001Okay, I'm gonna call the meeting to order. Policy committee meeting. We don't. It's not a long meeting. Um, first, Cara, do we have any public comment? No. Okay, I'm going to just do introductions. Starting with Carara. Cara Bradshaw, executive assistant. Mary Kane, senior legal counsel. Liz Large, contracted single leg legal adviser. Michelle Depass, board member. Julia Bram Edwards, board member, committee member. Patty Sullivan, board member, committee member. Eddie Wong, board member. Okay. Uh, so there's no public comment. We have two items on the agenda. one um they both have been on the agenda for quite some w some time and I'm sorry that the meeting two weeks ago uh got cancelled um an accident and I couldn't uh make it to the meeting. Uh so I'm going to start with the order there on the
002agenda. We have a um cleaned up version of the lobbying and registration uh policy that's based on feedback from the last several committee meetings. And so I guess the it's short and I think it's worth noting that this is a registration not a reporting um policy. So it's kind of the most basic level of um transparency but not of very rigorous um because it doesn't have a reporting uh mechanism in it. Does anybody want to uh to go through it section by section or do you feel like we've already done that or is there any questions or discussion? Um, I feel like we've already done that and I don't need to go over it again. Take your time. It's fine. Yeah. No, and I I have no comments about it either. Um, I was just
003I was looking for the red line, but I think this is the final version uh that we've got in board book. It reflects all the previous meetings comments. Anything? Uh, Director Wong? Um, no. I I missed last meeting. This was discussed. Was this uh No, no questions right now. Hey. Yeah. Hi. Yeah. Do you want to join us on the dis? I'd love to. Yeah, come on up. And you can start by um this will be like a warm-up for your board meeting. You can uh grab a seat and uh here's here's the orientation I got. Your seat's here and here's how you turn on the microphone. Yep. And it's fun. So, why don't you go We're we just were starting the first agenda item. We already did an introduction. Why don't you go ahead
004introduce yourself? So, for the record, uh hello. Uh, my name is Ian. I'm the student representative elect. Um, and yeah, and I'm on policy committee. Yeah, welcome to the welcome to the policy committee. We're glad we're glad you're here. Yeah. Um, we're just going through the um both items we've had on the agenda for a number of meetings. I don't know. Um, Director Depass, if you've had a chance to Yeah, I you know, I think I said at our last meeting when we discussed this that I like the um I like this. I think it um increases transparency and it kind of covers the area where our uh our RFP process you know it doesn't doesn't cover um the only thing that I had question I had is this for construction and for personal services
005con contracts for both so is it solely based on so the construction uh processes would all be going through like an RF an RFP. Okay, I'm looking for that. I'm looking for that. I'm sorry. I'm I'm looking beyond you to the experts, but I'm pretty sure that those contracts go through our normal procurement and RFB process and and those are under Oregon Revised Statute. I don't remember the number, but those are pretty strict contracting rules. Okay. Right. So, the the PPS purchasing and contracting rules are based on those statutes. They do a little bit more but they certainly meet that baseline. To the extent those are required for then an RFP process is required. It would not they would be exempted from this process. Okay. Because that that's that was my only question. There may
006be low dollar value technically construction that a $10,000 something that doesn't require competitive bidding. I don't know it to that level of detail. I want to be candid. But I think in the main the big construction contracts are worth a lot of money and they go through the pretty rigorous process, right? By statute and PPS policy. even even most of the smaller ones. It's mostly the professional service um contracts that aren't RFPd or like I say grants or expenditures or policies and so it could be like an I guess not a construction but architectural engineering um if if they didn't go through one of our procurement processes but most of them do. Okay. That's my understanding as a general proposition. Yes. Anyone else? Well, just that I had questioned if it was necessary for a
007while, but in talking to different people who I trust, they think it is. So, um, I will go. I think it's fine. And this also kind of um mirrors um what other public entities um have in terms of you know identifying who you are and what your the nature of your business is especially if it uh relates to contracts. Yeah. The one thing this as I mentioned at the beginning this doesn't have is a reporting which is what would be pretty standard. Um and there's there's a cost to that. Um for example, ballparking and other like public agency it was like two two about for the like a robust regular reporting requirement would be about 200,000 for like the IT infrastructure and then like a portion of an FTE to manage it. So this was
008um the lower cost version. So, I would say it's it's not on par with the like the state or metro or Multim County's recent one. Um, it's more than most other school districts have. Um, but it it is not like an ongoing reporting and disclosure. Also, the other thing is um in most other cases, it doesn't matter what the size of the expenditure is that you're lobbing on. It could be like a $10,000 thing and this sets a h 100,000. Um and part and part of that is um obviously we have schools that have contracts and expenditures that um if you had a lower amount the compliance burden would be pretty significant for our schools. So those are ways in which it differs from I would say some other ones but but it's I think
009it's a good first start and the if it's if it turns out it's adopted and implemented that the board should monitor whether it's having its intended impact of surfacing um what we we know is um the engagement that's happening um and can look at whether changes need to be That's a foundational piece. And then the other question I have is the district shall establish a registration and reporting system. So it's up to the district to Am I looking at the right version? June 23rd. Yeah, I'm looking at the one in in board book under direct district registration. The district shall establish a public registration reporting system on its website. Does that is that a editing issue, Liz? No, I think that concept has been there that it's not a it's um the reporting as in
010you can reporting the registrations, right? You can see it similar to the metro version, I think, is what this was built on. So, you can go to the me metro website and click on and see who's on it. So it's I don't know it's like a report of who who's actually registered versus a report of activity which you may be like the city has a I've spent x number of dollars on something. I mean, it's a I was asking because I heard you say there's no registration, but you're talking about a a listing of people who have engaged with the district on expenditures. That was my understanding when director Bram Edwards described what she wanted in here. This is this is a report of who's registered versus what I was talking about was reporting. So
011for the example the city of Portland every quarter well the same to the state every quarter and then annually you have to report um engagement whether you've spent any money that this this is just you register and there's a report. Does that make sense? Okay it does. I was thinking report as an active uh you know reporting out regularly but yeah it does make sense. It could say, I mean, given that very um analog level of reporting, right? It could just say the district shall establish a public registration system on its website and that might be more clear what the expectation is. I don't I think they're and reporting is just another way to describe the function of that, but I don't think it's a separate thing because it has on its website and that
012was the list. So if I don't know if that's helpful or not to remove reporting and report it would say the district shall establish a public registration system on its website for those to register on its policy. The the reporting is that people can see it right you could register on a website and then it goes someplace else. The idea was this is you it's a public record. Yeah. You can go to like Metro and see the 25 firms who, you know, waste management because they care about the landfill or garbage trolling or something. Um, I would be okay removing the and reporting because the reporting again sounds active. Um, how about just report? The district shall establish a public registration and report rather than the district shall establish a public registration system on its
013website. It's not even a system. It would be like a document or a report or a report a public report and re and report on its website for those required to register this policy. What about just posted registered and posted? Yeah, it's it would be posted. It's a static. It says on its website. So, we have the on its website language. I again I think there are lots of different ways to post the registration on its website. Publicly available. Shall we establish a public registration and post it on its website? Yes. Okay. Did you get that? It to cross out reporting system and just put in post it and and posted on its website. Anything else? Can I ask actually want to can I just one clarify hold that thought just before we leave that.
014Is it okay to say the district shall require a public registration and post the registrations? I it may be that there's an intake form that looks different than the thing that's posted. Right. So there's a summary. You fill it out and it maps to a list. Same content. I just want to make sure the individual reg I think that like Google forms, right? Exactly. So I just say the district shall establish a public registration and post the registrations on the website. Okay. Thank you. Yes, director. Um, before the conversation moved on, I wanted to ask a follow-up of Director Sullivan to I don't know if you'd be happy to share some of the um you said you talked to trusted people and they said it was a good idea. You don't have to share who,
015but just a a quick synopsis. Be curious to hear. Yeah. Yeah. I talked to um Janice and then she contacted um the purchasing person, Emily. Emily and they both well Emily thought it was fine. I just didn't want to make more problem for them. And uh they were fine with it. Janice of course with her audit skills thinks it's really important to have this. So I really um am not familiar with this kind of reporting system. So I went to people who are and I who I trust. So that's that's where I got it. Great. Thank you. I I appreciate the thoroughess of the the looking into it and things. That that's what I was hoping for to hear. I appreciate you didn't just Google it. [Laughter] I I think it's good generally that you
016know it increases transparency and um I I think that's a good thing. Okay. Um recommendation from the committee to move it to the board for first reading. Yes. Any objection? Second. If we do that, we don't second. Yeah. Well, we we're not approving it. We're just recommending it recommending it out. Um and just for transparency, I did talk to um Christie who like me has lived in this world for a long period of time. and I'm going to sort of trans, uh, ask her to sort of shepherd it along. Um, and so, uh, she was happy to do it. Again, this is something that we, uh, it's just part of our regular life. Probably I don't know what those things are for a kindergarten teacher, but, um, if it's true, it's not the lobbying registration.
017Okay. So, we'll send that out. Um the next item on the agenda is um the amendment to the uh is the ethics and conflict of interest policy. um in the um it's relates to section 8 and probably the easiest way because there was so much redlinining the uh version that's in the board book. Um it's now a two sentence uh two sentence um amendment. Current board members may not apply for or accept any offer of employment from the district. exceptions are granted if a board member sends a written communication to all board members stating their intent to potentially pursue school-based employment in the district. Um and so just to share how we got to this and then we can have a discussion or questions uh is uh in November the polic of last year uh
018I raised this with the policy issue commi in the policy committee in January 13th we had another policy committee meeting on February 25th um we had a policy committee referral to the full board on March 18th we had a first reading at a board meeting on April 3rd. Um at that at that meeting at the with the first reading then the April 3rd there was an amendment for a school-based exemption um in a board member's last six months based on concerns raised by uh Director Wong. On April 8th, we were scheduled to have we on April 8th, we had the second first reading um that had the amendment that had been offered about school-based employment, just knowing that there's a different hiring cycle. on May 16th uh or May 6th, there was a uh second
019reading scheduled and um because of other things on the board agenda, we moved the second reading to the next full meeting which wasn't until June 10th. Um and so the second reading and we had policy committee meetings there where this was listed as an agenda item. On June 10th we had a board meeting in which um Director Wong uh wanted to make additional changes. I sent something out uh to the full board. Subsequently, Director Wong and I had a conversation. He wanted some additional changes. I I thought that I had made them a reflective um and I thought it I believed it was this version, but we can have a discussion about it because um that's what the committee meeting is for. So, and during the time when director Wong and I talked about it,
020uh he wanted this committee to have further discussion. So, this that's what this time's about. Well, didn't our whole board voted to send it back to the committee? The the whole board. So, I'm sorry. Did Did I say something different? No, I thought you said I thought you said that Eddie Wong, Director Wong's, you know, you had a discussion about it, but decided to send it back to here today. Right. And what I'm saying is this version is different from what I sent out after the board meeting. It is. And what I'm saying is this version came from a conversation I had because what we talked about at the meeting which I thought I captured and then sent out. I then subsequently had another a discussion afterwards with director Wong and this is what I
021thought reflected of it. just want to kind of correct that we had a discussion first and then the cross off version was sent to the rest of the board for review. Um however this version here has the original one that was sent out to the board after our discussion had schoolbased cross off. Uh but the the problem here is that this version does not have schoolbased crossed off. So there's discrepancy between the one that was shared with the board and this current one. Yeah. And I, as I um mentioned to you, Director Wong, um and that's why we're having a committee discussion is I made some changes based on the discussion we had and all along the exemption had been for school-based employment and that this the strikeout was an error on my part of
022sending that out with it still struck out. Um, but I had like I say all previous versions was I thought you made a compelling case that the hiring cycle is different for school-based employment um versus central office employment. Um so I say this is the the committee's um preference if they want to this is the opportunity to offer changes. I mean I say there has been at every policy committee meeting when it's been out for first reading had an opportunity for people to offer um changes in committee. So yeah, I just want to offer really quick. The reason the only version I was okay with was one without school when school base was crossoff. And the reason for that is because a good policy allows for maximum flexibility in in case unforeseen circumstances come up,
023right? For example, we don't have a problem of people knocking on our door to work here. And I just want to address the reality. It's we've had a a finance um office that was unstaffed for almost 5 years. Um and so the reason why I was okay with schoolbased crossed off um again this is just my two cents to offer to the committee was because a number one um the superintendent is not directly involved in the employment of most of the employees in this district whether it's schoolbased even people like for example the maintenance workers in our maintenance department are not hired by the superintendent they're hired ired by their uh the office director or or chiefs or whatnot. Um and so there's already levels of separation. Uh and number actually there's three points I
024want to make. Number two, we already have Oregon ethics laws that address a lot of this. Um I think I just looked up right here. Uh RS244.040 and 045 I want to also mention as well. So I'm a little bit worried that the more specific we are, the more we're almost double legislating this issue. Uh and then the third thing or not the third thing, it's still the second thing. Uh 040 on that part of the ORS actually explicitly name certain departments and avenues that um people cannot apply for their job, you know, until a year after their employment serving in these areas. But the it purpose, I don't know if it was purposeful or not. this is something worth looking into, but school boards were not listed under there and I'm curious as to
025why. Uh, and so that would be I think also something to look into. And then I guess my my third and main point here is that we really should be focusing our work and our our policies. I I want us to take the time. Um I didn't want to, you know, uh overstep or or skip over the the role of the policy committee and have allow the policy committee to have a voice in drafting the final version. Um and I guess what I mean by that is that um the question always that should be like our centering question is does this help or hurt students? And I don't really see many ways in which this helps students. I can see some ways that can actually hurt students, right? We've we potentially had s uh examples
026in the past where it it may have actually led to it could lead to hurting um the district in in a few ways. So when when asked that question, you know, my thing is there's what's the hurry? We don't have people who are currently looking for employment in the district. uh I rather spend the time to uh craft something that can be uh achieve its goal but also allow for enough flexibility so that uh we're not hurting us or the district in the long run. So anyways, that's my five cents. Thank you. So do you think this does that or do you think I think having school base in there is uh problematic and the reason for that is because the I think it without schoolbased it still achieves this goal because what what we
027have here is a restriction but you are allowed an exception if if all the board members are notified therefore allows public transparency and by notifying all the board members right it's subject to public record laws which means that uh if people wanted to look into if there's any shenanigans going on, they can because this is now public record. Not only that, but all board members uh are notified. And so it allows it oversight and transparency without being overly restrictive, especially in potential scenarios that could actually hurt the district. How do you see that being publicly transparent? How are people going to know to ask for a public record? Uh because when they find out a board member is suddenly working for the district. But h but how would I would think that would be kind
028of obvious. Oh, so it'd be after afterwards people would have a public records request about whether somebody was applying for a job before they not notified someone. Well, and the other thing is I mean PPS actually has very strong policies in terms of the hiring practices and practices in terms of I'm just trying to get at how the public would know because you stated that this would add transparency, but I see if somebody sent a a communication to board members that actually the public wouldn't know unless a board member like publicly shared it. Yeah. Well, I assume that we have seven elected board members. If all the rest of six of them are notified and there's something going on, it's also the board's job to oversee itself. But but that's not public. I mean, that's
029that's more of like board just the there's all it takes one board member to say, "Hey, there's this thing going on." And suddenly people know. Is is that what you expect people to do? I mean, can we also get back to, you know, well, I'd like I'd like to sort of settle this question because I think it's not if that's what we're saying the public is like it's not really accomplishing that. So, I would suggest if you dropped it to have something that it be like put in some sort of re report that it's like just public because otherwise it's not public and I don't think we should um I mean as a board member I wouldn't think it would be somebody else's another board member's responsibility to like share with the public. So, it's
030public. I would just like to say that I agree that I think this policy doesn't really do enough on its face in terms of transparency, which I do agree uh should be something that we're looking at here. You know, it's like there is, you know, an informal process, but we don't really we don't really want to rely on an informal process. you know, especially with something like transparency. You know, there's a lot of people who would be really mad if every all the board members just forgot to tell people that someone's, you know, working and there's a possibility that, you know, there could be some some outcry about that that they're I didn't know that my board representative is, you know, working for the district. Um, so that's, you know, that's my two cents. Thank
031you. I appreciate that. I just want to reply really quick because this this issue of transparency is not the original question that you asked. The original question was whether it's schoolbased or not. That has nothing to do with transparency. I guess just I was just going to your argument. So I was um like I say I felt that your um the questions you raised and the concerns about um just the cycle was a legitimate concern. Um, and frankly at the very beginning, I thought having it be the the last six months made sense of somebody's term that they um, you know, could go back to if if that had been their profession before, they shouldn't be exempted from that. Um, and then you raised that also like maybe in the middle of the term they'd
032want it. So it's like, okay, they um, I also felt that was a reason somewhat reasonable. Um, I think it's naive to think that a principal who's interviewing a sitting or any manager who's interviewing a sitting board member is not going to feel some imbalance of power. Um and I think that's completely true for the central office and um I think it raises all sorts of ethical potential ethical issues for board members to be um I mean we I use the example of uh the so everybody reports to the superintendent. um the superintendent, not only do we evaluate them, we vote on their compens vote on their compensation, uh we vote on vote on budgets, um we ask them to weigh in on, you know, on pretty much every item that we vote on. And
033I I think it is, um it's a classic imbalance of power and that, you know, I just think it it will be very unfair to employees who have a board member in the in the pool. Um, I say I I felt like for a school-based employee, there's some distance. Again, I think it's still hard on principles or who'sever the hiring manager. Um, but I, you know, school board is a volunteer service, so it shouldn't prevent people from going back to their profession. This already states that you may not work for the district while you're on the board, right? In another part of it. So, we know that, right? This is that that's that's actually in current statute. Yeah. Again, I strongly disagree. I just want to say that um the a good policies are not
034there there's two parts. Again, just just a refresher, right? We have policies and we have administrative directives. And the reason we have it set that way is because policies are supposed to be, you know, 30,000 ft above the air, their general guidelines, spirit, set the direction, and then we have ads to specify how it's done. And the reason it's done that way is because things change, right? We have AI now. We have uh things that we didn't have in the past. And so having the AD being flexible allows it to change uh and and uh obviously with the spirit of the policy intact. And so this one of the issues I have is that when we have a policy that is overly prescriptive, it makes it very hard to change and it can actually cause
035more damage than it than it than it solves. In fact, there's been multiple cases of policies that are overly prescriptive that it's actually caused a lot of unintended consequences and and also maybe even raising costs for the district. And so one of the things that I want to also point out here is that again the the the absolute issue I I can almost guarantee everybody who works in has worked in education before is not really concerned about this. We have a problem of getting people in the door not the other way around. And so again this is again this the essence of this is looking it's a solution looking for a problem. I mean, we we don't have a history of board members taking advantage of their position, trying to find employment in the district.
036We don't uh maybe in in I mean, at the state level, sure, at the county level, sure. Um but not in schools. I mean, we have people who are overworked 12 hours a day, you know, at least and and underpaid. And so it's like this is this is something that if we don't be care we're not careful with could potentially hurt the district right for example you know luckily we found a amazing CFO but what if we had a CFO that was on the board or let's let's look at also the equity issue because uh a majority of our employees are teachers a majority of our employees are schoolbased also majority of our employees also you know like working in the district like maintenance uh crew they they're not paid a lot. And so it's
037very likely that if someone decides to run for the board, especially if you want people from, you know, not the upper class, that they may economically have a difficult time and two years in may choose to want to go back to work and not able to serve on the board anymore. And that's a very likely. So, if we're trying to lower the bar to entry and allow people to go back to their jobs, you know, in the middle of their uh maybe they need to quit the board. And so having a situation where we say school-based, you know, then what about all our, you know, security officers, maintenance workers, you know, all the people who are are not maybe at at at cabinet level. And so I understand the the intent of this. I just
038don't agree that this is a real problem that it's solving. And not only that, but by by solving it, and I'm fine with you trying to solve it, you I don't mean you any but individually, just in general, you uh generally you trying to solve it. Uh I am worried about it raising the bar for entry for a lot a lot of people. I think that's an equity issue that's concerning to me as well. Um it also feels like a problem or a solution looking for a problem. Um, we had, I think, one time 13 years ago where somebody on the board did apply for a job and got a job made specially for them that was a paying job kind of water under the bridge. Um, and Director Wong, to your point about, you
039know, how uh the policies that we create can hurt or harm people, particularly when we look at people that are uh earning not very much money. We want to encourage um those people to serve on the board as volunteers and it's not easy to serve um if you're struggling financially. I can speak for that specifically. So um I you know I don't even think this there's a problem that needs solving, but I would be willing to continue to talk about this if it's agreed that we've got a problem that needs to be solved. But it right now it doesn't seem like we have a problem that needs to be solved. Additionally, you know, I just went to a policy institute at Howard uh through the National School Boards Association and they were pretty adamant about
040saying any policy that you develop needs to be student outcomebased. It would be a completely different story if we had parody between, you know, our white students and our students of color. But we don't. We have a large spread. We as a board, as the adults should be 110% focused on raising those scores and doing everything in our power, including policies that do that and not spend our time and our our volunteer precious time that we can't get back looking for a problem. I I just I mean I just have not I I I would be willing to keep this on the table, but I don't feel like it's ready. I think I think we should remove it from the table because frankly it's slipping into being completely irrelevant. Um I'll just note that this
041is an amendment to a eight-page policy around ethics and conflicts of interest, which um I hope the board believes that's an important thing for us to set as a standard for a public school district. So this isn't like some new thing. It's part of a large much larger policy. Um I think it's setting high ethical standards. It's a stretch to say this is going to hurt students. Um, I actually think when people trust people in elected office that they are they ran for the board not to like find a find a job in the district or to be able to get it easier to get a do job at the district. That they um ran for the board because they wanted to serve in a volunteer capa in volunteer capacity on behalf of our school
042district. Um I I guess I would go back to um the original it's like and I purposely went through this at the very beginning the the amount of time that we had on the committee to people could offer suggestions. Um I don't believe that the this is at all transparent or public um by just notifying other board members. So, um I think that would be, you know, so I don't I don't think that should be the claim. Um so, if you wanted to say that this was the the way that we're going to set an ethical standard is by having it be public, I think it needs to be something else. And again, I um I thought in the spirit of our conversation, Director Wong, that I had captured that that I clearly didn't. But
043I don't I don't think this captures um or leads to transparency cuz as as a board member, I wouldn't be outing somebody else's or sharing somebody else's information. So that's unless unless we ask the individual that is doing it themselves. It it almost seems like the way this is written, it doesn't make any difference. Anybody can apply. I mean, anybody can send a written communication and say they're going to do it. So, well, that to me that's why schoolbased to me that's why schoolbased because in theory you're supposed to wait till after you get off the board service before you apply for a job because you have a natural frankly you have a natural advantage if you're a board member and you're applying from you're the top of the organizational chart. Um and so you
044know again I feel like for school-based jobs that's very different um because of you have to apply six months ahead pretty much and that's because because of the hiring cycle and I mean everybody else I mean it can this maybe just like we come down different places I think people should wait till they're off to the board or if they feel like they can't serve on the board and they need to apply for a job then they should leave leave the forward or there needs to be some method but that's more public because this is not a this is not a public process and waiting till after they get hired and a principal has maybe felt pressured to hire a board member because they applied and they have you know board members can create issues
045for my issue with with that is what if they get rejected from the job yeah I mentioned that right like I mentioned this in our board meeting but like when we apply for jobs it's normally general practice that it's a private affair because there's many reasons you could be rejected. It could uh you could be down to two finalists, one person just has a little bit more experience, or you could just be totally unqualified, or you could be a plain jerk, right? And so, uh there's many reasons why you you don't get accepted. And so, the having it again, this is another issue that I think this policy committee needs to address when pursuing this is what happens in the worst case scenario. Like for example, if I'm a public figure and I apply for
046a job and then I publicly get rejected now I have a black letter on my forehead and and no one's going to I mean we live in the Facebook world, right? Or no one's going to look into why you got rejected. They're just going to say, "Oh yeah, this person got rejected from this job and we're not going to hire them either." And so we're talking about public volunteers. This is an unpaid job. And I also want to specify you know in terms of we have this perception of the board member in in Oregon law it defines that or the policies it defines that single board members have no authority have no power only the board as a as a whole as a unit actually has any power to make any decisions and so there's
047a reason for that and the reason for that is because um again having a full board seven elected in our case seven elected public officials making decisions ensure uh proper discussion uh you know sharing of or potential uh arguing of ideas to to strengthen our decision-m process. And so again, this is this is something where again I I also personally think this is not ready. We think there's a better way to do it. Okay, it's uh 5:15, which is when the meeting was supposed to end. Um I would say um going forward as a courtesy to committee chairs, committee members that when something's on an agenda to look at it in advance. Um I would have appreciated several times when things came up at the board meeting that they'd come up in committee because then
048we could have had discussions about it. um because I think that leads to actually better policym versus waiting to the second reading because the reality is we had no public comment of people having issues with it. Um so we can leave it we can leave it in committee and um I I'm fine with that. I I don't think we should move out um a version that has school-based because again I think it's extremely naive and it sets a very low ethical standard to have board members applying for jobs in the central office or ones that are within the superintendent span of control. Uh so with that I'll just close the committee and and we're done. We'll send one Thanks for the sending one committee uh policy out for the first reading. appreciate everyone's work and
049um Michelle and Patty your service on the committee this year and thanks for coming to the one board meeting and Eddie thanks for um coming to many of the the meetings. If I may ask real quick when are we being uh sworn in? I'm pretty sure is it July 1st? I Yes. I Well, I thought it was July 22nd. We have we have two ceremonies. So there one is the the legal one which I think is just going to be notorized and then there's a ceremonial one which is going to be on July 22nd. Got it. Got it. That makes sense. And the reason for the the legal the cere ceremonial one was because the the other board members wanted it to happen on July 22nd. Um and also because we'll all be in town.
050Yeah. All travel conflicts etc. day, but we want to do it legally, I think July 1st, because we don't want any holes in coverage in case something comes up. Great decision. Anything else? Uh, no. Thanks for coming to the first meeting. Yeah. Well, my second uh policy committee meeting. Technically, I should have been at three, but I missed the first one because I was a site council. Okay. Thanks for coming. Absolutely. All right. Especially your summertime. I mean, yeah. Yeah. Well, it's easier in the summer time because theoretically I have nothing going on. Clearly not today because Okay, that's such a great attitude and you like you know you're got a tie on too. Yeah. Okay, with that I'm going to adjourn.