Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troon representatives urge wholesale policy updates; warn outdated policies create legal exposure
Summary
Troon consultants presented a turnkey, Michigan-focused board policy service and urged Marshall Public Schools to update or replace its NEOLA-based policies, citing examples they say could create legal exposure; board will review policy packet and consider action in January.
Troon consultants presented their TRU policy service to the Marshall Public Schools Board on Dec. 16, describing a customizable, Michigan-focused policy manual, annual July updates, quarterly implementation meetings and attorney support tied to the policy service.
"When you think about your board policies, your board policies are really the law of your school district," Ray Davis, a Troon attorney, told the board, arguing that outdated or inconsistent policies can create legal exposure. Davis told the board he reviewed portions of Marshall's NEOLA-based set and flagged items that he said were ambiguous or not aligned with current law, including how administrators are defined and whether the district has developed administrative guidelines to implement its Whistleblower Protection Act policy.
Lucas (Luke) Savoy, Troon's board policy administrator, described Troon's implementation process: a policy checklist to identify items that need local customization, optional inserts, sample resolutions for repeal-and-replace adoption and free implementation meetings. Troon representatives said many Michigan districts have adopted their policies wholesale and that full adoption can take roughly three months with a focused effort, though some districts take longer.
Board members asked whether districts typically adopt Troon policies wholesale or piecemeal and about the timeline for adoption. Troon recommended a structured adoption process that includes public hearing requirements where statutorily required (they highlighted the anti-bullying policy as an example with a distinct public-hearing step). The board was reminded that the packet of policy updates will return as action items at the January meeting.
The presentation did not result in an immediate contract award; the board scheduled further review and questions before any formal decision.
