001uh virtual version of the March 16th policy committee uh meeting. I'll call to order at uh 6:01 p.m. Madame Clerk, >> Mr. Farooq >> here. >> Mr. Heshp >> here. >> Miss Holton >> here. >> Miss Fernandez >> here. We have a quorum. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh we now have u our minutes from our February 17, 2026 committee meeting. Um those minutes to approve. Um may I get a motion and a second for that, please? >> So move. >> Second. >> Thank you. It's been motioned by uh Miss Fernandez and second by Mr. Farooq. Madame Clerk, >> can we have Miss Fernandez actually say that I motion to approve the minutes of the February 17th commit committee policy committee meeting? >> I motion to approve the minutes for the February what date is
002it? >> 17th committee policy committee meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right. It's been moved by Miss Hernandez and seconded by Mr. Farooq. Madame clerk. >> Mr. Baroo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hedgepath. >> Yes. >> Miss Holton. >> Yes. >> Miss Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Great. Thank you very much. U. We now need a motion to adopt the agenda. >> Mr. Chair, I motion to adopt the agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Ali. Is there a second? >> Seconded. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Farooq. U motion to adopt the agenda and Miss Fernandez second it. Madame clerk. >> Mr. Peru. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hedgepath. >> Yes. >> Miss Holton. >> Yes. >> Miss Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> All right. Thank you very much everyone. U. We now will
003move on to our uh policies to discuss. Uh Mr. Mr. Stanley, would you like to to talk first about this? >> Sure, I'd be happy to, Mr. Hedgepath. Um, I'll go ahead and share my screen so we can all be looking at the same thing together. Um, so policy 1-6.1, schoolboard meetings, policy 1-6.3, quorum and rules of order, as well as policy 1-1.5, schoolboard procedures and standards of conduct, um, all recently came up in the context of the board norms and protocols that you all um, I think have agreed to uh, together, but are not recorded in policy anywhere. Um, so it's these norms and protocols uh that talk about your meetings and how you will interact with each other during your meetings. Um, we've prepared revisions for you within uh policy 1-1.5, the schoolboard
004procedures and standards of conduct. We've inserted them below the much more specific section of generally the standards of conduct of schoolboard members. Um, in discussing these revisions, Mr. Hedgepath and I also just wanted to make you aware that we do have two other policies where we discuss whether uh those norms and protocols could perhaps be appropriate. So just in the spirit of always continuing to look at the different policies that we have that are related to any current uh current requests, we wanted to include these on the agenda for you tonight. Um certainly within a policy on schoolboard meetings, you could put in meeting specific norms and protocols. Um likewise, we also have our policy on quorum and rules of order. Um and the rules of order, this is a very very short policy. The
005rules of order generally say that you're going to follow uh standard parliamentary procedures. Um and I know that sometimes the board has specifically deferred to Robert's rules of orders, which I think is um noted elsewhere in policy. Uh but we could perhaps also consider a norms and protocols section for meetings um within this policy as well. Um however after discussing uh Mr. Hatchpath and I decided to go ahead and draft uh those changes within the schoolboard procedures and standards of conduct um we felt that those norms and protocols felt very similar to the the the other content in this policy. Um so at the moment uh we do have this before you but we are happy to um consider you know any requests from the policy committee of whether you think this might be more
006appropriate elsewhere or any further revisions. Um so I'll turn it back over to you Mr. Hedgepath. Thank you Mr. Stanley. U so just for the benefit of the group u the background on this there uh there was the governance ad hoc group that formed last year under uh Mr. rehearsible uh to draft these. Since then, we've had a number of of of pieces of feedback from from board members. And so, the the latest version u that was u uh that was available to me that, you know, included all of the feedback uh that we'd received so far is what you see in green. And so, uh Mr. Stanley and I added it there. We felt that that would be the best uh best place for it. And then, Mr. Mr. Stanley, can you move up
007to where it talks about how we acknowledge that each year uh that change that we made u just above uh thank you right there in uh number nine. So instead of adopting this each uh each January at our organizational meeting, it's to review this policy uh which then if there's a a u you know a suggested revision uh that can always come back to us and then be uh you know be presented back to the board with those those changes um and follow the same process that we're doing right now. Um we're we are a little bit uh behind on this but we're hoping to get this in front of the board uh for uh for their approval since they have u given us feedback. Uh I wonder now if there are questions or comments
008from folks about uh next steps about uh where the process that was just outlined uh specific portions of it any of that would be fine. Mr. Hedgepath. >> Yeah, Miss >> I did have one suggestion which I submitted u in writing to others but it Thank you. You're highlighting it there around 152. I think I have seen in our my brief time on the board that on occasion the chair has uh u allowed u the three minute time uh limit to be exceeded and I don't remember frankly whether it was by action of the chair or by action of board majority but might we want to give ourselves the flexibility by adding in some language there to adhere to the a lot of speaking time unless waved or extended by the chair andor board majority,
009something like that. >> I think that's a good suggestion. Thank you for reminding me of that uh that piece. What does anyone else have any thoughts about that? I see Miss Fernandez. >> Sure. Thank you, uh Mr. Hedgepath. Um that was the only thought that I had as well. I I remember um just quite just recently with the budget conversation. I remember that night specifically allowing more time for folks since it was such a a you know meaty topic. Um and so I do believe in the spirit of flexibility having that option would be great. Although I do believe that we should still make it an exception and not the norm. Um, we typically don't allow for folks to speak over the 3minut limit. Um, you know, unless there's a consensus. >> Thank you, Miss
010Hernandez. I I appreciate that that uh being the exception and not the rule. Uh, any other any other comments on on this proposal? hearing. Oh, yes, ma'am. Miss Fernandez, >> can you scroll back up to the Well, maybe I'm sorry. I'm looking on my phone, but I don't normally need glasses, but sheesh. Um, there was something else that I saw. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Back up to uh number nine. >> Okay. Okay. So, here's a dilemma and this is going to be a challenge. Um, for one, for line 143, having board meetings in a timely manner. A lot of that plays into how many people speak, if everyone uses their time, if we have public comment. So, I just want to make sure that I I think that's going to be a very tricky one
011because sometimes there's unpredictability that happens from meeting to meeting. So, I just wanted to call that out. Not to say that I want it to be changed. I just, you know, I don't know. Sometimes it's very hard to accomplish that. >> Thank you. I appreciate that as well. I wonder uh would it make more sense to to say something to the effect of uh begin on time? U prepared and uh you know uh you know be efficient with time rather or seek to be efficient with time rather than end in a timely manner. You seek ways to be efficient with our time. >> Sorry I was on mute. Yes, I agree with that. I think that would be because the efficiency is what's important, what's what we're striving towards. >> Yeah, I agree with that.
012>> Thank you. Other thoughts. >> Are we comfortable with uh the uh suggestions that were just made uh being being added on and then this going to the board for first read in April? Yes. >> All right. Thank you all very much on that item. That actually takes us down quite a few items. Uh so we are uh we are going to defer item 3.02 uh for more time for those revisions. Um and we're going to move on to three. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Stanley, did you want to say anything about that or was that enough for >> That was enough. >> Okay, great. All right. Um, so now 3.03, our u new AI policy. Now, there have been a number of comments uh regarding this and feedback that we've gotten um over email from
013some board colleagues and uh and and in in fact the uh the change that we were going to make or propose to make today was a rather small one that Mr. understand they can share with us. Um and then thank you Miss Holton for bringing up the uh the action in the general assembly um that may also impact our uh our policy. And then also Miss Rizzy um if you haven't seen her comments yet u take a look at it not necessarily at this moment but u you know do do take a look at what she suggested um and u and I I would suggest that we maybe instead of doing a second read in April um do another first read uh with the edits that you know we're we're talking about tonight as well
014as what we uh you have seen Miss Rizzy uh bringing in since there's a number of things that that people would still still have some questions on. Uh but I'll uh I'll go ahead and turn it over to you Mr. Stanley to uh add any more u context to that. Um and then we'll get started. So AI policy. >> Sure. Thank you Mr. HP. Uh so I guess I'll start with the significant addition to the AI policy since the last time the committee had a chance to review it. Um and that was the inclusion of a section regarding the use of AI generated graphics in official public-f facing communications. Our communications team had flagged that uh some schools uh had been creating materials that used uh AI to create images that were supposed to be
015of RPS students. Um and we really did do not at all feel comfortable uh doing that with our schools doing that. So, we wanted to have a clear prohibition and policy um to continue to emphasize that we have a wonderful photo library um with wonderful images of real RPS students and staff and community members. So, it's really important that we use those real pictures of our community um and that we're not doing anything with generating AI images uh that could be used to say they they look like RPS students. Um so, that's been the main addition that we have included. Um, we have a few paragraphs in our section in regards to professional and administrative use. Um, and then we have also embedded uh a couple of definitions up in the top section. Um, and
016I know Miss Holton pointed out just a bit of uh inconsistency with some of the the use of these words and where is it? AI generated visual media was the the main definition that was added. Um, and we've also uh made a couple additions into the uh pieces about academic integrity. uh students shall not use AI generated images to as authentic documentation of real people. Um and then likewise I believe in the admin I the instructional use section we um also have the student and oops sorry my highlighting is not working well the student and instructional use of AI generated images and graphics. Um so those are the additions. Otherwise I don't believe that anything significant has changed with the AI policy. Um, I'm in receipt of uh Miss Rizz's feedback as well, and we
017were happy to work through some additional revisions that incorporate as much as possible of her very valuable feedback. Um, so we would have all of those revisions for you in the document that we'll upload for the board meeting. Um, and then that would still give this committee a chance to look at it again if you want to at the policy committee next month and then potentially for action for approval at the May meeting. Um, Miss Holton had also asked me to uh share with you all the outcome of AI related legislation that will impact school divisions that's come out of the general assembly. Um, the the it all boiled down to a single bill. Um, and it is House Bill 1186. There is a Senate version two, but they are identical. So, I'm just showing
018you the House version today. Uh, if you're interested in looking up the Senate version, it is from Senator Picarski. Um and the bill uh adds a few definitions into code um so that uh we have some consistent definitions moving forward. Um and I do believe that these are definitions that it would behoove us for us to go ahead and start using these definitions in our policy. So as I work on the policy revisions um I do want to look at including these definitions that they have included um obviously on a pilot program um but AIS and instructional settings artificial intelligence system division managed AIS platform and division managed environment um the bill uh while it establishes those basic definitions the main thing that the bill does is that it's requiring the department of education to
019compile information on the use of AI and school divisions currently across the Commonwealth and uh to prepare guidance for the safe e ethical and equitable use of artificial intelligence systems in instructional settings in public schools. Um these are the pieces that the department of education is going to be responsible for complying with um uh to addressing student data privacy resources and training for teachers, transparency and explicability of the use of AIS and instructional settings uh data privacy agreements um other best practices um guarding against bias and discrimination. Um there is also a uh specific thing that I think Miss Holton or Miss Holton may have pointed out in regards to uh ensuring that uh the division uh provides teachers with access to transcripts of student interactions with artificial intelligence systems and allows teachers and administrators
020to monitor use through dashboards, automated alerts, and audit logs. Um, while I absolutely understand um the need for that, I do want to flag that that is something that I'm not sure if we can do immediately in our policy cuz I don't know if our systems provide that to us yet. So, that will be part of the follow-up that I need to do with director Gunter to ask her is that something that, you know, Gemini is able to do now or is that something that that we're looking at doing in the future and that will determine whether or not that's something that we can put into our policy at this moment. Um and then we have time uh after the department of education um publishes those uh that guidance. Um we are going to be
021asked to establish, implement and enforce policies consistent with that guidance. Um but I imagine that that will take the Department of Education at least uh 6 months probably sometime later this year would be when we would see a first draft of that. Um so sometime likely le next year is when we would be revising our policy again to comply with any of the guidance that DOE has shared with us. Um the final other piece of this legislation is that it does create a pilot program within the department of education. The Senate has proposed adding $2 million um in FY27 for that pilot program and divisions would be selected for participation in it uh based on uh propo the proposals that they that they send and the department is asked to prioritize proposals proposals from school
022divisions that serve diverse student populations including high poverty rural and underresourced school divisions. Um of course RPS checks two of those three boxes. Um so we would be highly competitive to participate in the pilot program and I believe that after we have an approved policy and uh after July 1st once the department uh moves forward with implementing the pilot program we'd be in a good posture to apply for that. Um so that is the overview of what the law or the legislation is that is passed. It of course is waiting for Governor Spanberger's action. She can choose to approve this, to veto it, or she can choose to make amendments to the legislation. If she chooses to make amendments, the general assembly will consider those when they reconvene on April 22nd. Um, if otherwise, assuming
023this all does go into place, this all becomes effective in law on July 1st, and that's when DOE's day one would be to get started with that guidance. Um, so I'm happy to pause there and answer any questions. >> Thanks, Mr. Stanley. Any questions, folks? Mr. Frug. >> Yes. Um, Mr. Stanley, as I'm going over the draft policy, is the section on procure procurement and vendor review starting at line 409, is that the only section of this policy that deals with the system RPS actually selecting a specific AI model or models for staff and student use. The reason I ask is because I vaguely recall when we talked about this previously with our PS staff. I could have sworn that Google Gemini was something we were planning on formally using. Has that changed? What What
024is the process now? >> Uh Mr. Farooq, I do not believe that that general direction has changed that we would be using Google Gemini as our main AI chatbot um or our main AI platform. Um we do have in addition to what is here in policy this is the high level policy we have also provided the appendix B the AI tool vetting and vendor review procedures that the academic programs and support team um as part of the AI task force had drafted out um that goes more through the specific steps of what will take place during each stage of that review process. So we do have that appendix in there with those procedures for you. Um, does that that does that answer your question? Did I miss a part of the question? >> Follow up,
025Mr. Chair. >> Sure, Matthew. Um, so is the is the intention that Google Gemini will go through this whole process or has has it already kind of been vetted by staff? >> I believe that they would need to run Google Gemini against this process. I don't know that they have done that yet. I can't be certain of that though. Sure. Um, just I'll make a few comments, Mr. Chair, if that's okay. While I have the floor, I want to again reiterate that I am not convinced that we can keep students safe. Uh, I I appreciate this policy and I think I really like the process laid out for procurement and vetting. Um, but I'll just say real quickly, for example, just a few months ago, Google handed over student private student data um that they
026were subpoenaed for, but it was a subpoena that wasn't signed by a judge. It wasn't approved by a judge. It was just a piece of paper handed to them by ICE, and they handed over student data to ICE. So, I think there are real privacy and security concerns. Um, and I just want all of us to be aware of that, that even if we take these corporations through this process, they'll tell you, "Oh, yeah, it's all secure. Oh, yeah, it's all safe." But I just don't know that we can trust that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Farooq. U Mr. Stanley, any any comments on Mr. Faruk's comments? >> Just want to give space. Um I I I would prefer to make sure that I have a chance to speak with uh director
027Gunter in regards to Gemini and going through that process. Um if there is I don't I I don't know if I have seen that specific uh incident referenced in the news if that's something Mr. Farooq that you would be able to quickly shoot a link over to. Would love to make sure we have that as context. >> Sure. The one about Google sharing information with ICE. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll send that to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Mr. Farooq. I see Miss Holton in your hand. >> Yes. Hi. Thank you, Matt, for that update on the legislation. Recognizing it hasn't yet been signed into law, but is likely to become law in some fashion. I I agree with your approach of we should anticipate it as much as possible.
028I don't think we should slow down the adoption of our policy because hopefully we'll have something adopted by May and it could well be as you say the end of the calendar year before we get the guidance from the from the department more or later. So we should proceed but to the extent we can anticipate uh items that might come up in the uh u in that new guidance we should do so I like the idea of using the definitions and then if we put them in the definition section to the extent we can be consistent in using those definitions throughout the document. Um and u and to my point about the uh teachers having uh the capacity to a transcript so to speak of student use of AI andor there were also some provisions
029in the legislation about the administration having making sure that our systems allow the administration to have oversight audit capacity. I I wonder if we could include some general language now to the effect that um to the extent possible adopt systems that allow for administrative oversight and audit and teacher audit of students. you know, if we could, even if we don't know exactly what our capacities are, if we could put some general language, aspirational language in, I think those are good tools that the legislation helpfully points out. >> Thank you, Miss Holton. Miss Fernandez, did you uh unmute earlier? Do you have something that you'd like to to share? >> I've shared a lot of my feedback our our last conversation. And I have more of a technical question. Um, as it relates to the draft,
030um, I typically when it's a new draft policy, it's in green and iterations, we have red lines. I'm just wondering if are we taking the same approach here? If not, why why is it in black? I just want to make sure that that I'm tracking in terms of what approach we're taking as we're making changes so that it's so for full transparency of those that will see this at a later date before we vote on it. >> Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, uh usually when we're developing a brand new policy, everything is just in normal black tax because it is all new language. Um, >> however, I do realize that I think that this next round of revisions is likely to be significant. So, if you all would prefer for this next version, I'm happy to
031do the new uh revisions under Redline. >> Thank you. That would be great. Just so that we can follow along as this evolves. >> I think it'll be important for us to bring that back as needed. Would you also like me to go back and put the AI generated images additions in Redline as well? >> I'll defer to um Mr. Hedgebath. I I I think that would be great, but um I'll defer to Mr. Hitchbath. >> Yeah. Um thank you for that that recommendation, Miss Fernandez. Mr. Stanley, I I do think that that actually would be helpful that anything that's changed since we did our first read um as a as a board so that way the public uh can also recognize what is what's different um and um you know uh can can keep
032track a little bit better. Um but thank you for for that for that clarification. Miss Holton, >> sorry, having trouble unmuting. Um, I just one other suggestion. Uh, Mr. Hedge would be perhaps that I I thought Miss Rizzy made some very thoughtful comments. Perhaps we could u discuss her feedback before our call's over if time permits. Um, so that we can give uh Matt feedback on how we want him to go about incorporating, what we want her to go about incorporating him to go about incorporating from her feedback if anything uh before we um um see the next draft at the next board meeting. >> Thanks, Miss Holton. Uh yeah. Um if if folks wanted to uh to pull that up um it it's an email that um that Miss Rzie sent and uh perhaps
033we can take a minute to to take a look at that and then um and come back as a group and share any general thoughts on it. Is that uh does everyone see that in their email box? All right. >> I'm sorry. As you know, I have probably triple the amount of emails as you all have and I am coming back from vacation. So, if someone wouldn't mind flipping that. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Um >> Oh, thanks very much, Mr. Stanley. as folks are reading through um kind of three items stick out to me immediately. one um is uh at the beginning uh the positive educational potential um uh balancing the risk the the potential of uh you know the benefits uh that we might find um another item is the uh part where
034she talks about professional development and training I think that's really important as well and particular u my my concern from a few meetings ago was uh parental um education uh regarding AI um in addition to our our teachers and and and maybe there's a way that we can and maybe this is more in um not in necessarily policy but uh but I would like to see conversations with parents regarding their the use and the differences between uh the use that they that they will use AI in in in their workspace and in their life um and how it should be different for uh the way that their children use it um and in their their lives. Um and then finally, the other item um I think that is important is the uh the harmful risks
035that she me mentions it uh later on that I know Mr. Farooq has mentioned a number of times. I I think that it wouldn't hurt to uh to build that section out um as well. Um, Miss Hernandez. >> Yes. Um, thank you for sharing this and thank you for your feedback. Um, Mr. Chair, I I see the value in, um, remaining aligned with the guidance from the VD um, VDE. I think that's important to include. Uh I also see the value in um you know speaking out a little bit more about the manipulative or harmful interaction risk. I think that's important. I just wonder how do with policies is typically like black and white cut and dry. What is the value in sharing positive educational potential like I just think we have to be careful
036that we speak to policy specifically. And so I just wonder how we would align that vision with the course that we're trying to take here with just specifically speaking to policy. >> Sure. And I wonder if in the uh in the preamble of the policy, there's a place there where we uh where um you know the uh and we do go into that a little bit in the into the intent of the policy, but maybe that's where uh you know that we we of course see risks, but we also see uh that there's there's possible rewards and that uh you know you by by by ignoring this technology, right? we are um you know um doing a disservice to our our young people, but we need to tread uh cautiously um just like any new
037new policy. I wonder if somewhere in that and may and thank you for pulling that up, Mr. Stanley. Um that perhaps that is a place where it it might go um again kind of to Miss Holton's point earlier about aspirational um language. Miss Alman, >> I'm so sorry. Period. Um, I uh liked her notion of having a purpose statement at the beginning. I'm not sure that we if if if we don't already have that, then I think that would be a good idea. Um, and uh, I also like the idea of having essentially a bibliography of resources we had used in compiling the policy uh, andor that might be helpful for folks who want to do further exploration. Um, and I'm comfortable with the mention of VDOE alignment. I don't know whether it's necessary, but
038I'm comfortable with it. Uh, the one that I would well two I would comment on, I probably wouldn't do the sample assignments. I just think that I I would rather keep that out of policy because they may change. We might have sample assignments that turn out not to be good sample assignments and so I'd rather keep that out of the policy. Um, and she suggests somewhere that maybe we could list approved approved AI tools. And yes, we should do that as soon as possible. But my guess is that that uh we need to approve the policy before we can have approved AI tools. And so that may have to come soon thereafter rather than initially. Oh yeah, I think that's all. Yep. >> Thanks. Thanks, Miss Holton. Um, Mr. understandly there was a lot of
039feedback there. Were you able to gather >> gather that? >> Yes, I've been taking notes. Um I I I think that everything that you all have said is should be very that you all want to include should be very doable. I think that we can look at the purpose statement again. Um decide whether that could perhaps be expanded just a bit. Um, I do think that the section on manipulative or harmful interaction risks, that's maybe the only piece that I'm not clear on how you all would like me to proceed with that. Uh perhaps it's um you know a recognition um in the in the risks um being realistic about the the use of a new technology. Um you know maybe that again is part of the the purpose of why we're creating this, right?
040So that way there are guard rails and a framework in place. Um, and we're not just uh ignoring it um or allowing u integration without regulation. Um, other thoughts on that and maybe Mr. Stanley, we could touch base with Miss Rizzy um to to get a little more understanding about what she uh she was thinking there. >> Certainly. And I I'll let you know if I can come up with any language that I think might better address the concern and just the better education about those risks, I think, is what that's what the goal is. Just make sure everybody is better informed. So, it might be that as I go back and do my more thorough review tomorrow, I can help zero in on something that might be might be palatable and might address that
041feedback. Um, so yes, would be happy to follow up with Mrs. RZY directly though and perhaps after I have a chance to look at that language tomorrow, I can help initiate that follow up with her. >> Great. Thank you. Any any other feedback conversation related to the new AI policy? This is a great process that we're going through. Of course, it's a lot of work and we're so appreciative of the uh task force and every staff member or community member who has uh weighed in uh at varying degrees and times to to put this together and we want to get it right. Of course, we know that it'll be imperfect whatever we finish with, but we want to get um get it get it right. Um, and again recognizing that this is an iterative process
042that we can most definitely come back um and and add as as we as we go along. So, Mr. Stanley, thank you so much for for your work on on this one particular. Um, I know it's been a it's been a lot. U Okay, so let's go to um uh 34 uh policy 7-3 lactation support. uh the uh this this uh policy is both one for staff and one for students. Uh the main uh changes here are to make the uh the location u for lactation support uh naming that as private. Uh another change is that we are making it gender neutral uh by by uh replacing uh employee uh where mother used to be. Uh that we're uh you know creating uh a frequency and a and allowing for uh for that to happen
043at uh you know at a number of times as needed and also as a limitation uh until that child reaches the year of of one. Um, and it was important too that this is this is a place that the employee feels comfortable, that it's free from intrusion, uh, that it's clean and safe to use, and that it's a non-restroom, which luckily that was already included, the non-rest piece. But um uh Miss Holton asked about the the student policy uh which is the second one um regarding it being related to secondary students um uh which I don't uh or secondary schools um I don't see a a challenge with that and then also that it would be a separate place uh for the student and the faculty member. I think that's what uh Miss Holden were
044were those the other thoughts that you had you want to share? >> Actually that it did not need to that the contrary that I think the same spot could be provided for staff and student people. Uh but if that hasn't been an issue I must admit I didn't realize that these were policies that we were just revising rather than adopting for new. So if it hasn't been an issue, um I can um I don't I don't feel strongly about it, but I I was particularly thinking, you know, no need to have two spaces set aside in elementary schools, for instance, where you're unlikely to have students meeting it. >> Thank you, Miss Holton. Uh Mr. Stanley, is there anything you wanted to add to that conversation? Um anything about the policy? I think that it
045would be very reasonable to add that clarification uh just so that there isn't confusion. Um you could see somebody saying, well, you have two policies that each require designation of a space, so that has to be two separate spaces. So, I think it's very reasonable for us to put in the student policy that the staff space is uh meets the requirements of that policy. And I'll make sure that's worded in the most appropriate way. >> Thanks, Mr. Stanley. Uh Miss Hernandez. Thank you so much. Uh I just have a couple of questions and then um a comment. The first one is around um lines three, four and five of the first um policy. uh the division's uh superintendent shall designate a private non restroom location in each school workstation where any employee of um any
046area which any mother who is employed by the school board of the city of Richmond or Richmond public schools. Why did we mark out RPS? Uh my understanding from the legal council is that uh the school board of the city of Richmond is the official entity uh when it comes to uh naming RPS as an institution. Um so generally when we are revising policy >> uh that is speaking globally to RPS we are often saying the schoolboard of the city of Richmond. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Um, my second thing, and I'm very sensitive to gender neutrality, but in this particular instance of l lactation, this is specific to a a a mother who breastfeeds specifically, right? This is where she's allowed privacy to pump um for the sake of feeding
047her child. that thin, but just for someone who used to nurse like you're literally if you don't you're you know your breasts getting engorged and it's very very very painful. I I just don't understand why we wouldn't leave that distinction with because this is a mother who who is breastfeeding or pumping um to breastfeed her child. Um that's a good question. Um Miss Fernandez, the uh it was to make it genderneutral. Um because not all individuals who are lactating uh identify as a mother. Um you know perhaps if they u are um not uh if their pronouns are not she and her um and and and so that they would they would still they would be a a parent. um and maybe um you know perhaps that's the word that we use um instead, but
048it's to again um uh support our our particularly our our trans community uh which would then support all of our community. anyone who is is lactating and um is uh is supporting the the the growth of their of their child um could use this uh uh this policy would would help them. >> Understood. So then my recommendation would be to use the word uh parents. So, a work site where any um uh employee employee um employee who is a parent uh employee of the city of uh school board of the city of Richmond who is a parent and lactating. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Faruk >> Oh, sorry. Miss Fernandez, do you have some another question? >> That's okay. He can go. >> Okay. Mr. Farooq. >> Yeah, just piggybacking. I
049think I think you guys have covered it, but I'll just say I know several students who um are non-binary. They're not trans, but they don't they don't identify. They don't use she her pronouns. They don't use he him pronouns, but you know, if they were to get pregnant and be parenting, then, you know, they would need to breastfeed and and they would lactate. So, yeah, it's not just a trans thing, but I think you guys have figured it out. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ali. Thank you, Mr. Frer. Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Any other comments or thoughts on this one? >> I appreciate the conversation, everybody. Of course, we >> I have a question, Mr. Hedgepath. >> Oh, hi Dr. Greenbell. Yes, >> where it says a private non-restroom location, and I don't want to split
050hairs here, but by private, do we mean like a room with a lock? Um, do we mean uh like I just want to make sure that we're as clear as possible there. >> That's a good question and um yes, I would say a locked door. Um that would you of course um be be important and where shades can be drawn right where they're where they're out of sight. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. So we will update that with uh those two requirements for a private to define private would be able to lock the door and able to draw shades. >> Mr. Hedgepath, >> Miss uh Miss Fernandez and then Miss Holton. >> Thank you. Yeah, I knew it was another question I had. Okay, so for policy 8-5 where it used to say 20
0512021 and 22 um a student who is lactating in the division. >> Why did we remove division? So, does this mean that anyone can walk into one of our schools? I just want to make sure we're not opening a door for there to be any confusion about who we are granting the ability to do this with in the division. So can you help me understand that rationale? >> Yeah, I think um Miss Fernandez that the uh enrolled student the language before is what indicates uh who it applies to. Um however, if if uh I I don't see any problem with um you know enrolled in RPS who is lactating. >> I think we should definitely call that out. >> Mr. Stanley, did you have >> Sure, we can make that wording change. >> Thank you,
052>> Miss Holton. Uh I would uh have concerns about defining private to include locked uh for u especially for students to have a space where a student could be locking themselves into a room without any potential for adult supervision would worry me a little bit. And and even for uh uh staff, I'm not sure. So I I I would suggest that we just leave private undefined. Um and um if the school divisions have trouble with it, we can come back and adjust it later. But um that would be my two cents word. >> Thank you, Miss Holton. Uh Miss Fernandez, >> I'm sorry. This is my last thing, I promise. Okay. So, for line 25, um I do have concerns with limiting it to one year, although that is the norm. There are certain exceptions
053where um I know for instance to parents specifically who who pumped for 2 years and so I don't know if putting a time limit or time frame seems or feels restrictive. And just to provide context, uh that is the the threshold of until the child reaches the age of one is in Virginia law. Um but I don't believe that the I'm sorry. I do believe that the school board can make uh our policy broader than what the state has required in this situation. >> In that case, I would recommend just removing one year because there are some who do extend it longer. I don't see anything wrong with that. U if if the state is requiring one year um and we um you know have one year as our as our minimum um u or
054not or no maximum rather I think I feel like we would be okay there. Um is everyone okay with with that change as well? >> Yes. Maybe it should be changed to these accommodations shall be provided at least until the child reaches um one year of age. >> That's a good suggestion, Dr. Greenbell. Thank you. >> Yeah, I didn't want to remove it entirely and then people, you know, cut it off at six months not knowing that it was Virginia code. >> That's a good point. Very good point. Um other thoughts about this policy or these policies, these pairs of policies. Thank you all. Um, again, >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Can we actually I I'm just trying to match these things up in my head and I'm um hitting a bit of a
055wall, so it might just help me to talk through this really quickly. Um I if if we say in policy that these accommodations shall prov be be provided at least until the child reaches one year of age then in my mind that would still allow for somebody to interpret the policy to say well you've hit day 367. I'm going to say no. Um you can't use this space. I I can't foresee that actually happening. But nonetheless, the way the policy would be applied, if you just say at least up until then, then anytime after that date, I believe that you would still be able to say this no longer applies to you. So I do believe that it's either there's no age restriction or there is an age restriction. >> Okay. Yes. U Thank you
056for for talking that your your thinking through on that. Um, are we okay with just eliminating the um the the age and then citing Virginia code that um that one year is is required by Virginia Code? Uh, however, RPS uh seeks to uh support uh nursing parents u until it's not needed. Something to that effect. Miss Fernandez. I know I was the one who suggested to remove it. Um but I do understand the spirit of what um Dr. Greenbell was trying to suggest. So maybe another suggestion would be um one year or more. Just something else to consider if we wanted to leave the the verbiage in. But if not, then I'm okay with taking it out since that was what I originally asked for. Um, I' I'd personally recommend either we we take that
057sentence out completely. These accommodations shall all be provided until a child reaches one year of age. Just strip that sentence alto together or you all pick a much greater number whether that's H2, H3, H4. I'm certainly not the medical professional here to advise on human physiology. Um, but I do think that you all should should kind of choose either we're not going to address it and therefore it is just therefore available to any individual who is lactating or we're going to know after 2 years we're going to say that u that would no longer be appropriate. >> I think that it may be wise for us to go with your first suggestion of just eliminating the sentence since um I'm >> that would be my recommendation. I'm okay. >> All right. Any >> Thank you,
058Miss Fernandez, too. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. Um, any other thoughts on this these policies, >> Mr. Mr. Hedgepest? >> Yes, ma'am. Holton, >> I'm sorry to say I'm going to have to jump off now. You have my comments on the other policies. Everybody, have a great evening. >> Thank you. You too. Travels. >> Bye. >> Okay, folks. I think that um it seems like we're okay to move on. um and move this policy to the board for first review. First re um Okay. So then let's go ahead and do the final uh policy revision. Mr. Stanley. >> Yes. So uh we were asked to take a look at our budget uh development policy and make sure that we had the provisions for how the public hearing on the budget was supposed to be conducted so
059that they would mirror the way the general public comment works for the board. Um so we have generally excerpted or I'm sorry added in uh these provisions exactly as they are in the general public comment policy for um for public comment to the school board. Uh I know that u Miss Holton shared a little bit of feedback in regards to the total time. Um I think she said you know 30 minutes may be generally too short. Um 45 minutes total is too low. So maybe we propose that uh the time is extendable by the board for up to 90 minutes. Um I think was her suggestion. So I'm happy to take your feedback and your preferences in regards to the total time of the budget public hearing. Um as well as any other feedback that
060you all have. Um in addition uh we just did I did kind of change some of the headings um so that there is a full section on public hearing of the budget and then we certainly linked back to the policy regarding public participation at meetings just so that the other restrictions on public speakers i.e. uh you can't talk about campaigning for public office etc. So that uh those are linked over to as well. >> Thanks Mr. Stanley. A couple questions I have to start. One is um the the public comment that occurs with the budget that's pay general public comment as well. Yes. In our meetings uh if I recall at our our public hearing we had our general u public comment and then we had public comment on the budget. Is that Miss Richardson?
061Is that right? I see you nodding. >> Yes. It's two separate things. >> Okay. And my other question is about the um about the translation um that you we just recently added in the uh double time for those uh that need translation services. I wonder if maybe we could add that into here as well. >> Uh >> yes, I'm sorry. I think uh I don't know if I we we haven't done that policy revision yet. I think that that needs to be in my queue. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I um >> I requested it and we had a consensus, but I I think um Mr. Hedgepath I'm not sure if you connected with Matthew on it yet. >> We we did discuss it. I think that is my bad. I think the goal was actually
062to have that ready for you all today and that one slipped my radar. So, we will make sure that we have that ready for you at policy committee next month. I'm making that note right now. Um, so if it's all if it would be all right with you all, I I would rather bring both of these policies back to you at the same time next month. >> Thanks, Mr. Stanley. Miss Fernandez. >> Thank you so much. Um, so you asked the question that I was going to speak to in terms of typically we do have our public comment at the same time as the public hearing or I know I'm probably saying the verb the words wrong, but we have them during the same meeting and which is why we saw value in just trying
063to have more efficiency with the time frame. So because of that, I would be opposed to extending it to 90 minutes because that would mean that we would um be including that during a regular board meeting and I just think that would be too long. However, if we were to have I know we've had conversations in the past about having a separate budget meeting. If it's a separate budget meeting, I would be okay with the 90minute time frame, but not if it's included in a a regular uh schoolboard meeting. >> And the way this is drafted now, it would give you flexibility. I believe um this policy does not require that it take place at a normal meeting, but it also doesn't say that it can't. >> Thanks, Mr. Fernandez. Um Mr. Fruit. Thank you,
064Mr. Chair. Um, when I read this, I was under the impression that this was speaking specifically about our public budget hearing that we did. I know that we do one of those every year. Am I mistaken? Is this not talking about that? >> I was on I thought this was for public hearing, not the budget meeting. I don't think we have at budget meetings. This is the public hearing on the budget which this year was conducted at a regular schoolboard meeting. I believe >> that's right. >> Right. We normally, since I've been here, if I can just interject for one second, since I've been here, it's always been included inside of a uh regularly scheduled schoolboard meeting, I think, for ease of operation. >> Yeah. And just for context, the request to include this was
065around consistency with regular public comment. The request was made to include this for public hearing section as well because we did determine that if we did not then it would extend the length of the meeting to be quite extensive. And so there was a consensus from the board to duplicate the same policy that we created for public comment just for context. >> Oh, okay. I got it. Yes. Um I'm fine with this. I do remember now. I had forgotten that we had done that that we literally had a specific public comment period for the budget during one of our regular board meetings. Um my I'm going to make a few comments and it's about if we similar to how we did like an actual separate budget hearing like public session on the budget. Um I
066think was that at Hugenot? I don't remember what school that was at. >> River City Middle. >> River City. >> That was a town hall. >> Oh, okay. The town hall. So I guess my comments are about the town hall, which I don't know if this would apply to the town hall. It probably wouldn't. >> No, it wouldn't. >> Okay. All right. Thank then I don't have any other comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem. >> Can I just add something else? Mr. Hedgebath, >> can you hear me? >> Yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> Oh, thank you. Um, just for context um as well, but public hearing, we are required to have a certain amount of public hearings noticed and actually uh done. And so it would not equate to the same thing as a
067town hall because that's more of a ad hoc type meeting. >> Thanks Miss Hernandez for that context. Any other comments on and uh and Mr. Stanley, I apologize. I realize now that we talked about the the translation last time and that hasn't been that we have not put that in our policy yet. That was just a discussion point. Um, right. So, um, so yes, I I think if if it's okay with the rest of the committee that both of those policies could come to us at the same time, uh, once they're once they're ready, does that seem good for the the group? >> And Mr. Hespath, um, is there a consensus on the amount of time for the budget public hearing? >> It it sounds like there is. I think Mr. Farooq's concern was um
068if it was the only time uh that and not the um is that right is if if it wasn't paired with the general um public. >> Yes, I I was I misunderstood what this was talking about and I thought I was thinking of our budget town hall which I do have some ideas on how to change it but now I remember I thought it worked fine. We had a separate sort of public comment period only for the budget. So, if I recall, actually, there was more than enough time. We I I even remember, maybe I'm misremembering this, but I remember the chair like we went through all our budget speakers and there was still time left over. So, I thought it worked well and I have no other changes, Mr. Chair. >> Thanks, Mr. Farooq.
069Yeah, I I believe we had we didn't have enough um we we had less than um the total amount of time in registered speakers and opened it up to the floor. Is that right, Mr. Hernandez? >> Yes. So, if we had gone with just the pre-registered speakers as is, meaning if it were the three and five minutes, we would not have had enough time. But because we adjusted it for pre-registered speakers to only have the two minutes if it was individuals and 3 minutes as organizations, that did open it up for us to have more time for there to be public um comment as well, which worked out great. So, um yeah, >> thank you. Um, Mr. Stanley, I do think that there is consensus on on on this. Um, and and Mr. Fuk, your
070point about the the the town hall. I um and u I think that's something that we should most definitely duplicate in the future and and and improve upon as we go forward. Um, I think that was a really great opportunity to engage with our our constituents. Um, but this is a good way to again to Miss Fernandez's concern about uh, you know, being efficient with our time and when this is paired with normal public comment, we want to we want to be uh, sure that we are sharpest when we get to our conversations after comments um, occur uh, at this meeting. So, u, Mr. Stanley, I think we're good on on this one. Um, I think that exhausts our agenda for today. Um which then we would put us at just about an hour. Um
071and is there any other sharing for the good of the group before we adjourn? >> Okay, seeing as none, um uh madame clerk, I call the meeting uh adjourned at uh 7:05. Um hope everyone a nice evening. Thank you for uh for coming virtual tonight and and being agile. >> Thank you. Great job, Mr. Hedgepath. Thank you. It's great meeting.