On January 22nd, the Frederick County Board of Education unanimously decided to no longer require members to sign off on their code of conduct. After much talk over the lack of need for a signature requirement, a motion was put forward by Vice President Dean Rose to remove the signature portion and requirement of signature, retitle the original document from “Member Norms” to “Board Member Expectations,” and add the document to board handbook.
“Member Norms” was originally adopted in 2007, but the signature requirement was not created until 2017, when according to Rose, a board, who did not necessarily get along, needed the revised edition of the norms. Multiple other nearby school districts also do not require signatures for their board of education’s code of conduct.
The Board of Education is not the only governing body to enforce norms, as multiple political bodies have a Code of Conduct put in place, including the Senate. While people may not always be required to sign off on these norms, an agreement is usually required, and there is punishment for breaking them. Furthermore, the Senate has the Select Committee on Ethics that is tasked with enforcing these norms.
Similarly, the “Member Norms” document outlined multiple guidelines for the board, including: “treat each other, staff, the public and other stakeholders with respect,” and “make decisions for the betterment of each student.” The revised “Member Expectations” document contains the same norms as the previous document. As of writing, the only change was the removal of the signature requirement.
Board members Colt Black and Jaime Brennan both expressed during the meeting that the “Member Norms” document was open to interpretation. Black claimed that it felt “like a document put in place to restrict board member rights.” While the rest of the board did not necessarily agree, many members described that the document was similar to a contract instead of a set of guidelines for the board. For many members this was one of the main reasons why they wanted to remove the signature requirement.
Student Member of The Board (or SMOB) Elijah Steele disagreed, saying that he viewed the document as a way to uphold standards, rather than a contract. He also expressed that he believed this was a way to push forward the best interests of the students. Steele opposed the decision, but as SMOB Steele does not have a vote.
Steele’s position is one used to advocate for the student body, but with the expansion in board abilities, students may become less vocal in sharing their opinions with frederick county public schools and the board of education. As SGA vice president and junior, Aditi Bandyopadhyay, explained, “students may become more hesitant to express their issues as they feel their voice no longer makes a difference with board members acting more as trustees, rather than delegates.”
As an alternative to the signature, members suggested adding the norms to the handbook (which was then added in the revised motion) and then signing off on the handbook. The handbook signature would not serve not as an agreement to the terms, but as a signature of receipt for the handbook. A way to say Board of Education members have received and understand the information in the handbook, but not that they necessarily agree with it. However, the board suggested continuing to review the norms, but biannually instead of annually in order to save time and line up with election cycles. The board has not made the decision to sign off on the handbook at this time.
Public reception about the board’s decision has been mixed, with students and parents alike wondering what this could lead to next. Bandyopadhyay expressed, “removing this signature puts board members in a position to decide on issues in ways that don’t adequately reflect the values and needs of FCPS students and staff.” While the revised “Board Member Expectations” document still exists, it leaves questions over whether or not members can still be held accountable for failing to follow the guidelines set.
Additionally, Junior Allison Wehinger commented, “without signing off the code of conduct it can raise many questions about whether doing this is a plan by members of the board to try and violate the code of conduct.” This statement has not been reflected within any actions by the current board of education members. However, ideas such as these continue to plague members of the community who are unsure about how the changes made will affect future decisions by the board of education. Even if a signature was not viewed as a contractual agreement, having members sign off as a way to further signify understanding and upholding of the terms. This may have helped to put students and parents at ease.
As of now, the board has not identified any further changes they plan to make now that the signature requirement is gone. However, that is not to say that the change will not inspire or guide future action. Either way, it is clear that the board is willing to act, and with half the board still in office until 2026, and the other half in until 2028 (besides for Steele who only serves for one year as SMOB) there is plenty of time left for action.
