At a full‑day January workshop, the Douglas County School District Board of Trustees convened with consultant Dr. Tom Ellsbury to review a proposed governance handbook that would codify meeting procedures, committee roles and reporting rhythms. Trustees unanimously adopted a flexible agenda at the start of the session and later voted to authorize the superintendent to continue working with Dr. Ellsbury on the draft.

Dr. Ellsbury told the board the handbook is intended to reduce ambiguity about roles and preserve public credibility: "These procedures are intentional — they make it clear how we do our business so people don’t have to guess at intent," he said. He described the balanced governance model as research‑based and said recent studies continue to link clear governance practices to improved district performance and stronger superintendent oversight.

Why it matters: The handbook aims to capture consistent local practice, connect the board’s calendar to statutory requirements and the district’s strategic goals, and limit the risk of ad hoc decisions that create public confusion. Trustees focused on reconciling handbook language with existing bylaws and Nevada law, especially around open‑meeting rules, clerk duties and committee structure.

Key points and outcomes

• Clerk vs. secretary: Dr. Ellsbury noted Nevada statutes assign detailed duties to a board clerk (minutes, payment orders). Trustees discussed that many of those tasks are performed by staff (the executive secretary), and agreed to add a proposed "secretary" officer role in the handbook with staff‑defined responsibilities so the district’s practice matches the handbook language.

• Committees and conflicts of interest: The consultant recommended trustees serve as non‑voting ex‑officio liaisons to board‑appointed advisory committees (so community committees preserve independent voice and to avoid conflicts when committees later make board recommendations). Trustees said local practice varies and asked the superintendent and legal counsel to produce a committee list and legal guidance before any change is adopted.

• Reporting timeline and public posting: Administration said the district aims to post meeting materials on the Friday before a Thursday meeting to give trustees time to review. Counsel noted Nevada law requires public posting no later than 72 hours before the meeting; the board asked counsel to confirm whether trustees may receive reports earlier than the public posting and to advise appropriate language for the handbook.

• Board information requests and chain of command: Trustees and the superintendent agreed trustees may ask staff for simple facts during site visits, but significant requests should be routed through the superintendent so staff are not placed in the difficult position of responding without supervisory direction. The handbook will distinguish "insignificant" (quick factual) from "significant" (resource‑intensive) requests and set reasonable timelines for responses.

• Public comment and decorum: The draft retains the basic statutory requirements for public comment and adds guidance on decorum, speaker time limits and preventing disruptive behavior. Counsel advised the board that legislative changes limit the special defamation privilege for public‑comment speakers and recommended counsel review the handbook public‑comment language before adoption. Trustees agreed the president may exercise discretion about when public comment will be taken on individual action items.

Votes at the meeting

• Motion to adopt flexible agenda — moved by Trustee Knighting, seconded by Trustee Miller; motion passed unanimously.

• Motion authorizing the superintendent to continue revisions with Dr. Ellsbury — moved by Trustee Nighting, seconded by Trustee Jansen; motion passed unanimously.

Next steps and timeline

Superintendent Alvarado and legal counsel will review statutory citations and open‑meeting language called out in the draft. Consultant Ellsbury will update the handbook to reflect trustees’ edits (dates changed to "first board meeting of the month" where appropriate, an appendix linking the handbook to the approved strategic plan, and clarifications about officer duties and committee language). The board directed staff to return a revised draft for first reading under the district’s usual policy process; any policy changes that would be required to align bylaws with the handbook will be brought to a future meeting.

Public reaction: Two members of the public who attended thanked the board for a thorough and productive session during the public‑comment period.

What remains unsettled: Trustees asked counsel to confirm (1) whether certain internal evaluations or coaching documents related to the board evaluation are public records, (2) the exact allowable timing for trustees to receive materials relative to public posting, and (3) whether trustee‑initiated closed sessions or unusual committee configurations could raise open‑meeting concerns. The handbook will be adjusted once counsel confirms those items.

The board workshop concluded after trustees authorized the superintendent to continue working on the handbook; the item will return for the established first/second reading adoption process.