The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed cell phone policy, which sparked a multifaceted debate among board members. The discussion, initiated by a board member, touched on the collaboration with school principals and comparisons to the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) model policy. A notable concern was the potential for students to film peers during school hours, raising issues of privacy and mental health. This concern was underscored by the question of appropriate consequences for such actions, with a particular emphasis on the impact of these actions when shared on social media.

One board member expressed apprehension about students in grades 9 through 12 being permitted to carry cell phones if they remained silent and out of sight. They questioned the effectiveness of this policy, particularly considering the challenge it posed for teachers tasked with enforcement. The member also suggested that the policy differences between younger and older students might contribute to increasing anxiety and focus issues among students.

Another board member raised legal concerns about the potential for recording private conversations with hidden devices, questioning the adequacy of the proposed policy in safeguarding student privacy. The superintendent recognized the enforcement challenges and mentioned that violations would be addressed through established disciplinary processes. Additionally, the superintendent suggested enhancing the policy language to explicitly prohibit audio recordings, alongside video and photography, to bolster privacy protections.

The discussion also touched on smartwatches, which can perform similar functions to cell phones, and whether guidelines were in place for their use. It was highlighted that some devices might be claimed as medical management tools, potentially creating loopholes in the policy. A board member examined the academic integrity section.

A request was made to ensure that changes between old and new policy versions were clearly marked, with one board member suggesting starting the policy from scratch without track changes if necessary. The need for an accurate presentation of policy changes was reiterated, especially given discrepancies found in the redlined copies.

A lingering sentiment was that students should have opportunities to socialize without the distraction of their phones, though enforcement, particularly during lunch periods, posed significant challenges. Some members expressed interest in seeking input from high school principals on the policy’s effectiveness and its impact on student interactions. The proposal to engage school principals in future discussions received support, with the belief that their insights would be invaluable.

The meeting also addressed the formation of subcommittees, with discussions around a potential policy committee to handle specific requests directed to the district office. There was also consideration of establishing a human resources negotiations committee to ensure board member involvement in staffing decisions and fiscal responsibility. The idea of an academics committee was proposed to focus on academic concerns beyond the responsibilities of the existing Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee.

A participant suggested defining the functions of each proposed subcommittee clearly before appointing members. The conversation also highlighted the potential workload for new board members, with a particular committee meeting every two weeks, which could be overwhelming.

In addition to these topics, the board prepared to enter a closed session to discuss pending or threatened litigation with its legal counsel. The necessity for confidentiality in these legal discussions was emphasized, given that public discourse could be detrimental to the district’s interests. The motions to enter closed sessions were approved unanimously.