001[Music] like to call the governing board meeting for Liberty Elementary School District to order today, May 19th, 2025 at the Jerry Roby District facility. The time is now 4:30. We have all five board members present including board member Schmidt Zimmerman, vice president Kenyon, board member Shinion, myself, Michael Todd. Next item agenda will be item 1.2, the pledge of allegiance. And Miss Schmidt, I think you are next. Correct. To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our next item of business is item 1.3, approval of the special meeting agenda. I motion to approve this agenda um consistent with board policy BEBD and temporary suspend governing board policy with which this agenda may be inconsistent. Have a second.
002Second. Okay. Have a motion and a second for item 1.3 the approval of the special meeting agenda. There's no discussion. We'll take a vote. Miss Schmidt I. Miss Zimmerman I. Vice President Kenyon I. Member Shinion I. I'm Alson I. We will show that approve five yes zero no. Next item in the agenda is item 1.4. This will be pursuant to ARS 38431.03 A3 and A4. Call for executive session for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney for the public body concerning the performance and employment status of Dr. Courtmanroe and instruct the attorney for the public body as to its position concerning Dr. Courtmanro's contract and or settlement discussions in order to resolve possible litigation regarding Dr. Courtmanro's employment. Mr. President, a motion uh to convene executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431. 3, A3,
003and A4. Call for executive session for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney for the uh for the public body concerning the performance of employment status of Dr. Court Monroe and to instruct the attorney for the public body as to its position concerning Dr. Monroe's contract and or settlement discussions in order to resolve possible litigation regarding doc Dr. Court Monroe's employment. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve item 1.4. If there's no discussion, we'll take a vote. Board member Schmidt I. Board member Zimmerman. I. Vice President Kenyon. I. Board member Stencion. I. I'm also I. We'll show that is approved. We now in executive session at 4:32. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Baby. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] single baby. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
004Hey [Music] everyone. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Happy. Here. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Oh. Oh. [Music] Baby, hey. [Music] Oh, hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey honey. [Music] The ground. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Hey, [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. [Music] Down to heat. [Music] Hey [Music] everyone. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, [Music] hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Ah, hey. [Music] Happy. Sh. [Music] I want you. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Baby. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Stupid. [Music] Somebody Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat.
005[Music] Baby. [Music] Hey, [Music] Somebody. [Music] I want you. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] I want to know. [Music] Black. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] ready. Okay, we'll show the time is 5:33 p.m. We are back in general session and all five board members are still present. We'll move on to item 1.6, which is consider and possibly take action on instructions given to the attorney for the public body and executive session. Mr. President, I move to adopt a plan of improvement for Dr. Monroe's performance substantially similar to that proposed by legal counsel to be signed by the board president and to be delivered to Dr.
006Monroe on or before May 20th, 2025 by close of business. Okay. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. I believe the second was from M. Schmidt. Uh is there any discussion? Uh, Mr. President, I have just a comment. Okay, go ahead. Um, you know, there's been a lot of thought about what the right path is for this district and although I do think that there are some things that Dr. Monroe um have done that has hurt the district considering the position that we're in and essentially the financial position we're in. I am considering this plan to move the district forward. Okay. Any further comments? All right. Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. Board member Schmidt. I. Board member Zimmerman. I vice president Kenyon I board member Sinconeion I I'm also an I will
007show that approved five yes zero no next item is item 1.7 consider and possibly take action concerning Dr. Monroe's performance and employment Mr. President I make a motion to take Dr. Court Monroe off of administrative leave and return to work on Tuesday, May 27th. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Is there any discussion? All right. Hearing none, we'll go with the vote. Uh board member Schmidt. I. Board member Zimmerman. I. Vice President Kenyon. I. Board member Stencion. I. I'm also I will show item 1.7 approved. Five. Yes. Zero. No. Next item of business will be 2.1 discussion, consideration, approval of the trust policy chapter 3, third read effect to July 1st, 2025 will be presented by Dr. Stephanie Mahorn, our assistant superintendent of human resources and student services and also Miss Amy Castanos. I
008will actually turn it over to Amy. Well, good evening board members. Um, we are Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. I was like, do I need to Okay. All right. Good evening. Um, thank you for having me again. Today I bring to you chapter three for our third read and final approval. Um, with this chapter, there wasn't really anything left unresolved. So, I wanted to just open it up blanket blanketly blank open it up for you all. Sorry, that word's not going to come out of my mouth correctly. um open it up for you all to just have a little bit of discussion and see if there were any questions to the edits and revisions that were sent to you, Mr. President. You may. I just have three. So, okay. So, page 45, um this
009is the visitor policy. And so, you know, my question was about volunteers. And so I just wonder if we should include the word volunteers in this policy somewhere. I know that we could say, you know, volunteers are visitors. Um, but I also think we could include the word so that it's a little bit more explicit just because we don't mention that word. And we do want um the superintendent to establish controls and procedures in regards to volunteers and who we allow you know interacting with our our students. So I would prefer to see the word I guess volunteers um included um who is visiting district property. [Music] Um, the superintendent shall establish controls and procedures to monitor maybe just to monitor volunteers and who is visiting district property just so that that word is present
010in our policy. That's just could I'm sorry I was just thinking of the wording. What if it said to monitor visitors and volunteers? Um Oh, that's you know. Yeah, I'd be okay with that. Sorry, one last thought. If you wanted to say because the the section is titled visitors. if you wanted to say visitors including volunteers um instead of saying visitors and volunteers but I think probably less words is better right so just a thought okay so would are you asking for that to be added in prior to adoption so that we bring it back for a fourth read with that addition or um or I think we could make the motion adding the word. We did uh with chapter one or two, we made a few. So, if if the rest of the board
011is okay with it, I'm okay with it that way. Yeah, I believe this is a minor change to this clarification. So, I'd be okay accepting that if we do accept tonight if we make the motions. Okay. So what we're suggesting is 3-203 becomes title titled visitors including volunteers and then that will um that will take care of the entirety of that policy. And I'm okay if we just change the sentence, not necessarily the title, to say the superintendent shall establish controls and procedures to monitor visitors and volunteers, including the use of signin procedures, name tags, and other control mechanisms. Okay. So then the motion would set as adding um the word visitors to paragraph 1 of policy 3-203. If we were to make a motion in we would be adding the word volunteers. Sorry. That's
012okay. Yes. Okay. Um my next one is page 79. Um and this is Give us a second to get Oh, I apologize. And um you know the rest of the board may not agree, but I guess I'm just pointing it out again like for the record essentially that I still am not comfortable with number four writing assistance. Um I would prefer to just cross out the word sentence structure. I I don't think AI is grammar or spelling corrections. I'm, you know, I think Word does that. But when we get into sentence structure, I think that is a slippery slope for students. So, um, again, it's okay if the board doesn't agree. I'm just stating for the record that I'm not comfortable with that one. Mr. President, if I may. You may. Um, dealing with my
013two high school students, I've talked to them about the different uh uses of AI in the high school right here in Buckeye High. And uh they they both have told me that this is exactly how they are using it where their teacher when it's appropriate would basically give them assignment do this use AI to help you form it but then you have to make it original and you have to state that you used AI to make it. So I get how this can be used as a tool. I also in the last meeting expressed similar concerns that you know our kids aren't using their own intellect to uh building their intellect and using computers to do all the thinking for them. So I guess right now I'm okay with it as it is. I think
014if I start to see the abuse or hear of the abuse of it in the campuses then I'll definitely want to bring this back later. But that's where I'm at right now. Members, what if we put a second or an additional sentence that said AI shall not be used as the primary um method or something of that nature. So that they need to come up with this on their own. It shouldn't be a standalone. We can massage the wording, but something along those lines. Mr. President, if I may, you may. I think it kind of does. That's what it says is a tool for the teachers discretion. I understand what you're you're saying. I see everybody's concerns like we don't want it to be the primary thing, but I think miss we got to be
015careful how we write it because some of the tools that are given by the state for people who need a little boost um how what's the wording? Um thank you for accommodation. This is what they're using. So if we write that they can't use at their primary, we might remove some of the accommodations for like special education or any other classrooms. Also, the first full paragraph states the first sentence of the first paragraph on this page states students are required to rely on their own knowledge, skills, and resources when completing school work. So, as much as I understand the concern of the board, um I want to see if that language might help to accommodate some of the sorry, accommodate some of the concerns that we're having now. I'm fine with I was just trying
016to meet uh Miss Zimmerman's concerns a little bit and cover that. So, yeah. And I I I mean I I understand and like I said, I'm I'm not I I understood making this comment that it's it's probably gonna be left in and that's okay. Um but it's just a personal, you know, concern of mine. So that's okay. And then the only other um thing I had was page 88 and this is about the pro statement for the bonds. Thank you. Um, I'll respond to that one if I can. Um, I think it's really just a difference in what it's called. Okay. For a bond, it's called a purpose statement. For the override, it's called a pro statement. Um, but it's statutory. The only the requirement for the bond is that it beformational piece about what
017the bond's purpose is. And it's not a pro statement. And it's actually goes back to 15511 which can't use school resources resources to influence the outcome of an election. Um in the override statement it actually the statute says the governing board shall pre prepare a pro statement and that's a statement that you all prepare and then vote on for the um for a bond election. It's the st the statement is anformational piece um providing only factual information. It's not a prostatement. You can members of the board can be present a prostatement independently as one of the statements that's presented to the county schools office when they developed the voter pamphlet. But it's not a prostatement for the bond the by the statute. It's a purpose statement and it's a supposed to be just anformational piece
018giving facts. So, you know, I think where my confusion came in is as I went into our old agendas and the board issued a probond statement in 2023. And did you actually see the statement itself? Did you see the statement? I I tried to look at it and I couldn't see I couldn't pull up the actual statement that you're talking about. Oh, well, it's it's in board docs. Um, and so, you know, I guess it it just always is my understanding, you know, um, having worked on bonds and overrides prior to being on the board for a long time. Um, and so my question is in that AG's um, uh, what do we call this? The guidelines. Yes, the guidelines. So um on the last page on page 13 number nine it says other than
019the publicity pamphlet arguments permitted by ARS 15-481B9 um you know essentially you can't call for a resolution like essentially like a pro statement but um so 4 481 is the override statute 491 is the bond statute So if you look at 481 that's all about overrides and 4 491 is the bond statute. Okay. So if we cannot um submit a pro statement could we change it or could we add that individual board members can or that we submit a purpose statement? I just feel like it it looks like we can't submit anything I guess. Well, in reality, you know, you're going to be working with bond counsel when you do a bond. Uh they bond counsel is very involved in helping you develop the material that's required for the pamphlet. And so they're going to
020advise you and counsel you on what you can and can't do. Um so with both an override and a bond. So with an override, you are actually required to submit a pro statement. with an uh with a bond. It's just anformational piece and so that you're going to fill out that stuff that the county needs as you're advised in that election process. Yeah, you can submit individual ones. You can submit u an individual pro statement just like anybody can't from the public can. I I did pull up the pro statement from 2023 and it is a clear it says a yes vote like and that's in the pamphlet. Well, it says in the pamphlet you I mean the election will ask do you want want a bond or not? It'll be a yes vote or
021a no vote. But um it said yes in that. I don't know if the laws changed recently on that, but it's not require it's not allowed actually currently for the board to submit a bond pro statement. It's anformational piece. Okay. Okay. But you will um you you're going to Jim Gil is the expert in this. We had Gus Rosenfeld and he's the one that usually advises most school districts on these bonds and overrides. And I talked to him personally about this piece just this morning about it. And he says it's a it's a um educational informationational piece. It's called a purpose statement instead of a pro statement. [Music] Are there any other questions? If you want to clarify that at all to say, you know, that in individual board members can submit a pro statement
022to the county schools office for theformational pamphlet. It's um that's fine, but you can't the law does not require allow the board to do a joint pro statement. is considered a violation of 15511. It's just interesting to me that it's not a violation for the override. That's actually written in the statute to do that. I agree. It's very interesting. The legislature does some odd things. They just, you know, we all know they do. Um it's the law the way it's written right now. Uh and quite frankly, to be consistent, they ought to go back and fix one or the other. They ought to do one or the other so they're consistent. Yeah. But now they're different. Yeah, I'd be more in favor of saying that the governing board submits a purpose statement um rather than
023us submitting our own because that's just us acting. This is more governing us as a board um rather than what we do as individuals. Um, but you know, again, it's just it's hard for me cuz you know, it's what we've done in the past and so it's I just find it confusing personally um just because of the amount of work that I've personally done on bonds and overrides. But but when it comes down to it, you will be getting advice specifically about what's required by the county schools and be asked to to prepare that and you'll be involved in that preparation process for the pamphlets. Mr. President, if I may, you may. So in this section, it's talking about elections. This is same page. Um it does talk like number one, it does talk about
024Excuse me, I saw it somewhere in here. Yeah, that's talking about uh no bond elections, I think. I mean, it's all about bonds. This doesn't have anywhere in here about overrides. So, this is the one you were talking about, right? Yeah. So that's why I think maybe the clarification just needs to be the governing board may not submit a pro statement for a bond. But I mean this is in the bond section anyways. I get what you're saying uh Mr. Dangerfield about the individual you know as individuals we're still you know residents of the district. We can as an individual submit those pro statements. But it's correct. I agree with uh Miss Zimmerman that you know that's I don't know that that needs to be in our policy because this is specific to our governing
025board. Um, and I think it's just that understanding of where the law is right now. So, thank you for educating me on that. Uh, that way I know the difference between bond and override and and what's here. But, at this point, I think I'm fine with where it is. We just need to understand where the current law is and if that changes, if the legislature fix it, then we'll come back and fix it. Any further questions? All right. I have one question. We still have copyright 20125, but with our changes, are we maintaining the copyright? When we're when we were with ASBO, if we made changes, the copyright fell off. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. These are all copyrighted 2025. the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust. We were with ASPA. If they sent
026us a blanket policy, we made no changes. It remained copyrighted. But the second we changed the policy in any way, the copyright came off. That's correct. That's So these we're going to have a lot of changes. And they're still saying copyright at the bottom of each one. So we'll need those removed. So we will uh I I guess we better check with the trust and see if they want them um removed. But that would be my normal assumption also, Mr. Todd would be that you would take the copyright off. If there's changes, the copyright should come off. Had had Jennifer said anything more about that? Yeah, because Jennifer McClennon is the attorney that's handling these things for the trust. So, we can check with her to see if they would like to because they could
027incorporate it and decide to include it if they want to, if the trust wants to, but they may I would suspect they would want the copyright to come off with those changes. Okay. The only um members, you have any other questions? On page 91, the prohibited activities, I think we've got clarification this even on election day, those are not allowed on school property. Correct. Campaign signs. Yes, that is your um that's the governing board's choice. If they want to in include that to to restrict that, then you go with that same rule and the issue will just be the district will have to enforce that. Right. But statute also says no no campaign signs on properties. Correct. That's what the 15511 says. That's correct. All right. Perfect. So, there'll be no no campaign signs anywhere
028on school properties. Okay. All right. Members, President Todd. Yes. Um, I do want to draw your attention to page 92, right? Um, as a result of the clarification that we got from Miss Seagull and Mr. Dangerfield, we did change the language there to say that district employees are prohibited from circulating any petition on district property at any time. Correct. Okay. All right. Members, if there's no discussion, we'll take a uh motion for 2.1. Uh, Mr. President motion to approve the trust policy chapter 3 third read effective July 1st 2025 uh adding the word volunteer to paragraph 1 section 3-203 and removing copyrights where needed. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Excuse me. President Todd. Yes. Can you please repeat that Brian please? Uh so motion to approve the trust policy chapter 3 third read
029effective July 1st 2025. Um adding the word volunteers to paragraph 1 section 3-203. Yes ma'am. and uh of section 3-203 and remove copyright where needed. The motion will read to approve the trust policy chapter 3 third read effective July 1, 2025 by adding the word volunteers to paragraph 1 of section 3-203 and remove copyright where needed. Correct. I do I have a second. Second. Okay. Miss Zimmerman seconds. There's no discussion. We'll take a vote. Board member Schmidt. I. Board member Zimmerman. I. Vice President Kenyan. I. Board member Serenion. I. I'm also I will show that proof. Five yes. Zero no. Next on our dock is 2.2 to discussion consideration approval of the trust policy chapter 4 second read effective July 1st 2025 Miss Castianos. Thank you. So to begin um with this one because it
030is our second read, we will go through all of the comments real quick um and see if you have any questions at all on the changes and edits that were made as a result of those comments. You will see in the sections um the date and timestamps for the videos are actually in the comments as well as as well as who made those comments. So to begin, we start with 4-101. Miss Zimmerman had requested that we put the governing board's commitment to staff and personnel services within this section. You will note as well that this um was in ASBA policy. We did have to fully change it because ASBA is copywritten. So, it has been changed. So, I want to make sure that the intent of this language matches the intent of the board um
031with the governing board's commitment to staff and personnel. I just want to say thank you so much for adding this. Um it does reflect my intent. Um and so I don't want to speak for the rest of the board, but I I I like to see like our kind of our goals in terms of personnel lined out. The only thing I say is that um now the numbers are the same here. 4-01 and then underneath of it. So I would just say make that 4-100. So you don't have to change all the other numbers. I will ask the trust how they want to label that because that is their copywritten Yeah. their copywritten numbering system. Okay. But thank you for drawing that to my attention. We're just we're not doing like A right now, right?
032In terms of our comments. Okay. Um and if we continue down that same page to 4-101 board authority to employ, Miss Zimmerman had requested a policy for non-renewal of administrators and support staff. The current policy that's in there is non-renewal of teachers and that is because it is required by statute. Um but beyond that, we weren't able to put a policy in place right now. Um is that something you're still after reading through chapters 4 and chapters 5 are is that still something that you are looking for? Yes. And Mr. Dangerfield, is there more to speak on that? Well, do we know for sure if the April 15th is the same deadline? I think for administrators did that did that go run get run by Jennifer? Okay, we just need to check the date on
033that because I think the administrators have a they have a specific date too there have to be told. I can I can actually look at it which are not issue contracts. I I know that there is a specific date. I and and this may need to be like a you know an agenda item request but I personally and I stand by what I said is that I do think that there should be a policy for how we non-renew administrators. The fact that we can just non-renew them for no reason essentially because the teacher one is in statute and it it's very specific. Mhm. It is. And that's this is all the state legislature. Administrators are hired on one-year contracts and there's a deadline date when you have to let them know, but there's no other
034requirements. I know. I I I think if we want to attract really valuable people and experienced and they're fearful that they could just on a whim because there's a personality conflict or something lose their job. Um, you know, this is a personal preference. So it, you know, Yeah. Okay. The will of the board. Yeah. All right. So, yeah, it's the will of the board. I agree because um right now administrators are they can they only have one-year agreements and so do teachers. Yes. But they have a process. Procedures have uh teachers have a procedural process that is built into the law. Right. I guess my question with this is going to be um before if there's an edit that needs to be made um if we because this would be a policy that hasn't been
035written. Correct. And so it would most likely need to be written by an attorney um and we would need to hire that out because it wouldn't be something that the trust policy already includes and it would be a pretty substantial right. So my question is is are you directing me to have that policy written for your review? Mr. President, if I may um I personally I'm I'm fine with leaving it as it is. I I understand Miss's point, but I don't know of any other district that has a policy like that. Um it's not in the ASBA policies currently. Uh and I think there's reasons behind it that we may not know. Uh, and you know, unless we can come up with a real good concrete thing. I mean, I love being on the cutting
036edge, but I don't want to get us in trouble just because we think something sounds good. Um, so I think that uh for the time being, I'm okay with as it is. I would concur. If I could just add one comment. Um the reason uh I just want to be clear about why my reasoning for requesting it is I think it provides transparency to our employees about how we're going to hold them accountable and how they are going to have the opportunity to continue working here and that it's not just going to be made on an ad whim decision and that is the way that it is allowable right now. And I understand the law. I'm not disagreeing with the law. I again it's it's I feel like it's a way to attract and retain
037quality administrators. Thank you. I just looked at the statute. April 15th is the right date for administrators. So the the next comment is on page two. We did some clarification around the need for three references and made sure that that was clearly spelled out within policy. So on page two at the very bottom and extending on to page three, you'll see that edit there. Um did that accurately represent um I'll be honest, I didn't go back and like listen to the meeting. So I think what I recall about my um intent is that we had to get it get a reference. the way that it was written was make, you know, documented good faith efforts. And so I'm not sure that I'm committed to the number three. Oh. Um is that I just wanted to
038ensure that we had to have at least one reference. Um and I just didn't like the wording make, you know, make good faith efforts. I felt like that gave the district an out that they didn't have to have a reference. So, I'd hate for us to hold up hiring a good person because we have two great references, but we can't get the third person to call us back. So, my intent was just that we had to at least have one because I felt like the way it was written kind of gave the district an out. I guess we always have at least two. And the good faith effort, we still try. We You can't just try once and say, "Oh, I tried." So good faith is, you know, I I called and emailed and called
039again, but I couldn't get a hold. So we still because we want to get a hold as many references. I mean, it's important they're working with our kids as possible. So I still like the good faith effort, but if we got a a rockstar candidate, we're not going to let that hold us back either. So I don't know. I mean, I don't want to put the good faith back in there. I I like the word shall um contact previous employers of applicants or references, but I I'm okay if the board wants to change it to two or um something like that, but I don't personally want to add the good faith back in there. It doesn't have to be added. We're still going to try to do the good faith. I mean, that's just what
040we do in HR. I mean, that's just our practice. So then are we asking for that last sentence to be removed that was added in? I'm not asking for it to be removed. I'm just asking the board to have a conversation. Are you if we say we have to have three that that's a lot. So do we want to say two? Uh I'm sorry if I may. You may. My issue with putting a number a hard number on it is it makes it they have to get that. If we say two then they have to get two. Even if they if no one responds, then what do they they can't move forward with that employee because we said they have to have two or they have to have three. Are you comfortable with one that
041they have to make contact with one reference? I'm not comfortable not moving forward with at least one. I'm okay. I realize three is a lot and I hear what you're saying, but my whole concern with the this part of the policy is that in in the way that it was written, it gave the district an out to not make contact with any reference. That's the way I read it. Oh, we would never hire with no reference. I don't I know. But so let's put it in policy. Yeah. I mean, yeah, for sure. Um we will always try for three no matter what's written. Uh we I mean that's just our practice. We will always try for three. Rarely if ever will we settle for one, but there's those rare occasions where you can only get
042a hold of one. It's very rare, but it does happen. So members, if I may really quick, um I think Miss Zimmerman's got some valid points. U Dr. Mahorn, I understand your comment. We will always and that's a great comment as long as you're in your position. But we need to break policy that future proofs the district for the future. And in the event you're no longer with the district, the next person may not always do something. So policy is not for today. Policy is for the future. Um so I I do understand what what board member Zimmerman is talking about. Um the other thing that I'm concerned about is it says one reference. Does that mean we call this employees best friend who might be wherever? Or do we document more that we need
043to have a solid reference from the district the the employees previous district's human resources department or something of that nature? Because at the end of the day, I've done a lot of hiring. I've never seen anybody put down a bad reference. Here, call this person. They're going to tell you I'm horrible. That doesn't happen. So, I think we need to get a true reference from the district um and not perhaps the person's immediate supervisor only from the standpoint that that immediate supervisor may not know history of the employee at another campus or or something of that nature. So, I I would like to see this tightened up a little bit. First of all, the future proof. I understand the good faith effort that that becomes a slippery slope and it has become a slippery slope.
044um in previous years in in many districts. So So I understand that and again for the future proofing in the future what we're doing today, we can't really say we're always going to do because we don't know that we're always going to be here. Um so I would like to see the language tightened up a little bit to include who the minimum if it's a minimum one reference who that is. If you guys want two or three or maybe I should say and you know we can soften that language to say shall attempt three references consideration will be given for less some some kind of language like that that I'm sure Amy can wordsmith better than me. President Todd. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um first I did want to clarify that in that sentence it
045does say three professional references. So, I think we do cover that it can't be your best friend or your neighbor um in that, but I do agree with what you said about um having it stated as maybe somehow stating it where you shall attempt three, but there's a minimum of and and just stating it like that. And we have a minimum of and maybe it is just a minimum of one so that we're not tying our hands potentially but um I understand Dr. Mahorn that you you would never hire someone without at least a single reference and I hope that whoever we hire if someone in the future would also have high standards but we need to guarantee it by putting it in writing and requiring it. So saying minimum of one but you know
046attempting three somehow again sorry phrasing is uh my brain is going in different directions so my wording is not the phrasing is not great right now but I think that's a good way of doing it um so that we're not saying only do one but we're not saying you need to have three or you can't hire someone like and on the on the on page two where this starts B it it talks about contacting previous employers of the applicants. So, I agree that um you know people aren't going to put down a bad reference, but this says before employment the school shall and then we take out that other part contact previous employers of applicants to obtain information relevant. Right? So, so my issue with that is define previous employer. Does that speak to the
047teacher's principal who is their supervisor who is really good friends with them who is disgruntled with their district and might say they're great but then when we talk to human resources directly we find something different. I I wasn't suggesting they're going to say call my friend who I go out to, you know, the clubs with, but sometimes when you look at what can be considered a professional employer, uh, reference, we don't necessarily know if that person has a close friendship with the principal who may give a glowing recommendation, but then the district may have a different opinion of that. So, we need to make sure we're talking to the right professional references and not somebody that's unaware of maybe the whole picture of of the employee. And I think we've we've seen that a few
048times. And so, I have just found that the best practice is HR to HR in in districts is just an HR person from one district to an HR person in another district. Now, of course, as a board, you can adopt or recommend what you want, but I just found that that the the best reference should be HR to HR. Mr. President, if I may, you may. I think we're talking about two different things. Um, I think we have the contact between HR and HR where you're talking with the previous employer and then the line that was added would be the professional references that the employee provided whether that be, you know, whoever that they might have on that. Um, I think that there's two different things. Am I mistaken here? See, that's how I understand
049this policy. And just from previous my previous employment and whatnot, when we we're looking at an application, we're going to check with each one of the HRs that that person has previously worked for, right? We're going to check with their HR. Their HR is going to be limited in what they can tell us. They're going to tell us that yes, they worked here or no, they didn't. Yes, they're rehireable or no, they're not. And beyond that, they can't say much. Then the employee um or the potential applicant, the applicant candidate will then provide us with three additional references. Those three references should be professional references and that's when we are asking them to provide us with someone such as a former principal or someone else that they have worked directly under or directly alongside. Now,
050as everybody has mentioned here, we're never going to provide a bad reference in that regard. So, we need both. We need the HR to HR and we need the professional references to get more information. It is very difficult um in a management or above position to be able to speak on behalf of any candidate who has previously worked for you within the state of Arizona. There are particular employment laws on top of most companies will have a policy saying you're not allowed to give references for any employees. So all of those things are being housed within this three sentences here in this paragraph. I'm just I'm not sure that the HR to HR point is is made here. And we've heard about staff leaving our district over the past years and say did we ever
051give a reference check? We never human resources never got a phone call from other districts. This is happening all over the place where they're not really checking with human resources and I think it's just important that we include that that clause. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. So when um when somebody calls for reference checks from human resources um because you know you are not their direct supervisor, are you just answering those simple questions that Mr. Uh, Miss Castiano's discussed. There's more than those. There's about 15 questions um that I'm asked, but I can tell you in the past 2 years, I might have gotten two reference checks. I mean, we can't control what other people do. So, I don't I don't think we should focus on whether we're getting reference checks or not.
052But I mean the question of you know is somebody rehireable if we offer them a contract they are rehireable correct. Correct. Okay. So just for clarification I just want to sum up this conversation. We will um I'll go back in here. We'll put on um we'll put some language around our human resources will contact someone else's human resources for all qualified or all qualified positions that they had listed on their resume. Something around that. Um and then we will also talk about the professional references that there be a minimum of three professional references attempted to be contacted with a we will have one reference prior to hiring. I just I'm fine with that. I just want to clarify that you said that when they contact HR, any position they listed, they're going to contact every
053single HR. That's how I understood what you just said. Correct. So, if I list five positions on my resume, then HR from whatever area. So, if I was to be working for um AD, I'm sorry, Arizona Department of Education. When I was working for Arizona Department of Education, they called each and every person or each and every job that I referenced on my application. Is that something you regularly do? Contact each employer that they list the HR. Yeah. Okay. I just that seems like a lot. So, I'm just clarifying that we do that and that's not a big ask. So, Okay. So, does that sum up the conversation? Okay. Okay. So, listed on page five um under 4-103 employee evaluations. Miss Zimmerman had requested that the employee evaluations the actual form be placed within this
054um section. The employee evaluations are currently undergoing review and revision. So to place them in this policy would be kind of a mute point at this time. However, we can place them under so when you go back in August for adoption or whenever those evaluations are ready, you can go ahead and put those in here if you like as an exhibit. Sorry, I I was wondering if we could go back because I looked at my notes of the ones that I gave prior to this and under 4-102, I talked about adding language around salary schedules. Um because when you look at the crosswalk, it says like our old policy GCBA is included in this. and we don't talk about how we're going to place people on a salary schedule or any of that. And I
055I don't know if the board decided they didn't want that. I'm I just apologize. I don't remember. Yeah. So, I as I was going through the notes, I'm not seeing anything here on like the minute stamps or whatnot that it was on there. So, it may not have been included because I may have missed it. Um but you're requesting that the salary schedule be placed where? In 4-102 under we have positions, work calendars, tra trans transfer of certificated, teachers, duties of principal, and then you would want the salary schedule or you would want a new policy based on salary schedule. Well, I'm just it's I guess more of a discussion, you know, in terms of how we place people and things like that. It just something in our old policy like as I looked at
056the crosswalk that I noticed wasn't present and you know is the board comfortable I guess not having it in policy. I just think how we place somebody is kind of important and since we set the salary schedules as the board it seems that it should be in our policy. So, my guess is that it would fall under positions, but I think we could just make a new little section under here that said salary schedules. But, and can you reference that policy for me one more time, please? Sure. It's uh GCBA. GCBA. Okay. And then um talking about 4- um 103 I know that they are revising the instrument. But I I feel like by including the current instrument then it will force us because we don't know when the new instrument will be brought to
057us. It could be brought to us in 6 months. It could be brought to us in a year. And I think for transparency purposes it should be in policy and so when we adopt a new one then we can you know update the policy. That would be my preference. Any other discussion on that? Do we just put language in there that says we use the current then we don't have to bring it back each time. Just use the current uh instrument. So that I believe is already in here regarding the evaluations. Yeah. So the governing board shall adopt an instrument and establish a system to evaluate their performance. So that is the current instrument conversation that you're having. President, right? But what I'm saying is instead of having to bring it back when anyone comes
058out, we just say we're using the most current. Whatever the most current is, it's like Robert's rules of order. We use the most recent version, the most recent instrument. then we don't have to come back every time and reapprove. It just happens. So, um, what Miss Zimmerman has, uh, requested is that we put that current instrument in policy. So, what you're stating right now is like, don't put the current instrument in policy. Instead, just put the wording, use the current instrument. I think that's makes it cleaner. Then we can have that instrument as it becomes more updated, that becomes the most recent, the most recent one. Um, sorry, I looked at my notes. I have a couple other things. So, in that first paragraph, the board shall provide an opportunity for public discussion regarding the
059evaluation um system for certificated administrators. I maybe just add um like because it doesn't say when we're going to have that discussion, maybe when a new instrument is adopted, just adding wording so that it's clear when the um will provide opportunity for public discussion because it's not like something we do every year. And then um under principal principal evaluations, that last paragraph, the the district style designate principles in one of the four performance classifications. um it doesn't it doesn't explain how we get to those classifications and for teachers which is on the next page it kind of explain or not on the next page it's on um uh it's on page eight where it kind of lists how a teacher uh they would determine that performance is inadequate. Um but we don't provide those same
060kind of qualifiers for administrators. So that would be the same discussion we were having um a few moments ago about how that that happens, right? So, are we asking to add that information in here? But we're going to I know. I mean, it's it's the same argument. I mean, it's it's the same same comment for the record that I don't I think we're clear about how we evaluate teachers and how we classify them as inadequate, how we non-renew them, but administrators, we don't give that same um information to. And I know it's not according to the statute. I understand. I so these are our policies and and it's just my request and you know for the record that's my request. So one thing to consider is that all administrators at least almost all have previously
061been teachers. So they've already gone through that process of being a school teacher and doing the evaluations that are required for that. And then once you're at administrator level it really is an annual process. Um now I've never been a certified teacher myself. my wife was for 40 years, but um I've only been an administrator. So, I've had the experience of just the annual evaluation with usually for me it was the superintendent and um that's just the way the law is. I don't I um I understand you it's a personal preference and the board can do what they'd want, but that's traditionally what happens. Okay. So, I just want to wrap this conversation up with 4-103 um real quick. So, we're stating that under certificated administrator evaluations that we will use the current instrument, but
062we are not including the in the current what is the current instrument in the exhibit. Correct. Okay. The next piece is that um we're also I think that's the only edit to this other than I have something to research. Well, there's some others on different pages that still fall under this um policy. So, okay. On page six, uh B, I do not think we offer teachers multi-year contracts in this district. Correct. So, I just in fact, if I could add something, the um teachers are only allowed to be offered one-year contract. The um um principles can and superintendents can be offered three-year contracts, but that's the only ones. Okay. So, I think we should remove B then. And then would that change A as well? Because it says the district may offer multi-year contracts not
063to exceed three years to certificated teachers in the highest performance classification. I'm sorry. Yeah, that is correct. I'm sorry. The can in the highest. Yes, that's right. I'm sorry. That is that is correct. So although we don't do it, if we take this out, it eliminates our ability to do it. If we leave it in, this would be referring to B. We would we would keep that in. We don't have to do it. Right. Right. Remove it completely. Then we have no mechanism classification that can offer more than one year. That's right. So are we asking for that to be removed? Um on I'm just clarifying the notes. So on page seven um I understand that it's state law. So it's you know understand that has to be left in. I still don't understand how
064a teacher would know. Uh, oh, I think this was part of your clarification now that I'm like thinking and you're going to speak that the administrator's evaluations are not confidential and so that's how a teacher would know that. Okay. Yeah, those are all public record. Okay. And then uh page 10, this is still part of um the same policy. Okay. So this kind of it's the middle paragraph, you know, where the comment is. The district is not required to provide certificated teachers with the opportunity to overcome or remediate unprofessional conduct prior to initiating discipline or dismissal action. So 4-104 allows for an appeal of an unprofessional conduct. Um, I just want to make sure we're being consistent, I guess, in our policy. And so, the way that I read this is that they cannot overcome
065or remediate it, but they are able to file an appeal. I just want to I guess I I guess I want some clarification as to what this is saying compared to 4-104. Mr. President, if I may. You may. Is this because it starts off like you read the district is not required to provide. Um, so this is talking about the district's requirement or not and I believe the one you're referring to is talking about basically the employees rights to that appeal. Right. So it's the difference between the district and then the employees. But if the district is saying they don't have a right to an appeal and then we say later that they do. I'm going to find the page where it talks about the appeal. Might be page 10. Says appeal at the bottom.
066Yeah, I think I think that this the language where the district is not required because this would be under something egregious, something horrible that a teacher's done. They they they're fired. Yeah. So this is something where they don't have to provide the teacher with some reason, you know, time to come back and try to fight this and stuff where they've made some bad bad decision. Say they, god forbid, touched a kid inappropriately. And this gives the district the opportunity to take that action. Correct. Yes, that's correct. So if we um some examples that I have experienced in my career have been alcohol you know someone coming to work inebriated uh that type of thing or inappropriate touching of a student or physical you know assault that type of thing. if I may. Um, sorry. I
067just the way that I'm reading this, I I agree with um board member Kenyon for the most part. I think we're we're kind of in line, but I'm reading this as the district does not have to give them a chance. Like the district doesn't have to offer them the opportunity of like a performance improvement plan to change your coming to work drunk. Um, you're just fired, but they still can appeal it. Yes. and they that would be like their case in front of the board saying I wasn't whatever whatever but the the district doesn't have to come in and say we c we caught you doing this thing here's your five-step improvement plan you've got the next two months to you know come appropriately you're fired but they still can appeal so they don't conflict
068it's just two different processes is that right that is correct okay thank you and I think you know as I'm reading the note about this we had this discussion and why I wanted to add the word egregious because I think you know the definition of what unprofessional conduct is is going to be different for different people and so you know if somebody says well posting on social media about you know negatively about the district is unprofessional conduct and we don't give them the opportunity to remediate that it's obviously not the same as coming to work drunk and so I think that was my concern here is, you know, making sure that our employees feel protected that they're not going to be subject to something without due process. So that's why I asked for the word
069egregious here in this policy and the response that's below was are what was advised through the trust. So they had um stated that this was language to directly protect the district and egregious could be defined by who, right? Um unprofessional conduct can be defined by who? So keep it in alignment with state statute. Um really helps to make sure that we're staying consistent throughout our language and then also not opening up to some definitions through courts and this and that. we can add it. That was just that's what the comment below is which I understand. I just, you know, have some reservations. Okay. Are we okay to move on to 4-104? Yes, please. So under 4-104, Miss Zimmerman had requested that we provide a definition for misconduct. Um so that definition is provided here. Um
070what are some examples? This is what misconduct can include, but it's not limited to and it doesn't. So I'm want to make sure that we got the intent of that down correctly. The only concern I had with this particular the definition is the first bullet demonstrating behavior that is unprofessional or inconsistent with ethical standards. What ethical standards? Well, each profession has an ethical standard. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, it would be determined by the specific profession, right? So, the teaching profession has ethical standards. Each teacher goes through ethics. administrators do as well and so do superintendents. So at each level we would be holding holding them to the professional standards the professional ethical standards of their respective position. So could we just add the word professional ethical standards to make that a little bit more clear?
071Yeah, I just I'd like to see it in this particular bullet. Just the word add the word professional in front of ethical. Okay. On page 13, um there was a request to outline procedures for discipline that do not end in suspension or suspension. This here is for those that um suspension without pay for up to 10 work days. So this section includes both procedures for discipline without suspension and procedures for discipline with suspension of up to 10 days. Um the non oh I'm sorry on page 19 and policy 4-106 um we had a discussion about nonrenewals and making sure that it was clear that riffs um or reduction in forces were not based on performance. Um and so the language here, this recommendation may take the form of uh non-renewal contract or termination of employment
072solely due to the riff. Okay. So I have a question for um I don't know. Have you ever been through a riff process? Okay. So when let's say uh somebody's looking for a job, when they call, what would you say? You know, if they didn't have their job, would you say that they were rifted? Would you say that they were nonrenewed? Not if they were truly a reduction ince. No, I would make sure that that was that was communicated because it's not their fault if it was a true reduction in force. No, we have had those just in my time here. Okay. We've had to do that. So, I think the the language that I'm concerned with, I appreciate the the clarification. I think we're close to my intent. The recommendation um may take the
073form of a non-renewal of contract. I think that's if we took out that work may take the form of a non-renewal of contract. The recommendation of termination of employment so solely due to riff and not for reasons related to the employee performance or conduct. I I feel like if you left in um may take the form of non-renewal that could be difficult when they go look for an I'm just picturing how it would appear on a personal action item. And so if we're just going to put RIFF, why can't we just say that? Why do we have to say termination or non-renewal? It's not any of those things. It could depend on the So one one particular case when somebody was a reduction in force um we offered them another position actually more money um
074and that person did not take that. So then that would be uh totally blanked non-renewal where it's a where it's a non-renewal of a teacher. No, it's not a teacher. No, no, no, no, not teacher. Nope. Classified staff. Classified staff. Not teacher. No. Okay. No, no, not teacher. Classified. I No, not teacher. I just I hear what you're saying, but then that's a non-renewal. That's I I feel like when you tie in riff as a form of non-renewal, I think is where I'm not comfortable with the language. I think if we could just take out the word may take the form of non-renewal of a contract because you're terminating their employment. That's what a riff is. So, I am okay with leaving that. If we if the board is okay with taking out that one
075little part, then I'm okay. Which part? um may take the form of a non-renewal of contract or and then it will just say recommendation. So it would read the recommendation of ter um the recommendation of termination of employment solely due to the riff and not for reasons related to employee performance or conduct. Can I switch hats for just a minute and be a thought partner in this? Yeah, of course. Appreciate that. Um, from my previous experience, there is oftent times that as an organization, we do not want to do a riff if we don't have to, right? Always. However, publicly, it's a real big tarnish on our reputation to have to do riffs. So, if we can wait until the end of a school school year and just non-renew contracts and not announce that we're
076having a reduction in force, we do that for public relations reasons. We also do that for the protection of the district. So with those things being said, as a thought partner, not as anything else, as a thought partner, I would asked to consider the public image of the district if we are having to say we're doing a reduction in force when at the end of the year we could just be doing non-renewal contracts. and you would take that option off the table by removing those words. But are we being fair to our employees who are looking for another job and and they have a non-renewal on their record, which is is is usually seen as a negative because they weren't offered a contract for reasons of their um performance. I was just going to say
077that the you know um probationary teachers up to the first three years you can just non-renew as long as it's not for the reason isn't for inadequate classroom performance. Okay. So you can non-renew and that can be a way of shrinking the school district if you have too many positions and you're trying to save money. You just take the ones that are in those first three years and non-renew. Right. But that's already a that's already a policy. We're not that that's not something we're discussing here. Correct. It's the effect of uh it's effectively you're doing a riff, but it's of you're using those young teachers. You the people that don't have the longest uh don't have tenure yet or it's not they don't we don't use the word tenure, but but effectively they're the fir
078in the first three years of teaching. So it's a process. Mr. President, if I may may um I'm okay with the language as it is. The reason being was what Miss Castina has just stated in regards to, you know, what public relations for the district. One of our one of our goals as board members is to uphold the district and the community um and help improve public relations. Um, I very much sympathize with teachers that have to be non-renewed because of riffs that happen, but just flat out coming and and just saying, you know, hey, to me, a riff sounds immediate, right? If we're not going to allow them to have a non-renewal, then they're going to be let go because that's the only other option, right? if we have the option of saying we're
079just going to non-renew you. Here's the reason why. And then it's the due diligence of them when they're looking for a job or my my experience with with this current administration when this has happened. Um I've been told that they've every one of these teachers who have been non-renewed because of a riff has been told I will help you find another position and explain what the situation is regarding your non-renewal. And so, um, and I'm not going to say every administration is going to do that, but I I I feel that it's kind of going back to what we talked about before of HR reaching out to HR, and that's kind of, you know, if they're looking for a job, they need to call the reference. And if you're an employee and you went through
080this unfortunate situation and you're looking for a job, you got to explain, here's what happened. And that's just being honest and transparent. So, I'm okay with this language. It protects the district. Um, and I think I think as long as the employee understands that the reason why they're being non-renewed is because of a riff, it doesn't necessarily have to leave that, you know, go out into the public because of that. But I think that's kind of what you're getting at if if I'm not mistaken is that the employee just understanding what's behind it, Mr. President. Yes. Um, so if an HR called you and we non-renewed a teacher, would you answer the question, are they rehiraable? Can you answer yes if we didn't offer them a contract? That's my concern. Wait, so if you're cannot
081offer them or if you did not offer them a contract, you cannot say that they're rehireable. No, they're not reelable for rehired then. Yeah. Then but if they came back a year later, what's up? No, I think you're I think we're having a loss. They're not rehireable now because there's no position for them. But in a year, if that position opened back up, they may be eligible for rehire. If we have somebody who breaks a contract and leaves, it may be deemed that they are ineligible for rehire no matter what happens. And that's just example. They're never eligible for rehire. But a person who's being riffed, it's kind of like a layoff, but because of the teacher world and because of contracts, you're saying we're not renewing them because of a riff. But we'd love
082to have them back if a year if we get those positions. So that would not be a non a nonrehirable person. I would just be a person who's currently rifted. We don't have a position for them. But if we do not offer them a contract, can you as HR say that they are rehiraable? I cannot because technically they're not. If we nonrenewed, if I'm being transparent and honest, if we didn't hire, if we didn't offer them a contract, then they are not eligible for rehire technically. But what about tomorrow if a contract comes available? So, let's say we rift people and somewhere we get an 11th person who says, "You know what? I'm close to retirement. I'm just going to retire." Now, you would go back and grab one of those 10 people and bring
083them back into the fold of getting a contract. So, they are rehiraable. I think the question becomes, are they eligible for rehire? If they're eligible for rehire, they can come back at any time as long as we have a position. I'm speaking hypothetically because we haven't ripped anybody. I'm I'm I'm talking about another district. I'm not really talking about our district. This goes back to a previous conversation that we had and and what HR can say. And so if we say that they are being nonrenewed to kind of make the district look better, my concern is that we're putting the employee in a difficult position because when they call HR, a different district, not our district. She the HR has to say that they're that they were not offered a contract which makes them explain
084that. But again, we're writing policy for the future. Yes, we're writing policy for the future. So the question that HR is asked, are they eligible for rehire? So if you if we did not offer a teacher a contract this year, right? Are they eligible for rehire at the district? If there's been no disciplinary measure that happened, this is just because of a riff. That's the only reason. Are they eligible for rehire at the district? If it's just because of a riff, then yes, they are. Okay. So when you It's just because of a riff. So we're right just imaginary just imaginary to a place that we haven't been or public record. We are under no um no worries of a riff right now. or not. But what we're having a conversation is because we need
085to write policy for such if it's truly just because of a riff. If we have to riff truly riff 25 teachers, they are those t 25 teachers would be eligible for rehire. Correct. Okay. But we're not talking about a riff. We're talking about claiming that they are non-renewals. That's why I want to take out that part. But that the whole idea of this is just that we've non-renewed them because of a riff, right? So when the HR person when HR from another district calls you and says, "Are they eligible for rehire?" Your answer is what? I would say yes. I would say yes. That's if I know that these 25 teachers were non-renewed only because of a riff, I would 100% say yes. And you would know that because you would open up their file
086upon getting the call from HR and it would say, it would be noted. It would be noted in front line. Mr. President, if I may, you may. Would it be out of place if we just write in this section that these teachers will still be considered rehiraable? Absolutely. Yeah, I think so. My opinion. Yes. So, that was a lot of discussion for that. Yes. All right. What's next? Page 22. capture that three words. Um, page 22, we added the addition of with all concerns regarding the superintendent will be reported to um, okay, that's what it is. So, we added that concerns regarding the superintendent will be reported directly to the governing board. in this section. Um, and many for your purposes, this is 4-201 and it's number 21. Um also the same the same policy
087number we added in um a number 20 or actually a paragraph that they will remain in professional remain current in professional knowledge and best practices relevant to their field of work. And page 23 um on number 12, we added uh this is for employees shall not possess a weapon on district property without legal authority and proper authorization from district administration. Okay. If we have a you know SRO or SSO officer, they are not employees of the district. Correct. Correct. So where can you give me an example of when an employee would need to possess a weapon? So during the meetings, those are contractors, right? Basically, I mean, it's it's a Buckeye PD that we are But we contract them because they're off duty. Correct. They're not they're not employees. pay them. They're a we pay
088them, but we contract with them technically. So, I'm unless somebody can give me an example of an employee needing to possess a weapon, I'm not comfortable with number 12 because I don't obviously a police officer can have a weapon, but an employee even with district approval I So, I think that would be private security that we may hire and some districts do that. They hire private security staff. Some of the charter schools do that as well and they carry armed. They're armed. That may be one example of that. Mr. President, if I may as well you may possess a weapon doesn't necessarily mean a firearm either. That could be anything. Um, you know, weapon is a term that I've always thought was funny because a pen can be a weapon in the right hands. Um,
089so, you know, obviously I think when we think a weapon, we think firearm immediately, right? But in regards to this, I think it's exactly what President Todd was stating where it's private security. Um, and I don't know offhand right now what other situation there may be, but I do like having it in here where you have to have legal authority and proper authorization from the district administration. Um, there's, you know, other states that allow even certain teachers to be licensed. Um, and I'm not saying they're here, but I'm saying that having this here just kind of sets sets us right where I think we need to be for if something changes. And if we have a concern that somebody, you know, is violating this, well, there's there's an issue. But you have to have legal
090authority and district administration authority um to be on the grounds with a weapon. So, and this is for employees. Correct. So, I'm okay with this being here. I don't I don't know that it hurts us. It keeps us it keeps it there. The answer can always be no as well. Like, and just for the record, I'm not comfortable with number 12. So on page 24 um there this is the same policy um on page 24 there's an exception added to number 24 for teachers in specialized roles who are assigned to provide instruction to the entire student population such as music, art, physical education or other enrichment subjects may request a waiver. from this policy. So, this policy in particular was for um tutoring, right? And we had a lengthy conversation between all of the board
091members that are present here today um if we should allow music teachers or softball coaches or um you know, someone of that nature with those specialized positions that provide instruction to the entire student body. and we stated that we would put in a waiver for them. Um, and so that is where this language came from here. And then in number 25, um, Miss Zimmerman had asked if an employee could rent a facility. I went ahead and linked the policy where employees can rent facilities. Moving on to page 24, same policy. Um there was significant conversation on number 30 around the donations aspect, right? So that we if we were going to solicit crowdfunding, etc. So just to draw your memory back to that policy, um we said that we needed to add in some language
092around the IT department having um approval from the IT department um and then add an exemption for a personal wish list such as Amazon. I did not want to like we said personal wish list and I wanted to give an example of one but I didn't want to call it an Amazon wish list. So that is why you see it listed that way here. Okay. And then down below the um investigation of alleged violations um I was asked to provide some language there by Miss Zimmerman and Mr. Todd. And so I would like to open it up for a discussion if there's any clarification needed or um conversation about that language. I guess the only thing I would ask about this is maybe they should be doing this in the consultation with human resources. I'm
093not sure that every supervisor is necessarily an investigator. You don't want this to go wrong. I think human resources should be involved anytime they've they violated district policy for guidance as to what that investigation looks like. Um, moving on to page 27, policy number 4-202 about staff and student boundaries. Um, we added some language in here about parental consent for socializing with a student outside of school and school activities. Um, and then on number six, we added language around monetary value of a gift. So, giving or accepting personal gifts from students without parental consent or giving receiving gifts with monetary value exceeding $50. I think there's statute that says how much a government employee can accept. I thought it was $25 unless it's food. There is statute, but it's not. It's uh it's involving the
094procurement process and u but there's no dollar specific dollar amount on that. It's just a it's more generic term. I'll see if I can find it. Okay. You know, I still would rather not have a dollar amount. Um I just think, you know, we get into this whole I think without parental uh without parental consent covers it. Um in terms of, you know, I think the intent of the policy, but you know, I don't want to have the whole lengthy discussion again. Um, but you know, if a student gives a teacher a gift, obviously that was purchased by the parent and it's a $50 gift card to a restaurant, I think that's okay. But, um, you know, we didn't want to box ourselves in, you know, with different numbers and stuff. And so, I I
095would say that, you know, I would apply apply the same logic here. Any other discussion there? I I just feel like $50 is a lot. Some families can't afford that. It's going to make things a little uncomfortable. I I believe the state even has a policy of $25 or less. I I think we should research that a little bit more. Okay, moving on to 4-202.A. Um, social media and cell phone use guidance. I'm sorry, that looks like a typo. 4-204 mandatory reporting. This was a policy amendment, so we haven't had an opportunity to discuss this. Oh, go ahead. Um I would just ask that um uh you know it says governing board members are mandatory reporters and including substitutes to make sure that we are all getting that tra the opportunity to have that training
096since uh you know we're not technically employees um just if we have the opportunity I guess it's more of just kind of a note doesn't need I don't know if it needs to be in policy but yeah Mr. President FM. You may. Um that's exactly what I was going to say is is um adding the governing board members. I don't know if previously were governing board members considered mandatory reporters. Okay. Yes, they always have been. Okay. With that being said, I don't know. I haven't once. I mean, I I've taken the mandator I've given the mandatory reporter training uh many many many times, but I don't know that this board, and I'll speak for myself, not once have I ever been offered the mandatory reporter training. And so, that's something that we'll have to I
097know we talked about the new board member orientation that definitely needs to be included in that. Um, and I don't know that we got that far when we when we talked about that. Well, I wasn't included, but I could. It's you could do it um online through vector. So, I can do it. Yeah. Access to that. I didn't Yeah. No, just as a board member, I think the new hire or the new board member orientation I think needs to include that pointing people because if if we are considered mandator mandate mandatory reporters, we have to take that class. Yep. We have to it's not a it's not an option. Yeah. So, as coming on and it's really something that should be done at the state level, I think you know and and the county superintendent's
098office when you go swear in or whatever. But that beside the point if we're considered mandatory reporters that has to be done. So, um just for us to know, but I hope other boards who are watching this know that their their districts need to provide them with that training. And I wasn't aware that you guys were or hadn't had it. so I can easily make sure you guys get it. Yeah, there's some great in-person resources here on the West Valley as well that provide uh mandatory reporter training if you would prefer to do some in person and I can give that information to Dr. Mor. Thank you. Any other um comments or suggestions on 4-204 mandatory reporter um 4-204A is also an amendment offered by the trust or a revision. So that starts on page
09933. Um and it's again mandatory reporting that is Mr. President, for me, you may. I just had a a kind of a general question about this whole thing. I know I was asked about contractors. Are we allowed to put language about contractors in here? Because if I'm not wrong, like in Arizona, they're if they work at a school, they're also mandatory reporters. Are we allowed to dictate in our policy about contractors or does that show up in their like contracts what the requirements are? Because nowhere in here do we discuss contractors on campus. Which contract? I guess we have to clarify contractors. You talking a construction contractor or a contractor for special ed speech therapy etc. Just the teachers or is like where our psychiatrist were contractors. They're still in there. But I'm not talking
100about construction contractors. I'm talking about individual contractors. Oh are individual contractors? Absolutely. there, but that's under their employment or their that's under them. So, we don't we wouldn't necessarily dictate to them, right? Yes. That's part of what they have like their background checked, all of that. They can't come on our campus unless they've had that. If we contract out for a special ed teacher or a psych or anything else, that's part of what they have to have before they can come on our campus, even if they're contracted. Yeah. I guess my question is, we're writing all these policies, should we be referencing our contractors as well? because we're saying countries aren't employees. Um, what rules do they have to follow that we set forth? They do. They have to follow our rules, but you could
101definitely feel free to put it in policy as well. I mean, that's Mr. President, if I may. You may. Um, I would agree. We we got to look at somewhere somewhere in our policy where to insert contracted employees, right? Um well, you know, if if we're under the heading employees, I don't think they're in that section, but there should be a section dedicated to the the contractors, but um if I could still on page 33 talking about the managed reporting, um I know, well, I guess we don't have to have it in here, but I know they have the phone number there to call, and I know it's the little easy way to remember it is the 188 8 8 SOS child, right? Um, and that's not in here. If we could just add that
102somewhere after these just kind of a a reference. That's an easy way to remember the child abuse reporting hotline. Is that after this group? Correct. Just right after the phone number. Yeah. Like sorry. Oh, just put the acronym. Okay. Yeah. Just to help. I mean, I have a hard enough time remembering anybody's number, so Okay. If we move on to policy 4-302 on page 50, you a moment. Um, there is a request here from Mr. Todd that we uh research Dr. Mohan. Uh, there's a request here from President Todd that we research um and be prepared for the accumulated vacation days of employees who may retire so that we can give um some level of a budgetary report for that. Um and then on page 51 of the same policy, um there was a request
103here about the months of service not wanting for anybody who um had not finished a full year to receive acrruel of their vacation time. That being stated, you'll also see um Jennifer Mlen her um comment here to make sure that you all are aware that if we adopt this policy that you may have to grandfather in for the first year, the employees who have already um acred vacation time. So, because we're adopting these in July, it might not be as that that was my comment is that since we're adopting them in July and that's the new contracted year, we should be fine. Correct. Okay. As long as that information is within their contracts, right? Well, it's not in their contracts. um that if they if they resign within the year, they do not get paid
104out their vacation. That isn't in their current contract. But if we adopt this policy, I think we can do a contract revision because the contract hasn't started yet. Um, are we we're talking about changing the amount of vacation pay that would be it's just that if they do not serve a whole year. So, we've had we had two highle district employees that did not finish the year, but each got paid around and I'm just approximating $3,000 paid out in vacation time. and they didn't even complete the one contract a year. I'm not talking about anything after one year. They are entitled to their vacation. They serve their time. I'm only referring to people that have worked for the district under a year, break their contract, and then we pay them out their vacation. Yeah. No.
105So, and it's not in the contract right now. Is that right? No. We're asking could we update that for anybody we hire from now on that if you if you don't work at least a year you don't get your vacation paid out. Oh yeah. People that aren't hired yet certainly could because we uh but people that have signed a contract I don't right. No no no people that have already signed a contract but we have open positions. We have open positions now. So anybody that we hire after this is adopted could we do that? Yes. Okay. Would we be able to do that for next year's contracts as well or everybody that's currently under contract now is grandfathered forever? Yeah, it's um No, not forever. Just this contract. No, you can change it to the
106contract year. The next contract, but we can't amend the contract even though it hasn't started yet. Um, not you've already offered it and they've already accepted and signed. So that would something that would need to come before the board though pretty quickly in order for us to if you know there are a lot of highle district positions open um that we could change that before we offer Okay. Can we I do want you all to note that um under months of services still will say 0 to 60 because they will acrue the time. It just will not be paid out. Yeah. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. M cast, can we go back to the gift thing for a second? I'm just looking um key aspects of the Arizona gift laws.
107It talks about non-monetary gifts with a cumulative value of $25 or less from a single donor account year permissible for individual employees according to Arizona General Accounting Office. So I think probably yeah says gifts exceeding $50 from a single source in a calendar year are generally prohibited according to Arizona State University and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Um, group acceptance groups or departments can accept non non-monetary gifts, but the value must not exceed $5 per member from one donor per year, according to the Arizona General Accounting Office. All right. I think those are donations to the district, which is which is like the tax like our tax credit as well. But these talking specifically about gifts for holidays and that sort of thing. I think Mr. Dangerfield may have a little work cut out for
108him on this for uh um for looking at it, but I I remember my time at the state and it was it was 25 I'm sure it was $25 unless it was food. Yes. No, I I agree in the past that there $25 has been considered a kind of a a general rule about it. The problem is I don't think that it's specifically in statute. Well, it says according to the Arizona General Accounting Office, which we better follow what they're saying. GAO's got quite a bit of say. I think if we're outside of what they're saying, and I I'm fine with the $25 rule if you want to establish it, but that will be very limited. Some some parents get really generous. You talk about gen gifts to teachers. I I I get it, but
109I'm just saying and the teacher supposed to turn it down. That's pretty awkward. I understand. I mean, there's there's lots of training. My my company just has gone through that and there's there's a lot of training about this now, but this is becoming a big issue. Okay. So, I would say you can make a well-placed Christmas gift to the baseball coach and all of a sudden your son is the starting baseball player, starting pitcher. No, there's certainly an issue about conflict. I just think when you have the general accounting office giving guidance, we it's probably a pretty good idea to follow that. Mr. President, may I? You may. Yeah. If you just look into it, CL, because I don't know if that's like a state standard or if that's their individual office standard, the general
110accounting state of Arizona general accounting office, right? They cover everything for the state. But that's I think talking about state employees, right? Well, yeah, but then you have here conflicts of interest, gifts can also trigger conflicts of interest issues, especially with regard to vendors or contractors according to Flagstaff Unified School District. So again, this this gets very sticky if you have an a student whose parent is trying to get business with the district or something of that nature. All of a sudden, the superintendent has a nice This is a sticky area. There's no question about it. Always has been. Most every place these days seems to really be restricting that to about $25 to keep that down. You can get a small coffee cup or something of that nature. I realize it changes. I not
111saying the teachers don't deserve it, but when you look at all of these government agencies in Arizona that are saying $25 or less, I think we really need to really need to look at that. This one here says non-monetary gifts with a cumulative value of $25 or less from a single donor in a calendar year. So that means if you give $25 at Christmas, there's nothing else for Valentine's Day, whatever other holiday you give you give gifts for that the school does. So, I just think we probably The $25 rule is not a bad rule. I'm just saying how do you how are you going to implement that? There's going to have to be some kind of a notification. It goes out to parents. Oh, that's because I I was I've been married to a
112school teacher for a long time and I've seen a lot of holiday gifts and some are very generous and others, you know, it just there doesn't seem to be a a standard rule. But if if we have one, uh, it would be wise to educate everybody on it. I don't I don't have any problem with the $25 rule at all. I just think about trying to implement it. So, is there a request for Mr. Dangerfield to do additional uh research or is the request to just change the to the $25 or is the request to not have a monetary I don't know which edit to make Mr. President if I may you may so I think in regards to that situation or that that section we're talking about students giving gifts to the to the
113teacher we'll say um I'm okay with the $25 yes please do the research if you could and bring some back I'm okay with the $25 in regards to that if it's a parent giving gift. I think that that probably needs to go through administration. And then there's, you know, I think it's a little bit different. But we're talking about students. So the the whole reason why I'm very careful about the interaction students have with teachers is because we've seen teachers take advantage of that. and conflict. I think we're actually the student gift to the to the teacher is usually a parent gift. I mean, it comes usually from We say that, but it's in our student policy, right? Or or student gifts to the teacher. So, so I mean, if if the teacher brings it,
114that's one thing, but if it's a student, you know, mean if a parent Sorry. Yes. If a parent brings it and you know, I think that that's one thing, but a student I I I really want to be careful with that. Oh, yeah. I absolutely. I agree. That's that's a I I understand. I think the $25 rule is fine. Let's just implement $25. I just I just see foresee challenges with trying, right? And I I agree there's going to be challenges. Um but I just want to make it very evident that yes, I support our teachers and yes, they would love to have some nice gifts from their students or accept those. However, at the end of the day, we're here to protect kids as number one. And that's my my biggest thing right now
115is to make sure we're protecting these kids. And if if this rule keeps some bad relationship from forming between a child and a bad teacher, we'll say, um, I will stand on this rule every day. So, thank you, Mr. President. Can I make a comment? You may. I um you know I think that if there is like a singular situation that's why we have discipline policy and things like that for unprofessional conduct. I think you know nitpicking this you know parents being able to give teachers a a gift at Christmas or at the end of the year. I don't find it necessary. So my uh comment for the record would be to not have a monetary value. And just for the record, you're the one that suggested we have a monetary value at the last
116meeting. Just saying. But thank you. I actually think I was the one who requested the monetary value. Are we okay to move forward? Yes, please. Um, we just finished up on page 51. So, moving on. under policy 4302 page 56. Um there was discussion about parental leavebacks. um and about two parents who both work for the district and how their time was 12 weeks combined in the previous policy. Um I was asked to add in language that would allow them to take each have 12 separate weeks um 12 weeks per person and but not be able to take that leave consecutively. So I split out the parental leave and the military caregiver leave just to more clearly define I'm sorry that they can't take it consecutively or concurrently. Concurrently. Sorry. Thank you. Sorry. I just
117wanted to The words are Okay. No, I got you. I I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Thank you. I think though what we lo uh I appreciate you making the change. Um but I think we lost the um or to take care of a parent with a serious health condition. I think we lost that in these in the rewarding. So if you look at the crossed out Yeah, I see it. Okay, I can add in. Okay. And I would also like to see um the word child if if they had to care for their child with a um serious health condition. It says parent here, but I think if their child had one. Do you see where it says or take care of a parent but not a parent? And I would just add
118the word I would add that sentence back and add the word child. Isn't that covered under FMLA? But isn't are we offering because currently the it doesn't look like the district has a policy for 12 weeks for a child. But isn't that under the FMLA policy? Okay. So we want to reiterate it here or is it a 12 separate week? Well, why is the the one that's crossed out then? If we just go back, if we don't add the word child, it says to care for a parent with a serious health condition. I think it's it's on what? I think it's on page 55. Reasons for leave. Yeah. And and so is so is the birth of a child. But I think what we're talking about here is when two employees work for the district
119and them taking it. So I still think the clarification is needed here for this specific you know part of that we're clarifying. Now I just want to be clear here because part of the or to take care of a parent right so we have this parsed out because we wanted two separate 12 weeks but part of that to take care of a parent but not a parent in-law. Yeah, I was just gonna say that same thing that if we're if it's two employees that spouses who work for the district to take care of the parent, but you could only take care of your immediate parent, not your in-law. So that the the backtoback wouldn't matter in that case. Is that what you were going to say? Yeah. Cuz they'd be only the employees parent, not
120you know, so if it was my mom, my husband couldn't also take the time to care for her. It would have to be his own parent if he needed to use that policy. Okay. And and can we just think about the child one? Yeah. If we does that clarification if they both work for the district that they are have the ability to each take 12 weeks. Okay. I have a question about FMLA. FMLA is completely up to the employee to choose to use it or not. Correct. A district can't make an employee take FMLA, can they? Um, they can actually require that if they're going to take time off, they can require that they use up their FMLA time. Okay. Use it up. Yeah. Use the 12 weeks as FMLA. Right. But I mean you
121would do that anyway if you were if you have the time. Yes, you would. But some people want to take both options. You know, choose the u if they have the sick leave or whatever, you can also require that they use that time as FMLA. Okay. But does that make them go on FMLA? That just makes them use sick time for sick time. And then they they would use that primarily first. And then after that, if they're still needing time off, they would use their vacation time, PTO time, whatever that employee has. Yeah. The FMLA is normally uncompensated. So, is that what you're saying is that they would add them together. Okay. If you have 10 days available to you, let's say five sick and five vacation days, and you're going to be off for
122surgery for 20 days, you take your five sick days first, then you would use up your five vacation days. Then those next 10 days of that 20-day absence is going to be at no compensation because you're out. Let's just say you have 6 weeks of time banked up and you got to have surgery and you're going to be out for four weeks. district can't force you on FMLA. You're going to use that time appropriately or if you chose to take it as leave without pay. Could you not do that? I don't I don't believe that the district can make an employee take FMLA if they don't want to take it. They can use the time. You can say you got to use your sick time first, but you can't necessarily force them to write a
123memo saying I want to use FMLA. I think let me check on that. Okay, I have to look at it because I think you can actually I I I the way I understood FMLA too is it's more of a protection of your job. Um and I'm just going to use a personal experience when I've had children. I used my sick time while on FMLA. Yes. Yeah, you would you would do that, but it counted part of my 12 weeks. Yeah. But if you have the sick time, we can't get rid of somebody because they're sick. If they have a doctor's note, we're not going to get rid of that employee because they've had surgery and they're out for two months. That wouldn't happen whether they're FMLA or not. They have the time to use. Oh,
124if they have the time to use, you can't I mean, they're protected if they have that time to use. Yes. We don't have any policy that says you can only take two weeks at a time or something of that. No, but you I think you can require that use they use up their 12 weeks of FMLA as part of that process. Well, sure, but okay. So, if they use up their 12 weeks of FMLA and they need another surgery and they have time left still and they still have time, I don't know how much I don't know if we'd ever get that much banked, but then they could use their sick time for their second surgery. Correct. If they used up all their FMLA time as long as they're uncompensated, but I think you can
125actually get rid of an employee while they're out sick. There's if you're out sick, you can get fired or on vacation like you can lose your job. So taking FMLA is a way to protect yourself from your employer being able to eliminate you and your position while you're out. Employee option to an employee doesn't want to take it and they want to roll the dice. Well, I mean, good luck to you, I guess. Yeah. I don't think Yeah, I've never heard of a company forcing someone to take this district this year. Well, that but I don't know. Again, I don't know why somebody wouldn't take it. I think you actually can, but um Let me look at it. Let me look at it and get back. Okay, moving to page 604-302.B procedures leave earned paid
126sick time. Um, there was uh, President Todd, you had asked about cons, you were concerned about payouts for acrruel of vacation time. Um, and this goes back to Dr. Mahorn to the the comment that I made previously if um President Todd had asked for uh basically kind of a projection of a cruel vacation for people who may be close to retirement. Um so in this section Jennifer from the trust had suggested that we remove this sentence um because the earn paid sick time is not vacation or sick leave. So there she's asked that we remove this this sentence here. Any questions on that? Okay. Um page 64 of 4-302.C procedures. Um, she has asked or I'm sorry, she Jennifer Mlen has asked that we not refer to um employee handbooks at all within the because
127it's an employee benefit. Um, so there was a section in here where um, excuse me, Miss Castiano, is your mic on? Am I not? Oh, there it is. Sorry. Okay. It was really low. Sorry. Sorry. Can you hear me now? All right. Um so on 4-302.c under pay under section G for payment for sick leave acral upon retirement. Um we had referred to the policy handbook and uh Jennifer had asked from the trust had asked that we not recom or does not recommend that we refer to the handbook anywhere within policy. So that was her um advice. Okay. I have a question. So I am I'm not comfortable with uh so under G where it says employee shall not be entitled to this benefit if the employee is terminated or for cause that's fine or
128resigns in lie of termination I would even be okay with that but I'm not okay with non-renewal of employment because again administrators can be non-renewed for any reason and I feel like this policy in particular would have been abused this particular year and people who have served this district for a long time would not have been entitled to their vacation because of nothing to do with their performance and I am absolutely not okay with the word non-renewal of employment I think it's unethical this is for sick time correct yes this is for sick leave acred upon retirement. So, it's the earned paid sick time. Very few employers pay out sick time. They pay out vacation, but they don't pay out sick time. Sick time is not a guarantee. You're not you're not you're not supposed
129to take that in addition to additional vacation days. That's for when you're sick. Some employers have gone to a PTO where you have a combined sick and vacation time and you use it as you want, but sick time is not a a guaranteed payout. But we do pay our retirees out for their sick time. Correct. Not necessarily. Only if they give at least 365 days notice. Uhhuh. Um, which very few people do. And you have to have a minimum of 10 years of service. So that's and it's only a percentage. So between 10 and 20 years it's like 30%. Um 20 20 and 25 years it's like 40% and 20 30 years it's like 50%. So the max is like 50%. Um that they'll get paid out. So no under no circumstances do you get
130paid out for 100%. Okay. And and that's fine. I still my request is to have the word non-renewal of employment removed and just for reference um that is a part of the legal review provided by the trust um stating that we should not remove that language. So just for reference, I still stand by with what I said. 4-302, page 66. Um, this was an edit allowing for bereavement leave to be per occurrence versus it kind of read as annually last time. So we just uh removed or moved it to per occurrence of death and then we also added foster children in um on page or under number 12. Um the next page is same policy. We added verification may include obituaries, funeral programs and funeral home verification under President Todd's request that it not only
131be the death certificate. Okay. So sticky to conversations under 4-402 page 70 we are going to go into grievances and whistleblower um and the conversation under grievances and whistleblower. So the first edit in here under it says may not pursue a group agreement group grievance. Um the trust did say that that can be removed. It's not in state statute. So my question to the board is do we want to allow for the pursuit of group agre group grievances um I would just for um to like save time in terms of like everybody has the same concern you know instead of forcing the district to do it over and over 10 different people. And I believe that this comes up in in um chapter 5 with students. I didn't bring chapter 5 with me, but I
132think we do allow like some sort of group. Um so I find it interesting that there are two different ones. I'd have to go back and find it in chapter five. So yeah, I'm kind of torn on this one. I I initially I don't I don't necessarily see the reason behind a group grievance. I think each individual has a unique view on whatever the situation is, whatever the grievance is. Um and I think that you know in my personal opinion I think that it should be an individual but not not a group grievance that shouldn't be allow. Any other conversation around group grievance? I guess I would just assume keep them individual as well from the standpoint that each one is potentially different if in the investigation process they recognize there's several of these. The
133investigator may bring them together in some aspect, but I think we're better off to just remove that and do them as individual. Mr. President, if I may, you may. And that's kind of what it, you know, the group grievance, my experience when dealing with some of these, you have one or two or three or four people that have an actual grievance and then you have just kind of followers who don't really know what's going on. They just kind of like the people that have the grievance or whatever. So, it it it muddies the waters and what the true grievance is in my opinion or my experience. That's why I would I would like to stick to just individual grievances. that way it's specific each one has their point and we go that direction. Okay. Then
134further down that page under excluded matters um there was a question about what is the policy in employees to dispute the matters in three four and five meaning um the matters for letters of memorandum direction or counseling employee discipline non-renewal etc. And so you'll see the instruction that was given to us by the trust here. Um, you're not allowed to dispute a letter of direction. The discipline policy has its own appeals process and the evaluations are subject to review or appeal unless a staff member's compensation is tied to the evaluation which was in a previous policy. I was just wondering um so I I did read you know the the information given could we link uh or you know specify where they can do the appeal for discipline because I feel like it makes it
135feel like there's no recourse and there is in in policy um 4-104 for discipline but I I do think it's interesting. So the word, you know, has as they define the word grievance up just a little bit means a complaint by a grievant alleging that a supervisor or administrator has violated, misinterpreted, misinterpreted or misapplied a governing board policy or procedure. And then the grievance does not include any matter for for which the method of reveal review or appeal is prescribed by law or another district policy. So if so they're saying like the discipline one is because it's by another policy that's how they would grievance it. Yeah. Okay. would we be able to link you know that 4-104 so that it's just clear that they do have the opportunity to have an appeal. Okay. Thank
136you. And then on page 72, um again it's same policy 4-402. Um there was just a statement of informal complaint to include the date the complaint was filed, the process that was taken and the outcome of that process. So this is just referring to how grievances are reported or not reported, I'm sorry, processed. Um I apologize. It's not a comment, but on page um 73 where it says the decision of the superintendent is final. Um I just wondering if the board could have a discussion of if they would be okay of adding some type of language that the superintendent makes the board aware of the grievance. I feel like if it gets all the way to the superintendent and somebody, even though I'm not suggesting that we intervene, I just sometimes think it's easier if
137we know that something occurred rather than hearing about it in the community. Um, but I'm open to, you know, if if you feel like that's a violation of privacy, but Mr. President, if I may. Yeah, kind of torn about this one, too. Um, I don't know if we need to know about every grievance that makes it up to the superintendent, but maybe if the people are in like a high level positions and the grievance is about them like the administrators and stuff maybe. Um, but I think if it's like a agreements between a teacher or another teacher, we definitely don't need to know about it. So I I don't think it should be a blanket all because there's is some information we probably don't need to know. Yeah. I would only think that when the
138formal review got to the superintendent. So only if it got to the level three. So the decision of the superintendent is final and the superintendent shall notify the governing board of said decision. Mr. President, for me, you may I'm not I'm also not opposed to us knowing as long as we're not violating within applicable laws. Yeah. Yeah. We don't want to violate the privacy the the whole situation, you know. So, okay, moving on to page sorry 78. It's 4-43.A, whistleblower protections. Sorry, can we go back to page um 76? It just says under making a disclosure um an employee who becomes aware of alleged wrongful conduct by the district or any of its agents is encouraged to make a disclosure to the governing board. But then if um then below it says if the allegations
139concern the sup the superintendent the complaint may file with the governing board. So the first sentence make sure makes it sound like they're all coming to the governing board and then the second paragraph makes it sound like just the ones involving the superintendent Okay. So, we can remove uh to make the disclosures to the superintendent in paragraph one so that that way it aligns because the first one it's they're asking for the district any alleged wrongful conduct. I'm sorry. It's hard for me to like do this without reading it out loud, so I just don't want to read to you, but also I need to read to you. Um, an employee who becomes aware of alleged wrongful conduct by the district of any its agents is encouraged to make a disclosure to the governing board
140as soon as possible. To allow the district an opportunity to investigate alleged wrongful conduct and to take necessary internal corrective actions, employees are encouraged to report in writing a disclosure of alleged wrongful conduct to the superintendent. So then in order to make those two sentences match, I will go ahead and change to make a disclosure to the superintendent or governing board as appropriate. The reason for that is because down at the bottom it says if it involves the superintendent then it needs to go to the governing board which I agree with. Okay. So, just for quick clarification, when we're talking about the whistleblower protections, these are protections that are provided um to people who allege wrongful conduct of the district, right? And so, they're saying that the district has violated certain specific policies. Um it's
141typically in regards to like public health, safety, those types of things. And so if we're making there's some infamous whistleblower act or whistleblower cases going on right now, right? Um if we are making allegations about a government entity um or a school district that has done wrongful acts to the public um or to their employees or whatever, those alleged misconducts are covered under the whistleblower. So you cannot no longer retaliate against me for telling uh or for basically blowing the whistle right for alleging the wrongful act. So this is separate from the grievance based on those things. Right? So the grievance allows everything to be handled internally. The whistleblower protection actually is the protection. I filed a grievance and I filed a complaint with let's say finance or whoever else about this wrongful act that's
142occurring and now I'm protected under these. So that's what we're discussing here. Um, so there was a lot of back and forth on this conversation and there's been some clarifications provided. Everything in red is provided by the trust and then Mr. Dangerfield may have some additional clarifications as we go along, but I just wanted to kind of get that out into the open as we look through this because of the the the length of the conversation. So there was no immediate changes made to that protection because everything it's basically pulled straight from statute. The only thing I had is on page 79 and I know we talked about this about um if the complaint is against the superintendent and then you give it to the board president. Is the expectation that the board president then
143forwards it to the rest of us or how is that? It's a procedure for the board to decide because there was a a discussion that the board president needed to agendaize it properly and to have like one um kind of like contact person. But I do think that if it involves the superintendent that the entire board should be aware since collectively we are the employer of the superintendent, not just one person. So I would just like to see if there's some language we could add that. Can you point me to the paragraph you're on right now? Sure. It's in the middle of the page and it says that page 79. 79. I apologize. Whistleblower complaint. Okay. And so the request is for there to be a process for the board president to notify the other
144board members because that's just in the definition. So we need to go into the procedures for into the procedures aspect of it and see where we can add that language. So, you're asking for the governing board president to notify governing board members of said complaint through what means? Through email, through agendaizing, through how do we want that notification to occur? I'm not sure if I can legally if the board president can legally do that. Isn't that an open meeting issue? Wouldn't it be best to send that forward to legal and then have legal communicate the steps? Because as soon as I send it out, I'm now talking about a potential agenda item with with everybody, which would be a violation. So I think the best thing to do is push this to legal for legal
145advice on steps moving forward and there's a there's a there is a hearing process that is designated in statute and the process. So the governing board's going to become aware of it because the governing board has to um determine whether to hear it themselves or use a outside hearing officer. Right? So you're going to become aware of it in the process just from the statute the statutory process that that occurs and Mr. Todd is correct. He won't be able to inform you directly because it would be an open meeting law issue but you will learn about it. You're having to make these decisions. I will find a space where I can add um the governing board president sends it to the attorney for legal review. Well, we'd have to get legal advice too to determine
146if we want to hear it ourselves or if we want to push it to an outside hearing officer. So I think Yeah, I know that's the end, but I forgot something on page seven, and it's just that it um well, you get to page seven. It's just that it's um it's essentially blank. It says the board's definition of inadequate classroom performance for a cert certificated teacher is as follows. So I just wanted to point that out. Is that what rolls on to the next page? Is it just a formatting thing? Probably. Oh, right. Good call, Mr. Kenyon. I hit enter one too many times. That will um conclude the review for chapter 4 unless anyone has something for me. So I will get these edits back to you as soon as possible. Um, I am
147also intending to send uh chapter 5 over for legal review on Wednesday and um hope to get that back early next week. Thank you. Okay, members, that takes us to 3.1. Thank you, Miss Castianos. Appreciate your time as always. Uh 3.1 is board comments on agenda topics and items for future consideration. We are working on getting everything that's already been requested on future agendas now that we're just trying to get through this uh policies and so forth. But is there anything else new you'd like on? Right. You're making that easy. We'll move to 4.1 upcoming board meetings. We've got Saturday, June 7th. I think Amy said she wanted to start that at 6:00 in the morning, go till 7 at night, right? No. Oh, okay. She says no, sir. It was worth a shot. Uh
148that'll be the morning probably four hours. Um I'm guessing is that what you're thinking? About four hours on June 7th maybe. We are going to So maybe just start at 8 go till midnight at 8 to noon at uh with the idea that we might be here until 2. Okay. All right. And then we have a regular governing board meeting on June 10th. Tuesday, June 10th. Any other questions on that? If I could just a comment. You may. Um, so we obviously are not having our board meeting this Saturday due to Labor Day weekend. Correct. Um the just for the sake of our Saturday that we're tying up, if we could do as much back and forth with the email with Miss Costanos and try to prepare for just having as much there as a
149board, that would I think help everybody so we're not here so late on Saturday. But yep, just a comment. And if I could just inform everybody, I'm not going to be able to be there that day. U I it's my 50th wedding anniversary and I'm going to be in Europe. So I'm Congratulations a little bit. Carol would not let me be gone. I have not had a board meeting on that day. You can bring her along if you want. Yeah. Probably would be the end of the marriage. She just kidding. Congratulations. Yeah. Yeah. Well, congratulations. Okay, that takes us to item 5.1, the adjournment of the special meeting. We've concluded all of our business. We'll show we're adjourned at 7:55. [Music]