Oct. 8, 2024 Board Meeting - Part 2

For comments on the beginning of the board meeting, please see Part 1.

At [23:40] on the YouTube version of the October 8, 2024 board meeting, the board addresses Item 8.1 (Policy Revision Proposal) Policy BID - Board Member Compensation and Expenses.

The Superintendent said that the Policy BID "has been updated" to reflect changes discussed at a Special-Called Board Meeting. I suspect what she meant to say was what they were going to look at would be the proposed change to the Policy.

Be sure to go to Board Policy BE and learn how "Board Meetings" are defined. When you read BE closely, it gives examples of Meetings but does not define them. 

Is the Board trying to get trustees paid for planning meetings? committee meetings? These are not defined as Meetings. 

The trustees are being paid well for Meetings. Six trustees each earn $384 per board meeting and the chair receives $480 per board meeting. Most months have two meetings; some have more. Plus expenses. Last night's meeting cost the District $2,784.00. Did the taxpayers get their money's worth?

Item 8.2 on the Agenda was Board Self Evaluation Summary. Trustee and Vice Chair Porter presented a summary of key findings. You can hear this at [25:09] on the YouTube recording. 

Areas for Improvement

"The Board could be more mission-focused and effective in carrying out its duties." Well, duh!

"There are concerns about trust among members and the overall climate could be improved."

Recommendations

"Define the roles of the Board and the Superintendent more clearly."

"Address trust issues and create a more positive and inclusive environment to improve the overall climate."

Action Steps

Board development and coaching.

Amazing! No questions or comments from any of the board members. Were they listening? Did they understand what Niki read? Do they agree? Disagree? Care?

To be continued.

Oct. 8, 2024 Board Meeting - Part 1

The Board meeting started at 5:30PM and went into Executive Session.

When the trustees returned from Executive Session, Chair Monica Elkins-Scott asked for a Motion to end Executive Session. Trustee McFadden made a Motion that the Executive Session was concluded at 6:01. Trustee Nash seconded the Motion.

When the Chair re-stated the Motion before the vote, she added "and resume public session". That was not part of the (verbal) Motion. When the Motion was displayed on the screen before the vote, it showed that Niki Porter had made the Motion and it included the Chair's added words, which were not part of the verbal motion. 

No one commented on the error of who made the Motion or on the addition of words to the verbal motion.

The Chair then gave a lengthy introduction (2:36 minutes), including many mispronounced words, to the woman who would give the Inspirational Moment. I've always wondered, "Why not just briefly introduce the presenter? Why give a lengthy advertisement for the person's business?" 

An Inspiration Moment is supposed to be, in my opinion, a "moment"; that's a minute or two. Maybe three, at the most.

Last night's speaker, wearing a t-shirt promoting her organization, took 4:02 minutes to promote her organization and an upcoming event. Was there anything inspirational about those four minutes?

The Chair should have disclosed her personal interest as a volunteer in the speaker's organization.

I suppose it would have been rude to interrupt the speaker by calling a "Point of Order" and object to the advertising and promotion of the speaker's organization. Should one of the trustees been rude?

Last night it took 1:39 minutes to display the vote on the Consent Agenda. That's after the vote was called. The District seems unable to use electronic voting to speed up voting. 

It should be simple. Call for the vote. The trustees press a button on their tablets: Yes or No. The vote displays. Should take about 15 seconds. The Board should tell the Superintendent: "Fix this."

The Board then voted on Item 5.1 (Consent Agenda).

At this point the Chair skipped over Item 5.2 (Approval of the Minutes) and Item 5.3 (Releases and Transfers) and proceeded to Public Participation. Because these Items are listed separately on the Agenda, they should have been voted on.

Is it really necessary to read all the rules for speakers at every meeting?

There was one speaker, Kanisha McCray, a speech therapist. She made a plea for more money, smaller caseloads, and other conditions for improved employment at Richland 2. Was that an appropriate use of Public Participation?

To be continued.