Note: These minutes should be considered preliminary until they are approved at the next Policy and Amendment Committee meeting.
———————————————————————————————————————
Windham Southeast School District (WSESD) Policy and Amendment Committee
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Regular meeting 2:00 p.m.
Hybrid meeting: WSESU Central Office, 53 Green St., Brattleboro, VT and
Remotely via Zoom
DRAFT MINUTES
Policy and Amendment Committee members present: Deborah Stanford (DS, Chair), Anne Beekman (AB)
Other Board members present: Tim Maciel (TM)
WSESD/U Staff and Administrators present: Superintendent Mark Speno (MS), Mo Hart (MH), Shannon Kelly (SK), Susan Grabowski (SG), Frank Rucker (FR)
Guests: Liz Adams (LA, via zoom), Kate (via zoom)
Call to Order
DS convened the meeting at 2:05 p.m. and read the hybrid statement.
Approval of Minutes and confirmation of next meeting date
The minutes of 10/8/25 meeting approved by assent.
The Policy and Amendment Committee meets on second and fourth Wednesdays, from 2-4
pm at the WSESU Central Office and on Zoom. The next meetings are scheduled for:
November 12
November 19 at 2:15 p.m. (rescheduled from 11/24)
December 10
No meeting November 24 (holiday)
No meeting December 24 (holiday)
Policies
Windham Southeast School District (WSESD) Policy and Amendment Committee
Summary: The committee reviewed three policies during the meeting (Gender Freedom in Schools, D15 Travel Reimbursement, and C7 Board Relations with Administrators). Gender Freedom and D15 will be sent for a first reading at the next full Board meeting on November 4. C7 remains on hold. Rebecca Olmstead was not able to attend the meeting, so Asthma Friendly Schools and E11 Federal Child Nutrition Act Wellness Policy were not reviewed; these policies will be put on the agenda for November 12.
Gender Freedom in Schools
The committee did a final read through of the Gender Freedom policy and made minor edits for clarity, grammar, and tone. Highlights:
● Expanded the Procedures note with the following sentence, placed after School Activities: “The Superintendent will collaborate with Administration and equity and social justice leaders to develop procedures for the implementation of this policy.”
o DS asked that once the procedures are developed, they come to committee for review.
● Edited the definitions from Outright Vermont to match the tone of the policy. Reference to Outright Vermont will be removed from the heading and listed as a footnote with link.
● Added footnote for Vermont Education Quality Standards reference.
SK and MH will check the footnotes.
Gender Freedom in School will go for a first reading at the Board meeting on November 4.
D15 Travel Reimbursement
Invited: Frank Rucker
The committee reviewed D15 with Frank Rucker and made the following edits for clarity and content:
● Removed “to the extent that budgeted funds permit” from the first sentence. As previously worded, it sounded like the expenses could be pre-approved and then if funds ran out, employees wouldn’t get reimbursed. FR noted that the expenses wouldn’t get pre-approved if funds weren’t available.
● Rewrote the second sentence of paragraph two for clarity. It now reads: “The procedures for reimbursement will be the same whether the expenses are incurred for federally or non-federally funded activities.”
● Added “for travel reimbursement” to the last sentence of paragraph two. It now reads: “Prior approval for travel reimbursement from the Superintendent or their designee will be required.”
● Reworded Number 4 under Administrative Responsibilities (“Method of prior approval”) to read “Procedures required for prior approval.”
● Restored the struck-out first clause of Administrative Responsibilities (“Pursuant to this policy and consistent with relevant collective bargaining agreements”). FR noted that this phrase is important, otherwise any travel could be included.
● Added two cross references, following suggestion from FR:
o Procurement manual on the website — thorough procedures detailed in the travel reimbursement section.
o Collective bargaining agreement, section 31.1 for travel.
D15 will go for a first reading at the Board meeting on November 4.
C7 Board Relations with the Administrators
The committee began reviewing C7.
A short discussion came up about the phrase “appropriate reporting relationships” in the first sentence, but it was left in place for now.
The majority of the time with this policy was spent in a significant discussion over the proposed revisions to the second bullet under Relations with the Administrators: “When Board Members need information from school administrators the request must be communicated through the Board Chair. The Board Chair, at their discretion, will communicate with the Superintendent.”
TM read the following statement in opposition to the changes:
Tim Maciel’s Statement Opposing Proposed Changes to C7
Proposed change: “When Board members need information from school administrators, the request must be communicated through the Board chair. The Board chair, at their discretion, will communicate with the Superintendent.”
Here are six reasons to reject that process:
1. It contradicts the spirit of open, transparent governance. Public accountability requires that elected board members have reasonable access to information and personnel to understand how policies are being implemented. Requiring permission sends all communication through one person, effectively centralizing control and discouraging open dialogue and collegiality. Vermont’s Open Meeting Law and VSBA’s governance principles both promote transparency and accessibility— this policy would move in the opposite direction.
2. It undermines individual board members’ rights and responsibility to be informed. Under 16 V.S.A. §563, the board as a body has authority, but individual members still have a duty to stay informed and to represent their constituents responsibly. Blocking direct communication makes it impossible to perform that duty effectively.
3. It can create a culture of mistrust diametrically in opposition to the core value of “collaboration and collective efficacy” that the Central Office is promoting.
4. There are better ways to manage communication. It’s reasonable to ask board members not to direct staff work or make requests that circumvent the superintendent, but that’s different from forbidding conversation. The VSBA recommends that boards clarify boundaries (e.g., “Board members may talk with staff to gather information but should not give directives or make promises.”) What we need are guidelines, not permission systems.
5. It damages shared governance. Giving the chair gatekeeping power over communication effectively elevates the chair’s authority above the board’s collective will, which violates the principle that the board governs as a whole.
6. It is inconsistent with Vermont and national best practices. The VSBA, the National School Boards Association (NSBA), and Robert’s Rules of Order all caution against policies that restrict information flow to individual board members.
The standard practice is to maintain open but professional communication, with the understanding that operational questions go through the superintendent, but informal visits or educational conversations are encouraged.
In summary this proposed policy change, in my opinion, would seriously restrict the free flow of information between elected School Board members and the professionals who carry out our district’s educational mission.
Requiring all Board inquiries to pass through the Chair—who alone decides whether or not to communicate with the Superintendent—concentrates power in a single individual, replacing transparency and collaboration with gatekeeping.
We’ve heard that it is about efficiency, suggesting that administrators could be inundated by requests from ten different Board members. However, in practice, I believe we are a board whose members respect the time of the superintendent and principals. As far as I can tell, no one is overwhelming the Superintendent or principals with frivolous demands.
Creating a restrictive policy to solve a problem that doesn’t exist sacrifices openness for control. And even if efficiency were an issue, transparency and a board member’s responsibility for oversight and informed decision making should not be sacrificed to claims of efficiency.
Our duty as Board members is to serve the public interest, not to seek permission before asking a question. If the goal is to protect administrative time, we can accomplish that through professional courtesy—not censorship. For the sake of transparency, accountability, and the principles of democratic governance, this proposed restriction must be rejected.
Recommended changes: “Board members are encouraged to maintain open, respectful communication with staff and principals to stay informed about district operations. However, board members should not give direction to staff or interfere with administrative duties. When appropriate, members – not the chair – will keep the superintendent informed of substantive conversations relevant to district policy and opportunities such as grants, best practices, etc..”
In the discussion that ensued, both AB and DS agreed that “at the discretion of the chair” should be removed from bullet 2.
The question of whether communication between Board members and school administration needs to go through the Board Chair remains a point of contention. DS presented the example of when Board members need information from the lawyer, individuals should not email the lawyer directly. TM argued that the Chair’s function is to set agenda and preside over meetings, and that individual Board members do not relinquish their right to communicate or gather information.
He added that Board members do not report to the Chair or the Superintendent; they are elected by the people, and are relatively autonomous in what they do. DS noted that the Board Chair does represent the Board, and TM offered that individual Board members represent the Board in every public interaction they have.
The discussion was cut short by needing to end the meeting on time. It will be taken up again later.
C7 is ON HOLD.
Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
Notes taken by Anna Monders (recorder)
Submitted by Anne Beekman (vice chair)
