I thought that seemed a little wild. I definitely thought there should be more people and I still think that there should be more people. I just don't necessarily think that it should have to be budget and finance, but I like the idea of budget and finance reporting back because the other piece of the picture for me is not the I don't really care so much about how many signers we have as much as I care about the process by which we ask about warrants because last year we brought that up and we were told that we should just ask our questions by email or phone and then if we don't get a response in a week, we could ask again and not to bring up warrant questions in full committee. So for me, my problem is how we talk about the warrants, not really who signs it.
So I'm fine leaving it at one sign signature, but I don't think it should have to be budget and finance to do it. Um I'm glad that budget and finance will take it on, but what I'd really like to see is a more substantive discussion about the process of talking about the warrants. When do we bring warrant questions to the full committee? When do we have a group discussion about particular warrants? Because we've never done that. In the entire time I've I've been here, not one warrant amount has ever come up ever. >> And I think that's the most egregious thing to be honest with you. >> Yeah. And so just again to be clear, this does not change the number of signitories required. And my goal with this is to have more substantive discussion about warrants starting with our budget and finance subcommittee and for them to raise issues up the flag pole.
And if members if other members who are not part of that subcommittee have their own questions, send them to an >> okay >> send them to an so that they can get asked and hopefully provided an answer and then also subsequently reported on in this full committee. Whatever motion >> about other questions. >> Okay. Um >> yes. >> Yeah. Just >> I'm trying to >> superintendent >> understand the concept. I get the concept of it. Just the timing. Would this do anything with the timing in terms of paying these warrants? Um I wasn't sure if I was hearing I thought I might have been hearing two different things. Yes, definitely people in budget and finance maybe signing off and approving it. Do they have to wait for an official budget and finance subcommittee meeting to go through it and sign off or can they do it in between?
Because if that has to happen, um we'd have to create a pretty good calendar of when we're going to be doing payroll, right, every two weeks and they have to meet on a certain day and then it has to get submitted by Thursday, blah blah blah. all those types of dates because I'm obviously open to that I always tell everybody right and we're in public service as much as people think there are secrets there's no secrets here ask for it and we're going to give it to you and we'll show you what everybody's getting paid down to the penny right so there's no secrets in that sense I just want to make sure that things are processed whether it's people's payroll obviously for their services and money for products that we've bought etc from creditors you know, people that were paying and not going over 30 days, 60 days incurring fines, those types of scenarios.
>> I also just want to clarify the payroll warrants that is specifically reserved to the chair. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. Yeah. Not payroll warrants. Those are separate and those those have not historically, I think, ever come to the full committee. >> Yeah. So this is specifically just the warrants that we all already have access to. Clarification member child. >> So my interpretation on how things would work would be that a member of the subcommittee will sign it within the time uh requirements so that Vera doesn't come to our house and and that uh we would also in regular meetings of the subcommittee go over the warrants, raise questions, discuss them. So, if there is something sketchy that comes up that we don't like because you've bought um a goldplated Ferrari for central offices, we we' >> Yes. to deliver the mail. We The bill would be paid so we don't go into collections, but we would give you a big no no finger and tell you no more Ferraris.
Okay. Any more discussion? >> Thoughts, questions? Member Diamond, you're good. >> Did we Did we add anything to that motion or we let it standing how it stands? >> No, there was a part that we were adding. >> Okay. >> Now, I'm trying to remember what the wording of that adding was. sending warrant questions to the budget and finance. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, sending Yes.
Sending any questions that members who are not part of budget and finance have about warrants after reviewing them um will go to the chair of the budget and finance subcommittee which is currently Anchild's. Yep. Member Childs. >> So my last question on this, I promise. Uh because policy DK just says signed by minimum of one person, do we need to also update DK with these more restrictive laidout procedures or because these pre procedures do not contradict DK? It's you know this is the square rectangle question. So >> the way that I the way that I would ask that you allow this to be handled is when I come next month with the fully described laid out charges for each of these subcommittees, it will include the these detailed procedures that would become additive to our current policy manual. Um so we don't necessarily need to fuss with that right now.
Does that make sense? Especially because these would not be we wouldn't have to strike any of the current policy out. We're we're just making additions. I saw a face. I see I see several faces. >> Call a question. >> The question has been called. Um discussion has ended. We are voting. Member Dyman, >> abstain. >> Member Goodwin, >> yes. >> Chair Ston, >> yes. >> Member Webb, I am a yes. Vice Chair Childs, >> yes. >> Member Denive, >> yes. >> Mayor Disorger, >> yes. >> Passes with Did you abstain? >> No. >> Yeah. Passes with one abstension. Um, all right. Moving on. Item H. So, this is a motion from Chair Ston to formalize the warrants procedure to wait 24 hours between a request for signature and anyone signing the warrant. This comes from a discussion that we had as a committee last year where we saw that some people were signing like immediately, which we felt wasn't giving members enough time to look at them before they were being signed, especially since a signature does mean we're all liable for that.
Um, and so this is formalizing something that we had verbally agreed to but didn't actually take a vote or we could not find the record of a vote. So we are taking the vote now to formalize the thing that we already do. >> Um, second. >> Okay. I made the motion. Member Webb seconded discussion. Yes. Member Deniv. >> Oh my god, my brain just collapsed on me and I had a really good question. I'm sorry. Come back to me. I remember. >> Any other questions? I'm sorry. We're back to you. >> Oh, I do have a question. I do have a question. Yes. >> And I don't think this pertains to it, but I'm going to ask anyways. Say, for example, the warrant has already been signed. Okay. >> We can still ask questions about those warrants. >> Yep. >> Yes, we can. >> Oh, and we should.
>> Okay. This should get loose. Um, okay. So, should we take this formal item and put it in the policy handbook for new members to understand that that is what they're supposed to do when they are looking at warrants? >> Yes. >> Okay, that was my question. >> Yeah, add that to the motion so that it goes somewhere because I know you all are tired and I know you're all looking at me like why why why? But >> it's good to have it. >> The mayor is nodding. But this is the thing. Past committees here didn't do this work and we have a mountain of debt to wipe clean. And I'm sorry that it's late and that it comes up. But I can tell you that all these things should have been handled years ago and they just weren't. And now to the credit of Chair Ston, we can actually put things on the agenda and get them handled.
And so I'm sorry when they ask for new business, I have six things. I'm sorry, but >> this is just how it is. >> It will be less and less as we improve. >> Yep. >> Um, yes. So, it's a motion to formalize this warrants procedure for the 24-hour waiting period and also to refer that to policy for inclusion in our member handbook um and formal inclusion in our policy manual. So, it's two places policy. >> Well, it's get sent to policy because that's where the handbook lives and also to add it into our actual policy manual. So, there are two two >> I appreciate that. >> Yes, it is. Member Dyman. >> Yes. >> Member Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Chair Ston. >> Yes. >> Member Webbama. Yes. Vice Chair Childs. >> Yes. >> Member Denivive. >> Yes. >> Mayor Disorger. >> Yes. >> Passes.
>> Excellent. >> Sorry. Passes unanimously. Wonderful. Thank you. Um, for item I, I actually will make a motion to table this or to postpone it until the next meeting at which time I will have a much clearer specific rationale. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion from me, second from Web.
Any discussion? Seeing none, let's take a roll call vote. >> Member Dyman. >> Yes. >> Member Goodwin. >> Chair Ston. Yes. >> Member Webb. I'm a yes. Vice Chair Childs. >> Member Deniv. >> Yes. >> Mayor Disorger. >> Yes. >> All right. Passes unanimously. >> Um, next item. We are We are at our final item for new business. I'm so proud of us. Let me know when you're ready. >> It's all good. We've had longer meetings before. I promise. Um. All right. um discussion and possible revision of policy JA field trips specifically as it relates to outofstate day trips for students and needing school committee prior vote. >> Superintendent.
>> Thank Thank you. Oh >> do a second. >> Okay. >> Yep. And then I I'll just um this may be some foreshadowing or maybe after hearing a lot of the discussion tonight, maybe it may need to go to a subcommittee to then come back out. But a little foreshadowing for you. We you just approved a trip tonight to New York City, a day trip that will be happening for our students to go down there, which is a great opportunity, right? That I always find it awesome that teachers want to actually take some of their time truly, right? and go on a bus with students and it's it's nerve-wracking at times, right? When you're responsible for 40 or 50 people in a big city and doing that and sometimes I always say like many of us live all of us, right? We live within three hours what plus rush plus or minus of one of the biggest cities in the world, right?
And how many times do we really go there or see it or do it? So, as close as we live to a lot of these things, sometimes all of our students don't get these opportunities. Point of this being that um your policy JA the last paragraph says all outofstate or extended overnight field trips and excursions blah blah blah have to be approved by the school committee. My concern Ian I think is somewhat of a waste of your time and getting field trips off the ground is the wording out of state. Um I do agree with overnight. I do agree with international etc. This would be something that obviously might have to get referred to, but for example, um I did, as you know, I've spent the majority of my career in the lower Penny Valley in the Springfield area. Um students in the Springfield area, across the state line to Connecticut, right, for many things, the Hartford Science Museum, Science Center, um Native American museums down there, etc.
Here you probably have opportunities to go to Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. >> Washington DC. So overnight, yes, you would still take take quotes, but a day trip to I say cross the border to go pet a cow and see a barn in in Vermont really is something I can handle. At least I think the superintendent can handle. So that may not be a tonight thing depending how we've gone with our procedures, but I did want to put that in front of you. So now it would be I guess where to go with it just to plot it along the proper lines. >> I do think that if we're following procedure then it does have to get routed to policy. So I think the motion then becomes uh moving yeah to go to to send this policy for revision to the policy of committee. >> Member Goodwin.
So, I know I know from my time in front of school committees about taking kids to Washington DC that this was always had to be approved by the school committee and it always had to do with insurance like the buses and the like if something happens when you're not in Massachusetts. That was always the South Hadley discussion. look into that. >> I mean, I just know it was in our policy as well. And so for 10 years, I went forward, but I remember I used to have to have an insurance something for the buses or whatever. just >> yeah I think that makes sense to ask the if we're going to refer this to policy to ask them to better understand like why this policy originated to begin with and if there would be any ill effects of us removing the stipulation member child I just think it's really funny that we'd have to jump through more hoops to go half an hour away to Brattleboro than an hour and a half two hours to Boston >> I just think it's funny so yeah we should change the policy Make it humorless.
>> Okay. Are we ready to take a vote to refer this to the policy and program subcommittee? Great. Will you please call the role? Member Webb. >> I just want to be clear because it says discussion and possible review. There really wasn't a motion, >> but I have made a motion. >> Okay. Second. >> Sorry. Made a motion. >> I thought we made a motion to discuss it. Who made a motion? >> Chair sex made a motion. >> Then I second it. >> I don't Yeah, I'm not sure that I made a motion to discuss, but if I did, then we did that motion completed. I guess um and I'll make a new motion to refer this item, this policy to the policy and program subject. >> Second. >> This is what happens when it gets late. This is why procedure is so important. >> All right, so we've had a motion.
We have a second. I think we're ready to vote. Will you please call the role? >> Member Dyman. >> Yes. >> Member Goodwin. >> Chair Ston. >> Yes. >> I'm going to abstain. Member abstain. Vice Chair Childs. >> Yes. >> Member Dene. >> Yes. >> Mayor Disorger. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um before we move on, actually no. I want to get this vote done and then I will ask for items for next meeting. Um, all right. Old business. Item A, discussion and vote on the enrollment of Greenfield Public School students in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school and the district's option to restrict future Commonwealth of M Massachusetts virtual school enrollment. This is something that we talked about back in uh in January and I know that we'd received some subsequent information from the superintendent. Um, so at this point, um, I would make a motion to restrict Greenfield Public Schools students enrollment to the 1% cap.
Um, >> second. >> Moving forward. All right. So, I've got a motion. I've got a second from the mayor. Discussion, mayor. So, um, thank you very much, superintendent, for sending us that information. Like 85% of the schools have 1% or less. And I think it's very important that we make wise decisions at this point. We're going to be on to budget discussions later. And I think it was very reasonable the way it's presented. There are 17 people right now. all of those 17 would be able to finish um attending through the end of them graduating at the virtual school. But in the end of this year, we're going to have to make decisions on things like perhaps the number of custodians or a program. So, I think we have to be wise now and I think that's a very good idea to make it 1%.