I don't have any questions about the five of us right now. This is all me looking projectively, >> right? I just saying that we need Yeah, we should discuss this a little bit more and be careful with what we're putting in here because at the end of the day, that can have unintended consequences and stifle other things. >> Okay. I'm Can you tell me what number we're on? Like I want to Sorry, I'm still not >> 105. Scroll down to diet version two. >> H2. Yeah, the second sentence in the diet version. >> The second >> and in the red ink where it says diet version, right below diet version. >> There's one ars 38. Right below that. >> Okay, now I found it. >> Yeah. >> Question. When did we want to have this voted on by? >> March. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah.
So, on that one, if you give me a if you give me and then a little bit of time to maybe kind of word something, >> uh, and maybe that's all the all the governing board members could be comfortable with. >> Uh, but yeah, it's it's it's interesting, right? Probably reason why it's not in statute because it's kind of hard to address. >> Well, also the people making the statutes don't want to have to abide by it. >> Oh, there you go, too. >> Yeah. And I mean, I could see how like >> that's fair. kind of like what Sophia was saying how it could have like an unintended like you know so let's just say I was on the legislature and I knew that some bill was coming down the pipeline and that if we voted on some particular policy it could I don't know yeah I mean I could see how like like you were describing like if somebody's holding two positions or they've got proprietary information or no >> proprietary already covered yeah >> yeah um >> it's the gray area we're talking about.
Yeah. >> And for me, gray areas are really hard to put policies on because it's it's left off to the perception or the situation, and that just creates a bigger mess for me than anything in my experience of >> discuss >> gray area policies. >> I actually kind of think this the definition of substantial interest is a little bit vague, too. >> I think so, too. But we can't change that. >> Yeah. So, if there is there like uh Katie like maybe like a particular wording that that's in your mind that you would like to see plugged in here. Does that make sense? I just want to get my wrap my head around a while around what um what you're seeing that that could be an issue or or that you would like to see in here to cover that concern. Um, I mean, we had I've looked at a few different things from other states, but I didn't like come up with any particular warning.
I think if we just think about personal gain and maybe we're not even using that term, but like Ben said, if we come back to it or give him some time, I can also look at some things. >> Okay. >> Yeah. In my mind, the way to kind and this is preliminary, right, just right here, right now, >> is we define what personal gain is. that might that might be able to address it, but define it in a very objective way. Yeah. Not >> and so but I I just need time to think about that. >> Okay. Agree. Yeah. >> Oh, everybody okay with this one for the most part? >> Yeah. >> All right. The next one uh that we had edited on was on procedure 105A board member conflicts of interest uh requirements. And so what this procedure does this is the implementation tool disclos disclosure timing forms and recordkeeping and sof terms.
The board sets the guard row and policy and administration maintains a procedure and records. Uh so this is the right kind of item for an administrative procedure because it's operational, repeatable and complianceoriented. And so are you comfortable keeping the disclosure mechanics and procedure rather than in board policy? >> Yes. I got to find it. >> Wait, you said that's still on 11 105. >> Uh, yes. Procedure. >> Well, 1058. >> We just don't have that on our folder. >> Oh, okay. I was going to say I didn't see you. >> Oh, it's at the end. >> Oh, I see it. >> Thank you, Eden. There it is. Okay. And then uh does the board want annual disclosure timing and disclose when in doubt expectations to remain as the compliance standard? And so I can tell you as a practical uh kind of situation, that's generally our advice anyway.
Just disclose when in doubt uh just to avoid any situations. Uh so putting it in your procedure, I don't think is a is a bad thing. >> Yeah, I like this. Yep. Thumbs up. >> All right. Uh so moving on the next policy uh 301 1-301 rules of order. So what this policy does, this is a simplified rules of order policy to keep meetings orderly and efficient. Motion second amendments and suspending rules. It's intended to support meeting discipline so the board can spend time on monitoring and outcomes rather than process confusion. SOFG requires consistent meeting execution so the board could focus on monitoring and governance level decisions. Uh so is the board comfortable adopting these rules as the board's default meeting mechanics? Wait, where are we still on the same thing? >> No, we're in 301. 301. >> Oh, we skipped the twos. >> Yeah.
>> Okay, that's why I was getting confused. >> I love how this one adds motions lacking a second shall not be considered. So, just know that we all are aware of that. That each motion has to have a second. If there's no second, then it doesn't get heard. and p and speaking in practical ter terms, Robert's rules of order is the norm uh as far as the parliamentary procedure. So just kind of uh making it official that would >> and if we need some kind of retouch on what Robert's rules of orders are, we can definitely have a session or a study session on that if you guys want that in the future since we're not all um um since we have new board members. So that's something that we can request to just so you guys know. >> Yeah, if you can please disclose that to us and then if we ever need to have a one hour study session before a board meeting or something to go through it, we can do definitely do that.
>> Yeah, but this policy is not holding us to Robert's rules of order, right? I mean, it doesn't say on here anywhere. >> Robert's or his rules of order. The >> It is, but you're also able to suspend them if you need to. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I've got nothing against it, but I wasn't sure if it needs to be explicit in here that we'll use Robert's rules of order in a outcomes focused manner or something. >> And you never really want to use Robert rules of order, all of it, just because it's very restrictive. Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. >> A question online for was there a reason we changed I mean it sounds like the same thing. What decorum? So on number four, just think of a situation uh maybe you have someone in the audience disrupting the meeting.
Uh or and I've I've been seeing some board meetings on the news where even board members are kind of getting into it and the board president's able just to recess. >> Yeah, I really like this. It gives us the ability whether it's our own behaviors or >> order that would be order like the quorum. I don't know. Using the wrong language could be taken. >> Yeah, someone could weaponize that. But I see what you're saying, Tristan. >> What I mean, decorum is different than order. >> That is true. >> Let's change it to order. Maintain order and safety. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because sometimes some of us >> if someone spouts off and says a swear word just because they're worked up. >> Yeah. >> Oh, we got to recess the meeting. This guy's >> Yeah. >> I know. And that's the thing, Gray, that a lot of these their policies will have nuances.
It's going to be up to who's delegating the meeting and everything. So, you're right, right? Somebody like me, I wouldn't end a meeting. I would let them do it a couple times and then you know like it is what it is but it might be different for somebody else. So yeah, thank you for considering that. >> Re request access or >> maybe you could also add a comment. >> Maybe I can request it. >> Yeah, you can add a comment still. >> So I'll just put right here and put a comment on it. >> We discuss Yeah, the last couple days I've been annoying single requesting access requesting access to add and a bunch of >> just >> Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to do that, but I couldn't. >> Okay, >> so we'll make that change. >> Uh, let's see. >> All right, our next policy is policy 1-302.
And what this policy does, this policy is a board the board's meeting framework. It restates core opening meeting law concepts and sets local practices on notice, agenda, timing, and posting practices. Definition, public participation, and call to public, emergency meeting, recess meetings, and uh minutes and recordings. It also incorporates an SOFG aligned agenda concept. The board president and superintendent preparing agendas that prioritize monitoring of goals and guard rails. Uh the policy protects the board legally and protects SOFG implementation by building meeting structure around monitoring and accountability. And so my questions to you are does the board want meeting agendas to explicitly priorit prioritize monitoring reports as a structural expectation? Uh and is the board comfortable with the call to public framework and the boundaries on discussion legal action during the call to public? Hold on one second. And so that edit's just shortening what the law is already.
>> So in terms of public participation, I've always been curious about this because I feel like school were abiding. Well, hold on. Where's the call to the I guess what I'm saying is is when it comes to call to the public and schoolboard meetings, it seems like our lawyers and how school boards operate in the state are vastly different than how like the state legislature operates under what would seemingly be the same open meeting laws and how they respond to people or how the open call to the public is. And so I'm just curious why school boards I mean I get it there's like risk involved but I'm just curious if this has just been a over time school boards have taken a more um risk averse approach to call to the public and what you can or cannot say or do in response to anything versus >> and so that was really curious too.
I I was uh I I was reading that statute because on one of the sections it says board members may respond to individual criticism. >> Yeah. >> But then right after it says board members may not discuss what's talked about at call to public. >> Yeah. >> And so it's very very interesting and I was like hm >> uh and so I guess the most conservative advice you could get there so you don't so you don't risk violating your open meetings law because if you talk about something that's not on the agenda, you know, you could run into that issue. Uh but then you have that that ability in statute that says that you can respond to criticism. >> Uh and so >> but I thought it was like when you were publicly attacked that you personal like it was personal attacks because read this multiple times.
I think that's what we've been told. But I think if a parent comes in and they have a valid concern that's saying, "Well, the districts isn't doing A and C and safety." >> That's district. That's like I I'm talking about like specifically if they came at you, >> right? >> But I don't think that's what the statute says. >> Yeah, that's not what the statute says. I think we can, for example, I was using that example. If somebody came and complained about the lunch, whatever, and then I respond and say, "Actually, we have, you know, our nutritional department. Have they done xyz?" I think that stays in the lane because you're responding. But we've been advised not to do any of that unless it's a personal attack. >> I'm pulling up the statute as my law partner always tell me. Have you read the statute?
>> 15. >> Is it 38? 3843101. >> 431.01. >> So yeah, because it says well there at 8 board members shall not discuss or take legal actions. But I think like if someone >> here >> makes a comment and one person responds to that person, it's not a discussion. >> Well, here's what the board members. At the conclusion of an open call to the public, individual members of the public body may respond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body, so it's not just you individually, >> may ask staff to review or ask review a matter or may ask that a matter be put on a future agenda. However, members of the public body shall not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during an open call to the public unless the matters are properly noticed for legal action. However, so it it's still a little confusing, but it still it doesn't say >> they kind of contradict.
>> Yeah. And it doesn't say individual criticism either. It it is what Sophia is saying, which is up to like criticism of the public body, which is all of us as a whole, not us individually. >> General advice is don't engage. Right. >> Right. uh in every state. I mean, it's not just an Arizona thing. >> What is an Arizona thing >> should take a perusal of our state legislative committees. >> But what is an Arizona thing is that you have those two provisions in there that says, "Yeah, you can respond, but then you can't discuss something that's >> not Yeah, it is really weird. So, >> I wonder if in order because I've always thought of those as too because sometimes people have valid concerns and I hate just being, okay, well, thanks for your comment. Bye." You know, um that doesn't sound right.
I wonder if we gave some authority to the president, vice president and then acknowledge but then turn it over, you know, our superintendent or team will look into this versus us actually going into this two-way communication, right? Because it could open up the doors and everything. Um, but I don't know, that's just a thought. >> Well, you may not be aware of this just because I'm I'm typically watching it as an observer and you're in the process of it, but you have traditionally um responded in that way. you've said we can't, you know, because we're not agendaized for it, we can't discuss your concern this evening, but our superintendent is here and we're directing. >> And this is and then this is also specifically talking about people who are coming up at the first call to the public. But if they're speaking on an agenda item, that's a whole different ball game, but this addresses both of those things.
This section is addressing both of those things. So, one strategy that I've seen some districts do is right after the call to the public, you have an an item like superintendent report or something and uh if there's something that some egregious allegation or whatnot, then the superintendent can't address it there. It's like pop >> it into your report. >> That's not true. >> Okay. >> Or or something like that. And I've my superintendent does that in my district when somebody comes in and says something crazy. >> Yeah. That would take moving our public our reports after public comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And you would just start >> I actually like that because if there is something in there >> okay >> it also kind of sneakily gets you around it anyway because you can make your report about whatever you want, >> right? >> Yeah.
And I mean if they bring up something that we know is already being handled, you know, then it can also be said, you know, >> and you can do it strategically. Oh, by the way, this week we were XYZ, your concern. Just kidding. >> Very good. >> Okay, I like that. Um, and I'll notate that some of where our agenda gets moved. >> Um, that sounds good. >> All right, let's see. >> So, we're good with this wording then, right? We're good as as is. >> Sure. Yeah, for now. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. And then did I hit all the edited policies? >> All right. So we're going to move on to chapter two, >> okay, >> which is administration, >> so chapter two defines the board superintendent relationship and the superintendent's accountability system. This is the core SOFG operating system. Uh in this packet, chapter 2 includes two edited policies 2-101 and 2-201.
And so going to 2-101, the duties of the superintendent. This policy is the delegation backbone. It frames the superintendent as the board's sole employee. Uh accountable for achieving the board student outcome goals and operating within guard rails. Authorized to develop administrator administrative procedures to implement board policy and law. Uh and responsible for providing monitoring reports demonstr monitoring reports demonstrating progress and compliance. Uh so this is really how how the district handles preliminary. Oh, this is I need some direction on this >> purple. >> Uh let's see. Yes. Is that preliminary notice? Yeah. So, currently >> your your policy allows for the superintendent to issue the preliminary or the HR to issue preliminary notices uh of inadequate classroom performance and then the board has to approve them within 10 days. Do we want those preliminary notices to come to the board first or are we okay with the way the policy is written right now?