2025-10-20 Board of Education's Policy Committee

001So, this is the meeting of the policy committee. Um, we've got several things on the agenda. They're all discussion items. There's no action taken tonight on any one of these items. We'll be talking about a district-wide uh advocacy and fundraising. We'll be talking about the field trip policy, which I'd like to do first. We'll talking talk about the liability of employees of the district. and then we will ask uh for other items for consideration. Hello, Director Englesman. So, we're called to order and we'll talk first about Sorry, I'm I'm off my um off my agenda. We're going to talk first about field trips, foreign travel, and other off-campus activities. But before we do that, we'll uh start with introductions. And would you like to start, Chair Wong? >> Okay. Um Eddie Wong, board chair, ex

002official member of the policy committee. >> And Michelle Depass, board vice chair. >> Hello, Stephanie Englesman. I am zone six representative. >> Michelle Chase Miller, zone four representative. Okay. Excellent. So, it looks like we have public comment. Do we have people signed up for public comment or are we signed? >> We do. >> Okay. Fantastic. So, for anyone um signing up, we would um allow you two minutes to speak, which is it goes by really quickly. We'd like to hear your name and if you could spell your last name for the record, and you've got two minutes. Um and I guess I can time you. Um that gives everybody um time enough to speak. Who is our first uh public comment? >> Would you like me to call one at a time or a couple

003at a time? >> How about a couple at a time? >> Okay. Um, we have Mina, Shu, Kelly, George, and Sakai Yuki >> testing. Oh, it works. Okay. >> Works very well. Um, would you like to start? >> Sure. Okay. My name is Yuki Sakai. Last name is S A K AI. And I'm from Mount Diver Middle School. Two minutes. >> Yes, please. >> Okie dokie. So, uh, thank you very much for hearing us today. And, um, I'm excited to hear about this potential change to the, uh, field trip policy. I just wanted to address some of the reasons that, uh, we have to make this change in the first place. Um, Mount Taber has been doing research residencies for decades now. And uh, I have been doing them. This will be my fourth year,

004but I have been carrying the burden of the increased burden of having to go through hoops and we've had to be before you before. Yeah, we we we all know what happened. So, I'm really excited to hear that there's potential for an alleviation of that burden because it's really taken a lot of energy from staff and students and families to have to have this kind of level of uncertainty of can our program continue to exist the way that it has. And um the way that it has existed has been kind of a legacy of international exchange. we are able to take non-Japanese-speaking students who are even not ethnically Japanese, but who have been dedicating the majority of their educational career to um the study of the language, excuse me, and the culture. Um, and we're

005able to take them well now in fifth and in eighth grade, but eighth grade is a school trip. Um, and so the reason we don't do it in the summer is because it is a school trip. We have them work very hard. Um, and uh, we connect them with schools in Japan and we have them do a research project. I have no idea how much time I have left. >> Okay, >> I have one one minute. I set the timer a little bit late. >> Oo, bonus. Um, so yeah, school trip and we connect them with host families and with schools and we have these kinds of connections uh that we foster through a lot of deliberate planning and hard work. the students really work their tails off and they come back often um with

006a new perspective. Oh, this is why I've been studying Japanese or Mandarin or Vietnamese since I have been in kindergarten. >> That's your >> That's a minute. Okay. So, that was two minutes. That was two minutes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you too, Mr. Sakai. >> Jeez, that is fast. Would you like to go next? >> Okay. Um, what it means is what England means Mina. Hello everybody. My name is Mina and my last name is spelled HSU. Last year I was here to support the man immersion program and keeping teachers at Woodstock Elementary. Today I'm here to support anybody who wants to go on an international field trip. It's it's important because it's good to have an experience of manner and culture and it's good for life skills. Plus then if you pass

007this policy problems won't happen when the when it's time to organize the trip. This spring, my friend Emmy, who attended Heret Tubman Middle School, went on her international research trip to Taiwan. Her class did a fundraiser to go to the trip. I bought a sweatshirt they designed. She had a great time and went school and went to the school with Chinese middle school students. Later on, I would like to go on to the international field trip because students work so hard to make our language skills useful. I have classmates who are non-native speakers, but they're learning Mandarin, too. All PPS students should be able to go to on these trips. And that's the end of my statement. Thank you. >> Thank you. You did really well. Thank you. [Laughter] You still have a whole minute

008left. Can I ask you a question about what you hope to learn on your international trip? >> Um to see if my homeland changed and to learn more culture and see if um like other people around the world is as um like friendly and kind and learn about them. So then we won't be scared of the unknown, the places that we never been. >> Thank you. That's a great That's great. That's what we expect to get when we travel internationally. Thank you. I'm going to start crying now. That was beautiful. [Applause] >> My name is Kelly George, last name Ge O G. I've been on the shoe board for approximately 10 years and I barely remember a year where we've not been in communication with the school board over the continuation of this unique and

009extremely thoughtover academic experience. In fact, the reason you see so many of us here today, this whole group from all the Asian language DLI programs is because of this almost annual pilgrimage to this office to defend a long-standing and highly successful academic opportunity for our students. While we have greatly enjoyed getting to know each other over the last several years, we've been and we benefit from sharing our organization's practices and challenges. We all have full-time jobs that we do on top of our various board responsibilities. Adding this almost annual pilgrimage and the planning time that goes into ensuring we can show up as a unified front is timeconuming. The complaint that came back in 2017 has not been reiterated by a single person that we're aware of in the last eight years and has not

010been raised a single time in the prior 15 plus years these research residencies existed before that time. Despite these research residencies taking place annually, I feel confident we can all agree this research residency is not a trip but a capstone educational opportunity that our students work towards for the whole of their academic career leading up to the eighth grade. While we often see as an incentive to stay in the program through the eighth grade, it ultimately boosts their confidence once they discover their mastery of the target language in country. And we see a large number of students continuing on in their language through high school. By adopting the new field policy, we as board members of Shuen, Jin Red, Oanakai, um, and the the VDLI parent program, Research Vietnam, we, uh, we can all better

011focus on what truly matters, ensuring the well-being of our students, supporting the extensive fundraising efforts that make participation possible for every child, regardless of financial circumstances, and empowering the dedicated teachers who bring these enriching experiences to life. Thank you. >> You still have 11 seconds left. Oops. >> Not anymore. >> Never mind. Thank you. Do we have additional Thank you for your testimonies. It really um it helps to hear from the community. Helps us make better decisions. >> Thank you for letting us speak. Do we have additional testimony? We do. There it is. Sorry, I lost it. Um, >> we have Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes, we do. Sorry, I just had lost the tab. >> Okay, no worries. >> Um, we have Angela Bonia and Kojo Hakam. >> Great. Welcome. >> Can I start

012now or? >> Sure. You want to introduce yourself? Spell your last name, please. >> I'm Cojo. Hakam. H A K A M. I'm the Mandarin teacher in case you couldn't tell at Harrisonen Park Middle School. Um I've been uh doing I've been leading the research residency programs. uh we started taking students to China uh prior to co this was in started in 2007 and um that was back when our school our program ran through Hosford Middle School and now we're at Harrison Park uh middle school which is uh the most diverse school in the district. I'm sure some of you know that. Um and we're also a title one school which is um I think is adds more emphasis to why um these residency programs are so important to us. Um and I want to

013reiterate what some of the last speakers uh mentioned was that every student goes regardless of their economic background. And last year out of 23 students six of them got full scholarship. um payment for this trip. >> Excellent. >> And I'm going to start doing um that's why it's it's so critical because at our school many of these kids um this is their only chance to go back to their homeland and it it's such an impactful experience for them. >> Sorry, I can't talk. >> Thank you. Oh, that's very moving. I appreciate it. Hello. Um, my name is Angela Boniga, B O N I L A and I am switching topics slightly uh to speak to the um to some concerns about the proposal from staff to limit this body's oversight of contracting in this district.

014Um, the SOS audit, the Secretary of State audit in 2019 stated that PPS needs to develop a more transparent budget, publicly report on the results of its investments in student achievement, and detail how its revenues and spending compared to peer districts, and that this district needs to better control increasing employee use of purchasing cards. They recommended that we investigate and report on potential savings areas in depth including the level of executive administration, use of substitute teachers and educational assistance due to educator absences, health benefits, etc. Since then um you know PBS has done some great things. We have a internal auditor process. Uh there has been a restriction of the use of uh purchasing cards and luckily there was an update in 2022. However, that audit showed that PPS uh quote has not shown any

015evidence that the board has discussed detailed benchmarking results or potential savings area in depth with district management. Um PBS does participate with the Council of Great City Schools benchmarking project which allows it to compare its operations and performance to other large districts. However, quote, "Despite these benchmarking efforts, PPS has provided no evidence the work has been used to identify savings areas and address spending challenges. Districts officials state benchmarking is used in internal discussions, but this process is not transparent to the public or to policymakers. I am bringing this up because I know that this information from uh staff is to align us to other districts. However, what we see in other districts is that urban peers with demographics more comparable to PPS um share a lot of that information. Um this this change would be

016a 66% increase in the amount um that contracts can come uh without oversight by this public body. And I think that's absolutely tonedeaf, especially in a year where PPS will be bargaining contracts with three labor partners, PAT, PFSP, and SEIU. Uh, please do not increase the threshold for oversight of contracting. Contracting is the first brick of privatization of our public good, public gift that is public education. Thank you. >> Here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh, thank you for providing that, uh, testimony, and we're going to go, uh, back to the field trip. Um, I would like to hear what your questions are and I can tell you what some of the things that we might consider are, um, does the board approve any field trips? Um, does the board need to define, redefine

017the approval process and who approves what, or does the superintendent define in the administrative directive? Um, what level of equity inclusion needs to be stated in the policy? and should the professional conduct policy or student handbook or something specifically referenced? Um, do we have do we have any questions from our committee members? >> So, it's okay if I just talk really briefly about >> please >> since I was the one who started writing this policy. um as you know I am the one who wrote the first version of this policy and then I think staff based on that one wrote I think an even better one which is the one I would um try to push and and support >> and can I ask are are you talking about the one that's fully revised field

018trip policy 101925 is that okay thank you >> exactly fully revised field trip policy 1019 2025 >> um one of one of the things that we are kind of striving to do is or or sorry, one of the big problems with this last policy is that it really doesn't follow best practices in terms of policy. Um the the policy in terms of like how the board sets policy, what what's defined in best practices that policy should be setting the direction and defining the goals and it really is up to um staff and for example like the administrative directive and underneath to define how to do that. Um and it a good example of that is like you go look at any hospital's policies. Hospital policies are all about ethics. There's a whole lot of legal

019stuff, but one thing you don't see in hospital policies is how to do hip replacement surgery. And the reason for that is because best practices constantly change. So when you define something in policy that's very stringent and very prescriptive, often times it goes counter to the actual goals of best practices. And what I mean by that is like, you know, just like hip replacement surgery today is way better than it was 10 years ago. I know my mom sorry I shouldn't tell divulge uh personal uh I think I violated ha anyways um uh yeah it is way better now than it was uh 10 years ago um and the same thing with this for example if we continue with this policy there's a good chance you because this one requires board approval requires all these

020steps to do these things there's a chance that the the field trips that are not uh fall under this policy. Like for example, the instate closed fields may actually end up being safer than the ones that go on that are defined by this. Uh second of that, um this this old policy that I'm going to refer to as the 2019 policy because that's when it was actually changed and and had had a quite a few things added to it. Um I forgot I lost my train of thought. Oh yeah. Um the one of those totally lost my train of thought. Yeah. So the 2019 policy I'm just going to say that um was I don't know how to say this nicely but we know that the target the the complaint that it came from was

021targeting the Asian DLI trips. And so the problem it was trying to solve for was how to stop this kind of thing from happening or or you know he probably sorry that's worst case scenario probably trying to stop it. Uh but it it it that was the target and that was his goal. And however it has the the way it's written is so arduous and so uh burdensome to a lot of administration. I mean I've talked to principles across the district who absolutely hate this policy. They say it doesn't make anything safer. It just makes things more burdenome. and actually deincentivizes a lot of field trips because of the administrative work it does. So I think that the so that's the reason I I um proposed a new policy which strips it down to again

022best practices sustaining the goals staff of course smarter at policies than I am wrote a better one and so I am promoting that one and so that's why we're we're here today hip replacement surgery >> hip replacement and so um we have about nine attachments for this item the one that um I also am in favor of is the one that's called that's labeled fully res revised field trip policy 1019 2025. And so um the other attachments are the administrative directives. There's three of them attached. There's field trips, travel and study programs and foreign travel-study programs. Um there's Chair Wong's um draft which he's willing to admit that his isn't as strong. And so I'm curious if you have um what questions you might have about the field trip. >> I am very happy to

023have this conversation. It sounds like there's a lot of conversation that has to happen, but I am asking that we put this on the next policy committee because when I sat down at about 11 o'clock today after some meetings in the morning, the attachments ended at Chair Wong draft off-campus activities. And since then, three administrative directives were added and I quickly opened those as best I can. and that after 12 o'clock, no no disrespect to anyone who's doing the work. I'm I'm saying I'm not ready because of the time constraints. The fully revised field trip policy 1019 2025 was attached sometime afternoon and I became unavailable until I walked in here a few minutes late at 12:30. That's not how board members can make proper informed decisions. I want to be able to read everything.

024I want to be able to understand everything. There's also a staff memo from August of 2024 that I think is really important for all of us to read because the staff in that were pointing to some concerns and issues well before Chair Wong's draft and this new draft that was put in this afternoon. The sta so I think that staff memo also needs to be read by all of us and I think doing anything today other than chatting. Yeah, it's not in here. I asked >> this afternoon after I saw this because I saw legals. Uh anyway, I had no idea what we were talking about at one point this afternoon, which never feels good when making decisions. And so I I I would ask that we can just either have conversation today, but that

025any I don't think we're voting on anything. I would hope not because I literally didn't know what we were talking about until >> about 12:30 today. >> Um yeah, and I was I was going to respond as well. I was going to just say my hope was that tonight, we've been talking about this for a long time. In fact, we had a first reading on a on a former draft. Um I can't remember when that was, but my hope was and that's because I've heard from the DI communities that ticket prices are going up. Um that the administrative burden also from a couple of principles, not all across the district, I'll say two principles, um that find this burdensome and I was hoping that we could get a whole board discussion on it. um move

026it and which would still allow you time to look at the all of the details the staff report um and because this is a lot to process um when you don't have time I also have a full-time job so I understand that it's very very difficult sometimes when you get things afternoon um I think people people attach as soon as they could uh today and um I get that but if if we do decide to move it forward it still gives you a um enough time by the time it's on the agenda uh to um do some thoughtful consideration. >> I absolutely appreciate that. I worry that it is bad practice for us to just move things forward when one of three board members is saying, "I have not read the materials. I am not

027prepared. I don't like the idea of having to just use additional time to read what should have been provided in advance of today to be prepared. I want to have this discussion. Um it sounds like it's a discussion that's been in the making long before I was on the board, long before half of us sitting up here were on the board, but but everyone agrees, I hope, that your board members need to have materials in advance of moving them forward. And so, while I appreciate that this can go on a work session for longer conversation or a board meeting, I have also seen very packed agendas and have felt and heard other board members trying to move things along. And so, I am reluctant to move this out of policy today. And I would just

028ask to put this a month from now. If there are tickets that need to be purchased, we can work on something to make sure that your current policy is not affecting the current students. But and I would hope in the event that other people aren't prepared and something's on the agenda that also we give some grace and say we can't just push something through when at least one of the board members hasn't read the majority of things that are attachments. Otherwise, I don't know why they're there. >> Well, yeah, please go ahead. Go ahead. Um, Chair Wong. >> Yeah, I I mean, I just want to clarify the committee. Remember, the committee doesn't approve anything. it just recommends things come out, right? And so I just want to say that number two, um even if

029we do, let's just say magically pass this policy tomorrow, right? It doesn't effectively change any of the liability or safety protocols because uh I know as a teacher who has done field trips, overnight field trips, multi-day field trips, there's a whole lot of process that goes into it and it is very thorough and is very very well vetted. I mean those practices aren't going to change just because we pass policy. The other thing I also want to give a real example. I mean last year the the tickets for the the Japanese trip specifically like I remember it was an because of the delays that the board kind of caused it was an increase. I don't help me out. I think it was like $1,000 per student. >> 500 per student. When you're talking about how

030many students 30 >> 80 that's a lot of money that parents have to raise to support all the kids especially the ones that can't afford to go. So, I mean, if we do not move this I I'm I'm pushing for to move this to the full board. Um because we can continue this discussion as a full board. I mean, there's there's still three others that have not even seen it as well. Um because if we wait for the next policy committee, that's a potentially another six week delay. And we're kind of getting in a time when our teachers want to start looking for for tickets. I mean, this is this is a this is this has real monetary consequences for delay. And so that's what I'm very concerned about. >> Yeah. It would be longer

031than 6 weeks because our next policy committee meeting is about a month. That's four weeks and then getting it on an agenda could be as early as 3 weeks and it could be as late as 5 weeks. So we're looking at significant delay. So and and we make decisions on our committee. Eddie doesn't get to vote. Dr. I mean Dr. >> Chair Wong does not get to vote, but the three of us do. So, um I'd be interested in hearing if you have any questions um that I can maybe answer. I guess I would ask um if you could tell us in your own words since I haven't had a chance to read it what the differences are between the fully revised and the out and the current without not not the other documents but

032like just your own understanding because I'm very uncomfortable with this idea that that something can be added to the agenda less than four hours before the start of a meeting and that we just are moving forward and it's not like it's an administrative directive. It is the actual policy that we're considering moving to the board. So, I would favor having a a policy committee meeting in a week so we can readress this. Then I don't want to delay anything, but in my practice as a lawyer, I'm sure in many of your businesses and many of your personal and professional experiences is unprofessional to have something that you expect people to understand and vote on with not enough time to review it. And so, if the I don't want to delay it, so let's have a

033meeting in a week so I can be prepared or tomorrow I can be available. But I'm really uncomfortable with the way that this is going forward. >> Um, so we have a document that's attached that we could go line by line and that compares the uh 20 policy, the previous policy before that and then the current one that's on the table which we're calling version three. Would that be helpful to go through that? >> Director Depass that one. I think there were actually four because the request over the weekend was to add the staff version. So that chart doesn't >> it doesn't address >> do that. I do I mean I I'm keep I'm looking around for academic staff to make sure we can >> work through the field trip mechanics in parallel to the

034policym. I I'm so I I want to usually there's someone here and I'm sorry there's not but um I do think to the Mount Taber community and the other person we should be able to continue to support that effort in real time. Um, and I am not an expert in the the the mechanics and timing of that, although risk management I work very closely with. >> And and none of us up here are I don't think either. Um, >> right. But I I do I have a I I think a fairly high degree of confidence that we can get someone from the academic team to make sure that that is moving forward and not delayed if that's helpful. >> Can I just a question? I I really like large your suggestion earlier about like what

035if we had the discussion about what is the goals of the the policy committee and then we can answer the question whether this new policy addresses those goals. Would that be helpful? >> I appreciate all of this. I'm not trying to hold anything up, but I have not read this new policy. And I read the field trip policy comparison because it was available at 11:00, but it simply says version three from board member and it doesn't that was not available until 12 something this afternoon. And so I read it line by line and I kept thinking, what is this? Is this chair Wong's version? Is this apparently it's the new version which I haven't read. And so every line of this that was available I have read, but it didn't make any sense because I

036didn't know what version three from the board member was. And so >> that would be Chair Wong's version that we have, but it doesn't include this analysis doesn't include >> right >> the 20 the 1019 2025 >> or the staff memo that asked for some additional changes that have not been incorporated into things. So there's a lot that's missing from what we understand. And so I'm happy to put this on a work session. I would ask that we appropriate the an appropriate amount of time so we can actually talk about it rather than feeling hurried to rush it along because we don't have a lot of time and we have very packed agendas and so I'm you know if we're going to push this to a work session which is fine. We need to all

037lot a fair amount of time because there's a lot of materials for all of our board members to read and understand and maybe it'll be fast. I don't know. Maybe we catch up, but I don't want to push push behind because suddenly everyone's reading a bunch of versions and has a lot of questions. I guess I'm not sure why we can't just um I mean I'm just seeing the newest version um since I got here as well, but it seems like we could still talk about it. >> Um I mean we're not voting on it until it's a vote of the full board who hasn't seen it yet. >> Correct. Um, so it seems like we can advance the conversation, discuss what is in the new policy, how it compares to the old. Um, so

038we're not at least spinning our wheels. >> Yeah. So >> we would have an opportunity for all of us as a full board to discuss. We would have time to um analyze side by side um ask ask questions if we need to. And literally the the move tonight, the action tonight is just to recommend that our other colleagues, our three other colleagues um have time to also look at this, have an opportunity to ask their questions and challenge and interrogate the policy. >> Yeah. So if >> it's like we're not doing anything except for as a committee, my hope is that we kind of move it forward. And again, it's that forward movement that I'm looking for. Um, it's it's the forward movement just not I don't want to be going backwards and I've been

039uh we've been talking about this for at at least a couple of years I believe. >> I mean it's been a long conversation. So I think >> like two two seasons ago. >> I mean we we still have plenty of time. I just want to lay some of the fears because if you recommend this out of committee it would go it has to do go under two readings. So the first meeting I mean the earliest best possible scenario would be the August or sorry October 24th meeting would be the first reading. Um I don't know if that's possible at this point because of the pack schedule. So maybe not till November 4th and then it requires a 21-day um public comment period and so the the it would be the board meeting the month later

040that would be when we actually vote. So we have six weeks before we actually have to decide on it. >> It would be a final vote if we go with that schedule on December 2nd. So we would have between now today, October 20th, November 20th. December 2nd would be the after that 21-day period. So in between the first reading and the second reading, we would have time to comment on it, massage it, interrogate it, and and pass it or not. Thank you. I understand all of that. My concerns today, and it sounds like two of us have not fully read it. My concerns today are that we're sitting in a policy committee meeting with materials that have not been read at all or or in depth and we're being asked to put something like what

041is why not just what is the purpose of us? Why didn't we just put it on the board? Why are we here? Why is this on our agenda meeting if it's just going to be pushed without us reading it? It may as well have just been put on the 24th. And both of you could have put it on there without putting it here. >> I guess I'm just I'm struggling to understand why it's here. If without reading it, we're going to move it forward. >> Sure, >> we can put forward my version. >> We we could >> um I like that. Um but I I like the other version better. Um >> we could amend it to to match the version. Again, it's about moving it forward. It's about having communities that put their trust

042in us um that have been waiting a long time for us to kind of handle this. Um we should get our materials earlier. We we should and I'm I'm not um I don't ever want to um call staff out at all ever. I haven't done it in six years. I won't do it today. Um today is unusual. We're down a key staff person. um taking a well-deserved break and and yet we still need to move work forward and this is if this was super high stakes I probably would feel um I would be concerned also this isn't that um th this isn't high stakes we we have risk management you know takes great interest in this topic um there's a student you know handbook um there's a parent handbook there's an admin handbook administrator and

043So, a lot of the things that may be of concern would be in the administrative directive. This is a policy that is is kind of the what. Um, and we have three other board members who um are great thinkers and it gives us an opportunity as as a I mean, I guess we would be doing this as a courtesy so we get it in front of the whole board or we could put Chair Wong's um version forward which I'd rather not also. >> Well, and I will say I mean I didn't see it until I got here and I have I've read it through once, but having read the other materials, I don't feel like I'm in the dark about what this is. I think that this is um a more um robust version of

044what uh Chair Wong put forward earlier, but it's it's it on first read at least. Um it doesn't look like anything new. Um well, I won't say anything new. It it's not it's not giving information that like we didn't have before or something like that. I mean, I think that we could um still have a conversation about what the new policy is as compared to the old policy and where the differences are. Um >> we we could also to Chair Wong's um comment decide what are we trying to do with the policy like what are we solving for if we're really clear on that. We could read it all together for me. Yeah. >> Um I did, you know, in reviewing the original draft, um as well as Chair Wong's draft, um and then thinking

045about the difference between a policy and an administrative directive. I mean, this feels like an in between of the original policy, which um seemed overly prescriptive um and Chair Wong's version, which was uh more minimalist. uh th this feels like a healthy middle ground and it would be helpful for me um and probably director Englesman also um having not been here for previous years worth of discussions to have a better sense of what we are solving for um and what we're seeking to accomplish with this new version even if we haven't fully read it yet like what where where are we driving at with this. Do >> you want to speak to that? >> Sure. Um, one of the issues with the So, there's multiple issues. I'm just going to list them all off with

046the old policy. Um, number one, it doesn't follow best practices for policy. Um, and and we know that because of the administrative burden. Uh, number two, having the board requiring the board to approve, I'm just quoting Liz, if you can help me out here. I think uh having the board approve field trips means that the board which is seven probably non-experts on how to do field trip safely are the ultimate liability right >> I think the opinion that's been articulated over multiple years uh from the legal team is that the board approval of individualized field trips um it it doesn't add it doesn't mitigate risk. It it recalls on indivi board members to make individual judgments about very specific attributes of in each individual trip of which it has no additional information than risk management

047or the senior director or the other approving staff has. So, it's this it's an odd dip down and elevation of of role and potentially creates additional exposure for for board members in that uh individualized review and vote with not much um we haven't seen evidence over time that those votes are different that they they there are significant deviation or maybe any deviation from what's been recommended by and vetted by staff when it comes to the board. the conversation I think I may have relayed this in August for a while there was some um and I want to speak on behalf of of prior board members not necessarily disagreement with that some did disagree but some didn't disagree but wanted the visibility of that wanted the process as a proxy for review of what's happening right

048so so staff has come back and said we could solve that a different way but at the end of the day the choice is yours and only yours whether you want to review individual field trips however defined you get to decide that our recommendation is that that that you not but this is not the most important issue in the district. >> Yeah. Like thank you. Like for example, if we want to analyze equity and field trip distribution across the district, it would be better if we had a district-wide report of all field trips instead of approving peace meal here and there because that doesn't really affect like for example if we're looking for equity. the the issue with the previous um policy is that it is not solving for the problem it's stating it's solving

049for. For example, like we always say all the time in equity um it's not about the intent, it's about the impact. And what's happening year after year is that our Asian DI are the ones who are going through the all the impact. They have to constantly come back and argue over and over to get approved. It causes their airplane tickets to skyrocket. It causes huge administrative burden. And you know, it's a burden for all, right? And it's kind of like maybe this analogy goes a little too far, but it's like um people saying like we need to purge the voter roles to create to get people who are not supposed to vote not voting. But when it actually was trying to do is get um certain people not to vote. it. And so again, it's

050not the intent the the intent and the impact are disproportionate. And so part of the reason for wanting to revise this old policy is because the people who are the best at figuring out what is the best for students are our teachers. And second to that, our principles. They're the ones that know what the impact is going to be like in school. If these kids go, how do we mitigate the impact for our students in our schools? uh our teachers are the ones that care, you know, are most directly um with our students. Our principles can oversee that. And so so that's where that problem is mo best solved. And so the intent of this old policy, again, the board is not the best. We're the furthest removed from the students. So having us trying

051to solve that problem, it just doesn't make sense. Um, and so again, that that's that's kind of the the bottom line is that when we look at best practices and we'll look at who are the best people to solve these problems, it's not being solved for in the old policy. Plus, it's also doesn't follow best practices for policies. >> Plus, we've heard from administrators that it's extremely burdensome and it impacts the Asian language programs disproportionately. >> Yeah. If I can add one more thing really quick is that if you look at actual safety numbers and stuff like that, it hasn't really changed anything. So, if you look at the data before and after, I mean, I remember having to prove field trips and stuff like that, it is very arduous. It's very thorough and vetted

052out. Um, and and with this new one, it just adds layers of administration that doesn't actually work to actually improve actual safety of our students. I see director Lefort's hand and she's not a voting member just for people but you're we'd love to hear what you have to say. >> Hi, I just have a quick question. Um so in terms of the purpose I thought that the issue was not that um the GLI programs were having trouble getting their you know whether or not their trips would happen and they had to like keep coming back and asking to go. It was more of a situation where our process is slowing down their ability to basically book their tickets and it's costing them more because of it. So, I'm just hearing two different things. So, I'm

053trying to understand which one is the case or is it both? >> It's both. It's it would be both. Um, >> and how is this different? >> We're trying to solve for the administrative burden. We're trying to um make an equitable um an an equitable process that doesn't negatively impact the uh Asian DI programs. >> How we've >> and we're also trying to remain true to our our our board um responsibilities which you know as parents we're not educators or administrators. We don't we have neither of that experience. And so this is best practices according to the people that are actually on those trips with our students. I'm still wondering which so >> the question is still still the same was the initial issue about the speed at which they were securing their airline tickets

054and the and and the cost increases and how does this how did it disproportionately impact um our Asian DI programs versus other DLI programs >> because this these programs actually take an international trip and >> are they the only one that does. >> Yes, the Asian language programs are. And so that's why I say it's, you know, this these policies are written, you know, with the best of intention. It's we're talk trying to address the impact. It it disproportionately impacts the people taking these trips that we're talking about. And I might just add just a little in response to Director Lefort's question. There are some other DI programs, but they can happen in the summer, which I I am not an expert in the the ones in Taiwan or uh elsewhere uh in Japan, but

055I understand that the timing of those programs in order to match to the richness of the program that's offered that needs to be during the school year and can't be in the summer. And that was a a couple, you know, a couple years ago in the testimony that happened in front of the committee. So there are some Spanish DLI programs that happened in June at the end of the year for instance, but it's outside the school year. So some of those other considerations weren't in play if that's helpful. >> Thank you. So I think one of the to answer your question so how this has been used in the past before is that there's a there's a line in the 2019 policy that says something like for example unless it's you know for exceptional cases

056um there's a it limits a certain number of days that trips can take and with all effort put in to try to avoid missing school days. The problem is the interpretation for like which if a trip actually purposely try to or intentionally try to avoid as many school days as possible is kind of subjective. And so there had been a lot of like back and forths with um board members and and other administrators and back with the against you know the teachers saying oh yeah you could take these other days you know but the fact of the matter is like for example year after year the Japanese program has this trouble that they need to schedule during the time when school's in session in Japan. So they can't go during spring break which you know

057they're well a that would also be unfair for our teachers to constantly sacrifice their breaks to to work and and then um you know same with in Taiwan and China they have different school schedules and you know this is an opportunity the the capstone trips these students actually go attend school in these foreign countries and so they have to work with their schedules and what's practically been happening every year is that has been consistent argument about about which if they actually are taking the best days to go and And because of that there's that threat of being not approved. Um and has caused you know immense increases in costs. The other thing is that with the old policy if one day for example uh risk manage the department of risk management comes ahead and says

058hey we actually have a better way to do this that's more streamlined and safer. They wouldn't be able to do that because this policy is very prescriptive about how what process they need to follow. And so this is another example about how like when we have an overprescriptive policy why it's not considered best practices is because it is very difficult to update and as we know like for example with with all of our out ofstate travel everyone is different. Another example of why this has caused administrative burden is like for example when like a sports team suddenly qualifies for states or nationals and they need to um get this approved and the board doesn't meet for another month. And so this creates uh really awkward situation. A lot of paperwork to kind of get these

059approved. You know, there was I think last year there was the um debate team that qualified for somewhere in the East Coast. I can't remember. Um which is awesome, but it required an emergency meeting of the board to kind of approve it, right? And so it it gets in the situation of where like why does the board having to approve all these trips act does it actually make things safer? And the answer to that is there's no evidence that does, right? >> I would argue that we don't necessarily know if that's the case, but it's would be impossible to to quantify, but I do understand what you're saying in terms of like, you know, uh the need to be able to expedite more quickly having been on the board for a little while now. um

060why why there would be in you know a desire to speed up the process. >> It's not even a matter of speeding it up. It's a matter of um it it it's not speeding it's not trying to rush something through. It's to reduce the administrative burden. It's to reduce the burden of having to wait to get approval um having to get put on our agenda when in fact I don't know we we do know that or I think we know that it doesn't make students any safer. We could quantify it. Um we we could we could look at a pre policy and a post policy if we wanted to kind of look take a backwards look which I never recommend with this. >> Didn't the White case kind of precipitate this policy the existing policy?

061I think that um more focused on the professional conduct policy which Drew definitely has application into field trips. That's the policy that talks about how you vet volunteers, background checks, how you track prior incidents and allegations and that there's certainly reference to the professional conduct policy in the field trip policy, but the attributes of the policy that came from White are really embedded in the professional conduct policy. [Music] So, what I what I'm interpreting, correct me if I'm wrong, is that what the new policy does is move decision-m about specifics to kind of the more local level to rest with administrators and educators versus having those decisions be made by us who don't have the situational awareness of all of the specifics that go to each specific trip and all of the factors therein. >>

062Yes, >> exactly. That's part of the big >> That's a great summary. And I I would observe that the staff um leading the trip, the building administrator uh preparing the trip, the senior director reviewing the trip, and the risk management department reviewing the trip um are are doing that work in a compliance safety focus. Um there is the Kristen um Wiler is up here. She's you can't see her face, but she's the risk management person who reviews the field trips and they don't get by if they don't meet if every component isn't isn't checked. So, the board the the policy draft that staff prepared um that was added uh recently still articulates who who has to approve at what level. what building administrators for day trips that aren't in the wilderness, overnight trips, the right

063like so it's still it it's still a policy level sign off in terms of authority. Um but it does that staff version does uh eliminate the board approval so for your consideration. Yeah, it looks like so single day trips um school principals can approve um field trips that take place during one school day other than wilderness multi-day um risk management and the senior director of schools must approve overnight and international. These trips require advanced initial approval from the senior director of schools before completing a detailed trip form for approval by risk management. And um then there's a link to planning resources for the timelines, requirements, procedures. Um and those are all um by the way on the risk management web page. >> I know I talked too much, but if I can add one thing

064that's one thing I really like about this policy, both my version and the better one. Um actually probably better my version because I think in a policy the less you say the more impact each sentence has. And one thing I really like about this new policy is that it continues to stress the importance of our values. And for example, like for example, we want the it strives for equity of access to make sure that there's no um to strive for no potential barriers based on race, religion, culture, gender, sexual identity, etc. immigration status. Um it it strives to um it states the importance of minimizing the impact of students who are not going on the trip. It states the importance that these all trips need to be curriculum supported or experiences that ex that extend

065their um learning. And so it again the less you say the or the less words there are the more impact you sent because when you look at policy it's the sentences that matter. It's the goals that matter right and so having these goals reiterated in a more streamlined policy I would argue actually makes them stronger because now we have actually something to hold it against. So, we should probably wrap up the topics so we can move on to our other topics. Um, oh, sure. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> But yeah, we we we should we have a couple more topics after you're done. >> Um, and I will note that a lot of this conversation is because I haven't we haven't read this in advance. Um, so I will point out Cher Wong, I

066appreciate that that sometimes less words are better, but in the field trip policies comparison from legal that was put on the materials, your version, for example, the state of priorities for educational value, student safety and well-being, appropriate behavior by all participants, and selecting suitable adult supervision from school staff or community volunteers. Current policy, yes. The version you put in, no. And so perhaps yes, sometimes less words are better, but in a world where a lot of people are going to be making decisions in the future, it is important that our policies state priorities of educational value, student safety, well-being, appropriate behavior by all participants. That's just one line of this comparison. And this comparison does not include the policy that was added at 12:30 today, which I have not read. I will also say that

067one of the things that was not included due to time is the uh August 27th, 2024 staff memo because I understand and I I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that I think there's another policy out there that's gone through first reading and never got scheduled for second reading and that that first reading had a staff memo that did include in adding 10 days uh to the current policy so that trips could go longer And then that staff memo had issues and this was a year ago. And that staff memo worried about the collateral academic impacts on traveling students as well. 10 days off campus could consume up to half of math half of a math unit. Um it talked about um uh the costs of a of hiring. I mean these

068are hiring um substitutes and we know how important it is to have the teacher in the classroom rather than a substitute for students. So, but I feel like some of the some most maybe all of these are things that would be covered in the administrative directive. >> Yeah, >> maybe I don't second. Yeah, >> the administrative directive can cover whatever we feel like the administrative director needs. >> It's the how to cover. >> It's the how the simplified the minimalist policy will be um operationalized will be implemented. >> So, that's it's spelled out in the administrative directive, not the policy. We want the policy to be somewhat um vague and and a little bit flexible. >> Um can be more specific. >> Yes, >> I think. Yeah, exactly. If I can respond really quick, the

069the thing about stated priority or sorry, a priority behavior by participant stuff. The reason that's not included in the is because it's already another policy. We already have a policy for vetting uh participants and and chaperones, etc. So why double policy something? Um number two to answer >> policy something >> those other questions the current policy is a one the is the another problem with the current policy is a one-sizefitit all problem I mean who are we as a board to tell uh the teachers or staff or students that 10 days gone is too much or too little when it is the principal's job is pr so for I would I would actually argue that having those requirements in the policy says a very loud message to our teachers and principles that we don't trust

070them right that we don't trust them to make the best decisions for our students because ultimately it's a principal that has to approve these field trips and then it goes to the area supervisor etc like that and so there's there's a lot of steps and so um when when we talk about for example let's say long time ago there you know maybe there was a case where a teacher that was not part of the DLI program went on the trip easy to solve for phone call to principal say hey we don't we don't want this to happen again and that's all for it doesn't require a whole new policy just to address this one issue um and So I think to kind of address the concern, yes, the the I think the answers that you

071gave are perfect. These are things that are defined in the ad, but I also want to add that um whenever we try to do a one-sizefitit all thing, it it always, you know, backfires for some groups and not other more than others. And and those groups tend to be in this situation a lot of our students of color. >> I see uh Director Lefort's hand up. And then we do need to move on. We need to make a decision whether we move this to the whole board or not. >> I'll make it real quick. I was just going to say I I remember when this policy was changed because it was it was it was in the news and uh but the reason that the 10day number was in there of memory service was because

072it was impacting the trip was impacting the students that weren't on the trip that were because of you know the collocating of the programs. So that I think is why that number of days is in there. >> Well, I'll just say it's a this is a policy for field trips, not a policy for kids that don't go on the field field trip. The policy is written so that the principal can figure out the staffing at the kind of the local level. >> Yeah. And they in this um staff memo that predates me and was written by Dr. Franco and Christine McCloskkey and Margaret Calvert. So in that specifically to director defs and I was trying to say in that it the staff memo talks about the kids left behind and the impact on them. I'm

073fine moving this forward. I'm I I I do not have the ability to vote today. Um I am unprepared. >> Okay. We're not voting at all. we don't >> to move it forward, right? To move it forward. Um, but I would like us to all read this former uh staff memo um because I think it does it I mean all of this is interesting information. Maybe the new policy, which I haven't read, is the best one. Maybe it is. I don't know. But they don't make decisions without information. >> But we have until December to fully evaluate >> the policy and make the decision. I mean, I haven't seen the memo yet, so I have no idea what you're talking about. >> Exactly. Um, but I I trust that between now and December 2nd, I'll

074have the opportunity to review it and integrate it into my decision making >> and also share all the tons of public testimony that showed that that claim about the 10 days impacting students was actually quite overblown. So, >> okay. It sounds like you're okay moving it forward. You're okay moving it forward. >> I am not moving >> yes or no. I would like to abstain from any decision making to whether to move it forward. >> We're just talking um in committee about moving it moving the activity basically to the full board. So the full board would consider I am very uncomfortable with being asked to make this decision without reading the materials. And I understand everyone's perspective and I know we've talked about it. We didn't take half an hour to read the materials. we

075just sort of talked about them. You don't need me to decide whether to move it forward. The two of you can move it forward. I ju I don't >> I want to I I want to honor um your um your input and also just state that we on this we don't have to be unanimous on it. We um I'm I'm really interested in moving it forward because I've been here a long time and we've been talking about this for a long time. Um, I every year see the communities that are impacted that are here today. And um, I'm I'm not trying to rush it, but I'm very interested in moving the work forward. The work of considering the impact of of this hybrid, I'll call it hybrid policy. So, it sounds like we've made a

076decision to move it forward. You don't get to vote. Um, but I I it'll be the three of us. two of us have decided to move it to the full board. And then if you would, since you're here, calendar that um at at your earliest convenience. Um and we will make sure that everybody gets all of the supporting documents. Um it'll add to our work. We we you know, this is good. Um okay, if I could ask of legal, this comparison document was actually wonderful. So if you can do add the current one to this because I think it was great. We can and I want to give Kristen full credit for preparing that summary. So, we'll add the the fourth column. >> Thank you, Kristen. >> Okay, we've got our first agenda item kind

077of off the desk. The second thing we'll talk about tonight is the purchasing and contracting rules. And it looks like we have Emily Courtnage. Thank you for being here after hours. Um, we have a redline draft. We have a staff report, um, public contracting update, a redline draft, and a copy of, um, the really excellent read Portland public schools public contracting rules. So interesting. Could you would you introduce yourself? I'm not sure if you you probably met everybody, but for the record. >> There you go. Emily Courtage, director of purchasing and contracting. >> Excellent. So, um, you've had time to read the staff report. Do you want to can could you summarize the staff report for us or I just Sure. >> Do we want to just jump into questions? >> Happy to summarize really

078quickly if you'd like. >> Uh, so these are changes that were first I first introduced the policy committee um in October uh 20 uh 23, so two years ago. uh as part of a larger package of rule updates. Um at that point we were bringing our rules in line with recent legislative changes and making some other administrative improvements and changes. These um were asked by a board member who was then the chair of the policy committee to be pulled out and considered separately because uh they implicated board's uh oversight or approval. So at that time these were pulled out with a decision that they would be re revisited at a later time. So there is nothing new here that wasn't first introduced two years ago. Uh the first change is the raising of the board

079approval threshold from 150,000 to 250,000. Uh there are several reasons that we uh for which we uh suggest doing so. The first is that the um procurement threshold, the formal procurement threshold for an RFP or an ITB uh was increased to 250,000 by this board in that 2024 rule change and that was in alignment with state um statute changing um accordingly. So having those thresholds um identical uh is easier for staff planning and so forth. So anytime what that would mean is when a competitive procurement process is required uh in um at a $250,000 level. So that's when you would need a publicly advertised request for proposals or a publicly advertised invitation to bid depending on the kind of contract. Uh the board those are also the same contracts that the board approves. So, we're

080bringing those uh thresholds into alignment. The other issue is that $150,000 stems from 2010. And so, if we just look at buying power changes since 2010, I ran the uh CPI calculator, uh that amount should be now 224,000. So, when you keep that threshold the same, essentially you're saying the board every year is looking at lower and lower dollar contracts. essentially. Um, and then finally, we are we're getting out of step with other local public agencies who have board thresholds at 250 or sometimes much higher, and I've outlined those in the memo with a special focus on local school districts. >> Thank you. I appreciated the um the inclusion of those 11 other entities. I know the city of Portland, I believe, was 250, has been 250 for some time. Metro I believe is 250.

081Um I don't know what what Multma County is but um thank you. I appreciate that. So >> Sure. >> We've got some reasons. We've got some uh what the motivation is to align with what's in the 2023 legislaturator's um updated rule 279 AB and C. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So that's the first part. Do you would you like me to go on to discuss the other parts? Yes, please. Okay. So, the next part is removing this um reporting uh rule that was put into our rules by the board in I believe 20 2016. I put it there in the memo. Um where it sort of it at first limited contracts from being amended um above 125% of original value. We very quickly saw what a problem that was particularly in the world of uh

082construction and services and especially for small dollar contracts. So you might have you know a a choreographer coming into a school and they want to add a few more sessions and you quickly reach that 125% threshold. So uh in 2019 we went back to the board and said please relieve us from this uh burden uh because people were having to initiate new contracts instead of just putting uh amendments in place. >> Um which is not best practice when this when the service is ongoing and and you know related. So >> uh at that time the decision was well let's just make it a reporting requirement in reality. Um, and I think I dis discussed this when I came before the board's work session, but our practice is to bring contracts back to the board anyway

083when they reach that 25 or or 125% threshold. That is our practice. Um, this reporting requirement then is redundant. Uh for our larger contracts though, because this only applies to contracts uh that start above $500,000. Um there aren't that many that exceed the 125% threshold. Um and so uh there's been so few in fact that we rarely come to the board with a little report that tells you after the fact. And again, that would be an after-the-act report anyway. So we haven't found this to be uh very useful. Um and if there you know if the board has uh interest in a very specific type of contract seeing um if any reach some threshold we can pull a report informally at any time. So, uh, I guess the final factor here is this. For the

084most part, we want our, uh, public contracting rules to align with the attorney general model rules and with state statute. There is nothing in state statute or attorney general model rules that has any like this. So, we would like to pull it out, get get in better alignment. And then we finally have two new very small rules delegating authority to the superintendent. The first is and we rarely see these but they do happen uh when the contract um is fully is above 150,000 so would ordinarily need to come to the board but is fully paid from fee based revenues such as student fees and fundraising. So, that could be one of these large trips where we engage an outside contractor to do the trip planning. Um, if it's above 150,000, it's come to the board

085for approval. But really, those aren't district funds. They they are in the sense that we collect the fundraising um and the student fees into student body funds before those are paid out, but they're not in the in the sense that you think of most of our contracts, >> their donations and fundraising efforts from families and community members. >> Yes. So that's that that's that one. And then finally, we have the offer of judgment rule, bringing um that rule into alignment with the board policy on liability claims. And this uh is really Liz's world. So, if you want to speak to that one at all. >> Um I think on on two fronts. One, it's just acknowledging over time that um those amounts move up with inflation. And second, it aligns it with um the approval

086of settlements that have to come to the board versus not. So an offer of judgment is a little bit of its own unique creature um but it is it is akin to a settlement and so having those at at commensurate levels we think makes makes sense. >> Thank you. I have a couple questions. Does anybody have any questions about the public contracting? Um I was curious if just if we had any data around what the um sorry the superintendent's authority do we know like is that a common for other school districts to have the the similar authority? >> So um are we talking about the 150 versus 250? >> No. on on that one. I'm I'm clear on the 150 versus 250 on I do have a question about that. Is that >> So you

087said it might be 224 in today's dollars tied is it tied to the consumer price index so it would change every year or >> it isn't. So it's been 150 ever since those rules were adopted in 2010. >> Then how do we every do we want to put something in that says we look at it every 10 years or or does that just happen organically? I won't I won't care in 10 years. Um, we, you know, we have enough reason to come back to the board with rule rewrites. I mean, we need to update the public contracting rules on average about every 3 to four years, two to four years. Yeah, it depends on what is passed by the legislature. So we can reintroduce that um more often um if if there's appetite for that

088or you know staff can reintroduce that and and the board can decide what their appetite is. >> Okay. And my first question I have to scratch that because I I misread um it was the section three that calls for new or revised rules delegating authority to the superintendent. I didn't realize like right under it that's the contracts paid from feebased revenues. My question was about the superintendent, but I don't need to have it answered today. >> Okay. >> I I don't have the question anymore. >> Okay. >> Thank you for this. Um I did read this in advance. I have some questions. Um so we were at the audit committee meeting. I know that Dr. Adams was unavailable. He sent some answers through in hopes, I believe, to have this to the board. I don't

089know what date maybe 10:28 board meeting or board work session. Anyway, the point of my question is that as I understand it through my learnings on the audit committee that there are um I think 11 outstanding recommendations out of 20 or so from the um contracts audit from the 2020 the 2020 contracts audit on studentf facing services and that five out of those 11 as I understand it are significant that need to be addressed regarding personal service contracts. Um, and I suppose I'm just I'm just flagging this because I would hope that before we as a collective board are deciding on whether to raise a number that frankly has already drawn eye from the community when contracts have been just below it and there has been some frustration from the community with big new contracts

090and the feeling I think from the community of not having a transparency in the decision- making of the contracting. Um, and so I would think that if we raise it significantly, the IR is going to grow. So I'm just pointing out that from 2020 that there are still contract audit student facing recommendations from this um audit. I would like those answered. I know that is not on you, but I'm just saying this aloud. >> Agreed. Yeah. >> Yeah. I also have heard um Oh, as to the thresholds from the other districts, I was thinking about that because it was in a memo. I think we probably get a lot more attention than some of those other districts because we're so much bigger. We have a lot of media attention. We have a lot of really

091active community members. We have a lot of really active parents, which all of which is great. Media and active parents bring transparency, which is so important in this process. However, to say we should do what they do doesn't really comport to me because they don't have the same kind of scrutiny that we have. And so I think it's important for us to be transparent to our community when we're making contracts to have it come through the board so people might be able to give public comment or we might be able to ask questions about why are we doing this or why did this happen. Um so I I do wonder I would like to see what say Los Angeles public um schools do uh with something comparable to cost of living adjustment equivalent um rather

092than looking at tiny districts. Um, I also like I I did point a note make a note to myself and I appreciate that you sort of give kind of an answer, but I wonder if you can give additional examples of contracts paid by student fees, like what's being thought about why we would add that. Um, so it's been a couple of years since we first drafted that, but my memory was that came up, um, with a student trip, um, like a overseas trip, whether that was an entire choir going overseas at the time or one of these DLI trips. But there was board questions of why are why are we looking at this one? This isn't even coming out of our funds. And so that raised the question and you know those there are not

093a lot of those that reach that 150 threshold. Um but they come up periodically. Um I I don't I don't have any I don't know if anyone else has further discussion. I think we can decide whether I don't like moving it up, but I think it's it's good to have a full board discussion on this. But for all these reasons, I'll just >> Yeah. >> reiterate those when we're in the full board meeting. >> Yeah. I I agree. I I was I think working for the city. It It's been a while since they've raised it to 250. It might even be 10 years. So, I used to work in public uh public purchasing was not a good fit. It's very very There's no creativity in it. It's it's it's the way it is. It's the

094way it's written in Oregon Revised Statutes. Um, and it's I I don't want to say foolproof, but it's it's very, you know, you've got to follow process steps and thresholds and it's again very prescriptive. Um, so I would be comfortable, yeah, moving it forward to the whole board. Um, >> sure. >> I have a quick question for legal. Um, can we as a board in the future decide to move some through like the 25 to 75 and not others because I don't necessarily have a problem with raising the >> Go ahead. Sorry. >> Sorry. I No, I interrupted you. Raising the >> the um >> the offer of judgment. >> Offer of judgment. That's the term. Yeah, >> absolutely. Okay, this board can the committee can make a recommendation of uh some but not all

095and the board can also approve. I mean usually what happens is instead of voting on each change individually, we'll call out if it's not going to be unanimous across the board just in the interest of not having you know many many votes that are all the same. But if there is a need to differentiate we can absolutely do that. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. I guess then I'll just say why I don't know if we why now. Um in a time where we are collectively as a board trying to establish transparency, trying to stop the hemorrhaging of students and families leaving our school district, trying to bring people back in. I don't know that doing this now is going to do anything other than make people feel like we're trying to slip things by

096them. And I don't know that it creates a sense of trust. I know someone's going to say that leaving it at 150 is going to make people feel like we don't trust them. I don't know that those two things are um are are are not connected. I think we can leave it at 150 for now. Let the community see that this board is trying to make decisions that are supporting the district while supporting them and opening transparency and trying to be true to the goals that we have. And in the future, if we are no longer seeing a steady decline because we clearly have unhappy families, as well as lowering birth rates and all the other issues people bring up, maybe we consider doing it then. So, I would appreciate moving the offer of judgment

097forward because I think that makes sense. Um, I don't know that we have a whole host of legal issues settling for less than 25 these days. Um, but I I just don't know that it really does anything except send a message to our community that will make them uncomfortable. um sort of a response but not quite. Um so it's kind of separate. I I do have a comment on the question. Um one of the reasons for kind of raising the level authority to do 250 is that you know that was something that was determined best practices across the country. And one of the reasons for that is because there's a lot of evidence that shows that um when when organizations do that they operate more efficiently and more effectively. And what that kind of leads

098into my my next question, right? Um because I have personally a problem between I mean I'm all for oversight but the problem is what is there's a distinct difference between effective oversight and performative oversight. And what I really don't want to do is just performative oversight because we're afraid of um 150. We are in a situation where our district is in a skeleton crew. Our central office is operating a skeleton crew. And so when we can look at ways to make things more effective and efficient, that just means that we are freeing up more time and staff to actually help support our schools, right, which is something that a lot of, you know, let's be honest, in the last 10 years, a lot of schools have reported that they don't feel like they're being supported

099by a central office. And so to address that problem, one thing we can do is help make things more efficient. And um I would that leads into my next question. My actual question is that I would also like to second what uh director Englesman said is like can we look at some other more comparable districts like for you know like Boston, Chicago, you know big more urban see what their practices are as well and then also to provide and this may not be a question for you this may be a question for audit uh may Janice may help with this as well. Chance Hansen, our internal auditor, uh looking at, for example, past practices of like when we oversee contracts, which practices have been the most effective in terms of helping to reduce cost, uh

100helping to uh make sure that our money is spent well. Um you know, versus like for example, and and I have no doubt in the in in the the powers of the board, but you know, we're not always experts on every contract that comes before us. And that makes a difference. And I think when we when we want to look at like how to actually make the money go farther, we do have to have a focus on like what is the outcome we're looking for and what has been proven effective. So, I'm I'm willing to have this conversation. Um, still open-minded about it. U, but I I I I do want to like kind of stress that whole thing about like we need to make our money stretch farther and and if this is some

101a possibility, there's some possibility in here. Yeah, let's talk about it. So, thank you. Yeah, I would I'm always in favor of getting more data um if it's you know helps us make better decisions. Um in terms of the 250 I think the reason again what are we trying to solve for? We're trying to align that um the formal I see I can't remember formal um professional services >> procurement personal services >> yeah formal procurement threshold so the threshold at which we have uh required to have a public publicly advertised um request for proposals or invitation to bid and align that with the board approval threshold >> and so those those come across the board um I don't I don't know families are making a decision to send their kindergarten here based on like the

102board. I mean, I know for myself I was leave it to the professionals. I don't think it's a decision-making factor. I think there's a lot of other things that are, but I don't I don't think this is one of them. Um, we we can always, you know, I work for government. We can always increase our transparency. That is like the role of every public servant. Um, again, because you're, you know, you've got the media that wants to shine a light and you've got, you know, administrators and, um, but yeah, I I I would be in favor of of moving it up. Um, you mentioned something earlier that I do want to touch on and that's the um the there's personal services contracts and I believe the 2019 OD audit did call for a number of

103recommendations not all of which have been implemented but that could and I believe that work should remain in the audit committee. um and I and remain and be followed up on. And those are things such as um our contracts. You know, the board has voted to um to to to approve to to look at to require an evaluation at the end of the contract year. It doesn't have to be like a yes or no. Do we go forward? It's just are best practices used, do we see any outcomes? And and it's a basic evaluation process. It's not to stop the contract. It's just to it's in a spirit of continuous improvement. Um so I think that's really good work and I appreciate you bringing it up and I I think it should remain in the

104audit committee so they can track. Um but yeah, I I'm very supportive of that. >> Yeah. Um kind of want to echo what what uh Chair Wong and Vice Chair Depass said. I think that transparency is really important in this process, but I think that there are multiple ways that we can get to transparency because I also think that efficiency is important. I think that sometimes when we get into the contract weeds, we're weighing in on things that are beyond what our purview is as or expertise is as board members. Um, I also want to be sensitive to the fact that we are going to be called on to make a lot of decisions, decisions this year that aren't going to be popular and we can't base our decision- making on optics or how the

105community is going to receive it necessarily. Uh, for me, my decision-m is all about what is in the best interest of kids first, uh, families and teachers following that. Um, and I have worried that as we kind of follow these rabbit holes um around around contracting that we're shifting our focus away from stuff that is directly student impacting into things that we don't actually have expertise in. And that is why we hire staff um because they do have that expertise. Our role as the board is to supervise and evaluate the superintendent. her job is to supervise and evaluate her staff. Um I I think that we can arrive at transparency through um perhaps adjusting uh policy or ad language to request uh reports or kind of other mechanisms that give both us and the community

106um insight into what is happening in that realm. But I don't think that we need to micromanage it. And I think that it makes a lot of sense to be aligned with what other governmental agencies and school districts are doing. Curious about the data um from larger school districts um but also sensitive to the fact that you know what what where 150k went 10 years ago is very different from where it goes now. So what are we really spending our time on? Um, and I'm really really deeply interested in the 2020 audit stuff and I I think that is the work of the audit committee to to be digging into. So I'd like us to pursue that but via the audit committee versus the policy committee at least at this point until it becomes a

107policy matter. >> Sure. >> I think thank you. I love how you said that. I think like for example and this may also to be Emily Courtnage about like for example the board can always ask for like a report of all contracts above $100,000 right and we can do that that we could do that by annually or yearly right and that wouldn't be a huge burden I'm guessing >> yeah if you want the basic information about each contract like um uh you know vendor um the description title how much money was spent and the start and end dates, who was managing it. That kind of data I can pull in a quick report out of our contract management software very very quickly. Um, and I'll just add one other thing about the administrative burden, I

108guess, of of producing the board report, because that's what my team does, is is it really in order to do that and get it timely to the board and be able to thoroughly vet those contracts before they go to the board, even though we're going to hold off on signing them till after your approval. That means we need um folks to get us those contracts about uh three three and a half weeks minimum before um the board meeting and then there's this long delay while it just sits and waits. Um so it it does require a lot of advanced um planning for staff. I think I remember that on large construction contracts that are you're vetting, you're looking at their insurance, you're checking their references, you're looking at the contractor construction contractor's board, you're doing

109kind of a due diligence process to make sure that the contract that you're spending money on is with a real firm and they have all the requirements and the paperwork in. I I recall doing that. Yeah, >> that that actually that part is done actually at the point of contract award before you've even developed the contract documents and negotiating those pieces and then it comes to my department to put on the board agenda. So, there's just a very long runway um to get these contracts um in place regardless of board approval and then board approval adds about a three to four week um process. Okay. So, um sorry I'm a little bit lost in the agenda. Um the decision in front of us again is whether to move this to the full board. Um it

110is a yes or no. >> Ask a question. >> Yes, of course. >> We're moving it, not recommending it. Right. >> We're moving it. >> Okay. >> So, I can agree to move it, but I won't be recommending it. I can Okay. >> I can disagree with it and still move it for conversation to the full board. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> In the spirit of not thinking we should be making the decision. >> Yes. We're not making a decision. >> Not recommend it. >> We're just trying to be neutral and we're trying to move it ahead to our colleagues. And so we have um seven eyes on the board. >> Exactly. Just to clarify, oftentimes in policy committee when you recommend things out of the policy, what you're saying is that this is a discussion

111that the full board should have and it's not necessarily saying that you're going to vote for it or against. I just I just want to make sure I was understanding and that it was clear that we're moving, not recommending, and I'm fine with moving it. >> Yeah, I think you understood. Right. There's a lot to learn in this job. And when you you just said, I think we're going to be getting these big decisions, I was like, yeah, yep, there's a lot of scrutiny. We're the largest district in Oregon and um and you know, the scrutiny is welld deserved. So, >> the result I believe Yes. And yes, >> so for further consideration by the full board. >> It's great that you're here so we don't have to make a phone call. >> Okay. Um

112the last thing we have to discuss is the district-wide advocacy and fundraising. And I want to speak about this a little bit. um you'd asked to get it put on the agenda and I think this is a um a learning opportunity for me that um we should publicly discuss item agenda items. >> Thank you, Emily. We should publicly um discuss things that we want to address um on the policy committee and we'll schedule them in around some of that ongoing work about modernizing the language in the policies. But at least if we talk about at the end of our meetings, it's uh kind of out in the public. Um I I I wanted to I'd like to maybe you could talk about why you want to talk about it and I' I've got some thoughts,

113too, but this is the district-wide advocacy and fundraising. Um the current policy. >> Yeah. Um I wanted to say I'm really grateful this is on the agenda for discussion. Um, and thank you chapas for adding it. Um, I wanted to say to anyone listening, anyone watching in the future, that as a board member, and I know all of us feel this way, um, that it's my intention to support board decisions, even if a vote has happened in the past that wasn't one I voted on, even if one happens in the future that I don't individually vote on, I plan to support the board decision because that is that's the that's the goal. That's best case scenario. Um, and so while I did not vote on this uh policy, I do intend to support it moving

114forward. Um, and so anyone who feels disgruntled by it, I I want you to reach out because we are listening. Um, I want to work together to see whether we can make this new policy work because I'm really excited that Jackie Wartz is joining the fund. Um, that Jackie and the fund are currently looking for school liaison from every school out there. So, not just a few schools. Jackie clearly said it. It's on the funds website. I've been sending it out to people who are interested um looking for school leaison for every school so that everyone can hear what's happening and can give reports back to their schools the way that a liaison works and that also that the fund is looking for individuals I understand it to sit on some kind of board and

115help make decisions that impact all of our students. Um, I want to say we can't be surprised if a new policy that certainly isn't sitting well with everyone doesn't work in the fledging fledgling year, but also that we can't be surprised if a new policy doesn't work if we don't try all together. And so I call collectively on all of our board members. You all have communities out there that you were in touch with to try to rally people um to try to see if we can make this work because over time if we work together hopefully we can. Right now it is clearly not working as referenced by the newspaper articles and the presentation we got a lot less came in. It is the fledgling fledgling year. So my intention is to see whether

116we can make it work. I hope we can um and to invite everyone to do more than complain or do more than complain about the complainers to see if we can work together to lift community and and make this new process work. And I'm so that's all I wanted to say. I'm glad it's on here and I wanted to say that. >> Thank you for that. Um I I just want to say yeah, I think that um we we went through numerous meetings over I believe 18 months or so. Um lots of community conversation and and frankly a lot of division in the community which was you know I'm down for that. And uh we just don't need anything else in our community that divides us. We just don't. We need to learn to work

117together even with people we disagree with. And I think um if I was just being honest, I think we could have done a better job of being less divisive. Um just we we as a board and I would say specifically the policy committee um I think could have done deeper engagement and I know that because that's what I do for work a lot. I do talk to disgruntled mostly environmentalists these days but um and it's and it's lovely work and so I think um I I would encourage people also all all eight people that are watching to um to reach out because I do want to make it work for everybody. I want to make this work for us all of our kids. Um it's why I voted for it. I I envisioned a future

118in which all of our kids had access to these amazing opportunities, especially out of school um opportunities that we see some of our um higher income schools, you know, participate in. So, I'm I'm happy that we're talking about it. I do want to do better and um yeah, I want to do better by the community that feels like they weren't heard. >> I have one more thing to say. This is all to our legislators out there. I've said this to a few families. Is it not on? It's on. >> You might need to be closer. >> Oh, be closer. I'm usually very loud. Um I I want to note that whether it's 500,000 that was raised or 3 million that was raised is a drop in the bucket of an 11 billion um budget which

119is still not at the quality the QEM and is just still a drop in the hat of what we need to fully fund our public school system. So when it comes down to it, the root of this, all of it, and you've said it, and you've said it, and you've said it, and I'm saying it, and you've said it, Miss Bonia, the root of this is that we do not properly fund our education. And so we're infighting. And when we start infighting, it means that the decision makers who are not properly funding us are winning. So I'll say that. >> Yeah, I want to echo that and um throw back to our last board meeting when we discussed outdoor school. Um, what ends up happening is that our community ends up fighting over scraps. Whether

120it is if Fabian is going to get the FTE or Woodlon is going to get the FTE or if we're going to have four days of outdoor school or five days of outdoor school or whether we're going to have local foundations or a district-wide foundation. Um, but ultimately like that is just us fighting for the scraps when the reality is that our state has an obligation to fully fund education. And we shouldn't be fighting over any of this. We should be focused on the experiences that kids are having in the classroom. We should have reasonable class sizes. We should have clean, functional, healthy, modernized schools. And none of that is too much to ask for. So, um, every time we kind of get into these things like we're we're getting distracted. So for all eight

121people watching, my encouragement is to keep the eyes on the prize, which is fully funded education for all of the students in PPS and all of the students in Oregon. >> Way to wrap it up. >> Um do we have anything for the good of the order? >> Director Depass, uh just to confirm that the indemnification policy that was on the agenda will roll to the next meeting. >> The next Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. due to time. Thank you. And we just skipped over that, didn't we? Yes. >> That's all right. It was a full agenda. >> Um, >> we are overtime. >> Oh, we're stuck this time. >> Not stuck, but I want to be respectful of my time >> and other people's time. 4:30 to 6. >> I have one quick suggestion.

122>> I think it might be interesting. that um a principal brought this up to me is looking at our um policy for enrollment in terms of like when a student's family moves out of the district and currently I think the policy says that they can stay within our school. Um one of the issues that's encountered is that sometime there's been a couple cases where students have moved so far out of the district that's actually a burden to kind of continue in our school and it's actually affecting their attendance. And so looking to add some kind of clause or something where like for example like the principal can review their attendance or something like that that is also part of the consideration. >> Um I think that would be something worthwhile looking into. >> Would that

123be for another another meeting like to put on the agenda? >> Yeah. Yeah. This is ideas. I think at the end you had ideas for future topics, right? So I think that was that's one of my >> um >> ideas. I I used to serve on the East Portland action plan, the housing committee, and because of the movement of students that are more in poverty and people that don't aren't homeowners and poor people and immigrants and refugees, um David Douglas actually has a a a preference policy that pre preferences students that currently attend their district that are moving even further east. What that does is it provides continuity for kids who are poor or immigrants or refugees. Um, and so I I I it makes me someone that moved around a lot makes me fearful

124of penalizing someone for being poor. That's it. So I would want to be really careful about what we decide. Um, so at David Douglas, if you move out of the district, guess what? you can still attend the school there and I think that's particularly for under high school but you right I mean they they do need to get to school so um I think that's a really interesting thing to study actually I'm really interested in that um any anybody else >> if this doesn't get talked about now we have to talk about it next time can we just do we otherwise move this to the board discussion would that be what happens next >> no this is the >> indemnification >> oh that's what I meant I meant Yes. >> Yeah. So, if we don't

125>> liability moving it to the >> You can choose to do that. If >> I mean could we just move it given what it says? >> I'm I'm going to do one for the team. >> Yes. I think that would be fine. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sorry about that everyone. >> Um any you know so I had this great idea this summer. I was like I'm going to work on a dyslexia policy and I was like I'm gonna contact some experts and talk to some students and everything. And then um I asked somebody here and they were like, "Well, the state has a policy and ours is way better and we already had it." So I was like coming in trying to solve something and it had

126already been solved. So um I had to scratch that off my list of things I wanted to talk about this year. So students moving out of district um we do have one school where we do have a lot of people returning from quite far um in Northeast Portland. Um I'll just say if you have something in between meetings, make a note to yourself and we'll talk about it in public. Does that sound like a plan? Okay. All right. This meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you.