There’s what’s legal, there’s what’s illegal, and in between are ethics. 

As a watchdog of the public, it’s our job to ensure public boards are acting legally. However, it’s clear that some boards are better than others at ensuring the public has the opportunity to watch and comment at a meeting. 

We like boards that trip over themselves to be available to the public. The Northwest College Board of Trustees, for instance, stops the meeting at 5 p.m. — they start at 4 — to see if anyone would like to provide public comment, whether it’s about an issue on the agenda or not. 

Unfortunately, not all boards are quite at that level.

For instance: Park County School District 1 is a fantastic school district, and both my boys have thrived there (see previous stories). 

However, for a major public board in the county, its public meeting rules are, while legal, more restrictive than they need to be. During the public comment period, speakers may “address an item on a Board Meeting agenda” and “should address policy or programs only.” Speakers are also limited to three minutes.

Other major boards, such as the Park County commissioners, air their meetings on YouTube for people who are not able to make a meeting. Pretty much all boards had to add this technology during Covid restrictions, so there’s little reason why they wouldn’t continue doing it.

The most open boards stream meetings live and, whether online or in person, allow attendees to comment on any matter related to the board. 

While some area boards may only allow one or the other — county commissioners, for instance, generally allow public comment but don’t have a dedicated slot on the agenda — the school board does neither.

Again, what the school board is doing is legal — there is no requirement to allow public comment or to stream meetings online — but it could be more transparent. 

Now, as far as public comment is concerned, I don’t know of a board that will let a member of the public ramble on for more than a few minutes (unlike a certain Parks and Recreation episode). But comments are allowed, and in many cases not just for agenda items.

Just as this paper strives to provide a platform for the public to speak on issues through our letters to the editor, so boards, I believe, should provide a platform for the public to speak about matters important to them that involve the district.

Of course, I’m not saying it should be wide open. We, for instance, have a policy with our letters to the editor that caps the word length, requires you to sign your real name underneath along with town of residence, and be a matter of public interest.

But in a time like this, with all of the conversations about education, a district as top notch as Powell’s ought to be as open as possible.

Members of the public are often paying a good portion of their property taxes to support the local school district, and therefore they have a stake in what goes on. Parents and grandparents have even more skin in the game and should be heard. 

You could argue that they can speak directly to a principal or the superintendent, but the school board ought to provide them that platform to do so publicly — again, whether in person or live online.

And, not that Park County School District 1 has necessarily done this, but if a board restricts public comment to items on the agenda, that board could then quash a topic entirely by simply not allowing it on the agenda. 

PCSD1 is a fantastic school district, and I don’t just say that to complete a compliment sandwich. I believe it and see it in my children. 

But as a parent and a taxpayer, if I have a concern with something in the schools, I’d like to think I could give a public comment at a meeting. We’ll continue to provide that platform on our editorial section, and I hope the school board considers doing the same.