001Yeah. >> All right. All right. So, next up on our agenda, we will walk through our first reads of uh policies 5151 according to our agenda 6172.1, 5131.11, policy 6161.3, and policy 3323. So the first read for policy 5151 uh is uh related to students and it's identification of students for talented and gifted and the revision is due to policies being combined into one. Uh they need to be delineated for clarity and the purpose of process. So the old 5151 mixed talented and gifted with child identification that was outdated since 2007. The next uh sorry any questions on policy 5151? But Jeff, just to be clear, the changes to the policy, if any, are highlighted. >> That is correct. Yes, sir. Thank you. >> And then these are, you know, as we go through this,
002we've talked about in the past, right? There there are recommended policies and then there are mandated policies. >> Correct. >> So, this one doesn't have a header on it. Is this recommended? >> This is recommended by our uh administrative team and our special education team and our special education director based on old policy that is no longer it's preuncture and was not operating how we actually do business today in 2025. Yep. So the same thing there. This is a new policy that we've written completely because we need to delineate from the previous one and how we're identifying students. This one is very specific. Now this is a brand new policy. Again, this was developed by our administrative team. This is um the talented and gifted students program. This is the process and procedure. Do that.
003Oh, yes. I'm still here. >> You want me to stay? >> Maybe. We'll see. Let's see if it stays. Yeah, stays. Um where was I? Forgive me. Uh this is the process and procedure of how students are identified. So that one again was outdated because it was embedded in the other process and it was not what we actually do. There were certain measures in there that we were not they were just old and outdated. Next new policy is 5131.11. This is due to our installation of new camera surveillance system and access controls. it is the administrative duty um of the superintendent and with the board of education to provide the safest environment that we can for our students. So this um policy comes from CABE and it is a new port policy because of that
004duty to protect students and staff but at the same time respecting privacy. Our video surveillance cameras are there for emergency needs for uh safety needs of students and our staff members. That's why they're there. This is a very comprehensive policy, but it also protects people's privacy. At no point in time can I or any of my administrators or law enforcement have access to it without a specific need. Um, it can be reviewed for disciplinary matters, vandalism on property. We would have to give the law enforcement the rights to it or give them a copy, but it would have to be with a specific purpose. Cannot be any personal interest whatsoever. That policy is very in-depth. It's protective of the board, but it's very succinct and clear as to why it is in place. We have
005surveillance on our school properties exterior. Now, we have it on the interior as well to give eyes, not ears. It's not auditory, eyes into the buildings. And also, we have surveillance on our buses because that's part of the school day for students when they're traveling to and from. And also our bus drivers, making sure that they're driving safely and our students are also being safe while they're on the buses. I have one question about this policy which um and I know I was involved in this so I don't know why I'm asking this question but bear with me. I see that we cross that out school resource officer. Did we do that just because we don't have one right now? Because I did from a policy perspective because we have policies that enable the hiring
006of a school resource officer. We just don't have one right now. Should the policy reflect that? Should that be the case that we eventually find the money to like hire one or many that they like >> we would come back >> the policy should you know reflect that this is part of what they would be able to do. >> We would come back to it and it would not be called a school sec uh resource officer. It would be an armed security officer for New Harford public schools as we don't have a police department that we can have a memorandum of understanding. >> So we just need to like look through all of those policies for those references and try to Yes, we would. Okay. Got it. All right. Policy 6161.3. Oh, sorry, John. I
007apologize. Go ahead. >> New new person here. So, like if we like are we just listening and going on with these or our first >> Oh, >> listening first reads, asking questions, points of clarity. >> We do first reads and second reads. So, you'll see there's like a section of five that we're doing our first read on with the group and then there's another section that we're doing the second read. So, you can go home and like read these and then we'll come back and like vote on them. The first one we're not doing any voting on whether or not we're gonna accept them right now. >> Yeah. Second read is when we vote. >> Yeah. So like you vote. >> We just say you know like for example this one you know on page
008three it says for a minimum of five school days but then on you know page four and top number two it says the request within five school days and then approval was within another five school days which is 10 days but that's longer than the minimum storage period. And then two like there's a parentheses on both two and three. Like I think those be like fully banked or you just >> they are and if there's a request provision of 5 days to produce versus a review provision it would be more specific to that for administration to review something then produce and provide it. Um if there's discrepancies in succinctness of delivery then certainly that's this is a point in time to bring that up be taken back uh adjusted and then be ready for the
009second read. So, this is the time to email this up. This is it. You could email it afterward or >> you certainly can. It would be included or you could save it here because it's public record. >> Okay. >> I may have made this up on my own, Jeff, at some point. But, um, weren't we planning on giving the police department access to cameras inside the school just in case there's an active going? >> That would be true, but I would have to literally flip the switch over to them, but they would have the right to do that only in those cases of emergency. >> Okay. Absolutely. Y >> this is about somebody coming in and wanting to see video. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> They have to have a very specific reason for it.
010It would have to be >> So what were the sections you were talking about >> for the five days and the five days? >> What do you have? What was the number? >> Oh report be stored for a minimum five days. >> What number is that? >> That's in under storage page three storage and security 5 days after initial reporting. So the point is that if it's if they're only store for five days minimum, then there would be time for someone to make a request and the school would be make a request to come in and the school would make a decision. It could already be deleted in that time frame if the minimum is only 5 days. >> Got it. So what is the request for >> it? Should it be like say 10
011days? >> Should be 10 days. Okay. Because if we're saying the request is being made within five days of the recording and then you have five days to make a decision, there could be a window where if it's only auto five days. >> Yep. I got it. >> Storage needs to be 10 days. >> Storage 10 days a minimum of 10. That's exactly what you're supposed to do. >> Okay. >> Just what you did. Yep. So, can someone make note of that and then just send it to me? So, >> I can just do that. >> Great. It's part of public record and then we'll take care of it for the second. >> Yeah. Got it. >> Two comments here that seem to be about policy development. So then you're cleaned up. >> Thank you.
012Most appreciated. >> Yes. >> Are you the only one that has the ability to flip that video to the police? >> Uh I do or my administrators would repeat. You have that ability. >> I do. Yep. If I need to. It's a late night incident. It's already happened. If the board remembers something that already exists. All right. Policy 6161.3 is on instruction comparability of services. This is an outdated policy. This is uh regarding title one and relates to levels of poverty and making sure that all resources are available to all students across our district. So this does need to be updated. Um 6161.3 that's regarding again title one. The last one there for first reads tonight is policy 3323 regarding business non-instructional operations. Our previous policy 3323 had to do with the purchasing of vehicles.
013It was a very outdated policy. It was 2006. This updates it so that we have very clear succinct processes for the RFP process which we've gone through and the procurement of services. Prior to that, it was not delineated in board policy. That is very important to make sure that we are non-discriminatory and following practices from state and federal uh regulations. So that's why that one is there and has been updated. Uh, we requested that from Kate. >> If I'm going to chair policy, um, who makes those changes? >> Sarah and me. >> Okay. >> So, you'll always have language. >> Exactly. Yeah. Sarah will have editing rights. And once the board votes on them and they're solidified or not, whatever the board decides to do, she then sends it on to Cape who manages our
014online policies for us and that's where it is stored electronically. But those changes can be made through Sarah or myself. Anything else on first reads of any of the policies? All right. So, those will be on the docket for vote in the January meeting as a second read. All right. Second reads. So Tim, do you want to go through these each by one by one? Correct. And then vote on each one. >> Good. >> Very good. All right. Policy 0523 mission goals objectives. This one's on equity and diversity of New Harford Public Schools that we welcome, respect, and value the diversity of our students, our parents, staff, and the broader community. to date our enrollment demographics. As I reviewed last time, um out of the 437 students, we have uh 427 that were identifying as
015white, three that were Asian, three black, and four Hispanic. We also have languages spoken of Albanian, French, Polish, Spanish, and Russian. Uh we work together every day with families and students to identify this is basically barriers to success. Um and such barriers are inclusive of attendance, behavior, nutrition, um family support, family dynamics, learning disabilities, and so much more. That's the intention of this policy. Last time we had some discussion about it. So I'm assuming that we want to continue that discussion as a second read before we vote on this policy. I need a motion to approve first. Okay, I'll make that motion by second for discussion. >> Well, everyone knows I've been against this policy from the beginning. Um, I'm against any policy that's race based, which this is exactly race based. That's what Jeff
016just enumerated. Many races. Um, it's centered around evaluating our students performance based on race that by definition makes this policy racist and presumes that one race underperforms another race. Just as importantly, this policy adds another layer of unlimited reporting required by our required of our administration. How long do we need another administrator to carry out yet another reporting requirement? The other night is board complained about the affordability in New Hartford. The affordability crisis in New Hartford is not from policies that come out of New Hartford. They're policies come out of Hartford and Washington. This is one of those policies. Why would we style our administration with one more policy to administer and report on when we already do title one reporting? more reporting to Harvard and less time concentrating on educating our students. What happens
017when we adopt this policy and find out that our TAG program is under represented by minorities? We scrap the program like other districts in this country have like New York City. We lower the standard to include more students. All are bad outcomes. I'm worried about the unintended consequences of this policy down the road where it would leave, could lead, may lead, maybe not with this current administration and Jeff to help and us on the board, but we're all not going to be here forever. If this policy will be forever, where will it lead? That's it for me. What are the negatives, if any, of not approving this policy? the negatives of any um I would say that we would have to lean back on other older policies to support our welcoming atmosphere, our welcoming environments
018of our schools and how we are open to all and helping all students overcome barriers to success. So, we'd have to lean back on something else in our in our policies, but it is the board's decision to support this type of policy or not. >> Do we find that we've had complaints or issues with not supporting different races? >> No, I've not had any any of those reports. We've had um questions about the um Tom mentioned the the talented and gifted program. That's why it's under revision because it really is completely outdated. Um, but those criteria that are set forth are very high standards of success. They're very clearcut in our board policy as you saw and those are I understand um Tom's points, but those criteria have to be followed and I understand some
019of the points that Tom brought as well. Um, but we've established those criteria. So for purposes of that program, you've got to meet that criteria. Um it's not dependent on race as Tom had mentioned as well. So we'd have to look somewhere else to say that we welcome all that we support all or the the potential negative aspect of that is that you're seen as not welcoming all. And that's again the board's prerogative to decide. I see Tom's point because it's just genuine human morality would be just treating people correctly, right? So >> I understand. >> Yeah, I see his point that we shouldn't need a policy to tell people that. That's kind of common sense. >> Well, that's my other Sorry to interrupt. That's my Why do we need a policy to say we're
020welcoming a welcome? We're a school. We teach students regardless of their race, color, or creed. Why do we need a policy to say we're going to treat everyone fairly? It makes no sense to me. Why do you have to fall back on another policy to make sure that to me that's foreign. I don't understand that. I just don't why we need policy to say yeah we're going to treat people fairly. Well, of course you are. Well, you know, it's like I don't always think history shows that certain people, certain races, certain minorities are not treated fairly. So, we can say that, well, we're going to treat everybody fairly, but that's not going to happen if the policyy's not in place. >> How would the policy make us treat someone fairly? >> They should we should
021just be doing that. And if if we have teachers that aren't doing that, then they should be removed at their duty, >> right? >> Well, doesn't give you some >> and guidelines to hold that person accountable. It's not doing what you just said >> by saying treat people with different races, genders, and ethnicities, and disabilities equally as human beings should be. >> That sounds like it sounds like common sense to me. I don't think we need policy for that either. >> I I don't think the world acts that way though. >> They don't. >> Sometimes you got to today in class I had to make that point. And if you don't say it, people don't understand about things. Sometimes you have to say it out loud or write it. >> If this weren't passed hypothetically
022and there was a situation where a child of a of um you know that has a disability or something was treated unfairly, would they not would they not be held accountable that teacher for that? That's that's what policies do. They hold people accountable, >> I guess. Does that to me is that policy making it any more making them any more accountable? >> It would give you more strength in in a possible termination hearing if you had a policy because that's one of the reasons that you can if you have a tenure teacher, you can get rid of a tenure teacher failure to adhere to a board of education policy. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah. >> Let me ask you a question about something Tom said. The is there a cost and time and
023how long would it the reporting take? >> So, title one reporting is has some portion of this already. >> Um do it. >> We do. Yeah, we have to. It's required if you would like some of the funding based on poverty rates. So, we already conduct that component of it. Um some of the other areas again when we meet with any new family or new families that come to town um or new prek or new kindergarten families as things come to our attention we work with the families to provide whatever support that they need. Um so that can vary but that's all reported currently anyway. Students with disabilities, students with an IEP, students with a 504, for example, that's all part of our management process currently right now. Would this not be covered under the
024non-discrimination policy? >> Part port partions of it I would say could be. >> Yeah. >> But isn't that an entirely other report besides title one that has to go to our you can say we do it title one but if I have to write two reports to a client I just have to write two reports. >> Yeah. It's two. This one right now, the way that it stands as a recommended policy, not a mandated policy, doesn't have that you have to report out on it besides the reports that we already have to currently do. So there's not there's not there's not an additional one that we have to send out. >> So so hardford is super regarding district. >> We do we do that. Yeah. So we do that during our academic achievement and performance.
025not set new. So there's not net new reporting. >> Sure. Can you direct me to the one again? >> The responsibilities. I don't I don't know what's what's net new versus what's >> Yeah, we we do that already every every school year when we do the performance reporting. We do that for our ELA. We do that for our mathematics. We do that for our science. We do that for our state assessments. Currently, we do that for dibbles. do that for stars uh mathematics we do that already so that's how it's reported out that's something that already is done >> I mean I I see this is kind of redundant we already do we have this written down in other places we do >> I don't see that it does any harm I agree with the
026goals we have when the last created to have another policy have a potential misalignment in this policy discrimination policy or hate biases school or any of these other policies is a big concern. I just don't know why we need another policy. We have another we have anti-racism racism schools all kinds of different things that contribute which will give you the ability to hold our teachers accountable determined and prove that they would. Would it make sense to look at those two policies and maybe strang risk of misalignment in in why the policies that the effect of the policy is that >> I don't know all the policies. Does anybody even know what we would have to look that up and bias non-discrimination framework and work through that framework to me to me this is the policy
027work against you because the more work you're doing if we don't do that then our teachers better not trying to get teachers for students Well, it is framework. I didn't get I read this just to see the need to have to make sure Oh, I'm going to go on record myself and saying I see the need for it in our the world we live in. I I wouldn't mind looking at other policies to see if it's redundant. Do you know? >> Yeah, there portions of this exist in other policies, not in one shell like this. So, it would as a policy subcommittee, we certainly can sit down and take a look at all of our practices and policies and take >> I can't hear about 60 to 70% of the conversation. So, um >> we
028could take this way to weigh in. >> We we could take this and look into other avenues of it. It would have to be obviously one specific agenda item to take components of this that we feel are important and put those into place and revise other policies as well because this is a recommended policy that's recommended. We may already have a lot of these policies. >> This policy doesn't hurt anyone. >> No, I agree with you. I said that >> even if it's to me is a no-brainer. This is this should be in there. >> Are you able to >> We're not We're not This is not a racist policy. This is not a racist policy against white kids. This is a policy racist against any particular race. It talks about race and based on
029race. Based on race, that's racism. It's period. It's definition of racism. No, it's not. is power. No, this is not a definition. >> The definition of racist is when you systemically use power to suppress a group of people and in the in the dictionary, but it's it's anti-racist. If you look at people that are being discriminated against and try to create a more equity, it brings the gaps with the marginalized people of this of this community. Would you be able to give some information as to what this has that the non-discrimination policy doesn't have >> without doing a full review? No, I can't. Off the top of >> there's no like highle points. Okay. >> not just a Harvard and Washington problem either. There are minorities here in New York who are struggling and who
030need perhaps extra assistance in some way. In a in a town like ours that is not very diverse, let's be honest, it's really tough for a kid that is in a in a minority group to feel at home because they really feel isolated sometimes. I live this, you know, I thought and um the goals of this is a great goal and it might be redundant. >> I think I mean just looking at some of the policies here and it's we have all these policies that we keep voting on. Most of them are mandated by the state. We should be able to take probably non-discrimination, hate crimes and bias incidents, anti-racism, um, transgender and non-conforming youth. I think there's another equal education opportunity. Those could all be one policy. I I have seven policies, six seven
031policies. If the issue at stake, and again I'm extrapolating here, so like give me a few seconds if I'm completely wrong. If the issue at stake is either like conflicting or overlapping information between this policy and another one, is it not just fair for us to add the overlapping policies to a the next policy subcommittee meeting to review them and see whether or not those policies are still necessary, if they should be amended in some way to support that? Like we're going through all the policies anyway. So, can we not just vote on this policy which has one unifying view of what this should look like and then take a look at where there are gaps or overlap and raise that up. I'm not sure where those are within your workstream of everything else, but
032that that is what is that the conversation is here. That seems like a logical next step for us to take. >> Absolutely. Yep. You just charge the Got it. >> Yep. You just charge the subcommittee to go back and revisit it and look to see what other policies we have in place which would satisfy the pieces that this board would like to have within their board policies. >> Mayor, for the record, I didn't say racism was only in Washington and I said the financial roles that we discussed on Monday are a result of policy new Hartford. I wasn't talking about I'm talking about the financial woes which is what I was talking about when we asking our administration to do more work that's unfunded and we need more administration the cost when budget time is
033up and just says you need another administrator we keep adding policy upon policy upon policy to that's what I said when >> I don't see this policy cost being an unfunded mandate I just don't see the cost but we know with everything that the state It'll become reportable to the state at some point. Just like in police work, they everything's reportable to the state. Now it creates so much work. One arrest takes four hours instead of the traditional one. Everything they do is going to get data. Report to the state report to the state so they can doc what's going on. So probably will get to that point at some time. All right. So, right now we do have a motion approve second. I forget second. >> Frank. >> Um, we want to take action
034on that motion. Do we want to as a board table this based on the other conversation? >> We should vote. >> There's no reason. I think we can vote on this policy as is. Are you suggesting we vote on this policy and then go back and look for overlap? >> Yeah. And just I mean we can add that to like the agenda. My recommendation would be we vote on this policy as is and we do the work after this to take a look at the other policies that may overlap and figure out how to like clean that up. >> I think you'll be surprised. It's really not. >> That's the whole reason they have different policies with different issues. Well, I think I think and again um what I'm hearing is that the concern is
035regarding like the administrative burden on reporting and Jeff has said that the reporting is most of the reporting if not all of it is is required for other means >> again so we can we can sort that out. >> Okay, great. I think we would be smart as to table this and just figure out I think we'd be smartest to table this and put it figure it out next meeting or after those policies are um looked through and gone through to see if they condense them at all. >> I agree motion >> is that what you have that's again it's up to the board right you have a motion to motion >> yeah I'll withdraw my motion and uh make a new motion to table this policy until we can look through the other policies
036to see if they can be uh condensed and maybe added into one or two instead of five or six. Just so I'm not confused, there's two trains of thought that I'm hearing. One is to look at the other policies and see if you can streamline. One is to go ahead and vote for this and then go back and look at the policies to stream those. Is that what I'm hearing? >> So currently we have a withdrawal motion. We have a second motion to table this policy for further review by the by the policy committee. That'll be a second. I >> he's got his table up and send it back to the policy committee for evaluation of this policy language in alignment with the discrimination and the other policies that we have currently in place. Make
037sure current discussion. >> So if we're talking about taking seven policies, bring it down to three. >> I don't think that's what we're talking about here. >> No, we're talking over, >> right? But you can't take those seven policies that are mandated and get rid of them anyway. So that doesn't >> No, he's just saying to take this one policy over the other >> not the other we can only talk about this one. >> Anyways, >> I'm going to think you know you're without a policy. This is the saying what is recommended to state this is notation say you can't do this saying as a another way look at Got a motion and a second. Do we get a second? Yes, we do. Thanks for the discussion. Okay. All those in favor of table policy
038uh equity and diversity, please raise your hand. All those opposed. >> I'd like to make a motion to pass this policy. I'm going to go back and try to remember the number 0523A equity and diversity as is and then revisit the additional policies at a future subsequent meeting that may have overlapping requirements for this so we can clean up our policies. >> Motion sir second. Can I just Yeah. Um I guess my thought is just generally speaking like if you have if you don't have all the facts I don't I wouldn't feel comfortable voting on something unless I knew you know of course I knew but even just asking you Jeff you weren't able to speak to that policy. So how can >> you make a decision based on something where you don't have all
039the facts. So, I also think passing something only to possibly repeal or adjust or whatever it's going to be based on reviewing that other data set is more work than having another conversation when everybody's reviewed everything that's >> a good point. I I think that exists with every policy. the potential though to pass a policy and then you go back and find out that you have to revise another. I think that always is a possibility. >> And how long I guess is there a time table of when that policy will be revisited? And >> well, I think that my instinct is that what uh Chris what Chris is talking about is that that would have been the next meeting. what you're voting on. >> I don't I don't think we have it scheduled right now,
040but we do several of them throughout the course of the school year. So, what >> tenative January 13th? >> Oh, great. There we go. >> The vote here should just be on this policy either agree with this policy or disagree with this policy. >> Once you vote something in, it's probably not. >> Sorry. >> Once we vote something in, it's probably not coming out, >> right? Just know that it's either going in or isn't at this point. to answer your question as more often. >> Any further discussion? >> So, we have a motion in summary to approve this policy and then go back and look at the other related policies. policies against a motion by Kristen and second by Eric. See further discussion. All those f please. Okay. All those opposed. Does anybody else have
041another motion? Next possible. >> Yep. >> Next policy 4118.4 uh rights, responsibilities, and duties of electronic uh mail. That's our commonly known as email. This is a new policy. All district uh email systems are owned by the district and intended for conducting official district business only. This is a new policy that we did not have and it needs to be in place so that folks know what the email policy is not for personal business. It is for school related business. That's one of the biggest pieces of information. And you'll see the notice as well that will be shared with our New Hartford public school employees. We need a motion to approve or a motion to reject by a second by Tom. Any discussion? This is a second read. So all those in favor please come
042up raise your hand. All those opposed. Any obceptions? I don't >> I was just trying to read this one piece here. Sorry. >> No mistake. >> Oh, okay. Um, can you just clarify for the electronic monitoring? Does that mean like a teacher wants to send an email to their child at college? That would be considered a personal that would be endless. >> Yeah. But there'd have to be reasonable suspicion or reasonable cause that the individual was not conducting their duties as were fit. But during the prep time, it's pretty open, right? We're not It's not like we're >> Oh, just not while they shouldn't be doing. >> You're supposed to be teaching. You shouldn't be emailing the board chair or myself about something, for example, or you're family member outside of emergencies. >> Okay. >>
043We're not going to say, "Hey, you know, you're working on picking up your child from college during your prep time." I'm going to monitor that. Absolutely. >> I'll get better. >> A motion by Tim, a second by Tom approve policy number 4118 or 4118. All those in favor you see by the raising your hand unanimous. >> All right, next one. >> Next policy is these are all related to students. This came with a lot of input from our amazing uh registered nurse ransom did a fantastic job making sure everything was in alignment. So these four new policies are all related to that. This is to ensure 4118.232 232 under personnel drug and alcohol-f free workplace. So in order to meet the requirement of the drug-free workplace, schools and community act, this policy is uh before
044you now. Motion to approve policy 4218.232. Motion motion by Frank. Can I get a second? Second by John. Any discussion alcohol drugs tobacco ready to vote? All those in favor of approving 4218.232 that's unanimous. Next policy 5131.601 under students medical palative use of marijuana. This policy prohibits the use of medical marijuana in the district schools and on its property. The district has the right and responsibility to maintain a drug-free workplace protecting the safety of all employees and its students. Motion to approve policy 4836. Motion to approve by second. Second by T. Ready to vote. All those sit. >> Next policy 5141213 under students. Again, bless you. Opioid overdose prevention under emergency administration of um Narcan or known as Narcan I should say by a licensed healthcare professional. uh they're allowed to administer Narcan or um
045nlloxxone without fear of civil liability, criminal prosecution or violating standards of their profession. So this is to ensure that if we have someone that is overdosed that we can administer this without those uh liabilities and those people have to be trained, they are trained um in the use of NAR similar to law enforcement or fire department. Are you guys still >> Yeah. A motion to approve policy 514 213 by Frank. Can I get second? Second by John. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor of approving policy 5141.203 23. Please be certified by raising your hand. That is unanimous. >> All right. The last one for second read is policy P514, sorry, P5141.231 um and 4118.234 under student psychotropic drug use. This prohibits all school personnel from recommending the use of psychotropic drugs for any student
046enrolled within the school system. again to protect the board of education from liabilities. We are not medical professionals. That is not our duty to do so. Whether we think it is appropriate or not, that is what this policy is here for. To approve P541.231 231 and 418 by Ted by John discussion. >> All right. Thank you. We will stop recording.