Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 22 board advances multiple policies including new rules for public comment and student device limits
Summary
The board moved several policies through first and second readings, including a revised public comment policy (BEDH) establishing a 30-minute public comment period and a student device policy (retitled JICJ/JFCK) for second reading; all second readings carried unanimously.
The RSU 22 policy committee presented multiple policy updates during the meeting and the board advanced several to first and second readings. For first reading, the committee proposed a revised public participation policy (BEDH), renaming it "Public comment at school board meetings," and adding a 30-minute public comment period with a three-minute limit per individual; the board chair would retain authority to extend the period. The change reflected guidance from legal counsel (Drummond Woodsum) and a state court case that committee members said had highlighted ambiguous language around indecent remarks and broadcast timing. The policy also indicates the board will prioritize comments from parents and guardians of RSU 22 students.
The board moved additional policies for first reading, including the student code of conduct (JIC), reporting child abuse and neglect (JLF) to reflect changes in law and practice, personnel records and files (GBJ), and professional staff hiring (GCF), with staff noting some cross-references and consistent wording will be harmonized before second reading.
Several policies came up for second reading and were approved unanimously on voice votes: the student use of cellular telephones and personal electronic devices policy (retitled and renumbered JICJ/JFCK to align with code changes), professional staff assignments and transfers (GCK), return-to-work and light duty assignments (GBGE), support staff employment (GDF), and resignation of support staff members (GDQB). Board members asked clarifying questions about language (for example, "bell to bell" wording for device restrictions and consistency in naming administrators for mandated reporters in JLF); staff noted edits would be made where necessary.
Board members discussed how to explain references to FCC rules and court guidance in plain language for public-facing versions of the policy. All second-reading motions carried unanimously.
