Trustee Tony Goulart asked the board to amend its agenda to add a standing statement under public comment that would prevent diverting speakers to executive session except when a covered employee requests it or when a motion is seconded and approved by a majority. Goulart tied the proposal to concerns about inconsistent application of the district’s public‑comment policy and cited Pollock v. Wilson as precedent for limiting when personnel matters may be removed from public view.

Board members questioned whether the proposed language fit Wyoming statute 16‑4‑405 and whether it would unnecessarily restrict the board’s ability to follow personnel law. The chair noted uncertainty about whether a board member needs the item on the posted agenda to move into executive session and invited legal follow‑up. After extended discussion — including questions about who may request closure and how to apply the rule consistently — the motion to amend the agenda failed on a voice/hand vote.

The debate overlapped with wider public concerns raised in the meeting’s public‑comment period. Commenter Rebecca Cohorn told trustees she had been asking for transparency after an online incident involving a staff member and said parents want clear answers about how the district reviews employee conduct on social media. In response, Superintendent Ryan Kramer said the district "followed policy. Our attorney was consulted. Human resources was consulted, and all the appropriate steps have been followed in every situation regarding any employee." Kramer offered to meet with concerned parents privately to address specific cases.

Why it matters: Trustees framed the amendment as a procedural fix to prevent inconsistent application of public‑comment rules that courts have flagged as viewpoint discrimination. Opponents argued the proposal risked hamstringing legally required personnel processes or duplicating protections already in statute. The board’s vote means current public‑comment and executive‑session practices remain unchanged, but trustees and members of the public left the meeting with a clearer record of the disagreement and the legal questions trustees want clarified.

What’s next: Trustees said they may revisit formal language after further legal review or committee work; the chair encouraged members to bring procedural language proposals to policy committee in advance so they can be vetted before a meeting.