Those are two separate things. And from what I'm hearing from you is that you're not giving advice on operations. You're basically just, hey, I saw this. I heard this. There's a distinction or there's a distinct difference between, hey, I was out in community and I heard XYZ. Like, what's happening? Can we look into this? Right? That's a difference than between, you know, saying, I heard this, Jay, now you got to go and get your staff. or hey um Lissa I heard this and you need to go find and find out XYZ or go do this. Those are two different things. Um as to appear as the spokesperson if you are out in community nobody's taking your elected position away. you are an elected official of this community and I would hope that we are out in community and representing the values of the district but it's very different when you go and say you know on behalf of Kraton school district this is XYZ that is not an acceptable form because we that's different right your role as an elected official nobody can take that away from you and I still believe that you're in in your government government um official role and It's not breaching this.
This is more specifically like me emailing Vanessa and saying, you know, the band teacher needs $100,000 for XYZ um instrument. Why aren't you doing anything about it? That's operational advice to staff. If I go and tell Vanessa, hey, I've heard through the community there there's some issues on the instruments. I've already talked to the principal. Nothing's going on over there. Can we figure this out? That's a little bit different of you saying, "Hey, I've heard that this is a problem. How can we check up on this?" Does that make sense? >> Yeah. And however, I think maybe it's the way that it's worded. Shall not offer operational advice. It's like offering advice like we do that every day. >> Operational advice. You telling somebody how to change mechanisms and operations >> just um shall not direct operational activity. I don't know like Yeah, because it's almost sound like if you're offering advice like that's that's not a directive that's a suggestion and I think that's that's an opinion we're allowed to kind of give that and I don't think it should be so yeah I think just the way that's worded right there >> I've seen it worded where it's where board member shall not direct uh as opposed to the way it's worded there.
So if the board's okay with that we could adjust that to direct. >> Yeah. I mean uh that would well >> so then it would just be individual board members shall not direct staff actions >> act >> or act as a spokesperson and then just leave out offer operational advice. >> Yeah. I think so. >> There we go. So >> there we go. Individual board members shall not direct operational uh >> actions. >> Yeah. Action >> here. I'm here. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Maybe take out >> I'm waiting for my buddy over here to update the >> shall not direct operational staff or actions that or act as a spokesperson for the district unless authorized by the full board. >> Direct staff direct staff actions or act as that works. >> Sold. >> And then the spokesperson part. Yeah. As an individual, you could say what you got to say, but what this really is uh uh referring to is official uh uh communications from the district, >> right?
Yeah. So if like a person comes like what you know what how does the board or how does the district feel about >> fight that happened I'm not a spokesperson but >> more so the media you know >> yeah yeah media >> and there will be times where the um our communications will tell us yes absolutely you go do and you can do this there I'm not saying that that's never not happened but yeah for the majority part we don't want to be speaking on behalf of the whole district and the whole board >> okay >> it's also not uncommon for the board to take a vote for someone to be a spokesperson for something. But I think I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that the board is a body of five individuals that when they come to consensus or basically when they have a vote a majority vote of the board has decision-making authority including decision-m authority around being spokespeople.
But as individuals um that power doesn't exist. It only exists as a body. Perfect. >> I think we're good with this policy. >> Hilda, advice. Should we I know this is second read. Should the board take action as we complete each policy or on the body of them once we're done? >> Probably once we at the next board meeting. >> Yeah. Okay. I was going to say if we take action on these in the board meeting in case anybody else as we're reviewing them if anybody else some questions wonderings you can make a side note if you decide to go back and look at it and then we'll have one more opportunity before we adopt these at our next board meeting in March. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I think we're good on policy 11 102. >> Perfect. That was quick. If we man if we could go through all the policies like that we'll be done in 30 minutes.
Okay. All right. The next one with edits is policy 11 103 governing board organization. Uh what this policy does, this policy covers the board's organizational meeting officer roles and how the board organizes itself to do its work. Uh the SOFG align edits emphasize the board president as the lead governance officer responsible for maintaining focus on student outcomes. agenda setting that prioritizes goals, guardrails, and monitoring, and an organizational meeting structure that maintains continuity and alignment, including the ability to hold an annual organization meeting even in non-election years. So, so sg requires discipline, time, agendas, and roles have to support monitoring and accountability, not drift into operational management. And so, that that's what most of those edits do kind of high level, but they're right there in front of you if you guys want to see them. And just so we are clear on this, um this is why we did um vice president and president roles are every two years because it's going to be every election year.
So next January will go up for that and it will be a two-year rule. Whoever gets president and vice president um in 2027, just so we know. >> Okay. Yeah. I wanted to to ask that. I recall at the um last year's January meeting it came up that the vote was every two years and which >> and that's just by statute. Um there was a different policy that we used that they made it up themselves to take the point of every yearly. >> Okay. >> But >> yeah cuz I was wondering I was like what what was the mixup on that? So >> yeah but actual statute just says every election year. So it's every two years. >> So that that's the question for the board, right? Do you want the annual organization meeting language to remain as written, including non-election years, or do you want the limit or do you want to limit it to election years only?
>> Election years only. >> Correct. >> I just think there's more consistency when you have a vice president and a president, especially with student outcomes focused work. It's It's a lot. >> Yeah. And one year flies by. >> Yes, it does. >> Is that the way it's written right now? Okay. Then on the order, >> you got to delete the the second sentence, >> but we're going to we're going to just align it with statute January after a re-election. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we got to make sure it gets fixed. >> So, the second sentence probably just needs to be crossed out. The board may also conduct an annual organizational meeting during non-election years. >> Governing board will meet in January following each >> regular election to organize. >> Second sentence needs to be crossed out. this one. >> Yeah. >> Are you paying attention >> to do uh you you have to go to the pin on the top and put suggest right there instead of editing on the top right corner.
There's a little pin. Put suggest. And that's how you track changes on Google Docs. And I wonder if the board would like to capture there's the end of that sentence. It was added to ensure alignment with um >> Oh, if you want to put that at the end of the first sentence. >> Yeah. To ensure alignment of board leadership with its adopted student outcome goals because what I heard President Curio say is the reason we're doing it this way is to make sure we have this continuity for >> Yeah. >> for those goals. Yeah. >> So if we append that on there. Yeah. >> Oh, he's not on our Google Doc. I was like, "Why is this not showing up when he's doing?" And then I realized we're not on the same Google doc. >> Oh, that's why. Yeah. I was like, "I can't see it." >> Here, let me >> You're not on our Google Doc.
>> Whatever you said. >> Oh, it should update >> here. Let me share it with you. >> As you can see, nobody else is logged into this. >> Eden, what's your email? 808 Westgmail 808 West 808 West at Gmail. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just made you an editor and send it to you. Okay. You should have it in your drive now. >> Okay. >> There we go. I see you. >> Oh, look at that. >> Sorry. I'm such a band now. >> No, you're not. >> And then the the other question I have for the board is the board comfortable with the president superintendent collaboration model for agenda development with explicit prioritization of goals, guardrails, and monitoring. >> Yes, I don't know what that means. >> That's all under board president. >> It's basically what we've been doing now where the president sets the agenda with um the superintendent, but we really stick our agenda to focus on student outcome goals.
So, just scroll down to board presidency. You see where that's underlined, Nicole? >> Yeah. >> It's that section underneath there. >> Okay. >> Focus on student outcomes. >> Just really the structure of your agendas. >> Okay. >> Meaning that 15 years from now, a president couldn't just add nothing on student outcomes on the agenda. It's like a set standard. >> Okay. And it does align with statute as well because state statute has information on agenda setting as well. >> Got it. Uh question sorry popping back up to vice president. Um is vi may elect a vice president or should we shall elect like because that kind of shows that it's optional to have a vice president. >> Oh, I see. It might have been May because it used to not be a vice president position. It was like a clerk position. So, >> it might also just be May because it's not I don't know that it is required by required by that's >> Oh, okay.
>> I don't think we're prevented from putting shell. So, the question that she's asking, >> yeah, we can do shell. So, we always have to >> Yeah. You wouldn't have to. >> We can change that policy and put shell. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you for catching that. >> Everybody okay with this policy? >> Okay. The next policy that there are edits under this chapter is policy uh 105 board member conflicts of interest. And so what this policy does, this policy addresses board member conflicts, disclo disclosure obligations, abstension and certain employment restrictions. The diet version at the end is intended as a sofgline governance statement with operational procedures housed elsewhere. So there there is a key decision point in here that I I need direction from the board. The way it's written right now, uh you guys are adopting a bright line rule prohibiting purchases/contracts with a board member and with vendors where a board member has a substantial interest.
Uh that's not what statute requires. statute actually allows for limited purchase uh from board members. Uh but I wanted to get your direction here. Again, the way it's drafted right now, it's just a straight out restriction. Uh and so I just I I needed a discussion on this one. I'm going to make a comment on this because this has been an issue that um I have firsthand like knowledge with and I think that we need to keep it very clear that we just don't >> especially with with finances and the way things are going in Arizona and I just think it gets very convoluted um and it looks it has a bad look. >> I agree. Y >> and just so you guys understand I we this I think pertains more for like rural districts where they have no option. Sometimes you have the principal and the superintendent and your local print shop doing all everything at once.
So I understand why. But for places like us in our district, I I agree. I think we should not have it and just be very explicit that that will not be done in the district. Um, I know that for years we've kind of wanted to have and we've seen this play out on other boards and not necessarily our own, but just to kind of nip it in the bud proactively. I know that everything refers to a substantial interest and when you go to um sorry ARS 38-502 that has the definitions for substantial and remote interest. So um a substantial interest means any non-speculative pecuniary or proprietary interest either direct or indirect other than a remote interest. Um because that one just spells out proprietary and pecuniary. My concern has always been that um there are other interests you could have um that aren't proprietary or pecuniary that I still think that that we that I think most of us probably believe are a conflict of interest.
And so I'm not quite sure how to word it exactly, but um one of the examples would be for example often times on like the Phoenix Union board, people serve in the legislature and on the school board or they serve in the city council and on the school board and they will vote on and now now I guess let me go back to the remote interest. I didn't look at the they will vote and discuss things that have to do with um like this like this like a city department. So maybe they're not getting a pecunary a proprietary uh gain from it, but it still seems um icky that they're doing that and then voting on something like that, but there's nothing preventing them doing that. So that's just one example. There's other examples I could think of, but I'm tired right now. And so I would want to maybe if we can expand from substantial or remote interest to also include like >> perception.
>> Yeah. I I don't know how I know >> that I'm not going to make a policy based off of people's perception. That's not what we're here to do. >> Well, it's just like Well, I mean, it's just like as lawyers. >> Well, no, I was just saying to I was like it's just like, you know, like you don't want to do something that could um >> No, I understand what you're saying. appear to be uh you know inappropriate essentially >> like I I'll give you an example like I I serve as a city attorney in the school in the city where I serve on the school board and there's a lot of uh partnerships, right? >> Yeah. >> And so I'm always in that weird position. Do I abstain? Do I not abstain? >> And maybe somebody you work with at the city isn't your relative and you're not going to get any personal financial >> Yeah.
No, there's no actually legal conflict perception >> wise. But this is weird. It's a it it it's like an appearance of a conflict of interest essentially. >> Yeah. >> Not an appearance of impropriety, but like not necessarily directly. That's my concern. And that's where I've had issues with other boards in the past because I'm like, okay, well, this is strange. >> Should we bring up something that hasn't been an issue on our board though before? Should we be basing like I I just it seems that we're getting into the weeds of something that hasn't happened here? >> I just think that this I think the state law needs to change, but we're not going to do that. And so I would rather we have a more strict policy on our board so that in the future we never have the issue and that we're operating like at a higher ethical level than any other school board because they choose not to adopt something like that.
>> And I'm sorry what like is there what paragraph or specific section are we? So if you look at um >> if you look at a board member shall not participate in discuss or vote on any matter in which the member or relative has a substantial interest nor use their position for personal gain. I mean that I >> that kind of covers it depending on how you define personal gain and all substantial interest shall be disclosed in the district's official record. So that's the sentence >> maybe we should define personal gain >> that might be helpful I think is really Yeah. >> Okay. Can can we uh put a pin on that one and give us some time to work on that? >> Yeah. >> Uh before your next board meeting. >> Yeah. We need to discuss this more because stifling something like that and putting a policy can have unintended consequences too.
That just because something's perceived doesn't mean that there's anything not happening. >> Yeah. This isn't about perception. >> Yeah. But person >> they're per they could be using a personal gain could mean a whole lot of things. And if I define it one way and you define it another, I could be doing something that I think is totally fine, but you think is >> a little slimy. >> Yeah. >> Right. And that's to me perception. >> I think there's some lines where perception is interesting. I I don't know. I don't know. I guess I'm just operating like how we do in the legal world, which is with the appearance of if you're pro, if you have an appearance of impropriety, there's something bad going on. Like you should just avoid the appearance of impropriety in all that you do. >> And good thing we're not in the legal field, right?
We're an educational school district. >> Sure. And I would hope that we have heightened standards. That's wherever I operate. I would hope that we all hold each other to heightened standards. But that's just me, >> which I think we do because we haven't had an issue. That's what I'm saying. Like I I think we do. They're doing these so that the future is dictated, not by the five of us.