[00:00:02]
>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING TO ORDER
[ I. OPEN SESSION]
AT 5:15 P.M. HELENE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. THIS NSD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING WILL BE LIVE STREAM AND RECORDED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD.
THE LIVE STREAM IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ONLINE, AND THE RECORDING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING THE DAY AFTER THE BOARD MEETING.
THOSE IN ATTENDANT SHOULD EXPECT THAT RECORDINGS WILL CAPTURE ALL ACTIVITY AND DISCUSSIONS BEFORE DURING AND AFTER THE MEETINGS.
THIS EVENING, WE WILL BE GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION TO
[ V. CLOSED SESSION]
DISCUSS ONE ITEM OF CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE NATOMAS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.A CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AND ONE ITEM OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE DISMISSAL SLASH RELEASE.
IS ANYONE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THE ITEMS IN CLOSED SESSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL RECONVENE OPEN SESSION APPROXIMATELY 545.
WE ARE RECONVENING OPEN SESSION AT 5:57 PM.
[VI. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION]
HELENE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. DEIDRE, COULD YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE? BEFORE WE MOVE ON, JUST A QUICK REMINDER FOR THOSE IN ATTENDANCE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD BYLAW 9323 MEETING CONDUCT.
INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, MUST SUBMIT A COMPLETED PUBLIC COMMENT CARD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM AND NO LATER THAN THE FIRST ACTION ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
PLEASE NOTE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED REGARDING THESE ITEMS, AND SINCE THIS IS A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD BYLAW 9323 MEETING CONDUCT INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS SHALL BE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD MAY LIMIT TO TOTAL TIME.
FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON EACH ITEM TO 20 MINUTES.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA?
[X. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
MOVED BY TRUSTEE HARDEN.SECOND. SECOND BY TRUSTEE DOSICK.
HELEN, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
[XI. a. Public Disclosure Between Natomas Unified School District and the California School Employees Association]
NEXT UP, WE HAVE A HEARING.PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BETWEEN THE NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CALIFORNIA AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BETWEEN THE NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
IS A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM?
>> MOVE TO CLOSE BY TRUSTEE DOSICK.
I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION FOR EXPEDIENCY.
HELEN, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[XII.a. Approve the Public Disclosure in Accordance with AB 1200 Between Natomas Unified School District and the California School Employees Association (CSEA)]
ACTION ITEM A, APPROVED THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 01,200 BETWEEN THE NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.IS THERE ANY COMMENT? IS THERE A PRESENTATION?
>> MOVE BY TRUSTEE DOSICK, SECOND BY TRUSTEE MEHTA.
HELEN, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> AYE. MOTION CARRIES 4-0, ACTION ITEM B,
[XII.b. Ratification of the Tentative Agreement between the District and CSEA Chapter 745 for the 2025-26 through 2027-28 School Years]
RATIFICATION OF THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND CSCA CHAPTER 745 FOR THE 2025, 2026 THROUGH 2027, 28 SCHOOL YEARS.>> WITH THANKS TO OUR LABOR PARTNERS OF CSCA FOR AN EXPEDITIOUS AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, I MOVE APPROVAL.
HELENE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
QUICK LITTLE BABY CLAPS. NOW WE HAVE A STUDY SESSION.
[XIII.a. First Reading of Board Policies and Administrative Regulations]
ITEM A, FIRST READING OF BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS.TRUSTEES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY SESSION, SO NO ACTION WILL BE REQUESTED.
I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS HERE.
THIS IS WHERE WE DIG IN, OR IS THIS IS WHERE CHRISTINA.
[00:05:03]
>> I'M JUST GOING TO FRONTLOAD JUST JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AS PRESIDENT GRANT SAID, NO ACTION WILL BE REQUESTED THIS EVENING.
ALL FINAL POLICY REVISIONS WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING IN JUNE.
EXECUTIVE CABINET MEMBERS ARE SEATED AT THE TABLE HERE.
IF TRUSTEES HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT POLICIES.
WE ALSO HAVE AN EMPTY SEAT NEXT TO ANGELA.
WE HAVE A COUPLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS IN THE BACK WHO CAN BE AVAILABLE AS NEEDED.
JUST A QUICK SHOUT OUT TO THE CABINET TEAM AND ALL THEIR DIRECT REPORTS WHO WORKED REALLY HARD ON ALL OF THESE POLICY REVISIONS.
A BIG THANK YOU TO HELENE FOR ORGANIZING ALL OF THESE.
BOARD POLICY REVISIONS ARE LINKED BY SERIES AND ATTACHED TO THE BOARD AGENDA? HELENE ALSO DID E MAIL THEM TO THE TRUSTEES RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, SO THEY'RE QUICK LINKS THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY ASKING IF EACH TRUSTEE, IF THERE WERE CERTAIN RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL OR ONES THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT.
I'LL ASK THAT SAME QUESTION OF STAFF AFTER WE HEAR FROM EACH TRUSTEE, AND THEN WE WILL GO CHRONOLOGICALLY THROUGH POLICIES THAT WERE CALLED OUT, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
PRESIDENT GRANT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START, WERE THERE ANY SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT OR THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF ON?
>> JUST ONE. IF WE IN THE 9,000 SERIES, THERE IS, I BELIEVE IT'S NOT BOARD TRAINING.
IT'S THE LIABILITY PROTECTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S JUST REWORDING LANGUAGE.
BOARD MEMBERS STILL HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF INDEMNIFICATION AND THE EFFECT THAT WE MAKE A TRAGIC MISTAKE.
WE'RE STILL PRETTY MUCH PROTECTED.
THERE'S NO REAL SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THAT POLICY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. CSBA DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE A MODEL POLICY FOR THAT ONE, AND SO WE HAD WORKED WITH LEGAL COUNSEL MANY YEARS AGO, WELL NOT MANY YEARS AGO, FIVE, SIX YEARS AGO TO CRAFT THAT POLICY.
THEN WHEN CSBA CAME OUT WITH A RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD WORKED WITH LEGAL ON.
IT'S JUST REWORDING TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEM.
>> GOT IT. WELL, THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION. THAT'S MY ONLY ONE.
>> COULD YOU LET US KNOW WHICH ONES STAFF PLAN ON YOU THINK SO I CAN POTENTIALLY OFF MY MENTAL LIST. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OH, SURE. STAFF WILL HAVE JUST A VERY QUICK COMMENT ON AR 6112 SCHOOL DAY.
THEN WE DO HAVE JUST A ONE PAGER THAT WE WANT TO PROJECT FOR BOARD POLICY, 06,146.1 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT STAFF WILL BE SPEAKING IN MORE DETAIL TONIGHT.
>> THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT STAFF WERE GOING TO BE SPEAKING IN DETAIL ON.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE ONE ON MENTAL HEALTH? SOME OF THE CHANGES ON THAT?
>> IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS THEM, BUT THE ONLY TWO STAFF PLAN TO GO INTO DETAIL ON WERE.
>> I'D BE CURIOUS AND JUST IF STAFF WOULD BE AMENABLE TO JUST A LITTLE QUICK RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. WHICH SERIES IS THAT?
>> WHAT WAS THE NUMBER ON THAT?
>> [LAUGHTER] NOTES ARE NOT THAT THOUGH.
>> THAT'S OKAY. NO PROBLEM. WE'LL FIND IT.
MENTAL HEALTH YEAH, 5,141.5. THE BP.
>> THEN AGAIN, GRAD REQUIREMENTS WAS THE ONE WHERE I HAD A COUPLE OF VERY SHORT QUESTIONS.
ANSWERS MIGHT NOT BE, BUT THE QUESTIONS ARE. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
ANY SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO.
>> YES. FIRST I WANT TO SAY WHAT AN AMAZING JOB IT WAS DONE.
>> KUDOS TO EVERYBODY. INTERVENTION ECO AREA.
IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE TOUCHED UPON.
IT'S ECO 44-0449, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BROUGHT UP AT A LATER TIME, PROBABLY WHEN WE COME BACK TO BRING IT BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, BECAUSE IT'S E CODE.
IT'S JUST WHEN WE SAY MAY NOTIFY THE STUDENT'S PARENTS IN REGARDS TO BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OR SOMETHING.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT AS A SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR US TO THINK ABOUT THE WORD WHERE IT SAYS MAY NOTIFY.
IF WHEN WE'RE CATCHING THE STUDENTS BAKING AND DOING THE THINGS, WE NEED TO GO A LITTLE BIT MORE FURTHER THAN JUST THE MAIN NOTIFYING BECAUSE IT REALLY IS AN EPIDEMIC THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE HAVE TO START HOLDING EVERYBODY A LITTLE MORE ACCOUNTABLE.
IF YOU DON'T TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO STUDENTS.
BUT KUDOS TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE AND I'LL FIND IT ONCE TO LOG IN.
[00:10:05]
THERE'S JUST ONE LITTLE BIT THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AND IT WAS MORE BLACK WORDS PUT TOGETHER AND TO BE CHANGED.>> TECHNICALITY I APPRECIATE IT.
HEY, IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE, THAT'S GREAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> SO MUCH JUST CONGRATULATING.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S HARD WORK ON THIS.
THE CABINET TEAM DID A GREAT JOB.
>> TEAMWORK. PRESIDENT GRANT BECAUSE I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE AS WELL.
>> HE'S ALWAYS LOOKING OUT FOR US TO MAKE SURE [INAUDIBLE] EVERYTHING.
>> THEN I THINK I COVERED IT, BUT STAFF, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING.
ANY OTHER POLICIES ANYBODY WAS PLANNING TO SPEAK TO? SOUNDS GOOD. WE WILL JUMP IN.
I THINK GOING IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER HERE.
THE VERY FIRST ONE, I GUESS, WOULD BE THE BOARD POLICY 5,141.5 MENTAL HEALTH.
WERE THERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, TRUSTEE DOSICK THAT YOU HAD OF THE STAFF?
>> I WAS LOOKING JUST FOR A QUICK UPDATE FROM STAFF ON JUST THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A MENTAL HEALTH CONVERSATION IN A WHILE.
IT WAS A GOOD EXCUSE TO HAVE A BRIEF ONE.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. ANGELA, CAN I DEFER TO YOU THAT ONE?
>> I CAN HAVE, IF YOU WANT TO COME SIT WITH ME, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS QUESTIONS.
>> THE BOARD POLICY, THERE'S A LOT THAT IT CALLS FOR THAT ACTIONS THAT IT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY CALLED FOR, IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S A LOT OF NEW RECOMMENDATIONS LANGUAGE.
FORTUNATELY, THE BOARD HAS DONE A LOT OF INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDING IN TERMS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, LEANING SERVICES INTO STUDENTS.
WE HAVE A FANTASTIC REFERRAL SYSTEM.
IT CALLS FOR A REFERRAL SYSTEM.
ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE, SHOULD THIS BE ACCEPTED, WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME REVISIONS OF OUR PROTOCOLS.
IF YOU ASK ANYONE ON MOST OF OUR CAMPUSES, WE'RE RESPONDING TO MENTAL HEALTH REFERRALS WITHIN 3-5 DAYS, IF NOT IMMEDIATELY IF IT'S A MAJOR CRISIS.
THIS CALLS FOR SPECIFIC PROTOCOL TO SAY, HEY, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE? HOW FAST ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND? WE'RE GOING TO BE TIGHTEN UP OUR PROTOCOLS IN THAT AREA.
WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STARTING TO WORK ON A ANNUAL CULTURAL COMPETENCY TRAINING FOR LGBTQ POPULATIONS.
WE HAVE STAFF THAT ARE HIGHLY TRAINED THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR A LONG TIME.
THIS IS GOING TO GO INTO OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON SPECIFICALLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ROLLING OUT ANNUALLY TO ALL CERTIFICATED STAFF.
PREVENTION, INFORMATION, AWARENESS, AND SUCH.
>> I THINK ALSO, THE OTHER THING THAT IT CALLS OUT IS IDENTIFICATION.
AS TRUSTEES KNOW, WE DO A TWICE YEARLY ASSESSMENT FOR STUDENTS IN FOURTH THROUGH 12TH GRADE TO IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL CONCERNS AND AS A RESULT OF THOSE CONCERNS, THEN WE ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY DEPLOY MENTAL HEALTH.
STAFF TO SUPPORT THOSE STUDENTS.
THAT IS ALSO AN INVESTMENT THAT TRUSTEES HAVE MADE THAT IS BEING OUTLINED IN HERE AS FAR AS THE PREVENTATIVE EARLY IDENTIFICATION.
>> WELL, WE'VE BEEN REALLY FLEXIBLE ON HOW WE SUPPORT STUDENTS, IT CALLS FOR SOME DIRECT LANGUAGE ON MAKING SURE THAT TELEHEALTH IS VERY READILY AVAILABLE FOR OUR STUDENTS.
THAT'S CATCHING UP WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR A WHILE.
ALSO, IT REALLY CALLS FOR US TO LOOK AT OUR MODEL SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY AS IT RELATES TO K THROUGH SIX.
RIGHT NOW, OUR TOOL KIT REALLY FOCUSES ON SEVEN THROUGH 12.
IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDING DOWN, SO IT'S COMPREHENSIVE IN RESPONSE, DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE.
AS WELL AS IT CALLS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME INFORMATIONAL POSTERS TO BE POSTED AT SCHOOL SITES, AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN WORKING WITH CAFE ON SOME RENDERINGS AND SO THOSE ARE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE TO BE COMING IN THE FUTURE.
>> I WOULD ALSO ADD WHEN I CAME TO NATO UNIFIED, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WAS THE LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT, AND EDUCATION CODE IS STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH THE NEED FOR MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT.
IF YOU LOOK IN THIS POLICY, THERE'S A LOT OF ADDITIONS OF NEW EDUCATION CODE.
I WOULD SAY A LOT OF THE THINGS AS EARL TALKED ABOUT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT NOW IT'S FORMALIZED WITH THE E CODE AND THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING.
THE POLICY IS CATCHING UP WITH THE THINGS WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT STUDENTS NEED.
>> I THINK THOSE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS.
>> I NOTICED THERE WAS JUST THIS WAS ONE OF THE MEDIA SECTIONS, AND I FELT IT WAS WORTHY OF IF NOTHING ELSE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, SO I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE TEAM FOR PUTTING
[00:15:03]
INTO WRITING WHAT HAS MOSTLY PROBABLY BEEN PRACTICE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IMMORTALIZED.REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I DO WANT TO CONFIRM, I KNOW, HISTORICALLY WHEN I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNSELORS ON SITES, ASK, WHICH STUDENTS ARE EXPERIENCING DEPRESSION, SUICIDAL THOUGHTS CITATION.
IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY, BUT PREDOMINANTLY BEEN OUR LGBT COMMUNITY.
THAT REMAINS, I ASSUME THAT TREND CONTINUES THUS THE REASON FOR THE CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE.
>> THEY'RE BEING MORE CALLED OUT IN OUR REVISIONS IN TERMS OF MUCH MORE HIGHLY AT RISK FOR THOSE MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, TRUSTEES FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF LEADERS.
>> I HAVE SOMETHING ON THE SCHOOL DAVID [INAUDIBLE] GO TO TALK ABOUT SCHOOL. [BACKGROUND]
>> HE'S JUST SO STRONG. THE EARTH SHAKES.
>> AM I GOOD TO MOVE TO THE 6,000?
>> THE FIRST ONE THAT STAFF WANTED TO JUST CALL ATTENTION TO AR6112 SCHOOL DAY.
THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC WE NEED TO GO THROUGH.
WE JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT A TYPO ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IT TALKS ABOUT CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE PURSUANT TO AN ED CODE FOR STUDENTS IN GRADES TEN THROUGH 12, AND IT SHOULD LIST 11 THROUGH 12.
FOR THE CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT.
WE'LL BE MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT BEFORE IT GETS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR FINAL REVISION.
THAT WAS IT I JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT THAT THERE WAS AN EDIT NEEDED.
THE NEXT ONE WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IS POLICY 6,146.1 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS.
IF I CAN ASK ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT DAVID RODRIGUEZ, I THINK HE'S GOING TO JOIN US, AND WE DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE PROJECTING UP HERE.
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS AN UPDATE TO OUR GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS.
IN YELLOW WHAT WE HAVE UP THERE, THEY ARE THE RECOMMENDATION OF MOVING FORWARD.
BEFORE I GET GOING, ON THE FAR LEFT YOU HAVE THE CALIFORNIA STATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE A-G, SUBJECT REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN WHICH CATEGORY THEY FULFILL ON, THE BOTTOM.
THEN WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY IS THE THIRD COLUMN AND THEN THE LAST ONE WILL BE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD.
THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE IS THE SCIENCE.
WHAT WE HAVE IS, HEALTH IS EMBEDDED IN BIOLOGY AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HAVE THAT.
SCROLLING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN, HEALTH IS A REQUIREMENT.
>> I THINK IT'S ON THE SECOND.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A ONE SEMESTER WORTH FIVE CREDITS, BUT IT'S ALREADY EMBEDDED IN BIOLOGY.
THEY'RE GETTING THE CREDIT ALREADY, IT'S JUST TAKING THAT AWAY.
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THERE, WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING THOSE FIVE CREDITS AND PUTTING IN THOSE INTO AN ELECTIVE.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S 60 ELECTIVES RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE GOING TO JUMP THOSE UP TO 10 MORE AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHERE THE OTHER FIVE COME ALONG.
BUT ONE OF THOSE FIVE WILL NOW BE COME INTO THE ELECTIVES BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY EMBEDDED INTO BIOLOGY OR TAKING THE HEALTH REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT'S IN THERE ALREADY.
>> JUST GO ON BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, IT'S EMBEDDED IN THERE.
YOU HAVE A SLASH OF THE 35 IS THAT ETHNIC STUDIES, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE-
>> SORRY. WE CAN SEE SOCIAL SCIENCE.
IT SAYS 30-35 BECAUSE THE 35 CREDITS COME INTO PLAY WITH THE CLASS OF 29/30.
THEY'RE THE FIRST ONES THAT WILL BE GETTING OR REQUIRED TO GET THE CREDIT.
>> SO UNTIL 29/30, 30 IS THE REQUIRED CREDITS AND THEN ONCE WE GET TO THE CLASS OF 29/30 AND THE 35 CREDITS WILL BE REQUIRED.
[00:20:01]
ETHNIC STUDIES WAS LISTED AS ITS OWN LINE, BUT IT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE.IT'S BEING PUT UNDER THE SOCIAL SCIENCE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SUBJECT IT FALLS UNDER AND IT IS THE AG REQUIREMENT INCLUDES THE SOCIAL STUDIES.
>> THEN WHAT WE HAVE NEXT IS, IF YOU GO TO COMPUTER STUDIES, CURRENTLY COMPUTER STUDIES IS 10 CREDITS.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, OUR KIDS HAVING A CHROMEBOOK EVERYBODY GETS THE TECHNOLOGY ALREADY.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE COMPUTER STUDIES REMOVE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OUR KIDS ARE ALREADY TECH SAVVY, BUT WE INCLUDE IT.
NOW, WE MOVE IT UP AND INTO THE VAPA, WORLD LANGUAGE, CTE AREA WHICH GIVES OUR STUDENTS MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE THOSE CLASSES.
THOSE 10 CREDITS WILL NOW JUMP UP INTO THOSE THREE CATEGORIES.
GIVES OUR STUDENTS MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE OPTIONS TO TAKE OUR CTE, WORLD LANGUAGE, AND VAPA PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE TO OFFER SINCE WITH YOUR GUIDANCE WE HAVE BUILT A ROBUST PROGRAM HERE IN NATOMAS UNIFIED.
WITH THOSE MINOR CHANGES, WE STILL REMAIN WITH THE 220 CREDITS, BUT IT'S JUST MORE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> A COMMENTING QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S ME.
ON THE ETHNIC STUDIES, FROM WHAT I RECALL, THERE'S FLEXIBILITY ABOUT TALKING ABOUT CURRENT EVENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING, BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS SPELLED OUT.
I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ONGOING CONVERSATIONS IN THE LEGISLATURE ESPECIALLY WITH THE JEWISH LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AMONG OTHERS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE CONFLICTS IN ISRAEL AND THE CURRENT CRISIS THAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW BETWEEN ISRAEL AND GAZA.
CONSISTENT WITH THAT, EVEN IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, WE SAW TWO INDIVIDUALS MURDERED OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, DC TARGETED SPECIFICALLY FOR BEING JEWISH.
WE SAW EIGHT PEOPLE FIREBOMBED YESTERDAY IN COLORADO FOR BEING JEWISH.
I WANT US JUST TO CONSIDER BEING ONE CAUTIOUS THAT WE DON'T DO OR SAY ANYTHING TO INFLAME WHAT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING IS VIOLENT TENDENCIES.
IN THE SAME YEAR WE SAW RACIST AND ANTISEMITIC GRAFFITI AT ONE OF OUR CAMPUSES.
WE JUST ASK FOR STAFF AS WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW WE'RE MESSAGING THAT FLEXIBILITY TO OUR STAFF TO BRING SOME OF THAT BACK AND NOT NECESSARILY TO THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING AND ALSO SEEING WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE LEGISLATURE NOT JUST ON, BUT SPECIFICALLY ON HOW WE TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WHICH IS VERY RIPE FOR ROBUST DEBATE THAT CAN GO IN A VERY BAD DIRECTION VERY QUICKLY.
>> WE CAN PROVIDE UPDATES ON THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, TRUSTEES?
>> EVERYBODY CAN LISTEN THOUGH, BUT STILL.
WE'RE MOVING INTO 70 CREDITS AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT?
>> THE FIVE CREDITS THAT WERE PRIOR FOR HEALTH WOULD GO TOWARDS ELECTIVE AND THEN FIVE CREDITS FOR ETHNIC STUDIES WOULD GO TO ELECTIVES UNTIL IT BECOMES A PART OF SOCIAL STUDIES.
>> GEOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED IN. THERE'S WORLD HISTORY.
WE ARE CAPTURING THAT TOTAL OF 10 CREDITS BETWEEN THOSE TWO SEMESTER COURSES AND PUTTING IT INTO ADDITIONAL ELECTIVES FOR STUDENTS.
>> GREAT JOB ON THE PRESENTATION.
I DID FIND ONE PARTICULAR POLICY THAT I'D LIKE TO JUST ASK A QUESTION ABOUT.
IN THE 6,000 SERIES IS 6141.2, RECOGNITION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND CUSTOMS. THE OPENING PARAGRAPH, IT LOOKS LIKE A STRIKE THROUGH.
[00:25:01]
IT SAYS, "UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, A STUDENT SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM ANY ART OR HEALTH, FAMILY LIFE OR SEX EDUCATION WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE RELIGIOUS TRAINING BELIEFS OR PERSONAL MORE CONVICTIONS OF THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR STUDENT.ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE SO EXCUSED." THAT SOUNDS TO ME IF A KID HAS A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDS TO LEARN CERTAIN THINGS IN SCHOOLS, I GET THAT.
BUT IF THERE'S ONE THAT'S ON THE FENCE LIKE, "HEY, I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS LESSON," AND IT'S NOT IN THAT LIST OF THINGS, SOUNDS LIKE THIS KID COULDN'T OPT OUT OR BE PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE LESSON.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ONE, IS THIS CSBA RECOMMENDATION? IS THIS CHANGE IN STATE LAW? IS THIS AN NUSD RECOMMENDATION? IF SO, WHY?
>> THIS IS NOT AN NUSD RECOMMENDATION WE'RE FOLLOWING.
>> 6141.2, RECOGNITION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND CUSTOMS. BECAUSE WE HAVE A HUGE FAITH BASED COMMUNITY HERE IN NATOMAS.
I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THE BOARD COULDN'T FIND SOME WAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND SAY, "HEY, THIS LESSON JUST DOESN'T SUPPORT MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I DON'T HATE ANYONE.
I JUST WANT TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION PEACEFULLY".
I DON'T SEE WHY THE BOARD WOULD DISCOURAGE FOLKS FROM HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE LESSON PLAN IF IT'S A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
IT'S NOT INFLAMMATORY, IT'S NOT HATE-BASED.
PERSON JUST WANTS TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT ONE.
>> WELL, I HOPE THAT NO ONE IN NATOMAS WILL BE THE ONES TO EVEN QUESTION SOMEONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUDGE.
>> AGAIN, I GUESS MY THING IS IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE AND A STUDENT IS SAYING, "HEY, LISTEN.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CAUSE ANY CONFLICT.
WE JUST WANT AN ASSIGNMENT THAT CONFORMS WITH OUR FAITH AND DOESN'T VIOLATE OUR CONSCIENCE." I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD STRIKE THAT OUT.
I KNOW A LOT OF THESE THINGS IN MASS HAPPENED AND WE'RE WORKING AT WITH CSBA AND MAYBE THEY MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO SINCERELY UNDERSTAND IF THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION AND I LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY.
IF NOT, THAT I'M HAPPY TO GET BOARD FEEDBACK AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.
>> I KNOW IN THE SEX ED POLICY THERE IS LANGUAGE ABOUT OPTING OUT SPECIFICALLY IN THAT POLICY.
>> BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM A TRADITIONAL ASSIGNMENT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING THERE ARE THINGS IN ED CODE THAT KID HAS TO LEARN AND THEN THERE'S A PARENT NOTIFICATION.
BUT THERE SOMETIMES ARE RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS THAT WE THINK THEY'VE BEEN ADOPTED AS SECULAR, LIKE A DREAM WEAVER FOR INSTANCE.
THERE'S A SPIRITUAL COMPONENT TO THAT.
WE TALK ABOUT I'VE BEEN BUILDING DREAM WEAVERS SINCE I WAS A KID.
COME TO FIND OUT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SPIRITUAL PRACTICE COMPONENT THAT SAY, "HEY, I DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN BUILDING THIS DREAM WEAVER".
NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE, IT'S JUST WE DON'T DO THAT.
THIS BYLAW WOULD EFFECTIVELY REMOVE MY ABILITY TO SAY, "HEY, I DON'T WANT TO DO A DREAM WEAVER.
THAT WOULD GIVE ME ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT".
I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD STRIKE THAT AT ALL.
I'M 150% OPPOSED TO THAT AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES CAN APPRECIATE THE VIEWPOINT.
>> DID ED CODE 51240 CHANGE? JUST TO PUT EVERYONE ON THE SPOT ON EVERY SINGLE CHANGE TO THE LAW ON [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T KNOW IF ED CODE CHANGED OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT.
[OVERLAPPING] I CAN TELL YOU THOUGH IN THE ABSENCE OF YELLOW HIGHLIGHT, THAT IS NOT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THAT.
THAT WAS CSBA'S RECOMMENDATION.
AS FAR AS WHY THEY RECOMMENDED IT, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO LOOK FARTHER INTO THAT, BUT THAT WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.
>> NO SWEAT. I THINK IF THE BOARD'S COMFORTABLE, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE FOR THAT.
EVEN IF WE MODERNIZE THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE IT WAS LAST REVISITED IN 1996 WHEN TUPAC WAS STILL RAPPING, I DO THINK THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF OUR BOARD BY-LAWS.
>> THAT'S FINE. I'M FINE WITH THAT.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHERS, BUT I'M FINE WITH THAT.
>> THERE'S SOCIAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM JUST TO EXPLAIN WHY I THINK THIS SHOULD BE THERE WHERE THERE IS NOT AN OPT OUT.
YOU CAN HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT STATE LAW IS CORRECT ON THAT.
I HAVE MANY OPINIONS, BUT IN THIS ONE, THIS TO ME, THIS IS A NOTHINGBURGER.
WE'VE BEEN DOING IT SINCE 1996 AND KIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, "HEY, LOOK, PROFESSOR OR TEACHER.
THIS VIOLATES MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
CAN I GET AN ALTERNATE ASSIGNMENT?" TO ME IT'S A NOTHINGBURGER. THAT'S IT FOR ME.
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER TWO BECAUSE WE'VE SAID IT.
ARE YOU GUYS ALL ON BOARD WITH THAT?
>> I THINK SO; THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS AS YOU PUT THE MODERNIZED LANGUAGE, BUT I'D ALSO BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE CSBA RATIONALE WAS FOR STRIKING THIS.
WAS IT A CHANGE IN ED CODE IN WHICH CASE, WE DEFINITELY WOULD WANT TO PUT SOMETHING MORE MODERNLY AS YOU SAID IN THERE TO REPLACE IT.
[00:30:03]
>> WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE BOARD COMMUNICATION THIS WEEK TO TRUSTEES WITH THE RATIONALE FOR CSBA'S CHANGE AND ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.
WELL, WE CAN FOLLOW UP THIS WEEK. NO PROBLEM.
>> MY THING IS JUST TO BE VERY SPECIFIC, JUST GIVE THE KIDS AN ALTERNATE ACTIVITY.
WE SHOULDN'T REMOVE THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT IF THAT ACCOMMODATION COULD BE MADE.
LIKE I SAID, THERE'S OVER 30 CHURCHES IN NATOMAS AND THAT'S A BIG PERCENTAGE OF OUR POPULATION IN THIS DISTRICT.
I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT IF WE WENT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANKS, DAVE. WERE THERE ANY OTHER POLICIES BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM HERE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL FOLLOW UP IN A BOARD COMMUNICATION AS PROMISED WITH TRUSTEES AND THE POLICIES WILL BE BROUGHT BACK FOR APPROVAL AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING.
APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU. GREAT WORK TEAM.
>> BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, CABINET MEMBERS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY WELCOME TO, BUT IF YOU NEED TO GO HOME OR HAVE OTHER WORK TO DO, THE BOARD'S GOING TO RECEIVE A TRAINING FROM ROMAN.
YOU ARE EXCUSED IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
>> FRIENDS, HOW MANY OF US HAVE THEM? CLEARLY, NONE OF US. YOU'RE ALL LEAVING?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. AS LONG AS WE HAVE YOU HERE.
>> ROMAN'S ACTUALLY GOING TO STAY [OVERLAPPING]
>> [LAUGHTER] WE'RE STAYING OUTSIDE.
>> WE DEFINITELY WANT YOU HERE. THANK YOU, ROMAN.
[XIII.b. Robert's Rules of Order]
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.I ALMOST WANT TO SHED A TEAR BECAUSE THIS IS A REQUEST THAT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE WORKS.
WE HAVE OUR GREAT LEGAL COUNSEL ROMAN MUNOZ FROM LOZANO SMITH WHO WILL LEAD THE TRAINING FOR TRUSTEES. THANK YOU, ROMAN.
>> THANK YOU CAPTAIN [INAUDIBLE] NO WE WILL CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES AS WE'RE GOING TO TALK THROUGH DIFFERENT THINGS.
SHOUT OUT TO [INAUDIBLE] FOR THIS. [LAUGHTER] IT GOES WAY BACK.
>> MICROPHONE ON. THAT'S THE FIRST ROLL.
EVERYBODY LEFT, SO THERE'S [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE STREAMING THERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THESE MATERIALS RIGHT HERE.
IT'S THE HANDOUT WITH THE POWERPOINT AND SOME ATTACHMENTS THAT I'LL GO THROUGH FOR YOU.
BUT WHAT I FIGURED WE'D TALK ABOUT THIS EVENING IS MEETING PROCEDURES, JUST GENERALLY ABOUT THE BROWN ACT AND WHAT IT REQUIRES.
WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES THAT ARE OUT THERE.
ONE'S CALLED ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE OTHER ONE'S CALLED ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, AND HOW THEY DIFFER BETWEEN EACH OTHER, AND JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THOSE TWO.
THEN WE'LL JUST TALK ABOUT MOTIONS ON HOW THOSE ARE DEVELOPED AND WORKED AROUND IN EACH OF THOSE TYPES OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONE THING TO ALWAYS REMEMBER IS, WHEN LOOKING AT PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, THAT BASICALLY TAKES A BACKSEAT TO THE BROWN ACT.
THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER WILL TALK ABOUT, WELL, THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS TO APPROVE A MATTER OR AN ITEM ARE JUST THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT.
THAT'S USUALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST DISTINCTIONS.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER TALKS ABOUT, WELL, HEY, IF THE MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT, IF A MAJORITY OF THEM VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN ACTION IS TAKEN.
WELL, THAT IS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE BROWN ACT.
THE BROWN ACT REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD FOR ANY MOTION TO BE APPROVED.
JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT THAT, HEY, IF YOU ONLY HAD THREE MEMBERS PRESENT AT A BOARD MEETING, WELL, IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO BE APPROVED, IT REQUIRES ALL THREE OF THOSE MEMBERS TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
IT WOULD NOT BE A 2-1 VOTE BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE A MAJORITY OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS,
[00:35:06]
NOT ALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.I REALLY WANT TO STRESS THAT, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN BOARDS START TALKING ABOUT PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, ESPECIALLY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, SOMEONE WILL THUMB THROUGH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, WHICH ARE BASICALLY 816 PAGES LONG, AND GO, RIGHT HERE IT SAYS, HEY, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT.
WELL, THE BROWN ACT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY TYPE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES.
>> ROMAN, JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW THIS CAME UP AT A MEETING JUST RELATIVELY RECENTLY, THE STUDENT MEMBER VOTE IS A HONORARY.
>> WHEN WE'RE COUNTING, IT'S THREE OUT OF FIVE, IT'S ALWAYS THREE OF THE ELECTED TRUSTEES IN ORDER FOR ANYTHING TO PASS.
>> STUDENT BOARD MEMBERS VOTE IS CALLED A PREFERENTIAL VOTE.
IT DOES NOT GO INTO THE COUNTING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO APPROVE A MOTION.
IF YOU HAVE A STUDENT BOARD MEMBER THAT'S PRESENT, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR STUDENT BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THEY DON'T GO TOWARDS THE ACTUAL TALLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE HAD THREE BOARD MEMBERS VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO PASS A MOTION.
>> WHEN WE CALL OUT THE VOTE WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALLS OUT THE RESULT, WE'VE HISTORICALLY, MY WHOLE TIME ON THE BOARD, INCLUDED THE STUDENT TRUSTEE IN THAT NUMBER.
THAT'S STILL OKAY. BUT IN REALITY, IT'S, AS YOU SAID, A PREFERENTIAL.
>> YEAH. IT'S JUST A PREFERENTIAL.
NOT TO DE-MINIMIZE THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT IS A PREFERENTIAL VOTE.
AGAIN, THE BROWN ACT, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO REMAIN INFORMED.
I ALWAYS SAY, THE BOARD MEETINGS ARE WHERE BOARD MEMBERS GET TO SHOW THE PUBLIC THE TRUE ROLE OF A BOARD MEMBER.
RECEIVING INFORMATION, SETTING POLICIES.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE LIMITS ON BOARD MEMBER AUTHORITY, IT'S ALWAYS REALLY IMPORTANT TO, HEY, BOARD MEMBERS DON'T EXERCISE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.
YOU'RE NOT CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS.
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE SET OUT.
BUT REALLY, IT'S RECEIVE REPORT, SET POLICY, THOSE ARE SO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, AND THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC GETS TO SEE THIS ALL OCCUR.
I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS SO IMPORTANT FOR THE PROCESS.
A BOARD MEETING IS THE BOARD'S MEETING IN PUBLIC.
PEOPLE AREN'T SHOUTING AT THE BOARD REGARDING HAVING SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS.
THEY SHOUT AT THE BOARD. YOU GET SWORN IN TO GET SWORN AT.
I KNOW THAT. [LAUGHTER] BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE SCREAMING THINGS AT BOARD MEMBERS.
I'LL TELL YOU, I'VE BEEN AT BOARD MEETINGS FOR SOME SCHOOL BOARDS, WHERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL JUST GET UP AND WALK OVER TO THE DAIS AND START SPEAKING TO A BOARD MEMBER AND HAVING A CONVERSATION DURING A PRESENTATION, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON.
THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT REALLY SHOW HOW SERIOUSLY ARE WE TAKING THIS? HOW STRUCTURED SHOULD WE BE? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE PROCEDURES IN PLACE, GUESS WHAT? DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOUR BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TOWN HALL MEETINGS.
LET'S SEE HERE. ANATOMY OF BOARD MEETINGS.
WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT, ACTION IS TAKEN BY A MAJORITY OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS, NOT A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT, THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ENTIRE BOARD, ALL FIVE VOTE FOR APPROVAL, OR THERE'S FOUR-FIFTHS RULES.
THOSE ARE VERY UNIQUE AND VERY SPECIFIC.
ONE OF THOSE ARE LIKE EMERGENCY WORKS PROJECTS.
YOU HAD THAT SUBJECT COME UP NOT TOO LONG AGO.
IT IS USUALLY THE MAJORITY OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS THAT REALLY TAKES THE CUE FOR ANY BOARD ACTION TO BE EFFECTIVE.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, THAT WE WANT TO HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE WHERE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL HEARD, AND WE ALL WANT TO HAVE PROCEDURES WHERE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND THEY KNOW AND WE'RE CONSISTENT, BECAUSE CONSISTENCY BUILDS PREDICTABILITY AND THAT PREDICTABILITY REALLY GOES TOWARDS BUILDING A STRONG GOVERNANCE TEAM, WHERE THERE'S THAT OLD ADAGE, NO SURPRISES.
WE ALL WANT TO HAVE NO SURPRISES.
WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT THE ANATOMY OF A BOARD MEETING, PUBLIC COMMENT IS GOING TO BE PART OF IT.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT EXTENDING PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PROS AND CONS OF IT.
THE PROS OF IT, WE'RE HEARING PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND WE WANT TO EMPATHIZE WITH THOSE.
[00:40:02]
THE CON OF THAT IS, WELL, IN REALITY, WE HAVE A LOT OF BOARD POLICIES AND REGULATIONS ON COMPLAINT PROCEDURES, AND HOW THAT IS TO BE ADDRESSED.USUALLY IT'S REALLY DIRECTING STAFF TO MEET WITH THE SPEAKER BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THESE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES.
YOU HAVE MANDATED REPORTERS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE REPORTS IF THERE ARE ANY CONCERNS LIKE CHILD ABUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEN WE ALWAYS WANT TO THINK ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
OUR INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS HEARING FACTS THAT AREN'T COMING TO THE BOARD THAT MAY DRIVE THEIR DECISION MAKING.
THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE IS, HEY, A BOARD MEMBER GOING OUT AND CONDUCTING THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.
THEY'RE RECEIVING INFORMATION.
THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THE ADMINISTRATION LOOKS INTO THAT, DEVELOPS THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES, AND THEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD FOR AN APPEAL.
WELL, THAT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE MAY SAY, LOOK, WELL, THERE WAS A BOARD MEMBER INVESTIGATING ME.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT BOARD MEMBER SHOULD ACTUALLY VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT MY EMPLOYMENT SHOULD CONTINUE, BECAUSE I THINK THEIR JUDGMENT HAS BEEN COMPROMISED BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN DOING THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, AND THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THEIR BOARD ROLES.
JUST SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT AS YOU GO THROUGH.
ONE THING THAT I ALSO DID WANT TO BRING UP, AS YOU'LL SEE THAT BULLET POINT ON ROLL CALL VOTES, JUST SO YOU KNOW, ROLL CALL VOTES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE BROWN ACT OR THE EDUCATION CODE, EXCEPT FOR ONE SITUATION, IS WHEN YOU HAVE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS.
THE IDEA BEHIND THE TELECONFERENCE MEETING REQUIREMENT IS, YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS EITHER ONLINE OR ON A TELEPHONE BASICALLY MAKING THEIR VOTE, AND JUST TO AVOID ANY MISPERCEPTION OR MISHEARING OF HOW THEY VOTED IT, THEY WANT TO GO TO ROLL CALL VOTE.
NOW, ONE THING I DO WANT TO STRESS WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE IS THAT THERE'S THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE OF HAVING THE VOICE VOTE WHERE EVERYBODY VOTES AT THE SAME TIME.
[BACKGROUND] I WOULD SAY THAT AS LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW ATTORNEY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS LOOK OUT FOR IS, WELL, LET'S JUST SAY THAT THERE'S A PENDING MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD ON A VERY UNPOPULAR TOPIC.
WE JUST FINISHED THE SEASON OF MARCH 15TH NOTICES, LAYOFFS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT LET'S JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE FIVE BOARD MEMBERS, AND THERE'S THIS RESOLUTION TO REDUCE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.
WELL, ON A ROLL CALL VOTE, YOU START GOING THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER.
I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE SCHOOL BOARDS WILL GO LIKE, WELL, I'VE ALREADY GOT THREE MEMBERS THAT HAVE ALREADY VOTED ONE WAY, I CAN ACTUALLY SAY, I'M VOTING NO ON THIS AND MAKE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS LOOK LIKE THE BAD PEOPLE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SOME BOARDS STAY AWAY FROM THE ROLL CALL VOTES AS OPPOSED TO THE VOICE VOTE.
JUST SOME THING TO THINK ABOUT, ROLL CALL VOTES ARE NOT REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR WHEN YOU'RE DOING TELECONFERENCING.
>> WITH THAT AS WELL, WHEN WE DO THE SUBSTITUTE PRIOR UNANIMOUS.
>> EXCEPT FOR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS.
>> YEAH, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT VOICE VOTE.
I THINK WHEN WE'LL START LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, REALLY IDENTIFYING AND MAYBE EVEN CODIFYING, IF YOU WILL, THOSE UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTES, THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES THAT COME UP.
LET'S TALK ABOUT MEETING PROCEDURES.
I'M GOING TO TALK FIRST ABOUT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND JUST PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE TO BEGIN WITH.
AGAIN, PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, SET OF RULES THAT CONDUCT MEETINGS THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO BE HEARD. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE IT IS A TIME TESTED METHOD OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS, AND THAT WAY, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND ESPECIALLY BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.
ONE THING I DO WANT TO STRESS IS THAT IF YOU DO ADOPT ANY TYPE OF RULES, BE IT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER OR ROSENBERG'S, OR A MIXTURE OF THOSE, THESE RULES SHOULDN'T BE USED TO TRY AND CIRCUMVENT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION.
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT COMES UP IS, HEY,
[00:45:04]
ARE WE GOING TO GET SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD THAT'S GOING TO TRY AND USE THESE RULES TO TRY AND AVOID THE DISCUSSION OR THE CALL OF THE QUESTION? THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR.IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY.
NO ONE WANTS TO USE RULES IN THAT TYPE OF MANNER.
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FACILITATES PROCESSES, ALL MEMBERS HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS.
AGAIN, THAT FULL AND FREE DISCUSSION OF EVERY MOTION IS A BASIC RIGHT, AND ONLY ONE QUESTION AT A TIME CAN BE GIVEN AND CONSIDERED AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
AGAIN, TRYING TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION ASSOCIATED WITH ANY TYPE OF PROCESS THAT'S GOING ON.
THIS REALLY DOES HELP THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND CHAIRPERSON OF EVERY BOARD.
THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE, AS YOU KNOW, AS THE BOARD PRESIDENT, LOT OF MOVING PARTS GOING ON.
TO BE ABLE TO RELY UPON A PROCEDURE, TO BE ABLE TO REFERENCE, SO YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC ALSO HAVE A REFERENCE POINT AS TO, THIS IS THE DECISION MAKING AND THE PROCESS THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES THAT WE'VE ADOPTED.
THAT'S WHERE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE REALLY COMES IN.
REALLY TO HELP THE BOARD PRESIDENT, BE ABLE TO HAVE A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO GUIDE THE BOARD ALONG AND THIS MEETING ALONG AND WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY HAVE A REFERENCE TOO.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IT PUTS THE BOARD PRESIDENT IN A POSITION AS TO WHETHER HE OR SHE IS BEING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS WITH ANY DECISION THAT THEY'RE BEING MADE.
WE'LL GET INTO A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THOSE.
BUT THAT'S REALLY THE IDEA, IS TO PROVIDE THE BOARD AND ESPECIALLY THE BOARD PRESIDENT WITH THAT REFERENCE POINT.
NOW, AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO PROCEDURES THAT ARE OUT THERE, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER.
JUST SOME HISTORY ON ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
LIKE I MENTIONED, IT'S AN 816-PAGE MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
IT REALLY WENT TO THE CONCEPT OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, WHERE YOU HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE AND REALLY TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME PROCEDURES IN THERE IN WHICH TO GET BUSINESS DONE.
NOT THAT A LOT OF BUSINESS GETS DONE IN PARLIAMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.
HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN WATCHING.
[LAUGHTER] THEY REALLY DON'T CARE.
IT IS. PROBABLY SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE GETS MADE OFF OF THOSE.
I WOULD SAY THIS, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, IT TENDS TO BE VERY COMPLEX AND IT WAS REALLY WRITTEN FOR ANOTHER TIME AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, QUITE FRANKLY.
WHAT I WOULD SAY, REALLY AS A REFERENCE POINT IS, THERE ARE TIMES WHERE THESE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, THEY COME UP AT THE MOST DIFFICULT TIMES.
GOSH, WHAT DO WE DO? HOW ARE WE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THIS DONE? EVERYBODY'S TIRED.
WELL, IF YOU HAD A PROCEDURE THAT WAS VERY CLEAR CUT, YOU COULD RELY UPON IT VERY QUICKLY AND NOT HAVE TO GO INTO THIS 816-PAGE MANUAL.
NOW, AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THEM, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
I'VE HEARD THAT PEOPLE HAVE ADJUSTED THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER TO BE SPECIFIC TO THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS.
THAT'S A GREAT PROCESS TOO. DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BASH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT IS A VERY TIME INTENSIVE PROCESS TO IDENTIFY, HEY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO USE THESE RULES THAT WERE REALLY MEANT FOR PARLIAMENT TO BE APPLIED TO OUR SCHOOL BOARD WITH FIVE MEMBERS? NOW, THE ALTERNATIVE IS ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER.
THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS THAT IT SIMPLIFIED, STREAMLINED, SEVEN PAGE VERSION OF THE RULES.
ACTUALLY IT WAS PREPARED BY A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE OUT OF THE COUNTY OF YOLO, THAT HAS ACTUALLY SERVED AS A COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE CITY OF DAVIS, AND HE ACTUALLY WAS EVEN THE MAYOR.
INTERESTING THING ABOUT JUDGE ROSENBERG, HE'S STILL ALIVE, AND YOUR MATERIALS, QUITE FRANKLY, HAVE THE ROSENBERG RULES, THERE IN PAGE 24-32.
I SAID SEVEN PAGES, BUT TWO OF THEM ARE TITLE PAGE AND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU THERE.
BUT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE FULL ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER FOR YOUR REFERENCE, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THEM.
BUT I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT VERY INTERESTING IS THAT
[00:50:03]
JUDGE ROSENBERG STILL WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS RULES, AND ON PAGE 34, IS ACTUALLY A LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO ONE OF MY PARTNERS ABOUT A QUESTION THAT CAME UP ON A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT.BUT I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING.
IT'S LIKE, OH, WELL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO TO THE SOURCE AND GET HIS IDEA AS TO SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ON SOME OF THE RULES THAT HE WROTE.
>> NOW, JUST TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF THE FORMAT ON ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, I'LL TELL YOU, JUST GENERALLY, YOU WON'T SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FORMAT OF AN ACTION AND MOTION.
REALLY WHAT IT GOES TO IS SOME OF THE RULES THAT COME ABOUT.
YOU'LL RECOGNIZE A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT DO COME UP AS FAR AS THE FORMAT AND ACTION AS YOU'LL SEE. LET ME BACK UP HERE.
YOU'LL SEE THIS DIAGRAM UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER ANNOUNCING THE AGENDA ITEM, THE REPORT ON THE AGENDA ITEM, PUBLIC COMMENT, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION AND DEBATE, THE MAIN MOTION, SECOND OF A MOTION, UNDERSTANDING THE MOTION, TAKING THE VOTE, AND MAKING THE ANNOUNCING THE RESULT.
THAT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH BOTH.
I'LL IDENTIFY HOW ROSENBERG'S IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
BUT IT'S A LOT OF THE PRACTICE THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER REALLY GOES INTO A LOT OF DEPTH INTO RULES GOVERNING DEBATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT PARLIAMENT.
YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF MEMBERS, A LOT OF OPINIONS, A LOT OF SCREAMING AND YELLING AT EACH OTHER, SO THEY TRY TO COME UP WITH A FORMAT WHERE HEY, WE WOULD HAVE SOME CIVILITY, AND THERE WOULD BE SOME RULES ON HOW TO DEBATE.
SOME OF THE MAJOR TAKEAWAYS: A MEMBER MAY NOT SPEAK UNTIL RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR.
OF COURSE, IF YOU WATCH BRITISH PARLIAMENT, THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS SEEM TO APPLY A LOT OF THE TIME.
IN THE DEBATE, EACH MEMBER HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK TWICE ON THE SAME QUESTION ON THE SAME DAY.
THERE'S NO SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
BUT AS A CAVEAT, THEY TRY TO SAY, NO MEMBER SHOULD SPEAK LONGER THAN 10 MINUTES UNLESS THE CONSENT OF THE GROUP IS OBTAINED.
RIGHTS IN A DEBATE ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.
AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST SOME GENERAL ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.
AGAIN, A LOT OF DECORUM IN DEBATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH THAT MANY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
BUT REMARKS MUST BE GERMANE TO THE QUESTION BEFORE THE GROUP.
SPEAKER SHOULD SPEAK LOUDLY AND CLEARLY.
REMARKS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THEY ALWAYS FOCUS ON THOMAS JEFFERSON'S ADVICE IS STILL GOOD, NO ONE IS TO DISTURB ANOTHER IN HIS SPEECH BY HISSING, COUGHING, SPITTING, SPEAKING, OR WHISPERING TO ANOTHER, ETC.
THEY REALLY TRY TO EMPHASIZE THAT PROPER DECORUM IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, AGAIN, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, FOCUS ON A BASIC MOTION, MOTION TO AMEND, AND WITHDRAW A MOTION.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR IN ROSENBERG'S RULES.
BUT THE BASIC CONNOTATION OF WE HAVE A BASIC MOTION, A MEMBER IS GOING TO PUT FORWARD A DECISION FOR CONSIDERATION.
I MOVE THAT WE CREATE A FIVE MEMBER COMMITTEE TO PLAN OUR ANNUAL FUND RAISER.
THEN IF THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND, THAT COULD BE, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE A 10-MEMBER COMMITTEE.
THEN THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION.
A PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION MAY WITHDRAW IT IT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE MOTION BEING STATED BY THE CHAIR.
THOSE IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER ARE WHAT THEY CALL THE THREE BASIC COMMON MOTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.
IT'S ALL PRETTY MUCH CENTERED AROUND THOSE THREE.
THE RULES BASICALLY CALL FOR THE DEBATE, VARIOUS TYPES OF MOTIONS TO BE MADE.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE ARE ESSENTIALLY THEIR RULES HAVE NON-DEBATABLE MOTIONS.
BASICALLY, THIS CAN END DISCUSSION AT ANY TIME.
YOU'LL SEE MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOTION TO RECESS, MOTION TO FIX THE TIME TO ADJOURN, MOTION TO TABLE, AND MOTION TO EXTEND DEBATE.
THESE ARE, AS THIS STATES, VERY SPECIFIC MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT DEBATABLE.
WHEN MADE AND SECONDED, THE CHAIR MUST IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR A VOTE OF THE BODY WITHOUT DEBATE ON THE MOTION.
[00:55:01]
VERY STRINGENT RULES UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, IF SO ADOPTED.>> COULD YOU ADDRESS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION?
>> YEAH. A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE LIKE, AND I RAN INTO THIS NOT TOO LONG AGO AT A BOARD MEETING, IF YOU HAD AN ISSUE WHERE THE BOARD BYLAW CALLS FOR, WELL, IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN A BOARD BYLAW ON HOW TO HANDLE A CERTAIN SITUATION.
THE SITUATION I WAS DEALING WITH WAS, WHETHER OR NOT A BOARD BYLAW GAVE A BOARD MEMBER OR THE BOARD PRESIDENT OR A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, THE AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE IDEA WOULD BE, WELL, IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN OUR BOARD BYLAWS, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SECONDARY MOTION, BASICALLY CALLING FOR THE IDEAS TO LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT IS OCCURRING.
THAT WAS A SECONDARY MOTION GOING FROM A SECONDARY SOURCE.
>> TAKING THE VOTE, MAKING SURE BOARD MEMBERS ARE HEARD, THEIR VOTES ARE COUNTED, AND THEN ANNOUNCING THE RESULT.
SPECIAL MOTIONS, UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, AGAIN, REQUIRE A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE TO PASS.
AGAIN, THERE'S THAT CONFLICT WITH THE BROWN ACT.
ANYTIME UNDER THE BROWN ACT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MOTION OF THE ENTIRE BOARD, NOT JUST A MAJORITY OF THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT.
MOTIONS MUST BE MADE AT THE MEETING WHERE THE ITEM WAS FIRST VOTED UPON OR AT A SUBSEQUENT REGULAR MEETING.
NOW, THIS IS REALLY WHERE I WANT TO FOCUS ON A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER.
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT COMES UP.
ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, AND I'LL GET INTO MORE OF THIS AS WE GO THROUGH HIS RULES, BUT HERE'S A VERY BIG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.
ROSENBERG FOCUSES ON FINALITY, MEANING THAT ONCE THIS BOARD TAKES ACTION AND VOTES, THAT SHOULD BE IT.
THAT HE REALLY THROUGH HIS EXPERIENCE, WANTED TO AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE THE SAME ISSUE COULD BE BROUGHT UP AT SUBSEQUENT BOARD MEETINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THE IDEA BEING LIKE, ON A FIVE MEMBER BOARD, I VOTED IN THE MINORITY, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T LIKE THAT DECISION.
I KNOW TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT VOTED OPPOSITE OF ME, THEY'RE GOING TO BE GONE, SO I'M GOING TO START BRINGING THESE UP AT BOARD MEETINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THIS, AND I'M GOING TO GET THIS ON AN AGENDA ITEM.
I'M GOING TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, AND I'M GOING TO GET MY VOICE HEARD.
I'M GOING TO TRY AND SWAY THIS BOARD.
INSTEAD OF 3-2, ME BEING IN THE MINORITY, I WANT TO CHANGE TO 3-0, ME BEING IN THE MAJORITY.
REALLY, ROSENBERG'S RULES ARE SET UP FOR THAT FINALITY.
THINGS LIKE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE VERY SPECIFIC.
ROSENBERG'S RULES WILL NOT EVEN ALLOW A MOTION TO RENEW.
YOU CANNOT HAVE A MOTION TO RENEW AN ITEM.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
IT MUST BE MADE AT THE MEETING WHERE THE ITEM WAS FIRST VOTED UPON OR AT A SUBSEQUENT REGULAR MEETING.
NOW, IF THE BOARD WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND AVOID THAT, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF ALL THE MEMBERS.
AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO PREVENT CHANGING THE VOTES AND CALLING OUT THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CAN BE MADE BY ANY MEMBER, BUT ROSENBERG'S RULES LIMITS THIS TO ONLY A MEMBER WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
IF THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES, THEN THE ORIGINAL MATTER IS BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD.
NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAD AN ISSUE THAT CAME UP AT A BOARD MEETING WHERE YOU HAD A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
THE IDEA MEANING THAT, WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, IT SHOULD BE AT THAT SAME MEETING.
IT SHOULDN'T BE AT A SUBSEQUENT ONE, BECAUSE WE WANT THAT FINALITY THAT OCCURS.
THIS HAPPENS QUITE A BIT, QUITE FRANKLY.
BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT, WE DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC THINKING THIS VOTE WAS TAKEN,
[01:00:05]
WE THOUGHT WE HAD FINALITY, WE LEAVE.THEN GUESS WHAT? SOMEONE LATER ON IN THE MEETING CALLS, WELL, LET'S HAVE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NOW THAT EVERYBODY'S GONE.
WE MADE THEM HAPPY, WE DIDN'T UPSET THEM, BUT NOW LET'S CALL A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE GOING TO BE ANGRY AGAIN.
>> QUICK QUESTIONS ON THOSE. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT'S TWO-THIRDS OF FIVE BECAUSE IT'S A FRACTION.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I ALSO REALIZE, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE BROWN ACT SUPERSEDES.
THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE RULES OF ORDER, AM I CORRECT THAT NEITHER OF THEM TECHNICALLY APPLY CURRENTLY? WE FOLLOW THEM AS GUIDELINES, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT THEM AS BOARD POLICY OR SOME VARIATION IF THEY WERE TO BE ENFORCEABLE, BUT THEY STILL PROVIDES A VALUABLE FRAMEWORK FOR HOW TO RAISE A MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION, ETC?
>> YOU'RE SPOT ON. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THIS, ONE OF THE LAST SLIDES OR THE LAST SLIDE IS BASICALLY, WHAT THE BOARD'S OPTIONS ARE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADOPT ANY RULES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT LET'S SAY IF YOU WANTED TO ADOPT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER OR ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, THAT CAN BE DONE IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
IT CAN BE DONE THROUGH AN AMENDMENT OF A BYLAW.
IN YOUR MATERIALS, YOU HAVE A SAMPLE BYLAW FROM, I THINK IT'S ALBANY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
NO, ACTUALLY IT'S IN THEIR GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK, I BELIEVE.
IT'S THE IDEA OF LIKE, THE BOARD ADOPTED THIS, THESE ARE THEIR RULES OF ORDER.
YOU CAN EITHER DO IT THROUGH A BOARD BYLAW OR YOU CAN ALWAYS AMEND YOUR GOVERNANCE PROTOCOLS.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS THIS, IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND A BOARD BYLAW, THAT REQUIRES TWO READINGS, A FIRST READING AND A SECOND READING UNLESS YOU SUSPEND THOSE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE YOUR GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK, YOU CAN DO THAT IN ONE BOARD MEETING.
OF COURSE, WITH PROPER NOTICE AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE SAMPLE MATERIALS.
BUT I DID LOOK UP TWO-THIRDS OF VOTE, ONE OF FIVE MEMBER BOARD, AND IT'S 3.3.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT, BUT WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT.
[LAUGHTER] I HAD A FEELING HE WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
I WAS LIKE THAT'S A MATH QUESTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] AND SOMEONE COULD BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> BRIEF DISCUSSION ON ROSENBERG'S RULES.
AS THE PREVIOUS CHART THAT I SHOWED ON ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, REALLY LOOKS THE SAME.
BUT I'LL POINT OUT THE THREE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.
ON ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, THE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS COMES BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, THEY'RE REVERSED.
IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION AND DEBATE BEFORE YOU INVITE A MOTION.
YOU WOULD GO, AS WE SEE HERE WHERE IT SAYS INVITE A MOTION, AND THEN SECOND THE MOTION, UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, AND THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, AND I'LL GO BACK BECAUSE I HAD TO LOOK AT IT A COUPLE OF TIMES MYSELF, WHERE YOU SEE THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE, IT COMES A LITTLE EARLIER.
IT COMES BEFORE THE ACTUAL MOTION AND A SECOND.
THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.
THE IDEA BEING, AND I THINK IT'S IN THE MATERIALS, THE ACTUAL RULES THEMSELVES, THE IDEA BEING LIKE, IF WE'RE GOING TO DEBATE, LET'S DEBATE THE MOTION THAT'S ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND NOT JUST TALK A LOT OF HYPOTHETICALS.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE CLARIFICATION AND QUESTIONS RIGHT AFTER THE REPORT ON THE ITEM TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS SO YOU CAN BE INFORMED WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DEBATE THE MOTION.
LET ME MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
THE BOARD PRESIDENT CLEARLY ANNOUNCES THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AND STATES THE AGENDA ITEM THAT'S ON THE SUBJECT.
THEY RECEIVE A REPORT FROM STAFF.
[01:05:01]
INFORMATION IS COMING FROM STAFF AND THE BOARD PRESIDENT'S ROLE IS TO INVITE STAFF OR THE OTHER APPROPRIATE PERSONS TO MAKE A REPORT.ANY AGENDA ITEM WOULD HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON IT.
THEN THE IDEA BEING THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BOARD MEMBERS CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE STAFF MEMBER OR APPOINTED PERSON MAKING THE REPORT, AND THEN YOU WOULD INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT.
AS YOU KNOW, YOUR BOARD BYLAW, INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON EACH ITEM.
THE BOARD CAN LIMIT THE TOTAL TIME FOR THE PUBLIC INPUT ON AN AGENDA ITEM TO 20 MINUTES.
>> TWENTY MINUTE TOTAL PER AGENDA ITEM, 2 MINUTES PER SPEAKER. YOU'RE WELCOME.
I ACTUALLY WENT TO A BOARD MEETING RECENTLY.
I THINK I SHARED THIS WITH DR. CASTILLO AND CHRISTINA, THAT THEY WERE SO EXCITED THAT THEY GOT OUT OF THE BOARD MEETING BEFORE 1:00 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE THEY HAD PUBLIC COMMENT ON TOP OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAME UP AND GAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, THEIR BOARD ACTUALLY ALLOWED THAT PERSON TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF YOU HAD TEN SPEAKERS, [LAUGHTER] THEY WERE LIKE, OH, MY GOD, WE'RE SO GLAD WE GOT OUT OF HERE BEFORE 1:00 IN THE MORNING.
I WAS LIKE, NO, RIGHT? IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY INTERESTING.
IT'S LIKE, THAT PROCESS ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT ON TOP OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
THOSE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE SETTING UP THESE RULES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE OPERATING UNDER OR ENTERTAINING THEM.
INVITING A MOTION: THE BOARD PRESIDENT INITIATES THE MOTION IN ONE OF THE TWO FOLLOWING WAYS; INVITING A BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE A MOTION, SUGGESTING A MOTION TO THE BOARD MEMBERS, OR THE BOARD PRESIDENT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION.
NOW IN ROSENBERG'S RULES, THE CAVEAT BEING THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DO ONLY SO IF HE OR SHE WISHES TO MAKE A MOTION ON AN ITEM, AND IT APPEARS THAT NO OTHER BOARD MEMBER IS WILLING TO STEP FORWARD TO DO SO AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.
IT REALLY SHOULD BE, HEY, GUIDING THROUGH THIS.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN, HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AS BOARD PRESIDENT TO MAKE A MOTION.
BUT I GUESS IT'S MORE ALONG THE LINES OF THE MAJORITY WIN, WE'RE IN CONGRESS.
HEY, START MAKING MOTIONS, PEOPLE, THAT TYPE OF THING.
MOTIONS ARE MADE IN A TWO STEP PROCESS.
BOARD PRESIDENT RECOGNIZES THE MEMBER.
BOARD MEMBER WILL SAY, HEY, I USE THE WORDS "I MOVE".
THEN AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO THE THREE BASIC MOTIONS THAT ARE THERE.
THESE ARE IN ROSENBERG'S RULES, THE THREE BASIC MOTIONS; BASIC, MOTION TO AMEND AND SUBSTITUTE MOTION, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
BUT THE SAME CONTEXT STILL APPLIES.
ROSENBERG ALSO BRINGS FORWARD THE CONCEPT OF A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
HEY, IF A BOARD MEMBER MAKES A MOTION AND THERE'S A SECOND, ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER MAY SUGGEST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
IF THE MEMBER THAT DID NOT MADE THE MOTION REJECTS THAT, THEN THERE CAN BE A MOTION TO AMEND.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S FRIENDLY, I GUESS.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS FRIENDLY, SO I'M GOING TO REJECT IT, SO THAT PERSON WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND SUBSTITUTE.
[NOISE] BOARD PRESIDENT DETERMINES IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SECOND THE MOTION, BOARD PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES THE NAME OF THE BOARD MEMBER WHO SECONDS THAT MOTION, AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF WHAT THEY CALL UNDERSTANDING THE MOTION.
REALLY MAKING SURE THAT, IF THE MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED, REALLY PUTTING ON THE BOARD PRESIDENT TO ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO REPEAT IT, OR THE BOARD PRESIDENT REPEATS THAT MOTION OR ASK THE SECRETARY OR CLERK TO REPEAT THAT MOTION.
THE IDEA BEING LIKE, HEY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS OR BASICALLY MOTIONS TO AMEND,
[01:10:02]
WE DON'T WANT TO GET LOST WITH WHAT WE'RE DECIDING.I CAN'T TELL YOU, NOT WITH THIS BOARD, BUT I'VE DEALT WITH SCHOOL BOARDS WHERE, HEY, ROMAN, COULD YOU WATCH OUR BOARD MEETING FROM LAST EVENING BECAUSE WE MADE A LOT OF REVISIONS TO THIS RESOLUTION AND WE REALLY GOT SIDETRACKED ON WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED.
A LOT OF THAT CAN BE AVOIDED THOUGH BY REALLY STICKING TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION.
THE BOARD PRESIDENT INVITES DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION BY THE BOARD.
IF THERE'S NO DESIRED DISCUSSION OR THE DISCUSSION IS ENDED, THE BOARD PRESIDENT WOULD GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
USUALLY, IF THERE'S BEEN SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION, THEN IT'S NORMALLY BEST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE MOTION BY REPEATING IT AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S BEEN VERY LONG DISCUSSION.
REALLY WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT.
AGAIN, NON DEBATABLE MOTIONS, SAME PROCESS; MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOTION TO RECESS, MOTION TO FIX TIME TO ADJOURN, MOTION TO TABLE.
THEN THEY ALSO HAVE MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE.
IF WE REALLY WANT TO CUT DEBATE OFF, WE THOUGHT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THAT DISCUSSION, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE TWO THIRDS VOTE.
THE IDEA, I GUESS, FOR ROSENBERG'S RULES, AND HE REALLY EXPRESSES THIS IN THE MANUAL THAT HE WROTE IS THAT HE REALLY WANTS TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN HEARD.
AGAIN, THE IDEA THAT THESE RULES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO TRY AND CIRCUMVENT OR TRY AND GET OVER SOMETHING ON A FELLOW BOARD NUMBER.
HE HAS INFORMATION ON HOW TO HANDLE MULTIPLE MOTIONS.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT YOU WOULD START FROM THE BASE MOTION AND WORK YOUR WAY DOWN, BUT UNDER ROSENBERG, HE'S ALWAYS SAYING, NO, TAKE THE LAST MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND WORK YOUR WAY BACK, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING ON HOW TO PROCEED.
BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE CAVEATS THAT REALLY HELP A BOARD PRESIDENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE LATE NIGHT MOTIONS, A THOROUGH DISCUSSION.
HEY, YOU'VE GOT THREE MOTIONS SITTING THERE.
THEY'RE ALL STACKED UPON EACH OTHER.
HEY, WHAT DO WE DO? HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS? DO WE START ON THE FIRST ONE? GO TO THE SECOND, TO THE THIRD? WELL, IT BUILDS CONSISTENCY, PREDICTABILITY, LIKE NO, WE ADOPT THESE ROSENBERG RULES OF ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO START FROM THE THIRD ONE AND WORK OUR WAY BACK. THEN TAKING THE VOTE.
THE IDEA THAT THE BOARD TAKES A VOTE BY ASKING FOR AYES, NAYS AND ABSTENTIONS.
UNLESS A SUPERMAJORITY IS REQUIRED BY A STATUTE, SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD DETERMINES WHERE A MOTION PASSES OR IS DEFEATED.
I WOULD SAY WHAT'S PRETTY INTERESTING IS IF YOU GO BACK TO HIS LETTER ON PAGE 34, HE REALLY BRINGS UP AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING.
MY PARTNER WROTE HIM THIS LETTER ABOUT, WELL, WHAT ENDS IF YOU HAVE THIS ONE, TWO, ONE, ONE VOTE.
ONE VOTING YES, TWO VOTING NO, ONE MEMBER ABSTAINING AND ONE MEMBER ABSENT.
I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING IS THAT HE POINTED OUT AND HE'S LIKE, HEY, IN 19 YEARS OF SERVICE ON THIS, I'VE ONLY SEEN THIS ONE TIME BEFORE.
HE THOUGHT WHAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING ABOUT IS THAT, WELL, IN ORDER TO GET THE MOTION UP FOR A VOTE, YOU NEED A SECOND.
THAT PERSON WHO SECONDED THE MOTION BASICALLY VOTED EITHER TO ABSTAIN OR VOTED NO. VERY INTERESTING.
I THINK THAT TO ME, IN READING THIS LETTER, IS LIKE, HEY, PEOPLE ARE LOOKING HOW, AS A BOARD, YOU'RE OPERATING EVEN THROUGH YOUR VOTES.
I WAS LIKE, IF WE AS A GOVERNANCE TEAM HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A ONE, TWO, ONE, ONE VOTE, WELL, WHAT'S GOING ON INTERNALLY WITH THE BOARD AND THE GOVERNANCE TEAM? WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. HE TALKS ABOUT, WELL, IN THAT TYPE OF SITUATION, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE QUESTION WAS, WELL, DO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
HOW CAN I BRING FORWARD A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION? OR WAS IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO IT AT THAT BOARD MEETING? HEY, THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THAT.
REALLY WHAT ROSENBERG SAID IN THIS SITUATION IS, WELL, IN A ONE, TWO, ONE, ONE VOTE, THERE IS NO MAJORITY, SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN.
I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS PRETTY INTERESTING TO REALLY REFLECT UPON AND GOING LIKE, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT?
[01:15:02]
BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE SOURCE AND ASK THE QUESTION IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT THESE RULES IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THEM.BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING THING TO THINK ABOUT.
AGAIN, THE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, THOSE ARE ALWAYS THE TOP ISSUES THAT COME ABOUT.
HOW A MOTION TO RECONSIDER WOULD BE HANDLED UNDER ROSENBERG'S RULES IS THAT IT MUST BE MADE AT THE MEETING WHERE THE ITEM WAS FIRST VOTED UPON.
NOW THE REASON IT HAS AN ASTERIX BESIDE IT IS THAT HE ALWAYS LEAVES OPEN THE OPTIONS THAT A BOARD MAY SUSPEND ITS OWN RULES.
LET'S JUST SAY, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO, AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WANT TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE THAT WE TOOK AT A PRIOR BOARD MEETING.
UNDER ROSENBERG'S RULES, YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET AROUND IT IS IF YOU HAVE A VOTE TO SUSPEND HIS RULES, AND YOU NEED TWO THIRDS OF A VOTE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
BASICALLY SUPERMAJORITY AND WE COULD SET THE NUMBER AS WE WANTED TO.
FOR A FIVE MEMBER BOARD, I WOULD SAY, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADOPT YOUR OWN RULES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BORROW THINGS FROM ROSENBERG'S RULES OR ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, YOU WANTED TO MAKE SENSE.
I WOULD SUGGEST THINGS LIKE SUPERMAJORITY, FOUR FIFTHS VOTES, IF WE'RE GOING TO SUSPEND OUR RULES, TO BASICALLY RECONSIDER AN ACTION THAT WE HAD TAKEN AT A PRIOR MEETING BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP ON REVISITING THESE RULES OR THESE DECISIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
NOT ONLY DOES IT ERODE THE PUBLIC'S TRUST, BUT IT ALSO ERODES THE TRUST AMONGST BOARD MEMBERS TOO.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THE LAST THING IS THAT IT DOESN'T INCENTIVIZE BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF TO BE PREPARED TO CALL THE QUESTION AND TAKE A VOTE.
IF YOU ALWAYS KNOW YOU HAVE A DO OVER TO DO AGAIN, WELL, WHY ARE YOU TAKING IT VERY SERIOUSLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME? I THINK IT BASICALLY INFLUENCES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING THESE THINGS SERIOUSLY.
ADDITIONAL MOTIONS UNDER ROSENBERG'S RULES: POINT OF PRIVILEGE, POINT OF ORDER, AN APPEAL TO THE CHAIR, CALLS FOR ORDERS OF THE DAY, AND A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A MOTION.
THOSE ARE JUST THINGS TO CONSIDER UNDER ROSENBERG'S RULES AS I MENTIONED DURING THE PRESENTATION.
>> THAT'S USUALLY BROUGHT UP IF THERE IS A VERY CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSION GOING AROUND.
I DON'T USE THE WORD DEBATE IN THAT SCENARIO BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEBATE ANY LONGER.
IT'S BASICALLY LIKE, BEING RUDE TO A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, INSULTING A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER.
THERE WAS A CLIP THAT'S OFTEN USED IN SOME OF THESE TRAININGS WHERE IT'S BACK IN THE MIDWEST, WHERE A BOARD MEMBER IS SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU WANT TO GO? WE'LL GO.
WE'LL GO RIGHT NOW. LET'S DO THIS.
THEN THE QUESTION HAS BECOME LIKE, IS THAT THE TIME FOR A POINT OF ORDER OR IS THAT A MOTION FOR A RECESS? IN THEIR CASE, THEY DID A MOTION FOR A RECESS, EVERYBODY APPROVED IT.
BUT WHERE THEY START UP, AGAIN, IS LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? WHERE WE LEFT OFF, WE HAD TO CALL TO RECESS BECAUSE WE HAD TWO BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO FIGHT.
IT'S THE IDEA OF, LIKE, HEY, POINT OF ORDER, ARE WE BEHAVING THE WAY WE SHOULD BE?
>> YEAH. THE BOARD PRESIDENT CAN CALL A POINT OF ORDER.
IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE HE HAS THE GAVEL, CAN SAY, HEY, POINT OF ORDER.
TRYING TO GET THE AUDIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, HEY, THIS IS OUR BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC, NOT THE PUBLIC'S MEETING.
THEN YOU ALSO LOOK AT NEW LEGISLATION THAT GIVES THE BOARD PRESIDENT GREATER AUTHORITY TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS DISRUPTING YOUR BOARD MEETING ACTUALLY ESCORTED OUT.
I BELIEVE THAT HAD ACTUALLY UNFORTUNATELY BEEN USED RATHER RECENTLY.
BUT AGAIN, THE IDEA BEING, HEY, AT WHAT POINT DO WE EXPECT THAT FROM OUR BOARD PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY? WITH YOUR BOARD PROTOCOLS, THIS PREDICTABILITY REALLY LENDS ITSELF TO CONSISTENCY AND JUST BEING ABLE TO WORK AS A GOVERNANCE TEAM,
[01:20:04]
NOT ANY ONE BOARD MEMBER HAVING MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE OTHER, BUT JUST HAVING THAT FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO OPERATE FROM.JUST AGAIN, GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS IN THE HANDOUT.
WE CREATED THIS DIAGRAM ON PAGE 20-21, SHOWS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER AND ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND HOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER.
I ALWAYS THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A VISUAL THAT WAY IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER.
AGAIN, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S LIKE, OH, WELL, WE HAVE TO ADOPT EITHER ONE IF YOU'RE GOING TO EVER ADOPT ANY RULES OF ORDER THAT, WELL, WE HAVE TO ADOPT THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY ALL THE WAY FULL.
YOU COULD SAY, WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER FOR MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
BUT HEY, WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT ROSENBERG'S RULES FOR MOTIONS TO AMEND, THAT TYPE OF THING.
BUT WHAT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO IS YOU WANT TO CODIFY THEM SOMEWHERE, WHERE WE CAN REFER BACK TO, LIKE, IN THIS SITUATION, THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
THIS WAS JUST A CHART THAT WE CREATED ON 21, 22, AND 23.
ON PAGE 24, ARE THE ACTUAL ROSENBERG'S RULES.
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PUT OUT THIS MANUAL, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY EASY TO READ.
REALLY REFERENCES A LOT OF CALIFORNIA LAW.
LOT OF EXAMPLES ARE DEALING WITH FIVE MEMBER BOARDS.
IT JUST HAS SOME REALLY GOOD AND PRACTICAL OUTLINES AS TO, IF YOU ADOPT THESE RULES, IT'S VERY, I WOULD SAY USER FRIENDLY, LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
>> I ALSO DO THINK LOOKING AT, IT HAS AN EXPLANATION ON MOTIONS FOR TO RECONSIDER ON PAGE 21, HIS OUTLINE, HIS RATIONALE, HIS VIEWS OF IT, I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS GOOD.
I THINK YOU GET A LOT OF THAT FROM BOTH ROBERT'S RULES AND ROSENBERG'S BECAUSE THE IDEA BEING THAT, HEY, WE'RE DEMONSTRATING TO THE PUBLIC HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE OUR ROLES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND WE WANT TO GIVE THAT SENSE TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE THIS, BECAUSE THEY'LL ACTUALLY REACT.
I WOULD SAY THAT OLD ADAGE, WHAT ISN'T TAUGHT IS CAUGHT.
PEOPLE LOOKING AT YOU, HOW THEY'RE SEEING YOU ACT WITH ONE ANOTHER, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ON THOSE RULES WHEN THEY COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK OR INTERACT WITH YOU.
IF YOU'RE YELLING AT EACH OTHER, THROWING THINGS AT EACH OTHER, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HOW THEY FEEL.
WELL, IF THEY CAN TREAT EACH OTHER LIKE THAT, THEN WHY CAN'T I AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC? THEN, AS I MENTIONED, PAGE 34, SAMPLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS COOL IN A WAY, LIKE, HEY, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO TO THE SOURCE AND ASK THEM, HEY, HOW DO YOU HANDLE A PARTICULAR SITUATION.
PAGE 35, I JUST THOUGHT I'D PULL A SAMPLE OF WHAT ONE SCHOOL BOARD DID WHEN THEY BASICALLY LOOKED AT ESTABLISHING THEIR RULES OF ORDER.
THEY BASICALLY SAID, IT'S BASED ON, AND IN MANY CASES DIRECTLY QUOTES ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER.
BUT THIS SCHOOL BOARD BASICALLY TOOK SOME PIECES FROM ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER THAT IT LIKED BETTER, AND THEY COMBINED THEM.
BUT A LOT OF IT WENT INTO THE IDEAS TO LIKE, THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, AND THEY HAD A DISCUSSION.
THEY PULLED THINGS FROM WHAT THEY LIKED AND WHAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION.
JUST SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, AS I MENTIONED, POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS, MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, NOTHING WRONG WITH HOW THE BOARD'S BEEN OPERATING FOR THESE MANY YEARS.
BUT HEY, IF THE BOARD DOES WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO AMEND ITS PROTOCOLS OR BY-LAWS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND A BY-LAW, IT REQUIRES TWO MEETINGS UNLESS THAT'S WAIVED.
GIVES FULL DETERMINATION THAT WAY, AND DISCUSSION.
[01:25:06]
I KNOW THIS PROBABLY CHANGED ALL OF YOUR LIVES, THIS PRESENTATION.IF ANYBODY WANTS TO START SLOW CLAPPING NOW, THAT'D BE WELL [APPLAUSE].
THANK YOU. HERE'S SOME TISSUE, IF ANYBODY WANTS IT [LAUGHTER].
>> I DON'T KNOW. YOU DIDN'T PUT UP THE QUESTION SLIDE YET, SO I FEEL [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, PLEASE DO [OVERLAPPING].
>> POINT OF ORDER [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWERPOINT THE HANDLE?
>> YOU WANT THE ELECTRONIC ONE. YEAH, NO, DEFINITELY.
>> TO ME, MAYBE A QUESTION COMMENT.
IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINED SET OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, THE BOARD PRESIDENT IS RULING ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, SO ALWAYS FELT LIKE THERE WAS A GAP THERE.
>> I THINK WE HANDLED IT VERY MATURELY.
>> AS A BOARD BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS HODGEPODGE OF IT'S UP TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT, RIGHT? BUT I'VE ALWAYS KIND OF FELT THAT WAS AWKWARD WITHOUT ANY DEFINED RULES, WHAT ARE WE RULING ON.
NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING, BUT I ALSO THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EMPOWERING THE BOARD MEMBERS WHEN WE'RE RUNNING A MEETING TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO MOVE BACK AND FORTH TO THE MEETING.
FOR ME, THIS IS JUST A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF BOARD MEMBER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
THOUGH I DID HAVE A QUESTION, OR DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEBATE.
SO IN SOME PARLIAMENT, OR PARLIAMENTARY SETTINGS, THE BOARD PRESIDENT CAN, LIKE, OKAY WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON OR WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION.
HERE IN NATOMAS, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
WE'VE NEVER HAD A SITUATION WHERE A BOARD MEMBER WOULD SPEAK AD NAUSEAM FOR 30 MINUTES, BUT THERE'S NOTHING LIMITING THAT EITHER.
SO I GUESS IN THIS SITUATION, IS THAT THE BOARD PRESIDENT CALLING THE QUESTION OR IS IT A IS IT ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER CALLING THE QUESTION OR IS THE BOARD MEMBER SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR A MOTION HERE, WE'RE GOING TO CUT SOMEONE OFF? WE'D LIKE TO SAY WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT, BUT THOSE ARE VERY OPEN QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH. NO, I WOULD SAY TWO POINTS THAT COME UP, IS THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, I THINK THE TERM'S THE HODGEPODGE.
LET'S SAY, HEY, YOU GET A NEW MEMBER TO THE BOARD, AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, WHY ARE YOU LIMITING WHAT I CAN SAY AND HOW LONG I CAN SAY IT? JUST BECAUSE THIS AGENDA ITEM IS APPOINTING AUTHORIZATION FOR A FUNDRAISER, WELL, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FUNDRAISERS IN GENERAL.
WHO ARE YOU TO LIMIT MY ABILITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOME REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAS TO BE GERMANE TO THE SUBJECT? I THINK ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, ROSENBERG RULES OF ORDER, HELP CODIFY THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
THEN I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER, YOU LOOK AT TO DEBATE OR NOT DEBATE.
BASICALLY LINES UP, HEY, THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO BASICALLY SET UP AND REGULATE OUR DEBATES.
SO BASIC RULE OF MOTIONS IS THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
ACCORDINGLY, BASIC MOTIONS AND MOTIONS TO SUBSTITUTE ARE ELIGIBLE, EACH RUN THERE, AND THE DEBATE CAN CONTINUE AS LONG AS MEMBERS OF THE BODY WISH TO DISCUSS THE ITEMS SUBJECT TO THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR, THAT IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON AND MAKE A DECISION.
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, AS THE BOARD PRESIDENT, WHOEVER SITTING IN THAT CHAIR, AND HAS THE GAVEL, HEY, LOOK, YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK WE'RE DONE.
HEY, I'M CALLING THE QUESTION.
LET'S VOTE. THAT GIVES THE BOARD PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
NOW, NOT SAYING THAT HEY, YOU COULDN'T ALSO IMPLEMENT A RULE THAT BASICALLY SAYS, LOOK, THAT DECISION OF THE BOARD PRESIDENT CAN BE OVERRULED OR THERE COULD BE A MOTION TO EXTEND DEBATE BY A CERTAIN NUMBER, EITHER BE A MAJORITY OR A SUPERMAJORITY.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION THAT'S BEING CONTENTIOUS, IT'S VERY LONG.
I ALWAYS TRY TO REMIND BOARD MEMBERS AS TO, RIGHT NOW, THINGS MAY BE GOING WELL AMONGST THE BOARD.
BUT HEY, IF THERE'S A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE THAT COMES UP, THAT'S VERY CONTROVERSIAL, THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT, OR YOU COULD GET A NEW MEMBER.
THAT NEW MEMBER, WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A FIVE-PERSON BOARD, ONE NEW MEMBER, THAT'S HUGE.
THAT'S A GAME CHANGER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO JUST THE VERY PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUR MEETINGS.
[01:30:02]
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES THAT I'VE WORKED WITH BOARDS WHERE THEY'LL BE A NEW MEMBER, LOOKING AT HOW THE BOARD HAS OPERATED IN THE PAST.REALLY NOT TRUSTING THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT WASN'T CODIFIED ANYWHERE.
THINKING LIKE, WELL, YOU'RE JUST MAKING THIS STUFF UP NOW.
YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SILENCE MY PERSPECTIVE.
YOU REALLY WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THINGS LIKE ROBERT'S RULES OR ROSENBERG'S RULES, OR ANY VARIATION OF IT, ACTUALLY COMES INTO PLAY AND IS HELPFUL.
>> JUST ONE COMMENT, AND AGAIN, I'M SORRY, IF THIS IS CRAZY BOREDOM FOR OUR TRUSTEES HERE.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ROOTED IN, FOR ME, A REAL LIFE SCENARIO PRACTICE THAT WE HAD HERE, BECAUSE OUR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES ARE WRITTEN THROUGHOUT OUR BY LAWS' REGISTRATIONS.
BUT THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR ONE, CONSENT, WHERE THE BOARD BY LAW SAID, WELL, ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL AN ITEM AND TAKE IT OFF CONSENT FOR DISCUSSION.
THEN FOR LIKE TWO, THREE YEARS THEY'RE LIKE, HEY, WHY ARE WE REQUIRING A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM CONSENT? PERSON WHO'S IN THE MINORITY WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY BEG TO GET AN ITEM REMOVED IF THE MAJORITY DIDN'T.
I REMEMBER, TALKING TO OUR [INAUDIBLE] LIKE, HEY, THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.
I DON'T TRUST THE BOARD PRESIDENT, RESPECTFULLY, MAKING A RULING ON THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A RULE, BUT WE DO.
I'M THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT I DON'T THINK TRUST US WORKS AS GOOD GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE.
YOU'VE GIVEN SOME EXAMPLES HERE ON PAGE 35 OF SOME RULES OF ORDER.
I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO TRUST A BOARD PRESIDENT TO BE A PARLIAMENTARIAN, WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT LAYS OUT WHAT WE DO ALREADY, EVEN IF IT'S JUST LIKE, HEY, WE'RE GETTING ALONG THIS FINE AND THIS WORKS.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SOMEWHERE BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE SENDING A BOARD PRESIDENT TO REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE BOARD IN SOME FUNCTION OR TRUSTING THAT PERSON TO RULE AND GOVERN AND BE OBJECTIVE, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING TO POINT TO.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M TRYING TO SHAKE UP THE APPLE CART, BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING SOMETHING THAT'S A REAL CLEAN, SIMPLE COMPENDIUM OF THE BOTH.
BECAUSE I'VE SEEN TRUSTEE DOSICK SAY, HEY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THAT'S ROSENBERG.
I'VE CALLED FOR SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS, AND SOME MEETINGS THEY'VE BEEN IGNORED, LIKE, WELL, WE DON'T DO THAT.
IT'S LIKE, ACCORDING TO WHO? SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED, I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD IS, BUT THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.
NOT TO BE USED AS A CUDGEL OR SOMETHING TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY OR TRANSPARENCY, JUST A BASIC SET OF CLEAN RULES WHERE WE'RE LIKE, HEY, THE BOARD PRESIDENT RULED ON THIS PROCEDURE BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN OUT OR IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IN A BOARD POLICY OR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION.
>> AGAIN, I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY WHERE YOU SAY, HEY, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED AS A CUDGEL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE REALLY WHAT YOU WANT ARE JUST RULES THAT EVERYBODY AGREES TO FOLLOW, THAT ARE PRACTICAL AND THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, CAN'T BE ABUSED. YEAH.
>> I JUST THINK IT'S NICE THAT WE'RE SETTING THIS UP FOR THE FUTURE.
IT'S NICE TO HAVE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE AND THAT PEOPLE HAVE SOMETHING TO GO ON.
I THINK EVERYBODY SITTING HERE, EXCEPT FOR SOME YOU WHO'VE COME IN AT A GOOD TIME, BUT THE REST OF US HAVE ALL GONE THROUGH THIS IN SOME SHAPE FORM OR FASHION AND BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER, SO I LIKE HAVING IT IN BLACK AND WHITE.
>> THAT'S MY TWO CENTS, SO YEAH.
>> I RECOMMEND THAT THE PRESIDENT APPOINT A COMMITTEE WITH HIMSELF AND ONE OTHER MEMBER TO WORK WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH THE DRAFT.
>> I CAN. I'M INSIDE THE GATES.
>> CAN YOU GIVE DIRECTION [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE]. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BEFORE WE GIVE ANY DIRECTION.
A COMMITTEE IS A PUBLIC MEETING, SO I THINK YOU'RE MAYBE REFERENCING IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK LIKE WE'RE A TEAM.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE GAVE ANY DIRECTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DIRECTION. YES. [INAUDIBLE] TAKE ANY ACTION.
>> YEAH, LIKE WE DID WHEN WE REVISED THE, WHO'S IT WHAT'S IT?
>> THE WHO'S IT WHAT'S IT, YEAH.
>> YEAH. I DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE THIS CONVERSATION.
WE COULD DO A VETERAN TRUSTEE AND A NEWER TRUSTEE, IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD SO CHOOSES TO DO.
I'M ALWAYS STUCK IN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, SO I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
IF THERE'S ANOTHER TRUSTEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ME OR VOLUNTEER?
[01:35:04]
>> IF THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE, SUMITI HAS VOLUNTEERED.
I'M HAPPY TO HELP FOSTER THESE EFFORTS, AND SO WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A WORKING GROUP OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT, AND THEN MAYBE ADOPT SOMETHING AT SOME POINT AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
>> I HAVE THE SECOND PART OF MY PRESENTATION READY.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS ACTUALLY EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK MOST OF US, WE REALIZE THAT THOSE ARE ROSENBERG'S RULES, ALTHOUGH IRONICALLY, THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT WE DO MOSTLY.
>> WELL, I THINK A LOT OF YOU PROBABLY GO TO CSBA TRAININGS AND TALK TO YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS AND, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ADOPTED OVER, AND IT WORKS.
[XIII.c. Board of Trustees Professional Development and Conference Opportunities]
>> ONE MORE ITEM HERE, ACTION ITEM C, BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONFERENCE OPPORTUNITIES.
THERE IS NO ACTION, BUT I THINK MAYBE SUPERINTENDENT DR CASTILLO HAS A PRESENTATION OR MAYBE SOMETHING TO SHARE WITH US.
>> YES. DO WE HAVE IT? YOU HAVE PAPER COPIES? YOU HAVE PAPER COPIES, AND I SHARED THIS WITH EACH OF YOU AT STANDING MEETINGS OF A PROPOSAL FOR SELF DEVELOPMENT FOR TRUSTEES.
WE KNOW IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP AND GROW IN THE ROLE.
A PROPOSAL HERE IS THAT ANNUALLY WE ALLOCATE FOR ALL TRUSTEES TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE CSBA.
THIS YEAR IS GOING TO BE IN SACRAMENTO, SO IT'LL ACTUALLY BE OUR LOCAL.
THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYBODY TO ATTEND AND BE CLOSE TO HOME.
BUT ALSO WITHIN THE YEAR BEING ABLE TO ATTEND ONE OTHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.
THAT WAY WE CAN BE PRUDENT WITH OUR FUNDS, BUT STILL GIVING ALL TRUSTEES AN OPPORTUNITY TO EACH YEAR, ATTEND TWO THINGS, ONE BEING CSBA, AND ONE OTHER OF CHOICE.
ON THE LIST HERE ARE JUST THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO, AND WE CAN ALWAYS ADD TO THIS LIST.
IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE EXHAUSTIVE, BUT JUST THAT YOU COULD CHOOSE CSBA AND ONE OTHER.
>> NOT OBLIGATORY [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORRECT. I LIKE IT. I LIKE IT TOO.
>> THAT'S ALL THE BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD.
I CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:34. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.