8-12-25 Groton Board of Education Policy Committee Meeting

001Good evening everybody. This is the Graten Board of Education Policy Committee meeting at August 12th, 2025. I'd like to call the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Present is policy committee member Andrea Arian. myself. I'm Matt Schulman. Uh we also have with us Superintendent Austin. Uh assistant superintendent Mancini and the head of pupil services Denise Doolittle as long as two uh advisory non- voting advisory members on one of our uh policies up for tonight, the G uh generative AI policy. uh Clint Kennedy who's our IT director and Jody Gayler who is both the policy person in charge of CABE and also serves on you got to give me the right name the state committee advising this the the committee by advising the state education department on uh artificial intelligence if you give me the correct

002name of that Jody put that in the record >> you've come very close you're you're closer than I would be at this point so you're you're good >> okay and I see that our board chair Beverly Washington has just joined us. Welcome Bev and Leah uh Mu Mutaroni. Am I pronouncing that right? Correct. Leia. >> Yes. >> Good. Well, you can't lose all the time. >> Okay. So, the meeting is called to order. Our first agenda u first item of business are we have two sets of minutes. The June 24th and the July 21st. Um have Andrea, have you had a chance to look at the minutes? Would you like to make a motion to adopt first? One at a time. >> Oh. >> Or both if you prefer. >> Okay. You make the motion.

003I'll move it. >> You say it. I'll >> uh I'm looking for a motion that would approve the minutes of the June 24th, 2025 and July 21st, 2025 uh policy committee meeting minutes as submitted. >> So move. >> And I will second that. Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, would all in favor please raise their hand. The uh minutes of both are adopted two to zero to zero. We're going to old business. On our old business agenda, we have three policies. The first is therapy dogs. The second is generative AI and the third is social climate. All of these are important and need to be done this month. I hope we can accomplish everything in two hours. If not, I'm willing to stay later, I will ask the committee members and our the affected

004visitors if they're willing to stay later. If they're not for whatever reason, I am committed to trying to find another date this month for a special policy committee meeting so that all of these items will be handled this month in time for board action. Okay. So, let's go right into therapy dogs. Uh the last meeting where we left off uh the committee had discussed the therapy dog policy at our June meeting and recommended its first reading. The board approved it on a first reading but there were some questions as to uh uh some questions as to recommendations regarding u liability in the event of damages and it went it. So, we've got the first reading is done and we have language. If Clint, if you could post up the uh the submitted document for tonight's

005discussion and I'll turn it over to Leia and Susan and Anamarie or whomever wants to participate. I just want if I could just say that um one of the things that the board really appreciated I think we all did was the definitions in the policy and the question just came up owner handler and it actually defines owner handler as the individual who owns the dog and is responsible for caring and supervising the therapy dog which includes all those things toileting, feeding, grooming. um and the district um is not obligated to supervise or otherwise care for the therapy dogs. So, I think I think that the way it sets it up, it gives you a lot of clarity on some of these terms and um and what needs to happen in order to have a therapy

006dog, which I think is, you know, Leah has done a lot of good work around that, including getting insurance. So, um, you know, I think that that sets the stage for anything future that were to happen and ultimately I think it's left to the superintendent to allow it to happen. So, um, we've also talked about running this year as a pilot to see how it works. So, I just wanted to say that's a little bit of the history of the discussion we've had. >> Great. So, let me ask a question to Andrea. uh you had noted or at least I think you noted that in some places the person is referred to as the owner and other places the person is referred to as the handler. In light of Susan's comments, would it remove any

007ambiguity if everywhere it appeared as either one or the other that it was appeared always as ownerhandler? >> Yeah, I think that would be consistent. >> Yeah, it it has to be consistent. Yeah. Sometimes they're capitalized and sometimes they're not. But again, that's for Eric and me. >> Okay. So, u are we a are we a Can we blow that uh up, Clint, so that it's legible to poor old people like me? >> To poor me. >> I'm having trouble too with that little language. But I have a a cheat sheet beside me. >> Don't understand it. >> Can't see it. >> Okay. Okay. So, um I'll try to go through this as quickly as we can. Andrea, would you like to make a motion that everywhere that the word handler appears or the word

008owner appears that it be consistent and always marked owner/handler and make that as an amendment? >> Sure. I'll I'll move that. >> I'll second that. Is there any discussion on that >> hearing? It has to be consistent in terms of but that's again me and Erica. >> Okay. Uh I see Thank you, Andrea. I see Ian Thomas is here. Ian uh come online. >> Yes. I just wanted to announce that I arrived um a little bit late but um I'm here about five after and um >> welcome. >> I just kind of dropped in the last part of that little discussion and it sounds Yeah, consist consistency is always good. and >> necessary. So, I'm in support of it. >> Good. So, all those in favor of uh Andrea's motion to a motion to amend

009to have everywhere that it appears either handler or owner to have it consistently say owner/handler. Uh did you have something more you wanted to add, Andrea? >> Yes. uh under the definition sheet page 104 on page one it says um control the the if you go all the way down to the bottom um it says the the therapy job must be under the the control of the teacher or school employee. Well, is it under the control of the owner or the handler or the teacher? >> Where are you? Oh, a a therapy dog must be under the control of the teacher or school employee. >> Let me let me stop. Let's let if you're willing, let's vote on this and then we can take up that topic. And we're just >> So, is there any

010further discussion on the owner handler amendment hearing? None. I'll ask for a vote. All those in favor of Andrea's amendment indicate by saying I >> Ian. Okay. So we are we are voting on owner handler 320. Thank you very much. Now Andrea to your point. >> Yeah. And and there are other places like that too where it says at the bottom of the definition page it says um therapy job must be under the control of the teacher or or um >> Clint. Can you scroll there? >> Well is it the owner? Is it the handler? Is it the teacher? Is it the custodian, the school employee? Who >> I would say it has to be the owner handler? I mean, in this case, Leah is a um you know, teacher slash um counselor, but um

011I don't know that I mean, we also have owner handlers of therapy dogs like the police department and Chase that come in. So, I think we have to um it might not always be a school employee. just happens to be in this situation that she's a counselor and a school employee and a um owner handler. >> So I think the owner handler has to be the thing that's consistent. >> I do too >> because I don't think that we can say that it's always going to be a teacher or school employee. It might not be. >> I agree with that. I agree with that too. >> Where where is this Clint? Can you help me find that? >> It's under control. >> Got it. Thank you. So uh are we am I sensing that where

012it says teacher or school employee we want to u eliminate that and substitute for that owner handler? Yes, I would say so. >> Yes. >> Okay. Would somebody like to make that as a motion? And so in section in control. >> So moved. Thomas. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So Thomas plus Amen. Okay. Is there any further discussion on this? So we go to bar teacher or school teacher or school employee. Hearing no further discussion, I'll take a vote on barring eliminating teacher or school employee and substituting owner handler. All those in favor of that change, please indicate by saying I. >> I. Andrea, >> hi. I I I >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I apologize. >> I'm sorry. >> So, that passes three to zero. Okay. Is

013there Let's go back up to the top again. And >> is there anything else that either Andrea or Ian have? I have one more thing, but I'll save it for last. Yeah. Um, if you go back um to the back of that page under owner handler responsibilities and I don't know I when I did this I said you're going to be sorry you did it this way. I said if you go to owner handler responsibilities under section two there I'm sorry under section one um the district requires that a therapy dog shall have and use a hness collar leash or other tether at all times and I have C prior language and I'm not sure where that prior language is. Um, >> I don't see I don't see the phrase see prior language on mine.

014>> No, I wrote it on my sheet. >> Oh, okay. >> But I don't know where the prior language. >> Um, I think it was in the spot we were just reading. It had harness, collar, leash, or other tether. Um, for pet partners, you have to use what? A harness or a collar, whichever one you used when you tested. Um, so we might want to put like using through the use of equipment that was used in the the test. Um, it wouldn't be an other tether. I don't know what that would be referring to, but it would be a harness or a collar and a leash. >> They don't have to have they don't have to have both. It's just you chose whether to test with a collar or with a harness. But you have

015to stick with whichever one you tested with because then otherwise it's not covered by insurance if something were. >> The challenge we're having Leia from my perspective is that we cannot write a policy for your situation. We have to write a policy that's going to be enforced for any situation. >> Yeah. So that would be for >> flexibility within the language that it satisfies your needs and provides somebody else whatever reasonable control is available >> if they were to use pet partners which we put in the um which is in the policy. That's just their their that's how they do the test. >> Are we requiring people to to work with pet partners in this policy? It says um for example um therapy dogs must be registered with an organization that requires an evaluation of

016the therapy dog and handler. Example, pet partners. >> So that does not require to be pet partners. It can be but it needs >> it can be um pet partners is the one that works with AIP which provides the insurance. So it most if it's another uh school employee it will likely be pet partners. But we have other therapy dogs in the building. That's the police department dog. >> They may not pardon us. >> Yeah. I see your hand up. I just let Leia finish and you're next. >> Roger that. >> Yeah. I was just going to say that Chase and Willow have the same training. Chase was through puppies behind bars. Um but I Yeah, I see what you're saying. >> Okay, Ian, please. >> Oh, sorry. mic was slow. Um, so yeah, I

017was uh going to say like maybe something like um method of restraint and control as certified by you know established organization and such as um pet partners or another like organization something like that. I I'm kind of I'm I'm on the mobile here, so I don't have time to really word smith it, but kind of like just broaden it out to include any sort of method of restraint or control for whatever animal it may be and any sort of like licensing organization that does certified training for, you know, um animal handling. >> Anarie or Susan, would you like to pitch in your thoughts? Oh, I would agree with Ian that we can generalize it, but I do think it needs to coordinate with the organizations and especially in what Leah just mentioned about PEP partners

018also being in coordination with the insurance. So, it's almost like having, you know, double security, >> right? So, maybe add something about like, you know, pending approval by districts insurance company, something like that. I don't think there's any disagreement amongst us in what we want. We just need the language to be consistent and and clear. I I don't know who is the police department responsible for officer chase. If somebody else comes in with a uh another organization that has done the efficient the training and the supervision but doesn't require insurance I mean does that exist? What what >> um every organization they provide so like pet partners if I was just volunteering I would be covered by their insurance. There's another organization called Bright and Beautiful I would be covered under their insurance. So once

019therapy dogs pass the test, they have and they're a volunteer, they are covered by >> So then maybe we need to say that it needs to be by an organization that has full insurance for the handler. >> Yeah, that's it. That's exactly it, Matthew. >> So uh I'm kind of lost on the document. I don't have hard copy with me here. Uh help me find where this is so we can put in that that language. Anybody tell me where it is? I'm happy to get to it. >> Leia, you know where everything is. Tell us. >> Um, are we putting it under control? Because that's how we started talking about this was because >> Let's start. Let's take a look there. Uh, hold on. We have an insurance thing. Let's go back to insurance. >>

020The insurance is on page two. >> Submit a copy of insurance policy that provides liability. >> Okay. So, this would be the owner handler must submit a copy of an insurance policy. Well, that would cover it, Susan, wouldn't it? >> It does. I saw that. >> Okay. I missed that. >> Ian, are you okay with that? >> Uh, yes. Yes, I am. That's >> Andrea. >> Yes. >> Good. And then Leia, where Leah, where would we have the um assessment of the dog and through a group that would be >> um tied in with the insurance company? >> That's under training and certification on page one. Um I think the wording >> got it. Um it just says so um K9 good citizen certification is something that you get through the American Kennels Club. You

021need that typically to then go through the therapy dog training and certification process. Um >> so and where is that process? The next one or >> um yeah so therapy dogs must also be registered with an organization that requires an evaluation. So some organizations might not require an evaluation. They might just have um the classes or something. So um that's why it just says pet partners as an example of an organization. >> Which paragraph is Oh yeah, I see that under the training and certification. So this would this would u this would put the responsibility for determining that the uh insurance and the training and certification are in place. That would be right Susan's responsibility. >> Andrea Ian >> I'm looking at something else so I'm I'm sorry. Matthew, could you repeat what you're >>

022Sure. Under training and certification, it says owner must submit American Kenno Club's K9 good citizenship certification or its equivalent as determined by the superintendent must remain current at all times. Dogs must be registered with an organization that requires an evaluation of the therapy dog and handler. Again, it'll be owner handler from here in Susan will see that that's done. >> I will make sure Erica is very good at >> Okay. Um, this as well as the insurance, this as well as the insurance, the responsibility would be citizens to see that it's in place. >> Okay, >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay, we're good. What else do either of you guys have, Andrea, Ian? >> So, uh, the the the only other thing is the leash thing. We're getting rid of that. >> Where are

023we? >> Remember the leash? I think we were going to generalize it. >> That's fine. Right. >> So, it's first mentioned under control on page one and then it was also where you found it um on page two item one under owner handler responsibilities. So, I think we would just make those two places the same. >> Okay. If we want to leave it as harness or collar, leash or other tether. Um, >> or other tether as approved by the superintendent. >> Yeah, >> I think that's fair. So, we're looking at or other ten and we're going to add as approved by the superintendent >> or design and get rid of the his her. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to that effect? >> Move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second, Thomas. >>

024Okay. Amen plus Thomas. Uh, is there any further discussion on this? Hearing none, I'll ask for vote. All those in favor of making it or other tether as approved by the superintendent indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Good. That's approved. Three to zero to zero. Okay. Any any more comments from you from either Andrea or Ian? >> I know there's one more, but I can't find it. >> Okay. Could we go to damages? >> Where are damages? >> The section on damages. >> Okay. So, this was one of the I'm not certain, but I believe it was uh Michael who who pointed out that we were this was not clear as to as to why we were making the volunteer or employee or police officer inde u be solely responsible. Uh and so I'm

025going to say what I think I heard Susan said. Tell me if I got it right, Susan. >> Okay. >> The language in purple comes directly from Floyd. >> That's right. >> Okay. speaking you know my uh tenure as a law student and as a practicing lawyer being absolutely nil uh I am in no position to argue with Floyd but I am not comfortable with that I think it's still from my perspective as a lay person it still says that we have somebody who may be one of our employees acting in the process of his or her employment in this case Leia's employment is holding us is is indemnifying the district against any damages when she's acting as our employee. And I don't see how we can do that. Uh I don't understand how that's

026legal. I certainly don't think that the unions are going to think it's tender. >> And uh Matthew, that's I I what I wrote there was make up your mind. Oh, I'm reading that over again. I'm not sure why I wrote that, but I did. >> No. Uh >> I think those are good points and and and good areas of analysis and we should definitely look at that. >> You know, if if if there was once again this came to us very late in the process and now we're under the thing of we need the insurance, we need to do this, we're in a rush rush rush, but this needs more discussion at the board. I'm willing to vote for the text, but I will have to express this concern. >> We can bring it back

027to Floyd and just say that we're feeling uncomfortable that this all falls on the shoulders of the owner handler and see if there's another way to word this. Um because the school district also has insurance. >> Yeah. But I think that yeah, I think though that >> I I do believe that Leah has done her due diligence in this process and by getting the insurance, it basically protects us over what the district would have, but I want to make sure that the district would have protection as well. >> Remember, we're not writing a policy for later. We're writing >> No, I'm saying that whoever would be responsible for having their own insurance, but then we also have insurance. So, I want to find out about that. Um when I had um I think Laura Leine

028reached out to I don't know if it's our lawyer who looked at the insurance and approved it. They have a certain way that it needs to be written like on the policy that they asked me. It'll so it'll have Grton public schools as also the um insurance holder. >> Okay. >> So it has it would have both I'm pretty sure and like you said it would be like double. >> So protection, >> right? It covers up to a million dollars per incident. >> Um, >> so I would say that instead of solely, we should say jointly >> responsible. I mean, >> let me see if Floyd can't change that. So, it's like the school district plus the owner handler. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question real quick? >> Did you hear me? I'm

029in a schoolboard meeting. I have to wait till tomorrow. Um, so >> Lori said, "We have confirmed with our insurance consultant the policy that Leah has provided is adequate for the program to proceed at GMS. Um, we'll need the following items provided to the business office before the dog is brought into school. um copy of current dog license, proof of current rabies vaccination, certification of therapy dog designation, and then certificate of insurance showing showing current liability coverage of at least a million dollars per occurrence for you and your dog and naming the town of Graten and the Graten Board of Education as additional insurance with Graten Board of Education to be the certificate holder. >> Again, the challenge I I I'll stop. I I won't speak. Uh Ian with the hand up was first then

030Andrea. >> Um yes thank you. I just wanted to ask uh so Floyd has not yet looked at this language. >> No Floyd gave us the purple language. >> He gave us the purple language. >> He gave it to us. But I do believe that if we've done this jointly, I mean I think what I remember Mike saying was it shouldn't be the only responsibility of the owner handler. What Leah is clarifying is that it's not. It's really a joint process. So the owner would have it and the district has it. >> But do we do we need to say that specifically? >> I would say so, but I I want to ask Floyd to say this is I mean I want to take Lor's message to Leah to Floyd to make sure he understands

031it completely and is able to weave that in so that it's a joint process, not solely. >> Right. Right. And that would be my concern is I just want to make sure that that we're all clear on on the shared liability and you know do we also need to discuss percentages or is it just jointly does that imply 5050%. Again, again before I just before I recognize Andrea, if this was the Leia Mur Mucioni policy, that's clear. But we cannot look at the policy that she has and build this district-wide policy based on this particular instance. It doesn't work. >> Well, I would think that we would have to do that. that anybody who came to me to ask for a um you know therapy dog would have to go through the same process so

032that they did bring forth the insurance and all the requirements. That's why we've set it up that way. Um you know so that you know you're just not going to be able to say you know I want to bring the therapy dog tomorrow. There's all the policy has built around this the stipulations of how it could happen >> except for the except for the language and damages. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Andrea, I think that needs to be corrected. >> Give Andrea a chance. >> Thank you. Let me just make sure that I understand this. This means that the owner handler isn't going to be able to say, "Well, it's you, the district, but whoever got hurt can still sue the district. It has nothing to do with this. Well, the district would probably say

033we have other insurance that covers we'd have our insurance pass over the first. The question is who goes first, >> right? But uh in other words, that's not precluding uh anyone else from suing the district. It's just saying that the owner handler is not >> I think we're getting into ad into regulations here and and we're getting into the weeds, which ought to be the administration. Susan, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the board if we came to the board and said, "We're going to do it as a pilot for a year. Give the give me authority to do this for a pilot for a year. We have the insurance in place. We have everything in place. Let's make it a go for this year and take the time it takes to work out

034all these details. Let's make >> I do think that we need a policy in place so even if we take it on in this year and that through that policy and working through the year we might understand it better of anything that we want to then relook at at the policy. >> Are you suggesting a sunset sun the one-year policy sunset? >> Well, I I would say you could set up the policy, but then we could agree that we would look at it again at the end of the year. If it's only a pilot program, then we're saying it's for the one year and we would examine it again as the board would examine it again to say if they want to continue it, right? And then if there were anything in the policy that

035comes across that we didn't have in it or we we had in it and we don't need, then we can look at the wording of the policy. >> Uh, Matthew, can I come back? >> Who was up? I don't know who had their hand up first. I just wanted to ask I didn't get an answer to that question. So I just wanted to know whether that was a yes or no. >> Repeat your question so it's clear. >> My question was that doesn't preclude anybody else from serving the district. >> Well, that's true because that's why the district does have insurance for all kinds of things. >> Okay, that's what that was my question. Mhm. >> Ian. >> Yeah. So, uh, back to, um, the idea of spec specificity. Um, you know, like when there's

036shared insurance liabilities, um, you know, I think percentages are important. Also, primary versus secondary versus tertiary. um you know any sort of situation like say with kids and a blended family you know if multiple parents have insuranceances there's always like a a pecking order established somewhere somehow uh so that'd be one thing to look at uh long term short term I I I kind of like Matthew's idea of of uh maybe building in this policy an automated review process after the pilot year as sort of a fail safe you know if the district's willing it wants to invest in this and is willing to indemnify the whole operation cart blanch, you know, 100%. Um, for the first year just to test it out, I think that's worthy of discussion at the board. Um, as long

037as there's a hard stop on that and a reconsideration, you know, built into the system, uh, so that it does get looked at after the conclusion of the pilot year. My concern, Susan, is that this gets to the board with this ambiguity, we're not going to have a program in place this year. So, just >> I'm fine with doing the pilot for the year. I mean, if you're saying that that's a way to get lift off this and and you know, have it for the year, I'm I'm fine with that. >> So, um >> and I think we'll learn a lot in in this pilot year. >> They will help us. >> Can I add a comment, >> please? Um, we may want to just run the um the pilot idea by uh attorney Dugis

038just to make sure that the district is protected in the event that there is an accident during the pilot year. >> Agreed 100%. I think whatever we create, we should definitely have thoroughly vetted and within a like a a backing opinion document from Dugis and well the attorney I should say. Well, I guess I if that's what we want to do, Susan, and I'm not opposed to it at all. Um, >> I don't mind reaching out to him tomorrow, Denise. And I can do that. >> I'm trying to think of the the process and and I'm I need your help because I'm shooting from the hip. I haven't thought about this carefully. So theoretically, we're withdrawing the policy and substituting for the withdrawing policy a motion that you would bring to the board, Susan, authorizing

039a uh one-year pilot and and be prepared to to say that this is what Floyd said. This is the coverage. We're ready to go. Again, all I can say is when stuff gets to it, policy is a slowmoving beast. >> But I do think we need something to back this up. I think the policy is um very carefully crafted. I don't think it's perfect, but I think that it's something that, you know, we need to have even for a pilot. Then I would personally say that uh the pilot would end in uh the end of June of next year. Is that correct? >> I believe so. Leah, what are your thoughts? Were you going to bring him to summer school? >> The end of August. The end of August. I don't care if if there's

040a possibility. Let's say the end of August. I'm not trying to squeeze you in. So what if this is what we want to bring to us then I would like to add or I'd like to ask your feedback on saying this policy will uh is subject to review and action by June 30th or will expire August 31st and that will force us not to be coming at the last minute and putting poor Leah through the ringer for something we all love her to too. >> I'd love to hear from Jodie. >> Me, too. >> We've got this expert from Cade. Tell us about this, Jod. What are your thoughts? >> Well, I I'll speak more as a superintendent. >> Okay. >> My my my looking at this policy, I I think you're so close to

041having a really good coherent um adoptable policy. and and maybe my my suggestion would be to have have a sentence in the area around damages to school property and injuries that um all in all matters related to insurance will be approved by you have I'm sure your town has a a an insurance provider that every year looks at liabilities, looks at I'm sure has conversations with your superintendent about issues around um cases that may have occurred throughout the year that you have to look at your stoop over there. You have to look at your driveway over there. We we've had a series of issues, claims against the district and against the town. I to me as a superintendent, I would want to make sure that there was a line in this that indicated that any

042any um movement towards bringing in a a a service animal to the district would would have the insurance that the district received vetted by the by that person. And and along with that, I would want my attorney to vet this as well. So, so h having your your attorney say, "This policy protects the board. It protects your staff. It it it's language we've used in other districts. As your board attorney, this is what we suggest the language be." and and your insurance provider or the town insurance provider said, "This is the these are the lines you need in this policy that will indemnify and and provide all the protections to your staff and to your and to the board um all the liability um and and coverage you need." That's having those two things in

043this policy would be all I would be looking for as a superintendent and as a policy person. I like that because the superintendent is written all over it, but you know that I'd go to the board of attorney before making those decisions. I mean, that would be the smart thing to do. >> And and andrew, from my perspective, really the board what the board really wants to do is is state make a statement about we believe that this is a good thing for kids. This is a good thing for our schools. You really then want to say to the super you want a policy that then just identifies that we also understand that it's important to be vetted by the attorney. It's important to be vetted by the the town insurance provider and having that

044those protections and that oversight and the superintendent's judgment and the board's will. That's what I would be looking for to square this >> and Jody that Oh, excuse me, Matthew and Jody. That would be a case byase. >> Yes. >> Situation, right? Each instance. So maybe you'd specify each instance. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And would you allow me to ask your question? >> I don't think you'll have a dozen >> no >> uh service animals in your district. It it really would be in my view a case byase basis and a process that you would do to ensure coverage, liability, and legal and legal um um support. We actually have a policy for service animals because we had a substitute teacher who needed required a service animal. Um so but this is a little different.

045The therapy dog. >> Okay. >> So um I'm watching the clock tick. Jody, we have a clock too. And the clock is not only the other stuff on the agenda, but we have a clock on this. We don't have the language. We the language proposed indemnifies and hold the district harmless. I don't even know if that gives the insurance company a chance to back out of responsibility because you you've already you've got a policy that says they're not responsible. I I think process-wise what you could do is you could you could um move this policy make a motion to move this policy to the full board pending um um language from that that language from the insurance um company that the town pro town provider and the attorney that that cover that that they that

046they can put their names to and their positions to and then you would just simply insert that language in the policy. Ian. >> Uh, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say uh thank you for for Jody um uh attending and participating and thank you for giving the opportunity to speak. I think he um definitely captured the overall my understanding of of where we're trying to go with this and also like you know it echoes what I heard coming from the board during the meeting when we talked about this as a whole. Um, so you know, I think that that's a fair way to proceed and and you know, it gets us, you know, because I do want to honor the fact that uh, you know, we all believe this is a good

047thing and a good direction in some way or that's my read of it anyway. >> And you know, but we also want to make sure we honor the process and that the district is protected and that the students are protected and the staff are protected, >> right? and that you know everyone is going in like in fully with fully informed consent >> and understanding of firm parameters. So I just want to say uh thank you for all the and let's I'm looking forward to getting this going. >> Okay, it's 6:45. Um what is the will of the committee? Do we want to pass this as have been suggested? Do we want to do it as a uh we could go for a pilot and that doesn't mean we couldn't have a policy in in a

048month or two months but we get the thing on we get the thing rolling. I just want to get it rolling. Susan, >> well I would like language if I get it rolling I would like to have the protection of the language that's in this policy. >> Okay. Well, do you think we can have this in time to vote in at the end of the month? Because if it's not >> I think so. I think if I get in touch with Floyd and John Burke, um with their insurance or our insurance provider that we have together, um you know, and get this language right. I think >> I just think Floyd misconstrued what you were asking. I mean, there's there no ill will at all. >> I don't know that. I just I I don't

049know that he saw it in the same way that >> Okay. >> several board members saw it. So, but I think that if I explain that to him and >> or maybe just have him watch the meetings, you know, I don't want to pay him $200 or $400 an hour. >> I actually uh copied down the um the verbiage that was recommended by Jody. >> I did too. So, we'll compare notes and talk to Erica with all with all of the >> and Erica does watch the meeting when it comes to policy to make sure that we've got it straight. So, is there a motion is there a motion being made by either Andrea or Ian? >> Um, I'm willing to put that motion forward, but I want to be clear what it is >>

050that we're moving. >> Why don't you try it? >> That I was hoping somebody else had it had it captured. Um, I mean, I don't know. Let me just talk about what I'm trying to achieve first for for half a second. >> Are you guys willing to I'm off topic. Are you guys willing to spend three to four hours tonight or do we want to tell the people that that uh we're going to come to the uh third item? >> I think I think we're close here, Matthew. Let's hear what say we're close. >> Yeah. I I just want to say like the the intent is I would like to capture what Jody said with like you know pending you know like we we passed it tonight put it back before the board pending you

051know um you know some sort of edited version or or updated version of attorney language and insurance coverage um you know and I would add like supported by you know any sort of attorney's opinion that's needed to explain what it is because you know we we we have to address that for the community and also for fellow board members that like to see things documented. >> Okay, I'm going to move. >> But also I just I I want to say one more thing. The other caveat I would want to be in support of with this motion would be to have it as a pilot with a hard stop as you proposed Matthew um triggering a review at the end of the school year June you know whatever and then uh having to be revised by

052and then passed by August 31st so that it's ready or whatever like the last day of summer is first day of like what you what you described as far as like you know mandating a pilot program. >> Let me see if I can capture what you said Ian and if I don't you revise me I'm sure. Uh, somebody's going to move that we advance the emotion as amended by Floyd Dugas subject to clarification prior to the full board's voting on this action regarding both the uh insurance uh the insurance coverage and it's and the the uh primacy of any of any insurance coverages. Did that capture that? primacy of insurance coverages that this be a one-year pilot to review the uh program for the school year ending June 30th, 2026 and a revised uh policy

053a reviewed and potentially revised policy adopted by August 31st for the program to continue. Did that capture what was said? >> So moved, Thomas, >> Andrea, >> second. >> Did somebody write that down? >> I did. And we'll listen to it again. Make sure we got >> recorded. We're good. We're covered. We got Okay, >> that's the nice thing about being recorded. >> Okay. So, I have a move and second. Uh, Andre and, uh, Andrea, would you be kind enough to send me an email with the exact wording as as you guys uh reviewed it? >> I'll make sure you get it tomorrow when Erica gets it straight. Okay. >> Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor and a motion on the floor to accept the amended motion pending the specifics that we'll

054get a copy of tomorrow morning based on our tape. for review by the full board at the August meeting that one and that this be a one-year pilot the first year ending June 30th, 2026 to be reviewed and the polic to to be uh evaluated and the policy reviewed and possibly amended by August 31st or the policy ends. Is there further discussion? >> I think we got it. >> I'm all set. >> All those in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. I. We have passed three to zero to zero. That was monumental. I think Leia. Have a stiff drink of lemonade. >> Thank you, Leah. We really appreciate you. >> No, not a problem. Thank you. >> Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> Hopefully we'll get this to work. So, >>

055yeah, we'll have to all come visit Willow. >> Yes, that's >> I'll be around the cuff and get it done. I'm confident. >> I need that therapy doctor. >> So, it's 6:49. Does anybody need a two-minut break to take care of any personal business? >> I I could use that. Yes, please. >> Okay, let's take two two minutes. That's 120 seconds. Go. >> Good. Thank you. We've just coming back from our uh two-minute break and we're going to start now on our second agenda item which is P6131.3273 and several others dealing with a policy for generative artificial intelligence which we will be referring to as GI. >> I'm here Matthew. >> Welcome. Thank you Bev. You want to go to the very top? We have two policy numbers listed uh a P3 6131 and a

056P4118. I'm recommending that we have a 5000 series cross file. The reason for having cross files is to make it easy for people to find things that they think affects them. And since this affects students and 5000 series is dedicated to students. I know it's unusual to have more than two, but I think in this case it justifies it. Uh I I have no preference as to what number is put on, and I would defer to Jody or Susan on numbering it, but is there do we have consensus that we should be recognizing the importance to students by cross-filing it with the 5000 series number? Ian, your hand is up. >> Uh thank you, Matt. Um I'm okay with that. Um, but in general, I'm just going to kind of do a disclaimer here, and

057I'm probably gonna just be in spectator mode for the next discussion. I'm I have to just disclose. I'm I'm fundamentally opposed the whole idea of AI, artificial intelligence being used in the educational environment in any fashion by any students or staff. Um, so, uh, I'm not I'm not going to belver the point, um, because I I believe that, you know, it is also the reality and we have to have something in place. Um, so I'm not going to try to oppose or dismantle or or or or get engaged with this in any way beyond just saying that I'm fundamentally opposed and I'm either going to abstain or just oppose. I'm not sure. I I'll vote at the end. Um, and I'll listen and maybe I'll chime in if there's some format or or functionary aspects

058like Matt just proposed right now as far as like, you know, it should be crossfiled so that students can access it. Yeah, of course. Whatever we have, we should cross file. It should be accessible to people, transparent, and you also accountable. But, uh, in general, I'm opposed to all the details and all this. I'd like to see it all just out somehow. and uh until I I refine my position, I'm just going to kind of hold back the rest of my comments until unless it's like functional to like overall relationship with the district. Thank you. >> Thank you. you. Andrea, >> this will take a second and I just want to say I'm fundamentally 100% in favor of this and I I I wouldn't have thought I would be until I saw um how AI

059um has been used in the classroom on 60 minutes and that changed my uh my entire outlook on on use of it in the classroom. And so that's all I wanted to say. >> Okay. So let me share how I think we could proceed in the discussion. Did you have something else to say? Your hand is still up. Ian >> um no actually I'm sorry. I'm all set. I'm just going to kind of listen for a little bit and listen. I I'll raise my hand again if I have somebody to chime in. Okay. Thank you. So, uh, if it's okay with Andrea and Ian as a process thing, um, unless we get across something that's going to take a lot of time, I'd like to just go through these changes and, uh, from from the

060last changes that have occurred since our last meeting in July. At the end of the meeting in July, we had agreed that there was some cons discussion about how we would handle section 4 uh which was the review the uh the man what was the mandated review process. Uh and we c and so we asked uh Clint and Jody and Andrea to get together to review that and come up with some options. Um, and there was some cross communication. Andrea was not in at that meeting. So, I visited with Andrea and we tried to put some together some stuff in section four. There were also some minor textual changes. So, I would like to go over starting at the top uh go adopting them one at a time. If there's something that we have a

061real discussion on, we can punt punt that and change the way. But I think we can get through it quickly this way. Is there consensus on the cross filing to a 5000 series? >> I didn't hear Andrea. What is there? Is that a yes? >> Is there consensus on? >> No, I'm I'm not because um you know, we could be doing this forever in a day. We could cross finally everything. You know, if you want to know about it, look up GI or whatever it is and find it for heaven's sake. Otherwise, we be putting it here because it fits over there and you and we may be looking at somebody who didn't think about that baloney, you know, >> put it under AIA or whatever. >> Okay. So, >> I'm not in favor. >>

062I I explained where I was coming from. Uh so, we'll take a vote on that as what we want to do. Susan, uh, I want to give you the privilege. >> Well, I'd like to hear again from Jod because, um, Andrea does have a point that we we have so many policies that deal for teachers and students and, you know, with all the series. So, I'd like to hear from him. Do we need to do that or what are his thoughts? >> Thanks for putting me on the spot, Susan. >> Yeah, I know. I from one superintendent to another, >> that's what we're paying you for, Judy. Um it it is um it it's generalized practice to on occasion dual code a policy. Typically cable will dual code a policy like personnel policy when you

063have you code it with classified and non-classified employees for example you'll have four four and then 42 or 41 and 42. So there there are there are times where you will crossurpose or cross reference um for the reasons that Matt stated. Um the the business decision I made at CE was to keep things simple and just have a we I singly coded um AI um two years ago when I drafted when I created the model policy um back when people were just trying to get an understanding of what AI was. Um, I really think honestly I know this sounds like I'm I'm ducking the question a little bit, but I think it really is a business community decision. If you typically don't cross reference policies and this would stick out as a significant departure from

064that, I think what you could do is just come up with a a coding of this policy and communicate really well that we have a new AI policy and you'll find it in this series in our manual and and you promote it. If if you if you have cross-referenced other policies and your community expects to see that cross referencing and it's not confusing to them, um, they count on it, then then it would it wouldn't be unusual to to look at this policy because it does significantly speak to students. It also speaks to staff, but you could also make an argument it speaks to instruction as well. So you can really um put yourself in fits around trying to um reference every aspect every series that has anything to do with this policy. So um

065so I put it back on on the grten board. Generally speaking, I I would try to keep keep things simple and communicate s a lot about where this policy can be found. And I think you have a lot of attention and a lot of people will look for it and and see it and know where it is from that. >> Ian, >> yeah, based on that uh conversation, actually, I'll say um I'm reconsidering my position. I appreciate Andrea's uh comments and uh and Susan's as well as Jod's. And I think yeah, like you know, we this we'll stay consistent with what we do. Let's just make it the same as everything else that that we do in the format. Thank you. >> Okay. So, let me try punting 10. We now have it certified and

066non-certified and instruction. I'm not sure that's two or three. um already I would say why don't we put it under instruction and students because I am absolutely committed to making it easy for parents to find this and parents are going to look under students. So if we need to limit it to only two, pick whichever one of those three you want and add students to it. Ian. >> Um, >> Andrea, >> I disagree. I think it goes under instruction. Parents will look under instruction. >> Yeah. >> To delete. Are you suggesting we delete certified and non-certified? Just instructional personnel. >> Give me that again. >> I'm looking and I see three words up there. instruction/personnel certified and non-certified. >> I don't know where how maybe I'm thick. Maybe I am. Um but I I think

067it should just be under instruction. >> Well, we'll vote and let the the board decide. >> Uh quick question, I guess on that on that front. Where do we put the policy? Uh, and I'm kind of blanking right now. Anything to do with like plagiarism? >> Is that in under instruction? >> I can check that, but I believe so. >> I think that wherever that policy is, I believe this policy should exist. Thank So has to say >> Susan, would you are you comfortable with committing to as a matter of regulation in the regulations to to put in the student handbook precisely what the coding is and where it can be found? >> Absolutely. I think that's what parents do look at and kids do look at is the handbook. >> Okay. So, why would

068we need more than just the 6000 series? Anybody? >> Matthew, did you see Maria? Amory, I'm sorry. I do that all the time. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand up, Amarie. My apologies. Uh before I make a decision about this, I'd like to know where um like how CAB has categorized this in terms of what series they put it under, I always like to in my previous experience, you know, defer to the model policy and how that was, you know, coded or categorized. I just find that is an is always very helpful. Jody, >> Jody, do you happen to know? >> Just as as this conversation was was occurring, I I was try I was thinking, you know, what is what is that number? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the CAB

069model policies um through through what I'm where I am right now. Um but I can easily give that I could send that to you first thing tomorrow morning and and send you the model policy. We >> it'll have the number on it. Um, that might be again >> I think it's 6131, but >> yeah, >> I'm not going to pledge my children on that, >> right? And I I I don't want to do that either. Um, so I I can be def I can give you a definitive answer tomorrow and get that to you. And if you decide that again, this shouldn't be the thing that holds up your >> your your policy. Um, you can you if adopting CE's model policy or the the the number makes it easier. um as you review the

070policy, you update the policy and also you might have members of your staff who are aware of CAB's model policy from from from what what they have received and updates and things like that. So it may be a way of of of getting a coding that will that people will be comfortable with and be familiar with and be able to access without a significant amount of problems. What's nice about that too is um you know we get either from whether it's Shipment or CABE you know whoever the I know the district does not use Shipment but I'm just saying hypothetically depending upon the district and and how they get policies that are pushed out is that also is a good um signal to districts about when you might need to review the policy. So, just

071I know that's going to come up later, but you know, I kind of forgot about that last time, but in in my previous work with with other districts uh two previously, one that had worked with Shipman and one that had worked with CAVE, that was a signal to us, hey, you need to look at this policy because there there's either been an update from the state uh department of education or the legislature um you know, this is something that you need to look at. So, just kind of putting that out there for later, but we can kind of talk more about it u when that comes up. And Ambry, that's really wise. That's really a great a great point. Thank you. >> Okay, so let's move on to item number one, statement of purpose and

072need. The in the first line, the text initially read a complex and imperfect technology which we had moved we stricken imperfect and put evolving. And further on in that line, it had previously said demands great user reflection and we deleted the word great. The balance of that paragraph is intact as it was. The second paragraph is identical to what we looked at last time. The third paragraph um originally said generative AI. We've already said it's going to be called GAI. So that that has been changed twice in the third paragraph and videos has been corrected as a spelling and that is those are the only changes in part one the statement of purpose or need. Is there any discussion on the statement of purpose or need? Are we comfortable with that as it is? Uh

073Amory I'm sorry I forgot to lower my hand. >> Okay, no problem. So, uh I will move on to section two if there's no commentary. uh the collaborative approach uh may need to be tweaked to harmonize with whatever we decide in section 4. But for the time being the changes in that uh we had previously uh this does have this we divided it says seek periodic guidance. We want to delete the word periodic uh that was what was proposed to delete period periodic and not not stricture the administration. So, if you could bar periodic Clint second line, >> this is an uneditable. This is a PDF, Matthew, so I can't make real-time edits. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> I can switch to the Google Doc if you'd like. >> Sure, why don't we do that?

074We do have a spelling error here. >> Oh, where's >> Oh, no. No, sorry. It's just uh hitting it. >> Okay. So what what what is the proposed >> the word delete periodic bar the word periodic we'll seek guidance from district con council as necessary that doesn't tie the administration into doing something >> sorry somebody help me I'm not seeing period >> second line got it >> okay so that was removed uh the next line was the removal we're still in that one paragraph have uh it will study >> what line >> I'm bear with me it will study uh it's already been removed in that overall has been challenges as they relate that's correct This committee will also make recommendations, but we're going to take out a monitor, I believe. Take out the word

075monitor and and this committee will also make recommendations. Uh the next sentence, administrators will meet and add the words meet and work. No, that stays in that meet and work regularly. That's correct. Uh and we'll schedule and we'll schedule a yearly presentation a regular board meeting. That is that is correct. Okay. So, are there any any conversation about the collaborative approach subject to being tweaked after we work out uh section 4? keep keep it up on section two and to give people a chance to respond if they want. Andrea, you okay with that? >> I think so. >> Okay. Well, the changes are largely yours. So, thank you. >> you liked it. Uh item three now is elements of operational concern to be addressed in regulations. The first part of that is a note. The

076intention of that note is to make it very clear that while we're indicating things that we want the the what we're saying that the how is administrations just trying to put an exclamation point that we're not telling administration how to do it but these are things we board would like to see or the board if it acts on it would like to see. So, we've got three subcategories, students, teaching staff, and administration efficiencies. Any comments about the note, an Marie? >> Yeah, I'm going to go back to what I said when we met last time, which I think was about two weeks ago, and I feel like the note is unnecessary. Um, and I think Dr. Acriman agrees with me. Dr. Acriman, you gonna say the same thing? Go ahead. the same thing because I

077when I read it the first time I said this is not necessary however I I just said you're always on Matthew you know so I just didn't say anything but am A amory I'm dyslexic so I always say Maryanne so Amory I got an excuse um I'm with Bev, you're up if you want. >> Thank you, Matthew. I was going to say the same thing Ann Marie said. I I think that we should leave that part solely for the administration and not give them any direction. >> Okay. Well, it won't be the first time in my life that I've been outvoted. Oh, who knows? Hey, Ian, you're up. >> Oh, yeah. Not to not not to spike the uh volleyball, but um I guess yeah, I'm I'm opposed to that. It should be a note

078like no notes should be in a policy. Policy say what it's got to say or it doesn't say. >> Well, Blint, I'll ask you to please make it a quick and merciful death. Okay. >> Is it okay if I just from a cosmetic standpoint, can I get rid of this duplicate uh Roman numeral 3 here? >> Uh yes, please. >> Uh it shouldn't have been there, but there it was. >> Okay, so let's look at Roman numeral one. Go on to Roman numeral 2. Anybody for Roman numeral one? Okay. Roman numeral 2. I'm sorry. Elements for teaching staff. Forgive me. Okay. elements for administrative, operational, productivity and functionality will include I have uh oh the very last line of that the word shall should be stricken and we just leave will. I'm not seeing any

079hands. Should we go on to four? >> Wait, can you can you go back? It's a little bit hard because I know that we reviewed a lot of this policy last time, but because we did not see this version in advance of today's meeting, I just want to make sure that I get a chance to to read it. I know Clint, you're going uh sometimes I just read a little bit slowly, especially online. You didn't get a copy of the >> I did. I I definitely did. Didn't >> I apologize. I I guess you're not the only one. >> Take I'm sorry. Could I just clarify real quick? >> Sure. >> Um >> Hold on. So there's a this is not the version that was in the um >> sorry um that was in the

080electronic packet or the uh physical packet that we received. >> From what I understand that this is a slightly different from what Matthew said at the outset of the meeting this is a slightly different version. >> It's a it is a slightly different version. the little things like the shall being taken out. Um >> the way we had left the last meeting was that for section four because there was a difference of opinion on section 4, Clint volunteered to work with Jod to see what they could do to come up with some suggestions. And Andrea agreed that she would participate in that meeting. Somehow the meeting time that she got was at variance with the meeting time that they got. I don't care. So I went and visited with Andrea separately afterwards. And so most

081of the little things you're seeing like it said shall share. Andrea suggested be will share. So these little things come from the conversation with Andrea >> and that was only because will was above and then shall was up and we we need to be consistent >> consistent >> in this particular paragraph. the there's no closed parenthesis. Um, Clint, so just want to do that. That's just a minor editing thing, but that's just something I just have to >> please. >> Thank you. >> Yes or inclusive? >> Um, I'm seeing a number one after the period. Is it my eyesight? Oh, okay. It was his cursor. >> Um, I don't know. I mean this is all inside the note text correct? >> No, this is not a note. This is the elements. We have three parts

082to the to this section. One >> Oh, I'm sorry. So, we're discussing the section that's projected on the screen right now. >> That is correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Period after the parenthesis. >> Hoping somebody would correct me. >> Okay. Again, the how this is to occur would be entirely up to administration. Andrea. >> Yeah. And I I looked at this when I saw it the first time and all that stuff in the parenthesis, attendance and all that stuff. I I I don't think that we need to define that in here. And he's like you said, it's up to administration and that belongs in regulations. And I thought that again. And again, Matthew, I just thought I I was being um overly I I I didn't want to keep attacking you because I know

083that you're thinking >> well, >> but I think that doesn't >> I I never feel attacked by you. Sometimes I get frustrated, but I never feel attacked. U >> So, can we move it to the regulations? >> What? What I would I I'm I would I feel fairly strongly about this and I think what I would do is if you're willing to uh move if the rest of this goes through, move this as it is and and we can have the discussion with the full board. You know, as you can see, uh it needs to be I think this is a full board discussion. We can make it a different color because I think it's important these we're I I these are is actually I think it's relatively lowhanging fruit and it >> isn't a

084part of the regulations and won't they get that? >> No, it's the regulations is the how. >> Yeah. how it's to be done. >> My knowing Susan is she's not going to take on there were one, two, three, four, five, five or six different things there. They're not going to take on all of them at once. Susan's going to pick what she thinks is most important out of them and she's going to do it. She's going to phase it in over a period of time. We're not telling her how to do it. We're saying, >> I mean, if the board concurs with me, if the board concurs, we're telling her this is what we would like to see. we'd like to see some administrative efficiencies and here are some we think that you can achieve

085and Susan can come back and say there's no way we can do attendance tracking I'm just picking on can't do it then we'll bar it out there but we've expressed ourselves as to where we think that there's some efficiencies and I think the town council will appreciate that >> well but it it's it's how we want her to do it attendance right >> it's not do It's not how we wanted to do it in my humble opinion, but uh we can Ian has his hand up. Let's hear what Ian has. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And this actually is a great example of of where I have some grave concerns about AI in general. Um because this what's being listed here um one I I definitely think this should be a a boardwide discussion maybe at

086best or or I don't know this is one of the reasons why I struggle with this whole idea of bringing AI into this district at all because this is going to replace people's jobs whether it does it now or it does it in three years or four years or five years or 10 years, it's going to happen. Um, and it takes the humanity out of the district. It takes the the intuition, the logic, you know, like like the the the um relationships with the community. Um, and also this data, all this stuff is information. AI does not come for free. It comes at a cost. And the cost is your information. And that's going somewhere. Where is it going? who are we using to do this stuff? What do they gain out of this, you

087know, and what can be like what what happens on the other side of that? What are they using that information for? These are questions we need to ask. And this is one of the reasons why like, you know, I think a hard stop, a hard firewall may be warranted at this point. I don't know how we go about doing that, but you know, it's a position worth considering. Thank you. I'm gonna piggyback on something that Dr. Acriman said um in looking at when you when you look at the the word or the abbreviation here EG and what that really signifies or or you know is signals is um uh it's for instance or it's it's really the purpose is to provide a specific instance and when you do that and then you list specific things

088attendance tracking class and bus scheduling that goes back to Dr. Dr. Acriman's point of telling the administration what the specific things are that you want. And so again, I I do believe that that's more of a regulation than it than in the you know, belonging here in the policy. Um so if that's the case, I I don't believe that it belongs here. >> Okay. Eg does not mean for instance. Eg >> it means a specific instance in in a specific >> example an example of something. Well, I think that you and I are going to disagree on agree to disagree. >> Example, gracia. And I'm sure my Latin is terrible, but >> I always thought eg stand for example given, but that's just me. Maybe that's my own internal >> I'm looking up here is

089to provide specific instances of something mentioned or offering clarity or elaboration. >> So, examples, it is the areas that we'd ever start with. Actually, we're going to have at our administrative retreat efficiencies using AI and not plagiarizing, but using your own voice, but it's more in writing up something uh you know, paragraph. So, I don't think we'd ever start with attendance tracking and class and bus scheduling and these kind of things. I don't think this is a place where we'd actually give examples to start with. maybe in communications. But >> if if I could just jump in and I want to respond to that comment because um and again this goes back to my my overall theme of caution is that you know to what the superintendent said it's not about plagiarism. It's about original

090content coming from >> the district employees. That that's a great idea. But then again AI collects as much as it provides. And where does that information go? that information goes into a database that then can be used to automate instruction, you know, or automate any one of these functions inside the district. And and you know, if we want, you know, be concerned about like how we really service the community and how we service our students and um you know, a lot of it is organic. it it it's a lot of ground level decisions and intuitive decisions that come from human teachers interacting with human students. AI poses incredible risk in that department. And on top of that, like you know, by extracting the original thought, the original input coming from our organic teachers um or

091organic administration that gets co-opted into the database and can then be provided to to to automate other districts or our district in the future. That's all I got to say about that. If I may just add a little detail here. This section was specifically around efficiency of processes not instruction and so forth. So it was really we're seeing a a large not shift but addition to a lot of the uh foundational models and so forth to be agentic AI meaning it can automate tasks and so forth. So just just FYI. >> Beverly, >> did you want your hand up, Bab? >> Yes. Yes. I had to unmute myself. I didn't know if I should just jump in like other people or keep my hand raised. >> Okay, I'll jump in from now on. Um I

092agree with Amarie and um Andrea. I think at the efficiencies it should be a period and eliminate the rest of that sentence. >> I agree. >> Okay. >> I think you're mistaken, but I have no claim to artificial intelligence, let alone real intelligence. And maybe that sentence that says the superintendent will share the findings at a CO. Do you need that? >> No. >> Don't Don't we want to know? Doesn't the board want to know what how the district is using AI, where its challenges are, and where its successes are? Don't we want to build that in? Well, superintendent will share how she's using AI at a CO but findings >> okay let's see if we can find the language share uh the oper share outcome opportunity >> Matthew if I could just chime in

093I want I want to make a point about that Sure. >> Um I mean the findings are important. I mean if we're going to have AI in the district and operating in some fashion and there's consideration of efficiencies I think the findings should be shared with the board and typically like you know finding that that's sort of like more a clerical thing. So that typically happens in the in the in the in the CO meetings and if there's any action required then it's voted on then brought forward to a regular meeting. Um so I think you know it's important to have a process that if we're going to use AI in any level any capacity then we should always assess the findings and have a running you know at least no less an annual review

094of how things are going with that >> yeah I agree with you on that I >> thank you thank you Andrea Yeah. >> Uh I know that there's language about uh the superintendent uh uh sharing the uh information with the board, but I think it says at a regular meeting, and I don't know where it is, but I know we did that. And I'm not sure that we should be telling the superintendent at a cow or at a or at a regular board meeting. And I I I know that there that there there's a we had a lot of long discussion about uh every two years or something like that and I was section that's >> yeah well then what is it doing here? >> I would rather say the superintendent will give updates on

095the use of AI to the board and I will >> Yeah. And why don't we wait until we we come to that other section because >> okay why don't we come back just we'll come back to this one this par these elements later because want to look at at section uh mandated review process what you cannot see on that >> uh oh I guess you can you read that or shall I read it to you it's it's kind of >> Matthew if you can read it I can't see a thing >> okay uh on The fourth line, the one, two, the fourth word from the la end should be state. S t a t. So I wrote a note to you guys because at the last meeting there was some discussion. So we agreed at

096our uh that at this meeting we would uh sort out the differences that were discussed at the prior meeting. The sole difference that I understood related to the frequency of uh the evaluation of the GIA evaluation, GIA implementation that would include staff PD curricular adjustment, student use, administrative efficiencies, an ongoing evaluation both of GI's functioning in the district and external federal and state regulations and guidelines. lines. So there are two options that that uh Jod and Clint provided. The first approach as I read it proposes that the GI policy be reviewed at least every two years. The second option, second approach proposes that the policy be reviewed regularly with monthly updates at a regular board meeting. Um, my instinct though this was not to discuss that whoever Susan appointed to chair the AI advisory committee,

097I'm not sure if it's Susan or or the or the chair of our of the the board, whomever was appointed chair of the AI advisory committee would be the one to report uh regularly. And since I I guess I don't know who's going to appoint members to this committee, if it'll be Susan or Bev, uh they'll have to work that out. That's out of that's above my pay grade. If we cannot reach consensus tonight and given that it seems that we're almost ready to go except for this, I'd recommend we forward the policy both variants to the board for a first reading and encourage all committee members to voice their perspective at the regular meeting and poll the full board on which variant it favors. I make this recommendation because I understand that Clint to

098have been crystal clear that he can live with either variant that his concern is that without a policy he can do nothing. Thus, if we can't reach consensus, let's allow the collaborative wisdom of the full board to help us move to completion. So, what I'd like us to do tonight is to look at the two options, read one, then the other, and then get feedback from everybody who's here who wants to speak as to which path or what additional path we might like to move forward with. Once we can resolve this section for, we're really close. >> U Matthew, if I could, >> please. Um, I would be in support of that approach. Um, I would only suggest and and I could make a motion to this effect. Um, option number two, I would like

099to change the word regularly to annually and that's I think that would be the only change I would want because I do like the monthly update idea like frequency regularity and but I think mandating an annual review. I think two years is too long and I think regularly is uh too vague as to like what that means. So I like to like commit to an annual review and I don't think that's a hard ask especially given the already um mentioned uh evolving nature of AI. >> You're one step ahead of me and that's great. That's fine. What I would like since at least two people have not seen this in its entirety, I'd like us to have the chance to read it and maybe Clint, would you read one at a time? First the first

100option and then we can just be sure we all understand the same thing as to what that's saying, >> then read the second option, make sure we all understand exactly what it's saying, and then have the discussion along the lines the way Ian approached it, and then each of us can approach it the way he or she wants to. I will read option one now. The GI advisory committee will regularly review district use of AI and recommend updates to the board that address safety, privacy, staff and student needs and other relevant areas. Recommendations to the board will also address relevant updates to state and federal laws and guidance concerning GI regulation. To ensure that this policy remains relevant, it must undergo a comprehensive review every two years or more frequently as needed to assess effectiveness

101and to ensure alignment with advancements in the technology, updates in educational standards and emerging ethical considerations. That is option one. My first question is is is there any lack of clarity in that that anybody would like to observe just internal consistency? >> Um I did have something. Hold on. Wait. Uh oh, as needed. Um that that would be the only ambiguity I see is is who determines as needed? Is it community? Is it board? Is it admin? you know that's not specified and it could there be a channel to someone say this must be reviewed now. >> Okay. Uh hold that thought and we'll that's a great in-depth question. Hold that thought and let's read option two. I just want to see if the if we're understanding what it says now and then we can

102talk about what it might say alternatively. Read option two. >> Bev has her hand raised. >> I'm sorry Bev. I missed that. Um, I just have a quick question. Is the the GAI advisory committee is should that be under regulation something that Susan Susan should be setting up under regulation or should it or is this really should be under policy? I'm I'm getting confused because it seems to me like that should be something that Susian should be doing under regulation. >> Okay. So, the >> I should agree with Beverly. I was even wondering what that is. We have multiple um groups um in our district that make decisions and actually Ann Marie and I have been talking about consolidating some of these different groups so that it makes sense that we have a K12 group

103that this could fit into. So the the way this is telling Susan she has to do this GAI advisory committee. I mean to me that's a regulation. How is she going to go about enforcing this policy? >> Well I hear what you're saying Bev. Let me offer another perspective and see if it makes any sense to you. This section is entitled mandated review process. This is how is the board of education going to determine whether the policy needs to be updated or not. And the way uh the way I think both options approach it a little bit differently. But the the way the committee members who worked on this um mandated review process was we wanted to set some meets and bounds as to how we would be informed as to the challenges, opportunities, changes

104in government and other environments, feedback from the faculty members. you know, how are we going to be be informed about this so the board can take future decisions? It is. >> But isn't the how for Susan? The how should be for Susan, not for us. >> Um, I would respectfully disagree with that and I'd be glad to speak to it if I'm if that's good. >> Go ahead, Ian. Andrea, was your hand up before Ian's? I didn't catch that. >> Oh, it's after Ian. Okay. Go ahead, Ian. >> I'll just say that um the board's responsibility to the community is to provide oversight over policy. Policy guides regulation. And the way I'm reading this is that, you know, we're trying to set up a policy that that sets the parameters. Now, whether or not a

105GI GI advisory committee is is is mandated as part of this whole process, that could be debatable. Maybe it's the administration, maybe it's, you know, a couple certain personnel within the administration. However, aside from that, I think we're well within our bounds to set some expectations about annual review because again, as broadly agreed upon, like AI is built to evolve. It is going to evolve. It is going to need constant and consistent monitoring through a a set um matrix of uh expectations and and and rigor like you know as far as like the filter that we look at these things through. Um so I think having expectations to like the standards and ethical considerations I think those are great aspects. Those would all be sections of a report. Now who generates that report? Sure. Like

106I I can see like you know maybe we should not be directing to set up an advisory committee. Um but someone has to be responsible for this and the board is responsible for overseeing the whole relationship of this operation to the district through policy and as I said before policy guides regulation. So we have to get the policy right. policy can be detailed and specific to some things, but as far as the nuts and bolts of how that operates and how the report is produced, that's up to the administration or or to the committee. But either way, I think regular we have to keep a finger on the pulse and that's our responsibility as a board and that falls within policy. Policy can dictate frequency. Thank you. Uh, Andrea, then Bev, >> I I agree

107with with Bev. I I in my view, this is um regulations. It's how and I even heard you use that word. Um, and uh we can have a further discussion later, I guess, about the frequency. I'm in favor of regularly. I don't want to see a um a time frame when this this um AI is evolving so rapidly. We don't know. Um it should if regular just says it's going to be done. But I agree with Beverly that this is this is uh regulations. death. Dev, did you want to speak? >> Well, I'll go. I'll take a turn now. And if Beth, you know, when she's >> I got it now. I was trying to unmute myself. I apologize. Um, I hear what Ian's saying, but even he's saying how. The how is always goes

108under with the superintendent. I'm not against a regular update on on AI and um what we're what he's finding, but that's that's up to the superintendent how she's going to go about doing that. You can say you want regular updates, whatever that means, but you can't tell the superintendent she's got to set up this advisory committee. I mean, that's up to her, and that's all I have to say on that. >> Well, I'll take my turn now. Um, regular doesn't mean a blessed thing. Regular is in the eyes of the beholder. Once every two days is regular. Once every two years is regular. Once every 30 years is regular. It is a marshmallow word. It doesn't belong in a policy. If we want to have a review process given the rapid evaluation of this policy,

109it is the board's statutory requirement to be to provide oversight. The legislature might have been delirious when they did it, but the legislature said they wanted local education to have local control. And I think with some this AI has some incredible opportunities for our district. It also has a bunch of pitfalls and you know we have known pitfalls and there are unknown pitfalls and unless we meet on a min I mean we're not saying you have to meet only every two years Clint might find out three months from now there's a new new software platform out that we need to look at immediately. Uh, I would personally hope that Clint would chair this committee and but that's I have no input on that. No input on that. >> But again, that's the superintendent. >> Well,

110I'll tell you the first time that we discussed mandated review process, the document that I saw didn't even mention board participation in it. And I said there had to be board member participation in this. >> And what about Jod? What does he think on this? >> I was going to say the same thing. Jod's been a superintendent. What are your thoughts, Jody? >> Um, I I what I tried to um suggest the last the last meeting was you have a look if if you look at the structures that you currently have and you use those structures to inform the board of the work that's going on in the district. And so that's why I talked a little bit about in in in my previous experience I every at every board meeting I had a superintendent's

111report. Um in that superintendent report, if I was still superintendent, you can bet I would be talking about AI in every one of those reports to update the board as to what's going on in the district, what we're trying, what are the pitfalls, what are the opportunities, what what what are the things we're looking to do over the next month. um what what and just and just to I would look at the vehicle that I had available to me as a superintendent to share with the board what was going on in the district around AI. The other piece of it is I would also as a superintendent want a formal process. I would want a formal committee. I would want that committee to have some one one of the best IT people you have in

112the state in your own district on that committee leading that committee working with staff. Oh, that that was you, Clint, by the way. That was >> I'll take >> I thought you were talking about me >> in case in case there was any ambiguity there. But but I I so I think that that informally using this I think there's lang you can have language in the policy that says that the superintendent will um update the board through her his or her superintendent report each month to provide um updates to the board around initiatives related to AI. I think that that's general enough to get get out of the the how business, but but I think instructive enough to to alert the superintendent, any superintendent you have, that that's going to be part of that superintendent's

113role to report on these efforts through the superintendent report each month at a board meeting. I also think again the formal process will be this this advisory committee that will work together as a team that will continue to look at all the best practices and and pilots and all these different things. But that advisory committee can meet and have one board meet come to one board meeting at the end of the year or or in March or any any month and just talk about that committee's work. you know what what are some of the major tasks we're looking at? What are some of the major initiatives we're looking at? And and and have a PowerPoint presentation that will that'll be like your your one of you know boards typically will have a presentation around the

114language arts curriculum. It'll have a presentation around the math curriculum and other and other curriculum initiatives and other things going on in the district. Maybe you have one meeting a year that will be facilitated through the GI advisory committee to to update the board in a more formal way as to what's going on in Grten Public Schools around AI and and through that the board can then review its policy or ask the question is there anything in the policy that as it currently stands that needs review that needs updating that that um that is holding you back from the work you need to do. And that would provide the board direction to say to the policy um committee chair, take take these take this information back to your committee and begin to go back into

115the policy and and review it and and and come back with updates and ideas as to how do you want to update that policy. I think you have a you complete the circle in that kind of a process. >> Based on what Jod said, I was taking notes. I'd like to amend option two if you can help me with this. Clint >> Matthew, do you see my hand? >> Oh, >> go ahead. I I'll wait. Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. And the reason is that I'm glad Susan asked Jod, but I wanted to ask Clint what he thought. So, I think that you're doing that right now. I was asking that's what I wanted to say. So, I I think that I heard you say, "What? Clint, what do you think?" And that's

116what I want to know, too. >> Well, uh, fine. Uh, Ian, could you hang on just a little bit longer? Be patient. I know you >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. But I do I do I do support Andrea's inquiry and I'd like to hear what Clint thinks too, as well as Thank you, Jody. So I guess my first question to Clint is would you like to hear what I'm proposing for a change to option two before you comment or would you like to comment for? >> Sure. Go. You're the chair, Matthew, please. >> Okay. So the the first sentence of option two would remain the same. The second sentence would be different. It would say an annual report from the advisory committee to the board will address relevant updates to state and federal laws and provide

117guidance to the board of education concerning GI regulation. The second paragraph would be identical. It would not change at all. itman. It does say coming to what Jod said, the board directs the superintendent to include a monthly GI update at regular board meetings on the work of the GI advisory committee as well as I guess there's a second word work should be stricken after GI advisory committee strike the word work as well as other GI related initiatives needing potential policy update or modification. And if that's acceptable to you, I would withdraw option one. >> So if I understand that correctly, you're saying that there would the the main change would be we keep regularly review, but there's a a yearly report that is due by this committee to the board of education. That in a

118nutshell what you're proposing that >> that's correct. It it it's a it's a formal report of the committee to the board and the the superintendent will uh include a monthly updated a regular board meeting on the work of the of the committee. Uh my instinct is is that she would be informed by the committee's chair and have some great conversations before sharing that with the board. And uh do you want to comment on that now or you want to let Ian have a chance to weigh in first? >> If Ian wants to add some color to this, by all means. >> Ian, go ahead. >> And then thank you. Um yeah, no, I Matthew, I thank you for that that proposed um adjustment to the language. I think that would cover my concerns because it

119does set a timetable and and I I I really appreciate Joe's participation in the meeting tonight. So, thank you for inviting him and I thank him for attending and and engaging in in a rigorous level. Um, yeah, I think that that's where we need to get to is is that sort of middle road and uh but there needs to be some regularity to it. Um, and like I said that, you know, from my perspective, the advisory committee would be up to debate, but you know, as far as like, you know, is it admin within that they determine or is it a committee that, but I like the idea of a committee because then you can add people that are not necessarily intrinsically involved, but maybe have other perspectives. Um, so it kind of broadens out

120the perspectives that we bring in to the table. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Can I jump back in here if at all and Marie I don't mean to step on your toes but if if if I could answer the question that that Andrea asked and so forth. Um I my general approach to this as a former board member as a parent and taxpayer and so forth is you know I I think we need to trust our superintendent that they will make good decisions. So I am always not one to lock these down with specific dates, times and so forth. That being said, for all the committees that I've led and or been a participant in, there needs to be a regular reflection, review process, planning process process in a cycle. So, I do not

121see this proposal as a per se heavy lift or an extra burden because I would expect that this committee whether I'm leading it or not, whether I'm a participant or not, would be having a at least a yearly review of those goal settings, work done, completed, next steps, etc., etc. So, in essence, I am comfortable with that moving forward, but in in general, in principle, um I always like to leave these decisions to the superintendent of school as a regulation. >> Annie and Bev, >> I just have a point of clarification. Um in the in section two where it says collaborative approach, I believe it's the last sentence or at least it's last sentence on the document that I'm looking at that's in front of me. It says, "Administrators will meet and work regularly with

122the district GAI advisory committee and will schedule a yearly presentation at a regular board meeting." So, is this new proposed like update or report different or the same as what's listed here in the collaborative uh approach section? >> At as I mentioned when we started it when I did collaborative approach it said to be tweaked as necessary to harmonize with the section number four because section four has not had not been at the time we wrote this >> right >> uh structured. we had a couple of alternatives. So, uh, this >> but that was a this is a new addition that was just kind of off the cuff. So, that's why I'm asking for that clarification. >> Oh, the I guess the best clarification I can give from my intent, you don't need to agree

123with it, is that what we do in section 4 is going to govern what is in section two. Should we adopt what my modifications on Clint what Clint had based on what Jod said? If we were to adopt that as a committee position, the next step would be to go back to section two and make sure that the collaborative approach there mirrored and you know was not duplicative but mirrored the intent of section 4. And if I can just just just to clarify my what I said earlier in in my view a again this is just my view a presentation um invites more conversation more participation with the board a more more back and forth with it with with the committee versus a report. I I would be I would be more inclined as a

124superintendent to have my committee meet with the board and and share its work and h and open up that conversation and not that that opportunity versus submitting a formalized report which runs the risk of not people not reading it and not having a chance to really truly understand it, not asking clarifying questions. I think having a report will then require then the presentation which will then require back and forth. I I would just my my view is it's more minimalistic to just have the presentation and and people would expect that that yearly. Does that resolve your question? >> Yes, it does. Thank you. >> Okay. Who's next? Bev or Ian? I'm not sure whose hand was up first. >> Bab was up first. >> Thank you, B. You're up. >> Okay. Again, I'm not against

125um a regular update from the superintendent, but I am against telling her that she has to set up an advisory committee. Again, I think that's the how she goes about gathering information. I don't think it should be in policy. I think that should be in regulation. But I do like the idea that um the superintendent comes to the board monthly and gives a regular update on AI. So I cannot support this policy if you're going to have that the superintendent has to set up that committee in the policy. I will not vote for it. >> Can I respond to Bev? >> Uh Ian, >> please do. >> Thank you. Uh I think this the our citizens or at least the ones who pay attention and care and maybe not all of them they look to

126the board to provide leadership. The idea of asking for an advisory committee or instructing an advisory committee is to say that we're not smart enough as a board to come up with all the answers. We want a committee. I didn't say how it should be composed. I could tell you how I would like it to be composed. I'd like it to be composed of teachers with representation from, you know, every school. uh maybe and I don't know how it'd be stratified in terms of of grade level. I don't know how it'd be stratified in terms of people who are are u non-eing professional staff or counselors or social workers. You know, that I think would be overstepping the bounds of of getting into regulations. I would trust I trust the superintendent to wisely select the

127committee members, but I think it's incumbent on us to say that we need the advantage of a full participation from the GPS community and that the GPS community knows that this is something very important to the board and that we leave the composition, the actual composition and the actual functioning up to the superintendent's administration. Susan, would you care to comment on that or >> Well, I I have to say, Matthew, I know that this is something you're pushing for, but I still totally disagree with this. So, with this and this on my part, we're just going to disagree on this part of the policy. >> Okay. Um I I >> I said that we have K12 committees. We have multiple committees. Um we actually took a curriculum instruction K12 committee and moved it to a

128strategic planning and Marie worked diligently all year with this committee that produce the strategic plan. So we have areas where whether it's in professional learning, whether it's um in um curriculum and teaching and learning that are already set up that could absolutely take AI on as an initiative and be advisory to all of us. So um I just say that we we do this work regularly. This is what we do. So, um I'm not opposed to it at all, but I just think that is the how and and we are believers in this kind of work um together. I think it's really important that we get K12 representation from all areas. Can Clint, could you uh weigh in on whether in your opinion the nature of AI as a new technology demands a committee focused

129on it may be composed of representatives from all of these other committees that you say. So each whether it's curriculum or PD, each of those committees have a voice in the AI committee and that voice can bring back stuff to those other committees. But what do you think? >> I I I I guess I'm my gut reaction is I I I would be concerned a little bit about layering too many committees and having reports and and so forth go back there. I always want to be sensitive to people who are volunteering their time to do this and and we obviously need to be focused on teaching and learning in our students. That being said, I I've always envisioned it as a separate committee as it constituted itself kind of in this sample policy or this

130proposed policy right now. That being said, if Susan and Ann Marie feel that there is a place for it with adequate time and attention and the appropriate representation, I would be happy to be part of that design. Again, I don't want to oversimplify, but I am interested in this work and moving forward because I think it's a critical component of our world right now that we need to to wrestle with, for lack of a better term, um, and hopefully leverage uh, for better learning. But I I am less concerned. That is a superintendent, assistant superintendent decision. And if they feel that existing structure and as Susan mentioned there have been some changes here that it could fit into one of those I would be happy to do it that direct that way. I also think

131Clint that you lead a group of teachers K12 who actually um are our leaders in technology >> and it started out with helping teachers get onto the technology but they're very insightful people who are really pioneers in technology and you know they're another group that could really lend some expertise and research this >> our instructional coaches have been instructional technology coach coaches have been part of this informal conversation that we've been having since the well, for lack of a better date, the great chat GPT moment that we're all kind of pointing to as a milestone whether you love it or not. >> Okay, I guess it's Ian and then Andrea. >> Um, Matthew, I just need to interject. I have to log off. I know the climate policy we have not gotten to. Um, so

132maybe we can move that to another meeting. >> Okay. So, uh, let me just make a quick diversion. Andrea and Ian, will you be amendable to our having a special meeting of our committee this month so we can, uh, get this climate committee piece done? >> Sure, I am. >> Um, uh, yes, I am as well. And I would humbly suggest perhaps the 19th. I think it just opened up. Uh, I was Andrea, would you look at your calendar and get back to me whether the 19th works? And I'm in Vermont, so I don't have my calendar with me. I will know tomorrow night. >> Thank you so much for staying with us, Denise. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Um, yeah, we don't have to debate the the date right now. I just want

133to kind of throw it out there as a possibility because ad hoc budget procedure committee is not going to meet that date. >> Um, if I could take my turn now on the policy. >> Uh, I think perhaps I'm listening to everybody and and I think I might have a a a third middle road option if I can compound metaphors. Um, if we go back to section two where we talk about collaborative approach and we look at that first sentence, um, instead of saying establish and maintain a district-wide GAI advisory committee, perhaps maybe we could change the language to something like the superintendent will establish or designate a committee to serve in advisory capacity in relation to matters concerning GI. I like that. I like that, Ian. >> Okay. So, say it again, Ian. >>

134Hold on. I'm writing down my my thoughts. >> Are you able to, Clint, get this? >> Um, I will. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, um, so for section two, collaborative approach, first sentence, the superintendent, I I would Do I need to make a motion? D just write get it get your thoughts down first. >> Sure. The superintendent will establish or designate a committee to serve in an advisory capacity in relation to matters pertaining to GAI. >> Advisory capacity for what? Hey, >> for um an advisory capacity in relation to matters pertaining to GAI. So period after GI >> Sure. And then we talk about >> what else are you changing or leaving in in your proposed? Well, I guess we put the period after GI and then when it talks about what would

135be comprised of that committee, maybe that's an area of debate as to whether that's too much direction for the superintendent or not. But personally myself, I think that's that's not a bad maybe we could say should or is suggested recommended, but >> or that's a good cross-section. >> You can put put maybe. >> Maybe. Yeah, exactly. and you know, but make that a separate sentence of like suggested components of this committee. Um, and then we just have to wrestle with the language throughout the rest of this policy as to like how we refer to this committee because we we could say the designated advisory committee maybe instead of GI advisory committee or maybe say um I'm not sure the identified committee. I'm opening a suggestion on that, but I I think well Susan, it sounded

136like that that that satisfied your concern. >> Put aside the name of the committee for a second. What What are the substant What other substantive changes to the remaining paragraph? >> I have none. That's it. just for a sense. >> I would say a designated committee um that would um be responsible for advising on GI or something like I don't want it to be a separate committee. It could be a committee like strategic planning. It could be a committee, right, >> of teaching and learning, but it's going to focus on >> GI, >> right? And I think that sentence achieves that mission. Um, establish or designate. That's two different options. >> Just suggest, >> see, go ahead. >> I just added this. I don't know if we like that or not. >> Um, Matthew, do

137you see my hand? >> Yes, I do. I'm just trying to read and think at the same time. It's dangerous. >> Please, Andrea, go ahead. >> Okay. I agree with Beverly. We should not be and and I think Clint said it as well. We should not be telling the the superintendent what to do or how to do it. U we know that we want to be updated on on u AI. How she does it is up to her. >> If I could respond, Matthew, >> please. I I think I think this splits the the difference fairly where it says the board has the expectation that the superintendent will draw like will create some sort of like broadspectctrum intake of information allow a committee. Um but it does not design it doesn't direct the superintendent to

138create a new committee or to designate a committee. It gives the option to the superintendent to to do one or the other. um that you know and I think that's that's pretty broad that that gives good good difference to the administration but it also sets the expectation that there will be a broad-based approach to looking at AI in general. Thank you >> Beverly. Uh Susan, uh is are there any regulations to this policy yet? >> I don't believe so, but I do see regulations in the policy. >> Okay. Now, can I ask you if when you write your regulations, can you write something in your regulations that says um what that first sentence says that Ian um wrote, the superintendent will establish a designated committee. Could that be part of your regulations? part and I

139as I kept saying is that we have established committees that are curriculum instruction and professional learning um models K12 and they're really important in the district and this is definitely a focus I see for all kinds of reasons um including safety um as has been pointed out but also to try to keep ahead of it um and it's going to go past. I mean, there there's all kind of predictions with this, but I think if we want to make sure that our kids are safe with it and our teachers are safe with it and we're all safe with it and um you know have as much information on it as we can. Um it's going to I think a committee approach is important, but I think that is an approach. It's a regulation. It's how

140we're going to monitor this thing. So, if Susan tells me that she's going to put it in regulation, I trust her and I'm not going to vote for it to be in policy because again, I think it's the how. I'm not against her coming to the board with regular updates, but I don't think we should be telling her that she needs to establish and designate a committee. That's up to Susan to do that. That's a regulation and not a policy. So, if she tells me once again that she would put that in her regulation, I'm all fine with that. >> I agree. >> I s I certainly respect you, Bev and Andrea. Uh I respectfully disagree. Um, if it does not appear we that we can uh I don't want to force a 2 to1

141vote and have it come out of this committee as if we are uh struggling even though we are. I would rather take it to the board and share with them. Uh I'm willing to pull the first option which was date specific about the amount of time uh in favor of a annual report plus a monthly update. I think that is perfectly appropriate to a policy um and let the collective wisdom of the full board come to a conclusion. Uh yes I am advocating for something. I have no apology for that. At the same time, I'm trying to maintain a sense of balance between my personal advocating and my function as a functionary to make this work as a group effort. Susan, can you live with that? >> Um, could I could I just jump in

142real quick because I wanted to respond to Andrea and Bev's comments. >> Uh, who was Anie's hand up before yours or after yours, Ian? I'm not kidding. >> Well, looking at my Zoom screen, it looks like I'm number two in the queue after Andrea. Is Andrea's hand still up? I'm not sure if he >> Andrea, did you have something more? Do you have something more to say? >> I had a question and that was a uh couldn't we just put that this on the regular reports on the board, but but then again, that would require committee or can we just say to Susan, we expect this in your uh in your superintendent report? There's so many ways I could share it with the between the board notes and we actually have the template that we

143look at monthtomonth like you you guys must see um almost monthly data some kind of data right we look at teaching and learning in the first CO and then we do more finance and facilities in the second. So we could absolutely weave that in you know Beverly and I could look at that and find a place for that throughout the year. That's how we've done other things that are really important for the board to >> you if I could >> please Ian. >> Um so um first off you know just in generally speaking like we're creating policy not just for this board and this superintendent but also for future boards and future superintendents and administrators to refer to. So I think establishing some sentence of expectation in the policy is is fair game. Second, um

144the way that I intended the sentence to read um will establish or designate. Those are two separate actions. Establish means creating a new committee in my mind and that's the way I intended the language to to read. Designate means naming an existing committee that would do the work. Mhm. >> Um, so you know, those are basically the only two options that exist if we want a committee to be involved in this, which is Matthew and and and most and and Susan have noted and Clint as well and Jody have all noted that it's it's good to have multiple perspectives inputting on this and multiple areas of focus being combined into a a summitive report. So, you know, I don't think it's out of bounds to have that sentence in there. And I think that sentence

145gives all due difference to to the administration. You know, establish or designate, you know, those are two separate actions. Um, and I and I think it's worthwhile having it in the policy so that it stands throughout future administrations and future boards and unless they address it directly. >> Okay. I'm going to ask um I'm not sure again Beverly and an Ann and Marie who was up first to speak and then I'm going to call the question unless somebody has something completely new to add to the debate because I think we've I think we've covered the debate pretty clearly and Marie. >> Thank you Matthew. Um I um looked at the cave model policy and the regulations. In the policy there is no reference to uh a um a committee. However, in the regulations, it does

146read um consider establishing a district AI advisory committee comprised of staff and administrators charged with studying the potential advantages and challenges of AI and recommend training on the tools for teachers, students, and parents. Emphasize the district's commitment to using AI fairly and safely. Um, I find that looking at model policies either by Shipman or by CABE to be very very helpful when you know writing policy and regulations for the district. So again, I always that's a go-to for me. Um, by the way, I know earlier in the in the meeting we were asking about um what how that was categorized for CABE and it is under um instruction I believe at the 4,000. So let me look at it again. um instruction slashpersonnel under the 4000 series. So I wanted to clarify that from earlier

147but again it was not this is not found under the policy but in the regulations for um for CAE. So just to kind of clarify that >> and an Marie that's been the history here in Graten that we've always used the CA models or other models um as a starting point. I know this is so new that I think that we, you know, were able to approach it a little more holistically. I know that you and Clint worked really hard on that along with committee members, but I think that um looking at a K model is always important and I agree that I like actually the way that they specify it in regulations. So, >> okay. So the while we're doing this, Clint, could you take out the words to be tweaked to harmonize for

148for the moment? Uh Bev, you had something else to add? >> No, I have the same thing I want to say again that I'm not against the committee, but I am against it telling the superintendent to to that it should be in policy. It should be in regulation. Just like Amarie said that it's in the K policy. It's in regulation. You're totally wrong putting it in the policy. It should not be in policy. >> Well, um I will add another reason that I am adamant about bringing something to the board for their consideration that is more detailed than you might like. Bev, no, I'm going to call the question after this, Ian. Just unless you tell me it's brand new, something brand new that hasn't >> No, actually I was just going to say like

149I' I'd be willing to make the motion at this point to make it clear. Are we voting on the sentence? >> Not yet. Not yet. I want to finish this. >> I'm only speaking for myself, but I don't think I'm alone on the board that multiple things in the past couple of years that have been requested by the board, some of them numerous times have not come to pass. It has been a great source. What's the word of I guess say pain to the board that this has happened and I am absolutely >> I don't know what you're referring to. >> I don't but you're being very ambiguous. >> I am being >> and I don't appreciate and I don't appreciate it. >> I am sorry. Thank you. >> I know you don't appreciate it

150but sometimes truth has to be spoken. >> Well, it's your truth, Matthew. >> No, my truth. I said I am speaking for myself. I did not say it was anybody else's truth and I will continue. The board has a responsibility to direct the superintendent to accomplish some things. This will happen. I will do my very best to have it happen. And if anybody has anything additional to add before we call the question, I will uh work. Is there anything new anybody else wants to add? >> Just a quick point of information to be clear that you know when you move the question, what question are we moving? >> I'm going to start with the collaborative approach to ask if you want to make a motion on the collaborative approach paragraph. I'll make a motion to

151uh adopt the sentence as written um on the screen right now. The superintendent will establish or actually I would say we don't need the double a committee. We could get rid of establish so we get rid of a committee and just have establish or designate a committee. >> Estab designate a committee. >> Yep. to serve in an advisory capacity in relation to matters pertaining to GI. >> I I move that we adopt that language into this draft. >> I will second that motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> Is there any discussion on the motion? Andrea? >> No. >> Okay. In that case, I'll ask all those who support the motion as made by Ian and seconded by Matthew to indicate by saying I >> I. All those opposed. >> No oppos. >>

152Okay, that's fine. So the amended uh collaborative approach as amended and Clint you'll get me a copy of this tomorrow. Is that possible? As amended uh two to one to zero Schulman Thomas affirmative amen. >> Is is be a member of this committee? uh one of those you know I forget what the Latin term is and >> ad hoc ad hoc sorry um exeicio members do not have the power to vote only comment and participation >> okay so let us go to the top >> not I can only vote if we don't have enough people like say um it It was only Matthew and he needed somebody else to sit in to make a quarum and I can sit in and then I can vote. >> But if you have enough people then I can't

153vote. But my vote would be no. I made that definitely clear. I'm a no on that. >> Yeah, me too. I have to shut the door. I'll be right back. >> Okay. >> So, we're good to move on. >> I want to wait for Andre to be back for everything. >> Okay. I'm just saying yeah, that matter settled though. That matter settled. >> Very well. Thank you. So, I'm looking again at the classification of the 6000 and 4,000 series at the very top. Um, is there any interest besides mine in I guess the the baseline one? Jody, confirm what I'm saying as being true or or not or not true as far as you're able to understand it. My understanding is that the uh draft policy that you had was drafted two or more years

154ago and it hasn't been updated since. >> Yeah, it'll be two years in January, I believe, Matthew. Two years. >> So, um and it has it has not been updated since I drafted it. Okay. >> Over a year and a half ago, two years ago. So I'll make a motion that we reclassify this policy as can't see the numbers clearly 4118.53 is if I got that correct and a 5000 series number it maintains instruction as the primary and it has as a secondary a 5000 number uh I'll follow Jod's recommendation or Susan's recommendation of where it appears in the 5000 series so that it be convenient for parents. If there's no second, it will die. Is there a second? >> I'm sorry. I just want to get clear on exactly what it is you're proposing.

155You're proposing that >> argument. The the argument it's it's on crossfire. The argument has been that the practice has been generally not to do more than a double cross filing. I don't get it, but I'll accept that that that's practice and I'll inclin towards that. >> And as of right now, the 6,000 and the 4,000 series >> um 4,000 is instruction. 6,000 is what Jody >> 6,000 is students. >> Students Oh, >> I thought the 5,000 were students. Yeah, 4,000 4,000 is personnel. 4,000 is personnel. But again, I >> No, I don't have it in front of me. >> You know what? Let me 6,000 instruction, I believe. >> If 6,000 Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um I'll second I'll second it for discussion purposes just so we can kind of get clear of Robert's

156rules and all that jazz. >> Okay. So, >> and then we can kind of determine from there. Uh I I have no preference as to whether it's instruction or personnel, whichever one you want. My my goal is to have it listed with students as well. So that's we have a motion on the table, Shman Thomas, to change the cross referencing. I would be in support of cross referencing students and instruction, whatever those numbers are, which I don't have in front of me right now. >> Jody, instruction is the 4,000. Is that correct? >> Uh, instruction is 5,000, students 6,000. >> All right. So yeah, I guess I would I would make a motion to to amend uh to make it five to cross file between five and 6,000 series. >> I I'll accept that. I'll

157accept that uh amendment so we don't have to vote on it. Okay. So now we have an amendment to uh recross file it as 6131.3273 plus a 5,000 number uh as recommended by the superintendent or Jod with superintendent can trump Jod if she wants to. No problem. Andrea uh >> are we on discussion? >> Yes we are. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I think we should just leave it for instruction and that's it. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Uh yes, I do actually. Um the only reason I'm I'm I'm changing my mind once again on this is that um I'm thinking of students operating independently when they're doing research. Is that explicitly instruction or is it like student how students like process information and do their own research? You know, um we should this does touch

158on that in certain areas. So I I think it's a point it should be a point of reference in both. Thank you. >> I'm Jody. Do you have any comment to respond to Ian? >> No. No. I think it's um these are when when I classify a a a new policy, these are the kinds of things that I think about all the time in terms of is you know what what is really the the aspect of the policy that's really driving that really drives the policy. And usually they are they are various things and I just land on the thing that I I think is really kind of is is what's really driving it and also what people may perceive it driving as well. So they'll they'll be acclimated to looks at at a certain

159series to identify that policy they may be looking for. So there really is no it's more of an art than a science. I you can make a strong argument for instruction, you can make a strong argument for students, you can make a strong argument for personnel, which just shows you the breadth of the policy that you're developing and around AI, which touches a lot of different areas, but I I typically favor picking the one that ultimately you think is really the the best of of all of them and and and again, promote people ultimately people your your citizens aren't going to have the argument that you're having about what series should this policy be in. What they want to know is where can I find it? >> Thank you. And I thought students, the parents

160would more likely look under the students as it affected them. >> That's very reasonable. You >> have uh Anarie, Ian, and Andrea. >> Thank you. Here's um the reason why I believe it belongs uh most strongly or primarily I guess only under instruction is because when I look at the section on students it's really this section three elements for students include and this is really about how it's being kind of um monitored delivered you know how it's being kind of um it's not really the direct um directly how students are affected. It's really what's kind of being done for students, how it's being delivered to students. Like take the example here, age developmentally appropriate access and equity. So that's someone that's that's people that are determining how um or the maybe the it's people that

161are like making selections for students um or like see here like ethical sta youth standards again that's adults making choices for students or making determination for students and that's again that's this is the kind of the the my thought process behind why students wouldn't be um a part of this um this series. In my opinion, >> your logic is impeccable. I have no argument with what you're saying. I think the question is you administration are going to set the regulations and it's the regulations that are going to be of concern to the parents. The parents are going to look possibly to instruction, possibly to personnel, most likely in my opinion to students because their kids are the students. It's it's not for the purpose of what you said is accurate, but it's for the ease

162of a parents getting to the material. Um, Andrea, >> um, Susan said it that, uh, this goes into the, uh, will go into the, uh, student handbook and that's where parents are going to find out where to look for it. And I, in my view, this is instruction. Parents are not going to look under students for this. I I think that will just throw them off. And I think that uh if it belongs if it appears in the handbook that's where the word is going to get to the parents anyway. >> Ian >> um yes I I would uh beg to differ on that uh in the sense that like I said students will are already using AI for research. They are already using AI to help with grammar, punctuation and writing and even maybe

163content generation. So, you know, on the student end, the student interface, it is an active thing and and skimming through this policy, you know, yeah, the policy is is sort of tip of the iceberg, very administrative focused, but as everyone else identified, you know, how it applies to the district is a matter of regulation. And and to Matt's logic, like you know, that's where parents are going to be looking as well at, you know, first for students like when they see a student, they see their child or, you know, um using AI in some form or fashion, they're going to want to consult the handbook and get to the answer as quickly as possible, you know, one way or the other. And so that's why I think the dual approach has value is because you

164know staff is going to look at it from one end, students and parents are going to look at it from another end. So why not just put both avenues out there? Instruction covers staff including admin and teachers. Students cover students and parents, caregivers and guardians and all that. So you know I think it's it's valid. the regulations are always attached to the policy. You get the P's and the Rs, you know. So, like why I that that's why I'm in favor of the dual approach. Um I think it's reasonable. Um and and it also provides, you know, similar to like differentiating education, right? It's not about a staircase. It's about building a ramp. You want as broad access as possible. You got to think about where people are approaching the information as much as the

165information you're trying to put out there. Thank you. Andrea, >> I think that doing it under students is only going to confuse parents. It's going to throw them off. It's it it belongs under instruction in the main. And um I I think that I I think parents will look at that and say, "What on earth has this this has got to do with instruction?" Not that they'd have that word perhaps, but that's what they'd think. >> Well, I think it's going to throw them off. and Marie, >> we haven't even written the regulations yet. So to so to say that, you know, it's to anticipate that I think is a little bit premature. And I think to Jod's point earlier tonight, um we could categorize, you know, almost everything because we're a school system um

166multiple ways, especially tying everything to students. So, um, you know, I just again would argue my point from earlier. >> Okay. Something new, Ian, or >> Well, yeah. No, I say I'm just I'm comfortable with the level of discussion that we've had and if if we're at the point we're ready to to vote, I'm I'm ready to vote. >> Okay. Okay. So, we are now on the question. We have a motion that the uh policy will be policy the motion to make the policy to co-share is that the word cross reference policy 6131.3273 with a 5000 series designation the number the uh the specific number to be selected by the superintendent with the input from Jod. Uh, I'm comfortable with uh asking for a vote. All those in favor, did you have something else you

167wanted to add? An Amarie, your hand is up. >> No, I just forgot to lower it. Thank you. >> No, no problem. Uh, all those in favor indicate by saying I. I >> I. >> All those opposed. >> Okay. Schulman and Thomas in favor. Amen opposed carries two to one to zero. Okay. So the we have gone through one two uh three uh we informally agreed to delete the note. Do we need in your opinion Jody do we need to take formally excise the note that was there? >> No. You've agreed to excise the note. So again, >> you don't need to take a vote on that. >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. Okay. We're now in the mandated review. Uh I will withdraw option one if which I think was the one

168that uh had been advocating with the specific two years or more. >> I have no objection to removing option one. Andrea, do you have any objection to removing option one which specified the two years? >> Oh, go ahead. >> Okay, so option number one has been excised. >> Can I remove the note above here too as well, Matthew? >> Uh, yes, please. Please. That was a note to policy committee members that was never intended to be part of the >> That's that's what I figured. >> Yeah, we're now on option two. Uh, I don't think Please help me. I'm I'm My head is beginning to swim. Uh, I do not We did get a suggestion. You got to get to another light. We did have suggest going to give up. >> Pardon? >> My hip

169is gonna give up. I think Beth Beverly understands that. Let me stand up. >> Okay. Can you hear me, Andrea, while you're standing? >> I can. >> Good. So, um, I worked on some language that I had proposed earlier. I don't remember our having taken a vote on it. So, let me read it again. The GAI advisory committee will regularly review district use of AI and recommend updates to the board that address safety, privacy, staff, and student needs in other relevant areas. Period. An annual report to the board will address relevant updates to state and federal laws and provide guidance to the board of education concerning GI regulation. Second graph in option two, the board directs the superintendent to include a monthly GI update at regular board meetings on the work of the GI advisory

170committee as well as other of the GI related initiative needing policy update slashmodification. Would there be a second to that? It's a motion. >> There would be contingent if there's a way to get that text put up on screen. Um because I believe the only real change you suggested was changing the first part of the second sentence in the first paragraph um from recommendations to the board to something about like annual reports by the committee. >> Well, let me put in the let me put in the word the wording that I have and then >> Sure. Sure. >> Clint, can you just add mine in in green or or purple or red or something else so we don't hide what's originally there? or just >> give it to me one more time, please. >> Okay.

171Recommendations. comes recom Oh gosh. Uh I guess the the committee will recommend will the committee will provide I guess it should be the GI advisory committee will provide an annual report to the board to address relevant updates to state and federal laws. You can probably stop typing there, Clint, and and just like cut or or lay a line out until the m words match. Yep, there you go. Sorry to jump in. >> Where are we? >> Second sentence. >> And guidance concerning GI regulation. >> Yeah. And since that committee would be would be assigned by the superintendent, named by the superintendent, uh I would expect she'd make her wishes known and lead the committee to make a report. And the second par the second uh sentence would have no change. Oh, I think I had

172the word work in twice. Yeah. Take out the second work after the word on the committee. >> Yeah. The second paragraph after the word committees. There's a duplicate work. Yep. There you go. >> Right there. No one. Um, >> no. >> So, so now you'll have it was my grammar was terrible. >> Gotcha. So, so I I've given the second now based on now that we can see the sentence and the motion. >> No. Well, you have a possess we have a possessive and we don't have anything being possessed. >> Oh, well GI updates regular monthly board meetings on the G take out the first work on the GAI advisory committee's work >> on the GA advisory committee's work as well as Okay, >> you want designated >> Yeah. So, actually I'm glad you brought

173that up, Clint. Um, that's what I was going to point out was we need to address the title of the committee in the first sentence >> uh to match with what we did in section two. >> I I think that's very good catch. Thank you. >> And I think designated covers established. If the superintendent chose to establish a committee, that's her designation. If you chose to designate a standing already existing committee, then that's also the >> we should go back to chat to section two and delete the word establish or >> No, no, no, no. Because because establish means she create a whole new committee or the >> and by creating that whole new committee that that designates that committee to be an advisory committee. >> Thank you very much. I love I love fourhour

174meetings. If I may, I'm just reminding us of Amarie's comment about this section has schedule a yearly presentation and this proposed option two has a report. I don't know if you all want to address that or not. >> Presentation rather than report. Would you be more comfortable with that, Clint? >> Do you have a more consistent that way? >> Okay. An annual presentation. Thank you. Now actually I would have gone the other way on that saying report here and report in the previous section but we'll go with this because it's right here and now >> and I'll go back off mic so you don't >> so um superintendent Giller if I remember correct recommended the term presentation because he said it was more of a conversation but I I can again I I I don't

175want to put words in his mouth. I I'd like him to speak about it. >> No, sure. I I would just say it's more interactive having a presentation. It gives the board a chance to ask clarifying questions. It gives the community an opportunity to view it. Um a report tends to be something that people some people will read, some people won't. Um I think a presentation provides greater interaction. >> Got it. So yeah, my my I appreciate the clarification. If that's the intent, then I'm okay with presentation as a language. My interpretation was the opposite. You know, thinking like report was something that was meant to be interrogated or or analyzed and critiqued. Um, but either way, I'm fine with whatever keeps it consistent so we can move forward tonight and we can debate as

176a board >> on that word. >> Take out option words option two. >> Okay. So, Andrea, your hand is up. >> Yeah. I just wanted to know where Beverly stands on this. Uh, I don't think she's here. Oh, didn't I think I voted no on the previous one because it was uh that you know I didn't want the the superintendent to I didn't want us telling her to to um establish that that committee. Okay. Are we ready for a vote or is there anything else anybody wants to add? >> I'm all set. >> Okay. So, all those in favor of the text as amended showing on the screen, please indicate by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed indicate by saying no. >> No. No extensions. Thomas Shman I. Andrea Arian. Nay. Okay. Um,

177go to number five. Is there anything in this that anybody wants to comment on? >> No. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's like kind of boilerplate. It's it's general. It's it's basically saying like we will continue to monitor >> um observe or monitor and adjust quite >> Let me look at it again, Matthew. >> Sure. Quite frankly, it was said to tip a hat. I'm whipped. to tip a hat with great appreciation to Cabe in general and Jody in particular without whom uh even with Clint's expertise we would not have gotten as far as we got as quickly as we got and thank you Jody so much >> my my pleasure Matthew >> Matthew Yes. Do you see my hand? >> I see your hand. Yes. I'm waiting for you. You said you

178wanted to read it. I was just giving you the >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, when I taught eighth grade about Oh my gosh. about 45 years ago, I ke I had this kid I'm going to even name his name. His name was Jonathan Hannah. I will never forget. And whenever I went off on a tangent or something, he would say, "What has this got to do with peace?" And I want to ask you, what has this got to do with peace? You know, how does this even I mean, it's nice and all and I appreciate Jod and I appreciate Cape and all the other institutions, but what does this got to do with peace? >> Well, you know what? I think you're probably right. And I'd urge us to to you know, it's not a

179hill I'm prepared to die on. we can take it off and the the sun will come up in the east. But I would like to say thank you to Cabe. And since I don't see it hurting anything, uh if you have a real strong objection, I'll take it out. But I don't see it hurting anything. And And >> yeah, I I do I don't think it belongs in policy at all. >> I mean, and we all I mean, we could we could, you know, we could we could do a formal thank you. Um, or we could even write a thank you. But >> should buy him a Maserati. Okay. >> I I I would suggest uh humbly if I could just jump in. I say, yeah, I mean, it's relatively innocuous as Andrea and and

180and Matthew both identified, it doesn't affect the policy one way or the other. Um but uh yeah, so I mean like if we want to acknowledge Cab's um support and our gratitude for that, then we could um we could do a proclamation of some kind or or do something like that. But like honestly, similar to like the notes, I don't think a note should be in policy. It if it's policy, it's policy. Every sentence should have impact. like EB White said, avoid needless words. So, um I I you know, I understand the intent and I appreciate the intent, but I think it should probably get cut. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And I can make it easy on all of you. We're here to serve you guys. We're that that's what that's our mission.

181Um I was happy to do it and I I'm happy to continue this work and any way I can help with the Graten Board of Education in the area of policy, it's our work. Um, so, um, I I being a a a minimalist and and and, um, and liking Evie White quite a bit, I I would suggest taking that out as well. I appreciate the sentiment and I will pass it on to Patrice McCarthy, this the executive director. >> Before we delete it, Anmarie, >> thanks. I appreciate that. Um, uh, I don't want to repeat what everyone just said, but I I I also like to kind of point out the obvious that we really didn't, aside from Jod being a great help to us, we really didn't use their policy at all. Um, I

182think we may Clint and I may have started with that policy originally, but if you look at our policy and compare it to Caves, it doesn't they don't resemble one another at all. So, while I would like to acknowledge um Superintendent Geller's work with us and his um great patience in me in attending many meetings and being with us all these hours, um the policies do not look alike. Um and so this acknowledgement I I don't think is necessary. >> Clint, would you press the magic button? >> Okay. Um, I guess the number four can be green since we voted on that. Is there anything else outstanding on this policy that I have missed that we need to work on some more? >> Um, I just want to ask, do we have all the proper

183citations down below um that we normally do? I didn't see I didn't get to that part of the page. Um, so yeah, we just add in like and that might be something that that that Floyd has to weigh in on as to like where this was drawn from or that sort of thing. >> Jody, are you aware of citations at this point? My my sense is that it's too new to have them. Yeah, that CGS >> um there are really no um regulations, no legislative acts, no Supreme Court cases that that really are guiding any any board policies at this point. Boards of Ed are are ahead of state government, federal government, and and um the only thing you would be citing would be things that you've read and other things which wouldn't be appropriate

184in a policy. So legal references, I didn't have any. I don't think I don't think they're relevant right now. >> So there's no Connecticut general statutes that have to do with AI in school districts. >> Nothing that I've come across that's informing policy. No. >> Okay. >> We did take a couple of sentences from I believe somewhere in Oregon at one point. >> Oh, the Jod forwarded that to us. What do Should we look at at those citations, Jody? We we we're we're always stealing from each other. You're going to find some language in Cave's new model policy from the Graten Board of Education. So, um it's we're all looking to um get get the best we can from each other. I don't think it I don't think you took enough from the Oregon um

185state of Oregon in terms of their policy work that would warrant a a reference in my opinion. I'm comfortable if everyone else is comfortable. >> I'm leaving it blank for now. We could always, you know, amend it later if someone calls it out. >> Sure. Okay. So, is uh there anything that I have missed in this? Can you go to the top one more time, Clint? Let's let's just run through this one more time. See if there's anything I missed or anything we missed. Uh, and so we voted I guess at the top maybe we should take out the uh 411 1853 and put in a five question mark question mark question mark. Okay. >> Can I get rid of this? >> Why not? >> Okay. Scroll down. I think we're good. I I would

186say say if you're not using put um putting it in the personnel series I would get rid of p um noncertified certified. >> Okay. >> And personnel this is going to be now instruction >> students instructions and student >> uh maybe students I don't know. Yeah. Students, right? >> And electronic resources. That's that's not a classification. That's that's a subset. >> No, leave it. So, don't take that away. >> I I would leave it there as a subset. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. From the bottom, change that to 5,000. Do we need to have the P's on every page? >> No. Um, >> leave that at the top. Leave that at the top and just >> That's just a formatting issue. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, could you pageionate it as well when you have

187a chance? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll make sure that I work with Erica and we we get this all cleaned up. >> Okay. >> As they say in the industry, clean it up in post. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Uh, is there anything else for the good of the order before we retire and get horizontal? >> I'm all set. >> Thank you everybody so very very much. Andrea, Jody, Clint, Anmirie, Ian, the meeting is adjourned. Oh, do we need a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to >> You could just Well, you could do that. >> Okay. >> You could also say without objection. >> Without objection. Objoured. Thank you. But I don't want I don't want to steal Andrea's thunder. I mean like that's her moment. >> Then meeting to meeting >> motion to adjurnn. >>

188Motion to adjourn. Second by Andrea. Seconded by Thomases. >> Good night everyone. >> You don't know. Oh my god. >> Thank you Jody. >> Yeah. Thank you Jody. >> Good night everyone. >> Good night.