hollasa Posted December 15, 2016 at 02:58 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 02:58 PM My local school board voted to add two new policies the other night. They have a policy on how to add policy, that states that there must be a 60-day public consultation period. They have the option to approve a policy in principle before the 60 day period, but there must be 60 days. However, the motion they handed out at the meeting stated "That Policy X Policy and Policy Development and its attendant Regulations be waived and that Policy Y Role of the Board and its related Appendices be approved". I will note the policies were distributed the Friday before, as usual, and the public was expecting to make comment on them during the review process. They also typically distribute the motions with the agenda package, rather than after any comments can be made. I've never seen them do anything like that before - certainly, they've always been very adamant in the past that policy is policy, and they can't go against policy. One of the board's main jobs is policy, and they have quite a number of policies around (and five bylaws). Their bylaws do state that in all meetings, procedures shall be guided by RONR, except where provisions of the bylaws or the School Act may conflict. All trustees were present, their first policy passed by a 4/3 vote, and the second passed unanimously. I am unfamiliar with a process for waiving policy in RONR. Presumably, they meant something like Suspend the Rules - but would that even apply to policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:23 PM In RONR, rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension (see RONR 11th ed., pp. 263-264). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:30 PM Mr. Huynh - I think he said there were no absentees. 31 minutes ago, hollasa said: All trustees were present, their first policy passed by a 4/3 vote, and the second passed unanimously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:44 PM Who is this rule meant to protect? Could it be the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:54 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 03:54 PM 9 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: Who is this rule meant to protect? Could it be the public? I don't know, but it's likely a rule in statute, so the original poster should probably take it up with the board's solicitor to get the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Original poster Posted December 15, 2016 at 05:58 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 05:58 PM The policy they waived is their own policy - it's required in law that they have policies, but those are set locally. Can they waive their policy on how to add or change policies, in order to add another policy? Or another way, if they have a policy to do X, what methods under RONR exist to do Y, that conflicts with X? Does announcing in the motion that they're waiving X suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 15, 2016 at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 06:21 PM Is there applicable law on giving notice to the public? An attorney should be consulted regarding any such law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted December 16, 2016 at 03:02 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 at 03:02 AM The board is free to suspend its own rules and adopt policies prior to their own pre-determined waiting period. *** The act of creating a 60 day "consultation" (?) period is not a rule regarding "previous notice". So any argument about protecting absentees won't hold, because (a.) the general public has no rights to attend the board meeting, being non-members, and (b.) the general public (i.e., non-members) has no right of previous notice as parliamentary law applies. The board may grant it, and the board may take it away. The board need not respect any consultation period of its own creating. *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 16, 2016 at 04:10 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 at 04:10 AM 1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said: The board is free to suspend its own rules and adopt policies prior to their own pre-determined waiting period. *** The act of creating a 60 day "consultation" (?) period is not a rule regarding "previous notice". So any argument about protecting absentees won't hold, because (a.) the general public has no rights to attend the board meeting, being non-members, and (b.) the general public (i.e., non-members) has no right of previous notice as parliamentary law applies. The board may grant it, and the board may take it away. The board need not respect any consultation period of its own creating. *** That might apply unless this school board is a public body subject to the state's open meetings laws . Those laws generally protect the public and limit what can be done without prior notice to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts