After six months of reviewing the governing policies of the Prior Lake-Savage Area School Board, discussion during its most recent study session was at times contentious, went on for three hours, and will be continued at the next regular board meeting scheduled for July 14.

Policy discussion centered on actions that could result if a board member violated a policy, meeting minutes, mandates for open and closed meetings, public participation in board meetings and public hearings, all of which will have a second and final reading at that meeting. A discussion on its code of ethics policy started, but was deferred to July 14, along with policies related to board member development and its use of electronic communications.

Discussion also included the distribution of information on school district property by non-school persons and employees. Board member Charles Johnson explained that the policy committee had worked on this policy for several months, had been brought up for legal review several times, and had included input from Superintendent Michael Thomas.

The proposed changes to that policy covered the approval of materials, documents, or resources that are posted or presented in schools. Differing viewpoints were expressed by the board members.

After some discussion about the proposed changes, Olstad said she had “zero interest in being the sign police,” questioned why this policy had been brought up for review since it was voted on last year and the board policies are on a three-year review cycle. There was no immediate answer provided as to who had initiated the review.

Johnson stated that it would be disrespectful to the policy committee to not move forward with the review due to the number of hours and expense put into the updates. Board member Mary Franz disagreed, noting that if the policy review was not approved by the board, it shouldn’t have been brought up in the first place.

“I’m concerned about the break in protocol, the violation of procedure, and of many, many other things that the board as a quorum never gave direction to do,” Franz said.

Board Chair Dan White agreed that the policy review related to distribution of information and signage on school property should not go forward until he has the chance to do some research to find out the origin of the request for review. Once he’s done his research, White will decide if the proposed policy should be added to the July 14 meeting agenda.

Discussion moved to policies that relate to board actions and operational procedures, including proposed Policy 203.7 addressing consequences if a board member violates a policy. Johnson shared that multiple board members had suggested that the policy be discontinued. Board member Amy Bullyan also noted that since there is no equivalent policy followed by the Minnesota School Boards Association, she asked its General Counsel, Terry Morrow, for guidance. He stated that it is up to each district’s board to decide whether to enforce such a policy.

Franz stated that MSBA will not tell a board how to govern itself, but not having a violation policy could cause significant issues.

“I can tell you from history, if you don’t have something you’ll regret it,” Franz said.

“I’ve seen how this policy has been used and it’s a disgrace,” Atkinson said, adding that she believes it’s illegal to censure a board member and no other school district in the state had a similar policy.

“I have no desire to babysit anyone on this board,” board member Jessica Mason said, adding that she believes the board should be able to have adult conversations when issues arise.

White said that while he’d like the board members to work through their issues themselves, he believes they need a policy. Olstad said that not having a policy that keeps board members accountable is “disrespectful to the people who voted us in these chairs to not hold ourselves accountable.”

Bullyan said she didn’t believe the board has been following policy guidance since they have not been diligent about talking out their issues privately. Franz responded that just because a rule isn’t consistently enforced, it shouldn’t be thrown out.

The board will vote July 14 on whether the policy addressing board member violation of policies should be kept or terminated.

A third policy brought up for review was No. 209, which addressed board code of ethics. Johnson and Bullyan, who’d been tasked with updating the board policies, used the MSBA ethics policy as a guide in the new draft. Johnson said the proposed policy is “MSBA’s through and through.”

Franz had several questions about the proposed policy, specifically why the board’s original ethics policy was discarded and replaced with the MSBA version. “We developed ours [ethics policy] before the MSBA even had one,” she said. Bullyan said she wasn’t sure how to combine both versions, and asked “how do we marry the two?”

Atkinson said that she prefers the proposed policy. She also pointed out that every board member’s feedback should be considered. “This is not one board member’s policy,” she said “This is seven board members’ policy.”

Olstad expressed frustration that the board had spent extensive time discussing the ethics policy when some members supported sunsetting the board’s existing policy.

“Why bother when we don’t even have a policy any more to dictate if somebody violates a policy?” she asked. “What is the point of all of this? …We have spent more time again talking about policies that govern ourselves than actual board work, which is why we are here.”

Discussion ensued until 11 p.m. Due to the late hour, White suggested that the review of the Code of Ethics policy, as well as those pertaining to board member development and board use of electronic communications, be added to the agenda for the July 14 meeting. He also asked that the board members add specific, red-lined notes to the proposed policies prior to the meeting. The board will then discuss and vote on all three policies.

Before closing the board study session, White proposed scheduling a board retreat later this summer. Its purpose would be to discuss how the board plans to interact with the new executive team and each other in the future.

“Due to the fact that we have the unprecedented position of having the entire executive team being replaced at the same time, I believe a retreat would be in order, he said, and board members concurred.