In the midst of the country's divided political climate, and in the wake of their own contentious year, members of the Douglas County School Board spent Thursday night trying to get on the same page, literally.
The seven trustees reviewed and revised their bylaws, protocols and code of conduct.
Consultant Jim Huge mediated the special meeting and began with a simple premise. Although differences in opinion exist, as in last year's debate over former superintendent Carol Lark, board members must still assume the "positive intent" of their fellow trustees.
"Everybody at this table has positive intentions and a deep-caring love for the kids of Douglas County," Huge said. "The question is how can we put that to maximum use?"
Huge said when shopping for a permanent superintendent, one of the first things a candidate will ask about is how the school board functions.
"I can tell them that there are seven people here that care deeply about the Douglas County School District," he said.
But he also said that any candidate can Google news events from the last year and discover apparent conflict.
"We need to put trust back in the way the organization functions," Huge said. "From this point forward, a point of demarcation, we're going to trust each other and respect each other. We're going to expect it from one another and have a plan in place if things aren't working."
Looking at the first tenet of their code of conduct, which states "only the board as a whole has authority," trustees discussed the nature of dissension and agreed the board must always move forward together as one unit.
Huge gave the example of a split 4-3 vote, which occurred during Lark's evaluation. He said although individual members may vote against a given measure, they should not block that measure's implementation if the majority of the board supported it.
Trustee Karen Chessell questioned whether such solidarity exists.
"I don't believe that's occurred with this board," she said, "and it's a concern."
Trustee Cindy Trigg recommended inserting the word "obligation" into the bylaw. She said an individual member has an obligation to support the board's collective will.
Board President Teri Jamin suggested the rule apply in both a member's public and private capacity.
"I like the idea of saying you're obligated to support the board both publicly and privately," said Chessell.
In the end, trustees agreed that although each retains the right to raise objections, no board member should block the implementation of an approved policy.
Moving to the role of the board president, trustee Sharla Hales said the president has a responsibility to speak for the board as whole and not themselves.
Trigg said that when she was president last year, she tried to indicate to the press when she was speaking as president and when she was speaking as an individual.
"Even if it says right there that it's a personal opinion, people still read it as the other, and it become controversial," she said.
Trigg concurred with other board members that the president should refrain from expressing personal opinions except when they strongly believe in doing so.
"There's always that danger," Huge said.
Board members agreed that the peer-elected president is the "primary spokesperson," and that all inquiries from the press or from parents must be referred to the president.
"We're trying to give a consistent message," said Jamin. "Nine out of 10 times, it should go to the board president."
"The spirit of a true team," added Interim Superintendent John Soderman, "is that if the board makes a decision, then all must be on the same page."
"The president is the spokesperson, period," said Board Clerk Keith Roman.
Part of their discussion also focused on the relationship between the board and district staff.
"I feel we're under pressure to make a decision, and I don't remember too many times when we could say, 'Let's table this,'" said Roman.
Soderman urged trustees to always tell him when more time is needed for a decision; but at the same time, he said, staff must be directed to the issues that are unclear, so they can be clarified and brought back as soon as possible.
Board members concurred that chain of command is important. If one member receives a complaint from a parent, he or she should forward the message to the appropriate administrator rather than trying to solve the problem themselves.
However, complaints about the superintendent are a bit trickier to handle.
"We'll never be able to define a procedure that works for each case," said Board Vice President Tom Moore. "You have to use professional judgment."
Because of the Open Meeting Law, trustees walk a fine line between informing each other of a situation and addressing the matter in private.
The issue must be referred to the president, they agreed. If it involves a moral or legal question, the president can contact their attorney, who in turn can consult board members in a closed, confidential session.
However, if the issue revolves around performance and can't be solved between the individuals, trustees have little choice but to address the matter in public, and, understandably, they want to guard against frivolous gossip.
"There has to be some sorting process," Soderman said.
"If it can't be solved in that small group, then it has to go to open session," Trigg said.
Board members acknowledged the negativity of the preceding year. Although they agreed that negative points of view and dissent are necessary in a deliberative democracy, they also said that views should be presented in a respectful manner, both verbally and nonverbally, and that personal attacks should be avoided.
"From my perspective, you don't bad mouth people in public," said Chessell.
Furthermore, trustees must be careful in their private lives not to reflect poorly on the institution they were elected to govern.
"We're the face of the school district," Soderman said. "We're the face of thousands of people."
Above all, Huge added, board members and staff must value "civil discourse."
