Joey Gilbert charges Douglas Schools $35K in August alone; ‘Concerning’ policy changes proposed to limit public involvement

Following a contentious July meeting, Reno-based attorney Joey Gilbert was hired by the Douglas County School Board against an overwhelming “no” from the public and other board members.

One of the reasons the public and other board members did not agree with the hiring was the steep increase in retainer costs and hourly costs required by Gilbert. Those fears were not in vain, as Gilbert has charged the school district $35,000 during his first month alone.

According to the agenda, the $7,500 retainer does not cover extra expenses incurred by the district including phone calls to Gilbert by board members, as well as responding to numerous public records requests mounting up since the new school board was elected in November.

The cost breakdown is as follows:

• Negotiations - $3,055

• General Administration - Retainer $5,720
• 
Inclusive Education - (Due Process and regular sped issues) $877.50

• General Administration - Department of the Superintendent Outside of Retainer $10,088.75
• 
General Administration - Retainer $1,235

• Public Records Requests - $990
• 
Public Records Requests - $1,365
• 
Public Records Requests - $520

• General Administration - Department of the Superintendent Outside of Retainer - $4,430.50

• General Administration - Retainer $7,500

The total annual budget for the legal fees for the District is $160,000. If this month's check run is an example of what's to come in the fiscal year, there would be almost $430,000 in legal fees.

Other agenda items include ‘concerning’ push to limit public involvement

Many members of the public have spoken out on social media regarding several "concerning" proposed policy changes to be discussed at today’s meeting.

The Board is also seeking to suspend policies put in place by the former board between April 2021 and December 2022.

These policy changes include:

• Removing the requirement that board members do not disclose private or confidential information that relates to district employees or students
• Removing a requirement that board members must “resist every temptation and outside pressure to use their position as a school board member to benefit either themselves or any other individual agency apart from the total interest of the school jurisdiction”
• Removing the phrase that board members are expected to receive complaints and should assure community members their complain is acknowledged and understood
• Allowing board members to place items on the agenda without the approval of the superintendent and without a majority in agreement
• Removing the ability to postpone voting on an agenda item if more information is required
• Removing the phrase that trustees must commit to “working with fellow board members in a spirit of harmony and cooperation in spite of differences of opinion.”
• Removing the phrase that if a board member has a dispute they should try to resolve it
• Removing the phrase that board members will be prepared and open minded when speaking to issues on the agenda and should seek to understand all sides of a topic
• Removing a policy that requires full board approval for board member information requests by district staff that would require staff to create reports, projects or compile information that would require more than a half hour of staff time
• Removing the requirement that board members should support employees in the proper performance of their duties with respect and consideration due skilled professionals and strive for a positive working relationship with the superintendent
• Removing the requirement that board members should be informed on education issues that regularly come before the board
• Instilling a requirement that board members must support eh decision of the board majority both publicly and privately and removes the ability of a member to “retain the right to seek changes in decisions through ethical and constructive channels.”
• How to handle board elections which was updated for the first time since 2014 in 2021
• Removing state law imposed requirements to hold a professional development workshop every other year for the board
• Removing the requirement that members are obligated to abide by the majority decisions of the board
• and many others.

Limiting Superintendent and Public Involvement

Several bylaws seem to be aimed at limiting the superintendent’s power and the public’s involvement in meetings, including disallowing the superintendent to bring forth agenda items suggested by the public, requiring all communications between the district and parents, students, and members of the community be approved by the board, limiting when public comment can occur, limiting how long public commenters may speak, and requiring payment for public records requests.

Superintendent policies including policy amendments removing any suggestion that trustees should strive for a positive and respectful working relationship with the superintendent; removing the phrase “the Superintendent/Designee will authorize the inspection and copying of records in accordance will all applicable laws, this Policy, and application Regulations in reference to public record requests, and a bylaw that all administrative regulations developed by the superintendent must first go through the board and legal council.

Draft Policy 901 has garnered the most attention from the community, which is amended to state that “All communications from the district to the students, their parents and/or guardians, the press, and members of the community shall be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to being distributed.

This does not provide any additional explanations or exemptions, which some have interpreted to mean that teachers or school administrators will need to have any communication approved by the board before speaking to parents. It also does not provide for when or how communications are to be approved by the board.

Under Bylaw 060, the responsibility of developing agendas is taken away from the superintendent and given instead to the Board President, Vice President and Clerk, and allows board members to place items on the agenda without the approval of the superintendent and must be finalized by legal council.

In addition, current language allows an avenue for the public to have an item placed on the agenda if submitted to either the board of the superintendent. Under proposed revisions, however, publicly submitted agenda items can only be placed on an agenda if approved by the board majority.

Public comments are also relegated to the beginning and ends of meetings, and will no longer be heard before specific issues.

Public comment will be limited from three minutes to two minutes, though “the Board President has discretion to extend or further limit the time as deemed necessary.”

A language amendment also changes policy from requiring the agenda to include copies of all documents of an item, which is required by the state’s open meeting law, to simply including these documents “whenever possible.”

In Draft Policy 815, which pertains to public records requests, a fee is proposed at $0.50 per page if the amount of time to collect, review and redact takes more than two hours worth of work.

Draft Policy 338 pertains to whistleblowers within the district, and indicates that if any individual would like to report an employee or official for “improper governmental action” they can do so directly to the board’s legal council through a form provided by the board.

In Draft Bylaw 030, a draft addition to administrative regulations states that “All administrative
regulations developed by the Superintendent pursuant to their enacting Nevada statutes and regulations, and Board Bylaws and Policies, shall first be reviewed by legal counsel for compliance with the same, and shall be presented to the Board for final approval prior to their publication.

A second addition states that “All statements, letters, opinions, recommendations, and/or District communications prepared by the Superintendent or its Administration to be delivered to the public, the parents and/or guardians, or the student body, shall first be presented to the Board for approval, prior to disbursement,” which some community members have interpreted as an attempt to limit communications between schools and parents.

In current language of Bylaw 040, a board member’s “right to know” is limited by the Superintendent. Specifically, it states that no board trustee shall be denied facts or materials required for the performance of their duties, but if in the opinion of the Superintendent a Trustee’s requests for facts or information is administratively unreasonable, the Superintendent may postpone until a ruling is made but the board.

Under the draft proposal, the latter is removed, requiring the superintendent to provide any information the board member requests, regardless if it is an unreasonable request.

In Bylaw 050, which pertains to how elections shall be held, language requiring an election to be held to fill a board vacancy is removed and replaced with “the board shall … fill the vacancy for the unexpired term” without any additional information as to how the vacancy will be filled, and removes the state-mandated law that the oath of office shall be administered by the clerk, county clerk, or appropriate county official.

Also in Bylaw 050, power is given to the Board President to remove trustees from committees if they are deemed to have made personal comments regarding complaints to the board, providing information that would disparage the board or any of its members, or acting “outside the scope of their duties.”

The Board meeting will be held today, Sept. 12 at 4 p.m. and can be viewed via YouTube.

For the full agenda, please click here.