The Long Beach Unified School District held a special board meeting on Saturday, Dec. 7 to reassess their board governance.
The special meeting deviated from the regular Wednesday evening schedule and district office meeting space, which caused some alarm among parents and community members during public comment.
Specifically, community members were concerned about the agenda item on changes to the board bylaws. The language on the official board agenda listed it as “information/action,” implying that the bylaws would not only be discussed, but the board would vote on whether to approve these edits. Community members expressed their concern on board members voting on bylaws without creating enough opportunities for community feedback.
Board president Diana Craighead reassured the group that the board would not vote, adding that the special meeting was intended more as a professional retreat, including a team bonding exercise for board members.
Board member Juan Benitez asked the district’s general counsel Jeffery Riel to clarify why the agenda listed the item as “discussion/action.”
“We list those things as information/action because we don’t know where the board is going to go on any particular item, whether there will be action taken or not,” Riel said, adding that this denomination provided flexibility in case board members chose to vote on an item.
Why the Changes?
AJ Crabill is the district’s consultant, and he assists it with student outcomes-focused goals. He and his team from the Council of Great City Schools organized the meeting and said the bylaws item on the agenda was never intended to be a vote. He said that on the contrary, he held the philosophy that board members should always think during one meeting, sleep on it, and then take action.
In early November, board members received revised draft copies of the bylaws to read and analyze in preparation for Saturday’s meeting. This updated redlined version was created by Crabill and his team based on feedback from individual interviews with board members about what areas of the bylaws need strengthening.
The result was a 40-page document that adds, edits and deletes wording on around 18 policies of the original bylaw document. Some of these updates include:
- Limiting what board members can discuss with general district staff.
- Establishing communication guidelines between board members and community members.
- Ensuring board meeting agendas have a student outcomes-focused lens.
- Time limitations during board meetings.
- Communicating with the superintendent regarding performance concerns.
The Discussion Process
Crabill led board members through several rounds to discuss the board’s bylaws, each serving a different purpose.
The first round was meant to keep track of what proposed changes board members wanted to keep, delete or modify. It wasn’t intended to debate the merits or any of the specifics of any bylaw, just to assess where the general consensus was on particular items.
To use time effectively, Crabill recommended the board not spend time discussing any of the bylaws that were unanimously selected to keep or delete or those with a clear majority. Six of the bylaws received a consensus and the remaining policies had divisive votes.
For the following round in the discussion process, Crabill allowed each board member to suggest one edit they would like to make, although that led to some overlapping edits from different board members.
Board member Benitez expressed his frustration with the lack of discussion throughout this process. He mentioned that he had “done his homework” of going through the over 40-page document, meeting with the consulting team to clarify any questions and formulating his reasoning for edits.
“It took a lot of time to go through these and so the return on investment is just not there if it is ultimately a thumb up/thumbs down situation,” Benitez said. “When I hear things like, ‘I just don’t want to include that section’ then I’m like, ‘Why did I spend all this time coming up with a suggested modification?’”
Crabill mentioned that for a board to have such divided thoughts on so many of the bylaws after the initial round was unusual, and could be a reflection that he and his team need to reassess their suggested changes.
The board decided to meet with Crabill individually once more and have him and his team create another version of the updated bylaws that better incorporates everyone’s feedback. Superintendent Jill Baker also recommended a distinction between bylaws that were mandated by law and those that can be edited.
Crabill aims to meet with board members before the district goes on holiday break and provide an updated timeline and document at an upcoming board meeting.
The full redlined version of the bylaws can be found here.
