001All right. So, I'd like to call the meeting of the This is a special meeting of the Graten Board of Education being held on April 22nd, 2025 at 5:30. Um the meeting is entirely via Zoom. Um this meeting is to discuss the letter um the certification letter for receiving f federal financial assistance and a request for certification under title six and SFAs and then it says harbit. So, we have the letter from the federal government to sign and I'll ask Susan to talk about the letter and then the board can ask questions and they can make their comments and then we could decide whether to ask Susan to sign the letter or we don't want her to sign the letter. So, I will start. I had sent out an email. It was on the vacation
002but I had talked to Dr. Charles Hughes who's the deputy commissioner and he had alerted Charlene Russell Tucker that um you know we were concerned about our federal funds and I reminded him that we are a military community and we do receive impact aid funds and you know there was the request to sign off on a letter and we had received information from the commissioner that said that she as the sea was responsible for collecting data from the LEAs which are the districts and um she said that because we did sign off on title one then we had already indicated compliance for the title six and that is true when I sign title one every year annually so he did not think it was necessary to sign a letter he said he had not heard
003of any other superintendent signing a letter but then Jay had sent some information which was actually um a notification that included um a signature page. Um and I read that carefully from the United States Department of Ed and it it really does speak to DEI and making sure that we um are in compliance with Title Six and we are not looking to um you know move a particular race or religion ahead of another. And certainly in our district, we look at equity as for all and having access for all students in our community to do all the amazing um you know, courses and um you know, anything that Graten has to offer is open to all kids. So um that's what I've learned. I have not heard back from Charlie. he was going to see
004if there were any other schools, but we would be um one of the only ones I believe that we're signing off. Um and I just want to make sure that we don't bring light. I did talk to my council and they the only concern they had was that it could shed light on Graten um if we are the only ones. And I don't know if that needs to come with our own words um of saying that you know while we sign off on this anyway on title one that we're signing on off on this to assure that as a military community we are definitely in compliance of title six. So you know those are just some thoughts to think about. Susan did you want to talk about how much aid we actually get from the
005federal government? Um we do have um a revenue page that included um for 26 the six over $6 million um of impact aid. We actually received 6.25 million last year and as I told you we were told to use the revenue that we received the year before because it does take us a year to gather all that to predict for the future. So, and if you do that each year, then you're you're actually putting into education what has been received and will continue to be received. So between that Medicaid um our federal funds were 6.5 million last year and our state funds um were the 26,25 and so a total of 41,530 and um and $933 were collected. But then I also had a a sheet that I sent you and I think um Matthew
006has put it in a comprehensive document. But if you look at all the other federal grants which are the title grants the um we you know we've received 21st century grants we've received IDA um ARPA the national um school food lunch program um you know when you add that all up ARPA school mental health there are two full pages that I sent out to you and that was a total of last year 17 million16,327 just last year. Um looking more like $6 million six um,871 along with that other revenue source that I had read off with impact aid um for the federal which is another six and a half million. So that's over 12 million just for the year we're in now, but it was over 17 million last year. It's a lot of money.
007Yeah. Ian, do you have a question? Um yeah, just uh well, I did send out uh a number of documents earlier today. Um doing some research on this. Uh there is a uh a a lawsuit in process um with the state of New Hampshire versus the department of education and the last it stood there was a u that's where the extension of time came from. The initial deadline for this compliance letter was February 28th and um then it got moved April 24th. The reason it got moved was because the the the judge um I it wasn't exactly an injunction. and they just basically said there's an order to to postpone the deadline to give time to submit their briefs. And um there was a hearing on the 17th uh that came out in my third
008email, the one that's labeled number three. And um that article was written today. And so basically like it sounds like the judge may be issuing an injunction on the ability for the department of ed to enforce the compliance letter. Um there's a lot of technicalities with it and the way that it's worded on both sides. There's a lot of there well you know from the government side there is some shaky language there and it's a you know the fact that they're basing on the Supreme Court decision um with uh admissions to Harvard uh that is it's it's it is a legal extension of logic that's coming from that that is questionable and that's what's been uh challenged by New Hampshire and a number of districts up there um as well as the ACLU and Um,
009so you know, I think that needs also to be considered in this too, like like nothing is is final yet. And as far as far as the enforcability goes, these are written as guidelines and not a rule since a rule can be challenged in court and overturned. So that the the federal government is not even going all in on their assertion. this is just essentially issued as guidelines or guidance. It's not a rule. So there's there's a lot of factors at play here that I think are worthy of consideration. And u I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, Ian. And Dean, so what Ian seems to be saying is that Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka really only applies to the city of Topeka. We can't take that ruling and apply it
010anywhere else. I don't think that's how Supreme President works. That's not what I'm saying. Well, I'm saying that that you know the the decision that you know the guidance was based on was applied to a certain a certain approach to admissions and what is being extended to cover is is something different. Right? So the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights is telling everybody, hey, just like we've tried in the past, please don't discriminate on basis of race. And what we're saying is, well, we want to hedge our bets and we're looking Well, wait a minute, man. We're looking for reasons to just continue on with whatever we're doing. What are we doing that where we're afraid of actually certifying that we're not discriminating on the basis of race? I'm not getting this. We're willing
011to jeopardize millions of dollars of funding because because what? We're being asked not to discriminate on the basis of race. That should be a no-brainer. Right. I guess I'm saying I'm I'm I'm find myself on the reflection. I'm just I find myself more in the camp with the state department of education, our state, uh with their guidance that they issued saying that we've already kind of affirmed all that in all the ways that we need to. Okay. No problem then. Yeah. And let's I wish our lawyer was here, frankly. Well, we already got advice from Floyd. I sent you his advice. He said, um, sign basically said, sign the letter. You don't want to jeopardize impact aid. And if you're already doing it, he doesn't see any downside of signing the letter. I I sent
012that out to you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's Flo's response. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um Jay and Jay and then Jen. So um as Ian points out, this is going to be the subject of lawsuits for some time. Uh and the threat um to cut funding uh could be very shortterm. Um, you know, it would be devastating to the district and the town to lose $17 million in funding. Uh, theoretically, if we are simply being asked to certify what we certify annually anyway, I don't see the downside in certifying this and then let the courts decide what the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is in these matters because we're not going to decide that tonight. Um, but in the meantime, we just do the certification that we've already done uh so that we are not
013uh endangering this federal funding and putting our town and our district at risk. I mean, it really comes down to that and the rest of it will play out over the years. Thank you, Jen. Jane, I agree with both Dean and Jay. We cannot um as elected officials um put the town at risk by not signing this um we sign it all along. And going back to what Dean said, as long as we're not discriminating based on race right now, what is the issue of signing? Um we definitely um if we don't sign this and we lose the funding um we've just um it's like um almost like directors and officers, right? like we just violated we as individuals violated like what was in the best interest of the town because we didn't do something
014and Dean I don't know I'm not a lawyer but I think then we become liable because we didn't do something that we should have done. Do you have a response to that or you letting that one go? Yeah. No, I'm gonna let I'm gonna let that one go. That's above my pay grade whether we're personally liable or not. I like to think we're not, but it's a bad show. Yeah. Anything else, Jen? No. Um, like I said, as long as we're not discriminating now, I don't really see the issue and that's it. Okay. Thank you, Jen. Adrian, and then Mike. Yeah, I've just got a question and I don't know if anyone can answer this or not but um but you know in that letter it talks about scholarships um and whether we directly a
015award scholarships or they happen through ceremonies at the school. Do we have to change anything that we do as far as that goes? Because certainly some scholarships are towards certain you know they're they're aimed towards um certain members of the community. So, so I'm just wondering if anybody has any ideas on that. Susan, you have an answer to that or I really don't, but the only one I can think of is like the Martin Luther King scholarship. I I mean I think all it's open to all students who, you know, apply for it and I think there's a fair process in that. Um, but you know, you just question it. It's the interpretation of someone at the federal level looking at something that we do um that's good for all kids and they could interpret
016it and misinterpret it as being, you know, um for one particular race or another and they may not even know. Yeah. I'm I'm just worried about um us having to change some things, the way we do them. And I know that the scholarship is independent. It's not part of the school, but um but I'm I'm just I'm just kind of worried if we if we agree to one thing um and then new rules come out, new rules come out, it's like death by a thousand cuts. Um you know, and I'm I'm worried about agreeing to this and then having new rules thrown at us. Um like like seems to be happening in in other areas of the government. Okay. Um Mike Yes, thank you. Um I'd like us to at least read or hopefully post
017the actual um certification letter that we're talking about because there were there two letters, right? There's the dear colleague letter that the US Department of Education sent earlier and it has specifics about scholarships and things that I found troubling personally um and for maybe implications for our school system. Uh but then what we're talking about today is the one titled that came out April 3rd and it's titled uh yeah the reminder of legal obligations undertaken exchange for receiving federal financial assistance and request for certification under title six and SFFA v Harvard. this one if you read it it's it's very general and I mean that the first page is just you sign um but even the stuff after it though I mean it goes into sort of the rulings but it's not I mean the
018word um I don't know know if the word scholar thumbs up on that or not u but I think we should read that and then um as far as I'm concerned um like what's this sorry my dogs are barking but It's the responsibility of the as we know the state of sending it to the US DOE. Our responsibility ends um in sending it to the state and then they can do with it what they want. Uh but I that's that's where our responsibility ends and and I I I don't see much problem with signing that letter uh that we have up on the board because presumably we already are in alignment with um title six and um and our anti-discrimination. So, uh, I and so, so I would say if if we do have a
019like a formal vote, I think our our motion should be I don't know if we can require the superintendent to sign it, but maybe urge uh her to sign it and um and also deliver it to the um the U the CT uh state department of education um you know, say tomorrow or before the 24th. And Mike, that's why I think many superintendents were really concerned because the way it really reads is that the SEA, the state education assoc, you know, um, commissioner is responsible for collecting certifications response responses from their LEAs, which is us, and that they had those 10 days. Um, so we asked, so are we to do this? And we were told you did not need to do anything at this time because we signed off on the title um title
020grants. We've already done that. So we did ask because there were a lot of concerns, superintendents, how do you handle this? And if we were to sign it, and I don't know where this United States Department of Ed letter, I think Jay, you were you had sent that out. And I don't know who the lawyer was that talked about the certification of compliance or if that was also on the site for the federal government. I don't remember getting that from the state department at all. So like who does that get sent to then? Does it get sent only to the state? Does it have to be sent to Washington? No, it says you send it to the state department. Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty clear on that. Yeah, it's very clear, Susan, where you send it.
021Okay. All right. Okay. Um, Andrea, I don't know who had their hands up, but I saw your hand up. Are you done? Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, I'm pretty much done, but I just to say, you know, if if we send it to the state and they choose to do nothing with it, that that's that's on them, right? But we still like, you know, we've kept their options open and we've kept our options open. But do I know I've said it verbally to the deputy commissioner, but do I put a note that the Grten being the their largest military connected community in the whole state in this region stands to lose a lot of federal money with impact aid. There's no one else who has what we have and reliably like we do.
022Yeah. Cover letter is always helpful for sure. Yeah. None unless the state wants to guarantee that they will reimburse us the 17 million. You want me to put that in the letter? Yeah. Andrea, you all set, Mike? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Andrea. Yeah. I just wanted to speak to Martin Luther King. Um Martin Luther King has nothing to do with any of the the schools um in New London County. It is online. We're not even uh taking hard copy applications. Everything is online and the students go to the MLK site online. So, um in terms of um I don't know what the the um Black Student Union does. I have no idea about that. That's entirely within the district. I don't know how they handle it. But in terms of our us, it's online. It
023has nothing to do with any school in New London County, even though it is uh especially um designed for um students of color, in particular African-American. Okay, that's all I have to say. Okay. I I can't see who has their hand up. I'm trying to put mine out. Okay. Does anybody Ian, did you have your hand up? Uh, yes, I put it up again. Okay, go ahead. All right. So, yeah, just uh there is a difference between the uh so the the language that's in the dear colleague letter and then there's also and with what's in this compliance letter. Um what's in the compliance letter definitely is is scaled back incredibly um from the language I was using in the dear colleague letter. Um, but the concern with the dear colleague letter and how much
024of that's going to be, you know, what are we actually signing off on here versus what is not, what's being implied, what is inferred. Um, you know, I have concerns with that the the the intent that's um, you know, implied with the uh, dear colleague letter and u, you know, as far as like looking at the specific language that that they're targeting. Um, but uh, you know, looking at this compliance letter, it's another story. But initially, Susan, you had sent an email saying that uh you were fine with the state's guidance as far as um you know, not signing this compliance letter and then letting you know going under the the the umbrella of the title one sign off. Yes, that's what I understood as of like April 11th. Um and then Jay did send
025this this letter. Can Jay speak to where he found this letter? This compliance letter? Yeah, the one that's um with regard to Harvard. Ian, could you take the letter down for a second so I can see who has their hands up? Thank you, Jay. I don't see anybody. Well, it's on the Department of Ed website. Okay. Any anybody else had their hands up? I don't go ahead. But I even was before me. Mike still has his hand up. Okay. I don't see anybody's hand up, but Matthew and Mike. Oh, Mike, too. Mine's by accident, but the u the uh letter can be found as a link to the at the Department of Ed website, you know, www.ed.gov. And it's a press release. It says ED requires K through 12 school districts to certify compliance with
026title 6 and students v Harvard as a condition of receiving federal financial assistance. That's dated April 3rd, 2025. And if you you go down, it actually has the words the certification. um uh highlighted for a link and you can click that and get to this exact letter that Jay sent. Okay. Okay. Uh Ian, could you take the letter down so I can see? Thank you. Um yeah, everybody should have the letter because I I sent it out again today. Uh Matthew, thank you very much. Uh let me just start with this word about discrimination and the logic we bring to this word. I I think discrimination like many other words has become a political term and while we may agree amongst us as to our definition of discrimination uh it is being interpreted by certain
027forces uh in a political way that bears little resemblance to to us. So I'll put that aside. I do agree with Ian's righteous indignation at the administration holding children's education hostage to a political agenda which was clearly ar art articulated in project 25 though disavowed by a certain party's candidate. Um but I learned as a firefighter not to enter a running bill a burning building without appropriate protective gear and a team ready to back me up. and as an EMT when I came on an accident scene to stop for a moment before approaching the vehicle or the scene to discern a mechanism of injury and to compartmentalize my feelings so I can remain true to my mission. Now, I'm not telling anybody else how they should vote, but I want to explain my decision to
028instruct the supervis superintendent because it's a policy. This is not an operational decision. This is a policy decision. We can instruct in my humble opinion the superintendent to to sign the letter. Uh in taking an oath of office, I agreed to do three things. Everything in my power to support Grten School's mission of teaching and learning to support and conform to the Constitution of Connecticut and the US Constitution. I took it and take it very seriously. This is going to play out in the courts. That's above our pay grade. It is clearly above our pay grade. And if we get into it and challenge them, uh we will be like the grass when two elephants fight. We're going to get stomped. Secondly, though I'm one of 11 on the grten board, I'm the hair on
029the pimple of the tail of the elephant in national political power. I will and always have been active in the political process. But this administration's actions will be fought in federal agencies and in the courts, places where none of us have any standing. Third, we must be aware of the political potential consequences to our children, allowing if we allow our justifiably strong emotions to override our rational behavior. Do not think for a moment that the administration will stop by threatening Title Six funding. You know, this just part of the game one at a time. Our exposure as a military district is greater than any other in Connecticut, I believe. And I've heard nothing, you know, na u the governor hasn't contacted me and the legislature hasn't contacted me indicating they're willing to step up to
030hold us harmless. So, there's a time for a stand and it this may be it for some and that's a matter of conscience. I'll respect that. For me, I put teaching and learning ahead of the risks that come with righteous indignation. Thank you, Matthew. Anyone else? Ding. Yeah, my hands up. It's too white. Stop it. Look at it. See, go ahead. I I didn't like the muppet color. That's why I chose another You don't like the yellow color? It it just reminds me of Burton Ernie. Okay. Um I I am filled to my gullet over the years with this and I get it. Uh we hate children. We push old people over the cliff. We're looking for excuses to starve people. I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. What's nefarious
031here is there is literally a multi-billion dollar industry. There's money and power on the race question. A lot of people are very well-meaning about all of this. Smaller number of people are making a nice living at it and they love to see it as each other's throats. They would love nothing more than for this issue to just keep rolling on and on and on and on and on and playing on people's emotions. I'm emotional now because I have had it. We're being asked to not discriminate. I have been doing contracts since the 1980s dealing with bureaucrats. There's always been language uh make sure you're not tra you're certified that you're not dealing with South Africa directly, indirectly, etc., etc., etc. There's all kinds of stuff all over the place. I've never heard anybody up until
032we get to this issue think about, well, what how are the bureaucrats going to interpret it? What's the Department of Labor? And I've seen the US Department of Labor in action, by the way. How are they going to interpret things? You ought to see the high-handed nature of their uh their affairs. Um, but now all of a sudden, now now we're very concerned about potential bureaucratic interpretations and and and and the meaning behind things and the intentions behind things and and and what do we do? To me, this is very simple. This is I promise I'm not discriminating on the basis of race. I take it that we're not. I know we use the term diversity, equity, inclusion, DEI, etc. That has unfortunately or fortunately become, you know, the the the shorthand for other people's
033practices where they do sit the little kids down and they do sit the teachers down in professional development and they make sure that you know you're white. you make sure you know you're black and your respective places on the totem pole and who's responsible for whom and all that jazz. I don't think we're doing that. I don't know. There may be some PD in there where where teachers are asked to confess their sins and their whiteness. I don't think we're doing that overall. So, what is the problem that all of a sudden we're ringing hands and clutching pearls on this? Uh we are governed by thousands and tens of thousands of bureaucrats. Do you know what the federal regulations look like? That's that's just the federal regulations. Never mind the code. Never mind their internal
034handbooks and guidance letters and other colleague, you know, uh, dear colleague letters. Dear colleague letters have been coming out of these out of these departments for years, but now we're choking on this one. Everything else has been I I sir, but this one requires soularching and and and um moral stands and whatnot. It's real simple. But we're not discriminating against anybody on the basis of race. There you go. Now, if the state says you don't have to sign it, you don't have to sign it. Don't worry about it. I want the state in writing saying that they're going to identify us when we lose federal funding. Simple. I don't care. Make it as diplomatic as you want. But I I'm not going to be on the board when when it hits the newspapers that we
035lost millions of dollars in federal funding because well, you know, there's a pending lawsuit in New Hampshire and uh other people are up in arms about all this stuff. Of course, they're up in arms about all this stuff. This is a way of life for people. I know because I've heard it my whole life. It's a way of life for people. A lot of you can't think outside this box. God damn it. I'm sorry for my language. I had just had it on this issue. You know, there's a line in South Pacific, you know, the musical Mhm. You have to be carefully taught on the racial issue. We are I am afraid that we are teaching a lot of kids very carefully, very carefully. And you think you're solving something and you're not. You're heightening
036consciousness. You're centering race. A black child or a white child has to remember first and foremost that they're black or white and then everything else flows from that. That is the very definition of racism. The very definition of racism. I'm I'm I'm just gonna end it right here. Okay. Thank you, Dean. Um even though I feel what Ian is saying, I cannot um support not signing the letter. I I feel like Dean if I don't see that. And I'm surprised Ian doesn't feel this way, too. if because he's always asking for stuff in writing. If we don't have that in writing that if we lose $17 million from this from the federal government that the state will reimburse us, I I I cannot not sign the letter. I'm not signing it. Susan is so $17
037million is a lot of money to lose. I have to think first the effects of the children in our community. What will happen even if we lose $6 million? where are we gonna get $6 million from? So, I would encourage Susan to sign the letter. We're already doing what they want us to do. So, I really don't see a downside in signing the letter. So, I'm supporting what Dean said, what Matthew said, what um Jen said, and what Mike said. I support all them. Um Ian, you have your hand up again. Uh yeah, I just wanted to say um you know that was going to be my follow-up question to Susan about the uh the the my previous turn speaking was did we receive any other communications from the state about asurances for support should
038things go south? No. And certainly not in writing. I mean that's that's the kind of thing that um I have not heard from them at all. So So are you in a different position now than you were when you sent that email? I well I've learned more about it Ian and I I feel what everyone is feeling. We don't want to lose this revenue source and um we certainly want to protect that. I do think it would I take some time tonight to craft even a paragraph to the commissioner explaining that Grten serves the largest military impacted community. We're very proud of that and these these resources are essential to our town. You know, they really cover some tax laws based on that. But, you know, that's why we're signing and we can't afford not.
039That's great. No, I get that. and and and and so yeah, I just wanted to kind of, you know, get that confirmation from you that that, you know, your professional opinion is is is in a different position than it was last week when we Well, I really I've labored over it, Ian, to be very honest with you because um certainly like Dean says, you know, our I think all of us feel that we we aren't to discriminate, that we don't give people different positions based on race or religion, that, you know, it's access for all and especially for our students. So, I'm a believer in that and um I'm 506, but you know, that's what I'm signing off on. I'm okay with that. But if it's more than that that's, you know, written within a
040letter that could, you know, come back at us, I would be uncomfortable with that. Good. So that you know that being the case and also looking at I think it's important to note the difference between the uh dear colleague letter that we received back in February versus this actual DOE compliance letter and um the the language that I was concerned about here. there is a lot of equivocation inside that language, you know, so it's asserting of of certain DEI practices that can violate federal law, which you know, when Dean shared his criticisms before about DEI things, I never disagreed that hardily. Uh, you know, on the fact that I mean, there are some fair criticisms to like the way some things are rolled out versus others. um you know and then that all comes down
041to like a nuts andbolts adjustment. Um but the overall principle is another thing. Um but a lot of the reading that I sent out in the three emails that I sent out that that had the the the numbered headers um numbered subject lines um have to do with with the language that's inside the uh the back and forth. And uh if if I would encourage everyone to kind of review a lot of that uh because even if you know I mean it sounds like you know the consensus is that you know the the a number of board members are in support of of signing this compliance letter and and just kind of you know moving along. Um I don't know if I I can do that in good conscience but uh you know obviously we
042vote and the majority wins. So uh you know I I feel comfortable with with the outcome if that is indeed the outcome. That's our process. But um you know there's there's a lot of details to this and uh you know if you read the government's case and the way that they've been um asserting their position, they're actually granting the fact that nothing could be yanked immediately anyway. uh it would all be subject to uh an investigation and hearings and things like that. So um even though they came across very strong with the dear colleague letter once they're in court you know as as again has been the pattern uh what is you know said you know where there's no accountability uh it can be all a lot of bluff and bluster but when you get
043down to it in the court of law uh things get you know very nuanced very quickly and and the the strong assertions that are put out there uh whittle down to something uh very small um yet still somewhat significant. So, um I'm I'm ready to to move forward, I guess. Uh and we just, you know, hold the vote and and get on with it. Um and let you know uh but I I will uh you know, probably uh you know, hold a position of principle on this, you know, just for the sake of not being unanimous. Can you take the the will you have up down because I can't see. Sure. I just wanted to draw people's attention to that to these paragraphs towards the end um where they kind of talk about that and
044they use a lot of qualifying language. Not saying all DEI is illegal. It's saying that certain DEI practice may or or could f violate federal law and you know those illegal practices which would be their assertion would be subject to to to the penalties. Um, but again, like all that would have to be adjudicated as well. So there's all that. So if we were confident what we're doing does not violate federal law, this actual compliance letter doesn't seem to be uh trying to influence curriculum or um you know what we're already doing. So um I'm comfortable with the outcome, however it may go. All right. Thank you. And J, go ahead. I I couldn't see because Ian had that thing up. So, go ahead, Jay. Yeah. No, I get it. I I just um for
045for those that are listening who may not be aware, um do do you think we could just read the actual letter? um not the marginelia, not the the footnotes, not the things that could play out in court, uh but just the paragraph that Susan would be signing so that people have it. I do. And and again, I sent this along with a legal opinion from Meguire Woods, uh which is a law firm. Um basically uh the letter simply says reminder of legal obligations undertaken in exchange for receiving federal assistance and request for certification under title six and SFFA versus Harvard uh requested certification on behalf of and we would put Graten public schools. I acknowledge that I have received and reviewed this reminder of legal obligations undertaken in exchange for receiving federal financial assistance and
046request for certification under title six and SFFA versus Harvard. I further acknowledge that compliance with the below and asurances referred to as well as this certification constitute a material condition for the continued receipt of federal financial assistance and therefore certify our compliance with the below legal obligations. So it's acknowledging that we've received it and we will be compliant with the law. Keeping in mind the law could change between now and the next few years that those interpretations could change but for now uh we're just saying that we're going to comply with the law which I understand we do anyway whenever we receive the title funds. So um and the detailraph below too Jake focuses on title six and civil rights right the civil rights act of 1964 right all right um would you like a
047motion be yes thank you uh I move that we instruct the superintendent to sign the requested certification reminder of legal obligations undertaken in exchange for receiving federal financial assistance uh and to send it on to the state department of education as requested or as instructed. Any um you second Andrew, you have your hand up. I just um waiting for discussion. Yeah. Um, Matthew, can you read it one more time? The motion? I move that we instruct the superintendent to sign the reminder of legal legal obligations undertaken in exchange for receiving federal financial assistance and forward it to the Connecticut State Department of Education as instructed. Okay. Uh, Angia, go ahead. Okay. I I just have a question for Susan. I just want to make sure that I understand where you stand. I understand where you
048stand on this. Are you ready? Are you uh that I'm understanding that you want to sign this or will sign this? I will sign it. And I I know how important it is for Graten to receive these federal funds and I'm in total agreement with Title Six. So if it if it's about that and not discriminating against race and religion, I'm that's always been in my heart. That's good. That's good enough for me. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. The motion was made by Matthew and we had a second from Adrian if I'm correct. Right, Adrien? Yeah, that that's correct. I I do have one comment though. um in exchange for what's the meaning of that or how does that kind of I think that's quid proquo I mean we we we comply with the
049law and they will give us some money but I'm not a lawyer but do I know Jay what do you I mean Jay and Dean what do you think about the motion well I mean the the letter the letter says that a compliance with the law or the their interpretation of the law, whatever you want to say, uh is a material condition for the continued receipt of federal funds. That's that's bread and butter. You want federal money, you want state money. There are, you know, you certify that, you know, you don't discriminate against women, that you have policies against harassment. I mean whatever the whatever the laundry list is everything everything you know you want money your compliance is a material condition of the receipt of that money that's that's what that is and we
050do that with title one annually part of right so you're okay with the motion as written dean okay Jan you have your hand up so I am voting for this because it's the right thing to do. I am not voting for this so that we can potentially get funded or not funded or whatever. I think that in exchange of should be deleted because we're voting so that we're compliant with the law and that's just my opinion as a non-awyer. It's just this is being asked of us. We as a district know that we don't discriminate. So that's not an issue and we're just signing this to sign it. So how would you like the motion to be just to remove like we're signing this in exchange of so um blah blah it's just we're just
051signing this right? Um I don't know if I if we just strike out like a couple words or we stop um or we just say like hey super um um superintendent Austin we are requesting or telling you or whatever to sign this and that's it. Simple. But it does say when I sign it Jen it is saying those words as I sign it. No I know but we don't need to put that in our motion. Well, that it doesn't need to be in the motion. Ian, Ian, Ian, Ian, it's not your turn yet. Please. I'm just trying to identify the fact that it's in the title of the letter. Okay. Wait till I call on you. Unless it the conversation goes haywire. So, go ahead, Jen. So, yeah. No, no. So, if it is part
052of it, that's fine. It's already stated as part of what we're signing. I I just don't understand like why we need to reiterate it. But either way, I'm I'm I'm going to sign and I'm going to vote for this to be signed. So regardless of how it's worded, it's just something that when Matthew was reading it, it just caught me off a little bit. Ian, can you take that down so I can see everybody? Um, how do the other board members feel about an exchange? I'm willing to delete those words if you wish. Okay. And how would it read? It would read, I moved uh remove to instruct the superintendent to sign the quote reminder of legal obligations end quote and to return the uh signed certification to the Connecticut State Department of Education as
053instructed. How does everybody feel about that? You have to ask Adrien if he's okay with that. Are you okay with that, Adrien? Yeah, I I I would change my second or yes, I'm okay with it. Okay. So, all right. So, well, we didn't vote on the uh motion, so we can correct it now. Mike, you have your hand up. Yeah. Um, so I like that solution. I just uh we can just put a dot dot dot inside the quotes there. is like we're just referring to that document, but we're not listing the whole thing or or list the whole name in the quotes, which is quite long, but um I think we know what we're talking about. We put in an ellipses. Put in the three dots. Okay. You put You should put it in
054quotes, though. We absolutely should. Yeah, I'm all set. All set. Um in Thank you. Yep. Yep. Um, thank you. Uh, yeah. So I mean uh my objections have with this um you know center mostly on on on you know the manner and the method in which has been rolled out and uh you know it I don't know it just it seems unnecessary in one respect and and you know could be construed as as opening the door for um inviting some other critiques but at the end of the day I mean it is what it is and Uh we got to do what's right for the district. Okay. Thank you. So, uh we we'll just let the vote play out as it does. So, there's a lot of problems with this. Um just in general, in
055principle, Andrea, I would not mess with this. I would leave it at exactly as it's written and sign the thing, pardon me, as it's written. I can see from fooling around with the way the word is is presented. I can see that coming back to bite us. So that's right. All right. I'm gonna take a vote on the motion. I'll have Matthew read the motion one more time. And does somebody have the hand up? Nope. Okay. I'll have Matthew read the motion one more time and then I'll take a roll call vote. This way we know who's voting what way. Go ahead, Matthew. I move we instruct the superintendent to sign the quote reminder of legal legal obligations dot dot dot close quote and to uh forward God it's not going to be the same
056wording and to send it to the Connecticut State Department of Education as instructed and alien second that correct yes Second. Okay. All right. I'll start with myself. I'm voting yes. And then I'll go to Dean. Hi. Yes. Okay. Then I'll go to Matthew. Yes. Okay. Then I'll go to Andrea. I. Then I'll go to Jay. I. Then I'll go to Jen. Yes. Okay. He's on mute. Yeah. Then I go to Mike. Yes. And Ian. Uh, no. Okay. So, the motion passes. I think I got everyone. Just for the record, I'm a yes. Yeah, I got you down. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry, Adrian. Thank you, Adrian. I'm sorry. All right. So, the motion passes 8 to one. Um, Susan, you are instructed to sign the letter and send it off to the state department of education.
057I I And the reason being, we don't want to lose the federal funding, right? And we comply with title six. I mean, I believe in that. Yeah. And we're already complying anyway. So, Right. All right. Anybody have anything else? All right. Thank you everyone for coming. Andrea is Um, don't forget tomorrow's the RTM education committee meeting at 7 at 5:55 in classroom number one. Okay. It's by Zoom, too. You can It's by Zoom also. So, if you don't want to attend, um, you can look at it by Zoom, participate. The only one that's going to be allowed to speak other than the administration is Adrien. I will not be there. I'm going to be out of town. Adrien, I sent out an email this afternoon. Adrien will sit in my place. He will be the
058only board member allowed to speak tomorrow except for me tonight. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. It is 6:25 and we are adjourned. Thank you everyone.