By Eliza PARTIKA

The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) board of education discussed the restructuring of the board’s ethics policy, discussing the intricacies of each policy at length during its meeting on July 15. The board decided the clarifications and edits to policy language would be forwarded beforehand for comment to the California School Board Association, local chapters of the Parent Teacher Association, California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association, and the Glendale Teachers Association to be voted on at the GUSD board meeting on Aug. 12. 

Former Board President Shant Sahakian provided summaries of each of the bylaws being discussed, then welcomed comments from each of the board members, newly-appointed Board President Ingrid Gunnell and the public. Proposed changes discussed by the board included Board Policy 9012, prohibiting board members from using disappearing messages for district business. It would also require board members to save district-related communications if they do use messaging apps like Signal, iMessage, Snapchat and Whatsapp to discuss GUSD business. Board Policy 9250 aligns compensation increases of board members with the salary increases of district employees, like teachers and staff, capping any increases to board salaries at 5%. Board Policy 9270 creates new rules for what constitutes a conflict of interest for board members and adds the requirement for a board member’s recusal if a conflict arises. Board Policy 9323 changes how board members can participate in public comment. The board also discussed a new policy outlining a Code of Ethics for GUSD board members – a policy board member Shant Sahakian called the most robust ethics policy in the state. 

The ethics bylaw would be a new addition to board policy. 

“The basic principle [of this bylaw] is that if we have high standards and expectations for our students and employees then we should have the same standards for our board members,” he said. 

The ethics policy adds language reiterating a board member’s responsibility to the public and appoints an ethics officer to oversee compliance with the policy. Any member of the public or district employee who suspects a violation of the policy can submit a complaint to the ethics officer. 

Board members asked questions of Sahakian, who was the author of the policy changes, and Darren Kameya, the education law attorney for GUSD. 

Sahakian clarified the financial and personal conflicts of interest under the new board policy. 

“Imagine we had a transportation officer declare a conflict of interest. Now imagine we had a board member who worked for that company and there is a district decision that needs to be made on that. That would be an example of a financial conflict of interest,” he said.

The proposed changes state that a board member with a known conflict of interest would be required to recuse him/herself and refrain from discussing any district business related to the conflict with other board members. Sahakian gave an example: “Imagine that board members with the conflict viewed the decision, read it and voted on it. Now imagine that same board member with the known conflict, board member B, discusses the board decision with board member A. Board member B would be in violation, but so would board member A because by discussing with board member B, [s/he] would be going against the spirit of the law,” said Sahakian. 

Sahakian said language in that section of the bylaws has been updated to protect each board member’s constitutional rights. He said the same rules that apply to the public would apply to board members including vacating the dais and sitting with the general public for the duration of a meeting, beginning their public comments by stating they are speaking as an individual in a private capacity and not as a representative of the district, and that the wearing of district pins, badges or other district-related apparel would be prohibited. In addition to these rules, the policy changes as written in the July 16 agenda stated that there is an expectation that if a time restriction on public comment prevented a member of the general public from participating in the public comment period, “the board member speaking as a member of the public is expected to forfeit [his/her] public comment opportunity to accommodate another speaker from the general public.”

Bylaw 9323 was amended to reflect new rules for board member recusal and for public comment. The amendment would also emphasize maintaining clear distinctions between board members’ public responsibility and personal interest. Sahakian said board members would be required to follow a set of guidelines when recusing themselves, including “announcing they are recusing themselves from the vote, stating the general conflict of interest to ensure transparency and vacating the dais and board room as to not participate in or influence the decisions or deliberations of the board.” The board should be informed of conflicts of interest, Sahakian said, before, during and after meetings. 

Sahakian noted that board members still have the legal right under the First Amendment to address the board, but “even though board members have a right to do it, that doesn’t mean it is right to do,” he said. 

Board member Neda Farid asked if the board could revise the time limit on submitting public comment cards. 

“I find this very restrictive as a district that wants to cultivate engagement. I understand why this change might have come to pass. But there was a time this district had two public comment [periods]. There was a time that this district accepted public comment cards up until the start of public comment. The reality is most people don’t work a nine to five job, and if you do work a nine to five job your ability to be here before the start of a 5 p.m. meeting is still very restrictive,” Farid said.

The board agreed to add these changes to their revisions before Aug. 12. 

For board policy on electronic communications, board member Farid asked Kameya whether existing law about the California Public Records Act (CPRA) would prohibit board members from using conference apps that deleted messaging after the end of a conference. Kameya’s response was that while the use of the app itself is  not prohibited by law, board members would need to save any communication about district business discussed on that app under the CPRA and that the changes to the policy would be updated to reflect the use of such apps. Board member Kathleen Cross asked Kameya to clarify whether the CPRA required board members to save all communications or whether communications about district business are only required to be kept if asked for in a CPRA request. Kameya responded that board members are required to hold onto their communications about district business under public records law regardless whether specific information is requested or not, suggesting saving pertinent messages over text as screenshots on a cellphone. Sahakian reminded the board of their similar discussion years ago about saving emails discussing district business and how that discussion and a subsequent approval vote determined that they were required to save all of their district-related emails, per public records law. He argued these changes would be similar. 

For board policy on remuneration and reimbursement, board member Telly Tse asked whether the policy changes that were discussed could be forwarded to the board’s labor partners as the compensation of board members is relevant. 

Cross agreed, stating she would be interested in having the board vote on compensation each year to affirm to the public that any increases would be commensurate with those of employees. 

While Tse agreed with the ethos of the policy, he wanted to hear more from labor partners like Glendale Teachers Association (GTA), since it expressed objections to the new policy in its board report. 

“[These changes] provide an inherent incentive to resolve negotiations in a timely manner before, as a board, you think about compensation for yourself, so I like that. That’s an idea that makes a lot of sense to me,” Tse said. “My only reservation is that in hearing the labor report, I did not get the same sense of support for this and I’d be curious to get their feedback.”

Greta Sukazian, treasurer of the GTA, said the GTA is supportive of an ethics policy. 

“GTA is fully supportive of an ethics policy. The law – basic morality – and the nature of your positions obligate you as board members to be above reproach. We expect each and every board member to take their responsibility to our students, educators and community seriously. However, we are concerned the current proposal and discussion is too bound up in a series of heated disagreements between board members and it’s beginning to distract this board from far more urgent matters the community needs you to address,” she said. 

“Rather than allowing this debate to be mired in personal conflict, why doesn’t this board adopt the California School Boards Association (CSBA) Ethics Policy? The board can trust that the CSBA policy is grounded in the law and is utilized by numerous school districts in the state,” said Sukazian. 

The board agreed to send changes for review to the CSBA before voting.