Powell school district approves policy allowing more public comment

POWELL — More opportunities for public comment will be available at Park County School District 1 board meetings starting in March after a majority of board members voted in favor, on third and final reading, of a policy to add opportunities for people to comment on non-agenda items related to the school district. 

The board has traditionally only allowed the public to comment on items that appear on the agenda at the monthly business meetings, but the changes would add a second time slot for comments on any school-related items, though private issues such as personnel would remain off-limits. 

The comment period on agenda items would remain early in the meeting, with the new general comment period at the end. 

There will also be a comment period at the end of working meetings. 

The policy passed on first reading in November and second reading in December, but a vote on third reading was held back after trustees received feedback from seven teachers and administrators in the district. 

Trustees wanted to use January’s work session to discuss the issues raised by the staff members before the final vote, which was at the February business meeting Feb. 9. 

While there was little discussion of the policy before the vote — besides expressions of gratitude for how well the discussions went, marked by civil disagreements and compromise — there have been hours of discussions leading up to the final vote. 

“I would applaud the board specifically in the way that you did approach this policy, certainly not one that everyone agreed on often,” Superintendent Jay Curtis said. “And I think that the board was truly a model of civil discourse … well done. I think it’ll be nice to not have to talk about this.”

At the Jan. 27 work session, trustees discussed the policy for roughly an hour, at the end of which Curtis said he would take some of the comments made and tweak the policy ahead of third reading, including making more clear the normal “chain of command” for addressing issues. 

Board Chair Kim Dillivan, who was the lone no vote on the policy, said Curtis’ changes did make for a better policy, although he still disputed the need for any more public comment aside from that made on agenda items. 

Trustee Dusty Paul said he took a day off work back in December after the board received the letters and met with each school employee who wrote to determine their specific concerns. 

He said their biggest concern was the fact they could be “blindsided” by a member of the public who spoke at a general comment session about an issue the staff member could shed light on, such as criticising a sports program. 

“I had great conversations,” Paul said. “I love the fact that they were like, ‘I want to be there and maybe have a handle on what's up, or have my say of what's happening.’” 

He said their suggestion, which he didn't necessarily agree with, was to require those who want to comment to submit their comment in advance to give time for staff members to prepare their own statement on the issue. 

Trustees ultimately didn’t agree on a waiting period but noted staff would be welcome to talk to administration or board members in advance or during the public comment as well. 

Paul said the staff’s other big issue was the concern of the public bringing up personnel issues, but most trustees agreed there are enough regulations in the policy to prevent such matters from being discussed in open session. 

Paul said through his talking with them he hopes they’re less worried that the comment could devolve into a discussion of personnel. 

“That was a big misconception that [the comment period] was just a free reign,” he said. 

Dillivan said, like the staff, he is still concerned about what people could say despite the guardrails and reiterated his opposition to a general comment period. 

“Again, in my opinion, this 30-minute period is absolutely unnecessary,” he said, later adding, “But if it passes, I will support this. I’ll adhere to it.” 

Going around the table for their views, all of the other board members (Beau Fulton was absent but had previously expressed support for some kind of general comment period) said they were in favor of the policy, although a few liked an idea raised by Trace Paul to start the general comment just at the workshop meetings for the first month or two to “work out the kinks” before bringing it to the business meetings as well. 

Board members Lillian Brazelton and Tracy Morris, who like Trace Paul said they liked the option for general public comment regardless, agreed with this idea. 

Curtis, however, said it wouldn’t work to write that in policy. 

In a normal schedule, it would first be used at a work session anyway, the February meeting, but that one was canceled due to scheduling conflicts. 

Even without a gradual rollout, Trace Paul said he supports the new policy, as there are people who just want to ask questions — as evidenced by people who come into his work to talk to him about the schools. 

“I like the dialog,” he said. “It's part of being a board member … it’s part of what we all signed up for. And, you know, I don't have a problem with this. I like hearing the concerns, because I think there are some things there to address.” 

Dusty Paul and Ben Borcher, who initially brought up the proposal back in the fall, said from the get-go they wanted the policy to allow as open public comment as possible and disagreed with any of the efforts to restrict it. 

“We need to be willing to accept that people have things that they want to say to our faces,” Borcher said to counter arguments that the public should be made to go through the proper chain of command — teacher to superintendent/ board — with a school issue. 

“We need to be able to not ‘what if’ it to death the fact that they might not like the grievance process. They have to follow it if they expect something to be done,” he said. “But we have to be willing to accept that there's a lot of people that don't like it. They want to be in front of 40 people, and they want to say their piece, and they want to disappear.” 

While the policy came about in the wake of a meeting last summer that drew a flood of people to share concerns of a transgender student allegedly using the girls’ bathroom, Morris suggested it didn’t have to have a solely negative bent. 

While she acknowledged that, as others said, usually people aren’t quite as motivated to come to board meetings for a positive comment, the period should still be thought of as something that can be used for a positive comment. 

“I think it shouldn't be just negative,” she said. “I think if we set it up for success, like, ‘Come tell us a great thing you saw.’” 

Curtis, who made revisions to the policy ahead of third reading Feb. 10, said his thoughts on the policy have changed since the matter was first brought up, and he’s come around to believing a policy is needed, as the district has never had such a policy before. 

He summed up disagreements on the matter as whether comment is for the public to inform the board on making decisions, or for people to express more general ideas regarding the district. 

“There are proper guardrails in place to protect our staff,” Curtis said. “And if I'm going to seek a middle ground between two camps of train of thought, this is probably that.”

This story was published on Feb. 17, 2026.