School board debates allowing non‑agenda public comments and requiring attorney at contract deliberations
Summary
Board members on Jan. 6 debated proposed changes to public-comment rules (allowing 3 minutes for non-agenda comments, limited to the first 10 signups) and a policy to require the board attorney's presence during deliberations on director employment contracts; members split on placement of comments (start vs. end) and on precise wording requiring counsel.
A pair of governance policy proposals prompted extended debate at the Southern County School Board's Jan. 6 study session: (1) whether to allow public comment on non-agenda items, and (2) whether to require the board attorney to be present during deliberations on employment-contract matters for the director of schools.
Proposal 1 — non-agenda public comment: A board member read proposed language to amend Policy 1.404 to add a public-comment period at the beginning of regular meetings and to permit citizens to speak on non-agenda items for up to three minutes, limited to the first 10 sign-ups. The proposed wording also would give the chair authority to rule whether a non-agenda topic is germane to the board's jurisdiction. Supporters said the change restores opportunities for constituents to place items on the public record, citing other local governments that allow non-agenda comments. Opponents worried that adding non-agenda comment time could lengthen meetings and interfere with completing required business; several board members said they would prefer placing the non-agenda comment period at the end of meetings, or keeping stricter controls on time and scope.
Proposal 2 — attorney presence for contract deliberations: A separate proposal would add a procedural requirement (suggested placement under Policy 1.403 or 1.302) that the system attorney be present whenever the board "discusses, deliberates, or takes any vote on the employment agreement, contract terms, renewal [or] extension" for the director of schools. Proponents argued that counsel can provide real-time legal guidance on metrics, performance terms and contingencies; critics asked for narrower wording so that the policy does not unintentionally prevent the board from appointing a liaison or beginning preliminary conversations when counsel is unavailable. Board members asked the proposer to refine the language so it would require counsel at study sessions or at voting sessions where the board is acting on a contract, without inhibiting early-step liaison assignments.
Board-member comments and norms: The board also discussed whether to restore board-member comments at the end of meetings after a short suspension implemented in October. Some members said the comments period should focus on recognition and district updates; others said it must not become a forum for personal attacks or 'airing grievances.' The chair said he will bring board-member comments back at the next voting meeting, with expectations that comments remain professional and constructive.
Outcome and next steps: No formal votes were taken on the proposed policy changes at the study session. The proposer said they will revise the attorney-presence language to address concerns about appointing a liaison and the timing of counsel attendance, and the board will revisit both proposals at the upcoming meetings (first reading suggested for Jan. 20 in one case). The board also confirmed a Feb. 3 retreat date to continue broader policy and capital discussions.
Attributions: Direct quotes and exact proposed language were read aloud by the proposer during the meeting; other remarks attributed to board members and the chair are taken from the Jan. 6 transcript.
