Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Committee Open Meeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates proposal to relax meeting rule for advisory committees in policy 2.13 first reading
Summary
At a first reading of policy 2.13, the board discussed removing a sentence that would require advisory committees without decision authority to follow open‑meeting law; proponents said it would speed policy updates, opponents raised transparency and legal‑risk concerns.
At the Nov. 12 meeting the Lakeville Public School District board conducted the first reading of an update to policy 2.13 governing school board committees and debated a proposed edit that would remove a sentence saying committees must follow open‑meeting law.
Board Director Amber Cameron, speaking as chair of the policy committee, said the policy committee consulted the district attorney and that the attorney’s opinion was advisory committees that lack a quorum and have no decision‑making authority do not need to operate under open‑meeting law. "Our proposal is that we consider eliminating that," Cameron said, adding that the change would allow committee members to co‑edit policy drafts and speed the district’s response to an MSBA audit of 145 policies.
Several board members pushed back. Director Baker said the topic is a "very gray line" and warned that board members communicating outside a public meeting could create a serial‑meeting risk. Director Paul Carbone and others said they want clear committee resolutions and records to avoid perceptions of work happening "behind the scenes." Director Kim (Doctor) Carbone and others asked for notes or a formal resolution to define when committees must meet in public and when virtual collaboration is acceptable.
The board agreed to treat the edit as a first reading and to return with clarifying language and possible resolutions establishing committee scope and documentation requirements. The discussion emphasized two principles: speed and efficiency in addressing hundreds of policy edits identified by an MSBA audit, and preserving transparency so the public can see substantive policy changes before they are adopted.
Next steps: staff and legal counsel will draft clarifying language and recommended committee resolutions; the policy committee will continue work on the MSBA audit updates and bring revised language back to the board for additional readings and public comment.
