Committee of the Whole: March 10, 2025

001I call this committee of the whole meeting to order on Mon Oop. Sorry, I forgot to take the gavl. I call this committee of the meeting of the whole meeting to order on Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 6 PM. If we could take a roll call, please. Sure. Antucci here. Mindy Hartman here. Stacy Saul is absent for the record. Darling here. Jason Janzik is also absent for the record. Katherine Potter here. Julie Jenny here. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have the acceptance of the agenda. Items for discussion may be added to the agenda at the start of the meeting at the request of the superintendent or any board member upon majority approval of those members present. Does any board member have an item to add tonight? I have a qu I have a

002question though. It's I is a question an item? Sure. Um, is it the state that is studying that test window for the I testing and or is it the district? It's at the state. Are you meaning um the cut score adjustment? No, I meant the window for the students to test. Oh, do we set that? Gotcha. No, that is set by the state. Okay. because it's like we they they said it during, you know, spring forward and that's crazy. But I just wanted to make sure it wasn't us. Okay. Anyone else have any items, Dad? Hearing none. Thank you. Uh-huh. Uh, next up we have community input. There is no one signed up, so I won't even read this paragraphs. Uh, next up we have the approval of previous meeting minutes. The approval of minutes

003from February 24th, 2025 meeting. Does any committee member have any changes to the minutes as presented? Hearing none, we can put that on the consent agenda, please. Next up is discussion topics. First up, we have the review of bills. Were there any questions for Mr. Shepard regarding the bills? Mr. Shepard, I have a I have a question. Um I think it's page six of 23 on the report here. Um LinkedIn group there's salting going on. Um the 14th, the 15th, the 16th. So the 14th was a half day. 16th and 17th were Saturday and Sunday. And then that Monday was President's Day. So there was no school. Is there like Right. Yeah. Um I'm just wondering I know that people are using the building some of the facilities over the weekend, but is there any

004way that the district is able to save money or anything if ser like prompt service isn't required from LinkedIn? like if there's a long weekend or if there's like winter break or something like that. Yeah, that is something we can look at. If it was over a winter break, we'd be a lot more cautious with uh when we salt. Um and in this instance, and I don't I don't remember what the weather was like uh at at that point, but uh it may have been a situation where we wanted to keep on on top of it. And to be honest, we have lucked out so far where's and got to knock on wood. um we have uh come nowhere close uh the amount that we budgeted um for uh snow removal. So in this instance

005it was prudent to uh keep up with the saling. Okay. Just because I'm I'm a follower of the but the the Springfield trip was that weekend. I can assume that's probably why there was some salting done at the junior high. So like if there is I mean we had lots of parents dropping off early in the morning picking up late at night. And even if we do have other events here, we we do need to make sure that our facilities are safe. So, um while we do look at that and try to cut back where we can, um we our our top priority is safety. Of course. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I have one question on um on page five of 10. The uh the fees for contracted social work. Are these in

006addition to the um is it is because we're not we don't have a social work position filled here that we have contracted social workers coming in. Yeah, I don't think we have any contracted social workers. Okay. Well, there was services for contracted social work. Um what page is it, Julie? Five or 10. Those might be our social work interns, uh, which would have been paid through, uh, $50 each time on page five of 10 or six or 23. I believe it's we had a social worker that was out on maternity leave. Yeah, I think that when I look at those dates, I think that coincides with that. Yeah, I think that was some compensatory services related to that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? hearing none. Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Uh, next up we

007have the custodial bid. Mr. Shepard. Yes. So, the district's uh prior uh 5-year custodial contract was coming to an end as of June 30th. As the district knows, the prior U vendor was Alpha Building Maintenance. Uh they ended their contract early. Um however, we are still obligated to go out to bid for a long-term solution starting uh July 1 of this year. Uh so the district published uh that we were seeking bids. Uh we had a very good turnout uh at our mandatory pre-bid meeting in which we met with the the various contractors and took them on uh a tour of the the district uh and our facilities. In fact, a lot of them were thrilled that they got to ride the the school bus uh around the district that day. Uh we ended up

008having seven contractors submit sealed bids and they were publicly opened on February 27th at 10:00 a.m. And the bids ranged uh from a base uh year 1 base price of $722,440 to uh a little bit over a million uh with total 5-year price ranging from 3.7 to $5.3 million. Uh we did include the bid tabulation for the the board to review. Uh and due to the size and scope of the bids that were submitted uh they are available uh for review at district office. However, Miss Potter, we will look to see if we can uh get the the one bid up on to the uh the board docs for you. Um once we open the bids, we did uh uh look at and vet each bid. We went through each one. Uh we questioned the

009three lowest biders after we confirmed that uh upon review that their bids were responsive. Uh we contacted references for all the lowest uh three biders. Uh and those were conducted by our coordinator of operations who I I must say he entered this process halfway in between as we were looking through the custodial bid. He's done a very nice job of uh assisting with this process. Uh so after review of all the seven bids and contacting references uh administration has concluded the bid submitted by citywide building maintenance appears to be complete and responsive and remember that is the bar in the state of Illinois. It doesn't we don't always have to go with the lowest price if we can prove that they are not responsive. In this case, after discussing the bid with them and contacting

010references and and vetting the details of their bid, we do feel that it is uh complete and responsive to the bid documents. Uh so we would uh tenatively re recommend that the uh board approve uh the contract with citywide building maintenance. Uh they will be here next week uh at uh the board meeting. Uh they could not make it tonight, but they will be here uh next week. Uh, and with that, I'd be happy to to answer any questions as I know there most likely will be. I have a question. Uh, Mrs. Potter, you probably might have some as well. I do. Okay. So, um, in the quote, I'm assuming that this is also going to include the transportation center. Correct. So once we build the transportation center uh there we will we will go

011back to citywide and discuss how that will be fit in. All of the the contractors knew that uh we were going to uh be having them work on a transportation center but without them actually seeing it uh and getting the the lay of the land they would only be able to provide an estimate. Um, I happen to think uh that with our current staffing uh that uh uh we we we currently have a a half-time position that that is paid for that could probably go to a full-time position that could take on some of the responsibilities at that new transportation center. Uh so I don't think it's going to be a huge additional cost to the what's provided in the bid. Okay. I mean, I think it's important though that we see what their estimation

012is. Like even just seeing the layout of the transportation center and what I mean, they're going to know what needs to be cleaned within the transportation center. I think just seeing that as part of an estimation would be important for us so there's no surprises. Okay, I agree. Um, and that was actually one of my questions as well. and and if I didn't know if that was included under alternative maintenance. So, the alternative uh maintenance uh uh bid was if we wanted to have an additional uh maintenance worker uh staffed through the uh the contractor. Right now, our maintenance uh worker is employed directly with the district. Uh we wanted to know what our options were in regards to that additional maintenance uh uh worker if we decided to go that particular route. Um I

013have a few questions. So in this bid like there is one person at each school during the day. Correct. So in in this bid this would cover all of our custodial needs that includes the the head custodians which are in the buildings during the day. Okay. Uh and then our evening custodians uh and there is one evening supervisor who also does some of the the cleaning here at this uh facility. And when we had to um do the emergency contract in December, I think it was um and it went to RJB. Um how many of the people that were employed under Alpha were then employed by RJB? I I believe most of them were held over once uh the new contractor took over in that instance. Um Yeah, to my knowledge like uh all the

014employees were hired by RJB and will citywide uh do the same? Will they retain those people? Yeah, what city uh provides you know as a transition plan is um like they call it red light green light and uh they will interview all the existing employees with our recommendations of like who is a a good fit but they also have to verify that they're going to work with their company. So they will make that final decision at that time. Are the uh amenities other than salary for the employee about the same? Yeah, the uh benefits like uh we went through all that. Um they do offer vacation um like various vacation days um like the uh insurance like vision, dental, life, like all of those are available like through the new company. Great. Or excuse me,

015Citywide. And Citywide also mentioned that uh when they they take over new contracts like u many of the contractors um institutional knowledge that they're acquiring of the people that are currently there can be very important. So uh it it is of their benefit to uh keep as many of the existing employees as they can because uh they have the the knowledge of those facilities. Do um are there any schools or offices that use citywide locally? Yeah. So, uh, for their references, uh, they provided, um, uh, Woodland School District 50 and, uh, North Palos, uh, school district number 117. And, uh, with speaking with both of my counterparts at those school districts, they, uh, they highly recommended and, uh, recommended citywide without any issues or hesitations at all. Um, as far as like their services for

016those districts at North Palos, they've been there since 2013 and then uh at Woodland School District since uh 1996. Okay. So, they've have a long experience with those two school districts. And Woodland is in Gurnie uh and it is a larger elementary district. They've got some very large elementary and middle schools. Okay. Thank you, Julie. Thank you for for asking great questions. Um, now I'm now I'm stuck with the not so great ones. Um, so citywide came in significantly lower. Is there any hesitation there um with that bid coming in so low? So we we do understand uh your concern. In fact, when we saw that uh number come up, I told Mr. Martin we're going to be having PTSD from a prior experience. Uh but we really dived in and looked at the bid

017that they provided. Uh looking at making sure they had the appropriate staffing. Uh we set the the minimum wage levels for the employees to make sure that they would not be receiving a pay cut which has happened in the past. Uh so we were able to verify that the the salary number that they had within the bid uh would actually cover uh salary uh for the employees. We also did an analysis on what each company was going to take in via profit and overhead. Uh and this particular company is by far taking in uh the least amount of profit when compared to the the other companies by far. And I know we've we've said this and I've asked you this many times before, but just for the viewing public, even at this price per year,

018this is substantially saving money than having these people doing it all ourselves, having this all in house. Yes, that is that is correct. when you uh take into account salary and benefits al along with IMRF, social security, uh workman's comp, uh uh all those liabilities on the district, you'd be looking at probably an additional uh 2 to 2.5 million uh dollars added on to our on& and M budget every year. Uh when you take a look at the cost of of this particular uh bid package, you're looking at uh uh if we go with citywide uh an overall cost over 5 years of a little over 3.5 million. So there is some definite savings here to the district by going this route. I just wanted to ask the questions about the, you know, the employees

019cuz the the building maintenance people really become part of the fabric of the the building and and stuff and you know um becoming you know the kids the parents all know who they are. I mean teachers depend on them. So we do like to make sure they get fair pay benefits. Thank you. Now, with the um bid packet that they submitted um that they're supposed to be um what's the word I'm thinking of? They're supposed to be letting us know that if they have had it are in any kind of contested legal situation. Is that right? Like correct. They were supposed to uh let us know if they had uh left any contracts recently u on negative terms. Um we also do a little bit of research outside of what they submit to try to

020verify that. But that's why those references are are so important. Those are some pretty solid references there. I mean length and I verified like those people, you know, like I checked them out on the website to make sure they there were the right people in those positions. Yeah, it was 100%. And I think what what stuck to me was the one reference where when we asked how long they had been with that particular firm uh 1996 uh that speaks volumes in in my world for sure. Um thank you very much. I I did want to um ask bring up something to Dr. white. Um, and this is just with respect to our mutual appreciation for flag honors. Um, I noticed that the day custodians, one of their duties, um, is raising and lowering the flag.

021Um, and I feel like that is a responsibility or rather like a civic opportunity more so for our students. tonight. I I don't I'm not sure that that should be the responsibility of the custodians. I know it's petty, but I really see that more as a learning opportunity and a civic opportunity for our students lowering and raising. It's it's an honor. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I looked forward to it when I was in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade being on that team that went out and got to raise the flag and take it down at the end of the day. So, I don't know who's doing it, but Sure. I know at some of our schools, this is not a question I've asked principles, it hasn't come up in our conversations, but I know

022two of our schools I've physically been present and saw our students. I will um reach out. I think that may also be in there as just a to ensure the flags are raised. Also, during like really um inclement weather when it's pouring out or really snowing, they may do it instead of having the kids go out. But I can double check on that and make sure. But I know at least because I traffic more up this road than our other schools, but Deer Path in in the junior high definitely I've observed our students um with the support of an adult raising the flags. But I can definitely get back to you about the other schools. Okay. I love that because I agree. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. And then just my only

023comments is I'd like to see some type of assurance for our current staff that they're going to, you know, they've been through a lot the last, you know, up and down. So I'd like to maybe have some asurances from citywide that, you know, we want to make sure we're keeping as many of those employees as possible. Yeah, I agree. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. The I mean the pricing in line, so uh we can just we'll discuss it one more time before we vote. Yep. Be action. Yep. All right. Thank you. Next item up is um the D26 policy manual review section one. And we have a checklist that we kind of are going to be going through policy-wise. Correct. So there um board members were asked to um submit any of the policies

024out um that are within the policy manual or even policy that may have been omitted um based on the committee's recommendations um that came from sections 102. So the board could have further discussion and make some decisions um um on those and then the board would take action on those. Um policy chair Mrs. Potter has done extensive work on this. So I just want to publicly thank her um for her efforts. I know it has been um as one of my past um employers used to say herculean efforts um to um get this done. And so um if it's okay with you, Mrs. Potter, I'll let you kind of navigate um um the conversation. Thank you. Um I guess if everyone's okay with it, we'll just start with the lowest number and move up. Okay.

025Um policy 110, school district legal status. Um when we adopted the manual, this sentence was left out. And I'm I guess my recommendation would be that we put it back in in its This school district is designated as Kerry Community Consolidated School District 26, Mckenry and Lake counties, Illinois. Here and after, however, the schools will be referred to as Kerry District 26 or as the district. And I guess my recommend my reason is is that nowhere else in the policy is it referring to the full name of the district or lake and mckenry counties um and such Lake County. Yeah. So I don't know how Mindy I'll refer to you on this. All right. General preface. All my comments are I'm a lawyer but not our lawyer. Um I have no problem with adding that

026back in. I think I to your point it makes sense. It doesn't hurt anything. Okay. I agree. Just oppose if you oppose. I guess I think it makes sense to list it as well as the the preface that from this point on it'll be referred to as I like the way that that is stated. Okay. Um 130. Uh Miss Hartman also submitted a comment. Um, and she's just saying that this policy is reading like a strategic plan um, and we should consider whether it needs to be replaced or modified. I looked into it. I I went to press um, looked at their footnotes and footnote one had said to replace the text in the sample with the district's mission and vision or belief statement. Um, so there you go. Um, it sounds like I agree

027with their lawyers that that is the general like goal here. We have just since done our strategic plan, so perhaps it's time to go back. So my recommendation would be to to replace the language of 130 with Kerry 26 mission and vision and that would be the following. The district 26 community is committed to providing a nurturing atmosphere where our students have a desire to learn and develop as critical thinkers and innovative creators who contribute to the world with integrity and purpose beyond themselves. We envision a learning environment where all are safe and belong. And so teaching and learning are the focus of our work and the catalyst for success. Just to clarify, so you want to just replace what's in there with the mission and vision, not add to what's in there. I believe

028it's just a straight replace. I don't know how the board feels. Thank you. Agreed. Okay. And so then Mindy, does that answer are you satisfied with that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My goal was to eliminate redundancy and be clear. We spent a lot of time on mission and vision. Let's replace this generic. Exactly. Okay. I'm bringing 140 back. This was taken out of the um manual as adopted, but it's 140 school district accountability and transparency. This is a D26 specific policy. It's not a press policy. Um but transparency and accountability are subjective. uh both are goals of the board and um sometimes well the D26 community demands these of the district and we also sometimes ask our stakeholders for accountability and you know um transparency as well. So the language of this policy I feel like

029is concise and it's just easy to understand uh and all of the responsibility is dedicate delegated within the policy under the title district implementation of accountability and transport transparency. Was this one of the ones from 2012 or 2015? It is. And and didn't we feel like when we were in the original meeting that this had been was also duplicated in other areas? Yeah. When this was originally written back in whatever year it was written, which was quite a while ago, we didn't have all the things embedded in policy that we have now. Things like what goes on the website and um how meetings are conducted and different things like that. that over time with the press policies has been all those things have been added throughout different portions of the manual. So when this was

030written way back in the day those things didn't exist. Um and so that was put in there to ensure that and I mean there's uh if as you can see from here it was adopted in uh 2012 and it's never been reviewed. So whenever we have one that's district 26 specific, it never comes up on the general um review cycle. Press has every five years, every policy will be reviewed. So if it hadn't been in the five years, they do a 5-year cycle and everything else gets picked up then. But one like this, we would just have to make a special note if this is added back in because it won't ever come up with press because it's not in press. I'm just I I understand that as well, but I feel like it's just

031another level of transparency to have this outlined. And I I understand it's specific to the district, but I feel like it's a good index for the expectation of the district and our level of transparency. I feel like it's it's an important piece and we spent a lot of time on it at that time and we do refer back to it quite often. So it's for me I've sat up here when and for all I believe everyone here has sat up here when the community has demanded accountability has demanded transparency has made demands and everybody's expectations are different everybody's feeling feeling of what's subjective. I mean, everybody's feeling of what's transparent and what is accountable is all subjective. And I feel like I've read the policy manual and this is very easy to understand language. You

032don't have to go searching for it. It's in the right part of the policy manual. Um, it's I specifically like the that accountability requires that expectations are mutually understood. I specifically like that there needs to be a reasonable balance between expectations and our capacities. Um, this is I feel like not just between the board and the community, but also the board and admin and the and everybody. And it's just kind of like a guide. I don't um I I don't feel that I'm turning my back on accountability and transparency, but um isn't the strategic plan kind of discussing those principles too or pledging us to those principles because I think some of the language in there reflects the original strategic plan that we had as a district that was formulated about 2012. So I I

033guess I would think that maybe this uses uh I don't know a little more older verbiage. It kind of matches the first uh strategic plan and um I think since in the other one we just we cite I mean the district's philosophy should be toward accountability and transparency. that is our philosophy or part of our philosophy. So, I don't care if you want to keep it in, but that's just I think it's redundant or not maybe not. It doesn't hurt to be redundant, but I think that the language in it is from um um years ago and it was formulated by board members, not by press because we didn't we didn't I don't think we had press at that time. And um so that that's just my feeling on how how it was developed and

034I think it could be um I don't know just kind of an older policy. I understand I'm not like I'm not like married to keeping this in or anything but I do think that it is a very concise way of putting things. I don't disagree with any of it. And if you're I'm just trying to think as a a citizen who's going to go and look for information, this is this is going to be really easy to understand what we're doing instead of having to maybe pick out a sentence or here or two from four different sections of the policy manual. Right? And to me, like if I'm just somebody that's on our website, I'm not that's why a lot of times I say, "Let's keep some of the language on some of the policy

035names because they make sense for the policy." And a lot of times they change the names and then it's like it has nothing to do with what I would be looking for if I was looking for school district transparency and accountability. I wouldn't know to dig into the strategic plan and look for the school district's accountability and transparency by having to dig into another policy that doesn't have any of those names in the in the title of what I'm looking at. Here's here's my suggestion because generally speaking, I'm not opposed either, but we haven't gone through our entire policy yet. So, my suggestion would be for things that are unique to us and not part of press is that we table those for the final discussion. That way it's also cross reference to all the

036policies we may adopt, may update, things like that. But then we can hit the carry specific policies at the end. So if we're doing a general press update now, carry policies at the very end. So it all ties together and we can also probably save some legal fees because we can submit them to the attorneys one time and say, "Hey, do we have we created any conflicts by oursel by going outside of press? Does this conflict with anything we have already?" And I think that makes sense when we're talking about the cross references. I think that makes sense to go back and decide which new policy numbers or whatever that we need to change in the cross references which I've done mind you. I have zero I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. I'm

037fine with that suggestion. Um I suppose that means that I'll print this off and then just check them off as well that that we would Well, yeah. And and I know that we're getting these in chunks and we're doing a chunk each month. So this would be the chunk of okay after today we're tableabling 140 until we get to the very end. Not that it's going away. This is not a no. I again I agree with you. These are very good ideals. These are things we should do. But I also think that if we're adopting press which has been vetted several times. It's just worth having a conflict check to make sure that we have not picked up one l one piece of language that's going to come back and bite us in the end.

038We want our policies consistent. Okay. I'm I'm kind of with the let's leave this for the end. And the part that sticks out to me that I want to make sure that there's no redundancy is the components of transparency. Like if we go back to the year in which this was written and um all of the all the technology that we've added to allow for transparency. Like some of that to me might be outdated the components of transparency because of how we do share information now. Okay, I'm fine with the suggestion to table that until the end, but I will remember this and I will bring it back. It's in it's in my notes, too. I've got I've got two charts approved and saved to the end. And it's uh not that is the last

039one in section one. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. So now I will say we'll go to the next item is the D26 policy manual review section two. Excuse me. President Darling. Yes. Can I just ask would you like to send um action or consent? Um we should be able to put those with the exception of 140 into consent. Yep. We'll exclude 140 and then put the rest in consent. Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. uh policy 222, community guidance and long-term strategy development. Uh this is specific to D26. It's not a press policy. Um Miss Hartman said that this is on her list for review for almost the same reasons as she had brought forth policy 130 school district philosophy. Um the section on community core belief she says and maybe it should just read uh revisiting

040the strategic plan every 5 to seven years. Um my suggestion would just be to list the five strategic plan goals here or list those in policy 130. I agree with you there's a question of that. Um but placing the strategic plan goals in 130 makes more sense as this policy um is more board directed guidance and section one of the manual is more focused on the broader district understandings. It's in 222. Yeah. I don't attach these. Yep. Nope. I'm looking. 222. Correct. Yeah. 222. I'm having a hard time finding the section that says community core beliefs or I'm blind. Yep. Nope. So, I do apologize. That one um was missed when we were adding them as attachments. Um if you give me a moment, I think we can all flip over at the top of

041our time. If you go up to policies and I'll make I can I can work on adding it, but um if you all want to go over to the policies and it should be there. Yeah. So, I think my suggestion, Katherine, and I was really just firing off quick email to make sure I got my thoughts down so I would remember them now a month later. Um is is the long-term strategy board goal should just say I mean it says we're going to do the strategic plan. So, I agree with you. Maybe it's just the board will do a strategic plan every 5 to seven years and then a link to our current plan that kind of covers that. I feel like this one 222 being under section two school board is guiding the school

042board and like what we're our responsibilities are um especially um in regards to the strategic plan. Certainly strategic certainly the title strategy development means strategic plan but it doesn't refer anywhere in this to specifically quote unquote strategic plan which is bizarre bizarre yes um but I do think that I do believe that the strate the district's strategic plan goals should be in policy. I'm not sure. I think that this specific policy 222 is more board directed guidance, but I do agree with you that perhaps 130, policy 130 is where the goals should be listed. the strategic plan goals. So 130 would then list Car's mission and vision which was developed during the strategic plan and then the five strategic plan goals developed then there too underneath the mission and vision. I think that that makes

043more sense since that section of the manual is school district organization and this section in this language is board the school board. Those are my thoughts on it. I'm with you. Give me two seconds to to process my thoughts and make sure I am staying with you. And I'm going ask if you can repeat it so I get it correct too. So, but we can wait for this. in 130. The title of 130 is school district philosophy. Um it it this is just a suggestion. It almost seems like the goals the goals aren't part of the philosophy. The mission and vision definitely are. It almost seems like where this is talking about the long-term strategy development, the goals might actually fit a little better under this one if you're wanting to include the strategic plan

044goals in the policy. I guess it doesn't for me it doesn't really matter where they go, but I do believe that the previous strategic plan was spelled out in the policy. If it goes under this policy, that would be fine for me, too, because we have to see those ends. Here, here's my problem. Goals aren't policy. Goals are goals. And I don't know that we can like, yes, they should be achieved. Yes, we should be working for them, but they're not the black letter law of how we operate, right? Our policies are governing how we operate and goals are not always achievable. They're not always and they may change before the 5 to seven years. So, I have a problem with in I don't think the goals should go in policy anywhere. I think they're

045referred to all over our website. They are findable. We can talk about a strategic plan, but I don't think the goals go in policy. But going back to what you were saying about this being board directive under heading number two, um I am okay with the redundancy at that point and therefore I don't have a problem with it. I was just saying they they do sound alike, but to your point, the heading is different. It's giving us guidance, not the public guidance. So, I can I can certainly back off on that one, but I don't think the goal is below. But I think that a link to the strategic plan should be in here so that the public is seeing that the last time that it was that we did do it so that they

046see that we're staying on schedule with our five to seven years. Just a link. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That no that I could go with. It's going like this is the last time we did it. If you want to hold us accountable or we want to hold ourselves accountable 5 to seven years on this date and then we know that we're staying within that 5 to seven years and then that link I'm not opposed to right would that that would be under 222 and not 130. Correct. Not opposed. Just to show that we as a board are staying on track with the expectation of a strategic plan every 5 to seven years. Is that possible? Sure. And and yeah, that's no problem. And did you want the the language change at all to say strategic plan

047or just leave the language add the link and a comment that um you know, click here for strategic plan adopted such and such date? So, are we just adding a line like that or was there anything in the text of 222 you wanted? Yeah, I think you'd have to refer to it as a strategic plan at some point because it doesn't say it anywhere in this policy. It just says strategy development. I would almost recommend just for my um type A personality um to have it be say strategic plan. I like the suggestion to add the year of when we adopted it as well. But when I'm in there searching the policy and I type in strategic plan and this will come up. That's just why but I do like the suggestion of when it

048was last adopted as well just to keep so accountability. So are we looking at 222 community guidance and strategic plan development? That's a beautiful title. Yes. Okay. Okay. So that would mean changing the title. Yes. And then adding the link to the strategic plan to that. Yep. I got so I have um add link to current strategic plan connected to policy under connected to the policy under paragraph two make adjustment to title to include community guidance and strategic plan development. Makes sense because we call it the strategic plan. We don't call it our long-term strategy. Got it. That's great. All right. for 2150 committees. Um I know that we talked about in the policy committee we were going over this how it needed to be this policy the way that press has it. It needs

049to be rewritten because we have a we have this we have a cow um a committee of the whole structure. I tried to explain this to President Darling and she was gave me the grace and the time to draw it out for her. Um, how I believe it should be written and I am so sorry, but I I am willing to provide or put together a prototype of what I'm talking about here on how I believe that these policies need to work together. Um, but I don't have that with me today. Uh, Miss Hartman brought up one of the bullet points on this. Um, I'm sorry. I have to move back over to our meeting. I've got it. I pulled it up on a separate screen. So, it was um, yeah, something that we don't

050practice is where it says after board discussion of agenda item, community audience comments are encouraged. And that is not currently our policies or our practice. So, we either need to update our policy or our practice. One of the two. I'm going to recommend now I sit here you guys and I recognize all of what we aren't doing and what we are supposed to be doing because I read the policy for fun. Um I am going to recommend that we practice the policy and this is this is why um we do have rules and stuff of decorum here and we try and follow them. Um I think we should practice the policy as well because after a discussion here and we do most of our discussion during the committee of the whole meetings but anybody in

051attendance at our meetings may view a presentation and they may have great questions following the presentation or that we hadn't considered. So I would suggest then if that's the case and that's what the board feels that we move community input to after the end of our discussion instead of having two community inputs we move it to after discussion I assume we're only talking are we talking about just at the cows because and obviously this is where we tend to have more robust conversation this would be a great time for more community questions I understand community may come to the meeting and have questions too but when we send everyone went back to their work for a week and we want our questions answered. I feel like after the cow is the best time for extra

052community input at our meetings. I I don't see a problem with the way we have it structured. Right. This does reference Mrs. Harman to the the committee of the whole meetings. So that's that would be my suggestion that if that's what we're thinking that that we move it after discussion. Hold on. I'm literally And then in other otherwise 2150 sounds like it's going to go to later in the day because Katherine may have a rewrite proposal. Is that what I was getting from that? Okay. Look, not in a bad way. Just you have suggestions. It's it's it's complicated. It's very complicated. It's not okay. But what we're discussing this very second is the line the bullet point on the uh third to last page one of three. After quote after board discussion of an agenda

053item community audience comments are encouraged. That is a general thing about committee of the holes in general. They are generally laidback with give and take. Um I am not I don't want to hide from the community if they have comments um questions or anything. I do think we can get more insight that way. Um that's why I'm suggesting we move the discussion we move the community input to after our discussion topics. Yeah. Instead of in the beginning of the meeting moving it to after discussion. I believe that I believe that when we first we got on the board at the same time. When we first got on the board, there was, it was strange to me at the time, at the beginning of the meeting, there was community input and at the end of the

054meeting, there was community input. Um, if we're going to ask for community input at the end of the meeting, then yeah, then what Miss Hartman is asking or suggesting would mean that we would have to change the wording of the policy. So, I just did a quick um I think to capture what Mrs. Darling and maybe Mrs. Hartman I'm trying to capture. Um it was saying a so if that third that same bullet after board discussion of agenda items community audience comments are encouraged because that would capture then after the discussion items take place then we would welcome and encourage um community and audience comments at that time. Community input. No. So this would so but then going to um that point that would be moving the community input part to after the discussion like

055this evening um if we looked at the agenda for the committee of the whole we were requesting community input right after the acceptance of the agenda that committee community input portion would then go to item seven yep section six which would be after discussion topics that way to capture what Mrs. Potter saying it would give the community the opportunity to hear the presentations, the discussion of the board and then be able to weigh in or have conversation or discussion thereafter once they have that collective information. And by doing it at the cow meeting, we're not voting on anything at a cow. We vote at the regular board of ed meeting. So it's still whatever the community input is on whatever topics we're discussing, they'll still be considered at our regular board meeting before we vote.

056Can I just add one comment? The the only disadvantage of moving it just to the end is sometimes the meetings are long and if somebody wanted to make a comment about the custodial bid, they have to wait now till we're done with policy before they can have their comments known which keeps an audience member here for a very long time when they really just wanted to come in and say something. Welcome to email the entire board with any like us to consider for the meeting when we're making a a vote on something. I'm on board. I'm on board with what Dr. Thomas is saying, although I prefer to keep a captive audience. No. Um I think it both ways though. I mean, I think I do think they can have it both ways. And I

057because they were having it both ways when when we first got on the board. And I do understand not having to sit through a three-hour meeting just to say one thing or to say I'm back or whatever it is that you've come to say. I feel like there's two there's there's three ways really essentially that this could look or it stays one it stays the way that it is and the language gets changed. Two, we provide only a public comment option at the end or we provide three a public comment option at the beginning and the end or it's just a freaking free-for-all and we have a dis we discuss our topic and then we open it up for the community which is what the language is reading to me how the language the current

058language reads now. So does that make sense? Like for example, we would have discussed the the custodial bid this evening and then we would have said any comments and that when this was written that's how it operated. Yeah. after, you know, a um presentation and when one of our presenters will say any comments or any questions, you know, if there was somebody in the audience, they'd say, "Yeah, I have a question." And ask the question, not not wait till the end of for public comment or anything. And you know, it it it worked. I mean, um I feel like we still have done that. And I've certainly sat at meetings where someone has been back there saying hi and we invite them up because our committee of the holes are are casual and conversational. This

059is more about bringing our meetings in line with our policy or changing our policy to be in line with our meetings. So I am my favorite option is is at the beginning and end and all that we would really need to do is change the sign-in sheet and say do you want to speak at the beginning or the end? You can check a box. we know who to call on or or we don't check a box or we just announce the first ones and then after we say if anybody has any questions then come step up to the podium. There you go. If you invite them up then you're in line with policy and I'm happy over here. I'm fine with either way. I'm fine with leaving it in the beginning with the signin portion

060and yes. Sure. Okay. So, let's just do my suggestion is then we do the sign-in portion for the beginning and we make it kind of a more relaxed if anybody does it by show hands. If you have a question after each item then at the end we do that after discussion. Are we all good with something like that? Yes, I'm fine with that. Did then in your opinion does any of that language need to be changed? It's just conforming to the language. Correct. That is bringing our meetings in conformance with the policy. No problems now. Okay. Thanks for that uh historical tidbit there, Julie, and letting us know that that's how it used to be and everything was okay. And that that's what we need that would come to each uh right you know meeting

061had good questions just a couple of points of clarification so is that discussion after each agenda item or is that discussion at the be or questions at the beginning question um I'll just make a general where did did the public have any questions and if nobody raises their hand then we don't have any questions can we clarify because I believe there's other policy though as it relates to our school board meetings that we don't enter into conversations back and forth during that time. So, we can take questions and we will provide answers to those or will that be because I think it could become problematic at certain times if um we're not able to provide an answer to a certain po community member, but then we can provide this one. So, I think we do

062a really good job. I know a lot of the questions are to Mr. shepher of we take those questions and then we make sure before they even leave before they leave this audience or we I've even followed up through email to make sure that we are able to get that person back the information they need. I just know we have other policy that states um we will not engage in conversations back and forth. Is that just for um regular board meetings? Not right that like so what I'm saying is though I think we need to clarify what that looks like because this is comments. This does not refer to questions. Um and so I want to be clear and transparent to the board. So so to the community that they understand if questions are asked

063during the time that we are collecting those questions. we will provide answers, but I think for the flow and for the efficiency of a meeting, um, we wouldn't want to stop to answer each one of those individual questions, but we will get answers back to the community. I think that makes sense. I think if the public has qu, you know, has comments about what they just heard, a comment is a comment, question is a question. I think they're two different things. So, I think if there's a question that will need an answer that it would be something that we would get their information and get back to them with whatever information that they're requesting, what their question was. Uh, if they have a comment about what they heard, that would be something they could immediately

064make the comments about what they're hearing. And I'll confirm that there's no conflict with the policy of board meeting procedure because it does it does say that somewhere in polic and I believe under board meeting procedure. Um also with 2150 um gosh exhibit there is forgive me when I was reading through 2150. What is a current superintendent committee? It should be listed on in the board's policy. Um, it's a board committee. It's required. It's a state requirement. It was the parent teacher superintendent advisory committee was the parent teacher advisory committee and behavioral interventions committee. However, the behavioral interventions committee I believe um let me let me just read you footnote here from press on the two. So what we're talking about is kind of between policy 2150 and 21E which was taken out but there

065is a committee that is there are two committees that are currently superintendent committees and here is the footnote here um from press and it says 105 ILCS5-10 20.14 requires all districts to establish and maintain a parent teacher advisory committee to develop with the board policy guidelines on student discipline um etc. But boards must establish and maintain a behavioral interventions committee and to develop these procedures with ISB's guidelines. Um so basically where everywhere I was reading this was saying that this belongs under the board and not the superintendent. Um further I looked to ISAB for more um under their um little snippet here called clearing up the confusion on board committees. And one of them specifically um brings up this topic and the question is does a board have to establish committees? And it says in

066some instances the law requires boards to establish certain committees including the parent teacher advisory committee and behavioral interventions committee. So my suggestion here would be that these two appear under board and um that down the line then we can have the discussion of what that actually looks like. Simplified. You're just saying add a number four. So superintendent committee is three with the superintendent advisory committee put a four. But the other two committees that we don't actually have right now. No, that's well yeah what I'm saying is that we need legally it's sounding like to me we need to move the committees out of superintendent in into board. That's what it's legally sounding like to me. But um I also think that we need to arrange rearrange 2150 and bring back 2150e. Um um yes. Yep.

067And this is where I am apologize that I have not developed a prototype, but I promise you it made sense when I used a highlighter and I showed President Darling. Um, can I I don't really know what to do. Can I develop something and maybe have it submit it to Dr. White and have them put it? I don't know what to So I think um for now we table that um we and we bring it back once we have a a prototype of what that would look like. Um then we would bring it back before the board. So we'll be tableabling that for right now. So 2150 and 2150E both. Yeah. Okay. Um can I I do want to make a note and I so I will also in that time check with our attorneys

068which I I was pretty sure we did. the the reason why it fell in superintendent committees and I'm fine either way um just as long as the work gets done. But if you read under behavioral intervention advisory committee um it states that the yes the board does have to ensure that we establish one. But then if you look at the let's see last sentence of that paragraph it says at the superintendent's discretion the parent teacher advisory committee shall perform the duties assigned to the behavioral intervention committee. Nothing in this policy limits the authority of the superintendent or designate to create and use committees that report to him or her or to other staff members. So that is the reason why based on that language if it's at the superintendent's discretion then that would it would

069fall under superintendent committees. But I will confirm since we're tableabling that just so I'll bring that back and have an answer to that. But I just want to clarify Miss Per why we put it there um was because of that language. Um but I'll have to look at my notes to make sure I contacted the attorney. With that, I will get an answer to that for sure. This was deliberate. Well, can I ask a question just real quick? And Dr. Thomas, you can chime in at any point, but I would assume it's under superintendent committees as well because the matter of such a committee would be sensitive information. So that's why it's at the discretion of superintendent and not the board. Right. It is, but we don't we generally do not talk about student specific

070issues. So in that sense, it's that is kept confidential. But still it's more general and in in practical matter usually the behavior intervention advisory committee is on at the same time as the parent advisory committee. And is this a matter of um title too? I mean like so this was drafted in 2023. So I guess it's pretty recent but prior dates that it was drafted like we didn't use titles such as like behavioral interventionist in 2012 as much as we use that now. So, is it really just a matter like the confusion comes from a matter of title? Um, I don't know if it's a matter of title. Some of those some of these weren't required until much later. Okay. I just think it's I I understand um sitting down with Mrs. Potter with this.

071To me, it's just a matter of it is very specifically out out laid out as a board as board committees and that's why I think she's trying to stick to the alignment with what we're being told by ISB and this is just in the very if you're going to pull up press this is going to this is going to appear as right in 2150 and not a superintendent committee. But it let me just read you this is going if if we did this the right way this could address some of the concerns that have been raised here by Miss Jetty and other members of the board um uh specifically um in regards to the parent teacher advisory committee. This committee assists in the development of student behavior policy and procedure and provides information and recommendations

072to the board. Its members are parents, guardians, teachers, and may include persons whose expertise or experience is needed. The committee reviews such issues as administering medication in the schools, reciprocal reporting between the district and local law enforcement agencies regarding criminal offenses committed by students, students discipline, disruptive classroom behavior, school bus, excuse me, school bus safety procedures, and the dissemination of student conduct information. I think that these are all issues that the board members have raised as well and had questions about what do we do and right getting the input from the community would be helpful. So we are going to so we're going to table this for right now until we into the legal. Right. Exactly. I think there's more question maybe. Right. I would have questions about what that would look like and everything.

073Right. Of course. I think your microphone's dying out. So skip 2150 because that was tabled. um board involvement in legislative issues is 2152. Uh my recommendation and this is okay this is also specific to D26 and it was removed from the policy manual. My suggestion would be to keep as a guide for board legislative involvement. Um I believe it's needed and it's not addressed in other board policies. Um, this is a guide for how the board is to more or less behave or conduct or focus our um any kind of legislative priorities and that would go along with 212E. This is a very political charged um policy and I think it should we are supposed to be a nonpartisan board and I kind of think that this opens up um for way too bringing way

074too much politics into the board. When this was written, it was written by a person that was it had very different political views than are popular right now. Um, and I just think in today's climate, this this is a can of worms um waiting to be open. As far as legislative issues that affect the you know um us as you know whether it's state funding or like a couple years ago they mandated we had to have three days of PE. We had to hire another PE teacher. I think that could be the superintendent or his design's responsibility to say, "Hey, Springfield's got this in line." But and we deal with what Springfield is giving us or Washington is giving us. But, uh, you know, having I I just think this could be a can of

075worms. And that's why I remember, you know, it it's the the political climate is so charged right now. I hate to see it brought into um our schools. So when we go to the IASB conference, one of the activities of the IASB conference is for delegates from every school district to vote on legislative issues as part of our job responsibility as a board. Um like it or not, legislation is part of our job sitting up here. I mean and it it has nothing to do with political party. It has to do with what legislation that is going on in the country in the states that affects funding that our school districts get that that affects our day-to-day operation as a public school district. And I think it's important that we have we we have a

076legislative committee. We have legislative le um board members that are on a legislative committee. I think it's important that we have board members that are keeping an eye on things that are going to eventually affect our funding. Um it's important. Um I can see I can see both of your points. I think I lean a little bit more um toward Julie just based on how this has been written. Um, I would be um I think it's more than I do think it's it's it is a a benefit to us to hear what legislation is being proposed and voted on at the state level specifically given the nature of education at the federal level because we're going to be seeing more coming from our state legislators. I I do think just some of this language such

077as the lobbying that could be charged. Y okay establishing and maintaining legislative positions maybe not at the meeting. We do not establish our positions. The voting component that's not part of our meetings though that is separate. Um establishing and maintaining relationships with district legislatures. I mean that would have to be that could be simple as like this is SB whatever an email out to both like we just have to make sure like but it I can see where Julie's worried about some of the language in here and if it was written at a time I think 2011 when the author of this may have had um another agenda we need to be careful and if it is included I don't think it can be included as is right. I believe that it I hear you

078and I believe that it can be both and really how I'm looking at this as um what it's saying what it's saying here everything that we're worried about it's these are activities that may include but are not limited to but this is really um saying that as a part of its duties the board will advocate for or against legislation aligned or not aligned with the district's philosophies and goals. Um, I think that that's natural. I think I feel like it can it can be both. Uh, I believe not having this is kind of opening a can of worms. This is and and this is why. Okay. I do want to say that I do hear the concern that the that the board remain non-political. That's what I feel like I'm hearing from Miss Jetty and

079that's what I feel like, you know, it says, you know, um inviting legislators to meet with district stakeholders. Um you know, are you just going to invite a Republican or you invite a Democrat? Are you going to invite whoever our representatives are? I feel like without this and then in conjunction with the exhibit which are are board legis uh are the legislative positions that the board can change or bring recommendations to or change or whatever. If these aren't focused and this is just how I feel if we don't have something that focuses our attention that's when it can go off the rails. That's when you can have a board member just doing and saying whatever it is they want representing the board. But right now we have policy written saying that these are what we're

080focusing on and when we are focusing on these are interacting or being in touch with our representatives. These are what we're going this is what we're going to discuss and they're going to align with the district's philosophies and the goals. It's not going to be a matter of what in certain what you believe in as a personal citizen. It's more of a board. Does press have something on this? You're acting more as a So, no, press doesn't. This is a district 26 specific policy. I I would point out the um the comments money to make sure we're kept up to date. The board's kept up to date on legislative issues and things like that. That's actually in 2150. It's to have a legislative leaison. We have in the past at times where a portion of

081the policy committee meeting which will be part of the committee of the whole reviewed some of the kind of hot topics that were coming up. Um so that is actually covered under 2150. On the other hand, um you know, with this one, the concern would be again district uh 26 specific last updated in 2011. This one doesn't come up for regular review. As I read this, I it was revised in 2022. 2011 I'm seeing. Are you on 2152? Okay. 2152 was 2011. As I read the language in here, my concern would be that this hasn't been reviewed in the last 14 years by any attorneys and are there things in here that the board members did are not even uh legal anymore. Those are the kinds of things that I would be worried about. Um,

082so I think if the idea is to make sure that the board and the public are kept deprised of legislative issues, that's covered in 2150 and that's something that could be added as a standing item in the uh in the cow or every third month or whatever. But this one I am a little bit concerned because I don't know if you're all as board members allowed to lobby with I don't know I that's something I think we'd have to get clarification. I just think it does open up so issues. So one of my recommend I just had a couple things on this one. One um again this is board policy and this involves only the board. So but I wanted to give the board just some pieces of information to maybe help guide you all

083as you all make a decision. one, I think if we do move forward with a 2152 that it does need to be revi I mean reviewed by an attorney since it hasn't been reviewed in that time. Um my second piece is I don't know if there's a need for 2152E because if you remember when we sent delegates to the ISB conference we reviewed all of their legislative positions and took a stand. So, we have that and then the board will be I'll be bringing forward to the board um in March um I'm sorry in April vision 2030 which is from the Illinois State Board of Education that outlines a lot of the views in in um the focuses that are really implicated in that exhibit and that is a um resolution rather than a policy.

084Um, and so I think some of those stances or those positions may better live in a resolution than within the policy just as we did with the safe zone um, resolution. Um, and so that would be my recommendations. If the board wants to move forward with any of those, I think we do need to just get that language updated and reviewed by an attorney. And then I just want to give you all those pieces of information related to the um, 2152E. I'm all for Yeah, I was going to say thank you, Dr. White. I do think this should definitely be one of the ones that we're going to table to the end and then we have our district policies that ship off to the attorneys. Um I think this has actually been a really interesting

085conversation because it's reminded me that when I started on the board in 2019, there did used to be more legislative announcements. I have to if I'm pulling from my memory, which I've been trying to do over here, I think they probably went by the wayside on CO because we were having very monthly updates on obviously everything that was going on and then it might have gotten lost in transition. So it would be interesting to bring that back. I think we should know what's going on because we always talk about what's coming down the pipeline. Are we budgeting for it? Things like accessibility, things like cell phones, those are clearly hot buttons. Um, I am certainly concerned about whether or not we can lobby or not or whether we should. I think that's a really good

086question. I think the board should certainly have stances on certain things. There are certain bills that our state passes that impact what we do here. And so having a general and and trying to understand if that policy they are trying to pass in Springfield aligns with D26 policy that makes sense. Yeah. I mean and that's not a political statement. That's not a Democratic or Republican. That's a does what they're doing in Springfield align with what we're doing here. If it does, great. We can recommend that we would vote. You know, we can put out information. We recommend this is a favorable vote, but otherwise this violates our policy. We don't recommend it's a vote. That's not necessarily a party politics statement. that is a board and and aligning policy to state voting. So I do

087I think this goes to the side attorneys can review this when we send them everything but we can come up with a bundle for them. I think when we look at the subjects that are on there it's like regarding tips regarding unfunded mandates. I mean, these are things that we should be, in my opinion, as a school district advocating for or against um because it affects our bottom line directly and if we're able to retain our staff, our entire full staff as well. So, yeah, I I think we table it and kind of look at the legalities of bringing it to the modern day. Yep. So, I'll get it to the attorney if they have any they can even tell they could tell me, "No, you shouldn't have this." take it out immediately or here

088are some possible revisions to make it in line with that. Um I do under I do get the you know the census of that. I know Mr. Shepard and I keep a keen eye. I think one of the challenges also of it living in policy are there's over a thousand bills issued and then we we use even the organizations we belong to to monitor the ones that are really going to impact our work because it's so much. So, I think, you know, figuring out how that could also live in there from the attorney could also be um helpful in the process. Agreed. I'm sure we don't need every lengthy bill that comes to the floor. There are plenty of bills that die right at that time. Okay. So, we're all good with um willingness to

089check in. So, and then in the meantime, y I'll make sure to make it obvious on why we need this, right? And then 2160 is the next one. Correct. 2160E is was not included in the manual. It's it's new to D26. It's checklist for selecting a board attorney. Um it's not included in the draft, but this exhibit serves really only as a guide for the board should they need to use it. I understand the um board has very specific attorneys for very specific reasons. Um, I'm not bringing this forward for any other reason than for future boards and their guidance. I'm not looking to get a new attorney. I'm not looking forward to change anything. I just believe that this is an exhibit that is for board reference and that's it. one this is one

090of the ones that we had asked um IASB about uh with exhibits and is exhibit is it just guidance or is it part of policy and their response was that it's part of policy so that an exhibit that is part of policy needs to reflect the actual practice of the district. So my only suggestion would be that if this were to be brought in that we align this with what our practice is of how we hire a superintendent. So because what's on here is not what the district currently does. So that's that was the recommendation they had is make sure that your policy your exhibits reflect the actual practice. This was a checklist for the board attorney. I know which one you not the superintendent. I'm sorry for the board attorney. Yep. No, I know

091the superintendent one's different and I'm going to suggest we have that one too. But um yeah, it was the same that it was the same comment on that as the other one. it. That was something they just said is you just have to make sure that it aligns with your district practice. So, if this isn't our practice, it it their suggestion is it's not something you would put in there for the future. It's you put it in there for what your practice is. It doesn't mean that 216E couldn't come in, but we would want to make sure it's aligned with what we actually So, I guess we take a look at that and make sure that it is in alignment. And well, no, I don't think I'm going to disagree with everybody here because this

092is clearly, if you look at it, it's 2160E checklist for selecting a board attorney. It says the school board selects and retains the board attorneys. The board may use this checklist for guidance when it selects and retains attorneys and/or law firms. It doesn't say that we must. This is just simply something that should a board 15 years from now. And Julie sitting there, she can go and use the checklist. If we need an attorney, but if we need an attorney, there's nothing that stops us from finding one and using this as guidance. I think to Dr. Thomas's point, when it's in the policy, it's policy. What's the point of it having there? Why why have six pages of what we may do? We have policies for RFPs. We don't do RFPs for attorneys unless we

093were putting down a retainer that's more than $25,000, right? Cuz that's when in our May. You know the difference between may somebody on the if somebody on the board 15 years from now, they're not even going to know that this even exists or that this is even a thing that could ever be helpful. It's not a thing we use or that is helpful right now either. We don't have a need for it currently, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. I'm I'm failing with the may do this and then six pages of text afterward. That's where that's where I'm inherently rebelling. Write the policy. I'm I I'm the checklist and it's but it's something that's there as a reference should the board need it down the line. It is it is in press so

094it is something that will come up for review at the very minimum every 5 years or more often if there's any changes to uh press on this sooner than that. So it is still out there and exists because it is part of press. It may not be adopted right now by our district but it it is still out there as a reference guide that the board could pull it at any time if they wanted and incorporate it later. So, a future board that wants to have this in there could put that if that's something that they're doing. Um, but if it's not something the board currently does, ISB's recommendation is if it's not current practice that you wouldn't put it in your policy, then I would say that in at the very minimum and in

095in policy 2160, there should be a reference in that policy 2160 that should a board need an exhibit on selecting a checklist for selecting an attorney that here it is. Click 2160E. Correct. Well, you could just it could just be in 2160. It's just a checklist. That would just be named a checklist. Then you might as well just have 2160. I just think it's easier to I mean, it's just it doesn't have to be I I just think it could be just a check a click on the 2160 to get to the checklist. I have never known the board to pick an attorney. That is someone had to hire our attorneys. Guidance is all I'm saying. They're usually brought forth by our administration because you know you don't exactly go on the yellow pages and

096you know there um agreed but Julie just because we don't I mean it's the same thing with the board's responsibility is to be the ones that hire the architect. It's never been brought before me as a board member. Why? It's part of our policy. Because we've had the same architecture whole tenure on the board, I assume. But I'm It's still our responsibility as a board to that that falls under our jurisdiction that we we should be reviewing that. We should be and I think the same goes for the board attorney. I mean, it is something that there's a reason it's in section two. Well, and this one is specific, well, let's put a pause on this. This one is specifically to the board attorney, not the district's attorney, not the attorneys we consult with for

097other things, right? This is our attorney. Um, can I make a recommendation since at the cow you the board does not make a decision, we can pull this one and we will put this as an action item 2160E one and it could and the board can vote on it. And that was going to be my suggestion when I was done. I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm sorry. Okay. If if we can't agree as we're sitting here, then it's a it's a it's a voting thing, not a consent agenda item. Okay. Next is 2170. Okay. I am suggesting on 21 170 procurement of architectural auditors, engineering and land surveying services that the former D26 policy language be added to the bottom of the draft of the policy here. And that would be quote the

098person or representative from the firm selected shall meet with the superintendent and the board of education to discuss responsibilities and scope of services. My suggestion would be superintendent and board of education and or board designate just in case that we don't need to have a seven-person meeting. If you're just trying to to vet somebody or sit down and have a meeting, we have this is literally the language from two months ago that we were using. Are you saying you're upset with me for not having that thought two months ago? Yeah. Um, I think that honestly for me, I personally believe that this is an expectation that somebody would come here and discuss the scope of a project and the responsibilities with the board. This is language that was in the D26 policy and I'm just

099recommending that it be moved over to the new policy language. Again, it's the person or representative from the firm selected shall meet with the superintendent in the board of education to discuss responsibilities and scope of services. I agree. And that's in reference to procurement of architectural auditors engineering and land surveying services policy 2170. I just Excuse me. I just have a couple questions just for for clarification on on my part for what this would uh uh entail. Is the board thinking then uh the the uh an architect would be here to um unveil projects to be here for every meeting to discuss um various intricacies of uh the building project. Um that's the that's the question that I have with how the policy is worded. Um I do not I I completely agree that the

100architect can come here and kick off a project and introduce it especially if there's uh something being approved. Um my question and where I need clarification is uh the scope of the architect's involvement with the board after that is is the board uh looking to u basically be in on construction meetings with uh said um architect and design team. I from my end I certainly would not want to see the architect at our monthly meetings during a project because then we are paying the architect to be at our monthly meetings and that's not a wise use of anybody's resources and when you guys have brought like we have lived through construction projects you guys have brought us the architects and the engineers at at the kickoff project or when different you know uh drawings are

101being approved when when the major decisions are made you guys have brought us the architect so that we can ask our questions to the person instead of funneling them through through the administration which has always been helpful. So from my perspective what has gone on so far has made a lot of sense and and that's the clarification I'm looking for because I want to make sure that uh we are uh inviting uh our our design team our architects uh to be here in front of the board when it's expected but not overbearing because that is an additional uh cost on the board. Certainly I was not expecting to have to have a architect sitting here every day. Um we have a meeting. Um but for example, we brought forth a new layout of a of

102the transportation center. It would have been nice if the architect was here that could answer the questions that we had about the entrances at the north and south end of the of the project about the flow of traffic about how they came to that layout, why we needed all the parking spaces. It would have been nice to have the architect answering and going forward we'll be sure to have that. I think Mr. Shepard and I had that conversation. And I think our intention is we should have not made the assumption but because we didn't make major changes to the plans for the building that had already been approved that was the reason why Mr. Staler was not here. He had been he was here when the board um originally did that. But going forward we

103will have him here at any approval of the board or any of our um any of those individuals listed in this policy. Um the policy does though stay it does not take the power of from the board. It says the board of education selects architects, engineers, and land surveyors to provide professional service to the district. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but it says in in accordance with state law. So, there are very clear guidelines of things we have to do and follow and um the board's responsibility in that as well as the management. Um so, again, that's there. I'm indifferent to whether the language is added. we don't have a problem adding in there, but I do think that the language in the policy and what's being added may be redundant there,

104but again, that's the board's decision to determine if they um need that information added. It's not, in my opinion, it's not redundant at all. the entire policy 2170 as I'm recommending and this is again procurement of architectural engineering and land surveying services. These aren't things that are cheap or should be you know uh approved um willy-nilly. Um the entire policy would only read the board of education selects architects, engineers and land surveyors to provide professional services to the district on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications and in accordance with state law. The person or representative from the firm selected shall meet with the superintendent in the board of education to discuss the responsibilities and the scope of services. I think that if we don't have policy language is so important that if we don't

105have language, I'm not suggesting Mr. Shepherd's going to hide away our architect and keep them from us and not answer questions or anything like that. But if that language isn't there then that language right adding that language directs um gives the intention of the boards. The board's intention is to hear from the person who is going to be in charge of those projects and those services. You've sold me. Without it, it doesn't have to get done. No, you've sold me. I the I don't have a question. I feel like we could spend all night clarifying or debating, but like the way it's written, that is what is accomplished. I think if there's if there's a further thought that marinates or percolates, I'll send an email, but I don't have any further ones. I think it's

106fine. I mean, to me, this policy seems like it's like if you're that I think I hear Mrs. Patter and Mrs. Darling, before we before the architect or the land surveyor does any plans, they have to introduce themselves to the board and get approval. um just in answer our questions just about the project like well I don't think that's what this is saying that they're going to tell you about discuss the responsibility and scope of their services not their plans that they drew up of their services okay so you know you could have an architectural company come out and say uh we you know we have so many different types of architects We have so many civil engineers. We all this is the scope of their services that you know and what I'm hearing from

107you is like you wanted Mr. Staller here to answer questions about a specific plan that had been drawn up. I think it's two different things and you know Mr. Staller has been with us for years. So, we kind of know the scope of his services and but when he was originally put on retainer, he did make a presentation to the board. Um, and I think now we're next week um the the representative from the janitorial company will come in and we can ask him scope of his services. But every year when we renew the contract or something, we don't have to have them come in. That's kind of where Julie's at in my interpretation of it. I feel like it could be costly if we are um bringing them in often. I feel like we

108are one part of the process and for me it's always been of course we are you know we're the oversight but I'm I have confidence that Mr. Shepard is going to bring in the right people if they're going to come and present which we have had presentations on um the plans. It seems like to me we kind of already satisfy that. The scope of services makes me nervous. It sounds like in a way it's an interview in its effect. Yeah. And that could be, you know, we say no next next person, you know, like that. I feel like that's the job of Mr. Sheepard. I'm not reading it that way. This is language that the that we were literally using two months ago. It's not doing anything other than saying that it is the board

109desiring that the architecture, the engineer, the land surveyor that they come to that they come before us and describe what it is they're going to do and answer our questions. Not like it's an interview because we've already selected them employed by us just that they would go over well this is what we this is what why I believe that we're going to put the we're going to put the building at a 45 degree angle or something like that. You know that's how I read it. And without that I don't know if future boards will have that. I'm not saying that they won't, but I'm thinking long-term policy, not what's currently happening. I don't mind putting it to a vote. So section 8 language added. Language. Yep. And section 8. Got it. 22 220. Okay. So,

110Oh, go ahead. Oh, no. I was going to say I think this, let me double check, but I think this was one that you had emailed us about earlier. I think we captured what and when we made the gra um grammatical or typos, but I want to double check before I say that that adding or designate was added. So let me to what was already adopted by the board. It was par I had suggested that paragraph three under agenda of two to 20 add or designate after the superintendent is that what was discussed in committee and it is there so I took it off the list. Yeah I think it got missed the first time but then it has been added. So designate does exist there. Sorry that one has a lot of exhibits so

111I had to do a lot of swiping. Okay. So, um 22 250 E1, these are the last two. Um 2250E1, this is an exhibit written request for district public records. This was moved to the procedure manual um and out of the policy manual, but this is a standard form. This is just your standard whatever um request form. and I'm okay with any version of it so long as it's publicly accessible. I know that there's a link somewhere in the on the district's website, but um just having it here is um I believe just part of what our duty is. Somebody I think somebody just recently used that form too with a submittal of a foya. I'm okay with leaving it in. It doesn't Nobody I Nobody That's not our current form. We replace it with

112our current form. I have no preference for form, but I do think it's best practice and to have some version so long as it's publicly accessible. Well, I think it's most important to have something on our website that kind of, you know, grabs a person attention so they don't have to go digging for it. And, you know, to me it's redundant. maybe to have it in here. But if you want to have it in here, it just has to be the same thing as when they go to that hot button and click on it and get the form. I think the form has to be consistent just as long as and I think when this was discussed in committee my understanding was that the form itself was a procedural part but the board establishes the

113our stance or the board stance on access to district public records and as well as around around the foyer information. So that was why the recommendation was to re remove 250 E1 250 250 still exist. Um but yes, if the board decides we I would my only recommendation is if the if the board is requesting 22 250e1 that at least be the updated one and then we just need to make sure that any each if there's ever changes to FOYA laws that we would then have to bring this back before the board to change that which I mean we would be a one you know within when that law goes into effect and when the board would take action on it would would be the change. So I think that was the purpose of having

114it not in the per in the policy manual is because that way we can be and we can make changes to the form as needed without it having to come back before the board each time to be changed. Well press has press right has a form that would just be updated if the law changes. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. But even if we wanted to make any changes for our managerial purposes such as going beyond the law or asking for additional information or specific information of how they want it responded, we can make changes to our current form as long as we abide by the law. So anytime we want to make a change to that form for what I can't think of a reason right now, but anytime we would want to make

115a change to our current form, we would just need to bring it back before the board. People don't even have to use a form though to submit a foyer request. they can just write an email and then it's like but this is just one I'm just saying this should be in here because if somebody's looking around um for it they may look for it here right and it's that's that's the board's disc decision I just wanted to make the board under understand that if we do make changes we would just need to bring it back for the board so if we see it come back that's why we would need to bring it back would have to do whether whether that form changed or whether a polic or it changed within the state uh uh

116mandating us to have something change in it as well. It would have to come before us either way. Correct. Not if it not if it didn't require a change in policy, but yes, if we're going to include it as 250 E1, then yes, it would. I guess what I I guess what I would recommend is look at 22 250 and then see if it goes is the same thing for 250 E2. Well, 250 E2 is a little bit different because that was moved to the procedure manual. Um, and having a list of publicly available records is required by FOYA. And so that's why I'm bringing this back. Press footnote one um addresses this um for policy 2250 E2 immediately available district public records and web posted reports and records. Um, press footnote one addresses the

117need to have this exhibit in our policy manual. And having this exhibit placed in the AP manual restricts access to its contents and um, decreases our board's goal of transparency. Um, but this list would need to be updated to remove specific instances that do not pertain to our district. And to tell you the truth, I can't stand I can't stand this is the number one policy I can't stand. It's annoying. I'm sure Dr. Thomas, I'm almost sure that this is the worst, right? Cuz it's a very long list of what is and is not available and it's changing and it goes with the law and it has to it has to get updated all the time. But unfortunately it's saying when I'm reading the legal footnotes um that this has exhibit has two purposes to

118identify the data and documents that must be posted on a district's website if the district has a website and two to fulfill the requirement of the freedom of information act for the district's foy officer to designate the public records that are immediately available to the public. Um again, this should be posted. And here it is. Press has one. And that fills the requirement, the requirement to have it posted. And if we can put it in press and then just update and it'll update a little bit easier maybe for both of these um 250 E1 and 22 250 E2 these it similar um press recommended that these go into procedures. So again doesn't matter it to me whether it's in or out but the press recommendation was for it to go to procedures. Um, and on

119these we would just need clarification. Like if 2 250 E1 is to be added, I assume we would then add it with the actual form that we use and 22 250E2. If that's added back in, we would go through and remove the things like driver's ed and things that don't apply to the district. Well, those things should already be removed, I suppose, if it was just moved over to the AP manual. And I don't recall it being ISB recommending it be moved to the procedural manual because they would it would be an AP. It would be an AP um policy if that's it wouldn't show up in the board policy in press. All the ones that were moved to the procedural manual were at the recommendation of IASB. That's not something that came from us.

120That's something that came directly from press. And similarly to E1, again I'm I'm indifferent because we will comply with all of these because the law um this would this is going to require updates annually. Um it looks like in previous past there have been some years missed because these re the forms themselves are what has to be posted not necessarily the list of the postings. And so um again we would just need to figure out what the rotation would look like to make sure that this gets brought back before the board when there's any changes that um would apply to this policy or anything that is may be removed. This policy would have to be again if we're talking again I just want to be clear that 22 250 E2 regardless of what manual it

121is in is going to have to constantly be updated and it's annoying right but what I'm saying is but it would then we can't just update it and move forward with that as procedure because it's procedural to update these on the on the website and to get to make sure that they're posted. But anytime there's a change to required posted material, we will need to bring this list back to the board to update this list because it exists in policy. If it exists in procedure, we don't have to bring it back to the board on the month of the board meeting to get action. We can make those changes, update those um documents. Then again, if the board chooses, I'm bringing that information to not again, it's I'm not in part of the decision-m. I

122just want the board to be clear on if we move forward with this what that looks like. I am totally okay with whatever the board decides. I don't have a dog in the fight whatsoever. I just want you all to understand what it means if we do move forward. Right. So for the reason of the simple reason of transparency, I am in support of keeping them in here as well as in the procedural because otherwise we are not going to be aware of any of those changes if they're being made without us knowing about it or being informed about it. I agree. I agree with you, President Darling. And I think that personally I think that we all just heard why this was getting moved into the AP manual and that's just because then it

123can be changed on the fly. It's not something it's not no as it's happening and not and not waiting to bring it to the board. Yeah. That's not but it's not like the board has any fun looking at this list and updating it either. It's it's I'm asking the board to look look into look into press but ultimately why the reason why I'm bringing this forward is because this addresses the need for this exhibit to appear in our board policy manual like it says so in press that it's a requirement to have the publicly listed um records and that it needs to be publicly posted. So, it's going to have to be updated or whatever anyways, but there's if if it's not posted here, where is it going to be posted? Because we have that

124legal requirement that there needs to be a list an updated list of publicly available district records. All those records are available on the website. So I mean that's where it gets posted is on the website. It's not about posting the list. It's making sure the documents on the list are posted. So will we be including this in two or would we like to move this to action items? Action item. And that concludes that portion. Okay, next up we have a close session for the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employees of the public public body 5CS120-2 CL C1. May I have a motion to adjurnn to close session? So moved. Second. Any discussion? Take a roll call, please. Mindy Hartman, yes. Stacy Salt, absent. Mrs. Darling D. Darling, yes. Jason Janzik is

125also absent for the record. Katherine Potter, yes. Julie Jetty, yes. And Sanucci, yes. Thank you. That motion's approved. Open session ends at 7:54.