Two school board members are questioning the necessity of a new proposed school board bylaw (BB 9323.3) banning the use of electronic devices by its trustees.
The bylaw was introduced by Morgan Hill Unified School district staff at the Dec. 10 Board of Education meeting.
Trustees Rick Badillo and Amy Porter Jensen said they were “caught off guard” by the agenda item – which included a first draft of the new policy followed by a brief discussion among Board members and district staff. Badillo said the electronic device ban policy “came out of left field” and is a “waste of energy and a waste of resources.”
“Perhaps the district can explain to me how this Board policy supports student achievement,” said Badillo, who was not completely sure whether the policy specifically targeted him since he twice cast the lone opposing vote to the Board’s denial of two charter school petitions. “I’m not going to support it. I’m going to vote, ‘No.’”
Porter-Jensen called the new bylaw “ridiculous” since she’s “never seen anything alarming regarding the use of cell phones” during school board meetings.
“I’ve seen people check their cell phones, (district) staff included,” Porter-Jensen commented. “I don’t think it is warranted.”
However, Board President Don Moody disagrees, and, at the urging of “several Board members,” wants a policy in place so that trustees are not distracted in any way when members of the public are speaking to them or agenda items are being openly discussed.
“This is a way to keep people focused…we want their full, undivided attention,” said Moody, who claimed the policy “wasn’t specific to anybody,” but rather he, along with district staff, have been “going through our Board policies and making them more relevant.”
Board Vice President Shelle Thomas, responding via email, said she had “no comment” and “if there is a discussion it would happen at the next board meeting.”
The next scheduled school board meeting is Jan. 14 inside the district office at 15600 Concord Circle, with closed session at 5 p.m. and the public session at 6 p.m.
The first draft reads: “Board members will not communicate electronically during meetings with members of the public, other board members, or school district staff regarding official school board business, agenda items, or other board matters that are properly discussed publicly during board meetings.”
During the Dec. 10 school board meeting, Porter Jensen asked why the bylaw was being introduced and if any trustees were being accused of doing such things. That’s when Moody, without singling out any trustees, said, in fact, that it was happening.
“There’s board members that have done it,” Moody said. “There’s board members that have texted people in the audience (and) had conversations back and forth. I don’t feel it’s appropriate. It’s a violation of the Brown Act.”
The Brown Act, passed in 1953 that covers all local agencies, legislative bodies, standing committees and governing bodies of nonprofit corporations formed by a public agency, outlines that public bodies must be “open and public;” actions may not be secret; and action taken in violation of open meeting laws could potentially be voided.
Jim Ewert, General Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the use of cell phones by members of a board or governing body is “not an uncommon practice.” However, he added that texting with a community member is not a violation of the Brown Act.
“In order to become a violation, those communications have to be exchanged through a majority of the members,” Ewert explained. “It calls into question the credibility of the board member who is mouthing the question for the constituent. That’s probably the biggest reason it is ill-advised.”
Speaking on MHUSD’s proposed policy, Ewert said the wording should exclude “electronic” and include all communications between board members, including private side conversations and the passing of notes, during meetings.
Manager Bode Owoyele of Policy Services for the California School Boards Association, said he was “not aware of any other districts (instituting) a policy forbidding the use of iPhones or anything like that.”
Owoyele, who helps draft and provide template policies to all districts throughout the state that subscribe to CSBA services, concluded that the use of cell phones by trustees could be considered “rude” and “might be inappropriate” but were not a violation of any law.
Moody said MHUSD’s first draft was indeed taken from similar policies instituted at other neighboring districts, although he did not recall which ones.
“We want a policy in place, (like) most school districts now, that we don’t want Board members using electronic devices…communicating with other people, unless it’s a family emergency,” Moody explained.
The policy does allow for Board members to use “computers or similar devices during a meeting, provided such use is limited to the purpose of the meeting.” Additionally, the proposal recognizes that Board members may “occasionally” need to communicate with family members.
“While we cannot prevent citizen electronic communication, we should make clear that receiving electronic communications from the public during the meeting presents special concerns,” the policy draft reads. “Also, when the board deliberates, it should be the elected officials who deliberate, not the elected official simply reading the comments of an unknown electronic message commenter.”
