Board debate over school‑psychologist job description, nepotism policy and amended censure resolution

A personnel item on the June 18 agenda generated extended debate when trustees questioned whether an updated school‑psychologist job description resolved previously raised concerns about nepotism and reporting lines.

During roll‑call item discussion, trustees noted the draft job description still referenced evaluation by the director of student services and questioned whether that language preserves an unacceptable reporting structure. One trustee said the document "doesn't look like the job description reflects" the requested change, and pressed to delay approval until a revised nepotism policy is presented in July or August. Special counsel was reported to have reviewed the language and said it was acceptable, but some trustees said counsel's approval did not address their substantive concerns.

The board secretary also circulated an amended censure resolution and explained the steps required to bring the matter back to the floor: a motion and second to put the resolution on the agenda, then a motion and second to amend and approve the revised censure. The secretary recommended approving the amended censure to send a clear message that policy violations will not be tolerated.

Public commenters addressed the same themes during the public‑comment period, telling the board the action felt personal to some community members and expressing concern about perceived executive‑session cover for the matter. Others criticized district reliance on contract providers for psychology services and said changing the job description could push experienced in‑house staff to leave.

Ending: The public session ended with no recorded vote on the job description or censure resolution; the secretary described the procedural route to return the censure item to the agenda at a future meeting.