4.28.2025 Special Governing Board Meeting

001[Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Liberty Elementary School District governing board meeting for April 28, 2025 is called to order at the Jerry Roby District Facility Office. The time is now 5:30 on April 28, 2023. Five board members are present. Board members Schmidt, Zimmerman, Kenyan, Serencion, myself, Todd. Move on to the pledge of allegiance. And Vice President Kenyon, if you can lead us, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next item of business 1.3, the approval of the special meeting agenda. Mr. President, motion to approve this agenda consistent with board policy beb and temporary suspend governing board policy with which this agenda may be inconsistent. Have a second. Second. Have a

002motion of second to approve item 1.3, the approval of the special meeting agenda hearing. There's no discussion. We'll move to a vote. Board member Schmidt. I. Board member Zimmerman. I. Vice President Kenyon. I. Board member Shinion. I. I'm also I will show that approve five yes zero no. Next on our agenda is item 1.4 freedom incident on April 23rd 20125. This will be an update from Chief Robert Sanders from Buckeye PD. Good afternoon Mr. President, board members. Appreciate the time to have a brief few minutes to go over exactly what occurred last week. Again, I'm Bob Sanders, Buckeye Police Chief, and it's very important for us as a police department to come speak to board members, parents, teachers, and everybody in the community has concerns. I am a parent. I raise my kids with school

003threats, so I understand it from that perspective. I also understand it from a perspective of a police officer and a police chief. Am I in charge of my PowerPoint? I promise it's very short. I only have one slide, really. Thank you. That's okay. I didn't know if you need me to clip myself on. All right. Thank you. Real briefly, about the same time the students were being released at 3:49 p.m., we received a 911 call. Now, what's going on at the same time in the city of Buckeye, we also had five or six officers over at a home where some person decided they wanted a target practice in their backyard in the middle of Sundance. So, at the same time, we're responding to that. At 353, we received information that the person with the gun

004was walking away. The initial 911 call, so you can understand what's going on at our dispatch center. We have one person on the radio and we have two people answering 911 calls. Of course, we're being flooded with 911 calls from this incident and then the other incident. So, this information is being pushed out to the officers at 353. If you see the other highlighted, we were on scene. Now, fortunately, in this situation, I happen to be on scene. and I was about 30 seconds behind the first officers arriving on scene. I know there were some concerns in the community that a lockdown hadn't taken place. By the time we we arrived on scene, kids, parents, everybody was already in the parking lot. It was very chaotic at the time. Um, you can see at 3:55

005we actually contacted the one person who contacted us through 911. Sorry, I'll stop turning away here in case you're listening. the we had two or three people on 911 giving us a contact and information at 3:56, which is 3 minutes later after we arrived on scene. We had information that the suspect with the gun who had shown the gun didn't point it at anybody even though some of that information came in that he actually pointed it. It's quite confusing, quite chaotic. He was walking away towards the neighborhood and our officer stopped him and detained him. So, a total of six officers, two sergeants, one police chief, and probably a couple other people were on scene at that same time. The one adult was booked. He was released on his own recon reconnaissance recgnissance um a

006few hours later and he'll be subject to prosecution at a later date and then the three juveniles were arrested and processed. I'm more than happy to take questions. I know that doesn't do it justice and maybe address some of the concerns of the parents or the board members. Um, I just let you know that the West Valley, the region of the Southwest Valley, we participate with Liberty School District, all the other school districts for Avendell, Goodyear, Sheriff's Department, and of course, Buckeye PD. It's the same protocol. So, all our officers and SRO's are trained to respond the same to all school shooting incidents or active shooter, any type of threats to schools or the families of the kids. It's called the standard response protocol. Members, any questions? uh you know question and a comment. First

007I just want to say thank you um you know your that response time is incredible and you know we're certainly grateful for your service and you know for responding so quickly. Um you know in terms of you know the concerns of the parents um the school does not need your uh the you know the police's permission to call a lack a lockdown. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. That's the only recommendation that comes from us. the school makes that final decision. Okay. And um were you in contact with the school during this time or were you just responding to the 911 calls and assessing the scene as you got there? From what I can tell through our call center, we we were just responding. We hadn't contacted the school at that time just because the

008phones were so busy. Okay. So, there was just some confusion about whether um you know the Buckeye police uh advised the school that and a lockdown wasn't needed. Um and so it sounds like that was a rumor. Is that your understanding? After the fact, after the person was already detained. So by the time we would provide any information or make that recommendation, we had already detained the person. If we were still looking for a person with a gun, well, again, the school had let out there was a lot of kids and parents in the area. it would have been difficult to lock down. Then we would had then there have been different concerns. So if we were still looking for a suspect or a person with a gun, then it would have been quite different.

009We had had to handle it differently. Okay. Thank you so much. Welcome, Mr. President. Thank you for coming out and uh sharing this information with us. Yes, it's always concerning whenever you hear that there's an individual with a firearm on on a campus. Um, so just kind of I think I'm just going to reitiate the obvious where school had let out, correct? When your officers arrived and so that like you said, um, they weren't in the parking lot because they were running away from a situation. They weren't in a parking lot because school had let out. Nor normal day for them. Thank you. And then um at any time was there any evidence that the individual drew his firearm or it was out of his holster? No sir. Always in his in his waistband. Okay.

010Thank you again. Thank thank you for coming out. One question. I don't know if it's too early for this if it's still going on. Like what recommendations do you have that we should if we should have handled this any differently or anything you didn't like at this time? So dur during any type of incident like this, what went right? What could we do better? I cannot find any incidents or or any type of suggestions I would have at this time just because of the timing of the of the school being released. Thank you very chief. Uh thank you for coming as well. Um we talked last week briefly about this and I appreciate your time. Then my questions are from your indication. I know there was questions about being on lockdown, but it doesn't really

011appear that the campus knew that this incident was going on when the children began to be let out. So there were by the time that happened, they recognized there was an event taking place. Is is that how you understand that that they weren't aware that this was taking place on their campus? Exactly. Who knew on campus or if the principal knew? We didn't that wasn't part of our investigation. I I saw social media also. I know some allegations or concerns were expressed, but again, the timing of the incident, calls were going to the school, calls were going to our 911 dispatch center at the same time. They're going to our officers. Two or three officers came from the station. That's why I followed them. That's where I was coming from. So, any any type of

012call like this, this is an all call for all officers in the area. Great. Thank you very much. Sure. Well, appreciate any other questions. All right. Thank you, sir. Very much for your time. service. Okay, members, next on our agenda is item 1.5, discussion, consideration of the 202526 employee health benefits. Dr. Mahorn, I'm going to give Karina just a few seconds to come up and talk. Looks like she Oh, she's got some backup coming with her. Backup. Last time we did have uh Lisa Weston come, but this time uh it's just going to be HR that's going to come and give a a little bit of a summary on not only the this the survey, couldn't think of the word survey that went out um but just some additional information that we actually just got

013today um from Gallagher and Meritain. Go ahead, Karine. Okay. Um good evening, governing board. Um, we are here today to bring back the 2526 employee benefits package for your approval. Um, as I'm sure you recall from the April 15th board meeting, we had um two options for medical plan selections. Um and that was due to the fact that although we had a uh no rate increase, no premium increase this year guaranteed through ASBY and Moritane, they did change our current plans uh unexpectedly and significantly. So we had brought brought forth another option um to hopefully mitigate some of those changes for some of our employees at that time. Uh you the board requested that we get some employee input on those options. And so we went out and we provided a um well we create

014Gallagher actually produced a an online survey for us to put forward to the employees and we they didn't have a lot of time. It was it was a couple days out there but we did get 120 responses um which is about 45% of the returning employees that are currently enrolled in medical benefits with the district. Um I believe you have probably seen this already but this is the this is the results of that survey. Um however um good news I think um this as of today Asbait Meritane has actually approved us to to be able to offer all five plans next year if we would like to then nobody will have to give up what they have currently and um if there are people who would like to move to that buyup plan and change

015to something with a lower deductible and different co-pays, they would have that option as well. So, um that kind of gives you all a third option if you you know you can go with the original option one which was basically to renew our current plans that we have which is what the employees voted for or the majority of the the respondents chose. Um, option two would have been to we were going to drop one of the HGHP plans, the more expensive, well, the less expensive one um to the but with a higher co-pays and much higher deductible. Um, and add this additional value gold plan that would have been um $33 per month for an employee only coverage. it would be what we call a buyup where they where an employee would actually pay a

016portion of the premium out of their paycheck. Um so now we have the option to go with option one, option two or option three would be to offer all five plans and um that is up to you all to choose which one of those you would like. Um, but I also want to make sure that we that tonight that we are also considering uh the classic gold plan which is currently a grandfathered plan. If you recall from uh Lisa Western Lisa Weston's uh presentation uh on the 15th, that's a plan that is running hot and it does have a lot of effect on what our renewal rates will be. Um, and it's something that we would like to look at. Uh, we would like to recommend that it sunsets that plan June 30th, 2026. So,

017it's currently closed to new enrollies anyway. The only only folks who can enroll in that plan are people who are already enrolled in it. Um, and this would give us the opportunity to give them a year's warning that this plan will not be available again next year. members, any questions? Uh, I had a couple questions. Um, go ahead. I'm sorry. I said go ahead. I was giving you the floor. Um, I just didn't hear you. Um, were there comments? Uh, were there the ability to leave comments on the survey? There was. Okay. Um, so I did ask for those and I think those would have um that I didn't receive and I think that those would have been beneficial for us to be able to see um when deciding between the two plan cuz there

018is a majority but I was curious if those that chose the second option were because of that value gold you know and the importance of that and kind of sunsetting the um classic gold. Um, in terms of the classic gold running hot, there was an a high deductible plan that was also running pretty hot um in that um you know presentation that we saw at the last meeting. Um are there any um fees associated with offering all five plans? No. Okay. Um, we basically asked considering the position that they put our district in. Mhm. And they decided they would go ahead and allow it. And normally they only allow you to carry three plans to offer three. So we're already we've already been kind of running special with that with the grandfathered plan. So to

019ask for a for a fifth plan was really um Gallagher the consultants there were like they're never going to say yes but they did. So um you know I think that I think that's a great opportunity for employees at least for one year. Um, I I still think I do recommend um grandfathering and sunsetting that the the what is it? Classic gold plan just just because it it it's a really rich plan and it's great for employees who need that kind of coverage. Um, but it does in the long run it really hurts all the other employees and their opportunity to get coverage that they can afford and that works for them too. Well, I appreciate um you know your department and um Gallagher, you know, kind of going to maritine and trying to get

020that offering of that fifth plan just to make it a little bit more palable. You know, it's still not a great situation in general for our employees, but you know, we've we got to do the best that we can. So, I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, Mr. President. You may. Um, thank you for bringing this to us again and uh, yeah, your department does a great job. Um, thank you. Can I just get a little bit of clarification once again on that option three? Mhm. Um, would the four plans that we currently have be kept the same as well as what they currently are, or is it is it going to be basically moving into one of these other areas for their deductibles? These are the plans, the the new plans. Those

021are the plans that are being offered there. The old plan the plans that were don't exist in that same the same way anymore. This is what they are. Okay. So although there's no increase to premium, there is an increase to deductibles and co-pays. Um so I personally feel the the five options gives you gives employees a pretty good range of options to choose from what's going to work best for them and their family um and their budget. Thank you. Any other question? Any other questions? Okay. Um, just a couple house cases. M Zimmerman, we did get an email from Dr. Mahorn just slightly before the meeting. I know they were working feverishly today to pull all the comments out, but there is an email that has all the looks like all the comments, right? This

022scrolls quite a bit. Um, just for everyone's sake, I I think it's important for staff and everybody else to know this came as a complete surprise to us. We moved very quickly and thank you to all the work that you guys have done on this. I know this came as a surprise. I think this was a a game of dirty pool by by Maritane and um agreed. It wasn't uh and and Gallagher certainly uh worked hard to get this fixed. U you know, shocking to them as well. Meritane seems to do some strange things sometimes. So, I guess buyer beware. But just so everybody's aware, can you kind of go back a little bit? We had a meeting about a week and a half ago and you had just found out then that they were

023increasing these uh premiums and and deductibles. Can you just kind of paint a timeline in case people missed that meeting? They'll know they'll be able to see it now. The timeline would be well so usually our renewal from Asbade Meritine is comes in on March 1st. Um now as you remember the prior year we were all patting ourselves on the back because we had managed to get a 2-year rate freeze with no increase for this year. So we were just thrilled. Um, and then to find out when we open our renewal that the plans were completely different and you know, although we're not going to be paying any more for them, the employees are not going to be receiving the same benefit. Um, we didn't find that out till March 1st. And then, um, was

024that March 1st or it was March 1st we found that out? It was March 1st that we got the renewal. It took us a few days to go through the plans and figure out that things weren't right. Um and then we took some time to look at mitigation you know what can we do to offset these changes and you know trying to find out from Adam Mayor Tain you know what happened you know why did this come to us with no warning um you know there was no nothing said by them that something's coming down the pike or there will be changes with your renewal nothing we just got a renewal and everything was different. Um, so you know, we heard some information that literally the changes to the plants were passed by the board

025of trustees I think on February 28th, which was two well the maybe it was like the 2, it was like 2 days before the renewal date. Um, so they hadn't really had any time to inform anybody of anything. And um yeah, so Gallagher, you know, was helping us try to get through that, work with Aspate to see what they could do, but there's no changing the plans. And, you know, we I guess we're lucky that we did have the the rate you the rate uh guaranteed because we could be paying more for worse plans. You know, if it's just it's kind of how just things shook out. Okay. Thank you. Any more? Okay. Thank you very much. Can I add one thing? You may. Um when if you are voting to approve um you're voting

026to approve the entire package which includes medical, dental, vision, um life insurance, health savings account, flexible spending account, you know, uh supplemental voluntary life insurance, short-term disability, critical care coverage, hospital indemnity, and supplemental accident insurance as well as our retiree program, which should be I think all Those are spelled out for you on the on the item. All right, members. I'll take a motion. I got a question for you, Mr. President. Go ahead. Uh since there's not an option three listed on here, can can that be motioned if somebody wants to do that? Yes, because the the subject topic is there discussion consideration of the employee health benefits. So that's that's all we're doing. Thank you. Mr. President, I'll make a motion to approve the 2526 benefit pack uh plan packages for employees, including approval

027of option number three for medical plan offerings and sunset date of 63026 for the grandfathered classic gold plan. I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve item 1.5. There'll be the 2526 benefit plan package for employees, including approval of option three for medical plan offerings and a sunset date of June 30th, 2026 for the grandfathered classic gold plan. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. Board member Schmidt, I. Board member Zimmerman, I. Vice President Kenyon, I. Board member Stencion, I. I'm also I. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We'll show that. Approve. Five yes. Zero. No. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next will be item 1.6 discussion consideration of the second reading and approval of the trust policies chapter 1 and two

028to be effective July 1st 2025. Dr. Mahorn and Miss Castanos. Good evening governing board members. I am here today to discuss chapters one and two and the changes that um we have compiled over the last week. Uh so we've compiled the changes. I sent a draft version out with all of the comments on them. So today what we'll be doing is just going through the commented sections of these policies. Um and I will let you know that uh policies 203 and 203A have a revision and an update. So, instead of going over those changes on that policy, we'll skip through that and I will send you guys the revised version that the trust has sent to us today. Any questions before we begin? Okay. Okay. So, if we will start on page three. Um, President

029Todd had a comment on page three. Is there any questions about that comment? I had a question. Is that proposed language addition or uh is it just like a comment? It's just a comment. So, it was just something for the board to keep in mind. He's asking the board keep in mind that board policies must support and not restrict your authority of governing board members. Yeah. I mean, we're approving the policies, so I think we can ensure that that occurs. [Applause] Okay. Right. Turning to page five is the next set of um strikethroughs and comments. So on this one, uh President Todd and Vice President Kenyon um had requested that the language in this where board member requests for information. This is that piece that required two or anything that required over two hours that

030the superintendent could deny and then it would be brought to a board meeting. Um, so they have asked for this to be stricken and I've offered some proposed language at the top. So I'll open that up for discussion. Mr. President, go ahead. Yeah, thank you for for bringing this up. Um my my original concern was you know when a board member requests information from their employee the superintendent that s that employee could deny that and then who knows when the next board meeting is going to be. That might be very tight and sensitive information we need. Um and so thank you for this proposed language. Uh my concern is that uh you know I do think we need to be cognizant of of staff's time and if if the request is tied to an agenda

031item or you know what we anticipate to be an agenda item like we know the budget is coming the budget revision in May and there was something we wanted pulled but to just uh you know request things that aren't necessarily an agenda item that's going to take hours and hours. You know, I don't know how I I agree that, you know, if we ask for information, we should be able to get it. How quickly, you know, if it's going to take staff over 2 hours of time, I don't think we can expect a 24-hour response time, which is our typical policy. Um, so I don't know if there's some language that could be added that just said, you know, tied to an agenda item, you know, because if you're asking for an agenda item, then

032that's something different, right? Like this is just for information, correct? Yeah. So, this is just requesting information. It pertains to all information. So, and this uh section is optional. And I don't we don't currently have this in our current policies. Yeah, you do have a you have not the two-hour restriction. I'm not positive about the two-hour restriction. Let me um But there is a board member request for information section in your current policy. I I think the two hours part is in I I didn't bring the crosswalk with me. Um yeah, I did not bring Oops. I apologize. Um, I think at the end of the day, whether it's on an agenda or not, it could become one. And the board members need to be able to request the information that they need to conduct

033their job. Statute's very clear that you should have a very clear understanding of the happenings of the district. And I think that this could become a challenge down the road. Everything could become greater than two hours. just compiling the the data survey today could easily have taken more than two hours. U Missu had asked for some photo copies on Thursday at about 4:30 in the afternoon that could have easily been called to take more than two hours. Um we this is not a good practice to have this. There's no other board that has something like this except for maybe a school board somewhere that's adopted this optional language. But I think this is dangerous and I'm not I'm looking again, but I don't think it's in our current policies at all. Have a two-hour two-hour

034requirement. And all of this information would be sent to all board members after it's been collected. Correct. That is not in statute or not, I'm sorry, not statute, but not in policy right now. So if the optional language that was offered above is just the response time being like the response to the request being issued to all board members. But it is not in the language that says that the superintendent's response to such request shall be provided to all board members. But it's not there to say that um the same information is going to be provided to all board members. That is not in this language. Okay. If we're going to keep this language, I would like to see that added so that you know if somebody's requesting something, then we all have the ability

035to view that. Okay? Cuz I do think that's um addressed somewhere else in policy about when somebody asks a question that the question is, you know, sent to everybody, which I think is really good practice so that we're all getting the same information. Um, and something that I had considered also is that there's like a a Google doc, a running list of like agenda topic requests. And so this would be something similar so that we can see what's being requested. So that would, you know, if we're going to keep this language, which I'm not opposed to, but I think, you know, just add a little bit to make sure that it is achieving what we want. And we we currently have that in here. It says superintendent's response to such request shall be provided to

036all board members. Is that is that the language you want? It's in the red line, the top section of the red line. That I believe Miss Castiano just said that that was just the response to receiving, not the actual final documents that were being asked for. Is that correct? I mean if we want to make the language really clear we will need to add some language in there right because right now as it reads it can be interpreted as just the response. So rather that response includes a bunch of documents that are attached with the response or that response includes this is going to take two hours um or it might be the next day whatever that is if we are looking at what's in what's in the policy it could be read is just

037the response. Yeah thank you. Um, I don't have an issue with the the wording that we should get it. I do agree that we should all get the responses. Um, so that we're not also duplicating questions and requests because that just takes more time. Even if the time is just to tell us that somebody else asked for it and then has to get it for us, um, we're just using up more time in that case. So, so is a proposal to add the language in for um the additional like the additional language on the information that is gathered will be provided to all board members. That's fine. Okay. Are we okay to move on? Yes, please. All right. Um on page five as well, you'll look at communication protocols. Board member Zimmerman and board member

038Schmidt had posed some questions about this communication protocols. The questions were directly about if we need to forward all of the information that we receive. So if any email that's sent to me by the public, does it need to then go out to the district administration? Um I just wanted I made a note here. This op language is optional as well. It's always best practices to have some level of a communication protocol. I did offer some optional language um or re revised language on the top of page six. You'll see that um if we were to use that language, we would strike what is currently there. I'm I'm good with the uh proposed new language, the red line. Uh I think it communicates what I was looking to achieve here. Any other discussion on that

039section? Okay, moving on to page seven. Um there is a note at the top. Uh President Todd and board member Zimmerman had made convers or had conversations about the time um that an organizational meeting should occur. So that the organizational meeting should occur a minimum of 48 hours prior to um any regularly scheduled meeting. That looks like that language is a little choppy, but happen 48 hours prior to any scheduled meeting. I'm not sure what that language would be. Honestly, for me in January, I I think it should be a week prior because inevitably in uh you know, well, it depends on what January, but there could be new board members. And so I think giving that we know that that's coming right in January potentially. Um and so when there are changes during the

040year, I'm fine with the 48 hours. Um, but I think in January it should be earlier to really give the potential new board president the opportunity to truly set the agenda. So I I would um propose that we have an organizational meeting within the first week of in January. I would support that. I don't I don't think that's a bad practice at all. Okay. Um and then 48 hours for all other organizational meetings that may occur. Okay. The second con um the second comment on here, President Todd mentions that all meetings should take place within the district boundaries. Correct. Okay. Um and then we also see the additional comment or the additional changes after a board president has been elected. So the organizational meeting can occur after a board president has been elected. The board

041may elect a vice president. I'm I'm not sure if we need that because we in, you know, very recent times had a situation where we did not elect a board president, but we did elect a vice president. And so I think that the way it states, you know, so if we didn't elect a board president, then we wouldn't vote for a vice president. Correct. So then we'd have no leadership. Actually, if I may, statute requires you to have a president. If you don't have a president, um then what you would do is you would have a vote each meeting for a president of the meeting. You can have a vice president if you have a president because they're acting in a restricted manner just on behalf of the president in their absence. But if you

042don't have a president, then you're in violation of statute. So, you do have to elect a president for every meeting. What statute is that? I'll look it up. Hang on. The only position that the statute recognizes is the president. Yeah, I I also recognize that as well. I went back and did some research as well, and um I know what board members Zimmerman's referring to, and I would say in those meetings, we actually did it incorrectly. Even according to our ASBA policy and statute, we should have had a board president elected every meeting, even if it's a temporary board president for that meeting. And if we weren't able to elect a board president, the meeting couldn't go on. Is that correct, Mr. Dangerfield? Well, as I look back at that, um, you know, we had

043an even number of board members, so that we were two two split on that. I think believe technically we actually still had a vice president that existed um because the motion never passed. So it would have been Chris would have should have continued on as the vice president because we already had a vice president at the time but we couldn't we couldn't move on to electing a new vice president if we didn't have a president. That's correct. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. That's the way it should have happened. So then why do we have a vice president? It's not required by statute. is something that the board chooses to do uh as a backup. Um it's just it's an operational process, but the statute does only require that you actually have a governing board

044president. Okay. So, if we're not going to allow the vice president according to statute, which I'd really like to have the statute. Um I'm not I'm not saying right this instant. I'm just saying I'd like to see it. It's 15321. then I'm not sure that it's necessary that we have a board vice president if they can't act in the absence of the president. But they can Oh, they can do that by policy. You can do that. But uh um and and it's probably helpful to have an vice president elected so that there is someone in place. But then if you didn't have one, then you would have to in each meeting you would, as Mr. Todd said you'd have to try to elect um you'd have to try to elect a president and uh if

045you have a split vote, it's just going to really be a difficult problem. So if the motion doesn't passes under Robert's rules of order, it's just stays the way it was already. Okay. But right now and in if we're going back to the situation we were in, we don't have Robert rules of order. That was not that's not in our policy currently. Correct. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Well, I haven't seen it in our policy. So, most districts operate on a very informal Robert's rules of order. I don't know that it's actually written into the policy or not. It's it's not written, but previous legal said that it's implied that we follow rules of order. Robert's rules of order is the most common. That's what we've always defaulted. Yeah. That's all districts

046follow just kind of a informal Robert's rules of order. It's not if you were to follow the real book of the Robert's rules of order gets really really complicated. But um an informal process is what most school districts follow. Mr. President, if I may, you may. So, just we're at the same spot after a board president has been elected. Um, I think that that language is necessary in there just to make this conversation we're having very clear that it's in our policy. Okay. Any other discussion around this? I'm just going to say for the record that I disagree. Okay. Okay. Is there any other discussion or any other requests um about this particular change? Okay. Um on page seven also uh you'll see a redlinined area under board presidency. Uh the reason why this section

047is redlined and kind of highlighted, we will need to adopt a policy that says how we're going to approve agenda items or not approved agenda items, I'm sorry, request agenda items. So, one board member has requested that those agenda items be only be requested in a public meeting and another board member suggests that these can be requested at any point in time. I would like to open this up for discussion. Um, so this is, you know, half of this is mine and I think that it should be in a public meeting. If we're going to go back to two meetings a month, then I don't think that there's anything that urgent that uh we would be requesting because the majority of the agenda is really set by the superintendent and the district and what they

048need on there to move the district forward. And then, you know, we are adding things that, you know, we feel are important. Um, and so I think it's just transparent to the public. If we're emailing the board president, we don't know what each other is requesting. Um, I just don't think it's transparent. I don't think it's good policy. And in two meetings a month, I just can't imagine something so urgent that we would need, you know, something before two weeks. Thank you. So, my thoughts on this again are just because you requested a meeting doesn't necessarily mean it's coming up to the very next meeting. Um, I do think things come up and as Miss Zimmerman sits on the board longer and gets requests from constituents, there is a time. Also, there are times when

049we do not have two meetings a month. One gets canceled because we're slow in the summer. Um, that that has happened many many years where we we shorten up in the summertime. If you miss that, by one day, you're now looking at potentially almost two months before something's heard. So, um I'm very strongly feel that a board member should be able to be allowed to do their job. And if they've got something from their constituents, it shouldn't be you're going to have to wait for a month to to get this heard. So, I don't think it hurts at all to have it be requested at any time. I do think by limiting it just to a public meeting uh that that can delay and and hurt forward progress of the district. It's going to be

050transparent because it's going to be on the agenda. It's also available in any public records request an email of where it is. So it is it is 100% transparent to be able to send this in at any time. Um, again, for the record, I disagree and I think if the rest of the board is going to adopt this idea, then I think there should be language in there that says that there is a running document that we're all able to see what the requests are because if they're not done in a public meeting and the question of, you know, it is up to the board president to identify when those make it on the agenda and so I think we should know how many requests are being made because if they're not made in a

051public meeting, we have no idea. So, I think there should be some Google document that lists, you know, the requests that are coming in since we're not going to be privy to them because they're not being done in a public meeting. So, my understanding then is if we were to adopt this language, you are asking for additional language that would state that um each request would be put on a board or on a document. I don't want to name the platform, right? Yeah, but each request would be put on a document and be tracked that all board members have access to along with the superintendent. Any thoughts? If I may, that I'm okay with the language as it is. I don't know that um that I I I agree with board member Zimmerman that it

052would be nice to see all those things, but I don't know that that needs to be in the policy. I think that's at the discretion of the board president, whoever that may be, because there's different ways that they're going to work with the superintendent to organize the agenda. Um, and there's different ways that they have to work together and and everybody has different ways of utilizing certain things. I just I don't know that it's necessary. I think uh the board elects a president to help with those things. And um if the board president isn't doing what he or she is supposed to be doing, then they elect a new board president. Um I don't know that it's needs to be in the agenda in in the policy. Okay. Any other conversation? I disagree for the

053record. Mr. Mr. President, mayor, you may. The only question I have about that is I don't know if we should if we should be emailing the board president and the superintendent, not just the board president. You want you want to email both or just one or the other? I'm thinking it should be both. At least I think the superintendent should at least be courtesy copied on just so they're tracking what's going on. That's fine. I think it serves as a good catch all in case one's missed. I'm fine with that. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yes. So, if you're going to allow it to happen uh through email, does that mean it won't be an agenda item on board meetings any longer? No, we can still have it on a on a board meeting

054as well. Can be either or. Any other discussion? Okay, turning to page eight. Um, this question was from President Todd. Uh, statute states as superintendent and the board president. Can the superintendent designate board members to consult with legal? And I will leave this to Mr. Dangerfield. So um the policy says that the governing board the governing board's policy says that the only the board president and the uh superintendent are designated to um speak to uh the the district's attorney. However, you can distribute that. Um but the the stat there is no statute that says specifically that that's what the rule is. Okay? It's in policy. So the governing board can decide how to do that, but you do want to have some control over that for sure. Um it it would be very disruptive to

055have everybody just calling the the attorney for questions. So it's whatever the board wants to do. Um, it's very common for a superintendent to designate like for a CFO to be able to if there's a contract or something that they're working on to be able to talk to the attorney specifically if they've been delegated that responsibility for that or the HR office to be able to call the attorney about an HR issue to. So my my question was more if a if a board member asks a superintendent a question they're not sure can the superintendent say I don't know call the lawyer or we should keep that more the board president and superintendent with a few designates such as the chief financial officer in a finite rule of a contract review that would be the

056board's discretion how how you want to make that policy any other discussion okay attorney Turning to page 10, there was a question about the fingerprint clearance card, the IVP cards um being required of board members. Uh this was discussed in our first read as well. And in that first read after doing some research that we can't require it, that it's not in statute anywhere where it's enforcable. So requiring something that's not enforcable is problematic. Of course, Mr. Dangerfield. Yeah, I was just going to say it's I it should be and the question should really go to the state legislature because I agree it should be a requirement for a school board member to have a uh fingerprint clearance card, but it's not currently a requirement in the law and so you can't enforce there's no

057way to enforce it. uh you know we had a very lengthy discussion during the study session about this and so there was some questions about whether if the could we not put in policy that if you don't have a fingerprint clearance card you can't go to school campuses you can still be a board member you can be on the dis um you know there's nothing that requires a board member to be on campus and actually the rule with that um for fingerprinting is that as long as a person is supervised on a campus us. There's lots of people on a campus that don't have fingerprint clearance cards. Parents, um um someone that might be coming off a a work assignment to do something at the at the school, it's just they have to be supervised

058if they don't have finger if they're not fingerprint cleared. So, you know, I think that we could, you know, were this a little bit uh stronger that, you know, I think by adding while not required kind of gives it the caveat. I would, you know, suggest that we remove that and just say that, you know, it's strongly recommended. Um, something to that nature. But I do think by us not taking a stronger stance, um, you know, it doesn't show parents that we're committed to student safety. And I think that there are ways that we could do it. Um, and you know, in terms of what's enforceable, frankly, none of these policies are enforcable um, except by ourselves. So to say that this particular one isn't, I think is a little unfair, personally. Yes. Well, I

059understand what you're saying, but but fact is the matter is uh you can't add create statute out of No, I understand that. So, so you can't require a governing board member to get a fingerprint clearance card. Um but you could have a policy that they would be um supervised and always have someone with them if they were on the campus. I think that's generally u what happens anyway with the governing board member. Um, but not when we're attending like extracurricular events and things like that. We're not being, you know, nobody's walking around with us, right? That is correct. But that's the whole public's like that. So, are you suggesting that board members who do not have a fingerpoint clearance card should not be allowed to attend the after school activities? I think we'd have a

060huge It's a public event um for see that happening. We we went through this sign nauseium at um about two years ago and it was made very clear then by different legal counsel that this is just where we're where we're at. You can't restrict somebody from coming on and honestly they even pointed out at that time that there are people who cannot pass a fingerprint clearance but their parents and they are allowed to be on the campus with their child. So the reality is you could have people on campus right now who cannot pass a fingerprint, but they have a student there. They're allowed to be on the campus with their student. That is correct. And so it's just the responsibility of staff and employees to be monitoring. Safety is certainly the responsibility of the

061school district all along. Yeah, Mr. President, if I may, you may. Yeah, I would agree that um we we take security and safety of our campuses, our kids very very seriously as a school board uh and also the school administration all the way down to everybody who it works in the schools. I've I've been around it for quite a while. I've seen um how how people operate. Um, I'm okay with the language as it is just because as was stated, we can't force anybody to get a fingerprint clearance card. I I would recommend that everybody has one as well. Um, it just shows more safety, right? But, uh, because statute is what statute is, you can't force it. And so I would be reluctant to try to tie the hands of an elected official versus

062just somebody in the public who's able to walk right onto a campus um should be supervised unless it's after school activity, district activity. Um and trying to tie the hands of a board member. I just I don't I don't know that that's necessary. I think at the end of the day, if if there's a problem with a board member, it's the public's responsibility to vote them out. Um, and that's what elections are for. So, go ahead. I think to your point, there is statute, too, that a um I believe it passed last year that a sex offender cannot run for school board. I think that did pass, didn't it? Yeah, that's a good question. I'm pretty sure it passed last last session. I just want to make a clarifying point that sometimes people aren't elected

063and they are appointed to this position. So I I would suggest perhaps Mcklly's is getting Mrs. Zimmerman's getting at while not required that could certainly be removed and just say it is recommended that board members be fingerprinted for the per for purposes of background screening. I mean you could just take that it's in um while not required off and just say it is recommended. I don't think that's bad policy but but that's your choice. I'm okay either way the board wants the the language that's in there now is from the trust correct which has had a lot of legal review I think we just follow what the legal review has been okay any other discussion turning to page 13 um there was a question about why the genetic code language was removed move throughout. Uh

064during our last meeting, there was lengthy discussion as well about what genetic code meant and it was the opinion of the governing board members at the time that genetic code and disability were all it was kind of intertwined because genetic code specifically was a 2008 adoption. Yeah, thank you. Um sorry, I that was my question. Um, and I was not on the board at the time, so I wasn't sure what the discussion around that was, but I do work in the field, so I know the GINA act. Um, and I realized that it's for health insurance and employment, just that it doesn't necessarily hurt to spell it out, but I understand the thought that disability would cover it. Not sure it's quite the same thing, but I think it covers it. But thank you for

065answering. Absolutely. On page 16, we added in um to any place throughout the documents where there is a position listed, we added in language that said if this person is unavailable, all inquiries will be forwarded to their supervisor. Any discussion around that? Okay. Um on page 20, we added the word online to the sexual harassment uh policy. So, a sexual harassment is prohibited at the workplace, online, and at the district sponsored events. On page 29 21, um, Miss Zimmerman a asked if we could add that the superintendent will notify board members of complaints, investigation process, and outcome of said investigation for sexual harassment claims. any question? You know, the more that I uh have thought about this, I just don't know if it's, you know, um whether we should really have all of that information

066um and whether it's pertinent. I think um I'm okay to to remove it to remove that suggestion. Okay. Um as I mentioned the policy 202A um is going to be resised. So we won't go through the changes in that I will um before I leave today you all will have a copy of the revised 202A and 203 will the changes be redlined? There are no changes because it's the existing the trust just revised the policy. Okay. So, it's a brand new revised policy and I apologize if we could go back to 202A. It was 203 that was red or that was uh replaced. So, if we could go back to 202A, it's page 23. Um, we took out specific names of individuals and moved it to the assistant superintendent. Um, and then if this person

067is unavailable. So, those were the only changes made to that policy. I apologize. Just like a formatting thing at the bottom of page 23 where it says resources and then a phone number. The word resources supposed to be there. No, what happened was there was the red line went too far. Um, so yeah, that needs to be okay. Yeah, I will check the formatting on that. Thank you. So because 203 is being updated by the trust and that is the one you'll have if you can skip to page 38. So on page 38 we will start with the next policy which is 301 rules of order. Um, President Todd asked that we directly spell out that the rules of order are the Robert's rules of order. I disagree. I think that the rules of order

068should be followed as listed and that we shouldn't, you know, be able to kind of change the rules of order into something else that aren't spelled out for all board members to know. Page three. Yes. Any other discussion? Uh, go ahead. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. President. Um, as was stated earlier, I I think and and you know, Dr. D or Mr. Dangerfield, um, you had stated that it's pretty much a given that every board, every district uses this on an informal level. Um, and with this just spelling it out as, you know, we're going to have our order that we do things, but then as a default, we're always going to go back and check with Robert's rules if there's a question. Is that my understanding of what this is saying here? Yes. I'm not sure

069I'd go to the point of saying newly revised because you're getting into quite technical problems there. Are you just talking about an informal Robert's rules or what? Robert's rules newly revised specifies the most recent time because it started in 1915 which there's been a lot of procedures from them. So if you do the newly revised version that is the most recent and that's what is standard across most boards. You just follow the most recent guidelines that keeps you from pulling up a one member says I want to use the 1915 version. Somebody else says they want to use the 1980 something version. Yes. Yes. Cleans that up. And that's kind of what they have. Robert's uh the abbreviation of that is uh is just that that's R O N R it's Robert's newly revised that

070keeps you the most recent version Mr. President may you may uh so I'm in favor of this um only because the language that precedes it and the matter of procedures not otherwise addressed by these rules or applicable district policies then it takes effect Right. But we get into the same situation we were at the last meeting where we had a reconsideration. That's not part of our policies and so we just pulled that out and now we're doing something that isn't identified. So I disagree. Well, that prevents it because now it's identified. Any other discussion? page 41. Um, this was directly just to say that all meetings shall take place in district. On page 42, there are two options here. Um, and this comes down to the board deciding how the agenda items are made. And

071it sounds like we had had that discussion earlier. Um but then there's also the option um the two options. So I want to open it up for discussion and see which option that the board would prefer. I prefer option two. So the reason why I proposed option one is this is a board meeting. This is not a superintendent meeting. Um the superintendent certainly anything they want to get on the agenda they should be working with the president. But throughout the state as recent as today we have superintendents who are vetoing things that board members and board presidents uh want to put on an agenda. So by changing this language to the board president's authorized develop the agenda with each board meeting in collaboration with the superintendent. They're both involved, but it takes away the veto

072power of a superintendent. As this is a board meeting and the public has elected the board to vote uh and to run the meeting, we would not a board would not set the cabinet meeting and a superintendent would not set everything on a board meeting. There are certainly things that they need to get on the agenda and and that should happen, but there should not be a veto power of a superintendent, which actually happened in this district several years ago. The board president at the time came to a group of parents and said, "I'm trying to get this on the agenda, but Dr. Rogers will not allow me to put it on." So, we have real time true history in this district of where a board super or where, sorry, where a superintendent vetoed things

073that the president wanted on the board. And I believe that option two addresses all of those concerns as well. It does, President Todd. Um, it removes the any veto power of agenda items requested by board members and then it also puts the final approval of the agenda with the board president. So, just for your consideration, I would we were just looking to clean that language up just a little bit. Yeah. I mean, either way, I'm just making sure that there's no veto power of of a superintendent. This is this is a board meeting. Mr. President, if I may, you may. Um, I am in favor of option one. The reason being is is what you had just stated that it's very it needs to be very evident that this is a board meeting. It's not

074a superintendent meeting. Um, and that this, you know, I you basically said everything I needed to say, but um, you know, this is a meeting that we come here and do business and we don't need some rogue superintendent to start running our meetings instead of us um, and delegating what's on there. So both I understand that both have that information that you know that superintendent can't veto anything or keep anything off. However, I do like it that it spells out in option one that first the board president is authorized to develop the agenda in collaboration with the superintendent, but it starts with the board president. That just kind of sets the tone that I like in this language. Can I add an additional comment? me. I just want us to remember that we should all

075be working collaboratively. You know, it shouldn't be us, the board versus the superintendent. And I feel like, you know, this the way that this discussion is going feels that way to me personally and I just want us to remember that, you know, we all have to work together for the benefit of students. And so I just want us to keep that in mind. And um you know I'm still in favor of option two. I do think it you know spells out that the superintendent doesn't have veto power and in the end it is the board president that has the final approval of the agenda which is appropriate in the way that it's supposed to be. Um I agree with that. So I just personally agree with the the language and the way it's written with

076option two. I feel like it forms a more collaborative approach because we both need the superintendent and the board to run a school district. I'm a little unclear. I apologize, but I'm a little unclear on which option we are leaning towards for inclusion in this round of edits. I like the wording of option two. Uh, personally, I feel like they both say the same thing. They're just different order, but they say the same thing. Okay. Any further discussion? Thank you. Um on page 43, the uh order of the regular meetings. So this section that you see redlinined here was all inserted by the district. So all of this can be removed, but if we were to include it, there was a proposal to remove all the things that are not pertinent so that we're not

077tying the hands of the board and how they run their meetings. So I'll open this up for discussion. Um, the options here are remove this in its entirety or to have the agenda like the regular meeting agenda set with just the things that are in black. So, leave this in here with only the things that are in black. So, just for some background so the other board members know I requested this. Um there are times uh for example last couple of meetings where you were coming to present to us but we had meeting ahead of time. Um we're paying a lot of lawyers and you and others who are coming in from the time you get here trying to guess how long that's going to be. We certainly don't want to tell you be here

078at 7 if we really want you here at 6 um or if we need you here at 6:00. But if an executive session goes short or anything of that nature, the board president needs to have the ability on the fly to reshuffle an agenda. You see this at city council meetings. You see this at the state legislature. It's very common that you can reshuffle the agenda without having to slow progress, go back and do votes. If we came out of an executive session an hour early and we were waiting for for you, we could just move your section down, pick something else up, and continue the continuity and the flow of the meeting. So that was my request to make this a little more flexible for whoever is running the meeting. Thank you. Fine. I'm

079fine with it not being numbered, you know, um, in terms of, you know, the order can be moved. But I do think it's uh nice for if somebody were to come in and be board president and don't have like a lot of background information or you know that kind of thing because I think you know having those potential things that can be on an agenda but I think there could be some language added that you know these are [Music] um potential agenda items but not necessarily in this order. I'm fine with the order being moved around, but I like them listed in policy. So, you're suggesting that we keep all of them listed. Yeah. And then just re move the language to the following components will be or instead of will be listed can be

080listed within every board meeting. Yeah, that would be fine. Um and not in any particular order. Yeah, I think adding that last phrase, you know, is helpful and then it gives the board president the f flexibility. That's fine. I would hope whoever seeks a position as president has a little bit of experience and knows what these topics are, but if we leave it in, it's uh it doesn't hurt. The main thing was having the flexibility. So, if we need to move something on the fly, there could be any number of things that happen. Maybe even a police chief coming to speak and he's on a call. We want to we don't want to hold up a meeting and be stuck. So that was my main goal was to be able to just reshuffle if we

081need to. What we put in here, we want all these elements. We don't want to we don't want to discard any of the elements of the meeting, but we definitely may need to move them around from time to time. Okay. Page 44. Um, President Todd is requesting to have an ADA compliant email set up by the district. Um, and have cabinet members be checking that email. This President Todd, do you want to speak to this or would you like me to? Yeah. No, I don't mind. Um, on the rare occasion, um, Miss Camarada takes a day off, which is never heard of except for maybe once in her lifetime. Um, if we have a meeting coming up and somebody calls and leaves her a voicemail and she's out, um, maybe she's tending to a family

082emergency or an illness that may not go received and somebody may show up at the next meeting. Remember, we only post 24 hours ahead of a meeting sometimes. It gives very little time to correct that. If they show up um, even at the 48 hour mark, we want to do everything possible. So, if we have a a hotline set up or a general email that also is monitored by multiple people, we never drop the ball. And that's the main thing. We want to make sure that we're absolutely taking care of anybody that has an ADA request. And we're not putting this on one person who quite honestly may be on vacation, may be sick, may have a family emergency. Those are all things that many might take days off for. She doesn't typically take personal

083days, which is I wish she would just because it's she works so many hours, but that's a whole another conversation. Um, but but that was the main thing for this so it can be monitored and we never miss that. We never miss that. All right. Um, further down the page, you'll see under public participation in board meetings, um, President Todd proposed the additional language that's there. So, this would be a change from the way we're currently handling public comment because right now the vice president calls the speakers. I just clarifying. Well, the president could delegate that. It's just it's just saying that they're being recognized. So if the president was to delegate to the vice president to to call the public comment then that would be fine as well. So maybe we say recognized by

084the board president or their designate because currently I don't think we have either in policy as to who calls it out. Just seems to be we're shuffling a meeting. It was easier. I kind of started doing that having the vice president call the all the speakers. Yeah. I think currently in policy it says precedent. Okay. On page 46 is the next. Um so in the meeting minutes asking for the names of the members who propose each motion and the person that motion. Um and there was a question as well from Mr. Dangerfield about what is considering what are considered working days. Um so because the district is Monday through Thursday, are we Monday through Thursday working days or is it Monday through Friday? No, working days are Monday through Friday. It doesn't change for the

085district just because we we've changed our schedule here. Working days are Monday through Friday. Okay. Any questions or discussions about that? Moving on to page 47. President Todd has requested that there's a minimum of two reads for the policy adoptions and a 30-day waiting period before a the adoption or after the adoption of the policy before it goes into effect in order to allow the whatever necessary changes that u maybe a site has to make or whatever else but to allow an adjustment period. So they're asking for a 30 days from the day that the policy is adopted for it to take effect. No, I'm not. I'm just staring into your eyes apparently. Mr. President, if I may. You may. No, I I like this just because um you know, a lot of times we

086as a board will adopt a policy and it is goes into effect right away. Um and a lot of times we're in violation of that policy right away because it takes time to make those changes. Um and so this kind of clears that out for us and and thank you President Todd for proposing this information. Mr. President, ma'am, may I I have a question about this. Just say there is that weird chance where we need to implement something immediately. Can we override this by a vote? I think that's acceptable if we need to do it. You know, there may be something for example comes down from Department of Education that we have to jump a little faster. Um there may be something from our insurance company that makes us make some changes quickly. But overall

087general things, I think the 30-day policy um is best, but but I'm certainly willing to put some language in there to cover emerent actions. I'm also in support of having uh it be two reads. I think it gives t people time to consider the options and and the public to weigh in as well. Okay. So the only change that we would be making to this section is to add language that um unless deemed emergent by the governing board's majority v vote then this would be the policy the 30-day adoption. Is that accurate? I I think so. I I think it's actually so right there before it says the 30 days after adoption is of said policy. At the beginning of that sentence it says unless specifically noted. So I think if we just kind of

088know that um you know while we're adopting a policy we as a board can say this needs to go in effect immediately or you know we can we can discuss that just so I understand like the procedure so that just being the motion right like immediately you adopt. Okay. Okay. Okay. Moving on to page 48. um the suspension of policies. Uh board member Zimmerman asked why would the board need to suspend a policy? So I'll leave that up to Mr. Dangerfield to discuss. Um I'm not exactly sure what the question is. I do think that there should be an option for the governing board to suspend a policy. Um we do it at the beginning of each board meeting. actually right now when you say um the language I could even quote it. Yeah, I

089I understand, you know, I do know that we do suspend it. Um I just think it opens this up to, you know, could be misused in my opinion, but I understand that it probably will be there regardless. Mr. President, for me, you may. I think um I I agree. Uh we should be able to suspend it if needed. I think that our board has a history of suspending the board policies at the beginning of every meeting and that's kind of a dangerous thing. Um I think that if we can pull ourselves more in compliance to our policy, then we wouldn't have to suspend it all the time. Um that way we're more following our policy. we don't have to jump around when at times we can say okay now it's time to suspend a policy

090because we're dealing with a uh unique situation. Um so I I agree we have to I think we need the option to suspend it but I I I caution the board you know I I hope we would get more in line with our policy so we don't have to suspend it every meeting. I I think we're in line with it. It's for the rare times where you have an issue that comes about and then you trigger a whole bunch of discussion and additional additional work to go suspend policy. Then it's it's very common language and most every public meeting councils everybody else that that language is is in there because the rare times it does happen when you're out of policy. Um there's a reason for that and you're going to you're going to delay

091you're going to delay meetings and delay decisions that can get caught up through Robert's rules. You can you I believe the one that you're reading right at the beginning is just to suspend the agenda policy, right? The way the agenda is put together. So that's just to allow the meeting to go on as it's printed and as is uh presented to the public in the agenda. Okay. If there's no other discussion, that is the um remainder of the edits for chapter 1 and we can move on to chapter two. So chapters two, our edits begin on page one and President Todd has asked the question um if this specific the superintendent shall represent the district in all matters of concern to employee organizations and individual employees. Does this prevent um board members from speaking to

092district employees? And so, Mr. Dangerfield, I will open that up for you. For me? Yes. I'm not sure. What does the board want to do with that? It's not really a legal issue that I know of. It's a board policy. Um, I think the Well, I mean, it's really a board policy. I don't Does are you asking for a legal opinion about that? So my my question was as it read the superintendent shall represent the district in all matters of concern to employee organizations and individual employees. Uh we're elected officials and that seems to me like that's a that prevents an elected an elected official from speaking to these groups. Um if an individual employee comes up and wants to talk to you and their taxpayer in the district, seems like it'd be pretty strange

093to tell them, "Sorry, can't talk to you." Um, I don't think that's actually what it's saying, but and if you want to ch tone the language somehow, that's certainly fine with me. Um, but the superintendent represents the uh formal process for people to file complaints or to um employees to handle the process. But um that doesn't there's no way you're going to stop people from talking to their friends or expressing their concerns. That's going to happen. Um and it's uh I don't wouldn't say that's a violation of policy. You can change that language if you want. Certainly. Thinking maybe if we drop the shell and say the superintendent represents the district. That's probably good. Yeah. Any other discussion? Okay. The next question that President Todd had was he's asking if the board is comfortable with

094the $100,000 um limit procurement limit that is set for the superintendent. I would just add that that is the standard rule with the um uniform system of that's what I was going to ask. It's a uniform system of financial records that the auditor general has produced for the state. U that's a standard rule. It's up to 10,000. There's discretion with the with one one vendor with any one particular vendor in a fiscal year. The superintendent can make decisions up to 10,000 from 10,000 to 100,000. you've delegated through those pol through that uh uniform system of financial records for the superintendent and his staff the office uh the chief financial officer to make those decisions moving forward and then above 100,000 has to come to you for the board to approve those transactions. So that's just

095the standard process here in the state and I'm fine with that. I just want to call it out since it was a number just make sure the board was still comfortable with that. Um the other suggestion here was that the superintendent get board approval to close uh school buildings or other facilities. Mr. President, if I may, you may. So says the superintendent with board approval may close any or all school buildings or facilities as permitted by law. Um I guess my question is is this referring I mean it doesn't have a timeline on this. Is this talking about an immediate closure like you have an incident at a school and you need to close that school or or something happens there or is this talking about a permanent closure? I think this is missing a

096word and that is temporary. Okay. Um the superintendent and I'm not sure you want with board approval because if there's an emergency situation or whatever, is he going to try to reach out to the board to get a a decision from from you folks? Uh, I think he needs authority in a temporary situation, an unusual situation to build it. I think this was originally designed for like snow days, you know, up in Flagstaff. Snow days. Now, we don't have them here. Uh, we more have a hot day, you know, if it's temporarily. We've had a we've had like a weather like a rain and a flood where we've had to close our schools. So, you can't really have a board meeting to do that. I agree. No, if it's temporarily, I think that's fine. We

097don't need missing that word. Just missing the word temporary. But sorry, is there language then that when we're talking about permanently closing that that's all in statute that's there that's a very big process. But I mean in our policy now in our policy now though I let me research that. Yeah, because if we can if we can fix this one with the temporary, right, where he has the delegated he or she has the delegated authority to do that for a temporary situation versus, you know, just in our own policy. I know it's in statute. Yes. I'm just saying there's a lot of things. Closing a school permanently is a big process. Correct. All that it's all detailed. I will research. I believe that might be in chapter 5, but I need to do some research

098to find where the policy is on that. I didn't know it's in No, I I mean I've just recently read chapter 5. I don't think it's in chapter Yeah, I didn't I didn't see it in there, but if you can find it, if I can find it, great. If not, then we will do some adjustments. Do you want us to make reference to the permanent closing of schools um in here? I mean, we can I mean, right at the bottom of the page, we have the arses. We can just have that. Yeah. As a reference. Yeah. Oh, we can certainly put a reference in there. Sure. Right. Yeah. Okay. Mr. President, could I make a comment about this policy? Um, I just want to draw our attention to that the duties of the superintendent, like

099the list of them is very different and much shorter than our current policies. And I just caution us that if they're not spelled out, it's more difficult to hold the superintendent accountable if those duties aren't. And so, can you tell us where you're at? I I'm just making a general comment, sorry about this versus our current policy CBA. Um, and I wonder if there's some just and I apologize that I didn't like add this, you know, ahead of time, but um, you know, and other duties as assigned by the governing board or just give us a little bit more uh, freedom, I guess, um, because it is so much shorter than our current um, duties and responsibilities of the superintendent. So would you be willing to send some language to Miss Castiano so then she

100could just when we bring this back we can look that over. Would that work? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So the next page it discussing the evaluation of the superintendent. There is um board member Schmidt and board member Zimmerman uh asked a question related to the performance goals and the timeline. So they're suggesting that this timeline be changed from June 1st to July well no July 1st. No no no June change to June 1st through June 30th. Yeah change to June 1st through June 30th. Yeah. Um this is something I feel very strongly about personally is that if we are writing goals um where we need to see the endofyear achievement by students which I would assume that we're writing goals for the superintendent that includes student achievement. We cannot know the results of those goals

101in the middle of the year and appropriately assess them. So I really would encourage the board to move this timeline. I agree with board member Zimmerman. Um, you know, evaluating performance for the superintendent in February when the school year doesn't end until the end of May seems um just strange to me. Uh, so if we wait till the end of the school year, we get full school year performance. We can see all of the things. I know it gives us a shorter timeline for the evaluation, but school is over, so hopefully we can hit that timeline a little bit easier um without all the other things going on. So, I know there is that consideration that it does shorten our time frame. Um but I think it's important to see the whole year's information in

102order to make an educated decision on evaluation. Can I offer a consideration as well? Um, this also if you all need to find a new superintendent based on the evaluations or something of that nature, that is the reason why they had cuz I questioned this a lot when I first started working with school boards like why would we evaluate a superintendent in the middle of the year. Part of that evaluation is in consideration of if you need to shop for a new superintendent and when they are available um and when contracts would be signing as well. I think evaluating the superintendent and evaluating for performance pay are two different things. Um, and I feel like we have discussed this at Nauseium times. So, I think that I understand what you're saying, but if we are

103evaluating for performance pay, I think it needs to be done in June. And we are evaluating typically the superintendent in December, like a midyear. And so, frankly, if we are going out for a new superintendent, we better decide If we're deciding in February, it's too late in my opinion. We've missed the window. So, I think if we want to add language about a midyear evaluation and then the performance pay evaluation in June, but um I think we've already missed the window if we're waiting till February to search for a new superintendent. I would agree. Um, my concern about doing it in June is that is probably our least attended board meeting around and I think the public in in Miss Zimmerman's quest for additional transparency. That's a rough time. What I might suggest is we

104do that towards the start of school, maybe an August or September time frame when we have more residents, taxpayers, parents, teachers that are in the district. I don't know how that works with time frame. I certainly understand her concern about performance pay and how do you do that off of uh but we're going to have a weird if we're doing this at two separate times it's going to be kind of awkward if we're doing a meeting. So I think that's definitely deserves some some discussion and I understand what she's saying. So my understanding right now is possibly changing this timeline um either from June to August. Does it make a difference that the board meetings are recorded? Um does that change opinions at all that they are recorded and that they are published so that

105um the public can see them from anywhere? And this part is done in executive session. So the public isn't watching us. They're just watching us make the final motion. Okay. Right. But that's the key part is the motion itself. And superintendent may request for it to be in a public meeting. It's true. So timeline would are are you okay with going to July or August or I'm sorry August we said September. Uh Mr. Dangerfield are we okay to you know offer performance pay after the fiscal year for the which the goals were written for? It is a fiscal year issue. Uh you do have um the year ending on June 30th. Um but I think the u the uh school district could cut a purchase order, you know, because you have an incumbrance period and

106it lasts for two months after the end of the fiscal year. So it goes to August 31st. Yeah. I'm not opposed, Mr. Todd, to having it in August. Um, I just want to ensure that we have the data from the previous year is what I'm trying to get at. So, uh, if if it if it's not a legal issue, you know what I mean, in terms of the contract and fiscal year and budget and all of those things, I'm I'm fine with it being in August. District could cut a purchase order in that current fiscal year for the maximum and then the board could choose whatever they want to do. actually the the purchase order would be could be reduced to what the real amount is but they would need to set it aside the

107money aside and honestly I think it would be easier for staff because we're waiting for that data to come in from the state in June and we're we're guessing we're hoping that it's going to be in by you know June 10th or whatever we're aiming for. So I'm fine with moving into August. Okay. So do we want to uh Mr. Mr. Dangerfield, just a quick question. If the encumbrances can only be done until August 31st, then is the you have to you have to encumber by the end of the fiscal year. By the end of the fiscal year, June 30th, but the purchase order can only be written till August 31st. No, the purchase order has to be done at that time you encumber it. Uh they have to then they would pay it out.

108Okay. But they have to pay the end of the incumbrance period, which would be the end of August. So then the evaluation period would need to be July 1 through July 31 in order to make sure that um you had time to do the evalu you get all the documentation back have time to do the evaluation and then have the public meeting with that. Is that accurate? I'm just trying to walk this back from if we have to pay it out by August 31st, then you all will be you would be better if you had the evaluation by the end of the year by the fiscal year and then uh pay out sometime in the next few weeks you know with the with the purchase order and covered. It would be better to do it

109by the end of the count the fiscal year or or do we just pay on performance pay and it rears so we use last year's data to bring them I think that's the way it was intended when it was originally set up you're really using the previous year's performance of students and as part of your determination rather than the current year but certainly it's not a problem I mean you can do it the way Miss Zimmerman is suggesting um but I I think the way it was originally designed is you're using evaluations from before. Yeah. But when you think about you're evaluating somebody for the whole year all the way in March, I don't know how effective that is to like impact change if you know we want to encourage something else to evaluate somebody

110basically 9 months later after the end and and a whole year, right? Potentially for or year and a half if you're going back to the beginning of the year. So, I'm not in favor of evaluating for the previous year. And if we get on the schedule of paying the performance pay like the following fiscal year, does it matter what fiscal year we're paying for it as long as it's budgeted? That's a good question. I mean, um, districts are supposed to pay for their expenses incurred during the year, you know, that it happened. And so that's why you have the incumbrance period of two months, but that's to clean up all your outstanding purchase orders and bills that were that came through from the previous fiscal year. So, you are supposed to pay for your services

111and provided during the fiscal year that it occurred. Mr. President, if I may, if you may, I I hear the conversation and I agree that it would be nice to have all the information. Um I it this time period between February 1st and March 30th, that's standard, correct? I mean, that's the language that came to us from the trust. That's language we had with the ASBA. That's kind of the standard time. Yes, that is common. It's in mo most superintendent contract. I'm just curious why we would be the only district that's raising this question. Is there something we're missing that this is here? And and Miss Castanos, you said that, you know, you've questioned this quite a bit when you started. Do you think it's just because that's the time frame where if you know

112they need to look for a new superintendent that that's that's the only reason or or could there be other legalities or issues that we're we're dealing with here? I I I hesitate to change it as our one board. I mean, I'm I'm okay with it because I understand the the situation. I just want to make sure we're not missing something that's going to get us in trouble later if every other district has this language. I can get with the trust and ask them what is why this is the recommended language and then send that justification back to you all. I would appreciate that. Okay. And then if that justification comes and it it is just simply because of the search for the new superintendent language. If that comes, what would be the proposed change that

113we're asking for here? Is it June? Is it July? Is it August? I just want to be able to provide you all the information so that the third read is the final, right? Yeah, we get I I think it depends on what the answer comes back with why they have it. I you know I wonder I think July is a tricky time for vacations and and different things like that. I just wonder you know could I don't want to you know I know the board members have said you know I don't want us to tie us to something too specific. So, if we say, you know, the last week of July and first week of August, that's obviously very specific, but it would allow um if we, you know, did it the first week of

114August, that would give us three or four weeks to issue that performance pay. And again, if we're going back to two meetings a month, um then that should give us enough time to fit into that incumbrance period. Yeah. And I'm just looking for what the evaluation period is going to be. So when you all decide to have the meeting, that's your decision, right? But when does the when does the evaluation period start and when does the evaluation period end? And then you're setting the meeting and completing the evaluation is a different conversation. Oh, okay. I see. If I may, you may. I think then we're look what we're looking at um for an option than what I'm hearing is June 1st through July 31st, I think, is the time period. June 1st through July 31st,

115right? Because that gets us to the end of the fiscal year. The fiscal year ends on June 30th. Sorry. Yes, you're right. Um the encumbrance period. Yes, the encumbrance period. Well, July, August. Yeah. So, we could do July 1 through June 30th. So, it's a full year, a full calendar year, right? So, it's starting July. If we start the evaluation period on July 1, then it would go all the way through until the following year on June 30th. No, I don't want it to be that wide because then a board could decide or a board majority could decide to do it in the middle of the year. And I don't I'm not comfortable with that. No, I'm talking about the evaluation period for the superintendent. So, how long you'll be eval what is the 365day

116period you're evaluating for her them for? Is that in this policy? This is just talking about the time period in which the evaluation will occur. I don't think what you're referring to is currently in the policy. Okay, let's go ahead and roll this conversation back and make sure. Let me do the research and then you're saying that um as long as we do the first couple of weeks in August, we should be okay for the actual time period or the timeline that the evaluation is held. Yes. I mean I I think probably by August 15th at the very latest because you think we're doing at the evaluation at a meeting and so then we'd have to give them enough time to issue that performance pay. Okay. Any other discussion? I apologize. Okay, great. Um, the

117next conversation is actually the tool itself. So, prior to our last meeting, this tool was um input in here so that we had a standardized tool that we were using. It has been suggested that we remove the tool and give the governing board the ability to find a tool that is most appropriate for them um and to vote on using that tool. So, I'll open that up for discussion. Thank you, Mr. President. You're right. Um, yeah, I'm I'm okay with removing the tool itself because, you know, there we we seem to as a board always go back and reflect on what tool we're going to use and there's always seems to be little changes that we make to it. Um, and so this gives us the ability to adjust that tool when needed as a

118board and I'm okay with that. Mr. President, you may. Um, I agree that I'm not uh in love with this tool. I don't think that it accurately reflects um the evaluation of the superintendent. I do think we need to have we need to agree to a tool because I think it's fair to the employee to know how they're being evaluated just as we evaluate teachers and administrators. You know, they know what the tool is. So, I think I'm more than open to changing the tool, but I do think that the tool should be in policy so that the expectation is clear. And I would just like to see language added uh whatever we decide about the tool that the superintendent um be required to provide um evidence in support of their evaluation. So I didn't

119see that language here. Um any other discussion? Well, I I would concur. The board and the superintendent have a clear understanding of what the tool is. Just using this tool several years, this for those who haven't been through this process, this becomes a check the box exercise and becomes pretty difficult to really evaluate superintendent's performance. I'd like to see a better tool. I think we can maybe put language in here that just says a tool shall be defined at the beginning of each observational for each uh each evaluation period because what may work one year may there may be another tool that we find that works better for the second year. I do agree we shouldn't blindside the superintendent at the end of the evaluation period show up and ah we got this one we're

120going to rate you on but um that that wouldn't be very good but um I just hate to lock us into one where we should have at the beginning of each evaluation period whatever that time of the new year is which I think is still to be determined based off of some work you're doing then we'll we'll be able to agree to that tool for that evaluation year Mr. President. Yes ma'am. Um I uh I agree with pretty much everything that you just said. My um if we could write in somewhere somehow that the tool has to be decided upon by the board before the school year begins so that the superintendent has it from the beginning of the year and then knows how they're being evaluated over the course of the year. Um, I

121think that would, you know, give us the ability to be flexible and change tools as we need to because once you put it into policy, it's so hard to make changes. Like if you don't have to make it policy, it's probably best not to in order to have some flexibility and make adjustments. Um, if we learn that it's just not great and you want to be able to to kind of flex on the spot if you need to. But if we could agree on vote on one at the beginning of the school year so that the superintendent has it in hand, knows how be how they'll be evaluated at the end of the year. Um that feels fair and still allow flexibility. So prior to the school year or prior to the evaluation year? I

122mean I think that they should know how they're being evaluated for the entire year. So before the school year, you give them this is how we're going to evaluate you at the end of the school year. so that they can have it in hand and use it to to help set their goals, help check themselves in. Um, periodically, you know, uh, my my job, we have quarterly check-ins, and we have to see how we have to give evidence of how we're meeting our goals for the year, every quarter, make sure we're still on track. So, if he if he, she, sorry, same thing. Um, if they have it in hand for the whole year, then they're, you know, they can keep track of themselves as well. And it to me it feels like a more

123fair evaluation. If they've only got it 30 days before the evaluation period, how do they know that they've been hitting that for the whole year? Yeah. Any other conversation? Okay. All right. Um, moving on on page seven. You'll notice that President Todd asked for language put in that says all school sites and/or committees will follow open meeting law. I have a question. Uh does this mean like the teacher advisory committee would need to be like noticed? I think yes. I think other teach we hear all the time that teachers didn't hear from an advisory council. Um so in transparency if we follow this law for everything we do then we've got we don't have any questions later. They can see the agenda. They can then review it, give input to their site council or their

124uh teacher advisory committee representative. And that's it's much like we like we do in this meeting. gives our their constituents the opportunity to respond to them, attend the meeting, let them know their opinions, and I think it's solid. I do believe site council is already required by statute to be we had a ruling on that eight or nine years ago from the AG's office. It's it's documented that they had to follow open meeting law. Not really sure that that's happening, but for sure about that. Yeah, there's I know positive it's somewhere in writing from the AG's office. I wouldn't argue with you. Yeah. Better. My question uh to staff would be, do you feel that teachers are going to feel comfortable giving feedback about things um if it's open to the public? I guess I

125do not. So again, I will follow my my concern about it is that statute is very clear that if anybody's giving recommendation to the board, they need to follow under the open meeting law. So if you're going to come to us at any point and say met with the teacher advisory council and they say this in a roundabout sort of way that's giving advice to the board. So if we're going to hear their words I think we need to air on the side of caution of the open meeting law and they should they they expect us to conduct business this way. We need to do that for all of our committee. Same with the site councils everything else because otherwise we can't take advice. The teacher advisory council used to be a board-appointed committee and

126I'm not so sure that that's not a bad bad thing to go back to. Um, when they got in trouble for not following the opening law at the time, superintendent was Dr. Rogers. He switched it to a superintendent meeting and somewhat skirted it. However, it has been discussed in different trainings since that time that this is not a clean way of advising of having that committee because if any of that input is coming back to the board, it needs to be an open meeting. We can follow that. The rule right now is um if it's a boardappointed committee, it's subject to open meeting law. If it's a superintendent or administrative meet committee, then it's not required. But but you can bringing advice back to the board. That's the other language in the law. If they're

127bringing that information back, if the superintendent wants to have a committee about I know that's birthday celebration, you a feel-good that it doesn't have to come back because the board's not taking action. But if it's coming back to the board to say teacher advisory committee believes this, that's coming back. And that's the the dangerous part of the interpretation of that law. I know that's true with curriculum instruction when they're doing adopting curriculum, but I don't know about other um you know making other recommendations to the board, other committees that might be administrative. So I I can't answer that specifically, but I do know it is accurate statement if it is curriculum instruction material. Any other discussion? Okay, that is all of the changes that will be made to chapters one and two. My last question

128to the board is currently you have me scheduled for May 19th. That is the only meeting that I'm scheduled for and we have several reads and um additional uh information to go over. So, I'm curious if there is time that the board would like to set aside um so that I can book you onto my calendar as well before I fill up over the summer months. Can we uh maybe get Miss Camarada to work with the board and find some dates that would work? Certainly, we're going to need some dates, but with summer vacations, everything coming up, everybody may still be planning. That's what can we get to like within the week. And then, um just as a reminder that your current contract with ASBA ends on June 1st. Is it June 1st or June

12930th? June 30th. The ASBA contract is over June 30th at the end of the fiscal year. The trust one starts July 1. And I would suggest when we meet next that we just we review these policies, chapters one and two again so that you have the everything fresh in your minds. Um and then look towards uh possible adoption of the ones that we can. That's all. Thank you. All right, members. Uh, that brings us up to item 1.7, board comments on agenda topics and items for future consideration. Mr. President. Yes, ma'am. Um, my request is to have an agenda item uh for an update regarding the direction we gave our attorney in executive session on April 21st. She's working on that. I know. I'm not sure if we'll have anything by then, but she will

130come to us uh at the first opportunity as soon as she has an update for us. Anything else, Mr. President? Yes, ma'am. Um, can we get an update on the potential changes to the meeting schedule? I know it was brought up um and potentially going back to two a month. Right now, we have a calendar for next school year, but it's only once and it's on Tuesdays. Um, so for those of us who plan very far in advance, if we could try to get, um, at least the first few months scheduled, uh, that'd be great. I think that would agendaize for our next general meeting, which should be the 21st, right? Is that the when's our next general meeting? May I'm sorry, May 13th. Great. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? All right. Hearing none, we'll

131move to item 1.8, which is our current schedule, Mr. President. Yes. Uh May 13th is a Tuesday, not a Monday. So, is it is it on like May 12th or Tuesday the 13th? June 10th is also a Tuesday, not a Monday. President Todd. Yes. a revised calendar schedule has not um come before the board yet. So May 13th is still the meeting on the calendar. Okay. But but I think their question is you have Monday May 13th and that should be Tuesday May 13th. Yes, that should be Tuesday. Okay. Same with June 10th. Yes. Okay. So can I just get some clarification? Are um I know you said at the next meeting that we're you're going to have an agenda item about future meetings, but are we meeting on Monday, May 12th? Are we meeting

132on Tuesday, May 13th? It' be Tuesday, May 13th at this time. Okay. And then um the work study session, I thought that we were having a like retiree reception at 4:30. So, are we really having a study session on that day? Mr. President. Um the May 13th is a Tuesday and that's um usually a tradition is to celebrate the retirees on that date. However, it'd be up to you guys to discuss if you want the work study at 4:30 or if you want it at 5:30. And the reception would be at um 4:30 to 5:15 with your work study happening at 5:30. So you guys can decide what you would like to do. So, the retiree celebration is going to be on the 13th or the 19th. I think I heard both. Tuesday, May 13th.

133Okay, that answer. So, do you want to do a 5:30 work session? I just am wondering, you know, are are we I know that we need to continue to have work sessions. not uh disagreeing with that fact by any means because we need to move the policies. But if we're, you know, if we're going to recognize our retirees in the meeting, you know, do they need to sit through a work study session? No, I think we could we could reverse that and do the work study session after the regular board meeting as well. Do that. Also, I think Dr. Mahorn, wasn't this day we were talking about maybe needing to push for something else? maybe push it back a week to the the following. Okay. So, she Yeah. So, possibly may staff may ask us

134to move the May 13th meeting uh to push it back a week. You should know here within a couple days probably. Okay. So, let's just hold these dates, but know that the 13th may get pushed to the 19th um which would then be the retiree, the general or regular governing board meeting and the work study session. If if that happens, can I suggest that maybe we still do a work sess study session the week of the 13th or 12th because that 19th was just going to be, you know, designed for policy to give us an extended period of time to work through these policies. Yeah, that that could certainly be worked out, I'm sure. All right, next up item 2.1, the adjournment of the special meeting. It's uh 7:28. We'll show the meeting adjourned. [Music]