Lakota Local board debates returning public comment to regular meetings, sets reading and training plan

At a March work session, the Lakota Local Board of Education discussed proposed changes to the district's public-participation policy that would return public comment to regular meetings when action is publicly noticed and set rules for registration, per-speaker time and total comment windows.

A policy committee member told the board the committee had drafted two versions: an "out of the meeting" listening-session model and an "in the meeting" model that would permit public participation at regular meetings "during which action is publicly noticed." The committee presented three questions for the board: which version to advance, whether the wording is acceptable, and the timeline for readings and training.

The committee member said the draft would require attendees who wish to speak to register upon arrival before the publicly noticed start time; "Individuals may not register others to speak," the member said. The draft keeps personal information minimal and removes a requirement to provide an address, noting some speakers are reluctant to state addresses publicly.

On timing, the committee member summarized the proposal: "Each statement made by a participant shall be limited to 3 minutes of duration" and the policy would set a default public-comment window of 30 minutes unless the board extends it. Board members debated the mechanics for extensions and a total maximum. Several members suggested a practical maximum of 90 minutes, with extensions by board vote or by scheduling an additional meeting when turnout and interest make that preferable.

Board members also discussed how special meetings, emergency meetings and work sessions would be treated. The committee's recommended language would permit public participation at regular meetings where action is possible; members noted scenarios where rapid implementation might require a different approach and asked staff and legal counsel to advise on edge cases.

Concern about implementation led the board to request training: the committee proposed bringing the first reading to the March 23 meeting and scheduling legal/training (to clarify enforcement and legal constraints) at the April or May planning meeting depending on the availability of legal counsel Gary. The committee noted one board member, Ben, "is not in attendance on March 23. He is in Texas," and said Ben prefers to be present for a final vote; members discussed whether to expedite two reads on March 23 or follow the normal cadence with training between readings.

Before and during the discussion the board also agreed on several operational details in the draft policy: participants must be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking and prefacing comments with name is recommended (but the template does not require full addresses); audio/video recording is permitted; no person may address or question board members individually; and the presiding officer may take measures to enforce time limits. The committee asked staff to do additional wordsmithing and return a polished version for the March 23 first read along with other pending policy items.

The board did not adopt the policy at the work session; instead it directed further edits, scheduled the first read for March 23, and asked staff to coordinate legal training between the first and second reads. The meeting adjourned after the board completed the discussion.