001Okay, I'll say a few words. I aliance to the flag United States of America. and to the republic which stands one nation justice for all call Please >> here >> members present. Executive session, safety and security we talked about and personnel matters. Yes. Presentation. Uh committees legislator update. Any report at this time, Mr. President Bills and Grounds report uh Susan Alumni Association, Harrisburg Area Community College, no report tax collection, Dalton County. Dolphin County Technical School, no report. >> Uh Capital Area Media Unit, >> no. >> Board of Commission. Superintendent approved agenda. Johnson can move a second. Any discussion call agenda. All in favor? >> I approve. Oppose. Eyes have it. Hand of the public. Any anybody board members comment? Uh, Mr. Bradley, I guess this is more for the administration. I I did I was
002approached by students over the week and they were asking about students. I don't know. Am I supposed to reach out to the administration direct? >> Yes. Channel >> well all clubs all clubs go through um a process and the board approves of that policy. So >> anybody else? >> Yes. Uh I'd just like to give kudos to uh the staff to administration everyone who was involved in production of graduation. It went off without a hitch very smoothly. I like the way that the bill was done. We are now facing with our backs to the sun and we have seating on both sides which allowed us to have additional people in and it was very well done. our alumni speaker was excellent and so fine job. >> Yeah. I also want to give kudos to Dr.
003Erica for the retirement dinner plans um for her health. Um it was nice to see her in her element how she was bossing those folks around. I loved it. Thank you again. It was a nice event. >> Well, thank you, Mal. I don't have to speak. >> Was great. Next up is personnel. Did you have a chance to go through personnel? >> Go minutes. >> Somebody say something. >> Huh? >> Did I miss a minute? I sure did. Oh yeah, I was looking at that too. I think uh approved the minutes for May 18th. Can I get a motion? >> We're moving second. >> Huh? >> Any questions? >> Yes. Are we taking them one by one? May 4th is on there as well. >> May 4th. >> Wait a minute. I missed something. >>
004May 18th. >> Oh, May 4th. Oh yeah, we think I No case. Thanks. Let's get that motion back off the floor. We going to do Can I get a motion? Can you withdraw your motion? >> Yes. Withdraw a motion. But we're going to do uh May 4th and May 18th, A and B. Can I get a motion to approve A and B? Johnson Johnson moves uh items 5A and 5B. Second move and second. Any discussion? >> Are these amended? Are these minutes amended? Is that why we're voting on that at this time? >> Have you made a correction or not? >> What correction? >> I was >> What I'm asking is any any discussion? >> That's that's my question. Discussion there. No. There's more amendments. Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Motion to approve item
0055 A and B. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Mr. row. >> Yes. >> Passes. >> Uh we'll take A through G. Can I get a motion for personnel A through G? Johnson moves item 7 A through 7G. Second move and second. Any discussion? Roll call to approve personal items A through G. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Dr. Marino. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rose. >> Yes. pass. >> All right. Uh H personnel evaluation of assistant superintendent. Can I get a motion? >> Johnson moves very >> move and second discussion. No person discussion roll call. Motion to approve personel the assistant superintendent evaluation. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Dr. Marino. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Finance A through H. Can I get a motion? >> A H. >> A through H.
006Second. >> Can I get a motion? >> Yeah. I have a bill. >> Okay. >> All right. Then move a second discussion. >> Roll call. Finance for each. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hill. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Marino. >> Yes. >> Hatcher. >> Yes. Yes. >> Motion passes 5. >> Contract A through N. Can I get a motion through 8? Sorry. I get a second. Okay. Sorry. Catch a second. >> Catch a second. Any discussion? Roll call. >> Motion to approve contracts items A through N. Mrs. Mills. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Dr. Marino. >> Yes. >> Rose. Yes. >> You shall pass it by. >> Okay. Policy A B. >> Policy A and B. Can I get a motion? >> Items. Uh A and B. Second
007>> and move and second. Any discussion? >> I would expect some evaporation on uh policy 827. >> Yeah. Yes. Uh so this uh just I guess to remind I guess yeah to try to uh reset this there was uh very limited technical language within this uh policy uh that was amended to reflect federal guidelines. Uh and for the uh for the board's um notification, it is the bolded language in the definitions uh section which um relates to what a conflict of interest uh essentially the definition of a conflict um for federal purposes. And this definition was expanded to not only include employees, officers, agents, board members, members of uh families um but also uh uh it was individuals that was added to the uh definition. And this was Yeah. So I believe it was uh
008the language was expanded to include that um that definition in the So this is not it's not substantive change. It's a >> chance. >> Yes. Roll call to approve policy edits A and B. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Marina. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hill. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 90. >> Uh poly 237 first read. So look at that policy. You got any questions? Next time on >> Mr. Apple for 237 for electronics. Yes. >> And Dr. Dr. Will the second paragraph is that our language or that one from >> the definition we're talking about. We say second paragraph. undefining. >> They're asking is that our language or PSBA's language? >> Could you come up to the mic? >> Yeah. So, the only thing that changed in
009this language was that we added everything else should be from our our previous policy. The only thing in this policy that was changed would be when you're looking at I believe it would be page two under guidelines was more specifically spelled out. But essentially everything else in the policy is from our previous policy and it's reviewed by PSBA unless I'm missing something or you're referring to something different. >> Okay. So the I guess and it might just be we're understanding. So I understand like we're reading here it's like the possession of the devices that are found to be disruptive disruptive excuse me can be abusive like I'm trying to figure out what exactly we're trying to state in that second paragraph >> use electronic what we're trying to state. >> Yeah. We're I when I'm
010reading it, we're stating that we're just basically identifying um the impact of having these devices talking about our uh personal devices and that they can be disruptive to the educational process. Like what I'm reading it kind of is saying what it's saying. So I'm just trying to get clarification on what you're asking that you feel like it's missing. >> I don't know if it's missing. It's just kind of like saying maybe it's not like the wording but it's like it's not like it's going in circles. >> So is you're saying that the having these devices can be disruptive and abusive and that's what I'm like it just sounds like aity >> right establishes that while we recognize that the use of electronic devices um in conformance with policy can be beneficial. It also goes on
011to state that personal electronic devices when they're not used >> in conform in conformity with the policy can be disrupted. And so that's why we go on to establish the the the grant of authority from both of law and policy and then also what we uh determine personal electronics those devices. It's not just the not just the the item itself, it's also the way that it's >> correct the use of it. >> You don't uh unintentionally ex don't unintentionally prohibit items that the student needs to form the daily. >> Okay. So they use not just have them. >> Right. Right. >> Does that clarify what you're asking? >> We're trying to figure out in that section. Okay. >> Yeah. I don't I think that's just particularly written. I don't think that's you are you pleasing
012person to do. Okay. So, and so for the state the law >> that we address what's coming down from the state level >> if that's correct that's why we made the correct that's why we made the um the revisions >> right like it be to incorporate it into our current policy rather than just create a ban is going to sweep those things >> my question is about under exceptions uh the first line of the exceptions, exceptions to this prohibition set forth in this policy may be made for health, safety, or emergency reasons. And then it has the caveat with prior approval of the building principal or designate. And so, if I'm reading this correctly, as I'm reading that, um it's saying that you need prior approval of the building principle or design designate to use
013the device for the purposes of health, safety, or emergency. And in that case, if let's just say someone's having a seizure or there's a shooting or something, I don't know that anybody's going to shoot. So this is >> whatever. So I have >> right >> that language actually comes out of this box. >> That's what I thought. That's coming out. >> This is that is coming out because that there is no correct. Yes, that's coming out. Thank you. >> That's why we do the first read. >> Correct. Is there any other questions on this policy? >> So then the then next time you see that part you saw will not be in there. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I So I would just I guess I would ask u the since the first reading doesn't doesn't
014include the the actual like the the amended language. Um I would ask that we bring it back for a first reading. >> Come back to No, come back for the second reading. Well, no, because the second reading typically the second reading should be um to finalize. >> Well, not the third read. You can do the second read. >> If everything is okay, the second read, >> you can do it. If it's not, you got a third, >> the final, >> correct? >> Okay. I mean, I I think I think this will need a third. I guess that's what I'm saying. Why would you say you need a third read when you go to take second read when you go back to committing? >> I would expect the first reading to have >> the proper edits.
015So because this doesn't have like because the language wasn't struck like we we I guess what I'm saying is we wasted a reading. >> So here's what I'm going to ask. Because of the timing of this, >> right? >> Because we don't meet in July, >> correct? What we will do is edit it, correct, and send it out to the full board so that you have an opportunity to do that because we want to be able to deploy this at the beginning of the school year and coming back in August for a first read removes that opportunity. >> Right. So, we will do that before the close of this week. >> I didn't I didn't mean that. >> Did everybody >> No, but it's a valid point. So, we want to push it out so
016that >> everybody understand that part. So they're going to go back and correct some of the discussed >> and then >> correct >> um our first meeting >> we'll push that out your first meeting to look at this first week. Well actually you'll be able to look at the edits >> before that week. Correct. >> But you will see the second reading in August the first meeting. >> Before school starts. >> No no no no. you'll see the second read before the end of this week. >> You'll be able to act on it the first week in August. So, you'll have the rest of this month, the entire month of July, >> and then you'll vote on it in August. >> And the reasoning for that is because the act goes into effect. >> The
017act does not go into effect by the end of this school, by the beginning of next school year, but we want to be able to put it in effect. It goes into effect they're anticipating next school year. >> Okay? which is not 26 27 but 2728 that's when they will require it to be in effect when it comes out for the u edited accepted questions or concern >> always always >> so when you send it out you can highlight the part and take it out >> correct >> you're not adding anything >> so so if you see anything else you like to take out or discuss that we can do that >> well we'll also do I think it's going to be beneficial just to Miss Lamel's question. We're also going to send out our
018current policy so that it's clear what we already approved in 2017, which is most of what you're reading here. The vast majority of this is 2017. We only dropped in the new pieces. So, we want to be able So, you can see what is and what is not already board approved. >> I And I guess for the public's edification. Yes, >> the the the edits that are active in this draft are the additions of the uh types of electronic devices that are considered >> correct. >> I think there were two there were two two categories of electronic devices. >> All right. You got your work out. Okay. Question. Go ahead. >> Question down. And this isn't a question. This is just a recommendation and and this is for the committee's consideration. As you're sending out
019edits, you can decide what you want to do. But I would recommend that we would add one under our exceptions. We have already student is a member of a student volunteer of a volunteer fire company ambulance or rescue squad. I would also recommend that we add our student work uh participant. If we have any student exceptions, I would recommend that we would include that those students in that. I think that there's a you know an argument that could be made for a kid who's in the building who has eyes on to have their device to perhaps be able to be in communication if some for whatever reason. >> You say you would ask >> the student rights. Let me ask you they're not they're not envisioned in disposal. >> Okay. So that's what I mean
020like this that's why I'm saying like I don't know that this should have gone. >> Okay. >> That would be my recommendation. Where did that come from for the volunteer fire company and rescue squad? >> That's in our current policy >> from the volunteer firefighters. >> Yeah. >> So we're permitting students to leave school to go respond on fire. You couldn't be a volunteer firefighter at 16? >> No. I mean, no. No, that's not that's not my question. Are they allowed to leave? Are we permitting them to be placed to go respond on fire? >> If there is an emergency and they needed them, they called Yes. That's currently in our policy now. Yes. Since 2017. >> It's part of the act. >> Yeah. >> They haven't. Well, even before the act, it's been in
021our correct any way that when we have something that comes up for review for the first read, why it would not have the changes for us to see them today. >> So, why don't we have to change it? >> That was my question. They've not been listed that way historic, but we can change it, >> right? >> We can we can absolutely do that. Yeah, she's asking what we should have next time. >> Y want those to follow. >> So So she said if it wasn't there would be discussion >> the changes the question >> should they should they follow a structural format. So typically when you have acts that are being amended there's a format certain if a word is in parentheses it means something. That's what you want then. >> So what what
022I'm hearing them say >> when you go down the line >> they want the red line. >> You see something yelling it out however you want to do it. Take it out. This is what's going in. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I was saying that during the review process, it should have the changes that you want. Then you won't have to send them out in an email to us. That's what I was asking. Is you understand what I'm saying? >> No, I >> this came up for a first read, but it has no of the changes that you're going to be doing. >> That's why that's why I originally asked for >> Right. So that was my question. And so in the future when we have something for a first breed in a policy, it
023should have potential changes for us to at least look at and ask questions about. >> I Okay. >> So, can I just say it does have the changes? I think that we're talking about, correct me if I'm wrong, only basically striking one particular line or sentence, but the policy that we're reading does have the changes that we discussed in the policy committee with the exception of we're going to be striking one line. So other than that, this is the we are presenting to you the policy that was discussed >> and I think they're in vote so we can see the changes that were made. >> Yeah, I think what they're asking is yes, you're right. They're asking from the original policy that was adopted in 2027, what has been added. >> So you want that.
024>> Okay. That would be bold. The 2027 would not be bold. So you can see clearly what has been included. So >> yes. So so bold for addition strike through for >> deletion. I don't know about >> well that's what we just had in the last one. We just saw that. So what you're asking for is consistency and formatting processes. >> Okay. So just one caveat. All of this is going to change on Tuesday, >> but we will make sure because remember four dots is going away, correct? >> But we are working with the new company and we will still be able to make those distinctions, we believe. But either way, they will they will happen. We just can't tell you what they're going to look like, but you will highlighted in yellow, but you
025will still see a distinction. might be. It might be. You just don't know when. But we'll know what Tuesday. Tuesday isn't tomorrow. >> Next Tuesday. We'll know next Tuesday for the So for clarity on the record, we're not adding an additional reading. We'll make all necessary changes for the second reading. All all all items that all things that need to be >> added and all things that will be included second. >> Okay. >> That seems right for a second but I understand her to say she wanted action so we can >> that's still the second reason. He's correct. That's second reading. All right. >> Okay. I still have that. Okay. Uh nothing on the new business or other is there anything a motion for journ all in favor? >> I >> oppose. Wait, you always
026don't go anywhere. You have decided and this young decide.