001Okay, I think we're ready to start then. Um, this public meeting of the board of education's policy committee for February 23rd, 2026 is called to order. Thanks for being on time. Um, good afternoon and welcome. Um, thank you all for being here. Today's agenda includes a student presentation on a proposed policy, a review of revisions to the public contracting rules, a discussion to begin review of the community policies in our board policy manual. And I want to first begin with introductions. Maybe we'll start at this end. >> Patty Sullivan, board member. >> Yeah. Uh Eddie Wong, board chair, but just visiting this committee. >> Michelle Chase Miller, committee member. Michelle Depass, vice chair. >> Hi, Stephanie Englesman, board member. >> I'm Norah Isles and I'm a district student council representative. >> Emily Courtage, senior legal
002counsel. >> Sharon Tonrey, chief legal officer. >> Roseanne Roseanne Pal, board manager. Thank you. Um, so next we're going to start with public comment. Um, we have five people signed up and one on the wait list. There are four slots. All four are on the same topic. Do you want to self-choose? Um, all four. We've got one, two, three, four, five, or would you like me to make an exception to allow the fifth one? They're they're two-minute testimonies, so we can just add the entire list. Um, and we have two people that are virtual. Uh, Mandy Green and Kelsey. I can't read that actually. Fura. It's It's very small. It's a little blurry. Why don't we start with um Mandy Green? So, if you'll just um state your full Hi. state your full name. Um,
003spell your last name and then you've got two minutes. And there's a timer uh in front of the uh the deis there. We can Why don't we call the first three? Mandy Green who's virtual, Kelsey Feruta, and then Alicia Co. Oh, I'm sorry. Just those two, please. Sorry about this. Mandy, do you want to go ahead? >> Mandy Green. >> Thank you. >> Yes. My name is Mandy Green. Um I work in public health as a consultant and epidemiologist and my child attends Benson Polytenic High School. Um so our um speakers today are going to talk about how our policy additions would protect students and staff from wildfire smoke and um also diesel pollution. And you might wonder um why are supporters of safe indoor air for Oregon schools talking about outdoor air pollutants? Um,
004and so what I wanted to comment is just did you know that most of our exposure to outdoor air pollutants occurs indoors and did you know that outdoor air pollutants that infiltrate into our buildings then become indoor air pollutants? We spend about 90% of our time indoors. Dr. Joseph Allen, head of Harvard's Healthy Buildings program, speaking at the White House Summit on Indoor Air Quality, challenged people to think about that 90% differently. He said, "Take your age and multiply it by 0.9. That's how many years you've lived indoors, your indoor age." So, if you were 47, you would have spent 42 years of your life indoors in homes, apartments, schools, airplanes, trains, buses, etc. Thinking of it this way, it becomes obvious and intuitive that the indoor environment has an outsized impact on our health.
005The person who manages your building has a greater impact on your health than your doctor. Staff and students commonly spend a third of their day inside our school buildings. These policy additions would provide board level guidance for moving our schools towards the type of clean air we need to reduce chronic diseases like asthma, heart disease, and lung disease. These policy additions would provide board level goals for the indoor environment where our kids and teachers spend so much of their time. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um Mandy Green. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Kelsey Faruta. >> Hi. Thank you. >> Hi. Uh my name is Kelsey Faruta. She her. I have a sixth grader at Mount Taber Middle School and my younger daughter Kina is a kindergartener at Richmond Elementary. Today you're hearing testimony from
006longtime air quality and environmental advocates and public health professionals, all supporting the environmental health policy additions our group developed with board chair Eddie Wong for the policy committee. I want to speak in support of these policy additions as Kina's mom. Kina has several anaphylactic food allergies. Allergies like kenas put kids at higher risk of respiratory infections and complications from those respiratory infections. It's been great to work with two schools alongside other air quality parents and Dr. Great House. We've helped principles and teachers understand our school's poor ventilation and how to improve it by requesting second air purifiers. We're also supporting teachers with practical guidance on clean air benefits, effective settings, and other handson air quality help. I'm asking the board members here to support us in turn. These proposed policies for clean indoor air will
007make sure that PPS better supports families and school leaders in making clean air a consistent district-wide goal. I also strongly support adding our group's policy language for addressing how hot our buildings get in heat waves. Kina's life-saving emergency epinephrine must be kept between 68 and 77°. Yet, at the start of this school year, our building temperatures ranged from 84 to 91°. With one in 13 children affected by food allergies, the nurse's office stores a huge big box of critical medications for multiple students. For weeks, these medications were kept well above their safe temperature range, putting our students at unnecessary risk. Please add these much needed safe indoor air goals to our climate and sustainability policy. Thank you. >> Thank you. Y >> we now have and you can come up at the same time Alicia
008Cohen, Celeste Lewis, and Amy Ferrell. Again, you have two minutes if you'll just state your first name and spell your last name. Thank you. >> Hi, my name's Alicia Cohen. um Ali CIA cohen and I'm going to talk about um air quality and um education outcomes, learning outcomes as well as health outcomes and um I am a Benson mom and I also am the founder of Woodsmoke Free Peds. We worked with Multma County um to upgrade the woodsm smoke curtailment ordinance and we were successful in doing that. One of the things we talked about a lot was return on investment and this amazing data on the uh incredible return on investment air quality at the national, international, local level is it's like $30 for every $1 invested. So I'm going to begin with that. Real
009quick, um, let me say, um, wood smoke is the leading source of fine particulate pollution in our region. Increasing wildfires exacerbate this burden. PM2.5 is a leading cause of public health harm. In fact, even incremental rises in particulate matter map precisely with rises in emergency room admissions here in Portland. In other words, exposure to air pollution makes us sick in a very immediate and well understood way. So decreasing PM2.5 in our schools promises outside benefits in student health and therefore attendance that's for me like a big ROI like this is a cheap way to achieve a longer school day in effect if you know effectively. Um, the benefits for teachers and students can hardly be overstated. It's one of the most cost-effective ways to lengthen PBS's instruction time. But I would also like to highlight
010and argue for the cognitive benefits of clean air. We know that cognitive outcomes are quite stunningly and radically improved with lower PM2.5. Cleaning the air is an enormously cost-effective way to improve test scores and learning outcomes. Okay, so in just one study, and there's like massive data on this. Okay, I'm almost done. >> I'm sorry. Can I have you wrap wrap wrap up since we're allowing extra? >> In 2023, scientists ran analysis measuring the impact of cognitive games across more than four million players against pollution data across the US. What they found was that even small increases in exposure to PM2.5 showed lower scores in cognitive function. What we know is that by simply cleaning the air in our classrooms, we can expect students not only to be in class more frequently, but to do
011better in their studies, clean the air, and improve health and brain function. This is an enormous opportunity for PPS to improve student outcomes across the board in a most cost-effective manner. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Amy Frell. Amy Ay Frell, F- E R I E L L. My kids are at Woodlon and Oley Green. And I have two stepkids um at McDaniel and Sunnyside. I work in healthcare and public health. As a public health professional, I want to speak to the respiratory illnesses that our policy additions are designed to prevent. Every winter in PPS, we see waves of common cold, influenza, RSV, CO 19, and strep infections that follow viral illness. These are all viruses that spread efficiently and easily through the air. They spread primarily through infectious aerosols. We all breathe,
012talk, cough, and sneeze into the air. Common colds send kids home, causing miss school. And in a school community, there's no such thing as just a cold. for students with disabilities, for families with asthma, for multigenerational households. A cold virus often means asthma attacks, doctor's office visits for breathing treatment, and secondary infections that put vulnerable family members at risk. Influenza is the leading cause of pediatric hospitalization and results in hundreds of hospital admissions a year, every year in Oregon. RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. And now CO 19 has become a permanent fixture in our lives. It is. It continues to circulate in our region with wastewater monitoring in Multma County showing persistent transmission. The virus that uh PPS got all of these air purifiers to address is still here. And in room
013filtration with air purifiers reduces transmissions of all these viruses that have caused severe illness for decades. Updating the climate and sustainability policy to add this environmental health guidance would help the district prevent respiratory virus transmission in our schools. >> Thank you. I'm Celeste Lewis and um I'm here for comic relief. Uh I think I'm gonna just speak out without a microphone. I'm here as a volunteer and a board member with the Eco School Network. I'm joined by fellow EOSchool Network volunteers Kendall Kick and Carrie Buouie. And we are here to urge you to stop cooling schools with diesel powered generators. Do we cool our schools with diesel that blow their fumes into the sky? Those fumes then children havehere to hide. I think we can do so much to protect them. Isn't this how it
014should be? Someday we'll stop it from children and teachers and me. La, >> thank you for your patience and thank you for being here and serving our community. It's really a lot of work and I'm very appreciative. >> We could use more music in this room, too. So, thank you for that. >> We'll be back next week. Okay. Okay. So, next on our agenda, we have an item brought forward by students from Lincoln High School. Um, so, thank you so much for being here. I'm going to let Eddie um I mean uh Director Wong introduce you and also just to know that um directors Sullivan and Wong worked with Lincoln students to come up with this policy. So appreciate the time that you're here. We know you could be a million other places including at
015home getting ready for dinner. So thank you for coming. >> All right. Thank you. Um, if you remember a couple months ago, we had a couple wonderful students from uh, Lincoln come to testify about uh, specifically the administrative directive 3.30.038 about the distribution of information materials and how the one of the outcomes of that is that it often felt uh, a lot of students felt excluded um, and the impacts of that. As I was looking into it, one of the interesting things about this ad is that it sits under 330.035P, which doesn't really directly address the distribution or the posting of materials in schools and classrooms. And so, uh, I I asked Dr. Armstrong if it'd be okay to reach out to, um, you know, having been a teacher in the district for so long,
016I have some connections. I reached out to their teacher to be if to ask if these students would be um want to take part in helping write a new policy or an edit to the original the current policy uh because there is really none. And so uh I I said that I would help them write a policy and that I would help sponsor it and present it uh bring it up to policy committee. I invited Director Sullivan as well because this is in her district and and you're also really interested in it as well. and we worked with the this student group called Students for Peace at Lincoln Lincoln High School with a couple of their teachers. So, if you all could if you I don't know if how you can fit, but maybe if
017you would all like to come up here and present the policy that uh you've worked so diligently on. I think we have also the two teachers from Lincoln as well. Yes, you can take the Oh, yeah. Take the chair. >> Yeah. >> I'll bring this up here. >> Let's um teachers make sure we get a couple photos just to memorialize when we're all done. So, we'll let you organize yourselves. We understand you have a presentation. Um, yeah, we'd like to hear your process, your thoughts about uh moving forward and and what you're presenting tonight. >> Yes. Uh, thank you. Um, is this okay? Wonderful. Um, I'm Henna and I'm the president of Students for Peace at Lincoln. Thank you all so much for being here. I'm really excited to show you guys this policy we
018made with director Wong and director Sullivan. Uh, this has been a culmination of the last few years of my activism with students for peace. um since October 7th. We are a group I created this group called students for peace which is supposed to be a group to advocate for peace in the Middle East and we are after October 7th. I'm a Palestinian student and I saw that for some reason there was this administrative directive that was passed and all of a sudden I see Palestinian flags be taken down and after there was already not enough education on the topic. There wasn't my voice wasn't getting heard in school. I see that Palestinians had no representation. And after that, Palestinian flags were taken down because of this administrative directive that said that all political speech, if
019not related to the classroom, had to be taken down. But it wasn't all political speech. Um, based off Lincoln and other friends that I've talked to from different schools, only Palestinian flags were taken down. Just I walked by in the hallway hallway just today I saw abortion as healthcare, black lives matter, pride flags, but it's disproportionately taking down Palestinian flags. And this is just it needed to be solved. It's it can be solved on the policy level. And this is why we're in front of you here today, because we're here to make sure that all voices are represented, that we're equal, that we embody the PPS values, that everyone is treated equally, everyone has their voice heard in schools. And I think that the first step is with flags. If a student sees their own
020flag be taken down, what does that send to the message of the student to me? Does that send that everyone is equal and everyone is represented in schools? Or does it say that maybe you're not welcome here? That you shouldn't be represented in schools like everyone else? Flags are a repres representation of their people. Um, we might not like some of the things the American government does, but we hang the flag in every single classroom. Um, so we're here to present this new policy that we made with uh, director Wong and Director Sullivan to reform this administrative directive that was disproportion that has been disproportionately taking down Palestine flags and instead we are trying to make it so that we have inclusion of all voices so that students are involved in the process of taking
021down and that we can have different things put up in the hallways based on what the students um based on student voices, not based on what is deemed politically correct. >> Um you >> Yes. Yes, of course. >> Uh do I just press the is it >> we'd love to know your name, too. >> Oh, okay. Uh my name is Benjamin Switzer. S wi tz r and what with our policy we tried to figure out what was the issue with the current policy that was going on and why it was allowing Palestinian flags to be taken down or what was going on with it and we tried to focused on the aspects of it that weren't working as well and we needed to fix. So uh our own teachers like Mr. Ber over here on
022my right um walked through the school on a few different days at Lincoln High School and they noticed that whenever a poster is officially posted on the walls, it has to go through the process and it will get a stamp from Portland public schools and from Lincoln. And what Mr. Beer noticed is that the vast majority of those posters on the walls didn't actually have that stamp. which means that because of the fact that the process was so intensive to get these posters put up and yet was so discriminatorily enforced, it meant that a lot of students were going around the system and putting up posters wherever they wanted. So with that, we realized that it might be a good idea to instead of having the process for putting out posters be more extreme because
023then students would be encouraged to go around the system decided that it would be better to have a take down policy of sorts where students would see posters on the walls and then there would still be an application process for putting them up. But the majority of the ones that would be taken down would be contested by students themselves or teachers in the case that they saw that it was perhaps political speech that was extremely out there or that was discriminatory of different voices. Anyone else want to comment on your impressions, what you've learned, what you've noticed, witnessed? >> Um I'm Delis Sweeney. I think that for me going into this um mission, my main goal was to have students in especially Lincoln High School be represented in their classrooms. Education and schools are meant
024to be a safe place where students can learn. And if you're in a hostile environment that you don't feel is representing you, I think that really takes away from your education. So, being able to work on this project with my peers and hopefully better the education of my peers. Um, I think that's my main takeaway. >> Thank you. Um, we haven't there's a couple students we haven't heard from. Did you want to add anything? >> Lessons learned, what your observations have been? >> Is this on? Um, >> um, I'm Everett Patterson. P A T E R S O N. And um I just wanted to comment that um in the policy that we are proposing that um the students will be like um encouraged to uh join the conversation in like taking down the posters
025and I think that it's a beneficial policy in that um it could like help uh the students like actually like talk about why these things need to be taken down or perhaps um challenge whether or their own beliefs about things. Um and I think that um that's one of the things I really like about it. Um just that it's it can like encourage like education and like thought about these types of things. >> Thank you. >> May I say something >> please? >> Uh my name is Sneha Goyle. that is s ne h a space g o e l. Um to add on to what my classmate Everett said, one example we have of this in fact at Lincoln was when a flag of Sudan was taken down because a student thought it was a
026Palestinian flag and this was taken down without any discourse, any education being pressed uh and anything being taught to the student. Whereas our policy which strives to create some educational discourse would make it so that these instances would not happen anymore. And I believe that this is one of the reasons our policy this policy so needs to be reformed is so that students like these and future instances of this happen happening can be minimized. And so if a student were to see a Syrian flag and mis believe it was a Palestinian flag, they can be educated about it and yeah, >> especially in their geography class, understand what the flag is. Um Hannah, I just wanted, we've seen you here before. I wanted to thank you for your leadership on this. This is so amazing.
027I love that the group is called Students for Peace. Um it's so needed right now. We need more peace and my last name actually means peace. So I take I take the concept really seriously. Um I think what I'd like to do is have some discussion and if questions from the committee members. Um and I want to I'm looking over at Nora right now. Did you introduce you did introduce yourself. Okay. Nora is a new as of tonight um student representative on this council. So and she's from Grant. Um, so I'm sorry if you if you said that already, but I'm just looking over at you. Um, this would be the time to ask the students any questions about the policy and then I'll wrap it up with um some thoughts about how to move
028it forward. >> Can I do another quick little just rundown of the actual policy really quick? And um also would like like to hear from Director Sullivan as well and your observations. Uh, one of the things I I help support the students in doing, if you look at the actual policy where it says under policy and then it's labeled one 122, which is was I think it was a copy and paste mistake. Um, but one of the things that I was I helped the students uh try to ensure make making sure that this policy was applicable not just to high school but also to middle school and elementary school and and level appropriate. And so building in flexibility so that principles can fit this policy appropriately for their school. Uh so if you see it
029with only one two three I think there's total of four sentences total. it it's pretty uh trying to make it very um flexible but also the yeah as you know with the goal the policy should state what the goals are right and the goals here uh I just want to read the first sentence is that you know two parts right teach one is for teachers teachers may post materials in classrooms they're educationally appropriate conducive to learning or inclusive and what that does is that allows things like for example flags educational materials but it doesn't allow things that are hate speech that are exclusive, right? Um number two, as we looked into this, we found that there was already when we're talking about policies for students to follow, there was already a lot of policy around
030uh in in um uh section four of our policies, which is around students, there's already student anti-assment and interestingly teen dating policy in one and then uh second anti-racist and anti-opression learning community. So already with those policies there was already covered a lot of um guidelines and what can and can't be done. And then and then lastly this is what the students were also speaking upon was creating a system for principles um and some flexibility in creating their own system that's appropriate for their age level. Uh one of the things that the word that we put in here is that it should strive to promote and the key word here strive uh to promote educational discourse um inclusive effective rele perspective democratic student lend. So, you know, for example, you know, a kindergarten class, you
031know, being student led may not be the best idea, right? But a high school would, right? And so that's why this there's flexibility built into this policy. And and with that, I if I can hand it over to Director Sullivan to name some points as well. >> Well, I learned so much. I don't think I I probably had many ideas. Eddie did a great job leading it about what a policy is, what you might put in a policy that made problems that you hadn't expected. So did a lot of talk about that. Um just so many good ideas and um just working together to make it work. I mean, I was so impressed. So, I can't say I helped you that much except just to let you know that you're so appreciated in doing this
032work. And you teachers, too, by the way. Um, a lot of guidance, really good guidance. So, thank you for including me. I really liked it. As I think you know, >> we appreciate you so much as well. I'd love to open it up to the committee members to ask questions, including our student rep. >> I know Grant um our principal has a regulation where posters are not allowed to be put up or allowed to be put up based on the type of tape. Uh just so the school walls don't get damaged. Is that like would that would that still be allowed to happen under this policy? >> Yeah, it's mostly about the type of materials that are put up. It's not about the way it's put up or um we actually talked about this. We
033mentioned uh things how things are put on the wall. Um there's still going to be guidelines in each school. For example, you can't put things um in the bathroom or draw things on the walls. There's there's guidelines in each school about this. Um, it's mostly about the content of the materials that are going to be put up. >> Good question about the adhesive though because in our modernized buildings, you know. Yeah. >> Um, so I wonder um it sounds like the two of you worked with the students to draft it. Has this gone through legal? Okay. >> No. And I I love the effort, but I I think it has some I'm happy actually to the extent the board members would like it to work with the committee and kind of share some of the
034legal parameters that I wouldn't want to do it in this setting, but there are a host of parameters and guard rails that you guys have kind of maybe blown right through which are problematic from a from a legal dis perspective. And there are other ways to maybe look at it and get at what I think your interests are that maybe we'll get there. So I don't want to I don't want to be the voice of pouring cold water on what I love because I love seeing you all particularly as a lawyer. I'm like oh these are all going to be lawyers in the future. So um sorry I know Stephanie that's excuse me director Englesman that's >> also just to make this more comfortable. I did forewarn all the students and teachers that as we
035go through a policy, it goes through many many many iterations and may not come out looking anywhere close to what it was or may not even pass. So there was a fair warning I gave him from the very beginning. So feel free to critique away. >> I love that you're putting your teacher hat back on. That's so great. Um I I had Did you have any questions for the students? >> Um not questions as much as comments. Um, I really appreciate the student focused nature of this policy and um the educa the educational component that goes along with it. Um, I think anything that happens in our schools including the environments should be um in in service of students and learning and of interest to students and learning. And if something needs to come down,
036we should be having discourse about why that is and that should also be a learning experience. So, um I'm not a lawyer. I think this is really great and I'm looking forward to seeing um where where we can go with it to uh bring forward um what the students are hoping to achieve um while being compliant with the law. But good work everybody. >> Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I asked that question and then I didn't get a chance to follow up. Um, no, no, no. I I as a lawyer um and certainly a lawyer who has um litigated our constitution for over 20 years. Um I think there might be some issues in here which is why I raised that and think if anyone is doing constitutional work at your high school, you maybe are
037thinking about this too. So, um I don't want any policy that we pass um to have to deal with very real challenges to it. So, that's why I brought that up, not because I want to thwart efforts, but because I want to make sure that efforts are not running a foul of certainly in Portland something that is so important. Um I don't I I don't know how we're going to proceed given this. >> I have a recommendation. >> Okay. Maybe I'll save what I say next depending on that >> or you can finish what you'd like. I just want to um so we can move the meeting forward. I would like to recommend that the policy that's as proposed go through a legal review and um we can reconvene with the same group hopefully. Um
038and yeah, I think that we'll look at it. It's probably an iterative process where we'll look at what the goals of the uh policy are. Are we meeting the goals? What are the unintended consequences of the goal of the policy? Um but I think the legal review is a great way to go if the committee is okay with that and that would be just the committee. Yes. >> Can I just ask one question? This may be for legal as well. Um, I think I may I'm not sure, but I think there may be some state laws as well that ban certain symbols or things like that. Is that something that could be answered for next time as well? >> Um, that's not ringing a bell, but yes, we will answer it for certain next time.
039>> Okay. >> I I'm I'm mostly worried, just so preview for y'all when we talk that I'm mostly worried about the First Amendment implications. And so I would I I'm not I can't think of a statute off the top of my head, but >> we can talk offline about it. >> I will or afterward make sure. >> So the plan is to it'll go through a um legal review and I think that we would we've got representatives that can bring this back. So this might not be the last time we see each other, which is okay. Um I'd love to get a photo before you leave uh with the students and teachers. And um really appreciate you. And again, I really appreciate the opportunity to provide a space for dialogue. I think that's really important.
040I also think we need to um especially younger folks exercise those muscles around speaking to people that you might not agree with 100%. So, it's a good skill to have. >> So, to pass, may I ask for clarification? I just want to be sure on follow through. Normally, I would or the legal team would give legal advice to the board and then you all would work it from there. Is that what you'd like to do? Or would you like I guess what I'm offering given the unique nature of it is do you want us to reach out to the students and maybe hear a little bit more about their interest and incorporate back a recommendation? I I want to respect the process. >> Absolutely. I mean, if if the if staff is if you're willing
041to work with the students and perhaps with directors Sullivan and Wong, um that would be great and it might be a great learning opportunity for everybody. >> Yeah. appreciate that. And then we would like to see it back here. And I mean most of the board is here right now. So >> yeah, let's not forget that we have to ask our permission as well, right? Is that does that sound >> willing to meet again? >> Yes, of course. Awesome. >> Of course. >> Yeah. >> Great. Thank you so much. Let's get let's get a photo of the teachers and the students and um yeah, just to memorialize and we can send you a photo. >> How do we do that? Um, just line up in front of the >> deas. Oh, and they go in
042and then Oh, nice. Oh, that's cool. >> Can we go right here? >> Okay. >> Oh, here. Do you want me to say with yours? I'll take it. Oh, no. I was gonna text it to you anyway. >> Dr. Sullivan, you're lost. Do you mind switching? >> You get lost in that. I want to make sure you're you're vague. Sorry. >> Yeah, thank you. I don't know everybody there. Perfect. >> Okay, one of those is going to be good. >> Thank you. >> Have fun. Thanks. >> Nice to meet you all. >> You too. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you for the legal a lot of us. So just um while they're still talking, I just want to thank you for letting me introduce this. I think one of
043the reasons I approached the students and teachers is because students live in schools and teachers work there. It's their workplace. They are the experts for how things do and don't work. and I I think approaching them was the way how I think about problem solving this. >> Well, I want to thank you um Director Wong and also thank the students from Lincoln High School for the time and thoughtfulness you've put into this um effort. So, moving along to our next agenda item, which is public contracting rules. In 2010, Portland Public Schools developed and adopted a substantial and comprehensive revision to its public contracting rules. Those rules were updated in 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2024 to reflect the legislative changes to the state public contracting code OS 279AB and C and revisions to the attorney general's
044model public contracting rules. Uh, Senior Chief Ton Cra, would you please introduce the topic? >> Miss Courtage, So 2 a.m. So the red Yes, please. Yes. Hi. Hi. Thank you for being here. >> Sure. So, um, you may remember we originally talked about these rule revisions back in September, October, I believe. I brought them when I was, uh, still in the role of director of purchasing. Yes. >> Um, so we're seems so long. >> So, we're bringing them back again, as we said, with a couple um, uh, sub subtractions, and one of those is that 2-way uh, delegation. So, the only um changes uh we recommend at this time are uh really just a couple cleanup matters um that weren't taken care of in the last um rule update in 2024. So, the first is
045to remove some amendment reporting requirements that are holdovers from some old uh experimental rules the board put in place I think originally in 2016. Our practice in the purchasing and contracting department, and I know it's still their practice because I work with them closely, is to bring amendments um that are over 25% or 125% of the original value approved by the board back to the board for approval. So, this amendment reporting rule is sort of rendered obsolete, but it does cause a lot of confusion for staff and like how do we move forward? Um, again, the purchasing department's process has been um consistent. Um, it's also not a rule that um mirrors anything in the attorney general model rules, and we do try to um adhere closely to those rules. Um, and also, of course,
046reporting is less meaningful than seeking permission because when you're reporting a contract, you're just reporting something that's already done um and signed and in the works. So, we recommend taking um just removing reference to that old reporting rule. So, that's that one. And the second one is to bring our offer of judgment rule into alignment with the board policy on liability claims. Um so, as you well know, the board um has delegated authority and policy uh for settlements up to $75,000. And I think the last time we did our rules update, we just missed this alignment of the offer of judgment rule. It used to be in alignment with that settlement rule. And when that settlement policy was updated, the offer of judgment rule did not also get updated from 25,000 to 75,000. >> Okay.
047I was just going to ask for clarification because I thought it was 25,000 and we're now updating it to 75. >> That would be the goal. So to update it into a uh 275 which is also the policy rule on um settlement agreements. >> Okay. Yes. >> Yep. >> I also noticed um it looks like it's been corrected on the first page on the redlined version. Um the date should be 2026 and then I think moving forward it should be it's 2025 but should it not be 20 2026? It's just a typo, it looks like. >> In the header. It's in the header. >> Yes. >> Mhm. Do we have any discussion beyond changing the date but the substantive um pieces? Oops. Computer is jumping around a little bit. not able to stay on the
048page. There we go. So, just so I understand, 2A in the memo is for big G in the policy. And so, for big G is not something that Yeah. Where are you seeing the Oh, you're looking at the policy itself. >> Yeah. I'm just if we're if the staff memo is no longer recommending 2A and 2A contracts paid from FIB student fees appears to be the red line addition of four big G. Does that mean that four big G? >> Yes. >> Are you going to be struck from here? >> The the ch the recommended change is yes. And Roseanne has just posted online the corrected versions and that has the corrected red line as well. So you wouldn't see >> um that change referenced in 2A. >> So that four big G uh is
049no is not in that newly posted >> that. >> Yeah, >> right. You're right. Yes, you will see it there. >> And so then the only It's not anymore. The only red line I saw was this 25 to 75 which is just a lining. >> There is that one as well as the uh amendment reporting rule which appears in three different places. >> Oh, right. That we talked about, right? But yes. >> Yes. >> It looks like the header is still off on the corrected version. >> Yes. And I will correct. >> That's okay. That's That's not the substance. I meant to jot down the the page numbers where there were actual actual changes. Um they're quite a far quite a ways down. Let's see if we can find them. Um let's see. So on
050page 10 um under number six, that's where we changed the $25,000 amount to 75,000. That's here. Page 10. There's several. I think there's three spots within. Should we just go Should we go change by change? Does anybody have any questions about that um change which is aligning um the authorization amount from 25,000 to 75? Would you're okay with that? You're okay with that? Okay. So, we can say yes to that one. Um gosh, I'm just going to scroll through. I'm sorry this is taking so long. I didn't have the pages written down. It's like page 190 something or 160. I can't remember. Let's see. >> Page 95. >> 95. >> The first one. See if >> we can go here. Okay. Page 95, we're striking four, which to to your what what you just reported
051out is it's the reporting requirement. It's redundant uh because the um changes of amendments of up to 125% of the original contract amount already come to the board. >> Yes. >> So, are we okay striking number four on page 95? >> I'm okay with it, too. >> It's not redlined. >> Okay. Um, so sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my So, um, I have I have a question that I think I'm going to be able to articulate, but I'm not sure. um add scope of what does so I know that the reasoning behind removing the reporting is because it's not in the attorney general's model rules but is the is there does the attorney general model rules speak to how to deal with um an excess to goods and services Meaning while they may not,
052the attorney general model rules may not have a reporting requirement, it appears to me that in 2016 the amendment cap was put into place and then in 2019 because of unintended consequences that was taken away and this reporting was put in place. But does the model rules from the attorney general suggest um an amendment in the first place? So like if we're taking away this reporting requirement, shouldn't we go back to what was in 2016? Does that follow the model rules for the attorney general more? >> So sure. So if we take away this reporting requirement, we will be in alignment with the model rules. So it was purely an ad. It there was nothing deleted when it was added. Um so when we remove it, we will be back in alignment with model rules.
053And I um I would just mention though that model rules don't go into detail about board approval. They let each public agency determine how contracting authority um will be delegated. >> But sorry, I don't think I was very articulate. Um if we remove the reporting requirement, we also removed the amendment caps. Are amendment caps spoken to in the model rules by the attorney general? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So then we would be effective. We would be saying if anything between the approved scope and 125% just happens and if it's 126% then it comes to us. >> Yeah, I would say it wouldn't just happen. It still goes through the whole contracting and amendment approval process which is quite prolonged and there's a review of you know alignment with the underlying procurement process and scope
054and that sort of thing. So, it's merely um whether uh whether there's a report to the board or as is has been practice, it's really the amendment comes back for board approval if it hits that 125% anyway. So, that has been the district's practice for years now. >> If it hits 125, but if it's at 124, it doesn't then district practice. Okay. Great. We then okay with removing that from page 123. >> I want to make sure >> section four. >> Yeah. So the way that I want to make sure I understand what we're doing. >> I'm sorry. Page 96. Yes. >> So we would be sending to the full board to discuss the pol. I want to make sure I'm doing it right. Well, so our job today just as a committee is to
055appro we can strike this and report out to the full board. I think that's the process. >> So you have a you report out to the full board it gets a first reading and then a second reading >> a second reading in three weeks >> and then it would through all those steps. So at this point if you the three of you approve or two of the three of you approve it just goes to the board. >> It'll it'll go to the board. We'll have a first reading at the board meeting. It'll be open for 21 days for public comment. It's posted on the website and um if there is no comment, which is common, um it would then have a second reading at a board meeting and we would vote on it. >> Okay.
056Thank you for that clarification. Um, while I while I think it would be appropriate to send to the full board for discussion, I have reservations about frankly doing this because we are in a budget crisis. Um, I don't know that now is the time. I think transparency and oversight and sort of visuality of when a contract is higher than expected or higher than approved by a quarter, right? 100 to 125 is a is a 25% or a quarter increase. I don't know that now is the time to do that. Um, I think for it sounds like 10 years since this cap was put in and then seven years since the reporting was put in. I understand that there are unintended consequences. I understand that there's work done, but I have reservations given the cuts we
057are about to make and the scrutiny that we will be under that um, and I understand the process that it goes on behind the scenes. I'm not minimizing that, but I have reservations that it will have um well, doing it now does not seem like the right time. So, >> okay. Our practice has been when um a contract does go above, you know, it's approved um dollar amount, it it does come to the board. But so do we do we want to hold on hold off on this one piece because I think the other two are >> the the alignment the 75 makes sense. Okay. Aligning that. Um >> what's the other one? >> Um the other two >> I've just written there are two. So page 124. >> Yes. >> Page 95, page 124
058and page 183 >> are all the same thing. >> Oh yeah. So, so >> it's really only two substantive changes. One for the offer of judgment rule and then 125. So, >> if you want to move only the offer of judgment rule forward, we we can take that direction. I >> Why don't we do that? And then do you need more information or do we need to figure out uh how to report? I mean, I'm I'm looking at um just workflow and >> we have big projects going on that probably I'm going to say we we have seen a number of these contracts that do go over. It's very common to under bid um or in older buildings discover something behind a wall once it's opened up. So, it it does happen um that it
059does these these changes and amendments do come to the board. Um, so I'm wondering if there's a re reporting requirement or something that would um make it more transparent so you understand kind of, you know, what the workflow looks like. I'm I guess my fear is that we we're holding up work that needs to be approved um on contracts that need to they kind of keep need to keep moving through the system. >> Well, I don't get the sense that that's what's happening. It looks like in 2019 based on those concerns that the cap was removed and it was a reporting afterwards. Is that right? >> Right. So the cap is something different. It actually put a stop to contracts and you couldn't amend them at all. So you'd have to start over which was
060um highly problematic and I spoken to that. So, this is a reporting requirement, but the what it does is cause some staff confusion because in actuality, we're not just reporting. We're coming to the board and asking for approval. >> But we have this rule that says instead that actually we don't need to do that. Instead, we should just be simply reporting. And so, it among internal staff, it causes confusion as is what is the proper process? and and the purchasing department has consistently messaged out that if you're going to hit that 125% threshold, we need to go back to the board for approval, but then staff will point to this reporting rule. And it which sounds like that isn't actually required. So, it's a bit of an anomaly. Does this does the I mean in
061practice it things that contracts that exceed 125% come to the board correctly. Corre currently, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just it's this is so out of my you know understanding. I I know what our practice is. Um, I'm just wondering what do what do we do to move this forward? >> So, a suggestion would be >> it doesn't have to be in its current iteration, but it does need to be legal and it does need to be >> right. >> You could go ahead and move it to the board as is with director Englesman's comments. That's one option if I'm counting the perspectives. The other is for us to take it back and get a little bit more information on how many there actually are between. Really, we're only talking about contracts that exceed
062between 101 and 124. Get a sense of the scope of the matter and give you a sense. I'm I'm moving out of legal here to practical. Give you a sense of the workload associated with it and think through what the other thing I'm hearing as well is the lack of clarity for staff. So, we I've I think we've heard the discussion and you could direct us to consider the discussion and either bring it back again with data or an amendment to it or a revision to it. >> If we decided to move it forward to the full board tonight, could you still do that and have the additional information for the full board? >> Sure. Whatever you all ask, I'm just trying to give you >> that was my question as well. If we So,
063we can do both. if we can both move it to the full board for discussion and uh collect additional data >> about the 10 basically the 101 to 124 what does that look like what would be the impact that's what I'm hearing yes from a governance perspective the concern to be and so we can we can talk about that and >> work with purchasing and contracting that owns it >> and bring you kind of a little bit fuller picture of that impact does that >> does that work for you >> I mean It it certainly um it would be information. I guess what I'm hearing is that there's confusion in the staff, which frankly feels like a management issue to just say if the contract is between 100.01% 01% and 124.99. You just get to
064go through the process and then report and let us know that it went above instead of h and then as soon as it hits 125 then it comes back to the board for approval. >> I think there may be some confusion because the reporting rule only applied to contracts that exceeded the 125%. Oh, >> so we now have a reporting rule that requires a reporting it, but instead staff are doing the extra thing, which is going to the board and actually seeking approval for those contracts. And so I and instead of just a report after the fact. And so what I wanted to do was pull out that language that requires a report after the fact because they're instead proactively seeking your approval. But that that rule only applied to those that are above 125%.
065>> So that's helpful. And I think I contributed to that by responding to Director Englesman's question. So I apologize for that. Really only what we're talking about is do you want to get reported on the same thing you've already approved. Is that a fair way to say it, Emily? that is and and frankly practice has not been to report because going to the board with a substantive ask for permission is I I think staff has viewed that as as a report in a sense and fulfilling that reporting requirement. >> I appreciate that clarity. >> This is why I'm not a public contractor. >> I think I'm even more confused now. >> Well, let me let me see if I can just clarify current. I'm sorry, director to pass. >> Please go ahead. Oh, I currently
066the policy requires any contract over 125% that's going to go over 125% come to the board for approval. That is happening. >> There's also this weird reporting require I shouldn't say weird hangover reporting requirement from prior rules amendments that we are reporting to you on the same thing that you've just approved. And what we're recommending is taking that part out because the contracts if it's at 125 or more, it's coming to you >> for approval. And I think that the the question is why are we then making a report? Why is the staff making a report to you about the very thing that you've just approved? >> Does that make sense? Let me let me just triple check with our expert. >> Accurate. Okay. Yes. Simplified. >> Okay. So then I have a qu a
067new question. What happens to contracts that are between 100 and 124? >> They go through the standard approval process. When there's a proposed amendment and all all the steps that I previously talked about, those do not come to the board um until cumulative amendments, if this happens, hit that 125% mark and then we put a stop and come to the board for approval. I can just say so I used to work in purchasing and I it I it was horrible because it's so prescriptive and it's very in Oregon for public entities it's there's no um gray areas. Well maybe there are but it's pretty cut and dry and it takes a long time. And I guess my concern is for staff time kind of um doubling up on work or or doing not just because
068that's not effective, but because next year we will have fewer staff to do bring this to the board and write a report and bring it to the board. And so I'm trying to think of um not doubling up on efforts. I'm trying to think about ways we can be more lean in our in how we carry out our work. It's going to be really important. I've I've noticed just since I've been on the board, you know, six years ago, we had three people to help with every thing that we had a request on and we have quite a few less and we'll have quite a few less next year. So, if there's ways that we can streamline the work so that the fewer staff we have to do the same amount of work um aren't
069doing things twice, that would be a goal of mine. And so, I'm I'm in I'm in favor of moving this to the full board and maybe having a discussion there. >> I agree. Reporting on something that um was just presented to us seems like a waste of time and inefficient. We will be more crisp with the board about getting to that very thing. We're reporting to you on the very thing that you just approved. >> That doesn't >> Thank you. >> That's the >> I I do wonder >> and I don't know if now is the time to do it or could I ask you I don't Maybe we can work on an amendment because I do wonder if a reporting should happen between the 100 and 124. My suggestion, again, it's just a suggestion,
070is why don't you um ask, let us go and talk to purchasing and contracting and give you a fuller rather than making an amendment now, let's talk about what that really means and bring that back to you with fuller information. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> So, it sounds like we're going to recommend this to the full board with the additional information that answers the questions that you've got. So, I think we're ready to move. May I may I just clarify? I actually think you're just recommending this >> as is to the full board and what I hear is a separate thing that will come back to the committee on the other for 101 to 124 first before it goes to the board. >> Yes. >> Oh, no. Was that your >> No, I was trying
071to be more efficient and I thought that that information about what happens between 101 and 124 could come to us in advance of that board meeting that we're going to and based on the information that's brought perhaps an amendment could be made in advance of the board meeting. Is that possible? >> Um I think so. >> Yes. I'm again I'm not a public contracting lawyer so I'm looking at my our expert but yes I think we can do that >> yeah it it would be essentially a new rule rather than an amendment of this language um it would be new language altogether or a new requirement I should say >> right it would be an amendment to this public contracting rule yeah okay >> it sounds like we would approve this based on well the
072the board might approve this and then we'd have another rule that said up to 124.99%. What do we do with that? And that perhaps is just a report. >> I don't know if we need another rule for I don't know how it's handled now. I mean the board just doesn't the board doesn't see every single thing that comes across out of the district. So >> I think that's where you need a staff report. That's what I'm suggesting is let's let's get a staff report to you so you have the information >> about everything from 101 to 124.9. >> Okay. >> And then >> yeah, >> you can deal with it. >> Yeah. >> And so just so I'm clear, I what what do I call this? Is this a this is not a >> public
073contracting rules? >> Rules. >> Yes. >> But they're PPS public contracting rules separate from policy. Okay. So I guess what I am hoping for is the answers to this of 101 to 124 to the board in time that I think I would make an amendment. So it's not a day of amendment to this policy rule to this rule. >> You can just call them the the rules are really your policy anyway. So it's all the same thing. It's it's board directed. when it comes to the board, we would then have an amendment to talk about and then if the amendment is approved, then it would all be voted on. Right. Okay. That's I and granted obviously I don't know what information you're going to bring, but um yeah, that's I think my intention. >> Okay.
074Are you comfortable with what you've heard? >> All right, I am. >> I appreciate that. Um, sorry this is a lot to scroll through. Our next um item is our community policies. So, as I've shared previously, under board policy 1.70.020P, we are supposed to review all board policies on a 4-year cycle. Um, if you review the existing policies, you'll see many of them have not been reviewed in more than four years. I've asked staff to bring forward sections of the policy manual for the committee's review, which is a significant undertaking and will likely take the remainder of the year to complete. To make the work more manageable, staff has prepared initial redline drafts that focus on nonsubstantive updates, including formatting changes, correction of typographical errors, consistent capitalization, updated department names, and more inclusive language such
075as replacing he or her with they or them. In addition, staff have reviewed comparison comparable policies at Beaverton, which is modeled on OSBA policies and Salem Kaiser school districts and have identified differences based on those comparisons. Our original plan a couple of uh meetings ago was to start with section one school board since it contains relatively few policies. It didn't appear to require public engagement. However, following discussion at our board retreat, it's clear that there's interest in broader governance development work, which should be reflected in those policies in section one. So, I think it's better to have that work progress with the full board. We're going to move that section one to the full board. With that in mind, we'll instead begin with section 7, community with one exception, because we've already spent considerable time
076in recent years reviewing and reg revising policy 7.10.120p, district-wide advocacy and fundraising. This policy is not scheduled for re review except for those changes I mentioned that are non-substantive, have to do with capitalization, modernizing language, and any grammar grammatical errors. I think it makes sense to go through each policy and first review the suggested edits and see if there are any other issues or questions that come up for you that we can talk through at our meeting. At our policy meeting, once we've agreed on revisions to a policy, we can refer it to the full board for a first reading. I'm going to recommend that we um we read through the section 7 minus 7.10.020 020 regarding district-wide advocacy and fundraising and come back ready to either approve or discuss further. And I I'm going
077to recommend, you know, approving if it's a capitalization. Let's just approve it and then then we can move it. I guess my concern is um you know we we're halfway through the year and I want to kind of I want to get some of this work done um only because it's these policies are older than four years and our policy says we need to review these every four years. So I'd like to actually you know complete some of that work this year you know to the extent that we can. Um is there anything that you'd like to add um senior chief tonre? No, ma'am. >> I was recommending that we um review the section seven except for the district-wide fundraising and be prepared to discuss. And I would I'm just yeah the next meeting. And
078so I would say I would uh you know kind of be surgical about it. >> Um again because if it's just modernizing language, capitalizing board and chair, that type of thing, then um we should not it it shouldn't be up for a lot of discussion if it's just grammar. Um, and that's all I have for today. Um, I guess I should ask about any new topics. >> Oh, yes, please. Um, really quickly, thank you so much for the sha will memo and I think um I think at the meeting where I raised concerns about shallow will, you had suggested that we could just slip in language and it sounds like from this very detailed memo that that is the best case. Right. So then it's all clear. >> Right. I think I think we could
079argue about whether Shaolin will is different but let's just make it clear. And so I I don't think we have given you that language, but since you have that I'm sorry, we haven't given it to you in a policy format >> in the end, if you all are willing to willing to do it. Um we could add that section at the very front just to make it a note and not put it in every single policy. That would be hard to read. >> Perfect. And then the second question, um, at the last policy committee meeting, we were looking at one and then we had a sort of date of getting questions of February 6th, I think it was, and now we're not looking at one. That's just going to go to the full board. I
080had sent some questions. Those will just become part of that full board process. >> Um, well, I director Dass, can I take a So, >> yes. And I haven't I haven't seen I haven't seen them. Okay, >> there were legal questions about that. So >> my p my take of the work that you all are doing as a full board is that that is going to kind of supersede anything that we even recommended and then once you all as a full board talk about that governance work and then tell staff what I mean that's truly you telling us what that ought to be. We capture it and then we would integrate any other changes at that point. So, as I think about your questions, I I don't recall them off the top of my head,
081but I think they're a bit moot until the full board decides the bigger issues that you all decide. Does that make sense that it's Yes, >> it's over there and you'll come back to us with what you think. >> It's work that from our last board retreat, it was really clear that we needed to do work as a group, as a team to um address some of those governance questions. And so, we're going to be doing that. We are we have consultants. We've got people lined up. We just need to get everybody on board schedule-wise. Um and that work for section one will happen at the full board level during those, you know, retreats or extra meetings that we we love those extra meetings. Um and so we've switched to section seven >> and same
082thing. if you could submit um questions if they're legal questions, I would love to be copied on any edits or changes. Um and again, if it's just a capitalization or grammatical, appreciate us kind of moving that forward to the full board uh so we can get through section 7 at least this year. >> May I uh ask slash offer a clarification? I think the work that you all are doing at the retreats would inform policies, but I don't think you I I wasn't thinking that was the use. Exactly. Okay. So then we would listen I guess what I what I'm thinking and I'm checking my understanding of what you need from staff. We would listen to what you all decide in those and capture them rather than have you going in those retreats through the
083policies. Is that >> that's exactly right. Yes. So the the work of kind of envisioning how we work together and how we work as a as a as a um board. Yeah. We'll be discussing them will bring Yes. And and you might even be in attendance at those. So you'll hear it firsthand. Um are there any new topics? So the new topics that we've discussed for this meeting are the students for peace um and then the climate policy which um I have started kind of doing some investigative work on the climate policy climate response policy. We do not have anything about indoor air quality in that policy nor do we have an environmental justice uh lens on that policy. So those those are students for peace which is out of this committee's hands for now
084and then the climate response policy which um you've heard testimony tonight about the indoor air quality and adding adding some language uh the moms for clean air. >> Can I ask I think it was TLE that I called into where Dr. Was that TLE or Dr. White House gave public comment or was that >> um it may have been facilities >> facilities. It was facilities >> I think it okay I could I called in and I listened to it and someone and I hoping it was you and you could answer me today but maybe it's director Lefort somebody was putting it on their agenda for future information and so I guess I'm trying to to to Dr. Armstrong's comment um a few weeks ago of like streamlining and making sure things aren't going a bunch
085of different places. Um if we are doing something here and director Lefort already also said I'm going to do something there. Should we just put it all there? I I don't I want to make sure it's not staff coming to two different >> Yeah, it's a really good question. It could I mean it could live in teaching and learning. It could live in facilities. It could live in policy. The ask from the community is that the policy be changed. >> Yeah. And I but I also wonder because what I heard >> and and I think we have people that are, you know, >> maybe it does belong in a couple places. >> They're coming in um because it's not real clear how to advocate. Yeah. So they're they're coming, you know, from very many angles
086as well. So I think what we need to decide if it's is it a policy issue, is it a facilities issue or both. Um, I've just asked actually starting today about uh the co the costs for doing 6 to 12 air changes per hour just from a facilities perspective and if we can build HVAC systems that are able to be added to in the future to to meet that standard. Um, and actually if that standard is, you know, actually what we're trying to hit, can we do that with air filtration? So, I'm asking those questions. What I learned today is that we can put anything in a policy and um unless we have a professional managing the maintenance piece, it's it's hard to maintain that. I can say that from my own experience in high-rise
087buildings that it it it works if you have a full-time, you know, engineer on staff to to handle those air controls. >> A a clarification, I'm just looking at your policy on policies and to the extent it's helpful. It contemplates that a policy change goes either to the full board in the process or the board committee responsible for policies. So to the extent that a policy originates from another committee doesn't mean it can't. I'm just trying to help you follow call out the policy it probably if you follow this should probably stop here at some point. Well, and it actually feels like I mean we've had the conversation um in facilities and we've heard I I can't remember if we've had it in teaching, learning, and enrollment, but we certainly heard testimony today about how
088it impacts learning. Um, so it seems like policy would be the right place to advance that >> and then >> now >> and then bring that to the full board. >> Is there actually a written amendment that or a written policy that's been prepared or is that something that >> you all want to discuss? proposed um a pretty extensive policy and there is a there is a report that we did not commission but there there's a report out there that um tests some of our classrooms throughout the district. I I was really asking from like follow through. What do you need from us if anything if it's going to come to the policy committee then? And if nothing that's great. I just am not clear on what action might be needed from the staff for
089this. >> Yeah, I think there's nothing right now. I think that we need to do a little bit more research. We just passed that policy about two years ago after extensive uh public engagement. So yeah, and I think I think I wish I could I wish I could propose a way to streamline it, but I think it also stays with facilities because some of the stuff that's both in that report and that was talked about at that facilities meeting is that there may be and I don't know but that there may be um uh what are they called? uh filter filtration systems available to us already that would be no cost to just implement into the like bring into the schools and literally park them in classrooms. And I think that's a different um right
090a different approach than a policy change. This is just sort of like finding materials we already have and putting them to good use that would be zero cost. Yes. >> So I think both places. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. If there's no new topics, and it's a good thing that there isn't, then I would say uh we're adjourned and our next meeting is scheduled for March 30th.