The North Kingstown School Committee spent most of a special meeting Tuesday reworking how it writes its own agendas, after a state attorney general's decision found that some of its agenda items were too vague for the public to understand.
The committee then re-voted on a series of items it had already approved — employment contracts and school bus purchases among them — because the original agenda listings did not plainly say what was being decided, according to the committee's published meeting recording of the August 4 meeting.
The practical effect for residents: agenda items should carry plainer titles, packets should arrive with their backup documents attached earlier, and items requested at the last minute are more likely to be pushed to a later meeting.
Local sponsorAffordable photography lessons in Newport, Jamestown, or your town.E.L. Photo RIWhat the attorney general's decision said
Under the Open Meetings Act, a public body must post an agenda that tells the public what will be discussed and what may be voted on. The committee's attorney told members the attorney general's office was concerned with one thing above all: whether an item, as written, is understandable to someone who does not work in the district.
He pointed to a separate decision involving South Kingstown that came out roughly a week before the North Kingstown decision. That decision, he said, concluded that the attorney general will not consider backup documents attached to an agenda when judging whether an item was adequately described, because the statute does not require attachments.
"Unless you have — because what I mean, I'm not going to get into the specifics of their position, but basically they say the statute doesn't require you to attach documents," the attorney said, adding that he was not suggesting the district stop attaching them. "I'm not suggesting you don't attach documents, but you should."
The clearest example discussed was the district's use of policy shorthand. Contracts for certain non-union administrative employees had been listed only as "GCB contracts." Members agreed among themselves that everyone at the table knew what that meant. The attorney's point was that the public does not, and that the agenda has to spell out that the item is an employment contract and name the position.
The committee said the attorney's office was asked to review past agendas and flag anything similar. Several bus items came back — one had been listed in a way that did not make clear it involved a bus contractor at all. Those were re-listed and re-voted "out of an abundance of caution," the attorney said, describing the current situation as "uncharted territory."
A resident's question: policy or implementation?
During public comment, Pam Pinheiro told the committee she appreciated that the attorney general's decision and the committee's own meetings policy had been added to the agenda packet, and asked members to separate two different problems.
"Is the primary issue the policy, its implementation, or some combination of both?" she said. She noted the meetings policy already states that agenda items should be detailed enough for the public to understand what will be discussed, and that the policy has been revised repeatedly, including in 2024, without a clear evaluation of whether those changes worked.
She also raised the timing. The meeting was held in August, when many parents and educators are away, and only three of the committee's members were present. "This should not be the only opportunity for the public to provide input, and I hope this is only the beginning," she said.
One of her suggestions was adopted almost immediately. She relayed a community member's idea that the chair announce the title of each agenda item rather than just "Item 4B," so people listening in a car or watching a recording know what is being discussed. The first motion of the discussion was read out with the full item title, with the member noting it was being done because people may be listening while driving.
Where the friction was
Members and administration did not fully agree on the cause of late packets.
A committee member said the fix has to run in both directions, and that the committee's own policy timelines should be enforced: 14 days before a meeting for an item requiring a vote, seven days for a discussion item.
Superintendent Drew — identified in the recording only as Dr. Drew — pushed back on the framing that the delays originate with staff. He said items requested on a Thursday or Friday, when packets are due Friday, make it nearly impossible to assemble supporting documents in time.
"I want to put it out there why it's challenging for us sometimes, and not just put blame on administration, because I'm tired of that," he said.
He also said agendas are too long. "There are times when I pushed back to say this needs to wait, and I was told, 'No, it needs to go on there,'" he said. "Those are things that need to change in order for us, as administrators of this school department, to be effective and successful. And if that doesn't change, these problems are going to continue."
A committee member said she did not disagree that agendas run long, and members generally accepted that some requests will now be held to a later meeting.
Another gap surfaced on the committee side. Members said that once an agenda request is submitted through the district's online form, it disappears from view until the draft agenda arrives — and if the item is missing, no one knows why. One member described requesting an item four weeks out and finding it absent from the draft, with no tracking system in between.
The administration said requests submitted far in advance are typically not reviewed until roughly two weeks before the meeting, not because they are ignored but because of competing work. Members asked that requests at least be flagged when received.
What changes now
The steps described during the discussion, most of them administrative rather than policy changes:
- The chair and superintendent moved their agenda-review meeting up two days, from Wednesday to Monday, to give more lead time before the agenda is posted.
- The agenda request form will be changed so members write in the exact title they want printed on the public agenda, with acronyms spelled out.
- The chair, the superintendent and staff will review submitted titles for clarity before the draft goes out, with an additional check by the attorney.
- Backup documents are to reach the clerk by Thursday for review.
- Items that arrive without required attachments may be pulled from the agenda rather than pushed through. Members were also reminded they can table an item at the meeting if they do not have enough information to vote.
- The superintendent agreed to share a month-by-month calendar of recurring reports and items so the committee can anticipate heavy meetings and stop duplicating requests.
- The superintendent said he is working on designating a point person for agenda questions, so emailed corrections do not sit unanswered until the meeting.
The administration staff member identified as Ken said the online form already asks what the item is, its purpose, background, whether an attachment is needed and who provides it, and that specificity there speeds everything downstream.
Committee member Jennifer Lima noted a constraint that shapes the whole problem: because the Open Meetings Act bars a quorum from deliberating outside a posted meeting, members cannot sort out their information requests by email the way another workplace would. Any suggestion of a shared running list of future items, the attorney said, would itself have to be posted as a properly described agenda item.
Separately, members voted to pull the entire consent agenda — the block of routine items normally approved in a single vote — and take each item individually. Committee member Sheri Kennedy said the packet did not show what had been changed in two sets of revised minutes, and asked that future corrections be marked so the public can see exactly what was altered. The attorney suggested a memo from the superintendent explaining the change if the minutes software cannot highlight edits. The corrected minutes involved votes mistakenly recorded as taken in executive session that had actually been taken in open session; the committee said those errors were discovered separately and were not part of the Open Meetings Act decision.
What happens next
The discussion is not finished. Two of the five committee members were absent, and the chair said the item can be taken up again. A request has already been filed to place it on the August 18 agenda, where it will appear under unfinished business.
The next regular business meeting is August 18 at 6 p.m. Public comment is taken at the start of each meeting, and members said during the discussion that they want residents to keep weighing in as the changes are tested.