001meeting for Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation. Um, we'll start with roll call. We have in attendance Mr. Click, Mr. Nan, Mr. Stunner, Mr. Miss Lloyd, we are expecting Miss Wen. She is not here yet. And on video we have Mr. Schulz. Can you hear us, Mr. Schulz? >> Yep. >> Okay, great. And we can hear you. Thank you. U Dr. Phillips, you want to run through the and why? >> We'll do. Thank you. Um we have so this work session for this evening is focused on policy reviews. Um we put them in three different groups. The first group being the three policies that were pulled out of package 5 that uh the board voted on um at the August 11th meeting. Those are C475E 125 and H100. And then the second group are the three that
002Mr. Schultz uh proposed amendments to um and those are A125, D150 and then I think actually B125 is inaccurate. The third one is is the topic of committees. Um and we do have an existing board policy which is B150 that includes committees but the reference to it I believe is just one sentence. But we do you do have in front of you um a document with descriptions of the changes and the comments from Mr. Schultz as well as a few things that we were able to address during the course of the day today. And then the third group of policies is policy package six that will be on its first reading at the September 8th board meeting. And tonight, as usual, we have Mr. MacGyver here, the BCSSE board attorney, and then joining him is
003Julia and is it Kaziki? >> Kosiki from Church Church Hill and Antrim that has of course been working with us on this policy consolidation and uh reorganization. I think uh I think I saw an email that indicated that we might want to start the meeting with opportunity for public input. So if there's a member of the public that would like to address any of the policy considerations that are up tonight, I'd invite them to come to the podium. Seeing that there's no one, we can proceed with the agenda. >> Thank you. So the first item is policy C475 which is school sponsored publications and productions. And in that policy there is a prohibition against uh materials that are obscene and indecent or vulgar. And there was a question um from two different board members, Mr.
004Major back during the July board meeting after that meeting and then also from Mr. Schultz uh around that the the definition of obscene and uh indecent or vulgar and then also Mr. Major had asked about is there a reason to or is it logical to have the language mirror what we also consider inappropriate from a uh from a book u curricular material standpoint? Mr. MacGyver or Mrs. Kosiki, any input on those from a legal standpoint? >> So your policy Sorry. The policy as drafted is reflecting how the Supreme Court has referred to obscene, indecent or vulgar. I mean, we drafted it mirroring Supreme Court opinions on the First Amendment over decades. um your library material policy, which may not be to you yet, but um there was Indiana legislation in the last two years where
005we the general assembly has created a definition for obscene matter or performance. Um it is similar to but not the same as US Supreme Court law. Um you can certainly choose to use the Indiana definition or you can go with the slightly less defined um obscene, indecent or vulgar um that the Supreme Court references. Um knowing that when the Supreme Court talks about obscene, indecent or vulgar um they often say, you know, I know it when I see it is the classic phrase. So, um that would be a matter of discretion for the board versus the very specific Indiana definition. Matter or performance is obscene for the purposes of the article if the average person applying contemporary community standards finds the dominant theme of the matter or performance taken as a whole appeals to the
006purant interest in sex. Um, you might find indecent or vulgar extends beyond sex. But if you want to limit it to obscene, then you're pretty well limited to sex. So also that it would be lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. So >> we we'd be happy either way. But that gives you kind of a sense of, you know, what your options are as a board. >> Just to summarize what I think our objective is this evening, and please uh jump in if I get this wrong, but we want to make sure that all of the board's questions about these policies are clarified. We don't want to come to any agreement what the wording should be. U Dr. Phillips, I suspect that you may want to make some changes based on what you hear,
007but so far you're bringing a recommendation to the board and then the board is working with that recommendation. Is that the way we're going to continue? >> That's correct. Thank you for the clarification there. uh after listening to the input and discussion from board members, we will either make adjustments to these drafts policies that we will take again in front of you for a second reading at the September 8th board meeting or we won't make changes and bring them to you for approval at the September 8th board meeting based on the discussion tonight. I from our perspective the same as Miss Kaziki's is that we do not have a strong feeling as administr administrative team either way how it's defined in this policy versus the library materials policy. So I'm interested in discussion among board
008members as to whether or not the majority of you should say that whether or not you any of you have concerns about going one direction or the other. input from board members on this one. >> Believe my notes may be what's in the word document. Um, and the reason I brought this up as a question is when you look at board board governance, we should try to keep and it kind of goes, it's kind of a common theme in multiple callouts, but we should attempt attempt to keep the policies consistent regarding definition, regarding subject matter between depending on which party it is. So, we've used the term obscene and the other one and then we're going to use the same term obscene here, >> but it could mean something slightly different. And that's why I
009did ask the question >> would and so I don't know who spoke but um the lawyer that just recently spoke was like asking I think my question more is around do the students get the same privilege of lacking literary or educational value as the library materials or do they not? Because my assumption would be is if we're going to put that as the bar here, we have to put that as the bar regarding regardless of who the party is involved. And I would say that just based on our past practice um and the items that have come to the board to the board level from student publications. It would be um that we have the board has chosen to apply that standard uh the same standard as applies to the library materials is that it
010has to lack you know lack value overall artistic political value. >> Yeah. I mean, so in my opinion, then what I would say is that just needs to have that same caveat in that policy as it does in the other. >> Any questions or concerns from any other board members? >> Uh, I think another thing you and I talked about uh Dr. Phillips was with this uh policy because somebody is going to be authoring something or designing something. Who owns the copyright on the material that is created? Is it the author or is it the school corporation? Because it's not clearly defined here. And so I'm just trying to figure out who who who that who would own that. I would assume it's the publishing company, but well, >> typically the school corporation be the
011publisher. So, >> yeah, >> that should be clear. >> But does a but does a publisher own a copyright or does the author own the copyright? I was under the impression as soon as anybody wrote something of value, it became their copyright material until they gave that copyright authorization to someone else to then publish. So, do we have a document that would tell or in this policy do we wish to describe how that copyright would be owned by the school corporation? And that way we don't get challenged. And and the reason why I'm saying this is if we had something that was creative enough that was a slogan that a kid used, put on a t-shirt, the school sold t-shirts, made $5,000, and the kid wanted the $5,000. I'm just trying to figure out how
012to protect both sides here with something that is is at least in writing enough that would describe to them that uh it does belong to the school corporation or to them. >> That is a great question and not one that I've had asked before with respect to this policy. So not my immediate area of expertise. So we'll do some research >> and and it's okay to not have an answer tonight. The reason why I ask is as an engineer when I go to work if I come up with a creative novel concept that has not been done before and I develop it for work, I can't then go take it outside of work and sell it. And so that's where I think I know when I sign an employment contract that I am agreeing to
013do that. So whether it's in the policy or if we figure out how to put it in an authorization form or something, I just want to make sure that all parties are protected. And I would assume, Mr. Major, that that that doctrine that you're talking about is like works made for hire and that's why you as an employee don't necessarily own that. And I I would not assume that that doctrine would apply for the student journalist student newspaper. They're not in that same employ. context. >> Yep. >> Other questions or comments on C475? >> Thank you. On uh so the next policy in this group is E125 promotion, placement and retention of students. Um the the proposed policy E125 had a sub substantive difference from our existing policy in that it excluded um both all
014of those promotion, placement, retention and grades of students from superintendent and board appeal. So, a person who disagreed with a grade um a student being promoted to the next grade or retained in a current grade could not appeal to the level of the superintendent or the board. That was a meaningful difference from the existing policy. And so we do not have opposition to striking that um striking that sentence that the board and or superintendent shall not hear appeals or complaints regarding a student's grade or promotion retention. would be hesitant to add an additional clarification of an appeal or complaint process within other policies because we currently have our complaint public complaint policy in place and just repeating that policy in different places is where we want to avoid that's where we are with our NEO
015policies now where there are times and you all have seen them that language that was repeated in two different policies over the course of years came to conflict with one another. And so I would just want to refer to uh the existing policy on complaints in there if we wanted to if we wanted to address their ability to appeal a grade promotion or retention. >> And I mean again, I think it was my notes in there. I'm 100% aligned. I would rather refer to the other policy for consistency purposes. And then again, that just helps us as board members. If someone says, "Hey, I want you to do XY." When I'm they're talking to me in public, it's like, "Here's the policy. Here's where the chain of command is. Here is where you follow." And
016just move through that process. >> One one thing I've noticed here is uh use of the word, it's in the second paragraph, academic grades. To me that sounds like A B C. What was the grade for the coursework? And I think Dr. Phillips when you were talking about it, you were thinking second grade, third grade, fourth grade. So I wouldn't want, if there's a way to avoid it, I wouldn't want somebody coming to the school board to talk about whether they got an A or a B at the end of a course. But it does seem appropriate that they come to the school board to talk about whether or not they're being promoted or retained. >> Is that the way everybody understands this? Academic grades >> versus promotion retention. >> The the the way I
017read it when it said the determination of academic grades then pause and promotion or retention at a grade level. That's how I separated the two. So I looked at academic grades as ABC. To be honest with you, I think if you go through the teacher and a principal, that's where that part of it should stop. But having had a brother, my brother was held back in third grade, and I know there was a lot of discussion with my parents and lots of different people in the schools about why, right? And I think in his case, he had dyslexia. Made sense, but there's other kids that may not feel that holding them back is the best thing for them. And so I think that's where to me uh from a grades perspective I think uh you
018know 43% is a failing grade for example. There's not much I think we're going to do to change a 43% grade. But if there's a kid that's uh at the edge of a maybe wanting needing to be held back or maybe not quite ready for the next level, then I think it uh if they want to challenge that all the way up to the board, I think the parents should be able to. >> I interpreted Mr. Schultz as being both academic grades as in the grade received on an assignment or in the course and the the placement grade of second grade, third grade, fourth grade. My apologies. I was when the way I read the policy, I thought I was talking like they're coming into the school system and you're slotting them, right? So that
019I think could be appealed. I don't think you should be able to appeal an ABC up to the school board. The way I understood it was slotting the child initially if they're new to the district, promotion, and restrictions. So, I interpreted a totally different way, which means we may just need to clean up with the language if that's the case. >> I think if I think if you clean it up and you just make this be aligned to the normal complaint process, I think that clears it all up. >> At least in my opinion. And I'm okay with the grades like grade appeals should end principles like ABC D appeals. >> So if we don't want the grades to be part of an option for appeals for an appeals, it seems like we need to
020separate them and do something different then. I mean do you have to say that the grades would not be part of the appeals process or do we just drop grades from this policy as it is right now. It certainly does mean academic grades ABCDF F as well as promotion retention. >> Well, if you if you read the title, it says promotion, placement, and retention. So, you could easily take grades out because grades don't fit with the title and you know, then it then it would grades would just fit in the normal complaint process. And in in the conversations that we had following the last board meeting with Dr. Hack and Mr. Edwards and others, the um we have not had, you know, an appeal of a student grade even come to the superintendent's desk in
021the amount of time that those folks have been in their roles and I've been in my role and certainly not to the board level and the board could certainly if a if a person came and said, you know, Mrs. Keel, I cannot believe you gave my child a B+ instead of an A minus. And that appeal was filed to this level. The board could just send it back down and say we're not we're not hearing this appeal because it shouldn't be decided at the board level. Doesn't necessarily need to be in policy and hasn't been to this point and it hasn't been a problem. Okay, I will move forward with E125 based on the conversations and send we'll send drafts of all these, you know, out after we've made changes as well. There was also
022um Mr. Schultz had a a comment. There was a inclusion in E125 about sound principles of child child guidance the board discouraging the skipping of grades and um that's not in our policy now. So we don't have any opposition to removing that removing that. We have had students skip grades. It is rare and it involves really involved conversations with the family and the teachers and the principal to decide what is best for that child that has happened in the past. Okay, third on the list is um high school visitors and parent and family engagement. This is one that we um this is one that we struggle with around the the recording um of you know if a parent or visitor comes into the building uh and the the policy states the draft policy states that
023they you know person shall not record without getting permission first. And we understand that there is there's case law working its way through the courts probably both at the state and the federal level and lots of conversation around the right of a parent to be able to record a meeting. As a matter of fact, there is explicit language in special education law in the state of Indiana now that says a parent shall be able to record an IEP meeting. And so I think what we need is some language that differentiates a parent who wants to record a meeting with a teacher or an administrator that's about their individual child or children uh from um a visitor or a parent who comes into the building and uses their phone to record day-to-day student interactions or wants
024to record a teacher teaching in their classroom with all kinds of other students in in there that aren't their child. So, I think if there's language that differentiates those we could be comfortable, at least from an administration standpoint, with differentiating between those two. We just need some help from the attorneys if in fact the board members feel the same about needing to differentiate between those two. >> I I thought Mike, your your interpretation was that the language as it stands today was pretty clear and that we didn't need further language. So, I I don't know if we're making a problem where there's not a problem. I don't know if we should change anything if you feel like we're covered with the situations that were described. >> So the policy as currently drafted focuses on school
025visitors and that is defined and then you talk about because I know Mr. major had had a question I think about like even online versus in person at the board meeting and if you look at some of the language it is more specific to classroom type settings um there I guess the only so so I read it that way as a visitor policy I think the only question is if you all have a board of seven people and if multiple members of this board read it differently or have confusion, then I think the question would be, do you feel like that needs any more of a call out along the lines of what Dr. Phillips is suggesting? But I I would tell you that as I look at it today, to me it is a
026policy intended to be aimed at visitors because um when you think about the school space, the the space beyond the front door, even though we talk about it being a public building, right? That's not a public space that that somebody can just go into off the street without checking in and they can can do whatever they want. there there is an ability to have >> have rules there and have some restrictions in place on what can happen and so from that standpoint when I think about a traditional visitor to me the policy makes sense as a visitor policy but if there's confusion when people are reading it perhaps that may be where you want some of those clarifications >> okay >> yeah based on what you said last time I put more thought into it
027and I was thinking you know the you're not going to have visitors in schools every day like most of us are not going to just walk into a school and say, "I want to go watch Billy Joe Bob in this class." You might go into a school and say, "Hey, my nephew or niece or son or daughter or grandchild is doing their senior project and I want to go in and watch them do that." Right? And and that's more, I think, of an open invitation from the principles to the families to be able to participate in that because it's significant to their graduation. So, so for me, I I f a lot better after we talked last time. This being just for visitors, visitors are going to be mostly restricted. They're not going to just
028be able to walk into a classroom and uh they their presence will be known by many people and why they're supposed to be there. So, I felt like there wouldn't be as much risk then to a teacher having a concern that they were videotaped or videotaped. They were recorded and uh put all over the internet for the world to see. So, >> but but I think as it stands today, they would have to have explicit permission, >> which is what we want, >> which is what I want. I shouldn't generalize. I want a person to have to ask permission to video record anything in the classroom as a visitor basis. And that's how it's written and that's I think how Mike interpreted and I did the same. So, I don't know that we need a
029change and I I think you are agreeing. I just wanted to clarify. >> Yeah. Yeah, I am agreeing and I I think that it says the principal and instructor must give approval. Now that's in our policy, but the law is the law. So there's trick to that, right? I mean, we have to control it the best we can and and hope that nobody's going to do anything wrong. So, so if we're if um we leave this policy like it is and the state says parents can record IEP um meetings, are we in compliance with that the way it's written? And my other comment here is um it seems like things really fall into three categories. There's a classroom, there's meetings like IEP meetings, but there's also hallways and cafeterias that when we say instruction, I
030don't know that that includes that. >> Yeah. And I I struggle. So last year I saw a video of a teacher walking a kid to the principal's office that was shared on old Facebook and uh you know there there's there's a violation there, right? I mean the kids using a phone in school, right? probably so I think there's we should hopefully have enough other mechanisms that keep people honest and uh you know and there's always going to be cases where people are going to try and skirt the system but I I think Dr. Phillips already mentioned that, you know, it either is or on its way to be in law for IEPs to be able to be monitored uh and and recorded. And if we need to add that, then we can, but law is
031the law, too. So, lawsuit policy. >> It's already reflected in our special education policy. >> And there is a different policy that may not have made it to your board yet, G350, that talks specifically about parents ability to record IEPs audio, video, and digital recording on school property and of school meetings. And there's a new statute in Indiana that just came out that made explicit that parents are entitled to record IEP meetings. So, um, that's separate from H100, which again is really focused on visitors more than it is >> parents and family members. >> Is is that in our next unit >> or the one I'm looking at batches that I received. I don't know if it's been sent to you yet, but I can see it in the folder. So, >> I think it's
032in the last It's in the last group, I believe. You said 350. G350. >> G350 is probably your last batch. >> It'll be in the last batch. >> Okay. >> Not this one. >> Previews of coming attractions. >> Is that batch 17 final? >> But that we hope to get to within the next three months, right? We are hoping to finish all of this very quickly. So, We're just in that messy middle. >> So then >> I I Oh, my bad. You're good, D. >> In terms of um recording cafeteria or cafeteria, I think would fall under services the way we have it worded. But and and hallways, the state counts passing period as instructional time still, I think. So is that included? Do we need to say anything? beyond that to cover everything beyond
033the office like we talked about. >> So I guess my question is are you hoping to prevent recording or >> wait prevent recordings without permission >> right >> from parents? I don't know if we can control it from kids. And that's the thing again, you know, the likelihood you're going to have an unescorted parent in the building during the day recording something under H100 if they are a visitor that shouldn't be they should not be recording. Quick quick question. If we vis if we allow them visitation to the facility and we even have this policy in place as it is written today, can you hold them accountable given the one party consent of Indiana state law? Let's say for example, you let XYZ visitor in for training or whatever and they record the whole thing
034and they have their phone in their pocket. All the audio is there. That's that there's no crime because it's still under one party consent. So really in reality, I guess what I'm trying to understand is you've invited them in. The one party consent doesn't end at the door and you have no way like it's a policy that it has a bark but it has no bite, I guess, is what I'm trying to understand. >> I I think as always Logan the devil would be in the details, right? Because to me, one party consent implies a conversation. I think that's what that standard is applicable to >> if if I am if I voyerism is illegal in Indiana, right? You know, recording recording in certain situations without the other person knowing is against the law. And
035so, um, I think a person walking through the hallway, the cafeteria, the gym into a classroom, I don't know that they can say one party consent because I knew I was recording even though nobody else did. Um, so I think if it was a sit down meeting and if they were recording that meeting and they were truly a participant, then then I think, you know, um, we would probably have a hard time restricting them from that. But I don't think that's what our policy is collectively between this one and the other one. I don't think that's what we're going to be after anyway. Um, >> so, so example, right, is so like Mr. Bennett has spoken publicly two or three times about school safety. Let's say one of the principles invite him in to walk
036through and help provide feedback on school safety and he were to take that conversation. That is a visitor that is a sit down meeting the policy may sit there, but I believe one party consent will still hold. depending on what he records. I mean, the purpose of the policy in part is protecting the privacy rights of students. So, >> correct. If I'm >> agreed, yeah, I I hear you on that. I'm talking about like a one on like there's one or two adults with the visitor. And I >> I think we want to try to write a policy that meets the spirit of what we would like to see from adults visitors in the building, which is that they need to get consent. And I think you're kind of on the fringes, Logan, thinking about
037these, you know, kind of way off scenarios that I don't know if that's what we're trying to make the policy do. We're trying to document what our expectations are. The question of enforcability and the amount of resources or energy we would put into that is probably a separate conversation. Are are we aligned though that we would want them to ask permission of an administrator and somebody else? If we are, I think we just need to move move on in the interest of making sure we get to the other items because I I think this is a circular reference. Like I don't know if we're going to get out of this because we would >> each as a board we're we're expected to draft policies in the spirit of the law too, >> right? So, like
038that's the thing. It's like I'm asking if it's in contrast to the law, then I'm I I I have questions. If it is not, then I do not because I agree with you in spirit. I want them to seek permission, but I don't want to put the board or the school corporation in a situation where you're drafting policies contrary to law. Yeah, >> I I don't know that it's contrary to law to say our expectation is that we need to respect the rights of privacy of our students because we're not going to let people randomly record as they walk through the hallways. So, that's setting the expectation. We understand that Indiana might permit you to record, but we're going to tell you our expectation is because we have obligations to protect the right the privacy
039of our students. We're going to ask that you not record even though you might be permitted to do so under any statute. That's how I would interpret. >> That's perfectly understandable. I just question the word shall, but okay. >> Thank you very much. On the the second part of that policy, um there was a concern about the the requirement to communicate first with the superintendent if under the term visitor. I think they were including board members in this in this language. Um that if a board member observes a situation or condition which causes concern, the board member should discuss the situation first with the superintendent. as soon as convenient or appropriate. Uh because again, this is actually already covered in D175 board staff communication. I'm perfectly content with striking it from H100 because it's covered
040by that existing policy already. Any other questions or concerns on H100? I have a question unrelated to what we just discussed. I I know that the sex offender registry and violent offender registry is leveraged upon visitors, but what do schools currently do for NCOs's and protective orders? >> We call Mr. MacGyver and ask for his guidance almost every time. I I say that, you know, almost flippantly, but >> in almost every case I'm going to say in every case when we have a situation where there's a no contact order or restraining, we are talking to Mr. MacGyver, making sure that we're navigating that or to, you know, another attorney that works with us as well. >> You document those in student files. >> Uh to the extent that we're allowed to by law, I guess.
041Okay. Thank you. The next three group of three policies are related to the proposals that Mr. Schultz um shared prior to the board meeting on August 11th. And so um I can go through them or Mr. Schultz if you wanted to give a high level view of each one of them. Everyone has them in front of them as well. >> Okay. >> The first Go ahead. What? >> Go ahead. apolog the the first one I sent which is A125 how I read it and I I asked for uh some legal questions so there may be some other feedback that I'm not seeing yet but it seems that it restricts the conflict of interest of deriving a financial benefit from the contract in which you are voting on rather than political and or financial benefit from
042prior to or from a direct result of that contract. Um, and so cleaning up uh that language to um protect against uh essentially situations where one may give a gift in which one is hoping to win political favor over and then in result receive a vote in favor of themselves to that point. Um, and so that that's the cleanup of A125. >> I I think I'd like you to be more specific on what you're trying to get at with this because you I believe you have a very specific situation that you're referring to and I think that we need to understand the root of it to have the right words in the document. >> So, and I asked I I I actually gave a couple questions in the email to Dr. Phillips. So, a good
043example is right now we or last last month we voted on Maple Grove Elementary. If Pepper Construction gave me $2,000 in my campaign, could I in good faith vote without a conflict of interest on that within the policy as it's written today? That was the question I asked how I read it. I don't have to have a conflict of interest and I could vote on it. But if if it's read differently, then that's a misinterpretation on my side. >> I don't think that's exactly the situation that drove this language, though. Logan, can you maybe back up another step? >> What drove this? >> That's the example that I'm giving. Yes. >> But what was the example that drove this language initially right before our last school board meeting? >> I'm not following. I mean, it's
044regardless of any specific situation. Really, they all apply equally. >> I I don't know that they do. I don't know why you're not sharing, but I can share on your behalf if you would like me to. I think what you are worried about is that um in elections that some board members could be supported by a pack. Yep. And that pack was supported by teachers, maybe in the district, maybe out of the district. And because that teacher pack was supporting a board member that they could not participate in any activities related to things that could financially benefit teachers. I would say that >> that the specific example that you gave and I think it was specifically targeted to a couple of us who did receive very publicly which was disclosed appropriately in our financial statements.
045I think the question that I have is in every election you you're likely going to have a teachers association who's very invested in who ends up on a board either being for or against um a slate of candidates. And so you're automatically I'm a little worried about where this is going because you're going to cut out half of a board potentially because they weren't who who the teachers of Indiana as the example that you gave when you drafted this language um supported. So I I think that I'm trying to play that out and understand where that could lead us. >> But can I can I say something here real quick? >> Go for it. >> Yeah. I I think the conflict of interest goes a little bit deeper than just the necessary pack uh financial
046support because part of the pack membership has representation from the teachers union. There's a person on the board for the teacher union who also sits on the pack board and then on top of that to see the flow of money where it went is kind of what he's hitting at in terms of all the money from the pack went to another member of the union's uh family business. That's kind of where the workound is in terms of a conflict of interest. And if you don't see it, I'm either you have blinders on or uh I maybe you don't understand conflict of interest. I don't know. >> And I I I kind of want to pause there, right? is I agree that's a core of this one situation but if you don't put a stop on
047quid proquo I can take out IPACE and CA and put in Pepper and the Indiana general constructor's pack and it's basically open season on board members of giving money to receive feedback or to receive positive light and again I'm not a fan of lobbying I see it in the Congress in DC not a fan of lobbying at all. I prefer it to be totally gone. I don't I don't know if I want to see lobbying at a schoolboard level. And so that's where this gets that out of it. You can't receive it and vote for it. I mean, and again, right, we've set a precedence at BCSC of holding a high bar. I believe both Mr. Major and Miss Wen had a one-time conflict of interest on a minor few engines for buses, which is
048a few very minor deal detail over versus this. And when we start having candidates, in this case, because you brought up with the political candidates, we have candidates that received more than 85% of their funds and money funneling back to relatives, businesses of the teachers union leadership team. I have received questions and I think they are valid questions of what what is the term of conflict of interest at that point. >> What's the family business? I think what he's saying I I don't know why we're being so invasive on all of this. I think it's because Tony London Company has provided printing services to several candidates during campaigns and he's drawing the tie to that printing service and the CEA president and and furthering the conflict of interest >> kind of the GOP that Jason's
049a leader of. I mean, how's that? I I I tend to agree. I I'm not sure where we're going with this. I I did want to ask specifically that we crossed out financially multiple times in here. I think just leaving the word benefit is a little nebulous and if we're going back to our enforcement tangent on the last conversation feels like it's taking a step backwards, >> but I didn't know if you had something specific in mind with crossing that out. >> Logan, hey, I think >> one second. One second. Okay, give me one second. But she just said I I hear you right, Nikki. So we just said enforcement, but on the last one we said what is the spirit of what we want to do in the spirit. I would not want to
050see board members benefit financially, politically or any other benefit from a course of their vote. So if we want to go with that, like if that's the way we're building policy, then the spirit I would say benefit. If enforcement, I would say politically andor financially. Like >> I just if somebody buys a person a coffee, is that benefiting? I think that's where >> Well, I think the coffee thing becomes is it a gift? If it's a gift, you have to claim it. >> So, I think there's a whole lot of law there that hopefully all of the candidates have read and understood enough so that they don't get called to the carpet someday because they've misrepresented themselves on their CFA force. But I think the the concern here, yes, yes, I am the secretary of
051the Bartholomeia County Republican Party. Have I purchased or have I directed anyone to purchase anything from Tony London? No. Matter of fact, I paid for the yard sticks and the bracelets that we gave out out of my own money, bought them from imprint.com and specifically told the other leaders that I was not going to purchase anything from Tony because of that. So, I have protected myself. I think in this case, the concern I think that's been noted that the three of us have talked about is the fact that there's people that gathered almost $3,000 a person from uh IPACE, which was recommended by CEA. that money did go back to Tony London Company, but well beyond that because I think you all each supported them with around $4,000 worth of materials. And then I think
052the concern that I had which just made me furious uh a couple weeks a couple months ago was when we were talking about the the uh uh the lunches for kids and Amy came in and said we have a lot more other important things to spend our money on at this time and everybody immediately that was a no vote right after that. So >> I was a no vote before that Jason. Well, I I think the I think um the perception is what I think is important here uh with conflict of interest is what would the average individual think was happening with this? And I think that's where the concern is. Uh when you see this, it boy, it sure feels like paytoplay. Whether it is or not, I I I don't know. I don't
053make your decisions for you, but I think the average person would see you get an endorsement, which should be be I'm fine with an endorsement and getting backing, but when you get money and then turn around and give money back to the same people that endorsed you, that's a that's just, I think, something that uh is is just not not cool. And that's why I think we need to make this a little bit more robust with a conflict of interest and make sure people know uh what makes sense. I defer to lawyers. I mean the lawyers are going to know this laws better than we will. And my opinion is and that's why I tried to use the other examples, right? There's a lot of emotional attachment to using CA and teachers union. So my
054my opinion would be if you insert Pepper Construction and the Indiana general constructor's pack which is available. Are we still without a conflict of interest from a legal standpoint? And I just don't agree with that. And so by defacto it applies across as well. Taking the emotion of the teacher out. The process should be the same regardless of if it's a lobbying group of teachers or if it's a lobbying group of general contractors. I guess since we've asked for legal advice, I think the legal question would be is there a legal violation of conflict of interest in the example that was given and just so we can understand if there's anything that needs to be changed because I I think we also have a conflict of interest process that that I did not fill out
055because I didn't see it as such. But if that was a miss, that's something I need to work on. >> There is a state statute that defines conflict of interest for purposes of elected officials. And so when we have had discussions in the past and a board member has said, is XYZ a conflict of interest? Many times you will hear me say it is not a technical conflict of interest. The reason that I say that many of the times is because if you go back and look at that statute, it very clearly states that a conflict is when that elected official has not done a disclosure and if they have a pecuniary interest in a contract or a purchase. That phrase pecuniary interest is very specifically defined in the statute. It is something that results
056or is intended to result in an ascertainable increase in the income or net worth of the public servant. And so to Logan's question or hypothetical of of Pepper, um if if Pepper Construction made a donation, I likely would tell you that that is not technically a conflict because my assumption is that they did not make a donation to Logan Schultz. They made a donation to the Friends of Logan Schultz political committee, which is different. If they write a check to a board member and that check goes into his individual account and then he approves the contract. Okay. Right. Discussion of bribery at that point. Um but political support is typically going to be separate. Um likewise if it is a hack that donates to a schoolboard member, a state legislator, a member of Congress, whoever
057it may be. Generally speaking, that's probably not going to be a conflict. It is not um if if that donation is routed appropriately to an election committee, if it is reported appropriately by the election committee, it likely does not technically violate those statutes. Um that that would be the standard. And so I I I think if I hear Mr. Schultz, he is saying I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the standards. Um, and I think that's that's, you know, conversation for you all to have, but at least as that technical definition of a conflict of interest under the Indiana code, a an ascertainable increase in the income or net worth of that public servant uh based on approval of that contract. A and I don't know that most appropriate donations to
058a political election campaign are are likely going to trigger that. if >> if they were if they were the state reps wouldn't be able to vote on anything. Um I mean it you know >> but that's what I'm asking Mr. MacGyver because we discussed this at one time and right and I think you even said not a technical conflict of interest but I would still advise you as a conflict of interest under B 100 which is board members should avoid even the appearance of impropriety right and this is where you're now not in the law of Indiana you're in the law of public >> and that that is your that is your current language in one of the policies about avoiding the appearance of impropriety and So again, I I think there is a there
059is a question of appropriate political donations made through the appropriate process and whether that does constitute an appearance of impropriy or not. But but that is language that Mr. Schultz is accurately referring to in the policies. >> Okay. I >> I guess >> I don't know where to go from here. I I don't I personally don't support crossing out financially and I don't know if I agree with anything in green frankly >> and I guess >> however Oh, go ahead. One one last comment I would say at least and and I will let Julia chime in if she has has anything she wants to say, but my perspective would be that the draft policy as proposed is consistent with the conflict of interest statute in the state statutes because that is that is why I'm
060sure that word financial is in there that's in there is it's it's you know a slightly easier to understand way of this pecuniary interest test that's built in there. So I guess my opinion would be the statute the policy follows the statute where you all go beyond that is is up to you and that aligns with what I would say is you know purpose of A125 is to lay out what your baseline is for conflicts of interest in alignment with the statute. If under B 100 you feel like you want to be more transparent that is certainly your choice as a board member. But this is setting your your statutory requirement for disclosing conflicts of interest in alignment with the form that you all had to fill out after you were elected and submit to
061the state on what conflicts you have. So which is which refers to the same pecuniary interest requirement that Mike has already talked about. So >> the these are all those are all within alignment. The H125 aligns with the conflict of interest form. Align with the statute. B 100, you can hold yourselves to a higher standard if you like, but this is trying to be in alignment with the statute. Understand? >> So, is it my understanding that we can't have both then? >> I mean, we can't hold ourselves, we can't say we're holding ourselves to not even the appearance of impropri improprietary or and propriety while also keeping a door that has now led to substacks and columns being written indicating as such. >> I I I would like to say that that that's almost conflicting.
062>> Yeah. >> Your thinking like just because the verbiage in here says one thing and another piece says another doesn't mean that we cannot hold ourselves to a higher standard. Like don't get wrapped up in the language. actions speak louder in words. So, I think we may be getting hung up on this a little too much. >> I guess I've heard you say that B 100 and maybe even the board ethics policy is a place for us to look for some language to help address the concerns um that what we have today in this policy does meet statute. I guess the only thing that I would point out to you is that that I think that is an appropriate place for you all to to put that on there. However, um you may have instances
063where you have uh a completely open seat that multiple candidates are running for who are not board members. You may have someone running for a seat who's not a board member. and and whatever policies you may have. At the end of the day, from a true standpoint, the definition in the statute is what's going to determine if it's a conflict of interest that's that's actionable, you know, under the law. You can put some of these aspirational things in there, but there may be situations when they don't apply or, you know, little else happens as a result of it. >> I I think we need to hear from other board members on this topic so we can understand how how people are thinking about this policy and the changes provided. Only a few of us have
064talked. Can I ask my vice president over there to say something? >> Sure. I think on your mind >> all my questions have been answered and I'm ready for the administration's proposal. Sorry for this section A125, D150 and maybe B150. Um, were these amendments introduced in the board meeting or these these are amendments that might be introduced in the board meeting? They were emailed to you ahead of the board meeting and attempted to be put in but were declined. >> Okay. >> This was a few hours head of the board meeting last last meeting. >> So I guess I have one question of what I think I might not understand. Um so the way we have been operating with conflicts of interest um just as an example if you work for Cumins you fill out
065a conflict of interest thing and if something comes up in a vote I think that then you would recuse yourself from that vote. So, if I apply this here, you're saying if someone receives a um political contribution in the campaign from the teachers union, then anything that impacts the teachers, you would have to recuse yourself. >> No, that's not that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that you draw personally if if let's talk about in the case of you a larger financial and or political benefit that is a higher level of conflict of interest than say Jason when he worked for Cumins when he signed the conflict of interest form for 12 engines on a revenue of 45 whatever billion dollars at the time it was right and so that is what I'm saying
066is when you're into contracts you have received a higher political contrib or a higher political benefit which states a higher level of conflict of interest regarding contracts not anything I don't know it's a path that I would not advise that we would go down >> Whitney do you have anything to share on this because I think we need to give enough commentary so that Dr. Phillips can make a recommendation for our next meeting agenda and such. I do I'm having trouble putting them all in order. Um yeah, I I'm just shocked that people think that of other people, but I I don't know, maybe I'm naive. Um, I also think it's a slippery slope and as hostile as this board is, I question what will be weaponized and what won't. >> Please say more. >>
067I I think we'll just I think we'll just move on. >> I I just I >> like you say >> Logan Logan says contracts. I highly doubt it stops there. Well, I I guess when you say weaponize, there's always going to be a four to three vote. >> I don't I don't >> always going to be at least a four to three vote. Always. At least. So, when you say weaponize for Tom, Logan, and I who are in the minority here, how can we weaponize anything against you guys if you guys will just either not vote for it, not hear it, or not put it on an agenda? So I just I want to understand when you say weaponize what please help me understand what that means. >> I I disagree that it will always
068be 43. I hope that we can get to a place where that's not the case. It makes me sad to hear you say that. >> I feel like we've I feel like we've gotten on off track and we need to stay focused and this may be something that needs to be off and individually spoken with >> and not here. We need to reconvene on what is important and what we came here to do. >> Otherwise, we're wasting our time. >> I agree. I I also think that maybe where some of the issue is and I put it on the table. So, I'll think long and hard about whether that was the right thing to do or not. But I generally feel like we do need to work better together as a team. and and I
069have voted with the the under the the three before. In fact, I did it last meeting. So, I guess I'm just >> guys, the public is expecting something from this team and we need to act in accordance. And I guess I would just say that what what could have happened in in this, you know, conflict, somebody could have just called Nikki Wheelen and said, "Look, there are people that are seeing something a certain way and we'd like you to reconsider whether you're the right person to be on that committee." and and then maybe I would have just said you're right and there's other qualified people and I don't want that perception to be there and we don't have to do this really messy policy thing as a team. I just think that we would do
070ourselves a favor to try to work some things in the background a little more effectively through conversation. Um, and I'm open to that. And if I've given the impression I'm not, I'm sorry for that. But, um, I'm I'm worried we're making some of these things really hard. And it's got to be leaving people with a poor impression of the collective sitting here today. And that makes it's disappointing to me because I think we all want to set a good example and are here for a good reason. I I hear you. Um I'm I will say I'm equally frustrated, right? Because there's a lot of actions done. We we always say we want to have this done through a phone call. The government should act in front of the people and see what is being done
071in the best interest of the taxpayers and the people. And I hear you and I I hear you. But and a good example, we're going to go right into the next policy. I would agree there could be a chance of no conflict of interest if a decision isn't made within an executive committee without board input an appointment and that's where it gets into where maybe there is and I think that's where we got to have those conversations and like say like if we're going to do it then the executive committee when they make decisions has to reach out and collect input before they run with those decisions because I didn't I didn't get a chance for input I mean, I don't know Jason or Tom if you got called, but I didn't get any feedback
072in regards to the appointment um at that point that you're referring to, >> which is referring to you, I'm assuming, on the on the collective bargaining. I I do um yeah I I think the the thing I took away from your comments on this topic the committee appointment should probably have the bargaining committee leader like that during that restructuring meeting at the beginning of the year where we have the list of committees it's probably appropriate for us to add that to the list and and be handled during the normal reorganization meeting. I think that's where the miss was. I think I and I missed it because it's always been the board president since I've been here. So, it didn't occur to me that it would be any different. And and I think this made me
073think differently about having it added to that list. And then we would ask others just like we normally do as a team who would like to participate and we would try to go through that process ahead of the meeting. >> I'm not saying just that. Right. So, if you go in the letter and you go to the bottom, it says anybody who's put into that should come to the board for approval. Whether that's going to be a 70 vote, whether it's not, I don't know, but like we can do that now, but we're choosing not to. And I hear you. Like, we could put it on there and get feedback, but like, and I don't know how all the committees slated out, but you know, just because you ask us what we want to be
074on doesn't mean that we don't get feedback. that is good quality of others that could be or could not be better. And so that's what I'm saying is like we're choosing now not to do it even though we have a board meeting ahead of us before to do it. So it's you can say it out on one side but you can't say it out both. That's that's that's what that's where I'm getting conflict is like as a board I want to work you across the aisle. I just had a meeting with Dale talking about referendum and like I want to work across but like when it happens in this bubble and then there's no conversation. And it's like, please call me. Like, I don't want to talk, you know, let's let's talk. Let's not email.
075Let's not have any written record of that. And then we go in and say, but we want to do this. Don't talk about it. You can't have that's not working in front of the people that elected us. And like they're going to want to know like, are we appointing someone with a potential conflict of interest? Call it, vote on it. At least then the public knows. There is nothing that is wrong when you give full transparency. vote is full transparency regardless of the committee appointment. We voted to put Dale and I on the engagement committee. I think we voted to put Jason and Pat or Rich, I can't remember, on the the the committee around re redoing the agenda of our meetings. I can't believe that the the collective bargaining is of less importance than
076those extra committees that we had created. >> Logan, I I think we need to move on, buddy. like >> we're we're circling and >> beating a dead horse right now. >> Next slide. Nothing on >> it. So, okay. The next um the next item on the list is D 150 board superintendent relationship. And um there was just a clarification to be added there that the superintendent appoints the members of the negotiating team. Um that was the original language in this policy, but Mr. Schultz pointed out that that should be non board members of the negotiation team and that's that's been the case always in the past and so we have no opposition to having that reflected. Any questions or concerns on D150 including non board? >> Okay. And then the the third one, um, Logan,
077the language that you sent us a couple weeks ago was from, believe's policy 0155 with some modifications. And then I just noted that committees are part of B150. Now, it's just a one-s sentence statement in there about committees, though. So, I'm not sure if the board wants to in that conversation about appointing committees if you My preference would be to modify B150 obviously since that's our newly adopted policy. So, what if you did modify B50 or you suggested that we modify E150. Where where would you make that change? >> We would simply add to the statement that um the board approves committee members that the sentence in green at the the bottom that uh you know the the president can assign a member of a committee in case of emergency otherwise the board approves all
078committee appointments. Something to that effect. Is that a accurate representation of your position, Logan. >> Yeah, I apologize. They're both currently active on the system. So, I saw 155 on there as well. So, it's that was why I was confused. >> And I looked this morning. I could not find it for the life of me. So, you could be right. >> But either either way, it's just a to clarify the fact that the board approves all committee appointments unless there's an emergency. questions or concerns in regards to B150 adding statement the board will approve those committee appointments unless there's an emergency I'll leave it to you all to work out but I would suggest that there might be a better word proposed maybe nominated is the right word but it just seems odd in that
079that sounds to me. So, I'd ask you to think about that. Okay, we're through six and 14 to go, but these 14 are um none that at least uh for the most have had any questions, some of which we were able to um address. Mr. Schultz sent some questions yesterday and so some of those we were able to address today. Um I'll go down through these just even even the ones that haven't had any questions sent to us yet and just make sure to pause for a moment to make sure no one has any questions on them. The first one being D275 drug-free workplace. Again, these are the next package that will be on a first reading on September 8th. So, questions about D275 drug-free workplace and then also D350 fitness for duty leaves and
080examinations. >> Towards the end there's a longer paragraph that in that paragraph that starts in a green to perform. If you go down about five rows, it says something about genetic information, non-discrimination, and then it says and relevant board policy. I was hoping we could put what that policy is rather than have people try and figure out what the policy should be. If we could just define what that is and put that number there. And if it's one we don't have yet, could we introduce that one with this one so that we put them through both at the same time? >> Thank you. And I I forgot that you had asked that question about the genetic information. >> Well, that was on a different one that the genetic information one that that's not what my
081worry is. It's just the relevant policy part. I asked about genetic information in a different policy. So >> we on D350 now >> you're on D350. >> Can you point out again to me one more time >> after the words where it says Ga in parenthesis. So it's uh the last long paragraph on page one and it says in compliance with the genetic information non-discrimination act China GINA and relevant board policy if we can put the policy number in if there if there are multiple can we put them down below that way it's not like I assume we've left it broad because there are multiple that may associate to that. >> Thank you. We'll follow up with the church team on that clarification. Thank you. >> Reduce clutter as much as possible. >> Yes. Thanks.
082Um, next uh policy was D375 employee discipline and uh the question there was one question about the employee having the right to appeal the decision of a suspension u by the superintendent. And the answer to that is yes. And it comes there in the second to last sentence which states that any suspension of an employee shall comply with applicable due process requirements. And so um as has happened at least in the time that we've worked together so far anytime that happens I inform each of the board members you know that a employee has been suspended offered to answer any questions or take any phone calls about that and then they proceed. We proceed through the regular process of including any due process that might end up with the board having a hearing or making a
083final decision about employment. Thus far, knock on wood, we haven't had that with me and this board, but that would proceed following the due process law that's in place as well as our policies. Any other questions or concerns about D375? Okay. D475 is justifiable decrease in teaching positions commonly referred to as riffs. The only request I had here and it's in other places too is anywhere where it says administrative guidelines. Uh if we could have those shared as well. I know this is in Niola's side, there was an administrative guidelines section that had those already built out. And so if we if we were going to start building the policy, are we going to change the administrative guidelines? And if we approve the policy in this case, we should at least be aware of what
084the administrative guidelines are. >> Agreed. And we we will continue to we're going to get through the policies and then start working through the administrative guidelines and making sure that they reflect the same language in the the uh the pol the new reorganized policies. So doing the same thing reorganizing administrative guidelines but under the structure of our current polic or new policies. Anything else on D475? All right, thank you. Next one on the list is E150 programs for high ability students. And that one went from a what was a very long policy under the Neola to a very short policy under E150, which is just a a couple of sentences. Mr. Mr. Schultz, could you expand a little bit upon the concern that you shared? Help me understand that a little bit better. I think
085you're on mute. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes, >> I'm good. I I looked I looked up the administrative guidelines, so I'm good. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns on E150? >> Yeah. The only thing I had here was the statement the board of school trustees shall develop a plan to provide appropriate educational experiences and then a lot of other words. Do we develop the plan or do we delegate the plan development to a group with inside the school corporation and we approve the plan? >> Go ahead. delegate and the administration provides a plan that you adopt. >> Okay. So, could we have that worded? Thank you. >> It's it's I find that interesting in the language though of a lot of the policies and even the law where it
086says that the the school board has the legal responsibility for some set of uh work that no school boards actually complete themselves. They approve and oversee >> and so that's sometimes that's refcted in policy the same way that it is in in Indiana code. >> Thank you for that. Next one on the list is F250 investment I'm sorry F200 investment income. Questions or concerns about that one? That one is unchanged and it basically follows Indiana code word for word. Next on the list is F250 travel expenses. Also reflects uh Indiana code. The one change that is specific to BCSSE is because of our unique U situation with multiple high schools and lots of people traveling during the course of the school day. We made sure that this policy reflects our existing policy that says that
087if a employee is required to travel from one building to another during the school day as part of their schedule, we pay uh reimburse them mileage. I had a couple questions, not really over the person's curiosity. Uh, for like going out for events, is there a specific mileage radius? Like military, it's usually 50 or 100 miles before we qualify for reimbursement. I wasn't sure if that and that doesn't really pertain to the school school to school travel. That would be something like if we provided a corporate vehicle uh some I I wasn't sure about that. So >> outside of the county is the guideline that we have followed in BCSSE. >> Okay. >> And the reason I asked that >> they need to be in here. >> That's why your guideline >> in the administrative
088guideline. >> The only other question I have is how often was that used? I looked back through some of the priors and it's not very heavily used. So, yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Next one on the list is G150 registered sex or violent offenders. Questions or concerns on that policy? >> Thank you. on a G250 pest control. Um there was a a question about the requirement that we and it does seem like an unusual requirement that we maintain a registry of parents who are interested in receiving the notifications of pest control applications. Uh and that is actually taken copied and paste word for word from Indiana code as to what we are required to do when it comes to pest control applications. All right. Next one is G300 latch key programs which in BCSSE would
089be referred to as as Iare. Any questions or concerns on G300? The only thing I saw here was a potential typo or grammar was adult to child ratio was wasn't hyphenated. I don't know if that's necessarily important or not. Thank you. Next on the list, G425, pledge of allegiance and moment of silence. That was consistent with Indiana code and practice. The only thing I had here was at the end it says the flags of the United States and of Indiana shall be raised above each school. Uh and at other places flag shall be raised before and there's a whole bunch of stuff there says that the flags there's another one somewhere that says flag the US flag has to be uh put in every classroom as well. I think there's been lots of concerns with
090other flags of other types uh in rooms. I would like to see anywhere whether it's in this policy either the other policy state that the United States of America flag and the state state of Indiana flag be the only two flags allowed to fly or be presented in a classroom outside of world history. >> I think I understand where you're coming there from from there. But my question is to the attorneys around um other protections that that may that policy may may violate. Should we have any concerns there? >> Yeah, that may would likely impair a teacher free speech rights to limit their ability to hang in their classroom. It's not obscene or >> just asking question that was presented to me by parents. So be prepared if there's something that they don't appreciate. >>
091All right. Any other questions on G425? Okay. Next one on the list is G450 advertisements, publications, and naming rights. I believe that the question that was shared there is in regards to an appeal or a a complaint about that. Is that right, Mr. Schultz? That it >> I mean it it can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think it it it set a different threshold. I think it said it ended at you versus we had one about the principal and one us. So, as long as it refers to the same public process, I guess that's what I however you want to word it in the other one that the same concept here is what I was getting at. >> Gotcha. Thanks. We'll make sure it reflects that that reference to the overall complaint
092policy. And then I wanted to note that we um asked church um to review this one after it was just too late before we needed to have it posted on the website for everyone to review. Under the under the prohibited um advertisements, publications, promotions, or sponsorship, we included the advertise Sorry, I apologize. I'm looking at the wrong page. It's down on the on the next page. Um, we added advocacy of or opposition to a political candidate philosophy or party. Basically just saying that our school grounds vehicles and facilities aren't the place for political candidate ads in the in the long list of other ads that are prohibited. So that I was wondering when I read that that's not to replace the number four, >> correct? Not to replace the number four. >> Be number four
093and everything else. >> Everything else was shipped out. Yeah. Not eliminating any of the other >> including number four on the one that's currently on the website which is obscene and indecent. >> Just clarification on that draft wording uh labeled number four. I wonder if it would make sense to repeat the word political in front of the word philosophy and party. I think that's what your intent was not advocacy of or opposition to a philosophy generally political philosophy specifically. I think that's what you meant. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Next on the list, H125 corporation uh support organizations. Any questions or concerns on that one? Okay, last one then is H175, questioning of students. Um this is a policy um that we spent a whole lot of time talking about and working with
094and actually had a call with Mr. MacGyver as well as um some other attorneys that we work with to conduct some training for our staff. You know, we've had our school resource officer relationship for a number of years and you all just at the last meeting celebrated the longevity of the two original SRO that we had in Julie and Eric. But over time, as that relationship gets more comfortable, there is, you know, the possibility that you can rely on that relationship in decisions that we make in that I trust you because I know you well, regardless if you're on the administrator side of that or you're on the school resource officer side of that, but the fact is that they're still law enforcement officers. And so, we recognize the fact that we need to do
095some training with our administrators and our school resource officers together. um to make sure that our practice is aligned with law and with this policy which is aligned with law. So we have that scheduled for October 7th at this point in time. And again, we're we're going to invite the school resource officers and even folks from the CPD and the sheriff's department, you know, so that we can all make sure we're hearing the same thing at the same time. Are are you going to include the two and two for east and north, the security officers that are not SRO's, but they're supposed to be monitoring security at the front doors? >> That's a good question. Um, we'll talk about that and and let you know. >> Probably not during that day because we want them
096in the in the building, but at another time would be the question as to whether or not we would conduct that for them at another time. I mean, you could you could probably do all of them at once in a PD day, >> right? Thank you. >> Any other questions or concerns on H1 175? >> So, uh, fourth paragraph where it's talking about in general questioning or interviewing students on school property by a government agency is not allowed and so on. Uh, there's nothing talking about parental consent in here. Uh, does that need to be added in The additional question that is maybe will I be with parental consent unless the parent is the basis of accusation maybe is a DB situation or am I thinking too far into that I think it's somewhere else
097in here uh where we kind of spell it out but not specific to that paragraph and just trying to maintain consistency Thanks. We'll look at that unless you have something to add. Mrs. Kosis, >> are you asking about DCS question or are you asking about law enforcement? >> It's not this particular is just a government agency. And so the way I read it, the way we start this policy, when I think government agency, I think anything not limited to all the massive amounts of uh law enforcement officers and how that fits into there. And it could even go in as far as uh military recruiters. I mean, they're part of a government agency. Uh and so maybe parents don't necessarily want to have their child talking oneon-one with a granted there's a lot of times
098we don't allow that but um when you look at career days or something there's there's potential for that it's not necessarily one-on-one but sometimes there are career fears or one come in meet and greets we'll look back through that and confirm that we're because I there's a really valid point around consistency for even for our administrators to know that if someone shows up and wants to question a student that we don't have to treat one agency when it comes to parent notification differently than we do another agency unless there's a obviously a reason a legal reason to. So we'll look back through there and make sure that language is consistent. >> And then in the in the seventh paragraph uh there's a repeat which caused me to then go through every other make sure I
099didn't miss any other typos. Um but it says of the investigation of the investigation and so it's repeating itself twice. >> Any other questions on or concerns on H175? >> And while you all pause, just so you know, Mr. Schultz did send me a message and said he had to drop off for work, so he didn't want you all to think he had just rudely abandoned you. >> Well, thank you very much for your work this evening. We will have all of these addressed and um and ready to go for either their first reading on September 8th for that last group um or a first I'm sorry, a second reading for the others. I also will share that um the last package that we're waiting for a handful of additional policies that we haven't received
100from Church Church Hill and Antrum is a large package, but the good news there is that it will be the last package after we after we get through it. So, it's it's going to be upwards of 25 or so policies on that last run, some of which probably result in some questions and conversation, others will not. I look forward to your feedback about how this evening went, particularly in regards to the new policies, the the ones that you had not seen yet before this last week. And u whether or not you want to repeat that again in that would be in probably late uh September, sometime around late September to do a work session on those policies. So I look forward to that feedback. Thank you everybody. This was the 14th day of school and
101it was pointed out to me that before the end of the week we will be 10% through the days of this this school the student days of this school year which was just terrifying. Just terrifying with with the things that you're going to change or modify or tweak. Could you uh in the next posted draft or wherever the drafts are today, if you're going to change those, could you highlight the changes that are made? That way, it's easier for us to just say, "Okay, I don't have to read all of it. I just have to read this section." >> Absolutely. Thank you. You're welcome. And I do want to take one one chance to just thank everyone who's put um an enormous amount of time into working our way through these these policies. Um the
102church team and Mr. MacGyver, our cabinet that has read over and over these many times and then Mrs. Chrisman and Mrs. Sandusky also in the background doing tremendous amount of work. So trying to keep it as organized as possible. It's been a challenge, but um I know that in the end we will all know them better and they'll be cleaner and more more well organized. So, thanks for the work. >> We don't have to