Reader
Browse passages, annotate evidence, and export with full provenance for citation.
Um then our schedule I just went through as we were working. So Valley Schools medical group insurance presentation reviewed insurance renewal information with Valley Schools uh to discuss how our insurance claims impact next year's rates and plan designs. Discuss changes to EAP program and vision program for 2027. Uh HR update review class uh requested information gathered by HR including class size based on 100th day compared to 40th day. information regarding contracted pair professionals versus district employees. Additional clarification in the definition of certified non-admin uh student teacher trends over time. And I forgot to put in sped. So I'll add that too. SPED comparison across districts. Uh finance update overview of current context to budget outlook and declining enrollment. Review of compression work focused on process to align salary schedules for certified and to begin the process of alignment for other employee group salary schedules including classified reviewed comparison medical benefits costs assumed by CSD and a sampling of other districts.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
Uh workload issue continued. We developed a common definition of workload to revise interest statement divided into small jobike groups to discuss is revised issue related to workload. Options were categorized between task completion and coverage/ division of responsibilities. Uh we also reviewed standards uh that would be used to evaluate options through the lens of established standards aligned to SOFG legal fiscally responsible sustainable best interest of children. So that's that's what I have so far. Is there anything that I should change or add to that >> standards just suggested at this point or are they established? Uh well, I think you've got some non-negotiables on there for sure, right? You have to have the you can't break the law and uh your guard rails from your governing board are have to be aligned to SOFG. Um fiscally, you have to have something in there around budget because that's also a guardrail.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
Now, we can frame it differently if you'd like. >> No, suggest you change them. because it says suggested instead of like decided on >> Does anyone have uh does anyone want to add a standard that we either you've before or you think might be pertinent to this discussion? Kelly, >> I was just going to ask if the standards were determined by the board uh guard rails or what do we call those? The board >> uh >> recommendations. >> Principles. Yeah, guiding principles. That's still the the same practice. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah, because we we share those. Those are in that um Google sheet sheet to review >> and they haven't changed from last year. >> Okay. Okay. So, to me that would make sense to just use those plus the SOFG which I think they're already baked in at this point. What about the one we talked about with timeliness or I don't know like if you are >> feasibility >> um you can I I've done timely or feasible.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
Uh sometimes people get confused about that when but we could specify what it means if we think we need to do that because again if you get to something that maybe cannot be implemented right away >> uh or before the then you can't it may fall right if you evaluate it and it's a one because it's not timely it may reduce that option or it could go to next year it could be farmed out to a task force or committee >> might help with that being so long. True. >> Yeah. Is anyone else feeling that way about adding timely? And time, we need to define timely. You know, I in the past I've said, can it be done within the next six months? Um, that could be helpful. And to your point, you might reduce some that are on that list. Do we want to add timely as a standard or are we good with the four?
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
I I was thinking but I I I I think time should be specified there because it all goes back to people to the same people who implement everything. So I think it's a good recommendation there. So, I see a couple heads nodding. Do we have consensus to add timely as a as an additional standard to these four? I'm looking for thumbs. >> Feasible instead of timely. >> Explain feasible. >> Like feasibility is a combination of like timely and possible. So, for example, Joel said like going through and editing every single job description may not be feasible, right? and either it takes so much time that it's not worth discussing or it's just like with the the the staff that we have we could not implement this because that's not really captured by any of the other standards like you know something just we could say oh 10 10 preps for teachers and maybe that's legal maybe it's fiscally responsible we just don't it's not possible to do that with the schedule right it's not feasible >> so your definition of feasible would be timely and >> like doable possible >> realistic realistic.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
>> Reasonably possible, I guess. Yeah, [laughter] >> realistic is a little >> how about possible. >> I suppose anything is possible. May >> that's why reasonable. >> I don't like realistic because people tend to disagree. >> Okay. So now we've got another proposal on to change it from timely to feasible which includes language about time being timely and reasonably possible. >> Yeah, we could just do one. We do two standards. One timely feasible. >> Yeah, >> I I I would >> and timely and feasible. >> What's the reason? >> Wait, you want two standards now? >> No, that's one standard. >> Timely feasible is one standard. Got it. Like that. Okay. So, are there questions about feasible timely? Do is everybody comfortable with that versus just timely? >> So, we're saying if we make a recommendation thumbs up voting. So what we're saying is when we do the thumbs up voting types come to consensus one of the things we're going to look at is is timely can it be implemented or can it be researched in a certain amount of time >> it's not the thumbs though it's the 4 >> it's the evaluation of the option is the option feasible mean or is it timely and feasible >> so then we just give the one two three four so we're yeah so we're saying that timely meaning it can be done and researched quickly.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
>> Not research the option can be implemented in a timely manner. >> So if something cannot be implemented in a timely manner then it's >> you might score it lower. >> You got to score it lower a year. >> So it can't implement >> three if it's something been four years. So if something's going to take like two years to do, do we have to score it lower when we do the whole finger things? >> When you evaluate it, you would be thinking on that particular standard, is this a timely and feasible option >> for let's use the job description one. If you were going to take all 80 job descriptions and reassess them, if you if we we could say this is legal, you might score that out of three or four, right? It's legal. Uh maybe I don't know how you're score fiscally responsible, sustainable.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
When you get to timely and feasible, can this be done in a timely manner? Is it feasible to get done in that timely manner? You're likely going to score it lower because of 80 job descriptions needing to be evaluated. What a question. What if we are okay with something taking two or three school years to do? >> It's still an option that can move forward, but you would have that understanding that it may not be implemented for two or three years. >> So that's what I was going to add. Something we've done in the past is put a time stamp on the option. So instead of making it a standard that we're going to evaluate, we just say, you know, put it at the end like by whatever school year or by we've even gotten really specific. I remember with the Esser ones we did the committee will have the sunset plan or whatever by December 2025.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
So there might be even like as specific as a month date. I remember the one with um the benefits explanation was like by the month of April each year this will happen. So >> I would propose that instead of making a standard we just add it to the end of the option. It could be two years it could be a certain month or whatever. >> Okay. So now we've got an option to not put it as a standard but add it to the particular option. So, we've got three things. We talked about timely, we talked about timely and feasible, and we talked about nothing. We'll add it to the option. No, I just want to make sure. So, I don't know where to start. Do you want to start with the last one, which is don't put the standard, just use it when you are looking at the option as you've done in past practice.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
>> Do we have consensus to go around that way? I have a question. >> Okay, Ivonne and then Daniel. >> So the question is if we use the standards and somebody's an option is rated a one that means that we can revisit next year, right? >> No. Because what you're going to do is you're going to have let's say option is X whatever X is you're going to go through every standard legal fiscal SOFG um children right and if you keep timely or feasible then you're going to score this option against each standard. So, in the 50% raise, we're going to say um I'm doing this two I definitely one maybe uh probably Whoops. No. And I timely I don't know if it can be done in a year or right away by before May before addendums. This is just me scoring, right? You may score differently.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
What Kelly is saying is take that off and just say this and then you're gonna add clarifying >> timelines by April, by 2027, by FY 28, whatever. >> What is asking for if we score them low? Does that option get eliminated? Is that what you'll see? >> If you got all these other options, right? Because we came up with a slew of them today. At the end, you're going to have a total over here, right? Let's say 2, three, what is that? Seven. And this option has eight and this one has 12 and this one has three. We're going to say, okay, look, by by the way we've evaluated it, it looks like we need to take maybe these two options. Well, this one's kind of close because it's seven. Maybe we're taking these three options forward. If you're in in a really low or really high, it you'll see where it starts to weigh out.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
So, it doesn't you may not be able to do all of them. We don't even get compensation done by May. So the the guidelines were timely and feasible. If by May we don't even get compensation by May. >> Um my question was that if we are leaving it out of the standards and we're just doing it in the language of the options. I mean is it cool if people are thumbs downing an option saying I don't think that's timely or feasible? >> We're not thumbming down options. We're evaluating them through the criteria and then >> Yeah. But I'm saying if we leave this out of the evaluation, something can pass all of our evaluative criteria and still not be timely and feasible. So, >> but it's included. >> But to Kelly's point, you could add it on to the option. >> But something but something could pass all of the evaluative criteria without that language in the option.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
>> Well, that's okay. >> Cool. >> So, this team, this year's team might make decisions that are going to not be implemented for two years from now. And if we say no to something, it can't come up next year. I'm confused now. Why couldn't it come up again next year? That's what Ivonne just asked is couldn't we consider it again next year even if we decided not to do it this year. >> No, no, no. I was just saying if it's doesn't move forward for the next year. I was trying to sorry if I'm asking that you guys already know but I missed the second meeting because of surgery. So I just wanted to understand the the standards evaluation that the clarity of the pro the procedures that's all but I do have the question I think Daniel and and you said it. So if a rates low on the standards then is it moving forward or we're going to revisit it next year >> or by putting the time stamp as Kelly suggested it's it's approved but we're just getting more time.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
uh we you came up with a list of options and some of them are going to pass the criteria and some may not. Some are going to rise to the top and some are going to fall to the bottom. If you think about like your survey, right? Some things were prioritized and some things were not. Doesn't mean that we may not address it, but we may not. and that and you may have an option that falls low and you just say, you know what, it didn't meet much of the criteria at all, so it's not going to move forward this year. Somebody in here could bring it up again next year and somebody's going to say, well, we talked about this last year and you know, whatever. So, you may not bring it back up or you may. It depends on I've I've seen it both ways.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
I'm I'm wondering if maybe there's a con the scoring is not meant to be um the the um a veto, right? So if if it scores low in feasibility or timeliness or since we're talking about that one, let's say um uh fiscally fiscal and sustainable. So if it scores low in that but in the aggregate the score puts it at uh an eight then that might be an option that still is put forward even though it scored lower on that criteria. >> Correct. >> So it's not that having a one in in timeliness would prevent it from being moved forward. It's in the aggregate of all the scores all 20 people evaluating right um across every option that we have. the ones that rise to the top are the ones that get moved forward. If I if I'm >> Thank you for being more succinct about it.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
>> Okay. So, if I understand correctly, we're not going to add the standard of timely and feasible. We are going to try to tighten up the option by adding the timely feasible aspect to it. Okay, everybody good? Thumbs. I'm looking for thumbs. up sideways or I need I have more question. >> Okay. So, we got consensus on not adding that standard. So, we'll move forward with these four. Um, is there anything else for the good of the order before we part way? Oh, I have one more thing for you to do. Sorry. Uh again, at the end of all of these, I'm looking for information from everybody as to what your thoughts were on today's work. Today, it's a little bit different. It's called a rose, a bud, and a thorn. So, a rose is a highlight, something that was successful, something was positive. A bud is something's emerging.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
There's some potential, something you're looking forward to. a thorn is something that was a challenge or a pain point and then we'll see if we can't address those. So, if you take the time, if you want to put your name on there, great. If you don't, that is totally fine. But I would like everybody to complete this and then you can either turn it upside down or put it up here on the table and say adios to your neighbors. We'll see you on March 5th. That's two minutes. supposed. Well done. Thank you. That means
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
I don't realize his car has an app. >> You got a new car? >> Yes. >> I was thinking that last time you're here. He's in a big time now. He doesn't have to worry about the thing. >> Welcome to the February 5th board of education meeting.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
Mhm. >> We're all ready. All righty. >> Yay. >> Good afternoon and welcome to the uh February 5th board meeting of ASDB. Um before we get into the agenda, which I know typically we do as a call to the public to start the meeting, uh I have an opening statement I would like to share with everybody here. I want to acknowledge the intensity surrounding this meeting and the emotions many people are bringing to the room tonight. First, I'm going to address the location of this meeting. There's been significant concern that has been expressed over the past few weeks. I understand for some that holding this meeting in Tucson would have felt more accessible and more appropriate. I very much considered every single piece of feedback that I got about that. However, based on the responsibility I have as board president to ensure safe, functional, and orderly meetings, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the Tucson meeting a couple weeks ago, I determined this meeting would proceed here in Phoenix.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above
So You have the text. today. >> Yep, you're live. >> Good evening everybody. If if anybody's got a yellow form and wants to speak and you haven't turned it in, we need to get those in now. Okay. So, we have them all. Um I'm going to call the meeting to order. Can I get a roll call? Gloria. >> Miss Mcronis >> present. >> Miss Raymond >> present. >> Mr. Alexander >> here. >> Mr. Carlson >> here. >> Mr. Holt >> present. >> Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? >> I move to adopt the agenda as presented. >> Second.
⚗ AI-reconstructed · cite from original above