001The time is now 50:03. Good evening and welcome to the February 24th, 2026 policy and governance committee meeting. I am Dr. Felton Moss, committee chair and district 7 board member. It brings me great pleasure to welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. For those unable to observe now, the meeting is being recorded and can be assessed on the PGCPS YouTube channel for later viewing. Uh Miss Johnson, please call the role. Dr. Moss, >> uh, present. >> Mrs. Olivo, >> present. >> Mrs. Brown, >> here. >> Mr. Briggs, >> present. >> Mr. Jackson, >> there are four present. >> Well, the quorum present, the policy and governance committee meeting will come to order. At this time, we'll move to adoption of the agenda. The chair would like to announce that agenda item 7.1 was removed from the agenda
002to allow the administration additional time to effectively review the item. If there are no objections, the committee shall adopt the February 24th, 2026 meeting agenda as amended. There being no objections, the February 24th, 2026 meeting agenda is adopted as amended. This time we'll move to approval of the meeting minutes. Um, if there are no corrections, the February 10th, 2026 meeting minutes shall be approved as distributed. There being no corrections, the minutes are approved. We'll now move to uh per comment. Um, the chair recognizes um the registered speaker for public comment. Um, to our registered speakers, uh, you are allotted three minutes to share your remarks. Speaking time may not be transferred to another individual. The board will not engage in dialogue during this portion of the meeting. Speakers are expected to refrain from using profanity
003or derogatory language. A warning will be issued once. Continued misconduct may result in the speaker being muted or removed from the meeting. To support a professional and courteous environment, speakers are encouraged to refer to the individuals by their titles such as chair, board member, superintendent, or principal rather than by name. Tonight, we only have one public speaker. Um, our speaker this evening is Lisa Wilson. Individual policy discussion through the lens of a parent. >> So, Dr. Moss, there isn't a Lisa Wilson on, but there is a Nicole Wilson, >> I'm assuming. She's raising her. >> Should we ask Nicole if she too is Lisa Wilson? >> Nicole is raising her hand. >> You want to bring her over? >> Um, sure. Um, Miss, if Nicole, if you are Lisa, could you rename yourself so that
004we can be in alignment with the registered speaker and then I can give you three minutes? >> Okay. Um, >> you are Lisa, correct? >> Yes. Yes, >> I got you. >> It's not cooperating with me. >> You're good. I've made a note to the general public, so I'm not going to stress you out. Um, >> okay. Thank you. >> You take your three minutes and they begin now. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you very much. Um, unfortunately, because I've had to engage in so much advocacy for my son through the administrative process and legal processes, I've kind of had the door shut on me uh by board of education members because I'm deemed as, you know, it's like a legal discussion. But um so I have to seize
005these opportunities to take advantage of what I need to share with you all today because what I have found through the retaliation that I've experienced is that there are some serious gaps in some policies. Number one, um I would like to talk about the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Um it establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws and local policies in the context of special education. This means that federal laws, primarily IDEA, section 504 and ADA, set the minimum standard for educating students with disabilities nationwide. If a state or a local school district policy provides fewer rights or conflicts with uh these federal rights, the aforementioned that I just um mentioned uh mandates, the federal law prevails. And I've been in a situation where um we wrote we we relocated
006in the county and my son's uh transportation was documented in his IEP. However, um the associate superintendent and the director of transportation um they determined that they were not going to transport him from our new home to his school that he was placed in. And so I bring that to your attention because I think that there needs to be a top- down policy review looking at these policies. And you guys do acknowledge that discrimination will never be tolerated. And I think that's wonderful. But I think when it comes to this disabled population of students, there needs to be more of a definitive carveout uh to um make sure that those who are making decisions do not undercut federal uh the federal entitlements that this population of students are entitled to. Uh for example, I was
007uh asked to transport my son. And um I do recognize I I do recommend that everyone all you have to do is Google it. its technical assistance bulletin through MSDE and it's 16-01 and in that bulletin it expressly states that parents should never be asked to transport their children. The same group of people who accosted me in a personal telephone call offered me mileage. They offered me uh uh champions child care enough to let me get there. You can't take taxpayer dollars and try to coersse a parent into doing something that is totally the responsibility of the district. And as you know, when you are a recipient of federal funds, there is um there is obligations that you must adhere to. So, I'm asking you today if you could really take a step back and
008look at all your policies and make sure that there's a carve out for this special population of children because they definitely have in federal entitlements that a local schoolboard policy, an administrative policy or a state a state law cannot undermine. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Miss Wilson, for coming tonight. >> Okay. Take care. >> All right. >> There are no written comments. Um, thank you for your participation and input. Um, now we will move to item 6.0, which is the legislative update. The chair recognizes Miss Welsh for the legislative update. I am very sorry, but for some reason, and I was just not the the other night on a work call, and I had beautiful screen, and tonight, for some reason, I cannot get my video to work at all. Uh I I
009do apologize. Um but the legislative update you're actually I did make a chart and uh Mia can actually put on the chart so you wouldn't be seeing me anyway because you'd be looking at the chart. So that's at least a little positive. So Mia, could you please put the chart, the legislative uh chart up, please? There we go. Okay. So, um I want I thought I would just go through uh some of the bills that are coming up within this next uh week uh this week um into the end of the week that are important for us. And um actually the first one which is a one that has taken a lot of uh there's been a lot of conversation about is House Bill 649. And um it it would cost us is advancing equal
010educational opportunities for all students in Maryland. And because of all the uh particulars that are in that bill, it it would be an unfunded mandate with an estimated uh cost of approximately 752,000 in fiscal year 2027 and up to 49 40 uh sorry 4 I think I typed that wrong. It's supposed to be 40 40 excuse me 49 uh thank you $4.94. um $700 in fiscal 31. And so basically the house bill was established in part for the purposes of authorizing the commission of civil rights to enforce prohibition against discrimination and retaliation um and all the different protected areas and education institutions including prek programs and elementary school secondary um they are included in this um and they're now this is all defined under state educational authority and I think one of the main reasons
011that they published or proposed this bill is because of the fact that OCR and and the um education department um uh department of education has really taken a very low does not do very much of like before they did all the investigations they're not so I think Maryland is is sort of saying well we'll try to fill in that gap but they've added a lot of different things which have really increased the cost and then if you can scroll down just a little bit more uh and then in terms of um oh shoot this says it shouldn't have been okay anyway in terms of um of uh just the fact that educational institutions may not exclude individuals from participating in anything that we offer to some students have to be offered to all students and
012so there's uh there's extensive steps in the process which would increase the cost which would increase the cost of um can You just excuse me, woman. I apologize greatly, but I know this is the superintendent's office calling me. I'll be off the phone in one second. I apologize. I apologize. Um anyway, and so that the cost of all the steps that are involved would be pretty uh pretty good amount of money. So that it is one of our unfunded um uh mandates. So we would oppose this. Uh the next one is House Bill 329 and this is a criminal law um okay school resource officers prohibition on sexual activity with students and of course uh there's no fiscal operational impact because at this point uh we don't need that law to tell us that our
013that our school resource officers uh are prohibited from having sexual activity with students. We have numerous policies uh I mean well we have a policy and we have numerous administrative procedures and we have the employee code of conduct that are all in place and that would apply to anyone that's working in our schools or and even our volunteers. So um the and we do support that we want to make sure that our students are safe. So that would be um that's that's one for support. And then House Bill 1341 is uh school security personnel immigration investigation and enforcement. And that one is that the is that our school security personnel are not supposed to be um inter uh working with the um with the outside um you know with the federal agents or whatever coming
014in and aligns actually with our uh immigration enforcement agency policy. So we would support that also. And then if you scroll down a little bit further um right now u educa student athletics physical examinations and cardiovascular pre-screening at this point we do not have any position there is um we do have when the depending on the sport and whatever they do often take the doctor's the doctor will do the exam and the and it's requiring a actual cardiovascular pre-screening and the doctor would take would do the exam and then they fill out the information on the actual um evaluation form that you that that the child has to bring in that gives permission for them they're physically able then to participate in the athletics. So that one is not necessary. And then if you scroll
015down further, Cindy. Um then we have the the next one is House Bill uh 26 which is open enrollment policies and funding. And um this one uh we would oppose the the the impact to the school system would be extremely significant. First of all just now just in terms of if you take or students that are requesting transfer from school to school to school and this is happening. We have 200 plus schools and the the whole process to just do the transfer within the system and now you would have the whole issue of the transfer of students coming in from out of the system and then transferring all records ensuring at like which school are they going into and it's the work it would be so complicated also within our synergy which is our student
016information system we would have to set up a whole uh part of it that would allow allow it to then communicate to other school systems. And we got an estimate of about $9 per student for any student that's coming in. We'd probably have to hire additional uh staff to um to be able to get all the data moving back and forth from the different counties. And then the other piece would be intercalastic athletics. as you recall that that has always been a major subject in terms of making sure that students are within their boundary schools uh when they're playing sports. So now we would have students coming in from outside of the county and just ensuring that they that we have that documented and they're in the right school so they're playing school playing sports
017in the right school those types of things. it would it it could be extremely complicated um as because first of all we don't allow students from other schools to play in athletics in another school they have to be in their own school so that in itself is would be a major concern so that one would be a pose and then Mia if you could scroll down further um and then the water um uh curriculum is water safety and swimming course established if according to the platform the the um legislative platform. One of the things is that we do oppose anything that mandates curriculum because that is the state sets the standards but it is the superintendent having his staff put together and work and develop curriculum and then the board of education is responsible for
018approving the curriculum. And so that c that whole process is really um legislators are not supposed to be mandating what should be taught. So it goes outside of what the process is in place. And then um the next bill is House Bill 901 which is education public school students recognition of external diagnosis of autism. Um, and I will say that there were a lot of provisions in that bill initially that uh were was problematic because it for example it had where the if the outside evaluator so anyone could go to an outside evaluator which they can but when they got the results they they would bring it to the school and what the bill is saying is you bring it to the school and you are then responsible for making sure that you can do
019whatever the recommendations are and that is not the how that process works. In the school system, we have SIT teams and SST teams. And then if once they get the evaluation and the IEP team looks at it, then they make determinations also. And so they must consider the outside information. It's not that. It's just that just because some evaluation says this this is what I recommend is not necessarily what that we could do and it could end up being very expensive. However, we were very fortunate to have the opportunity um to have a meeting with um uh it was actually Dr. Moss and uh uh board member um Olivo and uh our um special ed associate superintendent for special education and our um uh lobbyist for the board John Green and myself had the opportunity
020to meet with um the staff of uh Delegate Roberts and discuss all our concerns and several amendments were made to that bill. And now the only and speaking with our um uh uh associate superintendent of special education, the only concern that she really had was that everything that's now in the bill is actually already mandated in other laws. So we have to follow follow what we're already doing it because we have to do it. So it's I mean not that we wouldn't do it if we shouldn't have to, but it's there already. but also the fact that it only addresses one disability when there are actually 13 other disabilities. And so, um, the fact that, you know, there's not just autism, there's lots of different disabilities. Actually, another 13. So, um, ideally it would be
021for any student who has a disability. The parent could do an outside evaluation and bring those results in. So, anyway, it's right now it's at support with amendments. And then um the other uh bill that's out there is Senate Bill 683 and that has to do with public utilities and solar energy generation stations and uh sitting solar sitting um and preservation credit act of 2026. And currently our um sustainability office does not anticipate any impact on our district as and the main reason is because we're already actively expanding and enhancing our solar port portfolio. So at this point we really don't have a position on it because we're we are already doing those things. I mean we could actually move that to support if you wanted. Um and then if you want to scroll down
022a um me up please. I think there's a couple more. Um, so this one is school bus uh transition uh propane powered school buses. It's a grant program fund and purchase. And this is uh in an effort to have better improve the air quality faster. Um and the probably the most important thing is that there's um the propane buses provide a medium emission reduction at a significantly lower upfront cost than electric buses allowing the district to replace more aging diesel buses vehicles with in the same budget and improve air quality faster. So um and then they talk there's a lot of uh detail there in terms of what the specifics uh aspects of the bill would be. And of course we do actually um support that we have a pretty strong sustainability department that is
023always moving forward trying to uh develop things and do things that are really good for the climate. So then if you could scroll down further Mia and then we have uh human trafficking reports uh reports to regional navigators and prosecutions. So uh there would be no fiscal impact on PG PGCPS as mandatory reporters. we already have a process in place for reporting suspected child abuse and human trafficking. So, we would definitely support that. And then the next one has to do with uh House Bill Senate Bill, excuse me, 292, which is the county board of education student transportation sunset repeal. So many many years uh the the law said that school systems could not use vans alter alternate educ um uh vehicles to transport students. And then a couple years ago a bill was passed
024that allowed for the use of vans and different types of vehicles um other than your big big buses. And it has been extremely helpful for like for a school system like ours where we for a good example would be we have students that are in a lot of n different students that are in different non-public placements and they go all over the state and some sometimes outside of the state. So, but it might just be two students or three students. Well, to take an entire big bus the way it is and then have to use that to transport such a small number of students is extremely expensive for the system. So, this bill would actually repeal that sunset provision and basically allow for the alternative transportation like forever, which would be we'd be all very
025happy about. So, that we do support that. And then there um the c the next one is Senate Bill 299, county boards of education therapy dogs policy for handling handling and use in schools. Now I have here the board already has a polic service animals and it does go into pretty good detail on how these students how the students as well as their dogs are are supposed to be handled and what we're supposed to do. I will say though from a from a from our platform though by them mandating a policy on the school system then um we are actually they are actually taking away the autonomy of the school board because the school board has the does have the responsibility they have the right to determine what policies they think we the school system
026needs in order for governance. if you and so if you think differently about that, we can certainly take that support off and and change that over to um oppose or no position even. Um and then the one on Senate Bill 350 that's coming up on next Friday, that one is the same as the other one that we just looked at, House Bill 48. And then count uh county boards of education are a AI training program requirement. So this is an interesting one because and the board members might have a different thought but in speaking with our um chief of um a of um it she he said he thought it was very positive that there would be a mandate for that because first of all it would be helpful for them to know more about
027AI and using AI because it would help them in their work as board members but also they might be called on to make different decisions about AI or that you never know there could be maybe some appeals related to AI those types of things. So having the additional training um would be um would be you know very good for the board members to have that. On the other hand though just to say the again it's an autonomy issue because the board does have the right to make the decision to decide what training they want to require for all themselves for all board members on certain subjects. And so here we have a legislator coming in proposing that no you're going to be trained on this uh topic. So again I in that one I just
028put uh monitoring and then the last one that for this report is Senate Bill 381 and this is schoolboard energy usage uh monthly reports and uh um it says that PG so we we actually support this because we already have monthly energy reports set up. We're ready to go and so this falls right in line with what we are what our plans are and what we're going to be doing. So that is a very easy one. So that's basically all the bills in in the nutshell for that came up for us that are in for coming up for the next uh up through the next week. So if you have any questions uh you have some different thoughts on the positions whatever please let me know. >> Thank you Miss Welsh. Um um looks like
029uh board member Brown um has question has a question. Uh board member Brown. >> Yes. Thank you so much, uh, Chair Jackson or why I say chair, forgive me, Dr. Moss. Um, quick question. When we go up to I think it was page two, because I couldn't really see the pages. This is a House Bill, Ways and Means Committee. This was regarding Hold on. Yes. Keep going. One more up. Yes. House Bill 26. That right there. Can you talk to me a little bit about this because I felt like we kind of discussed this in previous meetings. Um, what exactly are they saying here? Because I I was a little confused when it comes to the opposition of accountability. Well, actually, I should have taken that word accountability out of there, but it's we the
030reason it was opposed was because of the fact that uh number one is we're talking about additional staff to be able to monitor. So we're talking about like where you know within our own system we have a whole system in place that if you're in one school and you want to transfer to another school and it is a school that has openings and everything then you have to put in your application to be able to transfer and then we have this whole process in terms of uh who gets to be able to basically it's what's open what classrooms are open and what schools and when did you get it in those types of things. So, but that behind the scenes that's a lot of paperwork as you're moving things from one thing to the next
031and we do have synergy which actually does help and really moving that process through. But now that bill is also requiring that um that so we would be doing a very similar type of thing but it could be someone in Charles County says I want to I want to go to I don't know um Akik or something and so they u they would then be and normally if they wanted to do that they would tra they'd actually pay uh tuition to be able to attend uh Prince George's County public schools. In this instance, they wouldn't have to. They could just automatically go and um to that particular school and whatever it was if in fact the school was open and the school had um um you know seats available in the grade that the student
032was in. So that actually requires a little you know just more work and more coordination because now it's not within our own system that we're moving information and everything. Now, we're also we're working with another school system to move information and and I had a a long discussion with the director of school enrollment and he said that it would be it would be extensive for the school system all the school systems to be able to set that up. So, that would really be operational for us and we it would require additional staff to be able to implement it. >> No, thank you so much for the clarity. So, I I am in agreement with the opposition. Thank you. And I do know that uh Dr. Moss and Amy have been out there uh speaking with
033legislators and stuff, so maybe they would like to share share some of their experiences that they've had recently. >> Thank you so much, U, Miss Welsh. Um I mean, I think you've you you've laid this out quite nicely. We've we've asked um our delegation members not to support this measure um and that it disrupts the work that we're doing in PGCPS and for anyone who is aiming to build a choice system PGCPS is a good model of public choice and that we have a variety of options that are available for our students. So um we've we've stood you know stood opposed to this measure for sure. Colleagues, do you have any comments or questions about any of the bills? Um, you don't need to have a question for Miss Welsh. I want to make sure
034you also can comment on anything here or flag anything in terms of um, you know, legislative maneuvers. Um, Amy and I have one update that that wasn't here. We've been working with our delegates and senators. Um, Amy's been working with delegate well with Martinez. Let me make sure I get that right. um and delegation chair Williams. I've been working with delegate Robertson, uh Robersonson, um and um Chair Wilkins of Ways and Means. Um there's a measure in that just passed last week that would um give Montgomery a little bit more flexibility with their calendar to use hours instead of days. um and they've been able to do that to address things like Eid and inclement weather and makeup days. Um while we weren't able to file a delegation bill this year, we are actively working
035to amend that bill to include Prince George's County. So, we're on a full court press to amend that bill to give us the same flexibility that uh Anoronda County already has that Montgomery is in pursuit of. Um and word on the street is that we're not the only ones that um other um school districts in the states are aiming to do that. But um in terms of the policy language getting ready um I've been working on it in terms of whipping votes um Vice Chair Lebo has been um you know or will be having conversations if she's not already um with um Ashanti Martinez. Um uh Vice Chair Olivisive update before we move on. No, I don't think so. I think that's the one that we wanted to share um because it did, you know,
036it it it came up and um is a very timely timely discussion for us and so we are working on that. I have spoken with um whip um Martinez and delegation chair um Williams already. So um hopefully we're in we're in decent shape. We're doing everything we can to to move that across the finish line. >> Colleagues, you have anything? Vice Chair Briggs, Gordon Brown. All right, we're gonna move on to the next. Thank you, Miss Welsh, for your update and all your work on this. I know this is a lot to keep up with in 90 days. So, um, we appreciate all the work that you do. Um, we're going to move to item 7.2. Um, just remind folks that there are five more items remaining in discussion. There'll be two rounds and we
037remove 7.1 um, so that the administration can have more time to um, address it. Just for the public that's watching, um we've gotten questions or concerns around the grading and reporting policy for elementary schools early um and whatnot. We actually had a parent to come and address the the policy and governance committee. So, we've asked um um Dr. White to come and explain that to us to give us a little bit more clarity around that. So, the administration is asking for more time to be able to do that. So, perhaps at our next meeting they'll be able to do it. Um you can imagine they're in the middle of budget as the budget will be voted up on Thursday. Um so the next item is policy 1700 which is the disabilities issues advisory board. Um
038I do want to make a just a a general comment here. Um this is about the actual policy um that's already on the books and the revisions that have been made. Um, and once um miss we I just want to flag we ask our colleagues to review these beforehand. If you've got questions for Miss Welsh, this is a good time to ask her any questions. Um, but uh in short, Miss Welsh will go over the short title for the bill uh for the for the policy and then after that uh I'm going to defer to uh board member Brown and and uh Vice Chair Levo who've been working with this parent group on this. So, Miss Welsh, you want to give us a quick um update on 1700? >> Sure. So, um with SE 1700,
039um that is uh the bill that um is the disabilities issue advisory uh committee and our board, I guess, and they that that bill we've had some conversation about the fact that there's so many similarities with that not bill, excuse me, that policy with also with SECAC and what goes on in CCAC. So, um, there was a lot of conversation and then board member Alivo and board member Brown went to the advisory committee and had a conversation to get their thoughts and really talk about how that working together, what's the best way, whatever. And so, I think they're here to report their conversation with that advisory board. >> Thank you, Miss Walsh. I'll turn it over to board member Brown. Um, by Cheryl Lebo. >> Yes. Thank you so much. and um congratulations on your
040recent event. Uh our committee is excited about the work that you all are doing and we're excited about just everything that is coming together when it comes to special education, when it comes to disability um and what we do for our community. And so there were um a couple of recommend there was a a lot of recommendations, let me say that, um that were presented to the board in our um closing meeting in June. Um and so we kind of have been working through this. However, prior to me being on the board, um you being on the board and even Vice Chair Levo, um there were a lot of discussion uh ahead of time. However, today I do want to flag recommendations that I think we can start now rather than wait later. Um and
041then there are a a number of recommendations that I would like to speak to legal prior to moving forward um with them just so we can get additional clarity um and ensure that there is no overlap with other organizations. Uh so the first one that they wanted to do was of course change the name right they felt that DAB was uh or the disability issues felt like there was always an issue. They didn't want a negative connotation with the name. Um and so one of the great names they came up with was the advisory council of disability affairs. um whether we expand the scope or we don't I think it'll still reach exactly the work that we're doing. And so I um want to highly recommend that that's going to be the name change. And
042u Mrs. Welsh, I'll make sure that I send this information to you as well um to make sure that we can update anything. >> Um the second thing was the reporting flexibility. uh you know a lot of times um in the in the language and maybe uh Miss Welsh you can correct me it says mandatory and we could possibly change the language as may or shall um to make it a little bit more flexible um because of you know the information and maybe we're not getting information on time from the administration and so we wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity for flexibil flexibility not necessarily mandatory Um the other uh recommendation that we definitely support are staggered appointments like the board. Um when nobody's available, the work doesn't get done. And so
043when you have all board members applying at the same time and all board members uh having to leave at the same time, it disrupts the work. Um and so one of the recommendation is that they advise that during one year the current board will serve fully as adviserss and at the end of at at the end of year one half of the board will transition out. Um and then new group members will take their place. Those who remain or return after serving will so it'll be half and half half and half. Um so I said that I think that it will be doable. Um bylaws and and and governance. So just like any committee, just like even the board, um it's important that they, you know, go through bylaws and governance. And part of it
044was because we knew that PCAC had bylaws. Um and so Pac and and D and DAB, hopefully formerly known, um both of them do the work for the constituents and both of them pretty much run their meetings pretty similar. And so we wanted to make sure that or the chair wanted to make sure that it was aligned with all of the board and all of the committees that are here that we adopt Robert's rule of order. We ensure open meetings act compliance. Um and the rationale behind that was mandating bylaws for the board including Robert rules of order and compliance with the open meetings acts align with standards practices for other boards. This ensures consistency, transparency and accountability reflecting established governance norms. Um the other recommendation that I believe we should move forward with is
045the um the role clarification. Um, we need to make a clear distinction through both written and verbal communication for what DIAB is versus CCAP to prevent overlap and confusion to ensure each body operates effectively within its mandate while allowing room for collaboration. Um, the other uh I have two more things that I want to bring up. So, DIAB membership, what we did notice in the 2024 and 25 term, certain members did not meet the attendance requirement outlawed by board policy 1700, which mandates participation and at least 50% of scheduled meetings. Um, the board recommends that these members be replaced for the upcoming term. Um, and I think that's fair because I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done. um we see that there sometimes there there is lack of continuity
046um amongst um members and we want to make sure that those who really want to do the work and really want to get behind what DAB is all about um that we promote that. Um and lastly I did want to say that they did want to address uh and and have an opportunity to have two subcommittees. Um, one of them was the HR committee and I believe it's like new construction committee. I don't have it in front of me, but um, those two committees, they wanted to have a subcommittee because they should you obviously the climate that we're in and the accountability, this all goes hand inand even when it comes to ADA and new buildings. Um, and so those are the recommendations that the board has been in alignment with. Um, however, I will
047say that um, one of the last things I wanted to bring up, I do feel like we need to bring this back up in the next two years. We need to revisit um, to see if we can continue to expand scope. So, that would be um, my last recommendations. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um given that un do do any of my colleagues have questions for u board member vice chairbo did you want to add to this? I'm sorry I didn't defer to you here. >> No uh board member Brown covered everything. I don't have anything to add. Thank you so much. >> Um colleagues, are there questions? Um are there questions around this? If there are no questions, what we need to do now is send this back to the um um
048to the policy sponsor for revision approval and then once these changes have been updated in the document, um Miss uh Welsh will bring them back and then they will move through the rest of our policym process. So these recommendations should be included in the next version that comes and then we can debate it and decide as a committee if that is the way forward. So the question is um the question is shall the committee recommend policy 1700 disability issue advisory board to the policy sponsor for revision approval. No additional comments. Miss Johnson, please take the roll call. >> Dr. Moss. >> Um yes, >> Mrs. Olivo. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Brown. I >> Mr. Briggs >> I >> there are four in the affirmative. >> Policy 1700 disabilities issues advisory board will be recommended to
049the policy sponsor for revision approval. Now we'll move to item 7.3 for tonight. Um, and this is policy 8300, rules of procedures and appeals and hearings under um, state law 4205 of the education article um, of of state Maryland. So, this is policy 8300. The chair recognizes Miss Welsh to provide an update on policy 8300, rules of procedures and appeals and hearings um, under Maryland annotated code 4205 of the education article. Okay. Um, so originally we had a a policy, we do have a policy right now, policy 4200 and and in it it talks about the rules of procedures and hearings requested under 6-202 and 4-205. And so I took that policy, made um some revisions to it, but I also divided it. And so I do have as you you'll see on the agenda
050the first policy is 4-205 and the second policy is 6-202 because there if you recall back uh was it last last meeting or the meeting before when we did the one on 7305 it's pretty intense it has a lot of procedure you know and a lot of very specific steps for each of those types of for that type of hearing and so I thought it might make it easier and everything will be sitting in under the 8,000s which will be internal policies because they're really the board's policy in terms of how they're going to do different appeals or different hearings and except for for simplicity sake to have them separate separated out so that you can easily go to either 7305 4205 or whatever or 6202 I think it would be easier. So uh May
051if you could just uh share the um the the screen and these are not major changes really they're very minor. Of course, the title was changed. And then if you scroll down please and then the purpose was changed um uh in terms of taking out this is only specific to 4-205 instead of uh instead of saying both six uh and 6-202. And um then if you scroll down further, I think if you keep going, we'll see if there any definitions. I don't know. >> That's um Miss Welsh. Um that that's fine. I think our colleagues may have reviewed this before the meeting. Um so just want to make sure we go over the major changes that were made. >> Okay. Um but there were Okay. So there was very specific language about that was added
052related to the computation of the time. Okay. uh in terms of days because that's really important. You know, someone could say, you know, you missed the time and then they didn't understand a person didn't understand what the that timeline was. So that that's that would be a significant change. And then if you scroll down further again, that's just in the definitions. And then I'm thinking there's minor changes like taking CEO and putting in superintendent. And then I did reference superintendent of schools. Um, I actually think most of these are very wording types of changes. They're not that significant. Uh, keep going that I think. Oh, you keep going. Oh, so all of that being that's wiped out is everything related to 6202. So that that I took all deleted all that. >> Okay. I'm gonna
053see at this time if any of my colleagues have questions, Miss Brown. >> Okay. I know we're talking about language. Miss Welsh. Question for this policy. Would we be able to say interim superintendent and or designate because there have just from the last administration transition it just seemed like there were jobs that people weren't you know weren't able to do or perform and I didn't know if that was going to be relevant for this. So, um I actually uh put in superintendent because the interim superintendent um that that title will be disappearing after after um uh June, I would assume, and then you'll have a permanent superintendent and um and this policy itself by the time it gets through the review process and everything will be probably the end of the school year. So, that'll
054start off the beginning of the year with the term superintendent. And I just want to flag that um it should be understood in all of our policy that superintendent in the event that there's an interim superintendent those are the same people because the interim superintendent has the same rights and privileges of a superintendent. Um yeah, I I I think there was some interesting interpretation. Um last time you you flagged a legitimate concern, but the superintendent uh be it interim or full superintendent, anywhere in our policy where it says superintendent, that person has the same um rights and rights and privileges. Uh uh Vice Chair Briggs, >> thank you so much. Um Mrs. Welsh, I just had a question about the piece I suggested about the hearing examiner. Um, I know that we are able to
055uh I guess remove the hearing examiner in the event that there's a reason behind that. Um, I didn't hear you speak about that. Just want to confirm that that's in there. >> Um, and actually, hold on one second that you had suggested that for 7305 and I know I made that change. uh for that and it's um but I don't think I include it here. Hold on. No, I will put that in. Make sure I have it in there. >> Okay. Yeah, I want to make sure that's in there before because I I you know I think that's a as I mentioned before like we've had a number of times where the hearing examiner has given we've had instances or there can be instances where a human hearing examiner gives information that may not be
056accurate. So I just want to make sure that if that is something that we have the power to do since that was outlined in the policy then we're clear we we clearly understand what that process is. So I really am speaking to like also kind of detailing like what that is so we can refer back to the specific policy. if it's another policy that already currently exists that you were referencing, if we can just reference that and reference back to it. Um, those are those are really the requests I'm making. >> Well, I will probably whatever whatever I put in any of any of the three, they'll get in all three. So, that way it's very clear and you can just read it. You you'll you know, you'll be looking at four to a five
057and you can just stay right there and read what has to happen in that situation because it'll be very similar. >> Okay. Thank you so much. So, we should be able to take 7.3 and 7.4 up together. Isn't that correct, Miss Welsh? >> Yes, you could. You really could because they're they're the very same changes. They're just reversed like where I took like if I I took one piece out and one then I took the other piece out and the other. So, >> okay. So, the question is shall the committee recommend policy A301 um rules of procedures and hearing requested under section 6202 and under section 4205 um to the policy sponsor for revision approval. Miss Johnson, will you take the role? Dr. Moss. >> Um I >> Mrs. Oliva >> I >> Mrs. Brown
058>> I >> Mr. Briggs >> I. >> There are four in the affirmative. >> Thank you. Now we'll move to item 7.5 which is proclamations. The chair recognizes Miss Welch to provide an update on policy 9305 proclamations. >> So u this I have a so this policy is um is a is very similar to um the al so the resolutions policy. So this is 9305 and the other one is 3186. So, um, and so I'd like to get this policy rescended and then combine the two so we have a policy that would address both proclamations and resolutions and actually put them in the 8000 series. >> Okay. Um, are there any questions from the committee? So, the question is, shall the committee recommend policy 9305 proclamations to the policy sponsor for revision approval? Remember this
059is recent of that uh and we should get a we'll get a different policy later that includes this information. All right, there's no discussion. Miss Johnson, please take the roll call. >> Dr. Moss, >> I. >> Mrs. Olivo, >> I. >> Mrs. Brown, >> I. >> Mr. Briggs, >> I. >> There are four in the affirmative. There are four in the affirmative. Policy 9305 proclamations will be recommended to the policy sponsor for revision approval. We're now going to move to item 7.5 which is uh policy 3323 purchasing. Um Miss Welsh, do you uh I I'll just name that this policy is here tonight. Um policy 3323 purchasing. We made a lot of revisions on this, but um at this time I'm going to ask the committee to table this policy indefinitely um in that the
060system has to work um to address some purchasing challenges that come from existing laws, existing practices. It's just been hanging out here for a minute. Um and so we just need to table it indefinitely so it doesn't keep showing up on um our our agenda. And what we will do is put it back on we will vote uh in May to put it on next year's u policy once they've had time. So the the question is shall the um any questions about that? Sorry. Any questions? There are no questions. The question is, shall the committee recommend policy 3323 purchasing um for should The question is shall the committee uh table policy 3323 purchasing indefinitely? Miss uh Johnson, please take the role. >> Dr. Moss, >> I >> Mrs. Olivo, >> I. >> Mrs. Brown, >>
061I >> Mr. Briggs. >> I >> There are four in the affirmative. >> All right. Policy 3323. Purchase has been tabled indefinitely. Miss Wells, please let Chief How know she can breathe a little bit to finish her work. All right, we'll now move to item 8.0. Um, this is policies for second consideration. These items are going out for public comment. Um, so it's the student safety, prevention of child sexual abuse, and reporting suspected child abuse and neglect. Um, so the question is, shall the committee release the policy under agenda item 8.1 for public comment? Is there any discussion? There's no discussion. Miss Johnson, please take a roll call vote. >> Dr. Moss, >> I. >> Mrs. Oliva >> I >> Mrs. Brown >> I >> Mr. Briggs >> I >> there are four in the
062affirmative the policy under item under agenda item 8.1 will be released for public comment item 9.0 O, which is the policy for third consideration. This is to advance to the full board for an enactment. And we've done a lot of work on this policy, so it's exciting to get it here. Um, this is one of the superintendent signature initiatives to to revise this policy. So, the policy under agenda item 9.1 was submitted for public comment. One public comment was received. The chair recognizes Miss Welch to share the comments received. So, so uh for that policy we received one and the it was from a parent and the biggest concerns that she shared first of all was that she talked about ensuring accountability, consistency and transparency in its implementation and even though the policy talks about
063you know working having a meaningful relationship with parents and being very respectful and you know considering them equal partners as we're working together to on different things you know, in terms of their students and the school, those types of things. Um, this parents talked about the fact that many families continue to uh experience inconsistent communication, limited opportunities for meaningful input, and uneven engagement practice from school to school. So, for that particular um comment, so this is just a suggestion. My thinking is that we add a provision in the in the policy that actually talks about just a fact that the superintendent would be responsible for putting up, you know, setting up a accountability standard or something, doing something, putting a plan together, whatever that he would then require of his principles um for each of
064the schools. And so we could add that in and then when they do the administrative procedure or actually even put it in under implementation where it would say the superintendent's responsible for developing a a administrative procedure that contains blah blah blah and it could have language like that um to address that. And then the other thing um they talked about um and I'm not sure how you would go about this but she was saying about making sure that families know like when you get comments from uh parents how do you use that? You know they need to know that their voices uh made some change. So how how would that be you know how would that process work? I'm not 100% sure about that. But the other piece they she talked about was that having
065making sure that the required annual report in this policy is publicly accessible and parentfriendly with opportunities. Now my my for families to review and discuss. My thought my thinking was and I might be wrong was that when when the um someone in the administration brings a report to the board of education I thought that that would be on the agenda and that would be uh someone could access it by seeing that but maybe that's not the case. Maybe parents don't always have the ability to access all the reports that are provided to the board. I don't I don't know that and that's certainly something we could add. >> Thank you Miss Welsh. Um, colleagues, any comments? I've got one, but I want to defer to you all before we Oh, do we still have quum?
066I don't see Miss Olivo. Oh, we still have Okay. Um, any comments from colleagues before I say mine? Um, I'm curious if we could just put the the superintendent shell. Um, there's the the last part of this feedback says discuss the findings. So, not only an opportunity to make the report publicly available and parent friendly, but the comment also says and discuss the findings. Um, so perhaps we should require in the policy that the superintendent in partnership with the parent community advisory council um will discuss the findings of these. Um so maybe requiring um the representation to be given to the PCAT um and an opportunity for discussion and engagement but um I I don't know if that's the right venue but um my colleagues would need to weigh in but um I just wanted
067to I I did think it was a good idea. I think we already make the report publicly available. Um but the only part that I think we could do that we don't already do is the discussion um of the findings with parents. I don't know any other way to achieve that. But um I'll defer to my colleague um board member Brown who has her hand up. >> Thank you so much Dr. Moss. So I was essentially alluding to the fact that I feel like that's already being done and even being done on PGCPS website about certain things. So when it came to um because I think what this constituent is addressing is is transparency and so uh I think this administration has gone above and beyond to delivering transparency. Um as a board member I
068know that if my constituents have questions and I'm sure everybody else that's on the board if they have specific questions about findings they can kind of come directly to us. So, I think if we do discuss it with we need to discuss it with PCA first to see if that's something that they want to take on um if they feel like that's an opportunity for them. But that's just my two cents on that. >> Yeah. Thank you. Vice Chair Briggs, did you have anything? Go ahead, Vice Briggs. >> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I guess the biggest piece for me is I'm thinking about where it makes sense. So if it's about implementation um then I think that that would be you know an important piece to think about how do we integrate it
069into a plan. So is it a work plan or is it something what are you doing about it to the point that board member Brown made about um you know accountability. I feel like there's that piece around like what are we actually doing with the information. So I don't know if a discussion is necessarily leading in that direction. More so what are you doing? And I also feel like this could be a point a kind of a starting point for how do we actually get these types of things even baked into the evaluation or things like that. So if we're moving in a continuum in a direction of like more accountability and you know actually having some teeth there then I think that that might be a good starting point is like how do you
070actually you know embed this in a work plan? What steps are you taking towards this? and then the superintendent, his team reporting back out to us about those things. And of course, we can always ask questions and maybe that's even in a public forum or something. >> So, what I'm hearing from you colleagues is we don't need to address this in this policy. We need to make some behavior or practice changes in terms of our our core work. So, there's nothing that needs to be done from a policy standpoint. Is that what the two of you are suggesting? I'm in agreement with you. I just want to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. Well, I was saying I think we can I mean I think to the point you were making, we could have something
071in there saying there could be a presentation on the points, but I don't know if we need to have a discussion is what I was suggesting. >> Yeah. And what I was alluding to, if we do implementation including Pac, we need to discuss that with PCA prior to putting them into the policy about their new job function, I guess, and how they can start that discussion if we decide to do a discussion. But I am in agreement with whatever. >> Yeah. So, here here's what we could do. Um, we still can Miss Miss Welsh, tell me if I'm wrong. Um, let's have a conversation with Pak before Thursday because this goes on the agenda on Thursday, right? This is already on the agenda for Thursday, right? >> I don't know. M >> is p is
072pending this vote. >> Yeah. So, um, if PAC is okay with it, we can amend it during the board meeting, um, if necessary. If they're not, we could just leave it alone, but I want to make sure we move this on. Um, but let's get some language together and run it by Pak before Thursday and we can do an amendment during the board meeting because the board has to vote on it and approve it fully anyway, so it could be amended. So, um, yeah, let's well, Miss Welsh, um, let's let's let's reach out to PCA and see if they're okay with us adding this. And if so, I'll draft an amendment for Thursday. And um do you want me um so for that piece for Pak, but the other piece just some language where it
073says about implementing the the superintendent responsible for developing a a administrative procedure that because we have a lot of policies that say and within that administrative procedure, we want to see blah blah blah or something and we could have something related to accountability. I do remember the superintendent when he was talking about the policy in one of the board members board meetings. He talked about the fact that there was nothing about accountability in this policy policy and and so um I do think it's that that piece actually falls to the superintendent and should be part of the administrative procedure. So but but the board can say to the superintendent I think you need to put a process in place to address accountability. So, I could just it wouldn't be much language, but I could add
074that language into that policy. >> Uh, let's add both of it as an amendment, and I'd like to let's let's just pass it as it's written right now, and let's amend it based on public comment during the meeting. Um, >> okay. >> So, let's put all of that together, an amendment. Um, one of my colleague, I mean, and I'll I'll present it with an amendment and then the board can accept it. That also shows that we're doing our due diligence here by addressing public comment. So, I'm super thankful for the commenter who did this um because it's pushing the policy to be stronger, but I just want to do it the right way and and and do a full amendment once we've heard from them. >> I think Brown is right. We need to make
075sure PAC is actually okay with this because honestly, what we have done with this policy throughout the whole process has been engaging Pak. We've engaged him every step of the way. So, I don't think we should deviate from that now. All right. Right. So, the question is, shall the committee recommend the policies under agenda item 9.1 to the full board for enactment? Miss Johnson, please take the role. >> Dr. Moss. >> Um, yes. >> Mrs. Oliva. >> Mrs. Brown. >> I. >> Mr. Briggs. >> I. >> There are three in the affirmative. the policy under agenda item 9.1 will be recommended to the full board for policy uh for consideration enactment. Now we're going to adjourn. The chair informs the public the next virtual policy and governance committee meeting will be March 10th, 2026. Please
076continue to check the Prince George County Board of Education website for meeting information and updates. Thank you all for the great discussion attendance. To our viewers, thank you for watching. There being no further business, the time is now 6:08 in record time. The February 2026 policy and governance committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Good night. >> All right.