Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate agenda‑setting rules; proposals to limit 30‑day hold and expand board input
Summary
Trustees spent an extended portion of the meeting debating CSBA‑model language on agenda-setting. Proposals included replacing a 30‑day written delay with notification before the next regular meeting, inviting the vice president to agenda‑setting, and preserving a standing "board suggestions" item on every agenda.
An extended discussion at the MVLA board’s May 18 meeting focused on how agenda items are added and who decides what the board will consider.
Trustee Catherine said she opposed language that would allow a 30‑day administrative hold on items and proposed changing the timeframe to require notification "before the next scheduled regular meeting". "The 30‑day rule undermines that equity by giving the president and superintendent significant control over what comes before the board and when," Catherine said, arguing the policy should preserve the board’s culture of rotating leadership and equal trusteeship.
Trustee Alex and several colleagues proposed additions to preserve multiple routes for placing items on the agenda: keep the existing public "board suggestions for future meetings" segment on every agenda, allow items to be raised in open session, and require that substantive information shared in separate staff/board conversations be made available to the full board. Alex said substantive details from separate conversations should be shared with the entire board "provided that substantive information relevant to board decision‑making is shared with the full board."
Trustee Vadim raised procedural questions about student trustee rotation language and whether alternative campuses such as Alta Vista should count as "traditional" high schools for representation. Staff suggested using the term "traditional high school" or an enrollment threshold to preserve current representation practices.
Trustees differed on whether two board members should be able to jointly force an item onto an agenda. Some trustees warned that allowing two members to require placement could create operational burdens or encourage back‑channeling; others argued permitting two members to request placement would broaden access and promote discussion. Several trustees agreed to invite the vice president to agenda‑setting meetings and to add policy language making the "board suggestions" item a standing part of every meeting's order of business.
Board members asked staff to rework the CSBA language to reflect MVLA’s governance culture and to ensure any written process respects Brown Act constraints on serial communications. Staff and trustees agreed to return revised language to a future meeting for further consideration.
