001No sweat. No sweat at all. >> Okay. Good afternoon. We will now call this meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. The purpose of this special call meeting is to discuss a response to the Decatur delegation's request that CSD seek a voter referendum on the current ECLC plans. We will now start with a roll call for the record. I am the chair, Dr. Carmen Soulton, and I am present. When I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Vice Chair Uts, >> present. >> Board member Anderson, >> present. >> Board member H. Hearnen, >> present. >> Board member, >> present. At this time, we would like to invite legal counsel Jodie Campbell to the podium. >> Before we proceed, uh, I need to raise the concern I flag previously because this item directly involves the
002TFA bond. I'm just wondering if any member with financial interest should disclose it and consider recusal. >> I guess that's towards me. I told Dan Wizenhunt on the phone that I have no conflict whatsoever with any ECLC of any kind or what I ever appreciated say that and uh he was mad at me. He hung up and then there was in that thing u I work for Edward Jones. Edward Jones buys and sells bonds. Um so they just like when if any legislation mentions a specific bond company then I recuse myself from that particular bond uh as a competitor. that I don't buy, sell, profit, anything to do with that. Nor have I ever said that to a few people. I've talked to GSBA about it. GSBA tells me that I'm being silly. I have
003no conflict with the school board. If I have one, it's on the other end that my clients may be concerned that I'm trying to sell them stuff that they don't want. >> Okay. I guess I >> You're saying you do have a conflict or you don't? No, I've recused myself from any potential conflict because the company that I work for buys and sells bonds from bond companies. Uh so any vote that references a particular bond company, I've recused myself and discussed it with uh my own attorney, the Edward Jones attorneys, GSBA, etc. Um >> is that something new? Because it seems like you, you know, intended to recuse yourself. >> What does that mean? from the October vote. I believe that was a recusal, correct? >> Yeah, I've recused myself a few times. Anytime there's
004been a mention of a bond company and legislation's been given advice that we could separate the choosing of the bond company from the actual discussion of a bond, etc. Um, yeah. So, because there is no discussion right now of anything related to a specific bond company, there is no reason that you need to recuse yourself. And to clarify, some of the error was what was what was said by me. So going be going going forward when I call for a vote, what I'm going to do is to have every board member state their name. I'll make the motion, I'll call for a second, and then I will state every board member's name and have them state their vote. That way, there's not confusion about what the actual vote count is versus what I'm hearing. So
005sometimes when you guys talk into the mic, it's difficult for me to it's difficult for me to hear what's in favor versus a refusal versus who's in opposition. >> I'll have you state your name and state your vote and that way it's clear for the record and for the minutes. >> But if I can I just follow up on something because I in January. So one a recusal is different from an abstension because I did abstain from the first budget vote but I thought the whole purpose of a recusal was so you you are not sitting here so therefore Carmen or Dr. Sultan there would be no confusion right I think some of the confusion happens when during a recusal and again I'm no attorney and I've only seen it happen once so I would
006like us to kind of get this sorted out now. So that's one fewer thing that people are talking about. So am I incorrect that the whole point of a recusal is to avoid this confusion. So therefore, when there's a vote, there would never be a circumstance for which someone mistakenly thought there were four people who voted yes because the person who recused themsself would never be up here. >> So if I may, um this seems a bit far a field of the reason for the special called meeting. So, the purpose of the special call meeting is to discuss a specific request that was made by the legislative delegation of the city of Decar. Um, and so let me compartmentalize the discussion because it seems like we're talking about two different things. If the question is
007whether or not uh member board member Hernand has a conflict today, I think that the answer that I've heard is no because we're not asking for any kind of discussion about any particular bond company or or or bonds at all. frankly is to answer the specific question that was asked of the board in that March 15th letter. If the question on the other hand is about the any votes that happened in the past like in October, unfortunately I I don't think that's an appropriate topic of conversation. I think we would be violating the open meetings act that we engage in that discussion because it was not part of the special call meeting agenda that was published. >> So can I just because people have basically asked me this and I don't know how to answer
008it. So, we're here to discuss the letter that the legislators sent that effectively said, "Hey, we support early learning. Unfortunately, what we're seeing is a lot of um concern in the community and therefore we're proposing that you have a referendum. And if you don't, then the mechanism that allowed you to even have the bond that we're talking about for this vote may no longer be available to you." And am I correct with that summary? >> Yeah, that is an accurate summary and working to answer the question about whether or not we want to voluntarily have a reference. >> Right. So I think where I'm confused or I would like to have that question answered for people is and I'm sorry James because it really isn't about you. It's understanding the process. >> I want to
009I want to be very clear having never received a phone call on the subject from you. It is very much about me. >> Well, James, it isn't for you to answer me on the phone. is for the public to understand so that we don't have to keep hearing this question. >> This is about protecting the integrity of the board maintaining public >> and so the answer has been provided I believe >> under a cloud of potential conflict >> but there is not a there is no conflict the statement has been made clearly the question was asked if there is a conflict the answer is no there is not a conflict so per Mr. Campbell's comments, we have cleared whether there is any conflict for this particular vote and so we should address the matter in
010front. >> I don't I don't want to I don't want to suggest that I need to clarify whether there's a conflict or not with a phone call with Tracy. I want to say that if you're working on a board with your peers and they have questions that they want you to address publicly, they should let you know that. I have in the entire >> board you and you have to me as well. >> Yeah. >> Privately for which I appreciate. I didn't know it was going to happen today. >> Yeah. >> That that would have been nice. But that's beside the point. >> Yeah. Um >> but GSBA is very clear. There's nothing about my role of school of a school board member that is in conflict with what I do that they they asked
011that if there's a vote on picking a bond company, my name not be listed as the person who's up to choose that particular bond company. >> Is that a new thing that you've done to protect yourself? >> No, it started in in 2017 when I ran for school board. I got it clarified. There's a whole whole sets of things. I met with not our lawyers but GSBA's lawyers and just just making sure >> to think it's been clarified. Is there we can move on with the agenda? Sure. Mr. Campbell. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Chair S. So, the uh purpose, as I think you've accurately summarized, today's meeting is to discuss the response to the March 15th letter that was sent by the legislative delegation from City Ed regarding a request that we have an
012uh public referendum on the ECLC project that is currently has building permit applications uh pending before city of Decar. And so the question becomes, and obviously there's legislation under the gold dome about this, but the fundamental question is, does the school board want to voluntarily have that public referendum? Um, and I I I'm happy to offer some of legal background about the request, kind of some research that I've done on that inquiry, and uh then I'll let answer any potential questions that y'all might might have. For me uh legally the board is the entity that is vested with making decisions about the construction of schools in the city of Decar for Decar City Schools that goes back to the very charter of the city in which I'll quote from it section 7.11 of charter and
013it says that the board of education shall have the exclusive right power and authority to do and perform all acts necessary to and in promotion of the best educational of the city not in conflict with its charter for the laws of the state. That is the construction of schools. That is the the creation of rules. That is the creation of curricula, hiring teachers, staffing, all those decisions. It is this body that has the exclusive authority to make those decisions. In terms of this referendum, this would introduce a process that I have never seen once in the state of Georgia or I can find no legal authority anywhere in the state of Georgia that requires any school board, whether it be a city school system, a county school system, state board of education that would require
014that as a condition to utilizing processes and procedures, a public referendum has to occur to approve a specific project. Now, we're of course all familiar with SLOs. SLOs votes go out and there's project lists often. They're required to be listed on a SLO uh vote. However, those descriptions are generally speaking vague and general in nature. They they have categories rather than specific project list. And that's that's intentional. The reason why is because if for some reason a project comes in under budget, then you can use those floss resources for other capital improvements and what have you. So again, I think the the greatest level of specificity I've ever seen in a slot agreement would be something along the lines of um release facility for this cluster. Um it doesn't say this specific project, this specific
015location, these specific designs. So again, I want to just stress that the request from the legislative delegation, in my experience, and I I can anecdotally say I've spoken with other schoolboard attorneys throughout uh the state, they are not familiar with any instance where a school board of any kind has had to go and get a public approval after they have already after the board has already approved the project. So it is a very uh unique uh request, an unprecedented request and I do think that it does bring into conflict uh a lot of authority and separation of powers issues as between the school board and its autonomy and its authority to make decisions. So goes without saying I mean legislative bodies make decisions that we don't and the solution is not to Monday morning quarterback
016those decisions rather the solution is the ballot box that's nature of politics it's the nature of a representative democracy so this again this is a very unprecedented request and so from a and I also think it would set a very very dangerous precedent frankly so if if every school board in the state has to go before the public every single time they want to build any type of facility. I think that would be an an extraordinary set of handcuffs put on the school board to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duty of providing education to children within their jurisdictions. So, those are some legal thoughts and analysis based on my research. Um, I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about other contents of the letter, including maybe some of the reasons why they asked for
017that referendum. Um, but those are my general legal thoughts. Thank you. Question. >> I mean, I don't have a question. I think I have a comment. Um, I believe you started by saying you had never seen this. And while I've only lived indicator for 16 years, I've never seen the city commissioners have to meet and each effectively unanimously talk about the problems with what the school board may be doing or deciding. Um, I think to your point, I've never seen this because my understanding of this PSA mechanism, which helps Legacy Park, is that the very legislators that are now putting forward this legislation are the ones that created it that see a concern. So, while I do appreciate the idea that there could be a precedent here, I feel like there are other precedents that
018have been set. And so I'm not comfortable with the idea that because this has never happened, we should be careful of what could happen later. Because my understanding from the legislators was they didn't expect this to happen. This being the board taking the opportunity to exercise its right and effectively cutting out the community. I mean that may not be the way they phrased it but I believe there were three areas of concern and one had to do with community input the cost and so unfortunately I can't ignore that in my responsibility to make these fiduciary responsibil or choices >> if I could just address the public input component of it um because I I'm I'm a little bit and again I acknowledge that I'm new I acknowledge that I've been involved in this situation since
019February of this year but I I I've done my research And as far as I can see, there has been ample public input. >> May I comment on that? >> Yeah, absolutely I do. Okay. >> Well, oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking if I have further comment. I'm sorry. Keep it. >> Well, no, because I I hear, you know, I guess the way I think about it is there is what might be a legal threshold and then what might meet my kind of um standard. And so regarding public input, I believe the first problem that I noted, I believe it was last year and then I cited it again in August, which is the two past sessions that were not largely advertised. They were effectively shared among the board and the board was
020supposed to give names. That alone limits public input. Um, and if you look at the numbers of people that actually participated in that past session, I believe it was overwhelmingly CSB staff. I was pleased to see that some DHA staff was there. I think there were two Decator downtown neighbors and there was also a city commissioner. um so moving out of that path process because from what I can tell that is fundamentally when this building was um designed and so then the other public input seems to be a continual theme of we had a board meeting and look at those slides. um you can email us and as we had at our community meeting just this past week, we can't really tell you the process we're using for those emails. >> So, let me address
021because I think you've made a valid distinction between um what I'll call political input, which might be what you're talking about. >> No, I'm not talking about I'm talking about and I will and then legal. I think there's difference. There's legal requirements. No, there's the legal input requirement and then there's maybe if you want over and above that to ensure maximum or more than what is just minimum legal requirement. There can be more. So here here's my timeline as I see it based on pure the legalities of it. So in 2017 when the decision was made to purchase this property, there was discussion about construction of early childhood learning facilities and expansion of those opportunities in the downtown area. That was part of the discussion in 2017 was part of the decision to buy the
022properties back then. Then in 20202122 the strategic plan and there were specific discussions about providing early childhood learning centers or opportunities in the downtown area. So it was and and before the board could adopt that strategic plan, there had to be public meetings, advertised public meetings where members of the public could come and have discussions and offer their input and thoughts on it. Then in 2025, we have the capital plan which was the subject of multiple public meetings. There was multiple revisions to it based on input and I I went back and watched several videos from I believe it began in April of 2015 going through June where again tweaks to the capital plan are discussed and then at the June 25 meeting at at the August 25 because there wasn't one in July. September
023there was again more discussion. the numbers were out in the public um and then the vote happened and so >> do you mind if we go back to the strategic plan because I think that's particularly important. So one yes my understanding is the same because I'm sure we've read the same document in 2017 the district purchased that land and the houses or the duplexes or whatever they're called um which were now selling. So again when that land was purchased it was as you said because things were expanding but that 23 strap plan is really important and your point about the input I believe because the 23 strap plan that is published on assembly does not have early learning in it. The strap plan was updated and I believe we talked at our February 4th retreat
024about the fact that we never voted on that updated Strap plan. So you're right, you know, there's that kind of legal threshold. >> It sounds like the Strat plan is a living document and it sounds like if it was published assembly, but now if we're going to talk about community input or public input, I'm not aware of any situation in which the public provided input for the updated STRA plan that was shared May 2024 at the board retreat. >> I I've seen meeting minutes where public discussion was held about the the Strat plan, but again, strat plan, but not to be clear because you cited the 2 and the 23 strat plan on assembly approved in March 2023 did not have an early learning center. And if you look at the May 2024 board and
025I went back and listened to it because I was only a few months in, I listened to it before our February board retreat and that's when I noticed that it was kind of shared here. But then we talked at the February 2026 board retreat because what we recognized is we had never approved the updated strat plan. We simply talked about it. But again, even if we take everything you said in in in a fatality, point of the matter is there have been public meetings where this particular facility has been discussed going as far back as 2017. And there have every one of those public meetings are open to the public. All decision-m has been made in open forum, not an executive session where public I mean the public did in fact come and speak in
026opposition. So what I would just simply say is I do not detect any legal problem with the process. I detect political disagreements with the decision. But that does not mean that there is a legal process flaw here that in my opinion would justify taking such an extraordinary step as needing a referendum. Thank you. I have a question also in clarification. Um, are you the only attorney who has worked on this particular HPC issue? >> We're not here to talk about the HPC, so we can't talk about it because that's not what we advertised for this special call meeting. We are only discussing the response to that letter. >> It ties into here. >> So, you're not going to answer my question. Well, I I first of all, I don't want to have any conversation that
027would be considered privileged out in an open forum on this issue, but second of all, I want to be very very cognizant of our requirements under the open meetings act. And I want to be very careful about only addressing the items that are in that March 15th letter and the reasons behind it. >> Yeah. And just to note, you know, that letter like it was triggered by the legislators um feelings of discord and constituents coming to them. And so, you know, I've gone to the city commission meetings recently, listened to the HBC. I am the newest board member that says some of these decisions happened before me, and I'm just concerned, you know, that this is not the Decator way, as our mayor has said. And to me, it signals that we need to pause
028and reset. And so I'm feeling bothered that it seems like right now we are given a binary choice of like yes or no because I really would like to see more here that there is more room for collaboration for us to provide you know because that seems to be what's lacking and has lack and that's why the city commission is doing what they're doing in terms of you taking a stronger stance legally from what I understand. >> If if I may respond then to to the extent the HPC has any relevance on the March 15th letter, all I will say is this. The position that I have taken before the HPC has been the city schools of Decar does not have any position whatsoever on whether this property is designated for historic preservation. We are
029literally ambivalent. If they want to designate it as historically preserved property, they absolutely have that right to do so. All we ask is that it's a that the ordinance that they draft be in compliance with Georgia law as needed. That's it. So, uh, the HPC issue to me is not really factor in because we're taking a position on that and we are allowing that process to play out and and to, um, complete before any further at this point, we don't see any reason why we would need to take any action because once that process is complete, we believe we'd be eligible for building permit. It would be only if the city takes a position that we are not eligible for building permits that that would there would be a problem. But I don't see that.
030>> It seems like that's what they discussed at the city commission meeting. So what I recall is that the possibility of litigation and then taking a stronger stance that we are not our own local government >> and the decision was made that because of the risk of of that we would prevail that they're not going to take that position. >> I'm a little bit nervous that we're starting to stray outside. >> I I I agree and I only bring that up to suggest to answer the specific concern that to the extent the request has anything to do with the HPC. >> Okay. That's why I don't think it's >> I'm sorry. And and just to piggy back off what you're saying, board member area, I think the I think uh Mr. Campbell raised a critical
031point, which is the difference between the political side of this and the legal side of this. Our agenda today is to address the legislation here, but that doesn't negate political underpinning or the political cloud of this. That does not, if I may, that doesn't mean that after after we emerge from this that we don't um consider addressing that concern with the legislators or addressing that concern, those concerns, those political concerns with the city commissioners. But today, we have to emerge with a a response based on the legal advice that um Mr. Campbell is is providing. >> I'm sorry. And it is the English teacher in me. Please correct me if there's a legal application of this, but I reject the idea that it's legal or political. Um, I didn't run for school board, nor am
032I making any decisions now, politically motivated for the next two years. So, I don't appreciate the political. And yet, I understand there are people who hold elected office who are making their decisions as well. And I'm guessing the higher you go, the more I could be informed. I think I'm more concerned about what's reasonable and responsible. And so I can advise us legally, but can you help me understand what you mean by political because I may be misunderstood. I >> I think that you've done a good job of of differentiating it. And I don't know whether we want to consider these synonyms or if we want to just change the word that is used, but I can tell you what is legally required. If you want to do over and above that, more than that,
033whether you want to call that, I I don't remember the exact two words you just used, but I've been using polarity >> reasonable and responsible. Well, okay. If you want to use reasonable and responsible for that, or you want to use another word for that, that's what I'm referring to. >> I think it's transparency. And I think that's what built builds trust, and that's what we've been lacking. And right now, our community is asking for more of it. When I was at the city commission meeting, I was really impressed that they did decide to discuss some legal matters out in the open in the public. And so I just hope that we're not using that legal, you know, umbrella to obser can I ask back to the legal because I want to make sure I
034understand this part. Um because I know that we've had people who have expressed concern about the ways say public comments work and they don't understand sometimes that like legally during a board meeting, right, you get to come up here and speak and we can't talk to you, right? But we've had a good deal of um feedback about the perceived or actual lack of input. And so the threshold kind of like a mill rate hearing as long as we held that hearing it was what 15 minutes long we met the law >> as far as you're talking about the decision to approve the ECLC. >> Well no I I mean I think what you started with and so I tried to take some notes but that effectively um there were opportunities for public input. So, you
035know, we have the legal authority to vote and approve for this bond. Um, and in using this bond to build this, we've had numerous opportunities for input and then I try to kind of qualify some of those. So, I think what I'm wondering is is there a case to be made for the fact that yes, we shared it on the slide. Yes, you were able to come like there's a legal meeting that we have to have. I cited the mill rate as one example. Is there a higher threshold for input like is there an expectation that when you are fulfilling this role besides the fact that you have the elected authority to do so and there's a political consequence in four years is there any legal expectation that you be able to demonstrate what you
036did with the input that was given >> so the answer to that question I'm going to answer it only for the school of war I can't answer for the PFA uh I'm not good over that. But from the school board perspective, the obligation uh to the two decisions, one to construct ETL, two to use bond funding to fund that. Those decisions just simply have to be made in an open session um before the public and um normally normally discussed in work session which is open to the public and then voted on as the voting session. So those are the only legal requirements. So then could we go back there to the decision PFA bond in a work session? >> No, the decision was made in open session. There was a a resolution. >> Oh, I
037thought you said normally it's in a work session. >> No, it's discussed in a work session but then voted on as an in an open voting session. >> So did we have a discussion of the PFA bond in a work session in June? >> Uh according to Courtney Johnson, the Spirit Court of Cat County, yes, it was it was No, it was not in June. It was in October. 15, 2025. Wait, hang on. Let me make sure I'm reading this right. Yeah. October 14, 2025, the board adopted a resolution authorizing the issue of the box construct. >> So, the the one work session in which >> not a work session, the study session October 15th. >> Sarah, I'm sorry. I thought I heard you say that it's talked about openly in a work session and
038then voted on in the regular session. Yes, but I and I will also say that particular just anecdotally I will note that it was actually discussed in June, August and September. >> That's why I was bringing up June because I thought June was the pivotal time and so that's why I was wondering was the TFA bond talked about in a work session in June or was only in October. >> It was in June as well >> in the work session. >> Yeah. She discussed multiple funding options including the PSA >> and then the decision was October. >> That's correct. Can we hear the the motion that's before us? Do you have a motion for us? >> Uh I have not prepared the proposed motion. If you want a proposed motion, so it would either be
039a motion to uh approve the referendum or a motion to deny the request for a public referendum in accordance with the March 15th. >> Okay. You ask questions about that then. um talk about the dangers of the agree do if we sign a legal oath that will serve the children of the caterer and I've got through some legal stuff like there's a reason they don't do referendums for a lot of stuff because often even the most liberal and well-minded communities will not spend the money on the kids if they want to but not saying slow down just feel gym type um what what are the danger you you suggested there were certain dangers with a referendum I thought. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. That there are certain dangers with referendum. Can you speak more about that?
040>> Yeah, sure. So again, um as of right now, uh we have the sole exclusive authority in making those decisions. >> If there is restrictions put on our ability to carry out our mission, um then it creates a very dangerous precedent where okay, this project needs $20 million. What happens if $15 million is the next one? we have to go back again and and just because this particular legislation is worded a particular way that the main can't be amended later. And so if we voluntarily agree to something that is very much a slippery slope that could any project frankly you know where any public funds whatsoever would be allocated to it might be subject to that and again I think that you've made a very critical point that school boards generally speaking um the board
041sets direction but then the team really implements that decision and um >> there are very few governors or or or barriers frankly to how the school districts implement their mission and the reason for that is because that is a constitutional mission of the state of Georgia and we are really in a lot of ways an arm of that of the state implementing that mission. Now, we're doing it on a local level. It's part of a a charter and what have you, but uh yeah, it's it's if if financial barriers are put in place or if public referenda are put in place that impair our ability to implement that mission, then I think the as we've always understood, the balance of powers between school boards, general assembly, voters, the the needs of the children outweigh some
042of the normal political swings and arrows of, you know, local government. Yeah, just wanted to comment that right now as a board, I'm just feeling like we are being presented in either or. We have to say yes or no to this referendum. And as a board, I just as a board member, personally, I just feel like this is a moment to pause and reset and move forward with transparency before we make >> But are we given any other choice from this letter? I mean, the letter is giving us the binary. >> I I don't agree because it seems like they're really >> But I'm just asking for clarification. I'm just I'm just asking for clarification. >> Well, I would I would submit that there's actually two things that are presenting that binary choice. Number one
043is that the letter gave us a binary choice and said pull the referendum or this will happen. So, it's kind of a yes or no proposition in the letter. But the other part of it is the legislation was already introduced. In fact, the advertisement for the local legislation was submitted to paper weeks before this letter was drafted and sent to us. And so it's already in the gold dome. It's already crossed the Senate. And so because of signed die, we are under the gun. And so I don't know what other options would be available. >> So So it is a binary choice facing us frankly based on on what is being asked of us. >> I I don't see other options. >> I see that they are putting to us a political choice of work
044with your community and your constituents. Do the D diligence, you know, flesh out your due diligence questions such as uh including Commissioner Duce and various questions about the cost and feasibility of a second floor working and listening with the Beacon Hill elders who from what I understand have not had meaningful engagement. And that's just saddens me as a resident, as a parent, and as a board. But none of that can happen before sign like so the way that this is structured and the way that it's put in front of us is that because that takes more than the three days that we have left to be able to do it which I think is actually a part of the intentionality which is why we didn't get it for a couple of weeks until after it
045was originally drafted and submitted. So, so it really is put in front of us in such a way that it's a it's an ultimatum like we need to clarify the fact that we chose to have this meeting this Friday. So, while I appreciate the fact that there would be a level of urgency whether it was is it two weeks ago now or a week and a half ago? But I do think that's important that people understand because then it's a little misleading as if this is now our only option. of course on a Friday when it's gone through the house and it's on the second reading. >> However, however, board member Anderson, what he said was that they published it before we even got due notice. So, it was already on the it was already
046the train was on the track before we even heard about >> to the tune of of almost a couple weeks, right? Like what was it 10 10 or 12 weeks? >> I think the legislators actually met in December and talked about the PFA, right? They met at one of our school buildings. So I mean I think there are different ways we should discuss >> but for this particular thing yes that the legis the piece of legislation was advertised before we even found out you know what I mean >> and that is a fact just as it is a fact that we waited until this Friday to have this meeting and I think that's just an important fact to have a question change global financial responsibilities for boards and you started with um never see. So
047are there any situations in which you're aware of a school district wanting to take on this level of debt to meet um and having this type of legal challenge or legislative challenge? >> Um so no, the short answer to that question is no. never seen anybody attempt through the legislature to try to stop a single project. >> And I I want to continue I have a few more questions I want to make sure I get just about my own >> what I feel I'm legally but um go bonds go before referendum all the time. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So then that's when the board says we want to go through that funding mechanism, put it before the public and do it, but the schools can fund things in lots of ways that aren't that
048mechanism. >> That is correct. In fact, one of the reasons the PFA existed is because geo bonds can be quite cumbersome for taxpayers. >> Yes. >> Um because it sounded like you said there's never been a a referendum on a bond and that's obviously not what you >> but but requiring but but there but those those mechanisms um they're built into the it's it's global to all. I've never seen it done for specific bodies through a public finance authority as to specific funding amount for specific projects. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's also a good question, but I just wanted to clarify because it sounded like you were saying but if you choose to go the geo route, the referendum is not only expected, it's required. >> It is required for geo. Okay. >> The
049value of geo bond versus referendum versus other funding. Um second question I have legally is um when we attend these conferences we get leave there's when we attend legal training there are examples of boards not doing right by their students when the data is clear and facing legal and financial repercussions for doing so. If the data is there for something that I feel compelled to do for do, is there any liability to the system or of a particular board member to to put it to the people to violate the oath that I take? Um, so the I'll answer the question this way. There would be no liability whatsoever in any legislative decision this body makes that it believes is in the best interest of the constituents that they serve or in the mission that it
050fulfills. So if this body has made a decision that a particular project is necessary based on the data to fulfill its mission in this case providing education to children >> then this body would be insulated and any individual member would be insulated from any kind of legal liability for making that decision. >> I'm also just very concerned that if we say okay no we're not going to do a referendum because again I don't like this binary choice of yes or no. Um, and all I'm asking is that maybe we pause, you know, listen to our community, um, do some more due diligence. I'm just saying if we, you know, right now are voting to say no, we're not going to do a referendum. I think that that's going to lead the legislators to double down
051and pass that legislation. And I'm afraid that that is going to lead us to a reference. So again, I'm just trying to find a middle ground. we can collaborate with our community and then avoid all of this heartbreak and turmoil. >> I just want board member I want to clarify one at least one fact that you stated um a two-story structure has been um investigated. We uh we we went through it. Our um our architects came and presented it. We we went through it. I believe there's a even a decorator's article that goes goes through it. We we went through through that. I also remember hearing commissioner the $8 million quote and that you know it seems unusual and >> I'm sure that commissioner Duenberry is very much entitled to his own take on the
052costs. Um I spoke with uh Mayor Powers a couple of days ago. He did ask me for the um for all of the mockups on the amount that we were spending. I was most happy to provide those to him. I got them to him in 45 minutes and he is most able to pass those on to all of his colleagues and have them look them over. So is they they are welcome to look at those to those figures. But I just want to state for the record that we did look into a twotory structure. >> And I if we are going to state for the record, I will have to repeat what I shared um during the October board meeting um which is I was not included in that. I was informed of it and
053I still think that if we had perhaps had the ability um to use more input, you know, maybe we wouldn't be here, but I don't know that. Um can I follow up with James's question then because it seems like there are really two things that govern our decision. one obviously is in the best interest of the children which is in conjunction with fiduciary responsibility because we can have all the great intentions in the world but if we don't have the money for that then what we thought we were doing for the best interest of the children like I was thinking of Dublin city schools so I realized they weren't building a building but I'm guessing that that board was doing things for the best interest of the students and recognizing its responsibility and not interfering
054with operations, but somehow they got themselves into lots of financial troubles. I work for a metro school district that has had that happen repeatedly. So, James, I would like to understand that balance if you're willing to share because you did ask, right? it seemed like you were saying hey if I made this decision because it's in the best interest of the students that we don't want people coming along to interfere with that because my responsibility is to the students but how does that work in tandem with the money that we need to fulfill that >> in terms of fiduciary duty every analysis about where we stand as a system has the capacity for this to be afforded now the question that I think the community is is absolutely reasonable to engage on is do they
055want to pay that extra amount and and that's a reasonable thing to engage on but in terms of the fiscal stability of the system the capacity >> actually I disagree Hans because I believe when it comes to the fiscal part what we learned at our community meeting is that we still do and so please I I want to be corrected I want to make sure we have all the facts >> and so we have this really what I would describe as complicated thing going on because we're using three different funding mechanisms is what I'm told. It's an early learning center, but it's actually also a space for high school students and it's actually a space for offices. And then it turns out we're going to use this bond um or rather slots to pay for
056this bond payment, but we're still going to have our regular operate wait let me finish please and tuition. And so what we have been told, we had a great panel here in October 2024. We're going to have philanthropic investment and then what we were told at our community meeting is we still have none. And with all due respect, I looked up the person who shared the information and that person works in that industry. And so what we were told directly was that it is not true. So, can I can I address the concern that you're raising? Because the the concern >> Well, the concern is that I'm being told that you wait until the shovel's in the ground. And so, if I'm making my financial fiduciary responsibility, though, and so fiduciary responsibility means, can we
057afford it? Regardless of the mechanism, however the mechanism happens, can we afford it? Right. >> I also just want to add in there that, you know, we have a potential tax >> um bill. If I if I may, I just want I want to make sure so again want to stay within the bounds. Yeah, exactly. As long as this discussion is within I think uh remember did did a good job of pointing this out. As long as we're having this conversation relative to public input on the decision-m because that's one of the reasons stated in the letter for why they want this. I think we're still okay, but I just want to make sure we don't stray too far a field. We haven't gone there yet, but I just want to make sure. Well, it
058was a member of the public who said, "My experience with philanthropy is that you don't wait until a shovel's in the ground." And what I have been told as a board member is that you have to wait until the shovel's in the ground. >> So, we do not want to do this. We do not want to do this. And we have put all we've put together a number of methods to ensure that we don't have to do this. >> But hold on, let me let me let me actually get to the to my point. We are at 20.3 mills. We have up to 25. So we have absolutely the affordable capacity for this if that was the choice that we wanted to make. We do not choose to. >> I'm worried that that you'll retract
059that just public discussion of a debate about whether >> Yes. Okay. So, >> because we're making a 30-year commitment here with this bond. And so, that's >> then from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, I will leave it to we have the capacity to afford this. Is that is that okay, Mr. >> Well, I would just simply say it has been debated publicly. Whether that has been debated public >> certainly has Okay, >> that that's really what's relevant to the May 15th. And so in that regard, all of this hinge simply on the building and how the building will be used then becomes irrelevant because from the get-go it was to help close this achievement gap and therefore number of students who will be paying no tuition. And in order to afford that we will have philanthropic
060money that I have not seen. So can you explain to me Hans how that is factored in to the calculation >> even if this philanthropic money evaporates which we don't believe that it >> doesn't exist right >> even if it doesn't happen there's the capacity I don't I I don't want to stretch be beyond that I realize there >> I think I think we're at the line I think the answer the the the answer to your question >> pivoting back to the March 15th letter is the way that the question is posed is a referendum on the ECLC not on the financing mechanism or what have you, but on the ECLC. That's the way I read the letter. >> That's where I get confused because like I keep saying I'm sorry if there's a better
061way for me to answer this. There is a physical building. And then there's this thing called the ECLC, which already is confusing because this building is more than an early learning center. And now when you talk about the funding versus the ECLC and it started with James talking about the children right and making that decision and then I brought in the fact that we also have a responsibility to make decisions that are financially responsible. That's where I'm confused when Hans says we have shown that we have the money and then I've heard that the >> well and I I think I think that I think this is a a debate about the financing of it not about whether or not to have the >> and may may I make a suggestion that may get us
062out of this Mr. Campbell. Uh, Superintendent Whiter and Vice Us, when we make the agenda for the next for the April meeting, is there a way that we could add philanthropic funding to the agenda? That way, um, board member Anderson is able to ask her questions and we can get >> addressed. We will have an operational discussion regarding the new ECLC because the question for the bond is about the building. The question for philanthropic is around operational costs which are not the construction of the building. That is the difference between the funding mechanisms. Given that can we be assured that philanthropic funding is included in that so that board member Anderson's concerns are addressed? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is that sufficient board member Anderson that will be on the April agenda? >> Yeah. No, I
063appreciate that. But I think now we have to go back to your point about the letter because I thought the letter specifically identified three areas of concern and one is the cost. >> So I I don't know how to talk about this without talking about the cost. It's talking the areas of concern as I read them are public input about the cost. >> Okay. >> And so has there been emphasiz there been opportunity? And again I'm only answering the legal side. If you want to go over and above what I'm saying is the minimum requirement you can. deserves that. >> Well, and that you may that's a that's a fine opinion to have in your I think it's valid. Um I'm just simply from a legal perspective, we have satisfied the requirements for public input
064in making that decision >> from a peer that there's a lack of transparency. We haven't done where we haven't done what we're supposed to do. But you're saying based on your your your read of this, including the read from uh Judge Johnson, we have we have done what we are supposed to do in terms of open meetings and public input. >> Based on my I I've seen no deviation from the normal course of public input on any capital construction project for any school board in the state. Open meetings, public input, vote in open session. That's that's the way it's always done and I've not seen anything like this. >> So, may I ask you one other question and you may not answer it. Sure. I have very limited experience meeting with attorneys. Um, but in
065the few instances I have, there is the legal and then there's what I would characterize as the common sense, right? And you called it political. >> I don't take offense to the distinction between those two. >> So, are are you willing to offer any insight beyond the legal? Right. Because I'm guessing, you know, if I were your client individually, we would be talking more openly about the other parts that happen when decisions are made. >> So, I've I've been a local government attorney for my entire career. And I have always considered myself a referee. I call balls and strikes. Now, if somebody comes to me and says, "I want to do that," I tell them the legal process by which they achieve that result. And if a barrier is thrown in the way, I answer
066the legal question about how that is addressed. But I do not advocate for policy one way or the other. And I I I'm very cognizant of that. I think it's a breach of my ability. >> Are we ready for the question? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the way I'm going to read the motion is to approve or deni approve or deny the request from the DAB from the Dicab delegation. Um is that going to be sufficient, Mr. H? >> No, you got to do one or the other. either either agree to the referendum request or okay >> reject the referendum request. >> Okay. So the motion is to approve the referendum request from the from the Dicab delegation. So if you say approve, then it's a yes. Um so the motion on the table is
067to approve the referendum from the Dicab delegation. >> Okay. >> Board member Aries. I need a second. >> Second. >> Board member Anderson second. All right. I'm going to call your name. Vice Chair Uts >> name >> is a nay or member Anderson. >> I already member Anderson is a yes or member H. Hearnden >> nay >> is a nay or member area. >> Yes. I think we should go for a >> is a yes. Chair votes nay. So the motion fails 3 to two. need further agenda items. >> I I don't I don't >> discussion >> like to discuss for just one more second. I don't necessarily disagree with the need for a referendum. Yes, >> I don't disagree on the need to reset time. I do not think that that is the question
068that is on at hand here. I think that there is substantial legal and financial risk holding referendums to make decisions that are not legally required. And I think that um this issue is one that um I love to cater. I don't know anyone when you speak in terms of spending money to close the achievement gap. Um it is a question not of yes or no. I've not heard anyone say no. And and the scoffing alone is exactly my point. I don't know of a neighbor that's not willing to spend a good amount of money to help close that achievement gap and get it done. They're almost universally in support of it. What has happened is that we haven't gotten a hand on how much we're asking, how much this will cost, how much that gap
069needs to close. It can be closed and and we absolutely need to do this. If you've heard me say that this will close the achievement gap, it doesn't mean that if you disagree with the ECLC, you disagree with the act of closing the achievement gap. That's not what that means at all. I to a te even my most conservative neighbors are in Decator because they believe in that truth and and I'm with you. I don't know if the referendum is the right choice. >> Yeah, >> I just voted that I think that us choosing to do a referendum because of public outcry and putting our own system at risk, etc. is an inappropriate vote. I'm happy to discuss it in April about how we reset and how we do it. And I don't want my
070note to reflect that. I the scop breaks my heart. I've been like for some re for like Yes, the point of the ECLC is to close the achievement gap. If you don't want the ECLC because you feel it's too expensive, that doesn't mean that you're pro- achievement gap. And I've never said that or suggested that. >> I also just want to say and add to that my yes for the referendum doesn't mean that I am against the UCL. I just think that we want to rebuild trust and I would like for us to pause and think about adding those additional steps such as the archaeological study or engaging with the Beacon Hill elders who haven't been meaningfully engaged with and fully vetting the options. So >> I I'm just saying that for the record, you
071know, because I think how we proceed right now is whether we rebuild trust with the community or not. And I'm I'm just very concerned with where we're at right now. And any other comments? >> Yes, I would like to say one, thank you for everyone who's here and um I just think this can be managed better and I think the sooner that we can start working for our students um the sooner we can close that achievement gap. And I voted yes for this referendum because I've said since the beginning that I don't think the community has had the input that it deserves and I do think whatever ends up being built can be built better. I just wish there was room for more compromise and collaboration at this point. >> I think also um one
072point that needs to be made here is some of the designation between what's the board of education and what's the city educator. Um, I think also it was very much asked of us to have independent counsel come in. Um, and we we we did that. Um, and I think Mr. Campbell did a good job of trying to or at least try to people asked for a two-way conversation between legal counsel and the board. Um, so I hope that that was satisfactory to community members that they were able to hear a discussion between us and legal counsel. Um, but I think um it in some of these decisions or in some of this conversation, it needs to be clear what is the board of education and what is the city. I'm happy to engage the Beacon
073Hill elders. I'm happy to talk to them. I'm I I've talked to them before about some of these things very much so. Um I I think we have to be careful about saying that they have not been engaged because that's not always true. Um but it also some of these things um are not under the umbrella of the board of education. Some things are simply um rest with the city. But I'm also happy to partner with them. Uh we are happy to partner with them. But that designation needs to become a little bit more clear over time so that neither governing body is overstepping as Mr. Campbell said. Otherwise, it does look like we're ignoring what folks are saying when some things are simply not in our purview as a governing body. >> But if
074I I could comment on that because I agree there is a need for these separate entities. But one I'm sorry, city commissioners like when I learn that someone's getting a thousand emails. Um that's a problem. And I also think then we need to recognize or at some time in the future talk about the fact that maybe people were going to the city commission because they didn't feel like they were being listened to here. So I think there are two separate buckets there. There's what's our authority and what's the city commission's authority and then it's how we be good partners and neighbors. Thank you. >> Any other any other discussion or questions? All right. Um, thank you for attending this special called meeting. Uh, our next board of education meeting will take place as scheduled on
075April 14th, 2026 at the Wilson Center. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 1:04 p.m. Thank you.