001Okay. Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order with the pledge of allegiance and I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Any announcements? >> No announcements. >> Do you want to start with 7505 or do you want to tell us our handouts? >> I would like to share a little information about your party favors. I feel like since you all take the time out to be here that you should get a party favor each time we have a policy committee meeting and so I have made sure you have one. So the first thing you should have is a packet that starts with this document. Uh this is our
002running agenda for policy committee meeting and so a couple things to note. Uh first we had a conversation at a previous policy committee meeting and we talked about potentially shifting section 5000 which is business operations up to next year's review. So, you're going to see on this document when you look at our four-year overlay, I've already made that uh update to this document. The second thing, if you go to page two of this document, reflects all of the updated revised agenda items as I've been emailing. I know I think we keep joking about there's 16 emails per policy committee meeting, which is probably true. I've tried to capture the most revised agenda update on page two. So, you should see under today's date, March 4th, this is actually the agenda that we'll be working from.
003This stylistically will be the approach I take moving forward. So every time we meet now, I'll have this type of a document and I'll point you out what page we're on and that way you can follow along on the agenda. >> But we still have to have this for >> Yes. >> for public. >> Yes. >> This will actually drive. >> But this is what we're going to use. >> Yes. >> And then uh underneath this packet, what you're going to find are the other policies that are listed on the agenda. Uh so number one uh there will be policy language specific to eligibility which we'll talk about in just a moment eligibility and uh limited open forum and then next we have new policy for consideration by the board. It's actually going to be
004a homework assignment artificial intelligence and I'll speak a little bit more to that as we get it further into the agenda. The last thing I want to uh bring to your attention is this color-coded document. So this is the master table where we're tracking board activity. what I tried to do following our last policy committee meeting as you'll see on the far right hand column. I believe I have accurately depicted what the board uh recommended action is going to be moving forward. So it'll either say adopt area one as is adopt eerie with revision keep discard those are really the actions that you have taken. Uh Kelly if you could review and just make sure there's no updates that I missed. Uh and I will try and also update this each time we meet as
005well. >> Okay. So depending on stylistically how you prefer to follow, I'm following really from this document. Uh but I'll start with the agenda items. Uh on our other policy outside of section 8000, the first policy we were going to discuss tonight is policy 1360 specific to code of ethics uh uh pertaining to board members. our board president asked respectfully that we table that at least through today and potentially revisit that at our uh March 8 I'm sorry March 23rd policy committee meeting. So at this juncture that one has been tabled again that was not in the series of ones we were scheduled to review anyway. It was an add-on based on conversations. So we're going to table that one for this evening. So our first policy for discussion is 7505 eligibility. Um, at our
006last policy committee meeting, I brought forward to you a question concern specific to limited open forum uh, which ended up creating cause for um, great engagement and conversation. And so what I tried to do on this document on page two really the board has four possible pathways. You have to make a determination on how necessary you believe it is that we include the policy language about limited open forum. Keeping in mind that since we already have extracurricular club or group that constitutes limited open forum, you're bound by that now. So now we can't uh backtrack and say we're not going to welcome any additional clubs. We must do it. Uh France spent some time providing some uh recommend recommen recommended revisions. And so really I think we have four pathways. We have number one, you
007can keep your eligibility policy as is. We did actually update that recently with Brian Roco as our new athletic director. We could simply add the Eerie one language around limited open forum. Number two, we could take >> Is that necessary? >> It is not necessary >> since we're already doing it. Do you have to have policy language? >> You do not because we're required now. We're obligated to do it because we already have them. Uh number two, we can consider Francis's recommendations and we can embed that into our eligibility policy, which again was just recently reviewed. We could take Francis's policy and update that to the Eerie 1 and add another policy. Or we could do none of the above and simply say we're going to leave eligibility as is because we know we're bound
008by limited open form at this juncture. We already have clubs that constitute limited open form. So now I would present to the board to see what your preference is. Again, thinking about four possible pathways. Again, in your packet, what you have is the Erie 1 extracurricular policy. You also have Francis's proposed recommended language around extracurricular and limited open forum. That's correct. What I did not copy is the recent eligibility policy uh that you adopted recently and the eligibility. You remember we really honed in on that uh with Brian Roco and made sure we cleaned it up for regulation and and making sure we're actually doing what we're saying specific to acade eligibility for participation in athletics and extracurriculars. So I would now defer to the board for conversation specific if someone has a recommendation or
009a motion surrounding how you'd like to move forward with that specific policy question. Again, this is 7505. It falls outside of the series we're addressing and that was a result of a question, a group coming forward wanting to start a new club and that started the springboard for the conversation. So my first question would be if we're already allowing stuff that falls under limited open form and we don't currently have any language. Is there a reason it's not required? Is there a reason we would want to add language? >> I'm going to defer to Francis. I know Francis in your email you thought potentially you would want to better best protect the district specific to limited open forum. The reality is now even without policy we must do it because we've already opened that door.
010So, I don't know if you look at Francis's recommended revised language, is there anything in there that jumps out at you that you feel we need an articulation from the board specific to board governance? >> Yeah, the lang the language I that I added kind of gave more guidelines for what a noncurricular meeting is and what they're allowed to do in the school more or less. Do you know the number of the Erie one 7410? >> So you should have 7410 which is Erie 1. Nope. It's in your packet Sarah. Make it easy for you. >> So right underneath your agenda I copy this. So you have it. And then you also have I'm trying to I'm trying I'm learning as we go learning and growing learning and growing. Are you proposing keep 7505 for
011academic eligibility that we just redid and add this as a new one specific about limit? >> I thought I was using the I thought I was using the Erie 1 policy but apparently I was using our 7410 >> 7410 is Eerie 1. >> Okay. So I use 7410 when I wrote this. So that would be not in place of 7505 that the district did. It would be add a new one specific to limited. >> Correct. It's important to note that 7410 that's the area one. Make sure I get the right number. 7410 is vetted by a team of legal. It's a legal team that actually creates the policy. I'm not saying I have a hesitation, but the language that you're including would have to be vetted by legal before I would make recommendation for you
012to think about adopting the policy. It's very easy to step in it when you're creating law for the district. >> And this one has not been vetted. >> This has not been vetted. That's great. >> There's another one that I know I read. >> So this Erie one vetted by a team of lawyers is noted. >> Okay. >> So that's >> and and again just Francis thinking about Erie One. The reason why you buy the service is because then you're not having every policy go through and charge whatever what I don't even know what our legal rate is that we send it to Ferrara, but >> 175 >> an hour to review. So, this is all covered by a team of lawyers. >> Is there anything I mean I've read both of these different times,
013but is there anything that you got into this one? That's >> the red one. I mean, this one >> everything in the red is changes that I >> So, it's this is really 7410 with the red. Okay. So do you feel strongly that we need a additional policy for limited open forum and that's why you put this together or >> well looking at um I I guess I felt some of this nervousness about having that >> having a policy that kind of states out like so if we have a non-curricular group that meets in the school they have to make sure that it's all students led no adults can teach in any way, shape or form in that, right? So having those things I think lined out so that that we can hold those groups
014accountable I think is important. So it's more or less giving guidelines for the groups that are already in our building which I don't know if they have any guidelines at all in their meetings now. So, um, it was more way to >> sounds like it's important to have one of these just for clarity, but I'm just trying to map them together. They pretty much are saying the same thing. So, I'm wondering if the one that you wrote is more robust in a way than this one. When I'm looking line for line, it looks like it would have similar things. Is there anything added to your that's not in this one 7410? >> No. Well, I mean it depends. If we had a if we have a um a procedural regulation, >> some of this could
015be included in that regulation, right? >> So, it might not be that we have to change the actual policy as a whole. Um, but if we don't have a regulation, this would be a way to have something in place. >> So, if we were to do a page by page uh crosswalk, looking at the Eerie one and then Francis's recommendations, if you go to the bottom of Francis's uh proposed uh recommended language change under limited open forum, that section uh he's struck the district will not Francis, I get anxious about you changing the word because that comes right from the regulatory language. But the reason they say it in the way that they did for area one is that's exactly how the law reads. So I wouldn't be comfortable and again we could certainly send
016it out to legal but that's something that jumped out. I wouldn't make recommendation to change because that's coming right from the law. >> It looks like G on version is a little bit different. I don't see that one jump out at me on the so nothing in this policy showed discussion of religious political or other content. There's a reason I think I it's not very explicitly stated that the one I'm assuming it's in there because well staff can't speak to it. It's like saying students can, right? Right. >> Guideline for procedural. >> It's implied without being said in the year one. >> This just says greater level of specificity. Not certain that it's necessary or not. And again, I wouldn't feel comfortable without sending this out to legal because I do think there's some few
017things in here probably we would not want to include. But again, I don't want to spend the money and have legal review of policy if the board's will is not to even include it. >> Do you think this one's not specific enough? >> I think in some cases I think right, but it's it's an implied thing, right? Like it's implied that it's there, but it doesn't spell it out specifically. So So what do you do in those situations? So, in the things I looked up, um, the policy says this one thing, but they the actual experience wise of people in these groups show that they needed more. >> It's hopefully for our admins to be able to hold these groups accountable that's spelled out to say, okay, well, here's our policy or our regulation, whichever
018it may be, right? To say this isn't allowed to happen because of this, right? So that it doesn't lead to gray areas as much as where a group could say, well, we're following it, you know, stop. >> Could this be policy and this be a jumping off point for a different document? That's >> Well, regulation is created by the administrative team. So that's work once the board gets through review of this cycle. Honestly, I'm going to work with everyone. So every one will provide regulation, I'll work with my team around regulation and that is not board education. >> It could be like Joey, whoever is willing to do that. >> Yeah, I'd be okay with that. Um, as long as the as long as the regulation is there to protect our admins, really, they're the
019ones that are going to have to deal with with these groups. And um so >> I think the the tremendous irony here is that it has been a non-issue, right? So I think what problem are we trying to solve? To date, I don't know that this specific facet of extracurriculars has been an issue. What I would also argue is it's probably work that Rob and KT maybe Scott can do at their building level around what are the expectations. So I think about compliance with extra class, there is some work we can do there. I don't know that this is really the first thing I would have them focus on. However, if I were thinking about extra class, >> I I guess I'm when I think of this, I think of it like our political >>
020policy where we're becoming more hyper politicized in our in our culture. So, more groups are going to show up in in these areas. So, >> but the good news is you have a political activity policy which is tight and we sent it to legal and said we want it as tight as we can have it and we have that. >> Yeah. >> And in fact, I think that one's second read tonight, right? Political activity I do have a question. Um, what is a uh we have the right to ban unlawful groups. What's an unlawful group? >> I think that is like >> Like a hate group like a unlawful >> I don't know >> group that destroys >> I don't know what's the definition of an unlawful group. What >> I mean >> school law
021>> whose opinion is an unlawful group >> legal. >> No, but I'm I'm not joking. I'm being serious. >> I mean unlawful could be your opinion of we're going to be a group of thieves and we're going to pickpocket during lunches. That would be an unlawful group. >> No doubt. No doubt about that. But >> I think it's just >> to your point, you just said code of conduct actually if there was a group that was like, you know what, hey, we're going to really like generate some DASA incident reports and we're going after kids that would be unlawful. >> But to get back to Francis's point also, an unlawful group is the will of the community might be this and some group comes in here and they have a different perspective. Maybe it be
022a political perspective this differently. Would we deem that unlawful? I don't know that we I I think it's far too subjective, >> but that's why >> I don't think we I don't think we'd win that one. >> Would any would anybody would it include any group that promotes activities that are discriminatory against protected classes >> or that violate a code of conduct? >> I think I just wanted to in the >> tighten that a little bit just says anything in violation of our for example in violation of our code of conduct or something that makes >> which inherently tax protected class. >> Yeah. Right. But something even like a small line like that otherwise you kind of it's open to interpretation. >> I think the the rationale sometimes for the policy is to allow whenever
023it gets to be that detail that interpretation you work through the legal parameters to help in the best interest of the district and the board to make that determination. I think if you put too much detail in there, >> then you get yourself backed up against the wall. So, I think that sometimes it's written that way where it's you can't really >> I agree with flexibility. >> Yeah. Right. >> I just wonder if like adding to that a banning unlawful groups that operate in violation of the code of conduct >> and that something simple like that and then that gives you that that leeway still, but it says, hey, we're abiding by our code of conduct, >> right? >> Yeah. which is already I would say more strict document than common law >> like right
024there it's got to be outlined by the code of conduct like it's before that's the elig >> well we've got the code of conduct in there I I feel like unlawful means like just if it doesn't if the code of that umbrella turns if the code of conduct doesn't measure the rest then the law would like you can't have contraband in the school you can't be like club where you're building illegal stere Could we please? >> I look at that as like an umbrella policy, right? Like >> if I hit transition, will it stop? >> You don't know what you're saying.