Included on Bruckner’s list of eligible events included the following:

— LENRD board meetings.

— LENRD special board meetings, public hearings and open houses.

— Ad hoc committee meetings, board meetings.

— Participates in LENRD-sponsored workshops and retreats.

— Represent the district at local community meetings, legal proceedings, rural water committees, and resource conservation and development meetings.

— Meetings of the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts.

— Any LENRD sponsored events.

His list of ineligible items, meanwhile, involved informal meetings between board members and constituents, district staff or any consulting firm. He emphasized that the lack of accountability to ensure that such meetings actually take place puts the board in a difficult position. He also admitted he “might have missed a few things” on his list before encouraging board discussion.

Temple, meanwhile, said she had submitted about three pages of individual scenarios for qualifying, which Bruckner admitted she read before the meeting. She noted overlap with Bruckner’s proposal but also noted some key differences, including:

— Per diem allowance for all work in connection with board assignments.

— All work related to the board members’ 12 statutory responsibilities.

— All training and education events.

— Meetings with constituents directly related to an agenda item at a board meeting.

“I’m trying to be fair, but again, I’m just trying to develop a framework here that’s palatable to the consensus of the board,” Bruckner said in response, while calling the additional compensation for board members a good proposal.

Temple received the most immediate pushback from director Scott Clausen, who said he did not want to see a “free-for-all” in terms of compensation and said their duties as directors had to be balanced with their everyday lives. Job.

“I do not feel that I am enriching myself through this position; I knew it wasn’t worth it, but I love it, says Clausen. “I don’t think as a director you have to live with this. We want to do the best job for voters, but I’m not going to make this my career.”

In response to Clausen’s “free-for-all” comment, Temple said she created a “very thorough list” of what could be replaced. She added that she was not just arguing for compensation for herself — although she said in an earlier discussion and reiterated Thursday that she had lost “tens of thousands” of dollars in lost work time from her extracurricular activities as a board member — but for future residents who may consider applying for the position.

“It’s not going to stop me from doing the same amount of work that I’m already putting in, but it definitely hurts people … when they take time off work to try to invest in this district and be a representative of their constituents.” , Temple said, later adding that the $3,600 annual cap would make it difficult to acquire “wealth” from the scheme.

Some directors fell somewhere between these two positions. Principal Mark Hall, a member of the board, said he appreciated Bruckner’s inclusion of out-of-district events in his eligibility criteria, which had been a previous point of contention Temple had pushed.

Director Gary Loftis said he agreed with per diem reimbursement being offered for one-on-one informal meetings but proposed a compromise to allow such reimbursement for informal meetings where multiple board members are present.

“I know in the past, we’ve had some directors on a little tour of a project, and for me it gets a little formal,” Loftis said.

He also emphasized a point he made at last month’s discussion about the need for consistency in the board’s conduct, possibly referring to Temple’s earlier disclosure of a situation in which the board denied a two-night hotel stay in Omaha for her to attend an educational conference even though they approved a similar long stay for a handful of board members to attend another conference in Kearney.

That particular scenario sparked an exchange between Temple and director Matt Steffen, the executive committee’s vice chairman, after the latter supported the list presented by Bruckner “as is” and questioned how Temple lost tens of thousands of dollars on his additional work as a board member.

He also cited examples of having to work until 4 a.m. after attending LENRD meetings, as well as hypotheticals about meeting voters during an election season or working with a flow meter as potential things he could seek compensation for but does not.

“Am I thinking that training and learning how to work for the district?” Steffen said. “This list is just to get rid of gray areas, to prevent difficulties between staff and directors, and directors and directors.”

In response, Temple singled out Steffen for voting against her replacement for the Omaha Conference. While Steffen said the denial was because LENRD employees who also attended had chosen to drive down the next morning, Temple said he “didn’t authorize (her) to go at all.”

“What I’m asking for is a very ethically outlined list, so it’s not up to a subjective subcommittee,” she said. She repeated many times during the meeting that she believed many of those on the board were biased against her.

She also questioned a comment to the Daily News by director Anthony Wisnieski about the ability to attend educational conferences virtually, which Temple said is not usually the case, and that while she likely would if she could, she saw value in being able to network through personal presence.

Bruckner ultimately agreed to forward Temple’s proposed list to the rest of the board and possibly add some of her points to the proposed policy change, in addition to reviewing the proposal with legal counsel. He said the changes would likely come to a vote before the board in two weeks.