001Good evening everybody. This is the Graten Board of Education Special Policy Committee meeting of Monday, July 21st, 2025. It is 6 PM on the nose and I'm going to call the meeting to order. uh before um before uh reviewing the minutes since I've been told that some people may be attending and and others may be trying to view our thing later. Let me welcome everybody who's come and shown interest. We appreciate it very very much. We're going to start with a review of the minutes. Uh Andrea, have you had a chance to see the minutes? I I have been in >> I know you've had you've had other fish to fry as they say. >> So I will I will move I will move the minutes if I don't get a second. >> Uh we'll
002just have to deal with the minutes at the next meeting. So don't >> that's so I'm going to move the minutes of our Tuesday May 13th meeting uh as provided to us. Is there a second? Can I second them if I didn't see them? I don't even know if I saw them and that's the truth, you know. >> Okay. Well, I'll tell you what. Since you're not sure that you've seen them, why don't we postpone? I don't think there's I don't think we're going to get more than a fiveyard penalty for bouncing this back to to the >> I'm very sorry. >> So, we're going to defer the reading of the minutes of the May 13th meeting to defer to the August policy committee meeting. That's no problem. and welcome Jody. I thought I saw
003Jody. Oh, there you are. >> Good evening everybody. >> Good evening. So, our first order of business today is old business. Uh at our last meeting, we discussed pol the proposed policy P6163.33 which is about live animals in the classroom, specifically therapy dogs. at that meeting. Uh my sense of the the board the the committee's meeting is that while everybody was very positive and had no reservations about the therapy dogs, there were a couple of questions about the specific use of language in the document. And uh Susan and Leia said they'd get together and work it over. And we now have the revised document in front of us. Leia, I turn it over to you. Um, do you want me to go through the policy document or >> would you would you give a a
004quick overview of the back in case somebody wants to watch this? Presume that that not everybody here has heard this. Uh, keep it to you know a few minutes but you know cover the the reasons that we thought about doing it the possibilities that we have opportunities and challenges and then we can get into the document. >> Okay. Um so the purpose of the program is to provide a positive impact on the school climate and attendance at Grten Middle School. Um so the idea behind the program is to provide um a positive impact in terms of um students and staff um in order to create kind of an avenue for people to communicate with each other and connect. Um and then students can learn, you know, skills about empathy, how to appropriately care um for
005Willow. Um and then also there's evidence of reducing stress and anxiety. Um and kids who may feel alone or isolated can also connect with Willow. Um so the idea is that I would be the um handler and then um she would be in counseling sessions with myself or if there's a crisis that comes up and another counselor um thinks that it's a good fit. Um and then >> excuse me for interrupting. I'm going to assume this means that you're a counselor. So if I'm not okay identify that so people understand the context. Um, so I'm a school c one of the six school counselors in the middle school. Um, so we each of us has our own case load. We split the grade in half. So there's two counselors per grade. Um, and then we
006also work with social workers and school psychologists. Um, so it would be a resource for the mental health staff. um and also to any faculty or staff who um may see it as a fit in like their classroom or another activity that they're doing as part of their um curriculum. So, um she's gone through all the training. I don't know if you want me to talk about that. Um >> I don't need to go to specifics, but what I'm understanding you to say, correct me if I'm mistaken, is that she's been a been through a certified training program and passed with flying paws. >> Yes. Um, so Pet Partners is the um volunteer organization, but in order for her to um be a facility dog at a school and be there for the school day,
007um there's an additional organization that she needs to be a part of, and that would be where the insurance piece um comes from as well. >> Okay. So, would you like to put the document on the screen and walk us through it with the changes? And if you could blow that up a little bit for >> those of us just a tad older than you. Thank you very much. That >> okay. Okay. >> That work for you, Andrea? You want a little larger? You're muted. >> Is that good? Let's see. >> Okay. I think you're saying it's okay. >> So, what what is different in this version than what we had before? >> Um, we changed the use of um using the word use for therapy dog. um and and change it to partnering with.
008So on the first line um the board of education supports teachers, other qualified school personnel um who would be the owner handler to partner with a therapy dog for the benefit of the students subject to the conditions of the policy. Um, I think it said before like the use of a therapy dog and then um it was added that they're registered as a therapy dog team with their handler. Um, so the therapy dogs aren't certified, they're registered, um, through an organization such as Pet Partners. Um, and then I think that was the only changes on on um the document. >> Okay. >> And then I think we were Oh, and we deleted the um do you remember the box with the like other language that could be used >> um talking about before? So that's
009been deleted. >> Okay. >> Um >> just to avoid confusion. So that wording we don't need. Excellent. Okay. Uh Andrea, did you have any questions? >> No. No. How do I get one? That's all. >> Well, you know what? Maybe I'll bring my dog to our board meeting as a therapy dog. Wouldn't hurt. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I I am thrilled that we're going to be having this opportunity and uh perhaps there'll be somebody in one of our other schools that also has the uh time and training and trained uh companion that we can expand this as a former hospital chaplain. Uh the key word you said was relieving anxiety. Abs absolutely different circumstances but it works wonderfully well. So, I'm all in favor of this. >> Absolutely. >> I I do have
010a question and forgive me because I have not had a chance to look at this policy because I've been so concerned with the AI one. But, um, Leah, what kind of notification do we have, um, for parents, uh, you know, when we're bringing in a therapy dog for for students, you know, in a classroom, for example. And I only asked that because I know that the intention here is to maybe one of the intentions is to reduce anxiety um you know for for students. Uh but I know that in some cases um uh a maybe a a dog may um increase an anxiety depending upon what um history they have with animals. And so, you know, there may want you may in in a situation want to um let families know that there's going to
011be a dog in in a classroom situation. So, I'm sure there must be something in this policy. Again, I haven't forgive me, I have not had a chance to review it. Uh but is there some kind of um some uh letter or some kind of notification that we're sending home in advance? So, um there's other attachments to this um where there's um a sign to put out like at the front of the school that there's a a working >> Can you post the attachments for Amarie to see because it's a great question. >> And then um I think there will also be an opt out like permission slip at the beginning of the year. Um so if parents aren't comfortable or if a student's not comfortable, I would have a list of students that have
012opted out. that way I'm aware and um we wouldn't be going into that classroom or we would come up with something else depending on um if it's a fear or if it's allergies um that that way I'm aware of who the specifically those students are. So, I plan on gathering um a list and have data on on that and then also talking to the teacher beforehand and sending out a parent square to parents beforehand if I am visiting a classroom I think would also be a good idea just so they have the heads up on that. Um yeah, I can share I think there was a few attachments. We had three of them I believe >> three forms. Um, so this is something that the owner would submit to get permission um from the superintendent
013to have the um dog on premises and the services and functions that they would be serving. and then get to the other one. And I think Susan was saying too that we can incorporate that into the regulations um as well. This is the second form. So, a letter going out that's saying that um there will be a therapy dog in the school these times and days. um and they may be changed at a certain point. And then um you know just more information about Willow um and I can work with um the GMS administration to you know make this more specific or you know entailing any details that they think we should add to this um letter. Um, I do think it outlines, you know, the, you know, I do plan on doing like, um,
014sessions during our sore meetings to like explain how the students should um, approach Willow and that there should only be three students up at a time in the hallway. Um, and I was planning on um having her in a heel. So that means she's looking up at me as we're going down the hallway. And the students have to ask as they're passing um you know if they can pet her just to for them to develop that habit and how to approach a dog. Um, and then the last attachment I think is the the last one. And that's Yeah, that's the letter. So, I think that was all all three. Um, does that answer your question? I think that we need to be clear. >> Thank you. I appreciate that >> we're going into and um
015yeah, I think that parents should know ahead of time. >> Okay. Are there any more questions? Uh I'll invite Clint and Jody if and I know this is outside your particular expertise but your administration and one of our outside adviserss and I welcome any comments. >> This is Clint. I have no comment. Nor nor do I. I think it sounds great. Great great great opportunity. >> Okay. Well, if that's the thing, >> Matthew. Yes, >> Matthew. I might add that at least 25 years ago, we had a special ed teacher at um one of the schools where I was principal and uh she had I think they were seeing eye dogs and she would bring them. This was before we had all this other stuff about, you know, all the paperwork we have to do,
016but she would bring them into the the classroom and they were just uh an amazing asset for for the children. But I just wanted to add that. >> Well, would you I'll invite you to add a motion to pass this for first reading if you'd like to. I move that we pass this for first reading. >> Okay. And I will second the motion that we the policy committee approve policy 6163.33 instruction live animals in the classroom therapy dogs to be sent with a positive recommendation to the full board of education. So it's been moved by Andrea and seconded by Matthew. Is there any discussion? Is there any other discussion? Beverly, we are just uh concluded a a nice review of the policy of 616333 live animals in the classroom therapy dogs. Would you like to
017share anything before we take a vote? In that case, I'll ask for a vote. All those in favor of passage of P6163.33 indicate by saying I. >> I. The motion carries two to zero to zero. Oh, I should have pointed out our So, that will be going. But let me use this opportunity to say that I received received a letter about an hour ago from our third member um Ian Thomas who said that uh unex unanticipated circumstances precludes his joining us tonight. So that's why we only have two voting. Thank you very much. Leia, anything you want to add before we set you free? >> I don't think so. Thank you very much everyone for your support and time. Okay, you have a blessed night. >> All right, thank you too. >> Okay, so we
018now go to our second piece of business discussion of policy generative art AI also called general generative artificial intelligence. I'd like to give a little background on how this has gone particularly in case somebody wants to listen into to this. Um, artificial intelligence is a public label for uh, correct me when it not if, but when I'm wrong, Clint, just jump in and correct me, okay? For a algorithm called large language. It's a large language model that uses uh analysis of linguistics to predict the next uh to to do a search but goose it up from a Google search which just looks through documents to and identifying documents to actually answering questions and uh researching topics to a much deeper level than a Google type search. uh it is a technology that is growing rapidly
019uh I won't say exponentially but that's the way it feels sometime sometimes and whatever we would do uh would probably will be would need to be reviewed on a quite frequent basis one year two years but that'll be built into our discussion we first started discussing this about six or eight months ago about five months ago So, uh, I conducted a bunch of research and articles on what's being done in the state of Connecticut, what's being done in other states, some of even what's being done overseas, and have shared a packet of documents with uh, our committee members and our administrative partners. Um, we started actually working on this as a committee, I believe, four months ago to actually start discussing this. uh we went through some discussions. One of the the points of of
020and I'll call it friction but I mean it in the most positive sense is what constitutes the realm of policy which is the board's responsibility and what constitutes the realm of operations which is the uh administration's responsibility and how can we frame the what that the board might like if they if we were to pass something and the board were to approve it that would define the what of what a what would be in a policy is terms of intended outcomes and leave the process of how this would be implemented entirely in the hands of the administration. That could sometimes be a delicate balance, but we've had a very good team. We've also been very lucky. Um, we have two people who are serving as advisory members of our committee. Clint Kennedy, who's the head
021of it, and Dr. Kennedy is also far better versed. I would wager though I wouldn't wager a lot because I'm not a betting person probably knows more than anybody else in the district about AI and we've complemented this with Jod Guller who's on screen as well who people from Graten may not know Jod is here wearing two hats he's a chair of a committee at state education department reviewing the use of artificial intelligence for the state he is also the head of policy the policy branch of the Connecticut association of boards of education. So, he's had a lot of uh a lot I don't know how many decades of experience um helping form policies on a state and districtwide basis. And he is a recovering school superintendent, I might add. U so that's some background
022for who we are and what we've been doing. We've been through three revisions so far. Most recently uh we had a meeting I think on the 2nd of July of Clint and uh Anmarie our assistant superintendent Anie Mancini excuse me Dr. Mancini, I'm sorry I've become too familiar. I apologize. Uh to discuss the uh the strategy and the particulars and from this Clint prepared a uh an amalgam of our conversation, our working group. This I sent out to everybody uh on our committee and the administration and our board chair asking anybody who wanted to to make additional comments etc. and I have prepared in the last couple of days a composite revision that has tried to be faithful to the comments we've gotten from uh Assistant Superintendent Mancini, Clint Kennedy, Andrea, and myself. U Mr.
023Thomas uh had said he was going to bring some um things to the meeting tonight, but he's unable to be here. uh I will at the end of our discussion before we do any vote I would be certain to get he did he did make a couple of comments and I want to be sure that his his comments are shared for the record with all of us. So having said that we now have the comet composite revision ahead of us and I guess my first question is are we satisfied with the structure of of the proposed revised composite draft? Is there some element that we have overlooked that should be added to the elements that we have? We currently have five elements. A statement of purpose, some conversation about a collaborative approach, elements of operational
024concern to be addressed in regulations, that means by administration, um a mandated review cycle and a supplemental policy element. Is there anything else anybody would like to bring up that we have not covered that we should be covering? I think Robert's rules of order says I should do that three times, but I'll just ask one more time. Anybody have anything else to contribute in terms of structure? Hearing nothing, I will presume that my hearing hasn't gone bad and that we can then go now to the review of the composite revision. Um, I'm going to come the first thing on the on that review. Uh, on my copy, can you go uh Okay. My copy has a header that you can't see and it listed as P 6131.32.73 and 4118.53. Sometimes we put a uh a
025policy in two different places for ease of it being found. And there was a suggestion that we expand this to include something a designation in the 5000 series which relates to students so that if a parent was searching for it, they could find it more easily. I'll come back to that at the end. I'd rather spend our time on the substance, but we'll come back to that on the end. Uh on the statement of purpose, >> Matthew, can you enlarge it? I can't see it. >> Okay, that's I can I can ask Clint if he could do that. >> Okay. Is that better? >> Somewhat. >> Can we do it even larger, Clint? >> Good. Very good. >> Great. Okay. So, just for your knowledge, where you see yellow, that's a suggestion from an Marie,
026from Dr. Mancini. Something in blue is from Clint Kennedy. Something in green is from Andrea. And something in some kind of purplish color is from me. So that's why we have the different colors so we can identify who's made which suggestion. So um other than Clint, if you could put in a hyphen between computer and generated, that would be our first correction. May they all be that straightforward. Now I believe it was Clint. I got so much paperwork. There is the third paragraph. We initially had three paragraphs and we have a fourth paragraph now and this I believe was suggested by Clint. Am I not correct? >> Sorry I lost you guys for a second. I got to reshare. Forgive me. >> Okay. The uh paragraph that starts generative AI refers to any subset etc.
027That was yours Clint, wasn't it? >> Correct. >> Okay, good. So, we've added that paragraph that that Clint suggested. Um and we reordered some of the paragraphs at uh Dr. Mancini's suggestion. Um anybody want to make any comments on these on the section on statement of purpose or need? And it's open to all of our participants. Don't have to be a member. and Marie, I'm particularly interested in in any comments you have because as assistant superintendent, I think this is going to fall under your purview, isn't it? >> Um, first of all, I'd like to clarify. I like it I prefer when you refer to me as Anmarie rather than Dr. Mansini. >> Uh, and then, uh, secondly, are we just talking about part one? >> Right now, we're just talking about part one. We're
028going to go one section at a time unless you have a better idea. >> Um, no. I think that's a great idea. Um, yeah, as as you've revised it so far, I'm I'm really pleased. Uh, also like Dr. Acriman's suggestions in terms of what um what she believes should be deleted and um and I like the addition that that I believe is in a um a teal color blue. Uh I think that's from Clint. >> That's correct. >> Um so I like as it's right now revised as is. I'm really happy with part one. >> Okay. So, let let me uh What about you, Andrea? I don't want to dominate this. No, I I just want to make uh to make clear that um most of my my suggestions with the exception of things like
029um Amarie just just mentioned are in the u grammatical and you know just language arena that's most of it >> and it is greatly appreciated. Glenn, >> I'm I'm I'm the only comment I had is we do have a such as in there which we call out a specific tool. Um I kept going back and forth on that. That is probably >> Where are you? Could you point out where you are in the document? >> Sorry. In the in the teal section where it says such as chat GPT. >> Yes. Okay. So, chat GPT is uh arguably the most well-known tool in this genre and so forth. I always hesitate to put some type of commercial name within a policy statement. However, I think it does add some value as far as grounding people when
030they know what we're talking about and so forth. But I would not be opposed to either comments or uh the removal of that. Um I I see pros and cons to it. Jody, please. >> Often you'll see um from from attorneys, they'll have language that will say something like um including um but not limited to chat GPT or or I like the idea, Clint, that you're using a familiar model. It certainly is a familiar model. um you can either address that in the regulations and get that to that level of specificity in the regulations that might provide that clarity. Um but but again I'm not sure that your community would understand large language um >> LLM sure but but but including but not limiting to not included but not limited to would be something that
031would extend those kinds of um examples. >> And I might add perhaps we I don't think we need to list 20 different platforms. Well there probably aren't 20 but there's certainly six or eight platforms. I don't think we need to list them all. We can list A, B, comma, etc. >> I I appreciate the comment from Jody and and would be happy to take a stab at just a tweak of that language if that makes sense. >> Would you go ahead and put it right in now? Take your stab now. Let's Let's do it. >> Do we want to make it as simple as such as but not limited? You >> can say including including but not limited to. >> Beautiful. chat GPT. >> If you want to make it stand out, you could put
032it as in parenthesis, but uh this is fine grammatically. >> Grammatically, I know that Dr. Acriman will back me up here. You don't need not limited to just put including >> I I I >> don't disagree with that. Um I was um typically it's when you read something the attorney is right it'll it'll have that language but including works as well. >> Yeah. >> What do you think about the idea of chat GPTa one more platform it's and then an etc. >> Say that again. >> So it would say chat GPT comma copilot or claude or whichever one comma etc. I I'm not advocating for any particular one. No, don't use this. If you're not going to name them, don't don't use etc. >> If you're not naming them, don't refer to them. >> Okay,
033that's fine. Uh are we comfortable with these with these changes in uh >> I am. >> Do we make any further reference to large language models in the document? or do you plan to have large language models be defined in your regulations in some way? I I'm not advocating that. I'm just I'm trying to figure out whether we need LLM, what the purpose of that is in this document. I think it's the reason I've chosen to include it is trying to tell this story of artificial intelligence in a specific kind. It's the same reason why I typically prefer the term generative artificial intelligence as opposed to just the general context of AI. I'm trying to be as specific as we can without getting too um too nerdy or too geeky. I'm trying to strike that
034balance. >> Okay. That's fine. Um, I had a question, Andrea, about you. You made two suggestions for removing, and I agree with your second suggestion. Uh, it should be >> Where are we? >> I'm on the la I'm on the very last paragraph of the statement of purpose where I understand you to have suggested that we should remove the following sentence. It should it meaning this document should be understood in conjunction with the accompanying regulations. >> I'm still not following where you are. >> Uh there are the very last paragraph before we get to collaborative approach. >> Okay. >> Clint has highlighted it in gray. The last sentence. >> Oh, I see. >> And uh I'm fine with that being removed if if that's what you'd like. Yeah, it I don't I don't think it's
035necessary and I don't think >> okaying with removing this. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. I do have a I do have a question about the first in the what is now the third paragraph, the one that starts at as with all technologies. Could you highlight that in gray? Flint >> first par first sentence. first sentence the considerations that I'm referring to respon ensuring rot responsible and ethical use as it relates to mitigating bias promoting transparency ensuring the benefits are accessible to all the specifics of that I understood to be in the domain of regulations but I thought well I I still think but I'm amendable to your suggestion if you if you feel this way I think it's helpful for a policy to lay out uh the rationale for what we're doing and it was
036in that spirit that I put in that sentence if you have some problem with it we can take it out but I do personally think it strengthens the document and Jody Clintie and Andrea please weigh in this not a hill I'm prepared to die on. I just wanted to express my point of view. >> If anybody else has something to say, then let let me go last. >> Okay. Uh I I just think that it's not policy. It uh it's it's a a nice um thought, but I don't I think I don't think it belongs here. Um, I don't even know if it would belong in as an a thought in regulations. I just don't think it I I think it's true, but I don't think it belongs. >> It's not policy. >> Sometimes I
037I'll address things like this, Matt, um, in in the narrative I write for policies. So it would be, you know, just a sort of a a summary or a composite piece that would help frame the discussion for boards to discuss policy. Um, so you you would find a cave model policy around this topic would might include something like this. Frankly, it wouldn't be as well written as what you have, but that that's where that's where I would put it as a way of framing the policy itself. >> Well, in that case, we could talk about that at the board meeting. we should that that idea of that thought should should be presented >> but I don't I don't believe it it belongs here. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. >> Okay. Well, uh accepting
038your wisdom, let me ask an Marie this. If we take it out here, would you be comfortable committing to at least discussing these items when you pull together the regulations? I'm not asking you to commit to doing it, but at least considering them. >> Uh, I mean, I guess we would cons we could consider it. It's it's hard to commit to it now without knowing, you know, exactly where we're going to be with the regulations, but I I do support, you know, what um Dr. Acriman and and Mr. Geller is saying right now. >> Yeah. >> In terms of not believing that it belongs here. >> Okay. And I'm and I'm more than willing to uh Okay. Well, I will incline to this to the uh committee's request. Uh I may bring it up when
039we come to discussion with the full board to to seek some clarification whether or not I think it's beneficial. But as I said, this needs to be a product of all of us. So, uh, Clint, if you would take that, uh, sentence out and I will just make a note for myself. I'm Can I Is it fair for me to to infer that that that that's the approach is satisfactory to you, Andrea? >> We'll take it out as we propose it and I can talk about it at the meeting. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, we're taking it out as of now. Correct. >> We're taking it out as of now. Absolutely. >> Matthew, I left it in as a strike through so that you could reference it. >> Uh I've got it on
040my computer. Okay, great. >> Thank you. Okay. Is there anything else that we want to discuss or or are we satisfied with the uh statement to purpose of need as we've thus far massaged it? Do we go on or is there something more? I don't want to rush this. >> I propose we continue. >> Anmarie, you're good. Okay. We'll go on to collaborative approach. Um any reaction to the uh changes mainly mainly made by uh suggested by an Marie? No, I take that. Do I take that back by Andrea? Forgive me. Andrea. >> Yeah. Um I I don't think we Yeah, we don't need to to say that we're requesting the superintendent. We're we're um >> instructing the superintendent. We don't need to say that. >> Okay. Amarie, any any comments about anything? Strikeouts, additions.
041>> I don't think so. >> Wow. Okay. So, are we going to move on now to number three? This is probably the part of it. Okay. The only uh there is a note and let's see I'm on you got to find page three. There's a note and then the body of it is on page three and a little couple sentences on page four. So can we take a look at the introductory note? The the reason that I had put the bracketed last sentence which Andrea suggests removing is that I wanted to somebody who looks in our policy manual or who looks at the policy may or may not understand the structure that most policies have regulations. ations that accompany them. We do it so often that's kind of obvious to us, but I did not
042want to presume that it would be obvious to the reader. And the intention of the bracketed sentence was to just say flag to the reader of the policy. By the way, you can't look at this by itself. You got to look at it in in relationship to the regulations. That was my intention. And Marie, what do you think? >> Respectfully, I don't think it's necessary. Um, I'm sure we do have policies without regulations, but I can't think of one right now. Um, but maybe it could just be, you know, my own um, you know, my own experiences that I'm just so used to thinking of, you know, looking at regulations with policies. But, um, that's just my my lens right now. And in my view, uh, we could be making notes to the reader, you
043know, in terms of all kinds of things that they may or not have thought of or whatever. And this is the policy manual. This is not a a something that is aimed at instructing readers how to interpret it or where to look. This is what we do. and that any any other thing should not be in my >> Okay, Jody Clint, >> I I would just say from my perspective, it's really a business decision on the board's part, the policy policy committee. It's, you know, there isn't anything wrong with doing that. It isn't typical practice. I don't disagree with Dr. Acriman's comment about um it's not the it's not the policy manual's role to be an instructive tool as to how to use it. Um but I also understand there may be a political issue
044related to your community that requires this level of um toutelage regarding this particular policy. But that that really is a a judgment you would have to make. I don't I don't think that it's a question of toutelage. Uh respectfully, I think it's a question that uh I've been embedded in education though certainly not K12 education for 30 30 plus years. And I recognized that I view things the word was lens. I view things through the lens which can sometimes be a constrictive silo. And I wanted to break out of that silo. I wanted to be sure that somebody who's interested in our policy really gets the full picture. And the full picture is not just the policy, but it's the policy and the rigs. Again, I will incline before you if that's your considered judgment,
045but I think it's very important personally that we respect that not everybody is familiar with the way policies and regulations are differentiated. Again, not not to put more work on people's plate, but again, having this in one policy may sort of it could indicate to the reader that wow, this you're saying this in this policy, it must really mean something where it's not stated this way in other policies. Maybe to have a pream maybe along with the policy >> my mind >> along with the policy manual on your website you might include a paragraph that helps the reader understand how to read the entire manual. >> You know that's a very good idea. What do you Why does that grab you, Andrea? That at our the beginning of our policy manual that there be a
046paragraph to say policies I mean we'll figure out different language. Policies describe the what and the regulations describe the how it's to happen. One is the creature of the board. The other is the creature of the administration. And if you're interested in any policy, it's a good idea to look at both A and B. I'm just mad at myself that I let Jody say that and I didn't say it before. >> I I saw you take a breath. >> I think that's a great suggestion. I I will I will uh incline before you yet again, Andrea. Um we will take out the Where am I now? We should be on page two. Oh no, no. I will take out the last sentence under the note under elements of operational concern and I'll make myself a
047note to note ray manual policy manual preamble. because we're all right. It it needs in my opinion it needs to be said but what I had in mind may not be the best place to say it. So that's great. Okay, we move on to elements for students. Uh well, we do have more than four that on the next page, so we'll see them as well. But uh let's go up on the top. Are there any questions on one to four suggestions, additions, deletions? Could I just make a general comment that that again I've done a lot of reading I know we all have on on issues related to policy and AI and I really applaud th this portion of your policy that really delineates the elements as it relates to students and also including teaching
048staff and and and the the adults as well. I think many many policies in this area deal specifically and only with students. I like the fact that you really are very intentional about including all members of the community. >> Blint, you've got some technical expertise. Bring it to bear. >> I am very comfortable with one through four. >> And Marie, I feel good about it. >> I'm sorry. I I didn't hear you. >> Oh, I feel I feel good about it. Thank you. >> Thank you. What about five and six? >> I added one word in five. I think those are good. Good for me. >> Okay, we're going to have the paragraph on student violation. Student violations. Uh, Anmarie and uh, Andrea believe that this should be in regulations. >> I think I'm going
049to hitch my wagon to that those comments as well. I think I generally agree with your hitched wagon. Uh my only question would be would a number seven just to make uh some reference to student usage uh will vary. appropriate student you usage will uh vary according to grade level and developmental status and is is uh addressed in the regulations. I I did not prepare that. I'm just shooting from the hip. >> Well, we do have age developmental appropriateness appropriate access and equity as number two. >> So, we'll we'll push that over to regulations. I concur. >> Okay. To regs and Marie, do you have any sense of time frame? Is assuming we have something and it passes first reading, it looks like it's going to go to a second reading in some form. I
050guess that's probably the earliest you'd want to invest time in regulation in designing regulations. you think regulations is something that we could have in place by the beginning of the school year or is that too much of a demand on your time? >> Well, considering right now it it's late July and then you know I don't know what the time frame would be then bringing this to the full board. I I think that would be an aggressive timeline. >> Okay. Well, I'm hoping we'll be able to have it to the board for their August policy meeting. I doubt we'll have it ready for for the first reading even this move, but let's see. Okay, so we've removed the reg the that last student violations paragraph in full elements for teaching staff and Marie made some
051orthographic suggestions which were right on target. This is heavily in Amarie's area. Amir, are you comfortable with uh this one through five as it exists now? >> I'm comfortable and you know again I want to work with you on this Clint, but I think this is right in alignment with some of the work that we're going to with that we already plan to do this year. >> Correct. Agreed. And I am looking forward as well. >> Holy moly. Are we ready to go on to elements for administration and board? >> I am. >> Okay. Uh the language that's there in purple is my language. Uh I tried to rework that in light of Anmarie's comments. Uh I have to rely on Anarie to tell me if I was successful. >> I just want to take
052a second and look back at Oh, okay. So I I think I had some questions on the original language because it the original language said Graten Public Schools administrators will review GIA GI's evolution every two years or more frequently and provide the superintendent with attendant with recommendations etc etc. Um and I think I just wanted to know a little bit more here about what what kinds of what are we talking about here? um so that I'm clear because I think I fall under this this category you know who are who are we talking about in terms of the central administration and then I know that there's some examples here in terms of attendance tracking but you know can we be more specific because when I look at this I want to know who's involved and
053what specific things are it because it is asking for an annual efficiency report. You know, what kinds of things are we looking for? >> I can only give you my personal response. Does somebody else want to respond first? >> So, I'll I'll respond briefly, Matthew. Thank you. So I think really the intent of this section whether this captures it or not but is the for us to be continuing to look at and hopefully take advantage of productivity opportunities that generative AI will bring as well as functionality that we may or may not have had access to because of resource demands or other in the future. So this would be really speaking to our abilities to can we use it where productivity gains are available and where we can add functionality when needed and this would
054be a regular look at that. I am uncomfortable with a formal report per se but I certainly agree in spirit with this idea of where we can find efficiencies and additional functionality that we're not able to do now in service of teaching and learning to do that. >> Matthew, is that fair? I think that's fair. I don't see the business of a formal report in this. >> Okay. Yeah. I And I'm not quoting you. >> Uh I think the reason why I asked about that because it says um every the original language was every two years or more frequently and it very and it also said uh Grten Public Schools administrators and I wasn't sure if we were talking about building administrators. Now it specifically says central administration. So I am a little bit more
055comfortable with the way it's written now versus the original document or the last document that we had seen. >> Okay. the with regard the review every two years. Uh the last draft in retrospect and I'm totally responsible for this was redundant because we talked about a review every 18 to two months in two different places and the the correct place in that is the the fourth section which is mandated review cycle. So I took that out completely and that was my fault. You're welcome to come over to my house and beat me. uh please not anyway. So I think we've remove we removed the business of any review uh into that last section which we'll look at in a few minutes. I think Clint is captures what I said. I think there are opportunities we're
056aware of and opportunities we haven't even conceived of yet to use AI to the benefit of administration. The lowhanging fruit is going to be maybe scheduling. The lowhanging fruit is maybe going to be in human rel human human resources. I can't tell you what that is, but I I would expect that human resources once they realize that we have this that we're committed to using AI to benefit the district. And ask ask your directors in the various departments, give it some thought, talk to Clint, see what we can conceptualize. I don't want to bind th those are that's an eg. Those are just examples of things that we might want to consider. Some of them can go the others will certainly come. This is going so rapidly. So how would you like how would you
057guys like to handle this language? Would you like to leave it in for the first reading and see what the the full board says and come back and work on it later or change it now? Can you enlarge it? I I can barely see it. >> Why don't you take off my uh purple because that's I think also including the reading. >> Yeah, >> thank you. Did that help, Andrea? >> Oh, yes. Yes. Thank you. I did put in central administration rather than administration because I I I think that the decisions on how this is going to be used are going to be driven by central administration. I would on a personal basis hope that central administration would in conjunct would encourage the building s the building principles to make suggestions to central administration for
058ways that they might discern that AI could be used on their particular levels but I think it needs to be driven by central administration. What do you think Amarie? >> I think I think that's fair. I think sometimes, you know, in the um the building leaders um get they're so busy um running the buildings that sometimes um they may not have the opportunity to look at how um something like this um can assist them. They'll they'll use it and participate in training and um you know then I'm sure embrace it, but it may um not be at the forefront of their mind in terms of um exploring it on their own. Let me use the word generative again and I I'm gonna hope Clint agrees with me. Generative AI is not merely in what the
059documents are going to be produced by these algorithms. It's also going to be generative. I think this is just I don't have any data for this. This is just opinion. I think it's going to be generative where you may have pick on a school principal A or B. he or she may not discern how it can be used at the building level to start with, but once they see it used in other in other domains by central office and with the kids, I think they're going to generate their own ideas which then then I would encourage them to bring back to you guys at central office. >> Agreed. Agreed. >> Agreed. >> I have two things. one I I like Anmarie had the uh the question about central administration. What what exactly does that mean?
060And then I would think that there would be workshops on this throughout the year. Um and I think that I think that the building level administrators have to be involved in this. So um I don't think it it just can't be top down. I think it has to be broadly across and and again through uh through professional development and and the other thing I have is just a small thing and that is that I didn't see that etc at the end. If you're not going to say it, get it out of there. >> Okay. So let me let me try this. Central I'm just throwing this in central administration will encourage building administration and departmental administration or the superintendent will encourage departmental administrators and building administrators to uh participate in the development of new ideas
061for the benefit of the district something like that. Do do you think it might might be just again looking at grain size here just to state that the this you know the sup almost like you do with regulations that the board directs the superintendent too. May maybe something to say that the superintendent will develop a process for uh regular regularly assessing >> you know what what it is you're looking to do. So rather than getting into who and how often you I think what you really want to say here is that this is going to require constant assessment, constant evaluation. Um clearly you've bought into the committee work and engagement of the entire school community to be in to provide inputs to to this to this to this work. So may maybe it's just developing
062a process to to regularly assess the things you want to assess around um um gener generative um Clint, help me out here. Generative, what's the word you want to use? Generative >> uh >> AI. >> Well, it's really a process to assess and leverage. >> Yeah, >> maybe. Beautiful. Beautiful. >> How is this different from the work that the committee um you know we have a committee that's going to be looking at the different things. Would this be part of the additional work of the committee? I guess my take would be it could be, but I think where we're trying to come down and this may not be a fair differentiation here, but most of this is really intent on a policy around teaching and learning where this typically or I think this area is
063really highlighting or focusing on productivity and functionality um from administrative processes as opposed to curriculum instruction assessment. >> At least that's how I have it in my head. If that's not clear, then we should probably modify it somehow. >> Maybe we should take out the board of education completely on that on that the the thing. So elements for administrative productivity and functionality and administrative functionality. How about operational functionality? >> I like that. >> Okay. will include as a header. Does that clarify Amarie? >> Yes. >> Okay. So now let's look at at the text and and massage the text so that it says what we want it to say. >> I don't know what central administration again means. It's the superintendent who's going to do it. and forget about encouraging anything anybody to do anything
064because then they're going to be doing their their their interpretation of this. No, the superintendent has to set the parameters, >> right? >> And that has to come through professional development as well >> uh and uh and share his her his findings at a cow. >> Get his her. >> You want his her? Well, we don't know if they will have a her in 12 years. So, >> just the superintendent >> share the findings. >> Okay. Now, we take out the etc. >> Yes. Take that out. >> Does that sound annoyed enough? >> Okay. >> Can I remove this part of our brainstorming? >> Yes, please. Maybe instead of EG, we want to have it including but not limited to. >> Didn't we decide? >> I I think EG E.G.A. that's that's the appropriate way
065to to do that. >> And didn't we decide about no but not limited to cut that out? >> Yeah, we do want to include that or we do not >> do not. >> I would say not. >> Okay. And the spacing looks weird just because it's it's fully aligned. >> Yeah, because you're justified. >> Yeah, correct. We can we can talk about that and just align the justifications with all the other policies later. >> Are we comfortable with that? We move on to mandated review cycle. >> I'm comfortable to share this with the board of budget. Yes. >> Okay. The first paragraph was suggested by Anmarie taken from the uh Oregon model AI policy which we had thanks to Jody. >> Can we make this this just to keep it consistent >> please? >> Thank
066you. I'm going to get rid of the note. Thank you. Amry >> Andrea comments on the first paragraph. >> Sure. >> I'm comfortable with this whole section. >> So actually I think I I wanted to insert that and take out the second one. Uh, we I I'm gonna push back on this one. >> Yeah, that's okay. Go ahead and push back. >> Well, I do it with love. >> No, I I I didn't feel like it wasn't >> okay. I'm not concerned with the specifics of the word for word for the language. We can massage the the word. The intent is given that the technology is metastasizing hopefully in good ways. >> We need we need a comprehensive review. Whether that review should be started 18 months, two years, 12 months, I don't really care
067as long as we have or more frequently is needed. But I think we need to state a time frame. the board will change in January. Uh we have board members now who have no idea of what went on three years ago and this board member has no idea of what went on five years ago because I wasn't here. So we need I think we need to state the obvious. It's set a framework. If you don't like the two years, I'm open to whatever you suggest, but um I think it's suspension. That two years has always bothered me. I don't think there should be a time limit on it. It should just be a comprehensive review. >> It's not a time limit. It is a >> every two years. >> At least every two years. >>
068I don't think there should be any reference to time. >> In that case, let me make a a parallel example. We have adopted a communication policy and I don't want to talk about the the contents of it. It's adopted unanimously by this committee. It was adopted unanimously by the board without any changes and it is sat on a shelf because things pressures are inevitable in this industry. There will always be stuff that is going to bump something from happening unless it is articulated as a requirement. I think and I I truly believe that the nature of the beast of GI is that it must be reviewed on a periodic basis and if that periodic basis is too long somebody can always say in light of XYZ we shouldn't wait another year we need to look
069at it now right >> and that's my rationale we have to put a framework in otherwise it will be sitting on the shelf because it's not requisite >> I I think I saw the word regularly anyway. And with with the uh nature of of um AI, >> it's going to have to be reviewed all the time. >> Forget every two years. That's way too long. And even more frequently, it just should be regularly. >> Regularly is a marshmallow word. It doesn't mean anything. it doesn't have any specific meaning for >> but I also feel like earlier in this policy in this draft there's a there's an annual joint um report to the committee of the whole so I think that will necessitate a reg a quote unquote regular review of this policy >> so maybe
070we should rephrase that second paragraph and you may you have a point there anie I recognize that maybe this should be rewarded to say based on the board response to the annual review where the the board the board of education will determine comma based on the response of the annual review whether a uh policy review is necessary. >> Actually um no um Matthew respectfully I feel like this second paragraph is redundant based on the first paragraph. I feel like it's not needed. I think it's saying the same thing wi >> with the exception of adding a time frame >> which I think is the that's like building an arch and taking out the keystone. The arch is >> Yeah. And I and I don't feel like it's necessary because of the the joint annual report.
071I mean the the yeah the joint annual report to the to the cow >> then we need to make some reference you need some reference to in in that section that that annual reference is to be the deter that the board is go back to that other piece and say the annual reference will be made to the board as we have based on that reference the board will determine whether review is necessary But >> yeah, I mean the thing about it though and and I understand where you're going with that is that the annual review shouldn't be completely determined upon the um upon the um the um like that should be one of the factors but it shouldn't be the only factor right the board uh that that presentation that might be one of the
072factors but there may be like um the the graten teaching and learning collaborative that says hey we need to review this. It might be the superintendent that says we might need to review the policy. It might be um the teachers that come forward and say we might need to review the policy. It might be Clint um who says we might or the um committed or more frequently is needed. This is I know you respect me so I won't and I know that I respect you so we don't think have to say with due respect because it's it's deeply felt. is deeply felt on this side and I believe on the other >> I would it would not be able to support taking out some kind of time frame. >> I agree Amory that it says
073the same thing as the first and I thought that the first time I read it but >> I just thought I was being really >> if if we added to the first sentence of the first paragraph including policy or some other more elegant way to do it make it specific would that suffice Matthew? propose some language so I can respond to it. >> So it's specifically we're to use of a recommend updates to the board of ed addresses safety blah blah blah blah and other relevant areas including policy. So recommended updates the board maybe it's the board will review it's uh it's you know what there's two thing we're I think we may be conflating operations and we may have conflated operations and policy in this thing I'm not sure let me try this out
074if we substituted the word for the board for board instead of district the board will review the administration administrations. How do I want to do it? I'm not sure of how to word this, but the board is responsible for the policy, not the administration. The administration is responsible for the operationalization of the policy. as a board member and I cannot speaking for the whole board. I think the board board needs to define how often it wants its policy reviewed. >> And one of the things >> if if if Andre and I disagree on the length of time, that's a that's a that's a fair game for the whole board to uh to to weigh in on. I really like what Ann Marie talked about regarding the there there are variety of inputs that the the
075administration will or the superintendent will have to um to draw draw um conclusions about or to inform the use of AI in the district. Um so so you I think that's really an important piece of it. So administratively the superintendent his or her team you're constantly reviewing you're g you're talking to various people you're talking to departments you're get you're getting information and you're working through that and you're pro and you're making decisions based upon that. I think the board's role will be to to take what the superintendent is sharing with the board in terms of the various inputs the superintendent is getting and the work that's going on in the district to to leverage and do all the things you want to do with AI for the board then to say we need to
076go back into our policy and ensure that our policy is providing the right level of guidance for this work to continue because that because you're that that landscape is going to continue to shift which will which will require communicating with your superintendent, but also being nimble to go back into your policy regularly to see if it's keeping up and and it's providing the right level of direction, >> right? And it should say the board. >> It should say the board because who's the district? How will the district regularly review this? >> No, I I think it should be the board. >> The district. I think the board and and the reason I I I go back to this communication policy because the communication policy states things that the the district needs to do. It states
077six or eight or 10 of them. That there's no illusion that we're going to do all of them at once, but in the last two and a half years, we haven't done one of them. Oh, now I take that back. I take that back. We've done the internal communications. We've done a lot of things on internal communications, community outreach. We haven't done any uh and it's one of the reasons we've suffered and when we've done before the uh council, but that's an aside. Um no, unless the board mandates some minimal framework for timing of review, this will just not be done. That's my experience. There is just simply too much pressure on administration from the state sed now from the federal government. There's so much out there that unless it's it's articulated in stone, it
078is ain't going to happen. I got to turn on my light because I'm not seeing well. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Is there a world where we can bring language to the full board of ed that includes this and have a discussion? >> Um maybe the thing to bring it to the board of ed is to have like a Chinese restaurant at least when I was growing up column A and column B >> and say these are two different approaches. We did we did not reach consensus on the approach that's appropriate to take. We bring you both approaches and let you uh weigh in on them both. >> Neither of them is perfect. >> I I would I just want to say, you know, Matthew, you just said something that's very in I I
079think that has that you said something very valuable, but strikes me in a way that is um is really hard to hear. And you know, I know I've only been here now less than a year. I don't know what month I'm in, maybe month nine or so. And I certainly can't speak um uh with a lot of experience to what hap what has happened with the communications situation other than I know that we've had two presentations. One that has happened pretty recently to the committee of the whole and I think that it it was very wellreceived. Um, and then we had one um one communications subcommittee meeting that happened maybe back in like December or so and I think that was also very wellreceived. I attended that subcommittee meeting and and it was pretty positive.
080Now I know there's a communications plan. I don't know when it was developed and I don't know what the schedule was for maybe updating that plans. I don't know if it was developed five years ago, three years ago, one year ago. You know, again, I can't speak to a lot of these things, but and I maybe have misunderstood the statement that you just made, but um my understanding based on what you said is, you know, in terms of not putting, you know, if we don't put a time frame on it, then um you know, things are basically not going to get done. And to me that speaks to a lack of almost like a lack of um trust that um you know that if it's not if there's not a time frame if if two
081the word every two years is not put in this document that you don't believe that you know people like Clinton I or Susan or whomever are going to follow through on on what we you know on what our jobs are. And that's um that's hard for me to hear because I I believe that we do the very best that we can to you know if something's written in policy or if something's one of our responsibilities that we are going to in fact you know do what we're supposed to do. And so I'm not fighting these these words you know a time frame because um I don't want to do what I'm supposed to do. Um, I just feel like, you know, um, there are there are things that, um, regard, you know, there are needs
082that are going to come up again through the GTLC, through a a specific committee, through the professional development, through the feedback that we get from our teachers or whomever, our administrators that are going to cause us to to um, see a need for review. And then there are things that are going to be happening because we're focused on math or because we're looking at our needs in literacy that are going to have our attention beyond that for the time being. And so um you know that that's just my input. I I don't believe that you're saying um saying things maybe, you know, I don't believe that that's that's what you're saying, but that's certainly the um the message that may be received if the um if there there has to be a time frame on
083this. That's just my input. >> I agree. Perhaps I shouldn't have said this in this said what I said in the forum but what I said I said there is no sin of commission there is no sin of we will not we administration are not going to do this we're going to block it that was never never embedded in what I said what I said was that there are so many competing demands on administration that what everybody agreed needed to be done didn't get done. >> The reason it didn't get done was was was not a matter of unprincipled behavior whatsoever. It just didn't get to it. >> It didn't get to it. And I mean we can we can meet offline if you want to talk about this in length. I would not object
084to that whatsoever. But we are everybody online is committed to this being the best possible district. It's it can be perfection is beyond human grasp. But that is that is the goal. We want to be perfect even though we know we're never going to achieve it. And it breaks my heart that we have suffered not because of anything anybody did wrong but because of opportunities that we had didn't go get fulfilled. We can talk about that later. There's no evil in what I'm saying. But neither can I deny the reality of things not happening. And I I'm open to any framework of timing. But with my breath, I will fight to have AIDS. Minimum amount of time stated. And I don't know why you're fighting it. I don't know why you're fighting it. This a
085generic you. It's not it's not directed to anybody. I don't know why you're fighting it because we know that this technology is growing so so amazingly quickly that whatever we do here, however good it is, if it's good, it's going to be outdated very quickly. So why don't we just acknowledge that and and say we're going to look at it at a regular basis, but define what we mean by it because if we don't define it, we risk it just being missed. Not out of malice, but missed nonetheless. Jody, >> in the spirit of not missing it, I'm thinking back again as a as my previous role as a superintendent and and and thinking about this policy and thinking about a mandated review cycle, which I think is a really it's a good concept. I
086think it's worthy of discussion and and and thinking. Um, one of the ways to ensure that this won't be missed is to use current um, not systems but current and current actions or current behaviors that have become part of how graten does its work. So for example, when I was in my previous district, I every t every month I every every board meeting I gave a superintendence report to the board. It was public. It was usually 10 or 15 minutes. It included a variety of different things that e that that were that I deemed were important. Um there and there was certain things depending on the time where I always made sure I addressed that particular thing we that we were addressing. At at the time it had to do with um it had to
087do with um balancing our schools. every single one of my superintendent reports talked about the work that was going on around around balancing our elementary schools. So what I what I think might thinking about this, what does the superintendent do to ensure the board is up to date regarding the work that's going on with GI in the district? If if your superintendent currently has a board report that she delivers, maybe that's where the board monthly hears about the work that's going on in the district around GI and then the board may so so that so the actual cycle is a superintendent working with her team to en to ensure that work is going on and and collecting information from her team to share in her superintendent report to the board so the the board and
088your community is aware of those efforts and through that the board's position would then be or determination would be we've heard five or six reports now provided by the superintendent on the work that's going on with AI. At our next board meeting, we'd like the superintendent to make a recommendation um as to whether or not um the policy is providing the right level of guidance for the district to continue its work. And then the that would be then this the chair of the board would would adjourn that determination back to the policy committee to work with the superintendent in revising the policy or not revising the policy but you know studying it. So you have things that you do currently that will ensure that this issue and these procedures and and the and the level
089of leveraging isn't going to um sit on a bookshelf somewhere and the policy is out there to for the board's regular review based on what the board is receiving from the superintendent in her report. Would you think it are you suggesting or am I reading into this that you're thinking a solution might be that the don't let me put words in your mouth. The superintendent will report every month or every other every month or every other month on uh the district's use of AI. >> Yeah. And and if you ex you're not that's exactly right but but rather than just simply report on it the if if the superintendent provides and I think most superintendents provide the board a a report whether it's a written report or it's a report delivered at the board meeting
090and if not then it would be the the superintendent will provide the board updates um every other month as part of part of an agenda item on the a standing agenda item on the on the board's um for the board meeting to to provide a a a summary of the work that's going on in the district up updating the board on on on the on the continued work in in the area of um artificial intelligence or something like that. But then but then that would cause that would then the board can deliberate and say okay we've heard now from our superintendent we've we've heard several reports and it sounds as though you know this this and this and so let's is this may be a good opportunity for us now to review our policy. So,
091I'm going to let's have the policy committee look at the policy with the superintendent to determine if the policy is providing the right kind of direction for the for the district to continue its work or or go to that next level of work. >> Andrea, how do you feel about asking Clint and Jod to wordsmith that in real time? Yes, as long as every other month isn't in there because there going to be boards that say, uh, oh, well, we can't talk about that now because that it's supposed to be every other month. You know, just take the time limit out of there. You should be doing exactly what Jody said without that every other month or time limit of any kind. >> If there's a problem, it's going to arise and it's going to
092have to be addressed. Yeah, Clint, I don't want to volunteer you, but I'd be happy to to work with you on on that um to see if we can put together a process rather than thinking of it in terms of um um time. We can think of in terms of process and and use what currently exists as a way to capture AI and to to um maximize that. >> I makes sense to me and I would be happy to do it. I don't think we have time tonight, but for you and I to meet offline to do that. Yes. >> Are you thinking of kind of renaming number four to mandated review process rather than cycle? >> Oh, I like that. Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm the outsider here. So, >> would you like to
093would you like to sit in on that meeting? It's it's going to be by Zoom. Would you like to sit in on that meeting so that we have one committee member present? What did you address that to? >> You, Andrea, would you like Oh, sure. I sat in on the last meeting with uh Clinton and Marie, and you're as much of a member of this committee as I am. Would you like to be our representative at that meeting? >> I would like that indeed. Yes. >> Good. >> I just hope I can drag this this um wound back with me. Never mind. >> Okay. So, >> we'll make it work, Andrea. No worries. >> I think uh >> All right, we are on to the last one. Yes, Matthew. >> Um, okay. Uh, the last
094one. Any comments? >> Is Is this the last one or was there one before that where we where I had some things? Um, or is there one after the snow? If it's the last one, there's not one after this. >> No, this is where the last one. We I'm >> Wasn't there one where I said something about whom? And you like that? Remember that? >> Uh where where are we on that one? Yes. Yes. Yes. I didn't mark it on my sheet. Tell me where we are. >> I don't know. >> Um we'll find it. We'll find it before you have the meeting with Clint and >> All right. >> And we'll get it in. >> We got a home. We've got a loose home that we've got to put in its proper place. >>
095Yeah. Yeah. There there were a couple of little things in there that I wanted >> because there was a misplaced modifier. Oh my heavens. >> Tell you >> can't have can't have that. >> 70 years of age and I'm still misplacing my modifiers. I can't >> Well, then you master. >> Okay. Supplemental policy elements. Um, I think Andrea is correct in saying that highly valued is probably uh sweet but not necessary. But the intent was Jod to to to let you know how much this pilgrim and I think the whole committee and administration is indebted to you for for your support and assistance. >> We can take it out of the paper. I don't care. We can delete it as long as you know it. No, I've enjoyed working with you guys and and I
096appreciate that. >> The sentiment I I share, Jody, the wording, not so much. >> Okay. Well, it it it accomplished its goal. Jody knows we love him. >> Great. >> Okay. Take out highly valued for God's sakes. We'll see how Jody does with our next >> Why don't we make it G the the board of education and GPS administrators will continue there. >> It's the board, not the board of education. It's the board. >> The board. Sorry. Okay. >> Great. So, let me ask this. Do we want when do you guys when do you folks think you can all get together? Because I'm wondering if we can lock this up by having uh you guys work on that last that one section mandated review process section and we could have one more meeting this month
097and keep it under a half an hour and be able to give it to the board for action for a first reading this month. Is that feasible? If it's not, we'll do it next month. >> I I can be flexible. So, I'll leave that up to to to you as to what your availability is. I can be flexible. >> I would >> Are they Zoom or are they in >> person? All Zoom. All Zoom. >> Okay. >> So, I I I am interested in moving this forward as well. I have a some obligations this week. I can uh be easily reached and get some of this work done on Monday and uh of next week and uh I will be in for the remainder of the summer. So >> would one of you prefer to
098be the honcho or would you want me to call everybody and and fix a date? Can you Clint if if if it's if it pleases the chair I'm happy to coordinate with Jod and Andrea and get this done early next week. Is that fair? It's okay with Andrea. >> Yes, >> Jody. It's perfect. Perfect. So shall it. So as it said, so shall it be done. >> I will reach out tomorrow morning first thing. We can coordinate calendars and see what works for everyone. >> The only day I'm not available ever is Tuesday morning. >> Fair enough. I will I will avoid it. >> So are you guys up for guys and gals up for a halfhour meeting this month in and if we're lucky enough to have a product in time to bring it
099to the board by the end of this month for a first reading. >> Um, >> well, we won't schedule anything until after you've had your your session and we know if we have a product. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Anything else for the good of the order? >> Not for me. Thank you everyone. >> Well, this has been amazing. Thank you very very much. Thank you. If uh Anie, can you stay on for just a minute? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You want to close down the meeting so we can stop recording? >> That's what we're about to do. We're have a motion to adjourn on the floor. I second the motion. It's non-debatable. All in favor say I. >> Yay. Yay. >> We can't vote here. >> And we are adjourned. Good night
100everybody.