By Nicole Daughhetee

Courier Staff

COUNTY — Former SDPC board chairs Alex Saitta and Jim Shelton are, once again, at odds over SDPC policy — in this case as it relates to Monday night’s adoption of the first reading on the policy realigning to student led invocations prior to the school board meeting.

After a motion was made, and seconded, to adopt the amendment to policy BE, which moves from a student-led sectarian invocation to a non-sectarian board member-led invocation prior to SDPC board meetings, Shelton attempted to amend the motion and table the decision to a later date.

Although he received a second from Ben Trotter, Shelton’s amendment failed.

“When this issue came up in the last meeting, the minutes say motion was made by Judy Edwards and seconded by Dr. Herb Cooper to ask legal counsel to draft a policy concerning non-sectarian prayer for the board to review at a later date.,” said Shelton. “According to our policy it says that proposals for new, deletions of or changes to existing policies, which this does, has to be sent to policy committee. What we’ve done is not referred this to policy committee.”

Edwards, the current SDPC board chair, and Saitta both said Shelton read the policy incorrectly.

“I believe this is not a change. It is adding to the policy,” said Edwards.

Shelton maintained that adding to a policy is, in fact, a change.

The current policy reads as follows: Proposals for new, deletions of or changes to existing policies may be initiated in writing by any board member, individuals or group of citizens, students or employees. The policy proposals will be referred to the superintendent or given to a board member and then sent to the policy committee for study prior to board presentation for discussion.

“Jim Shelton made a claim the policy had to go through the policy committee. He read the policy incorrectly. He cited this paragraph of the policy,” said Saitta. “Whenever an individual board member, individuals or groups of citizens or students or employees make policy suggestions, they have to first go to the policy committee.

“This policy was not suggested by an individual board member, community members, students or employees. It was voted on by the board, asking the superintendent to create it. Mr. Shelton failed to read and understand the paragraph right after it that states: The superintendent, his/her designee or the policy committee will be responsible for developing written policy proposals for further deliberation and/or action by the board.”

According to Saitta, this gives the superintendent, his/ her designee or the policy committee the ability to develop any policy proposal (new, deletion or change) and have it go directly to the board.

Shelton says the part of the policy he is stressing, under the Adoption/Revision section of the policy, states: “Proposals for new, deletions of changes to existing policies may be initiated in writing by any board member, individuals or groups of citizens, students or employees. The policy proposals will be referred to the superintendent or given to a board member and then sent to the policy committee for study prior to board presentation for discussion.”

He also stressed that “proposals for new, deletion of or changes to existing board policies will be adopted after only two readings by the board. The first reading will be in title/caption only and will  not require a vote of the board. The first and second readings will be separated by at least a four week period, unless that period is shortened by a vote of the board.”

Shelton contends that if the minutes from the January SDPC meeting are carefully studied, anyone can see that these stipulations of the policy were never satisfied.

“The part Saitta is hanging on is that the superintendent, or chairman of the policy committee will be responsible for developing written policy proposals for further deliberation and/or action by the board,” said Shelton. “This clearly must come after the proposed change or changes have satisfied the first part of the policy section. Saitta is wrong.”