole, standing committees and ad hoc working groups.

Board members generally supported maintaining the policy committee as a standing committee. Members also expressed a preference to separate legislative work from community engagement: the board directed staff to treat legislative and community engagement as separate charges going forward, with community engagement operating on an ad hoc or issue-driven basis rather than a continuous separate committee. Several members urged the board to revive a community finance advisory group—an external committee with board representation that would educate community members about school finance and advise the board on communication and major fiscal matters.

The finance and operations function generated the most debate. Some directors argued a standing finance and operations committee (or audit subcommittee) is common in other districts and provides the venue for a deep dive into preliminary budgets, audits and transportation projections; others warned that subcommittees can create information inequities, duplicate staff work and risk drifting into operational management. Staff and the superintendent cautioned that district finance staff are lean and asked the board to account for staff capacity if additional committee work is requested.

The board did not take a final vote to create a standing finance and operations subcommittee. Instead the board asked staff, including the superintendent and the chief financial officer, to draft options that (1) preserve equitable access to information for all board members, (2) limit operational burden on finance staff and (3) define a clear charge for any community finance advisory group. The board expects a proposal before the January reorganization so committee assignments can be set for the coming year.