Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated debate, RSU 52 board approves guidance allowing members to circulate informational emails
Summary
The board voted to permit members to share informational materials by email with the full board, with caveats to avoid deliberations outside public meetings; motion passed with several members opposing on transparency grounds.
MOTION AND CONTENTION Board Chair proposed a motion to allow board members to continue sending informational materials to all members by email, clarifying the material must not be used as a substitute for deliberations or to conduct policy decisions outside public meetings. Several members urged caution, noting the risk that email exchanges could become proxy deliberations.
Points of disagreement Board member Anthony questioned whether sharing material without explicit commentary is effectively an attempt to persuade other members outside the public forum, calling it "a proxy conversation" if not carefully managed. Member Alex and others flagged the risk that widely-circulated materials can shape public opinion before the board discusses items in public. Others, including Joe and Bree, said providing background information in advance helps board members prepare for substantive discussion at meetings and reduces "surprise" elements.
Vote and outcome After extended discussion the chair called the question. The chair announced the motion passed with most members in favor; he noted that Alex, Anthony and Ashley opposed the motion. The board adopted guidance emphasizing that members may share information but should not use email for deliberation and should avoid adding persuasive commentary that invites an exchange among multiple members.
Procedural safeguards and expectations Chair and members agreed on practical guardrails: forward information to the whole board (not a subset), avoid turning the email into back-and-forth deliberation, route staff concerns through the superintendent when appropriate, and save substantive arguments or proposed motions for public meetings.
What happens next The chair said the motion provides guidance rather than a binding policy change and can be revisited if problems arise. Several members asked for clearer written criteria for what constitutes "informational" versus "persuasive" material; the chair indicated the board can refine the approach in future meetings.
