001of the area school district board of education. Mr. Tim Buban here. Miss Mia Croy here. Mr. Jim Moser here. Miss Don Garcia here. Mr. Zach Masa Myers here. Miss Lisa Pew is excused. Miss Allison Sorg here. Dr. Sharon Milin Bartlett here. Student rep. Michaela Becker is excused. And President Joe Patterson here. Uh we are on to item 2A, public comment. There was no written public comment submitted tonight. Is that correct? Correct. Um, seeing no members of the public approaching the podium, I will assume that there is no public comment in person as well. I will now move to item 2B, legislative update. Yeah. So, I'll do it. I have there's just one thing I'll share. There's a bunch of stuff, but I think the one that's probably the most uh relevant and um I'll ask
002Lisa to add anything if she wants, but uh the Democrat a group of Democratic lawmakers have circulated a package of bills for co-sponsorship called the mental health care is healthcare package. Uh the package includes several bills that are aimed at increasing access to and funding for mental health services and schools spearheaded by uh Senator Lat Latana Johnson um and uh Robin Vining. Uh the lawmakers cited Office of Children's Mental Health reports that shows an alarming rise in incidents of self harm and suicide among youth. Um so I I'll let you read it for yourself if you want. Um, but basically it's a it's a more work to try to increase the amount of mental health uh options and care than our schools. Um, so in terms of all the other things that are on here,
003that's probably the most relevant. So I'll just leave it at that for now. Are there any questions for them on the legislative update? No. Then we will move on to item 2 C, the work group report. um employee relations work group met prior to this meeting and who I think she can barely hear you. Can you hear me better now? Yes. Yes. Okay. Zach, are you going to give the workg groupoup report? Yep, I can give that. Okay. Yep. So, we met and then um we uh discussed the ongoing uh comp plan discussion for the educator plan um as that goes forward. Um just for everybody's knowledge, it hasn't been updated since 2019. So, that's been being looked at. Uh we reviewed the employee handbook feedback that that was given. Um I think is that
004every year correct that they that um we take a poll from the from everybody everybody in the district to um have suggestions to the handbook there. Uh reviewed that. Um as far as the policies uh we had a whole list of policies we have tabled that and um to review those for and revisit them at a future meeting um to bring to the full board for approval. And I know I missed the the probably first five 10 minutes. So I don't know if there's any uh additional comment that needed to be there or not. No, Zach, I you you covered um the gist. The um compensation committee discussion is going to be forwarded to the full full board and communication will go out be to both board and staff um between now and the next
005board meeting to update people. And so I just want to thank the individuals um and um Erica and Jessa for um facilitating that group and in the communications you'll see the members who were who made up that that um compensation committee. Um so look for communications coming out after um tonight's meeting later this week. Are there any questions for the employee relations work group? Seeing none, item 2D is the student representative report and that representative is not here tonight. So I would assume we were moving on to item 3A, Dr. Keyser's report. Yes. So couple [Music] um No worries. No worries. So, uh, following up on the conversation, um, last time where I, um, provided a little bit of context around open enrollment, um, and the question, a question was asked could, you know, what
006has been our trend. So, um Rachel, um compiled this little table that shows our applications for open enrollment both in and out and then what our um running total was for that year. Um so, just give you give you a sense and since the time um we were slightly more in than out and as you can see open enrollment period is an ongoing time. So, we're at a break even point um for open enrollments in and out for next year. And again, the open enrollment timeline um is 3 months beginning in February and then families have until July 1st to um accept or deny the actual movements. We are in an alternative open enrollment period which basically just means that open enrollment goes through a different process that DPI has established but continues throughout the
007year. So these numbers eb and flow. Next time you'll see updates around around this will be when we do conversations around um counts and and so forth. Question. I'm just curious if I mean this looks positive in that it's equal. It hasn't been that way since the chart started at least. Um do you have any sense? Do we have any sense about why we think that might be equaling out a little bit or any trends that we're seeing? Not not particularly. the last time we um formally did a survey. In fact, the um school perceptions used to do do open enrollment surveys where they would would call families and I believe it was just before the pandemic like 2017 or something like that. And they asked families coming here and families who left and of
008the respondents the top five reasons were the same for both. Typically families who work in a community and have young um their newer fa uh younger families with young kids, they take their kids to the the places of work and same here. Um so no, we do not have a a a sense since that time of doing that. We did look um about a year and a half ago and that's how we found out school perceptions no longer does that and we could not find another survey company that does that and um trying to contact um all the families that are coming in and going out internally um was just not something we um Okay, thank you. Yep. All right. All right. Um, and now I've lost. There you go. Thank you. Um, for our
009board meeting 101, want to let the board know that board docs as a title is going away. Um, board docs was bought many years ago by a group called Diligent. um and they work in this space um at at the government level, nonprofit level, school districts and so forth. Um and they have their own new platform called Diligent Community. So over the course of the next year, we will get more information, but I wanted to start to prep the board and the community around this transition because the platform is going to look different. And one of the things is that um we will um have a different look in terms of what's being projected onto this onto the screen for our community as well as behind us here. So this will be the last meeting
010that if you're a board member um or district administer that's in the room, you do not need to log into the Zoom meeting anymore. Only if you are um remote do you need to log in. What will be presented behind um myself will be the agenda. Um and it's going to look no different than the agenda on board docs. But when we migrate to um diligent community, it'll actually the agenda will will have a different look and feel and be much more um public facing presentable. So to get us used to that, beginning on the 16th, um I'm just giving everyone forewarning that if you're in the room, you don't have to log into Zoom. Um what the board what the um YouTube will display will be um a camera that is mounted in the
011ceiling showing the the board table and it will also be projecting the agenda. Um and then uh when when and if you are remote uh then you can log in to Zoom and then we'll project project that any questions on that. So it's going to look a little it's going to feel a little bit funny at first. It's going to look a little bit different but when we migrate to diligent um community it's going to look a lot more savvy um and it'll make a lot more sense. The reason um that it'll be sometime next year is because Diligent is working with Niola to do their policy up updates and the backend management piece. And so there's there's a little uh little bit of um work being done on that point. And last but not
012least, um we had gradu graduation. It was a gorgeous day. We had um a count of 224 grads. Um we had 12 individuals who graduated at semester time. Um but we will also be um at our next board meeting already into summer excel and so summer excel is kicking off and uh it will be at Sand Hill. There will be um some construction happening over there but the they have done some work over spring break so that they can accommodate. We have about um a little over 450 students that are registered. Um you the times and dates on the website haven't changed. Um and then the offerings again looking at offering a wide variety of um areas for our students as well as having our interns and our partnerships like we've done in the past.
013So, we're really looking forward to the kickoff at our next meeting here and we'll have some good um first day photos. So, questions on that. Any questions for Dan? Being none in the room and no hands on the screen. Thank you. Uh we'll move on to the consent agenda. Sorry, just a second. flipping screens around. Um move, sorry, the wrong thing. Um move to approval of the consent agenda as presented. Second. Seconded by Croy. Is there any discussion? Being none, I'll call question. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Any abstensions? Consent agenda is approved. We are now on to item 5A and we need to start with the motion. I move to approve the following. Increase breakfast and lunch fees by 10 cents for adults and students grades K to 12 and milk by
0145 cents for the 2025 to 26 school year. Increase district facility usage costs per the attached file effective July 1st of 2025. Second second by any further discussion. There was one question that was asked at the last meeting about the adult um costs. Um, and so I asked Erica um the question and um if I'm if I'm remembering it right, DPI fed that if um districts need to charge for the 465 if they um moving forward and we've done that and have just applied the same increases moving forward from from whenever DPI established that. Thank you. Okay. Getting a thumbs up. So I remember that correctly. All right. Any further discussion on that? See none. Uh call question. All in favor of the motion as presented. I I Any opposed? Any abstensions? Motion carries. Now
015we are at 5B, pool employee wages, and that needs a motion as well. Uh I I'll move approval of an increase for pool employee wages for all positions of 25 cents effective July 1st, 2025. New wages to be cashier $15.50 per hour. Uh if a cashier is lifeguard certified, they will receive the lifeguard rate of pay. And then uh lifeguard uh $16.50 per hour. Instructor $18.50 per hour. Head at guard $20.50 per hour. Seconded. Seconded by Garcia. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstension? Abstain. Thorg abstains. All right. Motion carries. We are to item 5C. That also needs a motion. I move to approve the SRO agreement as presented. Is there a second? Second second by Croy discussion. So I have a question about and I don't know able to
016put the agreement up. Um it's about the information sharing section. Um, and I I understand to my understanding essentially what it says is that the SRO for the purposes of access to school information would be treated like a district employee and would have access to student information that might otherwise be protected. Correct. My question is, are there safeguards in place that prevent them from then sharing that information with other officers who aren't an SRO and maybe don't, you know, might be information they want, but they wouldn't have access to it in absence of the SRO because it's not information that we would normally as the district would normally share without, you know, a subpoena or something like that because it's privileged information. So, what safeguards are in place that sort of draw a partition around
017what the SRO might have access to and what they can share with others in their department. So, the your concern is that is the SRO going [Music] to be accessing information outside of a need to know and then and then sharing that out to to and the police department at um per per general or not not necessarily outside need to know but it might be information that's appropriate for an SRO to have in the normal you know like say We're talking about um you know IEEP information, correct? Um that they might need in the normal course of their day, but then there becomes a police issue and the SRO has access to this issue, this information that we wouldn't just willy-nilly share with the police, you know, if there's a police situation, we're not going
018to go, "Oh, and by the way, here's this kid's IEP." Right. So, what partitions are in place or what protections are in place around that? Yeah. So with this agreement, um one of the stipulations is that um the SRO falls under our our school district policies and our school district policies have um have guidance around access to information, then sharing that information as as uh uh confidential um personnel with people who need to know and don't need to know. And so the if um that situation were to occur, the SRO would have to go have to assess am I being asked because I'm in the building and have access or am I or am I um accessing this in the c due course of working with other other educators in in the school district? It
019would be very akin to us having going to the police department or to the SRO and saying, "Hey, you know, we just are curious what's the um law enforcement involvement with this person or this family." So it's a the agreement is reciprocal in that it allows us to to be able to share information but it has to be purposeful for the for the needs of um the specific situation. So the SRO knowing the students IEP so that they can interact with the student appropriately in the school is an appropriate use of that information. sharing that sharing that information out with officers who would not be interacting with that could be could be a personnel issue on both sides. It could be an issue for us and it certainly could be an issue on the law
020enforcement side. So, I don't know better a better way of of being able to answer the question in the hypothetic hypothetical, but the way that this is this inter agency agreement is is designed is saying they're going to be in our school and for them to to work most effectively, they're going to have to have access to the student information. And that access is going to be at the same level as a classroom educator. that classroom educator shouldn't be looking up student students and just sharing that information out. And we would expect the SRO to to do that as well. If we got word or uh a situation arose where that was in question, we would have to investigate that no differently than we would any one of our employees. The only difference is is
021that in addition to us, we would have to notify the police department because that might be a policy violation on on their end as well. Okay. I I don't think it needs to go in the agreement, but maybe maybe around training. I think I think it will be important especially at the outset for someone to offer whoever's in that SRO position some support around the way you know what the school considers privileged information and protected information and sort of just because I know you know they have different standards not better or worse just different than we do and so you know we if they're going to be expected to follow the district's standards around that someone will have to help them understand those. Yes. Yes. And I and I would say along along that lines,
022um the basic SRO um course is a week-long course and in it in in um the course outline. They really talk about school schools have their own unique policies and procedures depending on the district and that an SRO should become knowledgeable and aware of what the administrative guidelines and expectations are for being a being able to operate within not only the district but the individual schools. So, okay. Any other questions, Jim? Well, I have a I have a couple. Um, not about the agreement because I think I think it said last time that Dan and the city did a good job, I think, capturing the questions that people had, but it kind of goes back to having listened to the meetings in January. Just a couple questions still in my head. Uh, one one springs
023from sort of what was the impetus for the idea and was there some data that was used to generate this and does that then suggests data that we need to collect to see if it's effective in in achieving whatever goal we've decided that that we should achieve and that I didn't hear in the discussion in January unless I could have missed it But you would you would have missed a good chunk of it because a for the prior two years this was conversations that were largely held in committee. Okay. And during that when this goes back to predating my tenure here in the district. So we as a school district comparative to our our neighbors are relatively new to the SRO program. um we had it for a a relatively short period of time comparatively
024prior to it um discontinuing during the pandemic. And then when I came um into the district um the board at that time had delegated that conversation of the program and whether or not to bring it forward or to um make a make a statement or a stance around that in committee. We had an entire um year's worth of conversations that in that were inclusive of of the chief and community members and the end report um by board member Jackson, Steve Jackson at the time was that there was a lot of discussions and there was really no clear through line one way or the other and so it was just left as as the discussion. The following year we had some conversations that led towards the belonging and um really really digging into that component. We
025had just um started doing some staff and student surveys. In those surveys um some of the comments talked a little bit about the SRO. we um chose at that time to put um we recognized that we didn't have full and complete pu uh student services staff in every one of our buildings. So um namely speaking school psychologists. So we added a school psychologist. So we now have counselors and school psychologists in every building. Right. We um our our social workers remained at three that service all five of our campuses and yet we this conversation um continued to come up. Fast forward to the beginning of this year, we had two new administrators. They also elevated that from their entry plans. And so I worked with the board president, vice president and said this has been
026in committee for two years. This keeps popping up every so often that I think the board as a whole needs to at least have the discussion at as a full board and not as a committee. And that's how we got to the January meeting. The data that was provided at the January meeting um was in reference to both historical conversations as well as questions that were brought up brought up um at that time around. Number of referrals, number of service calls for service, which are two different things. Um, a call for service from the police standpoint could be um their monthly uh uh checks of um you know the the alarm systems or showing up for a football game or a dance or something like that. Those are all calls for service. However, um in
027our behavioral records, any behavioral incident that involves police, there's this a particular checkbox that has to be marked so we can run a report of how many behavior records involve law enforcement, whether they um issued a citation or not. And so those numbers were the chart that was provided back in January and February or sorry January. So going forward, how would we know whether this is effective or not? the impact of the conversation um from our from our last meeting was really looking at historically we have those month-to-month um reports from when we did have the SRO. So, uh those could be um a starting point for building out a report. I think there's still a strong belief if I'm if I'm summarizing the conversations around the board table before that we want to have
028um if approved the SRO come to the board multiple times next year and bring a um summary of what their activities have been, what interactions they have had and then provide feedback to myself to augment a augment that in the policy which is after the agreement. Um the policy actually puts at the bottom um a summary of their activities, their interactions um it was broad and inclusive so uh so that we could zero in on what exactly the board would like to see. For myself, this really ties to the goal of belonging. So, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of those uh the feedback that our staff and our students um provide in those surveys and those comments to say if we introduce this, we can look back two years and see what our
029our belonging specifically um questions such as I feel safe at school. I have a trusted adult that I can go to when I need to. Looking at questions like that and seeing if there's any change in those with the introduction of of this if it was approved as well as looking at the comments and seeing if people are are making comments around that in addition to feedback that the SRO would provide directly to the to the board in open sessions. So it is it is a loose framework but it's the beginning it's the beginnings of one because I don't because I don't think um we have districts just don't um go go trying to measure a sense of belonging which I think the SRO plays a factor into but I think with that as a
030as a backdrop we have the structure to to start to evaluate that in the same area that we've kind of stumbled towards. How are we going to measure a sense of belonging in our in our district in general? So, yeah. All right. Um, can I just if anybody who hasn't asked a question yet wants to ask a question, Jared, go ahead. Um at our last meeting I believe it was Allison who had asked for some insight into how the position would be paid for and Dan you had answered that person would start Jan July. One of the timing of like budget process would be October. um we would build this into our budget request, but given how lean the district's budget has been for years now, we're going to have hard choices to make even
031without adding the cost of this to it. So, as a group, like where do we foresee carving out the funding for this? So, not just a Dan question, but for everybody. No, I would say I would say early on in in the conversation when we got to the point um that the board approved us going down this route. One of the one of the early conversations was, you know, an estimate of what what that cost is. the cost being roughly $65,000 on each of our parts. We take a take a look at that and we build we would have to build that in into our overall budget. Um our overall budget being roughly about $43 million. We knowing that ahead of time allows us the best opportunity to build build that into the overall um
032budget picture and then forecast that out using um we work with with Baird and Baird provide provides us um an opportunity to model what are what different budgeting scenarios are moving forward given that we are in a benium bianium budget and beginning that um we are having a conversation as um as um Zach alluded to around compensation. All of that all of these factors having conversations right now are things that we we um consider when building the over the overall budget. So that that's our internal perspective in ter in terms of that. Uh additional questions. Well, hold on. Mia, I have your hand up. Okay. Allison or Zach? I can't see them. Either one have their hand up. Allison, go ahead. Um, kind of back to that sharing of information. I'm just wondering um where
033our police department stands um as well as the county whether they're part of the 287G program um with immigration and customs enforcement. Do we know? So, so we've I mean we've been we've been talk I you know we've been talking in terms of the um custo uh immigration customs and enforcement and we've had one we've we've not had any interactions with them and I know the police chief ha has shared that they've not had any interactions with with them. Um, if you want, just hit your hit. Um, yep, you're good. Um, in terms of your interactions with Immigration, Customs Enforcement, have you had any interactions? None at all. And if if confronted, um, we don't enforce those laws. the I guess the closest we would come to participating would be at a request by a
034federal organization. Okay. For for us, we our policies talk about talk about a um um judicial warrant. And again, the information that has been shared with our building leaders is if um if we were confronted by um Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, we would request that um and then we would verify that as a judicial warrant before um move proceeding um with any actions. And until that was determined, we would ask them to not engage on our property or in our buildings. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You want to go next? Um, yeah. I just I think the issue that Jim raised is is a very good one because it was something we struggled with a little bit at in the committee and I was there in every one of those committee meetings from before
035your time Dan. Um, and it really was because we were saying what we really struggled to identify is what problem are we trying to solve with the SRO and we still didn't quite get to clarity even when it came out of committee. And just to clarify, the recommendation from the committee was to for the board to continue to monitor the situation um with school safety. So, we've been monitoring it without data, but we've sort of been monitoring it. But it seems like what we're proposing, the theory of action so to speak with this SRO is that having an SRO in the schools to develop relationships with the students will increase the sense of belonging and decrease increase safety and decrease the burden on administrators because that's what we heard in terms of the arguments for
036this position. I really feel like we need to have in place some way of measuring those things. I mean, we have a history of putting new positions in place and then just letting them continue forever. I mean, we did that with the dean of students, right? that was supposed to be a shortterm solution that we're going to take keep a close that the board would keep a close eye on and determine whether that's meeting the need or not. And I don't think I wasn't on the board at that time, but I don't know that the board's ever heard anything back from that. Tim, we have not. Nope. So, you know, I I hesitate to think that we'll get some reports from the SRO, of course, because we said we're gonna maybe we'll even get reports
037that show demographics, which is better than what we got in the past. So, at least we can monitor that we're not, you know, worsening um some dispare disperate experiences in our schools. But if we're putting the, you know, if we're going to spend money that could be spent on something else because this is a zero sum game. So I get that it's been built into the budget and you know, we're not going to have to like cancel something to make find the money for this, but this is money that could be spent on something else. If we're going to spend it on this, I want to know clearly articulated what problem are we solving and how are we going to measure to make sure that that problem is indeed being solved by this position. I
038mean, maybe the problem, to be perfectly blunt, I I feel somewhat like the problem is that the public is really skittish and they want us to have an SRO in place and we hear about it a lot. And so maybe we'll solve that one. I don't know. I haven't been keeping any data on how much we hear about that from the public. But, you know, I it just seems like we're still kind of putting the solution before we've fully defined and fleshed out the problem. No, I appre I appreciate your uh synthesizing that. I don't recall the comment about um reducing administrative burden because the SRO is not um an assistant principal or principal. They're not going to be um investigating try in the hallway or anything like that. They're going to be they're going
039to be um involved when the administration feels they need to be involved, but they're not going to be deployed as an extra assistant principal or dean or anything like that. you bring up the the dean conversation and we and we've talked about that um at the board table in the past and I know that um that was um a a time ago and yes I don't know to what degree data was looked at in all of that to your point it is um being tied to our goal around belonging and increasing a sense of of safety um within the environment and that I think we we do have a good sense of if that is the case exactly what kinds of questions do we want to um have the SRO answer to address the board's
040um collective thoughts around what does what does a sense of belonging mean and what does increased safety mean? And so, um, I think being more intentional about putting guard rails in place to say we want to bring um, the SRO to the board on a frequent basis, whether it is four times a year, three times a year or whatnot. and allowing that to be flexible and not uh cast in stone like it's going to be this many times no more no less because I think anything new you want to be close to it the idea of approximate uh approximation to the situation is a is a good thing when you're implementing something new when you're implementing anything new you want to stay close to it so that you can monitor it more frequently and then
041when you get to know more, you can make better decisions around it. I think in in reimagining the SRO program, learning from the past and the the things that were elevated as concerns before is exactly the right right step. And the this version of it, I think, has more of those guard rails that board members have asked for. Um, do we have it all figured out yet? No. But I would I I would articulate we haven't figured out belonging because unlike math and um literacy, districts just don't measure that on on a regular basis. And so we are in kind of a pioneering type stage where we're creating something from nothing and we're doing our version of it. And I would say the SRO um folds within within that envelope of belonging. And I think
042we have the opportunity um if the board uh approves this to create something that other districts could learn from. So I I I appreciate the I appreciate the feedback and that you're I agree with you to the degree that we have a loose framework and the goal is to become tight tighter with that. And I think the agreement also provides opportunities to say over the course of a three-year period that we have some decision points that we can make internally on on a basis but then every 3 years it says unless there is action on both parties after three years this end. So there's a defined end date unless there is explicit action on two two parties parts. Do that. Um and I think that is living up to the spirit of what you just
043articulated like it was meant to be a short-term thing in reference to in reference to um um past practices and we built that we built that structure into this agreement with that intentionality in mind. So I think three years gives us a good runway for us to collect some data and and and have some really good conversations. And if I can just one thing I invite us all to remember that while for some students having an SRO in place has them feeling an increased sense of safety and belonging, for some students it has the opposite effect. Right. Yes, I I acknowledge that and recognize that that that reality for for is on both sides for students and we don't know which student for which students that is but in intently that's why we want to
044stay close to this. Okay, additional questions. Jim, I have I have two just kind of give a heads up. uh one is a little more general and that is where they're in the discussion and and again I hate I don't want you to go too far back but take too much time but in the discussion around this position and presenting it heavily focused on engagement uh belonging were there other alternatives to achieve that discussed and presented in any fashion uh some districts are going to you know different kinds of models of individuals uh hired in the school to do perform that kind of task, particularly with those kids who often are not served by a law enforcement person and whether there was any discussion of other models to to use or to look at, I
045guess. Um, and as Mia mentioned, she she was um involved in all of all of the board conversations. So, I I'm going to um partner up um to to dust off the cobwebs spec actual specific programs by name. I don't believe there was anything hard and fast specifically. One thing we definitely talked about were things like counselors, school spikes, um student services personnel, educ educational personnel. I don't believe we talked at all about, in fact, I'm almost 95% sure that we never talked about like would the district hire its own safety staff that isn't a law enforcement officer like some urban districts do and things like that. That would be um a full full additional cost um and making a decision in terms of one versus the other. the conversations around um as Mia had
046uh Mia and Sharon have have both brought up, you know, the cost factor. If we have $65,000, how best do we spend that? And two years ago, um the hypothetical I think Frank put out there was $50,000. We we said we said, "Yeah, we we think we could do for $50,000 we we could look at a couple of different things." Fast forward two years later, end of my third year, it's a different different time in a different space. We we've invested in some of those other things and yet this still comes up comes up. Mia, do you remember any hard and fast? No, I think you I think you captured that. We we did talk a little bit about [Music] um mental health focused staff and then also sort of more of like mentorship staff
047um in the in the district to you know do some of that work. Um, honestly, those conversations didn't go very far because everybody just wanted to talk about an SRO. So, good. Before you ask your second question, do you have a question? It's okay. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Me? Yep. You Thank you. Uh, and this is more implementation. I remember last either one of the prior meetings and I haven't been to that many, so it's got to be in May. uh there was some discussion around allocating that person's time and I don't recall if you've had any discussions about how that would be and one of the reasons I mentioned this Sharon mentioned last time some of this needs to be out sort of public what what can the public expect so has there
048been have there been sort of initial thoughts about you know a 40-hour work week for an officer is you take away some you know training time probably some in department meetings back at the etc., etc. You're not getting at 40 hours a week, but let's just stick with 40 as a number. Mhm. Um, any initial thoughts on around across buildings and how that would be allocated and what that would look like in terms of actually being able to do what we're saying they're going to do with limited time, right, across five buildings. Well, and that's that was kind of the starting premise, the the feedback um that I that was shared with me in terms of going down this road both at the board board level and in the district from staff members was exactly
049that like they seem to be located only at the high school or if not at the high school only at the middle school. the the loose framework was well there's five days in a week and five buildings so it kind of works out nice that we could generally allocate and say that the SRO rotates buildings and that you know those frameworks look really good when a decision point is really far away now as as we get closer and closer there's been more substantive conversations around like what would an SRO's function be at the secondary level versus the elementary level. And at the elementary level, it it is around like social emotional learning, safety, um you know, personal safety, public safety, you know, walk walking to and from school, like what do you do when when
050approached? having that conversation with an educator and a law enforcement officer to help to to help build that understanding and that relationship of of saying, you know, here are places within the community that X resource is available. Those types of things also being available to participate in like working for kids groups and stuff like that. Again, a little bit more detail. Still kind of still kind of um free forming because again putting a lot of time and effort into planning when not sure if this this is something that's going to be approved or not approved. But the timing works going into the summer that we have we are going into our planning season. So, if approved, one, it would be um building up the the process for um the selecting the SRO and working with
051our building leaders over the summer to actually put a a structure in place in terms of when are we delivering what and where would an SRO and part of that is who the person is and what their skill set is. um you hire an SRO that perhaps was a former educator, that's going to have a much different impact than someone who needs some more formal training and then and working with that individual. So, we've had some discussions and we're getting more a little bit more detailed, but it there's still flexibility built into that system. I believe that the average is going to average out that it's roughly split across the buildings. If it's going to lean heavily one side or the other, it's going to lean more heavily on the secondary side because that is
052sometimes where behavior incidents are going to to happen. or let's just say let's just put it up at the high school in terms of traffic um accidents. Someone's backing out for lunch in in a hurry and they ding the car. Guess who's going to be responding to that? So, you may have you're there's going to be that reality as well. So, it's going to the goal would be to kind of balance it out, but if there's going to be a lean, it's going to be at the level. Okay, Sharon, anybody online or Don or Tim wanted to weigh in? No. Okay. Um, this is more of an observation intended to partly document some of the gaps that I'm seeing. We heard from Michaela at our last meeting that what students are envisioning and what we're
053talking about are not the same thing. We have a lot to do to communicate our expectations of the SRO and manage expectations of those in the community, prepare the district to welcome the SRO and make sure that the SRO has the foundation they need. We need to define learning outcomes for this and how we're going to assess it. Only seems fair when we're asking our educators to do that themselves. We're paying for 50% of the contract, but as written, we do not have 50% of the say in interviewing and choosing the person. The exact expectations of this person's work will hinge on the background they already have. As Dan just said, if they have an education background, we can ask them to do different things and the onboarding is going to look different, but it
054sounds like we're trying to write the job description for whoever we might already have on the Stoen Police Department. We're supposed to include some looseness, but it rests on the interpretation of the current stakeholders who change. So, I think what we've got is a fantastic beginning, but there are so many big questions that I think we should still wrestle with before we determine yes, we are funding this and moving forward. You want me to respond? You can. I'm not going to respond. Um, I I appre I appreciate the the thoughts and I also understand there is um well let me rephrase. I I sense that there is perhaps a level of expectation that um the that is being articulated that the board needs needs to wrestle with. the board the what is being brought to
055the board is one that do did we want to have this this conversation? The board wrestled with that wrestled with that question ultimately approved it. Where we are right now is the implementation of this rests with me, the um the team that is assembled, the partnership with with the police department and the city and the ultimate success in terms of um this agreement is going to hinge on multiple factors the 50% um cost share was something that we we reached and as as I said this agreement is limited in scope it so that means it can flex with this the expectation of the time and effort yes is we are we are expecting in this agreement that during During the time that our staff and our students are in session, that SRO is going to
056be with our staff and with our students helping to build that sense of belonging and um add to the um resources that we have within the district. Um the ask of the board is both as a collective you are speaking on behalf of the community and the and that um speaking on behalf of the community is in action. The vote if if the board collectively believes that this is not a good a good um direction to go and votes it down. It's not that it's like we're going this is going to come back with tweaks uh the next board meeting. Voting this down is saying that as a board we do not believe that we need an SRO period. And if we believe that we do have if the board votes for it, they're saying
057that we believe that we need an SRO with this agreement. It is not it it is um sometimes trying to get it down to kind of very clear terms is the be the best approach because as as board members you're voting you're you're all members of the community and all have your have your own um thoughts voices and and so forth and collectively you are speaking on behalf of of the district. It's a very tough situation to be in and when when you when the board collectively makes a vote, it is a declarative statement and that's that's what it is. So the we're at a we're at a point and and to in response to to the statement of we have a good start. I do agree we have a good start. I think we
058have a good enough start to take the next step in and the refinement is only going to come with implementation. It is not gonna I think we've carried the conversation as far as we can. The only way we're going to get the rest the rest of the way is through implementation. And my commitment when you when the board that hired me, I said I will I will bring the information so that the board can make an informed decision. And I think with the clarity that has been sought thus far, there's we are at a point where I think we're not going to get any clearer unless we're willing to take the next step. And that is not my decision to make. That is the collective of the board to make that decision. But I don't
059want I don't want the board to make a decision thinking that there is going to be additional information or clarity that's going to come about if the board decides that it's not wanting to move forward with with the agreement. I think we can do more research. I think we can do more reflection. I think we can do a whole bunch of things, but I don't think we're going to get additional clarity around how this is going to be implemented until we implement. Right. I think, you know, um Elmore kind of said it best when he talked about the instructional core in instruction. You don't get better at reading until you read. We're not going to get more clarity around an SRO P program until we implement an SRO program. and and put the guard rails
060around it for that. If if that's not the direction that we want to go, I I just want the board to be cognizant that I don't know if we're going to get any clearer on implementation beyond the conversations that we've already had. Does anyone have any more questions that would clarify how they feel they are planning to vote on this issue? Yeah, I I guess I just want to check one of my assumptions because I read through the documents and didn't notice any changes. So, I guess my question to you is following our conversation at the last board meeting when a lot of concerns were raised, a lot of questions were asked, were any revisions made? Was any changes made to what you're presenting or are you just presenting what was presented at that meeting?
061So in um board docs and I can I can highlight um the the two pieces on the docu. Oh, the document's not up there. Um let me share this. I got it. Thanks. Um so in um there was some some we sent this back to legal because again part of part of part of this is that um legal needs to look at on both sides. There were some technical pieces we referred to district and school district. So it's uniform. It says school district across those technical changes. But um in here there was a section it not up there 24. There we go. Um so there was there was um let me close there was the question about it seemed ambiguous around what the cost share was. So we I went and I asked legal about
062that particular piece around training and so they said it would not substantively change the agreement um if we included the words mutually agreed upon training within that cost share which also um t talk because we had substantive conversation around well who gets to decide what what training the the SRO participates. states in a lot of a lot of the conversation dealt with training. This was legal's way of saying substantively how do we build in clarity from a technical standpoint. Here was their suggestion. Okay. The other piece it was a little bit more technical but um but I highlighted it in our um language. There was uh a reference to um a policy policy 5540 and it had the wrong title and so substantively we changed the to rep reflect the actual title that's in our
063policy book. So 99.9% it's the same same agreement that we brought before but we but from the conversation legal said here's how we can bring a little bit more clarity around that. It does still does state that if approved, our policies really are the governing structure for not only employees but the SRO. And one of the things that the board can take up particularly around um the conversation seclusion restraint that's more of a policy conversation that's more of an us conversation and not an us and the city conversation. So thank Did that bring some clarity? Thank you. Yes. Okay. Anyone else need anything clarified before they can vote. All right. Question. Yep. I Okay. Go ahead. Well, I just had some comments, but it's not really questions. Okay. If I don't know if others want
064to I know you don't want to go drag this out too long but but I just want to say thank you Dan for your more recent comments about sort of where this stands because we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good and I think the way you have structured this if we go forward provides us with the best chance between us and the city to have this fun and with staff involved to be a functional uh resource. Uh you know that said you know There are some concerns that I would have and would will be reflected in my vote. Um uh among them fiscal uh whether this is what given its emphasis on engagement whether this is the best way to get generate engagement and belonging and and fiscal concerns that
065uh even though we benefited. We certainly appreciate the support of the community with the recent referendums. um you know concerned about is this is this a need versus a want versus you know where does it fall in that in that category but I want to I want to compliment you on your work to get us this far. Uh and then uh we'll see where it goes. Okay. Anything else from anyone else? Being none. Um, all in favor of the motion as presented. Oh, this needs to be roll call. All right, Miss Garcia. Yes, Dr. Milin Bartlett. No, Mr. Masa. Yes, Mr. Buban. Yes, Mr. Moser. No, Miss Sorg. Yes, Miss Croy. No, President Patterson. Yes. Five to three. Yes. Motion carries. We are on to item 5D, the SRO policy. I move to approve the
066policy as presented. I'll second. Is there discussion? I can't see any hands. So let me remind everyone that our policies are always um open to be reviewed and revised and updated at the request of ship or any board member any board member. Um so we are putting this policy in place so that we have a policy because we have approved a new position but this policy doesn't have to uh doesn't mean this policy cannot be updated or changed um once board members have more time to look through it and bring concerns about the policy. And just to be clear that um this policy if review will go to the climate and culture work group for as initial step as okay. Yep. Okay. So um questions at this point? Seeing none. This has to be this
067needs to be a roll call vote as well. Miss Sorg, sorry. Uh, yes. Mr. Moser, yes. Mr. Buban, yes. Miss Croy, yes. Mr. Masa Myers, yes. Dr. Milin Bartlett, no. Miss Garcia, yes. President Patterson. Yes. All right. Motion carries. Um, we have a rec. We are on to item six. Uh, recap of action items. I because we're going to be going to close session. So, we'll recap. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, we'll re we'll do everything else and Okay. All right. So, I had no action items. Uh, does anyone else have an action item that I did not document? Seeing none, future meetings, uh, we have our next board meeting on June 16th at 6:30 and then the following meeting is July 7th at 6:30. Um, we are going to be moving into a contemplated close
068session. If I can get a motion for that. Sorry, I'm just trying to figure Yeah, there there are two because there are two topics in there. One deal one deals with um negotiation compensation. The other one deals with an actual contract. So, you can actually read the top one and add contract to the end and it will cover both. We'll just read the second started online. Move to convene to an executive session of the Stoton Area School District Board of Education in accordance with exemption Wisconsin stat 19.82 sub1 19.85 sub 1 subb sub C sub E sub F subG and 118.125 to discuss represent negotiation staff compensation performance and contracts. Very good. Is there a second? Second. Second by bubon. This has to be this has to be roll call vote as well. Dr. Milin
069Bartlett. Yes. Miss Garcia. Yes. Mr. Moser. Yes. Mr. Buban. Yes. Miss Sorg. Yes. Miss Croyle. Yes. Mr. Masa Meyers. Yes. President Patterson. Yes. Okay. Uh, we are now going into close session. So, Paul, I think you're gonna turn the Zoom off. Okay. Have a good night. Oh, and for everyone who's watching at home, we won't be returning after the close session. So,