Date: February 19, 2026
Start Time: 4:30 PM Adjourn Time: ~7:30 PM
Facilitator: Phil Hartley, Georgia School Boards Association
GSBA Counsel: Lauren Atkinson (first in-house General Counsel)
District Leadership Present:
Superintendent Dr. Flynt, Administrative Assistant: Amanda Moody
Board members: Chairman Dekle, Vice Chairman Kent, Kristi Baker, Judy Teasley, Katie Allen
Board Attorneys Larry Fletcher and Will Fletcher
Training Focus
Governance roles, legal framework, and board operating norms.
Key topics included:
Roles and responsibilities of the Board vs. Superintendent
State governance standards
Local norms and protocols
Collaboration expectations
Communication practices
Student achievement
Facilitator Background
Phil Hartley: Approximately 52 years representing school boards
Lauren Atkinson: Newly appointed GSBA General Counsel
Governance Standards (State)
Developed by the State Board of Education
Not formal rules
Used as guidance for board training
Recently amended to include a safety standard
Norms & Protocols (Local)
Working agreement between board and superintendent
Not formal policy
Describes how members function together
May vary by district
Not required to be adopted annually
Often reviewed when membership changes
Board did not adopt a new document for the 2025–2026 school year. Document used as a starting point for communication and engagement.
Statutory Role of the Board
(O.C.G.A. § 20-2-61 referenced)
Core Responsibilities
Establish Policy
Includes:
Strategic plan
Budget priorities
Hiring superintendent
District goals
Policy described as broad.
Focus on Student Achievement
Students identified as the board’s primary constituency
Hold Superintendent Accountable Without Micromanaging
Board sets direction, Superintendent implements
Board evaluates performance
Act as a Collective Body
Individual members have no independent authority
Actions occur only as the board as a whole
“Individual power — none.”
Governance Expectations
Collaboration
Board should not operate as separate individuals
Collaboration required despite disagreements
Majority decision represents official board action
After a Vote
Members may state disagreement but are expected to move forward with the board decision, and not relitigate past decisions.
“Once decision made… move on.”
Information and Decision-Making
Board should receive information in advance
Members should have equal access to information
Information requests may require board action
Informal circulation of information discouraged
Information Requests
Discussion addressed how board members obtain information from staff and the impact of extensive requests.
Concern raised that requests from a single board member for detailed information can be burdensome to staff.
It was stated that some requests may require significant staff time to compile and produce.
Points mentioned:
The requested information was not readily available in the format requested.
Producing the information could require multiple staff members working for several days.
Concern expressed about responding to a request made by one individual rather than the board as a whole.
It was stated that fulfilling certain requests could be disruptive to district operations.
Discussion included possible approaches:
If a request is considered excessive, the superintendent could bring the issue to the full board for direction.
Consideration of whether extensive requests should require approval or support from additional board members.
It was also noted that board members need access to information to make informed decisions. No formal action or decision was recorded.
Trust and Board Dynamics
Issues identified as damaging:
Poor communication
Lack of trust
Re-litigation of prior decisions in public
Surprises at meetings
Personal agendas
Use of formal procedures emphasized.
“No Surprises” Principle
Surprises at meetings described as harmful to trust and governance relationships.
Applies to both board members and superintendent.
Chain of Command
Board members advised to route concerns through the superintendent.
Examples discussed:
Parent complaints
Staff concerns
Operational matters
Crisis situations
Board members should not intervene directly at school level.
Student Matters
Individual student issues handled by administration
Board should not discuss student matters publicly
Anonymous discussion may still raise privacy concerns
Example given: disciplinary matters. Prior involvement by a board member could require recusal if the issue later comes before the board.
Public Communication
Board members encouraged to:
Direct stakeholders to appropriate administrative channels
Avoid speaking on behalf of the board
Avoid speculating about other members’ intentions
Maintain confidentiality
Social Media
District communications should be led by designated staff
Comments by members reflect on the board
Controversial topics can escalate quickly
Members advised to avoid inflammatory or disrespectful dialogue
School Visits
Members asked to coordinate visits with the superintendent.
Reasons:
Prevent disruption to school operations
Ensure administrators are informed
Clarify whether visit is official or personal
Relationship with School District’s Attorneys
Attorney represents the school system, not individual members
Most communication occurs through superintendent
Direct contact by individual members can create complications
Executive session attorney conferences generally related to litigation or claims.
Training Session vs. Board Meeting
Training sessions described as meetings that are primarily informational.
Discussion allowed
Formal action typically not taken
Strategic Plan
Board encouraged to align agendas with strategic goals and student outcomes.
Agenda Structure — “Board Items”
Board discussed a previous agenda item titled “Board Items.” Katie Allen stated the section had been used to bring forward constituent concerns and community feedback. Chairman Dekle stated the section had functioned like an “open mic.”
Concerns noted:
Topics introduced without prior notice
Board and staff unprepared to address issues
Members surprised by items raised during meetings
Vice Chairman Kent stated the public expects to see disagreement and discussion during board meetings and that some debate is expected.
Community Concerns
Facilitator discussed how to evaluate whether an issue represents broader community concern.
Issues described as community-wide typically:
Reach multiple board members
Reach school administrators
Reach the superintendent
Are raised by multiple individuals
Come through multiple channels
Issues raised by only one or two individuals may not represent broader community sentiment. Discussion noted that concerns often move through administrative channels before reaching the board.
Management of Discussion
Limiting discussion during meetings mentioned as a possible approach.
No formal procedural changes were adopted
Norms & Protocols — Enforcement
Discussion addressed the current norms and procedures document, including whether revisions should be made during the training session and whether the document includes enforcement mechanisms.
Chairman Dekle questioned the usefulness of spending time revising the document given the lack of an enforcement mechanism.
Kent asked the facilitator whether the existing board protocols document was missing elements or contained too much compared to those used in other districts.
The facilitator stated there was nothing glaring about the document. The norms document was described as guidance for behavior rather than binding rules.