Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Foundation Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee restores language requiring annual evaluations for district foundation projects
Summary
After noting the redlined draft removed a sentence requiring annual evaluations of funded projects, the committee moved to keep evaluation language and asked staff and legal counsel to wordsmith the reporting requirement before sending it forward.
A committee member flagged that the redlined district‑foundation policy removed a sentence saying both the school board and the foundation board would receive annual evaluations of all funded projects. The member moved to restore the evaluation language.
Sharon Tonkridge, the district’s chief legal officer, said staff had recommended language from OSBA and that the committee should clarify what sort of report the board wants. Committee members said they supported retaining a policy bar, calling regular evaluations “critical” and noting that the district currently exceeds that standard in practice. One member said the policy should remain to prevent future administrations from dropping the practice.
The committee agreed to keep evaluation language in principle and asked staff and legal counsel to draft clearer wording (including timing and whether these would be third‑party reports) and return the revised redline for the board’s review.
What happens next: staff will draft suggested language that reflects current practice and clarifies report format and frequency, then return it to the committee for approval.
