Board of Education Policy & Governance Committee Meeting, April 9, 2025

001All right, the time is now 50:01. Good evening and welcome and thank you for joining the April 9th, 2025 policy and governance committee meeting. I'm Dr. Felton Moss, committee chair and district 7 board member. It brings me great pleasure to welcome everyone to tonight's meeting and I look forward to our work tonight. Uh for those who are unable to observe now, the meeting is being recorded and can be assessed on the PGCPS YouTube channel for viewing. Miss Adley, will you please call the role? Dr. Moss, present. Mr. Briggs, present. Miss Woodstre, present. Miss Walker, present. Mr. Jackson, we have four presents. All right. Um, we have a quorum tonight. Um, the policy and governance committee will be called to order. Um so tonight's meeting was called to address policies that uh unintentionally became backlogged due

002to the cancellation of our February meeting um caused by the snowstorm. Are there any objections? Um if there are no objections, the committee shall adopt the April 9th, 2025 meeting agenda. Miss Adlay, will you Oh, I don't need to. There are no objections. April 9th uh public comments uh on agenda items. There are no public comments tonight. Um, Miss Adley, I just want to confirm with you there are no public comments tonight. No public comments, right? Awesome. Um, well, at this time, I'm going to recognize Miss uh Welsh for the legislative update um to give us I believe Jantel might join as well. Um, but uh Miss Miss Welsh, if you can begin giving us the uh legislative update. Uh, yes. So, as you know, the Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act did pass. This

003was a House Bill 504 with numerous amendments in it. Um, they did um just I'm going to just hit on different points throughout the the uh the not the policy but the bill which I think is important. They do incorporate um um fi education article 5104 where they talk about um the fact that paying for retirement for teachers pension and retirement system um that those payments are are going to be by the uh the uh county uh boards count the county board which is really the county government. So they incorporated that into it. As far as the actual um uh foundation um foundation per pupil target per pupil amount, they did restore for fiscal year 2026. They restored it back to its normal uh what it was previously. And then all of the next years

004are actually they're not as reduced as they were originally reduced, but they still are a little less than what was originally promised. Um, but just as an example for fiscal 27, it's it's actually $171 less than what was in the original amount for they that they had requested in the following year is like $349 less than u before. Um and then if you and then if you go through um in terms of they did keep the language in there that if there were um a general fund estimate where the uh general fund revenues by the board um if they hit a point where they do not um there's they have to be 3.75 below the March general fund estimate. If they come in that low then there would be no per pupil formula increases. um

005uh it would be 0% for that year. So they did keep that there and then um they did they kept the language about continuing with the local workforce development where the county boards do funnel the money through to the local workforce developments and it was originally um ending in 26 I think through for fiscal years 25 and 26 but they have now extended it through 2028. However, what they did do is and I think because there was a lot of conversation about whe whether or not it's working when it's going through the local workforce development board that they actually have put in a tremendous amount of accountability requirements. Um so that they the um the workforce development board has to provide all this information in terms of just for a couple examples percentage of students

006who completed a career readiness assessment. um students self-reported confidence, number of students participating in career counseling sessions, um number of students who identify postcol and career readiness pathway preferences. They hit I mean there's large number of data points that they're going to be requesting. I think to look at the um just is this program really working and is it worth the money um that you know that they're putting into it. Um, as far as the collaborative time per pupil, it's been paused to uh 2029, but it does start off with an increase of $334 um dollars at that point in time. Um, then they talk about also compensatory education per pupil amount and they did make changes. So, it's a little difficult to to really understand what that means for us because in the past

007they talked about um the um education it would be like 85% for 2026 and 80% now they've actually put in numbers. So, $7,842 for 2026, $7,786 for 2027. So, I don't know how that relates to the percentages they provided. if it's less more um if it's because it percentage sometimes can get you more in the long run. So flat numbers they sort of limit you. So I I'm not sure how that impact is but they did switch over to um actual uh numbers. Um and then uh following they so they give these increases up until 2033 and then after 2033 then any increases would be uh if there was an inflation adjustment that they needed to make. Um then the next thing is um so this has to do with um comp um with our

008community schools. They did keep in the um language about 50% of the of funds could be used um um for um provide central support to effectively manage program funds or enter into contracts with outside service providers that support at least two eligible schools. coordinate spending on behalf of eligible schools under the sub paragraph and any other administrative costs as defined by the department through through the education um through the excuse me through the regulation. However, um that they're they're talking about the fact that if they're going to expend if any county board expends that 50% on things other than giving it directly to the schools, then they will need to account for how they are using uh those fund and they'd have to account anyway, but they have to provide basically a uh um a

009complete uh report for the entire school system for the county versus where every year for each school they have each school um you're supposed to provide report implementation report in this instance it would be the actual uh uh school system that you're that report is and they I think what they want to do is ensure that they're justifying um the um the funds that are you using for especially for administrative functions and is it really um being used for the amount for things that are going to support the the uh program um and then um and And I think that that piece is where we're going to probably have to make uh changes in our policy because we have nothing in the pol our policy right now in the community schools policy related to um

010looking at um a complete report for the entire system like how you know we we don't have any of those kinds of requirements listed in the policy. So we're going to have to make some of those changes when we bring that back up. Uh they did keep the Maryland school leadership academy um with uh with the two sections. One for the school Maryland school leadership academy um which would be school principal, assistant principles, schoolbased, county uh uh schoolbased or county board leaders. And then they also uh kept uh the one for the state superintendent, county superintendent and the chair and vice chair of the state board, a county board and accountability and implementation board. So they have two sort of leadershipmies um that they'll be running or MSD will be running um and then they

011give a lot of detail about all the things that they're going to do in the leadership academy for these different uh groups and then they cross out a lot but let me get to where um then they're putting together they have a national recruitment teacher um uh teacher recruitment campaign which that language continued And that will uh continue through um at end or on or before July 1, 2029. Um and um they're also in within that campaign, they're going to have the Maryland teacher relocation incentive grant. So, and we talked about this once before. So what'll happen is let's say a candidate um goes through the process and we decide to hire the person and so they have a signed contract and everything then the the school system will have to submit a proposal to

012the department so that the candidate can receive a $2,000 grant. So each each new candidate um that signs on has the has the opportunity to receive a $2,000 grant which may be you know incentivize them to want to work in our school system. I will say though that that that also be is another piece of paperwork that has to be done then by our school system. as administrative uh process burden I would say in order to be able to uh to make sure that the candidates do receive this and it actually the grants are going to they're going to start making their initial grants embassy is October 1st 2025 so this fall so I I I um I don't know I guess HR can start advertising that if you can work for us you can

013receive an additional $2,000 through MSD um they are also can with the academic excellence program. Um, which if you recall that they would have these teaching coaches that would go into the schools and initially the emphasis would be on um early literacy and then at least the first two or three years and then after that they would look at the um um uh uh other topics, other subject areas or math would be the focus. It's important though that the um um that the what's really important about this is that um it's the department. So the says the department shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the county board they elect to participate in the program. So not all school systems have to have to you know be a part of this but um they but

014and you would have to actually have a probably like anou or something to be able to uh um do that. and they're going to the department is going to select schools that are have low proficiency rate or declining achievement in recent years. Um, and but the important piece of this is and I did mark this down that money for that program is not going to come out of the blueprint. It's actually uh going to um it says here provide um let me see if I can find it. It will come from a special non-lapsing fund that is not subject to um they reference the article but it's not it's not coming out of the actual blue funding. So that's that's actually very positive that that money will not be um they're not taking um money

015away from the um blue blueprint. And they also say that money from the blueprint for Maryland's future funds um may not be transferred into the fund to cover the cost of this excellence this training program with the coaches and everything. And then they have a lot of different a lot of financial information in terms of these expenditures related to this and and the actual fund that it'll be coming from. Um and then let me see what else. Um they have uh this uh this is the the schools. Oh um they got so then in terms of they actually back to community schools they also talk about that. So with wraparound services we had put in I think a couple items of additional wraparound services that came from the law from last year. Since then they

016did add a new um wraparound ser service which is offering evidence-based in school and in-person tutoring provided during the school day and then the other piece that has to be um focused on would be improving student attendance and they've added and chronic absenteeism. So, I think those are things that we are going to want to um add to our policy to to address. And then they also um h let's see, they did allow MSD to hire some additional staff. And I honestly feel like um I don't know if you're aware of it, but MSD is currently auditing every school system in the state of Maryland for the use of their uh community school funds. And so, and so we're a part of that. And I and they have language in here where they're, you know,

017they're beefing up their they're having a director now community schools at the state level and they're adding some staffing there. I have a funny feeling that there's going to be uh as time goes on they're going to have higher levels of accountability for the community schools to ensure that um that money that we're putting into community schools is is it's getting results and that we are doing what we are supposed to do with that funding. Um they um it also says that um we have to add a a set of measurable goals tied to priorities identifying the needs assessment and that the issue at least once every two years um that the um assessment the assessment and the results of it as well as the implementation plan must be uh reviewed to determine progress towards

018meeting the goals and if need be then there would have to be changes. And then for any system, and I said that before, but any system that is using funds for administrative costs, the department uh is will be establishing requirements for school implementation plans and countywide communicate uh comm community school implementation plans. So, we will be looking at adding that language. Um let's see. Uh I think that's the biggest piece for the policy work. And then um the next thing had to do with um the uh find the language here the collaborative. So they have a collaborative um when they're referencing a collaborative which means commitments to partnership with at least one other one other school system or it could be a like a couple school systems and also labor unions. and it would be

019to do your uh own uh grow your own uh type of uh program. Um and so they I think would then provide some funding related to this and it's they're offering teacher relationship lensure programs on the job experiential learning with these collaboratives but it would be with like say one or two local school systems along with their u teachers unions to put this together. Um, and so there's language related to that. And then, um, and they have a lot of different pieces to that with requirements and everything um, for that piece. Um, let's see what else. And then starting in um July 1 this summer, the depart uh MSD shall consult with the national nonprofit entity that has successfully guided other state education agency and local education agent that have increased the number of licensed

020teacher and they're this is part of it launching the sustainable cost effective grow your own teacher preparation program. So they are they are going to be the ones implementing the teacher um grow your own teacher preparation uh program uh where they'll be implemented you know implementing teacher appren apprenticeships and teacher residencies um and the goal of course is to increase teacher workforce and improve teacher retention and diversity. Um and then um the um with this um collaborative that's formed between you know one or two local school systems and employee organizations um that they will uh require they're going to award the grant um that to like collaboratives that are composed of a group more they want more than one local school system. So that's going to be a factor and if we get any money

021for it and that implements a registered teacher apprenticeship program to administered by the department with standardized curriculum and then um across the state and an institution of higher ed. So they're really dictating all the parameters of how this grow your own would actually uh work in order for you to for school systems to really be awarded any uh any funding and the grants are awarded on a competitive basis. So, um, it sounds like a lot of work to be able to get some funding for that. And then, let me see what else we have here. I talked about excellence. I talked about leadership. I talked about your own. Um, Robin, yes. Um, I I think we've been going for a minute here. I want to see if my colleagues have any questions or um, they've

022got any thoughts. I know we So at this time I'm g see if my colleagues have comments, questions or or thoughts. Board member Walker. Uh thanks so much Robin for this information. Hey, I do have a question on is is your team going to do work on what this might mean for increases as we get our budget back and need to do reconciliation. So for Yeah, great. because I heard um the piece about inclass tutoring which I actually love but I know that I do have questions around what that means for the current learning as well as any additional teachers or aids that are mandated to you know be in that space for that purpose. As we talk about collaborative time I know that that takes pieces away um from the classroom in some instances

023and so we want to just make sure we're not taking too much away while still giving what we need for the scholars. So just some thoughts right now we will be uh tearing this apart and looking at it because it actually runs across numerous divisions in the school system. So it's going to be important to have all the players involved and identify for them the things that they're going to be responsible for doing that they need to implement uh and what they're think and what will happen. And in doing that usually we end up getting lots of emails too about well this we can't do this this isn't going to work. We have to try this blah blah blah but it gives us a good sense of how what the impact's going to be from

024the bill. Excellent. And then for the remainder oh I think um Dr. Moss was gonna say something but let me use the remainder of my time real quick. is um I was wondering if you had maybe we could talk about this at the end Dr. Moss I wanted to see like what our next step overarching plan is. So just by month may maybe not even by month maybe by every two weeks. So for instance we got the information back now their team is taking a look at it then it'll come to our committee then we'll be ready for reconciliation just so we can be a little prepared for this budget discussion for reconciliation based on bills. Um great um great comments board member Walker. Two things. Um Jontel is going to come after this to

025kind of give us an overview of what happened in the legislative session, what wins we had. Um your comment around what does this mean? I think that I don't know that I think that's I think that's going to come from budget um from Obafa a bit more. Um but I I certainly think we can we can ask for that as the PNG committee. So I'll reserve some time at the end of the meeting for you to flesh that out a little bit. so I can get your request right if that's okay. Um, board member Boozer Stre. Yeah, thank you so much and thank you Miss Welsh. I appreciate us digging into this and I see on our list we have quite a few bills to look at. One thing that I would like to ask

026for at this point is during, you know, when these bills are introduced and and we were working on them, there was sort of this black hole of like who the thought leader writer was of sections of 429 that it was even the state superintendent working with the governor. like those those questions were problematic for for our advocates at Strong Schools Maryland as well as for us because we didn't know who we should be talking to about the nuances of each of the sections of 429. So what I would like to request is now everyone just be honest about who these writers were, these policy experts that were called upon so we could un so we know who to ask why. Why did you write the grow your own this way? Why did you write, you

027know, some of these other bills this way? I would like to know who in MSD helped draft this, like who we now go to. I mean, I know that as a board member, I may not be that person, but the but this mystery of has been very frustrating this session and I would out there who wrote it so that we could avoid this next session. You know, that was the biggest complaint from strong schools was like, "We had no discussion ahead of this bill. Why was there no community input? Why was there no discussion with our superintendants, with our boards about some of these changes?" So, that's something I I hope you can help us map so we could actually talk to these people before they write bills again. Thanks. And and can I just

028say one thing? I do know that um the um the superintendent group um they really worked to try to get communication from MSD about a lot of these things in advance and in the past that they've had a good relationship where the the state would share and give them you know give them heads up on a lot of different things and my understanding is that was not the case this year um and so that was very hard for them to get the information that they normally were able to get and so I'm guessing what you're what you're saying, you know, in terms of strong strong schools and just not having any information right up front. I have a funny feeling part of that is because they weren't sharing the information. Thank you so much, Robin.

029Um, thank thank you for confirming that that sort of how this felt was different. It did it did really it it definitely seemed more mysterious this year. I appreciate your confirmations that Pazam had the same issue. Yeah. Um, any other colleagues with questions on excellence for all? Um, well, one, thank you, Robin, for pulling this together. Um, you know, I think that this this measure has significant implications down the road, um, more so than it does next year, and I think we need to be hyper aware of that. um you know particularly this trigger around if revenues are not where they need to be no increases to per pupil funding um based on the December one date um is is is most interesting. Um one I didn't hear you talk about this but there is

030a maintenance of effort provision around if the county raises its property taxes at all it can't actually reduce its contribution to the local school district based on what it was this year. Um so the maintenance of effort provision um inside of excellence for all I felt was really strong and I think folks need to know about that. Um I hope the county is looking at it. So the county does have a responsibility to maintain its existing effort um should it decide to raise taxes at all. Um it would it couldn't decrease what it's given um to local school districts. And to be honest, that is a quite progressive, if I can't um find another word, it's a quite progressive line of policym um to really force the local government to to maintain its effort um

031if it raises taxes. I don't know where that's done anywhere else in the country. So, I certainly want to uplift that um you know, as we talk about this bill. So, so it certainly has its challenges. Um, you know, I really have strong concerns around, you know, what happened was they came out with one measure and had the foundation per pupil funding, um, which was lower than what was originally set in the original work and then they came back and said, "We'll give you a little bit more than that." So, this certainly looks like a compromise bill. Um, and I think, you know, I I'm I'm curious to see its total impact on PGCPS um compounded with um the reduction that we'll see. I I know the US Department of Education rejected extension requests today

032from several states around being able to use um ESSER ESSER funds. So, um I do want to really, you know, tag on here that I would really like to see, you know, very soon, you know, how this impacts our existing work and I would imagine Miss How and her team are doing that um as we speak. And I also will be um contacting like um HR as well as academics and stuff because that just all these new things that they're putting in place that's going to impact their operations. So um I will be finding out what that impact will be for them too. Okay. All right. Um and so I appreciate you. Um, uh, did you have another large bill you wanted to talk about before Jontel gives us the overview of the session? I

033know you all have talked about this. So, Jontel, are you ready to give the overview? Yeah, if Robin's all wrapped up, I'm ready. Yeah, I am. I If you hadn't been here, I would just be going through the list of what passed, but you're here, so go right ahead. All right. Okay, great. I um first just thank you again Robin for such a thorough overview. Uh super helpful for the excellence in education bill. I guess in a way to board member Boozer Strut's question and also um and I'm sorry for getting who asked about next steps. Maybe it was uh board member Walker, but this bill um it feels because of the amount of uncertainty with the budget, that's where I think a lot of the secrecy came from, but that also gave a lot

034of opportunity this session too to make sure that the board's voice was at the table. And I think that, you know, um, just kind of also adding that MAB had a turnover and so even our statewide or that would have pulled information in was kind of adjusting just as anyone would to a new job. And so with that said, um I think we can anticipate from some of the inroads, uh the board was able to meet with every elected on the major committees that decide on education policy and education budget and um some of and all of the talks also included an open door for next steps um on how to imagine these coming together. And so just as a reminder, I'm not quite sure how it works within you all's system, but the next

035step after the law passes is the regulations get written. And the regulations give a bit more of the how-to. There are opportunities to be involved in the writing of regulations. Um, this usually comes through an invitation, but I think that that's if if you all are interested, I just wanted to flag that part of the process as well. Um, and so kind of I'm going to skip Excellence in Education because Robin did such a great job going through it unless you all have particular questions about it and just kind of give the quick the high notes. Um, and so you all should have gotten an update uh where you saw that I would say the majority of bills that were being tracked did not make their way across the finish line by siny dive. Um

036but that's not necessarily a bad thing because as we know many of the legislation um might have been duplicative to things that already existed were involving themselves in curriculum or other areas that typically are not uh the jurisdiction mandated by the state um and other things but and so I'm not going to go into ones that didn't pass unless you all have questions about them. But with the ones that did pass that I want to flag were ones that you all were concerned about and had actually um the um submitted testimony. So HB482 public and high schools student discipline or the right to teach act that one did pass and so we should expect to see you know um and you know what I'm actually I apologize. I'm misreading the number on that. That one

037did not pass. Thank god. Uh sorry. HB161. Uh so this one's the comprehensive health education framework. There was a you know um because it is involved in the curriculum. Um this is something that PGCPS board was opposed to but it did pass. And so the idea is that um you know although it's the legis the state legislators trying to influence curriculum um that it should be more of a work group to start but that with the expectation you know that the department of ed along with the the department of health would work to create a framework. So, it's not quite a mandate on what the framework would be, but a mandate that it occurs and which agencies work with it. Um, the other one, the other two, last two that you all uh that passed

038that you might want to keep an eye on was um the education youth suicide prevention school programs. Um this one also was just on technicality by curriculum something that was a little bit concerned about um but again you know it was revised and amended um in a way that should be more favorable and I'm pulling it open now just to fact check myself on the amendment. So that yeah they changed it from a must to a should. Um, and I think overall again like it wasn't that the intent wasn't potentially aligned but that the enactment of saying a must you know enact certain programs that were unfunded. So this has been changed to a should and um yeah that's those are the only ones I really wanted to flag as ones that had caused concern

039early in session but had evolved to be less concerning. I think they're they're the ones to celebrate. I don't know. Can you just go over the Can you just go over the table real quick? Um and then board member Walker, I'll get you just the table of what happened, what we opposed, what we had amendments. So, if you could go over the table and then we could um take some questions from from colleagues. Yeah. Is it okay if I share my screen? I don't know that you have permission. That's a Cindy question. Um so, I'm testing it. Let's see. Yes, you can. You can. Okay, perfect. So, I'm gonna make I'm gonna show just enough info, but you all have the more detailed one. Um, and so the ones that passed and this one I

040don't know how this got I'm sorry. I'm sorry. When I say table, I meant the summary table that's in the Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. Give me one second to Yes. So, I kind of alluded to it earlier with the opposed part, but I didn't complete the thoughts. So, just to um make sure that you all understand in terms of the actions, you all took action uh you all took position on um 73 different bills with even more being monitored. Um some of those were cross-filed. Of those 73, the of the you opposed 40 of them and 36 of those did not pass. And I just went through a little more detail with the ones that did and the changes. Um, you were in support or support with amendment uh

041for 32 of them and or sorry for 33 of them and some of those changed as we know like if something was amendment or we had conversations that made stuff clearer. sometimes a position would change which is why I'm lumping them together and successfully you know you all were able to get across the finish line um 12 of the uh 30 something bills but I will say just making sure everyone understands the nuance of the numbers not all of these bills were generated by the school board some of them came to you all's plate to review and figure out if they aligned but weren't necessarily ones that were you know in need of a lot of push or action. Um I would say that like this session was extremely successful in terms of the the

042the priorities that you all heard from the community around the funding around the facilities and around certain policy measures. Yeah. Well, thank you so much Jantel and I'd be remiss if I say this. It's partly because of your leadership. um you know, having you um has just been an amazing thing for this board um to be able to really strengthen our collaboration um with our partners in Annapolis. So, I want to personally thank you in this venue. I don't know that we could have done this without you. I know I couldn't have, so I don't want to overspeak um for my colleagues, but I trust they feel the same way. Um so, so thank you so much for your leadership around this um and really sharing about where the bills are, how many were actually

043that summary table was really important. I just want to gloss over one thing. Board member Boozer Struther. Um we'll probably talk about this, but I think we we successfully avoided a bunch of unfunded mandates. Uh which is just a huge priority of this board. That's first thing I look for in the table. Did any unfunded mandates pass? Because we spent our time, you know, really advocating against those, telling people these are really great ideas, but we don't have the money to do it. So, um or you're not giving us new revenue for it. So, I did want to highlight that. Um but I'll turn it over to my colleagues at this time. Board member Walker, I think you did have your hand up. I did. I did. I'm really excited to hear that report out.

044Thank you so much, Dantel. And I also wanted just to echo uh Chair Moss and just say this has been an extremely successful in my estimation um um legislative session. And it was really uh largely because you were on the ground. You kept us you kept us involved. you were letting us know minute by minute um what meetings making scheduling meetings making sure we were very clear talking on our behalf. So I really just wanted to say thank you because we couldn't have really done it. We've done work. I will say up to these the the last two years we really worked hard to get to where we are right now and I'm really excited about it. I want to also thank Miss Welsh and that entire team because that tracker was something that we

045used at all times. So thank you so much for that. Um, as I use the remaining of my time, I wanted to one recommend to our chair a couple of things. The first is I think we should go for this invitation for the for the regulations. That's just my thoughts and maybe you can talk to John telling you all's regular meeting to see uh what does that look like? How do we get involved? But my vote is absolutely and hands down at every table we are able to especially out of session so that we can continue this um massive collaboration and um dialogue that we've had. Um the other is I am interested in this youth I'm a fan of youth suicide prevention over and over again right anything mental health youth suicide bullying in

046that realm right there. And so I just wanted to know a little bit more about I guess I'll read the bill. What was the bill number? That's probably from Miss Welsh, but if one of you all know the bill number for that. Just wanted to look into that and then see if we can as a committee talk to or you can um chair Moss talk to Dr. white just to see what her thoughts are around how it can just integrate into our current curriculum, whether it's health um whether it is um uh what do you call those assemblies, whatever we need to do in order to try to navigate this in without any additional staffing. So maybe we could chat with her and I can use the remaining time um when I come back for

047another round. Thanks. So I can jump in and answer about um SB 310, Senate Bill 310. Um and so this one, so they're already in the code is a youth suicide prevention um program. And so this one was updating it to include behavioral health, gambling addiction um and also recognizing students experiencing trauma and violence outside of schools. um the amendment and the the part that was again I say concerned because it's always so difficult with these subjects where again we're like the intent is aligned but you know the mandate so it actually got amended so that it was no longer a mandate it's a should um you know should include these additional features in the programs and so it's it's up to you all to carry it forward and and I'd also like to point

048out that this actually would fall under Dr. Davis's realm because of student services because they're the ones that put the all the suicide programs together. So, um this is something that I would suspect even though it is just a should and not a must that probably they will look at, you know, making those increases in terms of the the breath of what they address for related to uh suicide for kids. Any other colleagues? Oh, well, I did if they didn't for a second round. Whenever you're ready. Gotcha. Go ahead. Okay. I just wanted to ask about the cell phone policy. It didn't It didn't make our list, but I think Oh, it was a no. No. got amended so far down that it was uh um the requirement was that we have a policy which

049we already adhered to but I thought that something went through for that. Oh, it didn't go through. No, it got on the penultimate step and did not technically make it across the finish line. Neither of the ones that still had momentum. None of the seven because there were seven. We started with seven. None of them were Okay. Well, we have a policy, a cell phone policy, so we can I mean we can, you know, revisit that for communication, but perfect. Thank you. Wow. And MS has a major task force that is actually working on the recommendations for things to incorporate into their cell phone policy. So, I'm sure we're going to be and that might be part of it that that has sort of held everything back because I think they're waiting to hear what

050all the recommendations are that should be included in the policy. Yeah. Yeah. And just so we're, you know, just to let the public know and the superintendent, I mean, much of what the bill was going to do, our superintendent and leadership are currently doing um and got surveys out around that. So, um, you know, I think PGCPS will remain a leader on this front. Um, we were the we've been the leader. So, um, yeah, it was some interesting stuff that happened with that cell phone bill there at the last minute. We, you know, vendors trying to really influence the policy until ultimately it looks like it it crashed. Board member Bruce Shrether. No. Board member Walker, are you good? You got a minute. Oh, thank you. I still have a minute left. Really quickly, I

051think that um just by way of communication, one thing that we might recommend to the board is to work around some communication on our own side about the cell phone policy for board members to be able to put out in our newsletters, etc. Because that was something that some of our community did talk about, and I think we can just be standardized in an easy communications tool. Thanks. And I'm finish. All right. Board me. Yeah, thank you so much. And Chantel, uh, I want to also add, um, you know, my thanks for your work and the, you know, helping us be so effective and and Robin, the effective work with our administration. I really appreciated how we were such a team going in and I really think how we showed up for that initial joint

052hearing on SB429 uh HB 504 was um critical to our success and sort of set a tone I think for us internally and externally. Um the there's a couple bills here that are about the board. One is this antibbias training that seems to be something new and it says each board member within a has to do it at least once within a term. So I think we need to make see if that's something we need to move into our own documents. And then the other is this ethics policy but I but I think it's only adding in the city of Baltimore commissioners. It's in your first page of your chart of these past things. So I just didn't pay I just didn't even notice them during session. So I I'm reading them for the first

053time now. But we need to know if it's a change for us. Um Buzza brother the one on the bias training when we talk to HR um they said it was embedded in our on boarding the whole bias and sensitivity thing that we do. So I don't know if any more of the language has changed but it's already embedded in the work that we do. Um, but I I I I do hear you out on flagging it again. We just need to make sure there's no language that's any different from what was originally there. But when we talked to um to them originally, they were like, "Hey, you you do this all for your own board." Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate that. If you do if you do your videos, if you do your safe schools

054videos as a board member, that seems like a qualification. And I agree. There's many segments of that that that would make us compliant year over we're supposed to do them every year. So I guess I just want to know if we have to put in writing somewhere that we met the dead the deadlines that we're aware of the deadlines just so you know we're we're on top of that because I agree we're again we're a step ahead which is not unusual for us. One thing the lesson the cell phone policy you know some lessons learned that I think we can assert ourselves a little more to get ahead of you know the you know the first I think many of us when we saw this eagerness for a state policy was you're really getting into

055a board member's hard work and you will find how difficult this work is when you try to do this and and in fact I watch them struggle the way we do when we help our superintendent with these policies. So I hope we can use that as a model of when we go to our partners and say you know we you know you're working on the work of the board and let us explain why and remember what happened with cell phone policy. So that's that's the lesson learned for me. Sweet. Um I share breaks. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, Jontel, I just wanted to make sure I took a moment um to thank you for all of the the work that you've done. I know you put so much time and effort your team and

056um it just it wasn't that long ago that we were interviewing you and I was like you just stood out so much because you did a dynamic job and so I'm definitely looking for part two 2.0 um and how we can kind of use a lot of the lessons learned from this session to advance and be even more effective next year. It just continues to get better each year. So, thank you for that. Um, I'm a bit distracted, so I haven't had a lot of questions as I'm planning for unfortunately a meeting later, but um, I did want to make sure I I've made that statement. I mean, that's a she's a product of PGCPS. Let's not forget that. All right. Well, folks, um, I think that that that balances out our time for our

057legislative update. We've got some other pieces that will be taken care of. You know, a post session wrap-up that will be a little bit more public and then we'll start our planning process for um, our legislative work. Um but um colleagues, I heard you out on a couple action steps that we need to take uh moving forward. I'll make sure I uh deliver on those and get those set up for us. Um um Jontel, again, thank you for coming. Um you're free to go. We're about to jump into some policy work for the last bit of time here. U but again, thank you for coming. Colleagues, are we good to go with legislative before? Thank you. All right, cool. Unfortunately, Miss Welsh, you can't go. Um We're going to move to policies uh for first

058consideration. These are discussion items. Colleagues, tonight we have two items for discussion. Um each member will have two rounds per item during the discussion. Each round will be 2.5 minutes. We will start with policy 3120, which is debt management. The chair recognizes Miss Welch to provide an overview of 3120 around debt management. Okay. Um Cindy, would you mind? Thank you. So this policy, this is just a revision of the current policy that we have posted on the website. Um and basically the policy statement is um that uh we want our debt policy uh to be a well-managed debt program. Um and that we the board recognizes a binding commitment to full and timely repayment of all debt as a necessary element of uh Prince George's County Public Schools um in terms of maintaining a sound

059debt position and that um that the board is committed to making debt decisions based on the result of deliberate considerations of all factors. And so the purpose of the policy is to establish guidelines for governing the issu issuance manu man management and evaluation of and reporting of all debt. So as you go down to the standards and this is what I wanted to point out uh for everyone. So in the current policy it talks about um a committee that um and I should have that one in front of me. Oh here it is. um that the current policy talks about the board's finance audit and budget committee that makes recommendations regarding the issue of debt obligations and the management of outstanding debts. So going back now this policy the current policy was done in 2007.

060So my guess is is that that finance, audit, budget and budget committee is now your current um um Obama committee um operations, budget and fiscal affairs committee. And so they the current policy basically says that this would that it would go through the committee actually makes the recommendations regarding the issue of debt obligations. um and then it goes to the full board and the full board um that um you know the and makes a decision on what they're going to do. So saying that piece because that's really the biggest piece in terms of how this would work if the board school system was going to take on debt. I took that information um and put together what I think it should be in terms of how it should work the process. If you I mean

061certainly any changes you want to make or you think it should be done differently then we can absolutely make those changes but this was just uh based on my best guess on what you had previously. So first of all it would be that just and it sort of reminds me a little bit if you think about how policy and governance works our committee it's similar in this sense because first of all the superintendent would be responsible for following for uh providing uh the following information related to lease purchase financing for review and approval by the committee. So the superintendent would be providing information about the debt term restrictions, available funding to support acquisition of lease purchase financing, alignment with the PGCPS strategic plan, cost minimization, risk management, and acceptable ranges for debt. And so and

062then the next section actually talks about what those acceptable ranges for debt, which we can go back to in a minute. But then once they review it um uh they are supposed to then the committee. So they review uh and approve the superintendent's uh proposal and then from there the committee then makes recommendations to the board regarding the issue of debt and obligation management of outstanding debt. So it's the superintendent like providing the information. The committee then you know evaluates the information and makes a determination of whether or not they feel this is something they should move forward and if they do feel that it's need that we should have that debt then they move it to the full board for a uh for a a determination of whether they will approve that and so

063um I so I did go back through and I looked at all the committee reports and I did not for and I did not see any conversation about that in and in in most of those um uh in those meetings. Um but however I also went through board agendas and found where there was a board summary form uh that u that was provided by um at that time Mike Dy who was the director I think of finance and he actually through a um um him making the recommendation he listed out and this is what they the recommendation was for the debt what they were going to use the money for. I think it it was for buses and textbooks and some equipment uh IT equipment maybe. And then um and he listed out what the

064cost was. They did a they actually did an RFP for a banking institute that would then provide the um the the money and then it also provided what percentage it would be the interest rate for it as well as then the payment schedule to pay off all of this. and he provided this to the board and then the bo board voted on it. So there was no committee involved but in essence if the if you go to what the policy says it really would be he would be ne providing all this information to the board to the committee which the committee would then make the recommendation and it would then come to the board. If you don't want to go that route and you want to go directly to bypass the committee and go directly

065to the board, then that's certain we can make those changes. That's perfectly fine. Um but anyway, the uh most the one thing that's important is that acceptable ranges if you we scroll for a second um Cindy to be the acceptable ranges of uh of debt as far as um that uh and this would be um you're going to things that that you might borrow money for could be like equipment oftent times IT equipment, buses, textbooks um or anything anything actually that you would really think that you needed money for as we don't have the money but we needed it. I did talk also to Jason Washington because initially I thought well don't we have some money don't we have some debt related to capital programs but we don't because of the P3 program so there's

066nothing related to capital programs in this so we're really just looking at things like equipment buses textbooks in operational kinds of things um and so the of course the debt cannot exceed 5% of the total uh unrestricted budget and the revenue streams considered for proposed debt service must meet a 2% debt coverage ratio test. Um, and uh, only time that we might bypass that and there'd be an exception would be if there was some type of alternative funding source. Um, anyway, so then if you go back down, the superintendent um, provides the proposal to the committee. Then the committee, scroll down to D, please, Cindy. And then and what the superintendent must provide though an amendment for the information would be um uh information about the the the financial institution including what responses they received

067um and financial from other financial institution and what the which one had the best overall response and lowest interest cost for the term of the financing. and then the maximum principal amount of borrowing, the maximum term of debt, the maximum interest rate to be borne by the debt, and a schedule of debt service payments for the life of the debt. Um, and then you actually go through a resolution for um in order and that's actually true. I did see that on the agenda. So that we do have a resolution for the actual where the board's asked to authorize uh the requested debt and then the superintendent is supposed or designate supposed to provide a quarterly report to the board on the status of the debt obligations including a list of projected needs a comparison of

068revenue projections uh sufficient to pay the debt service and the balance. So that is it in a nutshell. I don't know if anyone has any um any questions um any suggestions for changes whatever you might think. I did work with I will say I did work with our um uh the treasury our treasury operations office on this to ensure that the information was correct. Okay. Um thank you Miss Welsh. Um the question is shall the committee recommend policy 3120 debt management to the policy sponsor for revision approval? Is there any discussion? Okay. Um Miss Adelaide, please take the roll call. Dr. Moss. Um I Mr. Brace. Hi. Miss Buddha Shredder. Hi. Miss Walker affirming. All right. Um policy 3120 debt manage will be recommended to the policy sponsor for revision approval. Now our last item

069um for tonight is policy 3323. It's purchasing. Uh the chair recognizes Miss Welsh to introduce her presenters to provide an overview of policy 3323 purchasing. Miss Welsh. Yes. Okay. So, most anything you've seen like that like print in blue or red that that's changes that we had done previously. And the reason we did end up holding off moving this policy through was because um we then realized that there were going to probably be some findings in the OA audit that would cause us to want to make some changes to the policy. So I have highlighted so that it makes clear what we are did what I did add to the policy to address the findings um from the uh OA audit and then um their corrective action plan. So if you'll scroll down Cindy and

070we'll get to the first um just keep going. Okay. So we'll be talking about the intergovernment cooperative purchasing agreements. That was one of the things that um that was um there were findings on it. And just just as a recap, it's a contract that's entered into by at least one government entity in a certain manner that's available for use by the government entity entering the contract and at least one additional government entity and that is intended to promote efficiency and savings that can result from intergovernment cooperative purchasing. So a lot a lot of times the other school systems have already have a contract with say a particular company or whatever and um um instead of taking putting it out the bid and everything and that entire process depending on if it looks like it's a

071a viable contract and the terms of it are acceptable for the school system then purchasing will enter into uh uh ICPA. Um, so that's one thing that there was findings about that we'll talk about in a second. Then if you'll scroll down a little bit further. Then um there's reference to soul source. So I did put a definition in there which is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source. And then the other one was special education non-public placements. Um, and for our special education students, uh, if there comes times where the programs we actually offer within the within Prince George's County public schools that what the needs of the student might require something more intense and so of course there are non-public placements throughout the state of which the board which the

072Maryland State Department of Education uh has to approve. that goes through, you know, they do like I guess audits of those programs to ensure that they meet all the needs, all the requirements. Um, and also the state also does partial funding of those placements. And so, um, uh, that's considered a non-public placement. Um, and then if you scroll down, I think we get into standards next. Yes. So, uh, keep going, Cindy. Okay. So one of the things um that they we have throughout this document it talks about that a re report shell list all contract awards by type we we say that all contract action for above cy category if you remember the policies broken into different categories of contracts. So this one says the report shall the contract actions for above categories shall be

073reported to the board on a bianual basis. So twice a year purchasing should be providing you information about um about uh the what uh contracts they have entered into. And so to ensure that it meets um the requirements that came through in the OA audit, the report shall list all contract awards by type whether it was RFP, IFB, task order, ICPA, soul service or emergency procurements and then include the manner of their procurement, the vendor and the award amount. So instead of just giving you the name of whatever they're involved in a contract, you would get very specific information about each of the contracts and that is in each of the sections where it says that there will be um the contract actions will be provided for that particular category each uh two times each

074year. This is information that's added also so that you'll get more in-depth information when the purchasing brings it to you. And then if you scroll down further um so um when they whenever there's any soul source um uh contracts then one of the requirements is that there should be a a soul source justification form that is completed and that actually then provides the justification for the determination to award award sole source contract awards. One of the things that came out of the OE audit was that there was no um there was no um many times there'd be a decision to uh contract with let's say a soul so soul source contractor. However, they never there was no justification. Well, why did we go that route? You know, why why didn't we consider something else? So

075now it will be a requirement to have that com form completed with all the information to justify why it would be sole source. Um and then if you scroll down further um and that's the same one that buy the twice yearly reports the same information and keep scrolling Cindy same one their twice yearly report and then all the information that must be provided keep going um and I don't know what happened here with the with the margins but anyway it's the same thing and now we're at another exception is special education non-public placements. So when so just to give you a little history on special education non-public placement you can scroll scroll down to the next page Cindy. um when so an IEP team makes a decision that th this child is really in need

076of a non-public placement that the programs we have within the school system are not meeting this the needs of the student and so now they're looking for a non-public by law by both federal and state law it's not something that you have the time to go out and bid a contract out for how many schools are out there um because because you don't have that kind of time you if the child needs it we need to move as quickly as possible to get the child into the placement they need because if the team has determined that the placement is this non-public a non-public placement is an appropriate placement then the school systems placement is no longer appropriate and by law we're required to be providing appropriate placements to students. So we had many conversations with

077the OA auditors about this because at first they said well you have to bid it out and we said there's no way you would never meet the legal requirements the to provide the services to the students. So, and we do I will say this, the state requires that a cost sheet is completed for every one of these non-public placements which is then signed off by both the school system as well as the uh non-public and it just lists out the total tuition cost and then if the students getting related services the cost of each of the related services uh and if it's a student who's receiving residential then it'll have a whole residential component in those costs. So what they went that they felt that was not good enough and what they wanted to see

078was a formal written contract for every one of the non-public school placements um that uh we you know we and we use a good number of non-public placements and we have students like several students that might be going to the same non-public placement but at for each each student that's going out to a non-public placement there should be a contract that lays out uh specifically what the cost the nature and the number of services that will be provided to the student. And the reason the OA auditors felt this was important was because it does protect the school system if there's ever a a situation where the non-public school did not deliver because then you actually have a written contract. Um then the next thing was is that um so when you look at the services

079that's being provided and I know you've probably seen the budget for non-public, it's pretty amazing the cost that goes into non-public placements. You're talking millions of dollars. Um but they initially they had said well the board has to approve each one of these. Well the problem again is is that the board only meets once a month to approve and if you have a student that needs to get placed immediately then by law we cannot be waiting for a whole half a year I mean a half a whole month or something in order to get approval. Um and the other thing is too just as an aside it's sometimes very difficult to find a non-public placement that they fill very quickly. So you're working hard to move as quickly as you can to get, you know,

080the appropriate non-public placement and one where they have an opening. So anyway, so then in the conversation with the uh OA elders, they said then what would they would like to see is that the at the beginning of each school year fiscal year that the a report would be provided to the board that would list a comprehensive list of approved non-public placements and then what the projected costs are so that you would know right from the beginning of the year. right now what it looks like for the kids we have in non-public placements that these this is the list of all the uh approved nonpublic placements and this is the projected cost. So at least you have a sense of it. And then at the in con conclusion of the fiscal year. Then a detailed

081report would be provided to the board detailing all the expenditures related to the non-public placement for that fiscal year. So that you would have a full picture of how much it cost the school system in terms to provide the non-public placement to the uh students in that receive the services. So that was that that was a finding number three actually. And then if you scroll down. So then the other piece had to do with the evaluation and participation in the ICPAS. Um and so one requirement is that the purchasing and supply service procedure manual must be revised. So that's why we have the superintendent designate shall revise the purchasing supply service procedure manual to include the nationally recognized procurement best practices from Nordic uh global investment foundation global best practice strategic use of cooperative procurement

082and then the sole source selection memo and evaluation and selection of the ICPA to select the agreement that represents the best value. So, um, when you scroll to the end, and I think I put it in there. If you just scroll to the end. I thought I put it in there. Let's double check. If not, I will be doing it. Keep going. Yes. Um, it um, we will have and actually when this gets finalized, it is on the website. It's actually going to have an active link to the purchasing and supply services manual so that anyone that wants to see, you know, what's being required, it would be right there for them to see. And again, this is all um these were all corrective actions that were provided to the LLA auditors and they did

083approve approve those um those corrective actions. So those are the changes based on the audit. It does cover three different findings. So, um, at least we have a head start findings in that. Are there any questions? Thank you, Miss Welsh. Um, the question is, shall the committee recommend policy 3323 um for um to the policy sponsor for revision approval? There's any discussion? Um, I I've got a couple of discussion pieces too here. Um, looks like board member Ruer Stru, board member Walker. Um, Miss Welsh, real quick, I just wanted to ask before we jump into this. There were some amounts that were changed across this document that we've not gone over. Um, like you know, under standards, we went from 50,000 to 100,000 threshold. Um, we went under instructional materials to $2 million from a

084million. Um, can you talk a little bit about those thresholds? one under standards um I want us to go back to 50,000. I understand the Komar rig says 100,000 but I'd like us to go back and then on professional services I have concerns with us having 250,000 without board approval. Um I'd actually like to see that number come down a bit. So can you talk to me a little bit about why we changed the thresholds on these policies and what led to those changes? So the um yes so 100,000 actually that was the reason we actually bought the policy to back was because the law passed last year which increased the amount from 50,000 to 100,000. Um and so we um and because the board only meets once a year once a week once a

085month and the process to get something on the board's agenda the time frame from an operational standpoint is I can't hear you. We actually can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Maybe it's just me. Is it just me? No, you're going in and out. Moving. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hey, sorry. Anyway, so the um the pol the the reason so the reason why the 100,000 is an operational standpoint is better just because it doesn't slow up the process of contracts that we need to do um that versus 750,000 versus 100,000 that but the reason we actually did bring the policy back had to do with this the law change in the loan um that was originally 50 And then they increased to 100,000 that that was the main reason why that was

086changed because of the the law changed and then the tell me again what was the other oh professional service. Yeah. So you also moved from 1 million to 2 million under instructional materials. Um and I understand that Komar made it small value procurement threshold that that that way but it doesn't mandate the districts set their uh procurement threshold at 100,000. So those are my my two concerns. Okay. And um and we can we can come back if we need to. I know my time ran out. I want to hold myself to the same standard I hold others. So the for the professional services that language I think was there before. I was looking at um I'd have to pull the regular policy because I think we moved that up to that back. And this was

087uh this policy in 8182. But let me double check this joint tour. Okay. Board member Boozer. Yeah, thank you. Um I'm glad that we're talking about these right away and moving on them and getting more clarity. And I I don't need to add more on those thresholds because it sounds like we're going to get the detailed um response that we need. I would like to see against that AP that that the manual too. Um the um uh non-public placement contracts was something that you know definitely surprised me in that report because I was trying to find you know they just had done Baltimore County, city of Baltimore and I didn't see anything about that uh about those contracts and I don't know that they're doing it any differently than us because it sounds like we

088were following MSDA guidance but the um but the thing is it did leave out that we actually do have a have a found foundation schools contract every year we do have a document of our relationship with foundation schools and I don't know why that's treated differently um so I would like you know as we explore this non-public um you know issue that was brought up in the audit you know I my question is you know if we were doing it for foundation school schools why weren't we doing it for the others. What makes it special and how we do it for foundation school? Does that cover cover what's being asked of us? So, that's just something I wanted to raise and and I'm going to have to look into that for you as far schools

089them previously. Did you hear me? No one's hearing me. This What is going on here? I have to tell you I'm I'm at tonight. We can hear you. It just goes in and out. It fluctuates. So, we can hear you. It just goes in and out. Not to to make too much movement so that I can um Okay. I just want to look at the previous policy a second, but I will check out about the foundation schools. So, so uh previously this is from 2022 the the limit was $250,000. So that was not a change in the actual amount. There was some uh uh change in language but not the actual amount. And then the other one you said, um, are you responding to me right now or was this other? I'm sorry. I was

090I I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get I got distracted because you actually question you start talking and I was looking at one thing or the other. I apologize. Um, I No, I'm not I actually I did respond. I'm going to look foration. I do agree with you because I did look at other L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L audit reports from other counties and I didn't see anything about special education. Um and we did argue the point we had several meetings with OA on this but they they were insistent that this is what needed to be done. Um so now instructional staff development was that instructional services? Yeah. So what I what I was saying to you is the

091250,000 remains for procuring professional services. That did not change. I actually think the threshold should be lower. What did change though was we had in the policy a million dollars for instructional materials. This revised policy now moves that threshold to $2 million. And I'm not understanding how we went from 1 million to two million. um if if there's a rationale around why we increase um these thresholds. So I that one I will have to look for check with you because that was purchasing that requested that I'm a guessing this is my guess is that because of the nature of the contracts that go out because of what they need to purchase for you know the kids we have when it comes to instructional uh things that they're finding that the of course the cost keeps

092going up and up and up and 100,000 is or 1 million I'm sorry is um be many times like you have anything above you might have lots above a million dollars just because the nature of the cost nowadays but I can certainly check on that for you board member thank you so much board member Walker I know your hand is up and then um I'll say something on another round board member Walker yes no problem I think I'm going to have to do two rounds too but let me try to get it in I have a a couple of thoughts um for the board's consideration and to Miss Welsh as well about four different things as I read through. I think the first is our goal. So, thank you for the work you've done on

093this. It has increased um some transparency and accountability in there. So, these thoughts are to uh continue to to do the same. And what it does, I think it's four things that I wanted to step on is the first is to set a measurable um participation benchmark which is not currently there. So, we currently uh don't set a participation benchmark. I'll go in detail about that in a second. Um the second is to introduce some transparency through public posting um which is not currently there as well and the use inclusive language that's really around underrepresented businesses which we do define later on but we don't specifically say and so I wanted to talk to the committee about that. Um in doing so there's section four for standards. Uh the first would be a new subsection

094is what my thought is for the bianual accountability and participation of these underrepresented businesses and again it's to strengthen our policy commitment that we already have. It also outlines the good faith that we have in all things we do but specifically calling it out and um our rhythm to enhance the transparency. So, that proposed language would look something like, and I'm sorry I didn't send it to you all in advance, but my thought is that the board adopts a verifiable goal that a minimum of x% um of the total annual value of purchases of goods and services shall be awarded to underrepresented businesses. These include, but are not limited to certified businesses that are womenowned, minority owned, disabled owned, veteranowned, or nonprofit work centers, which I think we have somewhere in there, but it's not

095really explicit toward the top um in the standards piece. The second while I still have a little bit of time, is that this percentage shall be reviewed periodically based on the industry trends and the community representation. And the second is that the um superintendent or designate in the same section shall ensure that good faith efforts are made to increase access to procurement opportunities for these underrepresented businesses. And so it gives some ideas and we can determine what we want to put in there. But the advertising procurement opportunities, the outreach sessions, which I know we have, but being intentional on those and just some language around that. Um, and then the second piece is language that now aligns to that revision. And it just where it says prior to the issuance of the invitation to bids,

096it keeps that exact language, but at the end it just says subject to the participation and accountability requirements for these underrepresented businesses as outlined in the policy. So we don't have to come back and modify those as they change. So I know that was a lot. I just wanted to make sure I said that. um for underrepresented businesses and exactly what that meant and how we can highlight it in here as well as the participation um minimum account that we should talk about what that feels like for us in Prince George's County. Yeah, thank you board member Walker. Um we're going to do another round here. I want to tag on to board member Walker's comment one. I think that's great. Um could we go back to our equity policy and use the language from

097our equity policy? um that would include individuals who are LGBT uh Q+ um who might own a business that could have some representation in this. I think our equity policy lays out quite nicely groups in a in a in a very nice way that we could also align our procurement policy to so that we're not only protecting the interests of students and employees who work here but also folks who own businesses in our county who are part of those underrepresented groups. So I really appreciate that board member Walker. I just want to articulate what I would like to see us go back to the threshold of 50,000 under you know equipment and stuff like that. Um I also um think that the professional services um threshold you know is a really is a bit high

098and I I can say this because I went and did my research. Montgomery County who's larger than us. Um they have to bring anything over 50,000 to the board for approval. Um professional services and all that that goes before the board. So I'd actually like to see us come down to possibly, you know, 150,000 or 100,000 on that and certainly would like to see us go back to a million dollars on instructional materials. Um I I I I respect the leadership of our superintendent, but we need strong accountability around these thresholds. Um, and the more we widen the thresholds, I think the reduced accountability we can talk about, you know, when these come to the board and put some language to say that, you know, when these contracts come before the board, but I I

099just think the spending authority um is is is a bit huge here when it comes to contracting. So under first exception back to 50 professional services um you know other places it's like 50,000 I'm thinking 150,000 but certainly on instructional materials I think we've got to go back to uh a million and not two million um without becoming for the board for approval. Um board member Walker. Yes. If we could take them in sections because I know mine was very lengthy too. So if we talk about this one here I am in alignment on the thresholds. I do believe in increased accountability and transparency for what we're doing um with our contracts. So, I would be aligned to $150,000 um dollars. I think anything less than that will put the board at a risk of

100not being able to take a look at them as we intend. And then I also um am aligned to the million dollars for instructional. You know, one of the things I think we we could do is get get help with getting um a spreadsheet of let's look at the last two years of how many fall within that bucket so we could at least understand what the work is that we will be looking at because we also need to make sure that that fits within um our approval processes for boards without causing constraints to uh the vendors that need to do the work as well. So, I am in alignment with you is what I wanted to say uh for increased accountability and um board approvals. Do just want to see that piece right there to

101ensure that we can add it into our current um meeting structure and we're doing a due diligence not just a check off. Yeah, no doubt. And just Robin, I just want to flag for you a good one to look at is Montgomery also isolates construction. I don't want to tie the superintendent hands on construction matters given the rising cost of things, but those other pieces and I think we do have an exception around construction in our policy. We certainly don't need to tie the superintendent hands on construction, but we do need to see it more frequently uh than twice a year to be honest. Right now, our policy just says we see it twice a year, but that's not what I was attempting to do here. So, I don't want to conflate that. Any other

102colleagues have have anything or they want to add? And then if we could since everybody seems aligned on that one, whenever you're ready, if we could go to the other pieces too that I brought up, see if people are in alignment with that. Let's go. Other pieces. Okay, great. So, I don't know, Miss Welsh, do you want to check with Miss Welsh if she got everything from that first section? I probably should have done that. Good call, B Walker. Miss Welsh. Oh, try the razor. Um, absolutely not. I did not get it all, but don't worry. I'll be listening to this video several times to pick up all the pieces. So, okay. Okay. I got you. I got you. Uh, board member Boozer brother, before board member Walker, I'm gonna let board member Boozer Strer

103go before we jump in. Board member Boozer brother. All right. Can Can you hear me? We can hear you. We can hear you. Boozer brother. Dang. Did we lose her? Okay, Cindy, you had a technical question or something you wanted to raise here. I want to make sure I get you. So, I just wanted to say quickly, um, one of the recommendations that was provided by the parliamentarian to me was that we should get information like these in writing so that it could be captured properly in the minutes and to be shared with Miss Welch. So, I just want to put this out like even if we say it out for the public, if you could also send it in writing so Miss Welsh could properly capture them. Okay. Well, colleagues, any any changes to

104the policy tonight? Let's do follow up in an email so that Miss Miss Welsh can have them according to the parliamentarian and then we can talk about how to do this moving forward. Perhaps we'll write them out moving forward and then bring them. But just to make things tonight, any changes to this, uh, we certainly need to to write them out. For me boozer, I know you were trying to speak and I wanted to give you the floor. She's stuck now. I think she's having technical Thanks. Am I still connected? Still connected. All right, there you go. Yeah, my connection's unstable. It's an unstable connection. Sorry. Um I was going back to board member Walker's point about I'm g I think you said marketing of the opportunities and I wanted to understand that more if

105it's this is beyond sort of procurement you know we have our procurement page they have to put out the RFPs and and then announce who got the awards and then I'm noticing that they actually have a pre pre-announce announcement section that I to take a look at. I was wondering what what additional you were thinking in that those regards. Oh yes, thank you so much for asking. You know, I don't and it could be me because I'm not a vendor for PGCPS. I would love for us to be aware of those and a drum beat so that then we can push it out to our audiences quite frankly. And then I just want to make sure that when we say this, I don't know that it says it in a policy. I might have missed

106it, but the advertising procurement opportunities um whether it is I think that they are doing some um targeted marketing. So on television or media outlets that are really cater to these um underrepresented groups might be advantageous for us um as we move forward. But if the main squeeze is on the procurement website, then just doing a job for us to be able to also um advise the public because I'm not sure that that's widely known as far as what the timing is. um what methods are going and now she's gone. But I think you guys get the Jits. I think she's having technical difficulties. But that's what I meant um when I said um advertising. So I think we have the opportunity not to go as deep to tie them with you have to do

107X Y and Z, but to be very prescriptive on um leveraging um outlets that cater to uh these underrepresented populations as well as leveraging our purchasing portals or websites um for that information as well. Sometimes it can get lost in a website on where you go. I mean, board member Walker, I'm curious if you're also open to on the reporting side if, you know, these these potential vendors could, you know, if they want to could shape which identity they fit into as an in in terms of underrepresented populations. And then we report out you know just like aggregately we had this many people from this background to apply for this award. Um just holding ourselves accountable for ensuring you know these underrepresented populations um you do do know about the process because we should be

108able to look at the data and say um no Hispanic vendors actually apply um for this and then that would tell us where to target our recruitment. Yes, precisely. Okay, I got you. Nice. All right. If there's if no one else has anything else here, um we will take the roll call, but let's make sure we get these written out moving uh tonight and sent to Miss Welsh. Not tonight. Whenever Miss Welsh, when do you need us to write these back to you? Um the sooner the better. Okay. Make sure we get it done. But I would also um we not have a I I'm losing you, Miss Welsh. I don't hear anything you're saying. I'm sorry. I don't know what's going unless we already have internet. Anyway, um that we bring it back to

109one more discussion. The reason I say that is just to clarify all the language and we because that's a lot of changes we're making and I would want to make sure that we did it as well as I do I do want to share all this with procurement because they might have some thoughts on it as well as the superintendent. So, so I'm just thinking this is a lot of new stuff. So, I really feel like I would like to make sure you've had a chance to see it before you actually say, "Oh, that's newer for action without seeing it." Yeah. I don't think we should I don't think we should advance this one for second reader tonight or a second consideration, which will go to public comment. Um, we'll just bring it back as

110another first consideration. Um, does that work for the team? Board member Walker, you had your hand up. Yes. Just really quickly, Miss Welsh, I'll get you mine tonight. I wrote it out so that I could read it out. Um I just wanted to double check with the committee if you all I said a lot so I don't know if you all had any input for it but I will send it to the entire committee with um to Miss Welsh with you all on copy in case you had anything additional that you wanted to share with her um as she brings it back. I'll do the same thing. Okay. Wellhead I don't think from a procedural standpoint I don't think I need to do anything now. Am I wrong? Okay, got you. Um, all right. There

111are no politics for second consideration. There are none for third consideration. Um, the chair informs the public that the next virtual policy and governance committee meeting will be April 29th. Please continue to check the Prince George's County Board of Education website for meeting information updates. Thank you all for great discussions and attendance. To our viewers, thank you for watching. There being no further business, the time is now 6:33. The April 9th, 2025 policy and governance committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good night.