Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises concerns as Toms River holds first read of AI policy
Summary
At a public comment session, a resident asked the board to remove language in the draft Policy 2367 that would let the superintendent revise or suspend policy provisions without board ratification and questioned whether an 'AI coordinator' would be a paid position; the board said no paid position is created and scheduled a presentation next month.
During the first public comment period at the Toms River board meeting, resident Anna Palazzo addressed the board about the first read of Policy 2367, the district’s proposed acceptable-use policy for generative artificial intelligence. Palazzo asked whether the draft’s reference to an "AI coordinator" would create a paid position, and urged the board to remove language that would permit the superintendent to revise or suspend policy provisions without board ratification.
Palazzo said the policy references an AI coordinator across multiple paragraphs and asked the board to clarify whether that role would be compensated. She also urged that policy decisions remain with elected board members rather than being ceded to a superintendent by default.
A board member responded during the meeting that the policy, as drafted, does not create a paid position and likened the role to other appointed officers such as an affirmative action officer. The board said the policy committee will present the policy publicly at next month’s committee meeting and a second reading will follow.
The board also noted the draft includes tiered rules (a described 'traffic light' system) limiting AI use in certain classroom situations, and that technical vetting and privacy protections (including vendor vetting through the district’s tech staff and Securly) would be part of implementation. The public commenter framed the concern in the context of the district’s ongoing budget pressure and questioned whether the district should add administrative roles while finances are constrained.
