Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Trustees advance amended agenda‑setting policy after heated debate over trustee access to agendas

Missoula County Public Schools Board of Trustees · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extended discussion and public comment, the Missoula County Public Schools board amended language shifting agenda preparation to the board executive committee, added a written‑request process for trustees and approved the draft for further reading by a 7–3 vote.

Missoula — The Missoula County Public Schools Board of Trustees on Wednesday advanced an amended version of a proposed agenda‑setting policy that moves preparation responsibility to the board executive committee and creates a written process for trustees and community members to request items be placed on a regular meeting agenda.

Vice Chair Davy moved the amendment and read the revised text, including a 30‑day notification clause and a requirement that, if the executive committee declines to add a requested item, three trustees may together require the item be placed within the next six regular board meetings unless a different timeline is agreed.

The proposal drew a lengthy debate. Trustee Witt said he opposed giving a minority of trustees a low threshold to force agenda items. “I don’t believe a minority of board members should be able to set the agenda,” Witt said. He argued the change could be used against board leadership and the superintendent.

Other trustees pushed for clearer timelines and for the superintendent to receive copies of written requests so staff are prepared. Legal and process concerns were raised about how the mechanism could interact with open‑meeting rules and operational workload for staff; several trustees asked that the language be tightened and that executive‑committee notifications be sent promptly.

Public comment included a request from Scott Shook that the board preserve a path for community members to propose agenda items. “I want you to consider some sort of avenue for citizens to propose things to go on the agenda,” Shook said.

After amendments and debate, the board voted to advance the policy for additional screening/reading. The motion passed on the first‑reading vote; trustees recorded seven votes in favor and three opposed. The board did not finalize the policy; additional readings and clear, published timelines were discussed as next steps.