001Okay, you are live. Um, I'd like to call the Amity Regional Policy Committee meeting uh to order at 5:05 p.m. Um, the first order of business is approval of our policy minutes from February 2nd. Any suggested changes or modifications to the minutes? >> Not from here. >> Okay. I have a motion to approve. >> I'll make a motion. >> I can second that. >> And then Lisa, just remember because we're virtual, we have to do roll call for everything. >> Okay. Thank you for letting me know. Are we ready for roll call? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Young. >> Uh, yes. >> Dr. Ol. >> Yes. >> Miss Schlank. >> Yes. >> Miss Schustster, we didn't hear you for some reason. >> Oh, really? Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. Now you're good. >> Yeah.
002>> Yes. So, >> okay. >> Thank you everyone. Perfect. Motion carries. >> Great. Thank you. Um, public comment. >> We didn't receive any requests. All right. Um the fourth item on our agenda, discuss and impos discussion and possible action on policies to go forward. Um the first is policy 2151, recruitment and selection of administrative staff page four. Um so I again this is sort of working off of the base policy that we had. We've now got lots of colors on it. Um but um the red would have been I think the first version, the blue was kind of the second. And then what I did was go into um CAB's model policy um and kind of pulled the yellow piece which is the one that sort of gives um is how they approach the board
003um involvement in a recommendation of candidates. Um and that's kind of where I left off. I know Mr. Young um sent us some thoughts on that um which I'm sure um he's happy to share but I just kind of wanted to explain sort of where it all came from and how I sort of put those pieces together. >> Thanks Dr. And I did and I uh just just again it was more of a a recitation I suppose of some of the thoughts that we had shared together as a board before. Um and and there's perhaps just some categories, you know, one how many candidates, if any, do we want? Uh two, how if I say deep or how uh low in the hiring process? Again, that sounds denigrating, but at what level does the board
004want to involve itself in the hiring process from the superintendent to the, you know, assistant to down to principal levels per se. Um and then, uh one uh thought would be what do we do in the meantime by way of interim acting? But I think before we even get into the weeds and then I'll stop talking in just a second. One of the biggest I think things that we as a board or as a committee need to agree on to present to our board is um well two things really. One, how many candidates uh one is you know if that's what we agree uh and then how uh to what level of uh administration does the board want to be directly involved and even authoritative in hiring? So, um, as I recall during our last,
005and I can't remember if it was our policy meeting or this was or if we discussed this at the larger board meeting, but I think we had discussed um, uh, administrators down to the principal, building principles level given that we're a smaller district. um and having board members involved in the process and I think we mentioned maybe either personnel committee or making it open to the open to the broader uh board to join if they had time but to have um board members that's that were part of the process. Um I I thought I mean my thought is that there's some advantage to having the same person, right? Because then you there's continuity and you um yeah there's continuity and I think that's that would be my preference but um I'll pause there but that's
006I know those options were raised um before. And that is currently the structure of your current policy is it's at the director level and the princ building principal level. >> My question would be um to what extent do we want the board member involved? I know there's a whole screening process and so maybe there could be strategically certain times where I think somebody mentioned one or two people from the board would then be invited at that point. I don't sure we have to be part of the whole process. It would just be sort of strategically um at phase whatever that phase is maybe a couple times uh throughout that process one or two board members perhaps from the personnel committee or not be invited and uh kept up to date on that process. The next
007layer would be um and I think it's sort of spelled out here is that finally when it's narrowed down to that one person that um the superintendent is recommending to the board um if the board at that point feels that uh we need to go back to the drawing board that's also an option. So there's a lot of uh room there I think uh for the board to be involved if it is as such. Would it make sense? Uh or does this kind of cut out some of the discussion that we had to if we as a committee um first decide perhaps um do we only want one candidate or we do want do we want two or more up to the discretion of the uh superintendent? Should we subcategorize these issues and if we
008can get you know committee consensus on one then we move on to the next category. Does that maybe make sense? >> That makes a lot of sense to me. So I think the first one then is exactly who you are part of the interview process for and I heard Carol say principles and directors that is sort of what we currently have right now. Is there any other thought on that? >> What Christian sent was going down to the assistant principal level? Uh >> actually it was much further than that. It's going into the department chair level which would be a teacher position, instructional coach level. um also a teaching position. So it actually what he sent goes much much deeper into the layers. >> Absolutely. And I didn't mean to suggest it or propose it
009per se. It was just the topic of discussion I thought we should have. This is the range. Uh me personally, um I I would think that anything below principal is going to be really really ownorous. Uh, and we could even discuss whether or not principal uh would be um a good line to draw. But anyway, I just I just provided that more as just an exemplar and not necessarily as my own personal recommendation. >> I'm agreeing with that. I'm sorry. I'm agreeing with that. Um I would definitely stop at principalhip. Uh and I could even lean toward not having that as part of it. Um but that's where my opinion is. >> How about you, Donna? I would say definitely to the principal level. I think that the principal um because they run the building
010and in each middle school and in the high school. So I definitely agree that we should at least go to the principal level. >> Okay. >> So So by way of a draft that we ultimately will propose to our full board at least for immediate purposes, we will contemplate having a draft that would go to the principal level. >> I think we're all in agreement um with that. So down to the principal level >> and I think we have that um in it's in the blue it's in the third paragraph. Senior administrative staff includes all district level directors and school principles. >> Perfect. Nice. >> So I think the second piece then is um when does involvement start? Does that start with screening? Does that start with you know the first interview process? like where
011where are we starting um with board involvement in the hiring process? >> I would like to hear recommendation from Jen on that because she knows that process so well. I I don't really think that uh we should be part of this initial screening. Um but um I'd like to hear more about that process and what she would recommend. I >> I I would recommend not part of the screening. I think again in terms of volume and how um ownorous that could be on the board um it's a lot to ask of a board member. Um in some you know cases we're getting 40 to 50 applicants. The applications are 15 pages or more. Um and that's not including their resume, their letters of um reference, their letter of interest, um their transcripts. It's a lot.
012Um, so I think that that's a big ask. Um, I will typically have at minimum three rounds of interviews. So I don't see any reason why board members couldn't be part of any one of those. I mean, you can be on all of those rounds. Um, they're they're pretty and and sometimes there's more depending on who we have. Um so um so uh that would be my recommendation is to not be in the screening process but certainly participate in any of the rounds of interviews that we have. >> It makes a lot of sense. I mean to leave to the superintendent the developing the criterion and then developing the pool from which interviews would then come. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I agree with that. I um am part of the search process for um another
013board and yeah the screening applications is uh a lot and um but I if we are beginning our involvement at the interviewing stage and Jen you said there three rounds generally three rounds of interviews. Yeah, typically there's going to be three rounds. Yep. >> When you Excuse me. I just want clarification. When you say three rounds, you mean like three separate groups or the same people going three rounds? >> Usually. So, so it usually I do separate groups because I well a little bit of both. There's always uh usually I would say two to three people who serve on every single round of the interview process to provide continuity. But at the same time and I think particularly like when I think about principles when there's so much vested interest from students from staff um
014from uh administrative colleagues from me um we end up usually having different people serve on each interview committee. Um so that way we can get as many eyes on the candidate as possible. Um but at the same time again for continuity there will usually be a handful of people who will go through every single layer of the interview. >> So after those three sorry after those three I'm just trying to understand it after those three rounds what's the next layer >> then the next layer is usually um uh an an interview with me. I'm sort of the last one and then I do the reference checks. >> Okay. >> So I the one thing that I um think we should do in terms of um involvement is having the same board members. I think that
015would be critically important to have continuity in like what you know which board members participated in those three rounds. I I don't think it makes a lot of sense just to sort of have people >> hop in and out. So whoever can commit the time and you know show up and because there's more than one person something comes up and you can't make it that's fine. There's two of you right? Um so >> and what um I don't know I was going to put that out there again about um just for um sort of logical sense I guess. I mean would it be make sense to have member um a couple members from the policy committee I mean not policy I'm sorry personnel. >> Yes. Usually it makes sense for personnel but again um like
016in the case if we're hiring like um our finance you know our miss anumus numis a director of finance it may make sense to have members of the finance committee be in involved so I think it's going to be it's going to depend on the position I would typically say personnel committee for principles probably personnel committee for directors but maybe with some consideration for other committee me committee members depending on the the position. >> Maybe we leave the two um board members uh participation in subcommittees kind of unspecified and we just allow it to be two board members to be determined by the board uh and with the superintendent. >> Okay, makes sense. >> I agree with that. >> Yep. I do. Yep. depending on what area of expertise board me >> that can just
017be assumed like >> well >> like you might want to have one of our board members who has a finance background who will most likely be on the on the finance committee as well but I I believe uh that leaving it open is a good option. >> I agree. >> All right. >> So um All right. So, we've talked about how the board will be involved, the timing of the board involvement. Um, how many um how about So, after the three rounds and Jen, you do the last interview and the background check. Is that for one person or is that for more than one person? >> Usually, it's it's only for one person. And again, it's um a a courtesy, I guess, in education that you don't do the reference checks unless you're pretty much
018offering the job to that individual. Um I always require as part of the reference check that I have to be able to speak with their current supervisor and that can sometimes create a little bit of tension perhaps um when they're leaving the job. Um, and so I usually reserve that until the very last. Um, that is typical. Um, but I'm not 100% Yeah, I I I think there would probably be a way around it. Instead, what I would probably do is only call the people that they have letters of reference from. Um, I just don't think that's as good of a process. Um I you know because obviously if you're writing a letter you know ask somebody to be your letter of reference they're going to give you a good reference. Um I think it's
019it's more um valuable to actually talk to their current supervisor. So, you know, I wonder if we could consider a process where, you know, when we get to the before we get to like one person, right? Say you have a top three candidates, um, calling their references, the references they provided and just, you know, doing those calls before they move forward. Um, that way, you know, we know, I don't know, that like at least the initial references they provided, they're fine and maybe those three move on to like the final round of of interviews. Um, yeah, >> I like that idea. So I like the multiple candidates having one and when after the board gets an opportunity to review however that looks then the final step is so Jen here's a question. Do you al
020do you usually get um permission to contact their current employer? um once once they're the finalists. Yes. I I always tell them upfront that I would need to do that and um and I ask them if if I actually don't really ask them if they're the finalist. I tell them that I'm going to um that I have to do that as part of them getting the job. If they were to balk at that point, to me, that's potentially a red flag. Um and so, you know, that's that's typically my expectation. Well, I don't know. Um, the only reason is because so you have a certain expectation, right? When you were interviewing for for a job and without permission, what if whatever it is, they're not interested in taking the position that you offer them. Let's
021say it's salary. I'm just throwing one out there because there's typically a range and it's not what they're interested in and they wouldn't leave. It might make it complicated for them to stay at their current job if for whatever reason the package you're not offering isn't what they want and you've contacted their employer without permission. So I don't necessarily see that as a I I >> it's not without their it's not without their permission. It's with their knowledge. Let me say I don't necessarily ask their permission, but I let them know and and that I'm going to contact their current supervisor as the final reference check. Um, I typically do that after that fourth interview with me. And it's in that fourth interview that we will start to discuss a compensation package for the exact
022reason that you're talking about is that I don't want to I wouldn't want to bring them to the board without knowing that the compensation package is what they want because then it's a waste of your time also. So, so that's kind of the purpose of that fourth interview is to um is to sort of sus that those details out to make sure that ultimately when the position is offered they accept it. is that fourth interview usually with the finalist as in the first three interviews are kind of like a roundroin. Each one of the three interviews subsequently has fewer and fewer participants so that that fourth interview where we're you know kind of sussing it out. >> Yeah, I I I pretty much try to go from typically I would say 12 to 14 down
023to about 4 to 6 down to 2 to three down to one. That's kind of the layers. Jen, I wonder and the rest of the committee, would it be with this uh desire to sort of be more involved and see folks before we get to that final interview? Um what's your what are your thoughts on sort of looking at the top three like having Jen present the top three candidates um to the board and you know her sort of outlining the rationale for like uh I don't know choosing one of the three to go to like the fourth round of interviews >> I think it's workable that's another step um and to the extent that anybody who might have their present employee called. I think anybody anytime in a somebody seeking a new position puts
024their, you know, hat in the ring, so to speak, that is ultimately an understanding that that's going to happen. Um, so if there's one or two of those or or three who ultimately would be uh vetted by um the superintendent um including having their uh present employer called um I think that the applicant would accept that as part of the process. So, I think we probably could have three brought brought to us as a matter of procedure. >> Um, but would we need to get to that point because if Jen is bringing the superintendent's bringing three potential candidates to the board and let's say I'm just throwing this out there, you have a ranking process. You say this is desired one, two, three. And then, um, Jen gets to that point where she's bringing them
025back in. And let's say number one says sure and then Jen then you call the reference. I would say after the board has had an opportunity to >> look at the three candidates and that way it doesn't put anyone in a precarious situation and that allows Jen to move forward with the first the top candidate and if for whatever reason they bulk as she says and they're not interested in having their current employer and it and and at any point if she gets red flags with that understanding and understanding her next stage of her the three candidate process. I would guess that as a we you know the candidates come to the board that we would have a discussion and then rank them so to speak. >> So you know I I want to be
026clear. So my suggestion for to be presented with three candidates wasn't to have them presented in person but I'd love to see >> Yeah. I mean so I mean you please share if you have other thoughts but um my thinking was come present these three like provide a you know >> share their sort of application packet or their resume um share the strengths that the committee saw in the person the pros cons >> I I think the board members who participate can add to that conversation >> and kind of say these are the three >> people or two um who are are finalists. Um and this is my recommended >> or the committee's recommended number one. >> Yes. >> Right. So totally agree 100%. In no way did I believe they were going to be
027we were going to actually meet them in person. It was exactly as as Jen had outlined. >> I think we may have an agreement as far as maybe two or more possibly. I mean in that the three you know uh parsing down conferences uh finishing with two or more you up to the uh superintendent that then the board weighs in on. Is that something we should kind of lock in for our next phase of uh drafting? >> Yeah, I would say not more than three. I would say two to three. >> Two to three >> because I think that'll just make the discussion easier for the 13 member board we have. Um so I'd say two to three. We also have two board members who can provide their feedback impressions as well along with Jim's
028recommendation and background of the um candidates. >> Yeah, I I like I like that idea. I mean, they're the representative to this process. So >> um >> so I think we've covered pretty much the process, right? pretty much because then once uh she goes down to one uh candidate, she comes back to us again uh with that one candidate and uh at that point it's almost not necessary because we've already had but I think once she narrows it down out of the three then she'll have one and then she comes back to the board and represent and presents that person. >> Yeah. And the board will already be familiar with that candidate. you would have told us before that this is my pick of the three or two >> and why >> and then to
029Jen's point prior is that candidate having been approved by the board will feel more secure in the approval process from the board in their position within the district. >> Jen, how do you feel about that? >> I'm I'm good with that. Um I'm just looking at what we actually have drafted up and so um I'm kind of in the the yellow section if you're able to pull that up or look at it. And I'm going to say then that the superintendent shall present um two to three candidates to the board of education um or consideration. I don't um and >> for information. >> Yeah. Um, and then I mean as a board would you vote at that point on the desired candidate or just weigh? >> No, it's just a presentation. That's how I look
030at it. >> Me too. >> That a just a quick question. Um, why wouldn't we vote? And again, not to be contrary, but at this point, if we've, you know, had the uh superintendent bring the uh final two or three prepared to make an endorsement and we've already had members of our board participating up until this point. Right now, we as a full board are being presented with the superintendent's recommendation along with the input of our other two members. Might that not be a good time to vote? >> Um, except then Jen doesn't have the opportunity to, you know, defer. >> Yeah. >> Make that last call. Okay. >> Yeah. have that final conversation because if we let's say we have three and I'm just throwing out a ranking system and the first candidate somehow
031Jen sees red flags whether it's from the the package to um not wanting you know whatever Jen identifies as red flags and then >> I mean I' I've definitely called a reference check at the very last candidate and based on the reference said okay thank you very you are no longer my candidate of choice. So to me that's the most likely thing that could happen is we would get to that those three finalists and I would call you know somebody and they would be like yeah don't this is don't do this and >> I would back out of of that >> we have one meeting after that to vote. Okay, >> the presentation of the three people will give us an opportunity to ask Jen questions, right? We'll have the packet. We'll have hear from
032the two board reps on the in on the search committee process. Um and you know, we could ask her why did you, you know, this person seems I don't know, stronger, like what, you know, what makes you, you know, um what makes this person more desirable? So, I don't know. it it it'll give us that opportunity to have conversation and to um and provide any suggestions or recommendations um and >> about the candidate. >> Yeah, I I would disagree with voting at that time. Um I just think that, you know, we trust the superintendent with her expertise and in knowing what she really do does need in the building in terms of personnel and what their job is and so forth. and we have uh input all along the way it seems. So >> yeah.
033>> Um so I think there was one of the iterations of the policy where the the actual person you didn't the board didn't vote but they were presented to the board as you know that last candidate. So in my mind that would be the end of the the step. I would, you know, sort of share the information about the two to three potential finalists, make the recommendation for the rank order, call the do the reference checks. If the reference check for number one checks out, then I would present them to the board in an official capacity. >> And our role as a board at that point is what? >> Is simply to greet them and welcome them to the Amity Regional School District. >> Because I I hear you, Jen. I'm just wondering uh because
034in a previous meeting you said it was beneficial for the candidate to get a an approval and a vote. Now maybe it's um a different way. So I'm just asking um do you feel that they would find the actual voting approval process to be beneficial? Um, so I actually think the benefit for the actual vote is more for the superintendent who's making the hiring decision because it shows the board is supporting that hiring decision. Um, I definitely um I mean most I would say broadly across Connecticut, most of these sort of senior level positions do go to the board for votes. Um, but again it's kind of that final candidate. So, we certainly could at that point um have the board vote to approve the appointment of the single finalist. >> I like the idea.
035>> We keep the vote. >> I think so, too. I think we vote to ratify it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I know Christian, in your analysis, you had questioned sort of that use of the word of inviting the two board members. >> And I got to tell you, oh, I'm sorry. I would trustly apologize. >> Yeah, I just I I was trying to use language that would like let's say nobody can come to the interviews for whatever reason. Um and we can't get board member participation. I didn't want that to styy the process. So that's why I kind of used a softer piece of language. But if we want to make it that board members, you know, two or two board members would be required to participate, we certainly can up it. I
036just didn't want to sort of back us into a corner that maybe we're not anticipating. >> Gotcha. in almost a little bit in my defense or at least an explanation um what I did uh as a result of our conversations you know took notes and remember and then I looked at our policy I looked at other policies and uh I used AI to help us analyze and kind of amalgamate a bunch of different concepts and review what we're talking about together to kind of give us a summary and so some of the verb well actually uh I think it's pretty clear I hope that what I attached there really wasn't my verbiage but was rather just you know the summary of the AI program that I was using. So, if it seemed uh either overly
037critical or um you know, kind of semantic, I I I didn't mean it that way at all. Um and I uh cuz I remember reading one of those uh critiques compare contrast. Uh the the responding algorithm was like, "Oh, and the superintendent is inviting you and it's a reversal of power." I did not mean to have that uh tenor of our uh you know, conversation and review together at all. I was simply the product of uh you know an external brain. >> I think inviting suitable. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> It's it's fine. No, I understood that you were because you even said in the email that >> way but I didn't mean for it to be confrontational. Not at all. >> Did we address um everything? >> Um >> oh there's one other category
038that totally I didn't think of but uh sometimes we need to have an interim. Not always, but sometimes um you need to get somebody to kind of fill the position uh while we're going through this process or if in the unfortunate event we had to start over again for whatever reason. So, just a thought, what do we do about interim? Uh I I don't have a uh something to present as a final conclusion, but I think we probably should at least address that. Um I mean so from practicality purposes um in some in most cases we will hire an interim um but I think typically what we would do so let's say a principal leaves what I would normally do is appoint the assistant principal um to the principal role as an interim and then
039try to find somebody who would really actually serve as the interim for the assistant principal. Um it's a little bit easier to do it that way because then I have somebody at least who knows what's going on. Um in some cases we we don't appoint one. Um now I'm I'm thinking that um and again I'm just sort of speculating here. Typically, it it would take usually like about three months to fill a position roughly because all of us have holds on our contracts. So, if we were to, you know, if I hire somebody from another district, that district gets to hold them for a certain number of days. Um, it's usually between 30 to 60 days depending on the position. Um, so I know that what you like there was a a suggestion that um
040that the board appoint after a certain amount of time. Um, but I I just I guess I don't know at what point, you know, it's going to be reasonable to do that only because no even no matter how fast we might move through the hiring process, typically there there's a hold on that individual for a little bit of time from the other district. Um, now in terms of like how schools function, um, like say a long-term substitute, they're allowed to serve in their position for 60 school days. So that would get us roughly 3 months. So we could approach it in that matter and sort of in that way as well. Um, but th those were just kind of my thoughts. it it is something that is um missing in in the policy and it
041would be fine to to add it. But I do think it's somewhat on a case- by case basis depending on when the vacancy occurs and which position it is. >> As a matter of the fact that you've essentially been moving up the the immediately subordinate uh person into that position and as you say they're going to be the most uh familiar assuming there isn't an immediate subordinate position to move into. And um in those instances where there isn't, it sounds like you're you've been more than able to uh if I say make do, I mean to actually have there be no interruption in the educational process. So, um it sounds like what we've have in place has been working, but it's just a matter would it help to have even uh a mention of what
042we do uh in an inter situation and and defer um the uh if you want to call it authority uh to the superintendent to um act in the best. >> So, Chris, are you just saying you just want some language in there about it that the process >> um or not? we could decide to just leave it out and allow it to kind of continue ad hoc the way it has been. There hasn't been a problem that I'm aware of or heard of. Um it was just one it was the last category uh of hiring that uh kind of occurred to me that we didn't have in the policy. I don't know that it's fatal without it at all. >> I don't fatal without it, but if if we're writing the policy, I think maybe
043we should be thorough and just touch it touch it just put it in there if there so if there's any questions about um the superintendent's discretion. Yeah. >> Right. And and that's fine just the way that it's written just as long as we address it in the policy. I would feel comfortable with that. Any any thoughts with from anyone else? So, Jen is so and Christian is because I was thinking okay if the person the number the top ranked candidate said no or something didn't work out with their reference. Jen would just go to the second person like presumably like there are three people that are like really that the three people that rise to the top are really you know great. Yes, she might be able to pick one because I don't know, whatever
044reason, but wouldn't we just go I don't know, don't you just go to like your second top choice? Um, in that case, I I see these as two different things, right? So, if a principal decides to like resign tomorrow, like different process, you have a process in place to handle that. But with this hiring, I I would presume that since we had had like three top candidates, you would move on to the next one and then do that reference check. So, I don't know. >> Usually, um there are going to be some positions, particularly um school business managers, that there just are not a lot of candidates out there. And there are definitely times when I have said, you know what, I they're they're just I I can't live with that second person. Um, and
045I would go back to the drawing board. >> Okay. >> But I I'd say that's that's less frequent and and I can pretty much I I know which positions it's going to be. Business manager and it's going to be pupil personnel directors. Those are the two that, you know, >> it's hard to find those individuals. >> Right. So Carol, I saw that as a as a separate issue completely. It's just more of a just uh clarifying what happens with interim with with the understanding that it could extend if Jen can't find any other positions and has to go back to the drawing board. We say oh as a board we come back and say yes of course yes we can't find anyone and we extend it for an additional whatever 90 days whatever the board
046the board sees fit. So we leave >> and Jen has the discretion to appoint someone and interimm until we are able to go through the process again. >> All right. So we we delegate or we we allow the or in the policy we give the superintendent the authority uh to um have the most appropriate uh interim uh appointed uh while we're engaged in the hiring process. >> Yeah. So like just just that language alone is is fine I think. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. Agreed. >> Oh, I think >> anything else on 2151. >> Great. Yeah. >> So, I guess my question for you all is, do you want me to make the edits that we've discussed and have it come back again to policy before moving it on to the board? >> Yes,
047I think we should see it again in its >> Okay, >> final look see and then >> send a good finished product. Cool. >> Okay. All right. We have about >> six minutes. >> The next uh policy 51 sorry 5145 search and seizure. Um I'll pause there. Uh Jen, do you have want to summarize sort of J? Did we get to this one last month? >> We just started to hit on it. Um and um yeah, we had bar we had barely skimmed the surface, but we had started to to talk about it. Um and you know, and again, I think it it was there were some questions um and now I'm sort of losing track because it's been almost a year now when the questions came up, but there were questions just around um
048language in it. Um and um the I'm looking at the red line um that we actually have. Those were some of the So we had the board's attorney review this and those the red lines were the additions that she had recommended um to just kind of shore the policy up. Um yes. So that's sort of what where I remember it beeping off. So I think if I remember correctly, we had already so we had we had an old one, then we got we used essentially CAD's language as the new one and then we um we updated it after the the attorney took a look at it. So, I mean, so I um based on the information that uh Christian shared, it seems like many of the like much of what's highlighted in in red violate
049students constitutional rights. So it seems to be like the information we got and like this the uh additional content that we got from the attorneys they seem to be at odds >> and rather than and we don't we certainly can you know do our you know legal analysis and ask for more explanation from from council uh and I'll mind my role as a lay board person in that regard. Um, but we can also, regardless of what the constitution might even allow, we can still come up with our own policy that might even obviate the need to delve into the constitutionality of these close calls. Um, for instance, you know, there could be a question as to when you actually search somebody's car or how or when you search their backpack or how or when you
050search their cell phone or how. And if we heir on the side of I'll call it you more conservative where we we don't come close to what the constitutional limit might be but we we come a little step closer towards uh not pushing the search we might not even have to have that second legal review. Um so I think as a board we were really looking hard and discussing a couple narrow issues you know like uh electronic devices um clothing body searches hair searches uh whereas a lot of the other policy I think might be consistent with our pre-existing policy and with other policies already in place. I mean should we I don't want to try to reverse engineer a discussion. I know we only have a couple minutes left, but maybe for future, should
051we kind of maybe focus on the ones that we're really grappling with and then kind of work our way back out toward the more general ones? >> Sounds like a good plan to me. Um, do you want to put out what we're grappling with? >> Things at the top of my mind, maybe top four would be um, you know, to the extent of h how if if and how we can actually make physical contact with another student's body, uh, external clothes or you know, hair. Uh, another category would be parental notification. Um, is it something that we should do when we can or is it something that should be more of a prerequisite? Uh, another would be um the searching of personal uh electronic devices including cell phones, uh, USB devices. You know, should that
052be something that a school should be able to do or is that something that we'd be more comfortable uh deferring to law enforcement if the school has enough of a concern that there might be something problematic in those private property? And the last one of the four would be uh the cars where just be, you know, the student gives consent because they want a great parking spot or for whatever reason. Um what do we do when we run into the student that says, "I'm not opening the car for you." Those are just my thoughts and I'm sure we may have more. >> Um so I can do the contact with student one really easily. Um we don't have contact with students typically when we search. We just we don't touch them. So, um, that I
053you can just add that language and or codify that however you need to because we we do not to the extent that we can. I mean, the only time I ever remember doing that is if I had to kind of peer into a pocket, but it's typically the kid is opening the pocket for me and I'm just kind of peeking in. Um, but we don't touch kids when we search them. >> So, maybe we could put that language in there just somehow. Um just for clarity >> physical contact >> there is there is no physical contact. >> Okay. >> Um and give uh one more that you were you said car search. What was the thing about the car search? >> Oh um yeah uh the electronic device and car search. star searches where you
054know the kids I think and correct if wrong they'll they'll sign a document saying they read the school policy and and regulations and I think they even sign the document stipulating all reasonable searches of their motor vehicle which makes all the sense in the world but what happens when uh some school administrator wants to search the individual's car for whatever reason and the consent to search is revoked do we need to recognize the that situation or not >> so so if um there's a need to search a car and the student says you're not going to my car. Jen, what do we do? >> Um, so we'll do one of Well, I guess it depends on the circumstance, but we um would typically at that point have contacted the parent and said, "Your child's refusing
055us to allow them, you know, let us search their car. These are the reasons why we think we need to search their car." And see if we can't get the parent to actually a agree and support that decision. Um, I guess depending on what is in the car, we could at some point involve law enforcement. They're usually not going to get a warrant for most of the things we're searching for. They don't really care that kids have vapes. Um, and stuff like that. Um, but if there was a weapon and a kid was refusing, then we may, um, you know, we we would that to me would be a situation where we would try to involve law enforcement. Um, you know, again, the challenge is that law enforcement has a much higher threshold to conduct
056a search than we do. So, a lot of times what we the information that we're acting on does not meet the criteria that law enforcement would need even to get a a a search warrant. So, it would have to be um really really either um egregious concerns or some kind of significantly credible um information. Um and and honestly, if we had that level of information, we may not even initiate the search. We may just turn it over to law enforcement right from the the outset. >> So, maybe we could put some language in there. Um you know, um we may um request to search a car if it's refused. that parents would be called. Uh if parents are not willing depending on you know the need of the search whether uh up to the discretion
057of superintendent if the law uh officer is called something like that. Does that make sense? >> Well you have grounds to call law enforce well that she just said that said that there would be certain things that she would call for. >> But but then in that case she wouldn't even search. She would just call them. They wouldn't even the school wouldn't >> but she would know if it was necessary to call them or just you know there might be something where it's just suspicious and they say no and the parents say no and then that's a done deal you know >> the time story >> not to interrupt everyone but we're at >> right >> um >> so I just want to be mindful of time and yeah >> a longer conversation when you
058get to personal property and think because just as Jen said um she wanted to get the next our next meeting set up. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Um so yeah, thank you everyone for I'm sorry to interrupt you, Christian. I just wanted to make sure >> I appreciate it. >> Um so there's a different link for the board meeting. So um you're going to exit this one and click on a new link and I will have that up and running in a couple of minutes. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. I'm