Conroe ISD Board of Trustees Hearing and Special Meeting - March 2, 2026

001Good evening. I call to order the hearing and special meeting of the Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees for Monday, March 2nd, 2026 to order. The time is 6:00 p.m. A quorum of the board is present and this meeting has been duly posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. At this time, I ask that we please stand for the invocation to be led by Trustee Dunan and the pledges to be led by Trustee Dawson. Please join me for prayer. Father God, we come to you tonight thankful for getting us here safely. Lord, we thank you for the many blessings that you've given this district, Lord, and how you continue to guide and guard us. Lord, I ask that in the many decisions that will be made tonight

002and in the coming weeks, Lord, that you just be in that process, Lord, just uh guard the hearts and minds that are making choices that will benefit the children of this district. Lord, be with us as a board tonight as we conduct the business of this district. God, have your hands on us, Lord, and allow the decisions we make to be for your will. Lord, ask that you be with our country, guide our leaders, Lord, protect our troops, and be with us as a nation and just as a world. Lord, we love you. We thank you. And we ask all of this in Jesus holy name. Amen. >> Amen. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the standy for all. Texas one. >> Thank you both. And you may be

003seated. We will now open the public hearing pursuant to Texas Education Code sections 13.03 and 13.051 051 regarding the petition seeking detachment of Montgomery trace section 4 from Conroe ISD and and annexation to Montgomery uh ISD. The board's role is to determine whether the petition satisfies satisfies the statutory prerequisites of chapter 13, whether the petition is legally sufficient, whether the board has statutory authority to proceed and to consider the educational and economic impact of the proposed boundary change. This is a factf finding proceeding required by law. At this time, we will move to citizen participation um and public comment in in accordance with board policy beed local. Each speaker will have two minutes to address the board. The board will listen but would not engage in discuss discussion during this portion of the meeting. Miss

004Spurlock, do we have any speakers? All right. Seeing as we have no one signed up to speak, we will move forward with this hearing. We will move into the presentation of petitioner wisdom Idollet. You will have 10 minutes to present and the board may ask questions following your presentation. Um and Mr. Stewart, you are ready to go with the slides. Correct. All right. >> All right. >> Thank you and welcome. >> Thank you. Can you guys hear me? All right. Um my name is Wisdomlet. I'm a resident of the McGomery Trace Section 4 neighborhood. Um, first thank you for your time and effort in this. I know this is a unorthodox thing that you guys are having to handle and research. So the effort that went into that, thank you for that. So um, as

005mentioned, the purpose of this petition is for the interests of the neighborhood McGomery Trace Section 4. Um, the majority of the residents in that neighborhood wish to detach from Conro ISD and move be annexed into McGomery ISD per Texas Education Code. a little bit about our neighborhood. Um so on the right is um kind of a part of Condro ISD. Um TEC says that um to be able to detach and annex you have to be on the edge of the districts. Um ours is in that bottom left uh portion under the red box. Um essentially our north and western western borders touch McGomery ISD. So we meet that requirement. Uh it's a very small area. We have about 80 homes only and it's about 03% of your Conro ISD students are currently attending from that

006neighborhood. Zooming in a little bit more uh just to get a little bit more context. So talking about the actual territory um at some point in the past don't know when um Conro ISD and McGomery ISD borders um when they were drawn the borders essentially the the border came down from the north came down south um jumped across a creek grabbed our neighborhood then jumped back across the creek to continue elsewhere. Um not sure why that happened don't have any history there but you know from from everybody we talked to it doesn't make a lot of sense. Um, also of interest is our the only road to get to our neighborhood is uh Honia Egypt Road and it goes north and south on the west side of our neighborhood. It's the only way to get

007there and pretty much every neighborhood every home two to three miles north and south on that road is in Montgomery. So we're this isolated neighborhood stuck in not stuck sorry board still in Conro ISD. Um, so at the very least, just making this change from this petition would kind of correct that strange adoption of the borders from the very beginning. Um, strangely enough too, the Conro buses have to drive four to eight extra miles just to get to our neighborhood, pick up kids, and then go back through McGomery and Magnolia districts to leave. All right. So, Texas Education Code also says that a majority of registered voters have to be have to sign the petition. Um, we made about 53% of the registered voters from our neighborhood. Took a while. A lot of people didn't

008want to answer their doors. Um, but we got it. Um, what I wanted to call out here is that what we found by talking to people was that there were a lot of people that were still registered to vote that were no longer actually living in our neighborhood. um we found at least I think 27 people that shouldn't actually be registered in our neighborhood, but nonetheless that was the number we had to go to. Um but when you take out and look at people actually living in our neighborhood, we actually got about 63% of the voter uh the residents to sign the petition. So almost twothirds are in support of this and we've actually got a few more votes since then and about 12% we never talked to in the at all. So um all

009right. So obviously Texas education code says we have to consider the social, economic and educational effects as well. Um talking to neighbors before we create the petition. This is kind of the the the concepts, the opinions that people had. Um you know I'm just going to run through these real quick. Um I know it's kind of, you know, we don't want to make this as an attack on Conro. Conro is a great district. Um it's just this is what people's opinions were. Um first off, MISD schools were closer on average. So families like the idea that the McGomery, sorry, McGomery schools are closer on average. Families like the idea that they were closer, right? It makes it quicker to get to school. It's safer in terms of if there's an emergency, you can respond faster.

010Um, second item is building stronger social relationships. A lot of the people we talked to thought they were in McGomery. They go to church in McGomery. They shop in McGomery. They have family in McGomery. So most people we talked to felt like they were already part of McGomery. and just being part of the MISD district would have just helped build that that social uh relationship as well. Number three is um the areas around MISD schools are safer on average, at least the ones we're zoned to. Um and we looked at crimegrades.org uh website. Um so that's specifically for the junior high and high school. Number two, already mentioned that the buses it's it's kind of a small benefit for you guys that you wouldn't have to send buses down as well. And number five is

011as parents, you know, we want our kids to um you know, succeed as much as they can. Um what we saw was that the proficiency scores, SAT, SAT scores were a little bit higher uh at the Montgomery side versus the Conroe schools that we were zone to. So that was just another draw for us um to be able to go to Montgomery instead of Conroe. So that's all the the kind of the arguments that we came up with in Nigley. Um I want to address some of the challenges that um we've seen that we've heard from McGomery that we've heard from Conor SD Legal Council. I just want to go through these real quick. Um the first one is that there is a ratio a calculation inside of the Texas Education Code that essentially looks

012at um you know the tax base of the territory as a percentage of the district and compares it to the students as a percentage of the district. And when we first saw that we were thinking okay that's probably not an issue. No big deal. But it turns out according to legal counsel that seems to be an issue. Uh we're about four students short. So if we had four more students attending Conroe inside the neighborhood, we would have met this calculation requirement which is kind of surprising. But um and to to this point, I think all of these challenges have ways around it. Um I think there's there's ways to work with these. Uh, and for this one, um, Texas Education Code actually makes it pretty clear there is a way to to to meet this

013requirement is, uh, simply to get a majority of Conro SD board members to sign the petition. So, um, I have the petition here. If you guys want to sign it afterwards, that would just meet that requirement. Um, you know, we could go and try to, you know, gerrymander another line through the neighborhood to make it to where the calculation meets the TEC code, but that's not really the intent, right? Um but it is an option. Number two, um so this is related to the meets and bounds description. Um so C CSD legal council said that the description we provided it was inadequate because it failed to provide an official and unambiguous legal description. Um to that point, um there are no legal filings of the meats and bounds in a legal format available to the

014public from the county. um all we had was the plat of the neighborhood. So that's what we worked with. We're not we didn't have anybody lawyers or anybody no surveyors in the group, right, that helped form this petition. We worked with what we had. Um you know, talking with people, I don't think anybody I've talked to is actually confused as to what territory we want to get moved over. If this went to the county commissioners, I think they wouldn't have any problem trying to figure out what territory, what bounds they would have to move over. uh we talked to a surveyor and he said, "Oh yeah, it's really actually really easy to to calculate the meets and bounds and put it in a description. We just didn't happen to do it in our petition because

015we honestly didn't know better." Um and then lastly, I I think just the this our petition meets the spirit of the law. Um we're not lawyers. We didn't think of this as a legal document. So um it's just public people trying to communicate their desire. And then number three is um something that McGomery ISD mentioned to me. This is beyond our understanding, but um it seems like there might be some need for some debt to move over from Conro to McGomery based on Texas Education Code or some other legal requirements that we're not familiar with. Um and McGomery was kind of against this simply because they didn't know how long it would take them to pay off that debt that they would have to take on. Um so they couldn't support the petition simply on

016that on those grounds as well. Um but there's a solution to that. um you know it's it's you know could not transfer the debt at all. Um it's 03% of your district and honestly I don't see there's not like McGomery gets any assets when they do this. If we if this petition was for 50% of the district then technically they'd have to move over 50% of the debt but they might not get any schools or anything to support that. Um, so the other option is to work with TEA, figure out what the actual payment schedule would be. Um, maybe follow the bond payment period of 25 to 30 years, whatever it is. Um, but that's just an option that we could do. So, just in summary, um, you know, I recognize there's there's challenges to

017this. There's, um, reasons not to do this. there's reasons to do this, but at the end of the day, this is something that the majority of the people in the area want. Um there's reasons that they believe to move over that benefits the families and the students in that area. Um I just I I simply think this is a matter of figuring out how the school districts make it happen to support the public interest of this petition. So with that, um, thank you for your time. >> Trustees, do you have any questions for Mr. Idollet? >> Okay. >> All right. Thank >> All right. So >> I do I do have a question. Um, >> legal counsel, is it possible to not transfer debt to MISD? >> I don't I don't know how that's >>

018I'm sorry. I was just trying to look that up. I I I think the statute says you have to, but I need to look it up. I don't have a firm answer on that. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. At this time, we'll move into the presentation on behalf of Conrad D and Cara Belaloo, our general counsel for the district. We'll have 10 minutes to share information followed by questions from the board. Is the microphone on? Okay. Thank you so much board. I really um appreciate Mr. Idollet, a concerned citizen who's come before you, made a great presentation. So, we greatly appreciate um his hard work and the value he and his his community um bring to Conro ISD. Um I just have a a quick presentation to address a few of

019the concerns with the movement of the property. As Mr. Idollette mentioned um Montgomery ISD has already voted not to or against this annexation in large part because they were concerned about the debt that that um they would have to take on, but they were concerned about some other issues as well. One issue that is significant for the taxpayers impacted is that currently Conro ISD's tax rate is lower than Montgomery ISD's tax rate. Um, and while it might not seem like much, the average home in this area is about $42,000. And so each taxpayer, if this properties were annexed to McGomery, each taxpayer um in the area would pay on average $568 more per year in property taxes. So it would be a significant tax increase to each homeowner. The next thing is, and this is

020probably the most important legal issue that is um insurmountable is that the currently the statute reads that the annexation can only take place if certain statutory requirements are met. One of the central statutory requirements is that you have to compare some ratios to make sure things are equitable. And this is to make sure things are fair. um the district where the property is being detached from. And so what the ratio analysis asks us to do is take the assessed value of the area divided by the total assessed value of Conroe ISD and then compare that number or that ratio to the number of school age children divided by the total enrollment um of children in Conro ISD. And if the first ratio is larger than the second ratio, then statutoily the annexation cannot go forward

021because it does not meet a required prerequisite for an annexation to take place. So without that moving forward, um there's no legal way for the board to um allow for the annexation. And then the final point we wanted to make is that McGomery ISD has an open transfer policy and it's routinely allowing Conrod students to transfer and attend McGomery ISD. Um, so there's no need for a formal annexation if some McGomery ISD students choose to avail themselves or Conro ISD students are choosing to avail themselves of the opportunity to attend McGomery ISD. And with that, that's all that we um had for today. Any questions, trustees? All right. Um moving on. The trustees will now consider adoption of findings of fact and a resolution regarding the petition. The board makes the following findings for the

022record. The board has reviewed the petition submitted pursuant to Texas Education Code Chapter 13 and the evidence presented during this hearing, including valuation data provided by the appropriate appraisal authorities. Texas Education Code Chapter 13 requires that certain minimum taxable property value ratios be satisfied before a board of trustees has authority to approve and proceed with detachment and annexation. Based on the evidence presented, the taxable property value of the territory proposed to be detached when comparable to the taxable property value of the affected district or districts does not meet the minimum statutory ratio required by chapter 13. Compliance with the statutory requirements of chapter 13 is a mandatory and jurisdictional issue. Because the required property value ratio has not been satisfied, the BA board lacks statutory authority to proceed to consider and approve the requested boundary

023change. This is based solely upon the statutory requirements of Texas Education Code Chapter 13 and the record before the board. So in summary, the threshold for the ratio analysis necessary has not been met. To move Montgomery trace 4 out of CISD to MISD would constitute a taxable increase to taxpayers. And given that Montgomery ISD already has an open enrollment and option, thus making annexation necessary unnecessary. Um, I I move that the board determine that the petition filed by Wisdom Idollet seeking detachment of Montgomery Trace Section 4 from Conro ISD and annexation to Montgomery ISD fails to satisfy the mandatory property value ratio requirement set forth in Texas Education Code Chapter 13, including the applicable requirements of section 13.03 and 13.051. 051. In that the ratio of taxable property value of the territory proposed to be

024detached to the taxable property value of the affected districts does not meet the statutory threshold. And further that the board adopt the findings of fact and resolution reflecting the determination and decline to proceed with the requested detachment and annexation. I have made this motion. Is there a second? And then we will have discussion. A second. Okay, we are open. The floor is open for discussion and any questions. >> I just have a question from for Mr. Idollet. >> Yes, Idollet. Thank you, >> Mr. Idollet. Oops. Sorry, my mic was off. She has another question, sir. >> Hi. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time tonight. Uh curious, were you aware that the Magnolia District had I'm sorry, the Montgomery district had open enrollment? >> So, um they actually don't have open enrollment anymore. They

025stopped that a year or two ago. >> Um we actually planned to take advantage of that. A lot of families had um but they stopped that. Um they turned it into they had limited open enrollment last year for two schools, but not open enrollment for anybody. And then now they have a applicationbased interest. So it's a very limited open enrollment pathway for that as well. So full open enrollment. Yeah. >> Um I mean we're certainly going to look into that. >> I'm just asking. No, just personally with your options, I don't know what grade your children are in or or your neighbor's children, but I didn't know if what the um possibility of that opportunity. >> We'd have to apply for it just like anybody else. >> But it sounds like you're saying that's a

026limited opportunity. That's not guaranteed. >> That's what we're being told. Yes. Because I just want to make that clear and I'm glad you had that insight because >> the decision here is being based on the fact that the district Montgomery district has open enrollment and you're telling me that's not exactly the case. >> Correct. Yeah, they actually they finished the board meeting clarifying that for us that there was a there was a application base but it's limited. Um, so >> can you tell us how many children K through 12 are in this neighborhood that this would affect? >> Um, so 22 I believe is what? Um, >> total for K through 12. >> That is K through 12 for currently enrolled in Conroe. >> But I mean total >> Oh, total. Um, >> I don't

027know the exact numbers. I know there are some families that got into open enrollment into McGomery before they closed it. I'd say I'd have to guess another five to 10. Um there are a lot of homeschooling families as well in the neighborhood that were looking at putting their kids in in junior high high school. >> So there's some that have already transferred. >> Um there are some that already transferred to McGomery before McGomery closed their open enrollment. >> Okay. So there's only 22 remaining, >> correct? >> In Conor. Okay. And you said they closed that last year. I >> I think it was maybe the last year or the year before. >> Okay. Yeah, at least two years. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So to be clear on that. >> No problem.

028Thank you. >> I I have a question perhaps for one of our um our our Connor D people. Um you mentioned that that that your neighborhood jumped the creek and it was the only one that jumps the creek. Do we have any um historical information on how that happened or how we acquired that question? >> I do not. I'm sorry. I feel like I need to work up here. >> It's a >> If you don't have it, nobody does. >> And Mr. McCord, to that to that point, um because he he mentioned that the buses are having to drive a I think he said I don't know the number of miles. I think you said eight. Um, our buses are having to drive through their district through their lines to get to their >> they

029call up Pony Egypt just like we do on the east side in >> Well, they're having to drive through their a separate district to get into their neighborhood and then drive back out. Is that correct? >> And that's not the only place we do that. >> Okay. >> Yes, that's absolutely correct. >> Just want to make sure I heard that correct. >> Upon Egypt, north and south. >> Do you And you don't know how many miles that is? Just out of curiosity. >> It says two to three on hit on Mr. Idollet on Mr. Idollet. I'm not sure. >> Oh, there it is. Okay, it does say it on here. Uh, Mr. McCord, I am so sorry. Um, I just lost my train of thought on that. I was going to ask you a question.

030Oh, and you said that's not the only location that we do that. >> No, we do that also in Candy Creek where we have to go through Splendor ISD. We get masses of kids back and forth to Ky Creek, Morehead coming south and north as we go through Splendor ISD. >> Okay, thank you. >> I have another question. How many homes would this impact um with the would the um 80 >> with the annexation? How many total homes? >> The information we had, I believe Mrs. Blue was 94 homes would be impacted by the tax rate and the whole thing. 94 homes. And do we do all 94 homeowners know that this would affect maybe Mr. Idolat can answer. >> That was one of my questions, so I'm glad you asked it. >> Um, so

031I think there's maybe 94 lots. Um, there's 80 homes, actual residents of the people in them. Some are actually nobody's living there, but um to answer your question about the tax rate increase, yes, we um discussed that with every single person we talked to. We included it in our Facebook chats. Um, we want to make sure that was clear. And even so, everybody we talked to that signed the petition was completely fine with that. They thought it was worth it. >> Was anybody against it? >> Yes. Yeah, there were a few people who were against it, of course. >> Yeah. Um, I think for the people over 65, their taxes are locked in, so it didn't really impact them. It was that window of um adults that didn't have kids that would have had the

032tax increase. Most of them said yes. that by all means, let's move over. I don't care about the extra cost. Um, and I I I think it's like maybe two or three families that said no because of that those grounds. >> Thank you. >> I think there's still concern about the debt issue because Montgomery did say no based on that. I think we would need to get firm answer on transferring the debt and what that would look like. Miss Blue, is that something we could get now or will that take time? >> I've been searching for it. I'm so sorry. Let me just to recall the question was is is that necessary? >> I think the Yeah, the question is could you guys just of your own accord keep the debt? Um, I'm just going

033to point out a maybe a logical issue with that, which is that then you would be paying you would be paying the debt, right, instead of their taxpayers even though their kids are attending Montgomery ISD. So, um, one that was the solution that was mentioned is maybe you guys would just retain the debt and it wouldn't go to McGomery. And I think that, you know, um, there's some there's some issues probably with that anyway. as well as the fact that we wouldn't be even recruit uh bringing in the even the ADA on it. So we would be like two times double whammy. >> And another thing to consider is because we're losing that taxable value for Conro ISD, we're actually losing revenue in our debt service fund. Now in the maintenance and operations fund, it

034doesn't really matter because the size of the cup is determined by student enrollment. Although it would impact that because we would lose ADA, but we would be essentially keeping the debt, but then losing revenue on the debt side as well if if if it was decided that we did not need to move the debt. >> The taxable um amount that we would lose by losing those >> about 38 million >> 38 million. >> And you are correct. There's 94 parcels in that in that subdivision based on the Montgomery Central Appraisal District records. Karen, could I ask a quick question if you had the answer to it? Do you know how many students are currently enrolled in Montgomery ISD in that in that 94 >> like today? >> Yeah, >> I think Mr. McCord looked at

035the bus routes that have been they've ridden the bus at least once this year or been on the route. I think there's 26 now. >> So, there's 26 students that are in Conroe ISD, but they're actually going to Montgomery. I just want >> those are our kids. Those are our kids in this subdivision that are enrolled >> in Conro. I don't know how many are transferred. I don't know if we would know that information. >> Okay. >> Would Mr. Adellet know that? I thought he said I thought he gave an estimate. >> He doesn't have the official based on >> just a guess. Do an official count. >> Um but you mentioned 26 students >> that was for Conro. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm not sure. I guess we're not clear on how many kids

036are transferring in. I will mention that McGomery ISD does have a transfer policy up online and it was our understanding that many Conroe ISD students were transferring into McGomery ISD. So, I'm not sure. I guess we don't have the number, but um but I I wasn't aware that they'd stopped that transfer policy because it's up online and and they're indicating that they are accepting transfers. >> So, is the transfer option different than open enrollment? >> It's o it's open enrollment. you uh apply um you fill out an application to transfer into that ISD and they do have that application up online right now but maybe they they may have more information than >> it seems like I mean that's a long time to leave it up if you're not doing it >> if I might

037um I've been through the process of transfer several times and so what would happen is this you know everybody has to apply for a transfer >> yes >> and so based on those standards what I would say that you had to have you had to be in good standing academically good good grades and and behavior whatever those kind of situations are. So, there was a litmus test to evaluate anyone who is going to transfer into the district. Um, you know, most I don't know any other any school district that that doesn't have some of those standards in terms of the application process. And so, uh, when you're doing that, uh, it would be unwise to to to be able to not not take those standards. So, that's where we are. >> I wanted to speak

038to the 22 kids versus 26. I know your ears kind of perked up when I said 26. The statute requires that that ratio calculation for the enrolled students versus total enrollment be done as of the last day of school in the preceding school year. So that's that's why we're using 22 in the calculation. >> And on the assessed value, it says 50 million here, but did you say it was 38? >> Yes. Assessed value and taxable value are two different things. Yes. I'm sorry because you already sat down. Sorry. You said, can you explain that how we go from 38 to 50 million? >> Assessed value is the the assessed value of the home before exemptions are applied. So your homestead exemption, your over 65 exemptions get you from assessed to taxable. So it goes

039market value, assessed value, taxable value. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions or discussion regarding the this topic? Are we ready to call the vote? Okay. All those in favor of the motion that has been presented and um Miss Burlock, you have that or if not, let me know and I'll get that to you. All those in favor show by the uplift of Oh, >> what's the motion? >> Yes. >> Very long. It's very long. I move that the board determine that the petition filed by Wisdom Idollet seeking detachment of McGomery Trace Section 4 from Conro ISD and annexation to Montgomery ISD fails to satisfy the mandatory property value ratio requirement set forth in Texas Education Code Chapter 13, including the applicable requirements of sections 13.03 and 13.051. 051 in that ratio of taxable

040property value of the territory proposed be detached to the taxable taxable sorry it's a little mouth wordy property value of the affected district does not meet the statutory threshold and further that the board adopt the findings of fact and resolution reflecting the determination and declined to proceed with the requested detachment and annexation. And it did receive a first and a second. >> Okay, >> everyone good with that? >> Okay, all those in favor, please show by the uplift of hands. Four, five. Okay, that's 64 and six in favor, I should say, and zero opposed. So, the motion carries. Okay, this concludes the board's consideration of the petition and the hearing portion of the special meeting is hereby concluded. We will now proceed with the remainder of the special meeting agenda and I do thank you

041Mr. Idollet and um I wish the neighborhood continued success. All right, Miss Burlock, do we have anyone signed up for Okay, so there's no We would normally move into citizen participation, but seeing as it appears that no one has signed up to speak, we will move forward with the next item on the agenda, which is um the closed session. The time is 6:34 p.m. I'd like to make a motion. Okay. >> Um I move that the closed session item two, schoolboard operating procedures be discussed in open session. This item does not fall within the personnel exceptions outlined in Texas Government Code section 551.074 and therefore should not be considered in close session. Okay, seeing no second, the motion fails. Moving forward, we the board will move to close session as authorized by Texas Government Code

042551.074A1 074A1 to deliberate regarding the superintendent goals and planning and schoolboard operating procedures. All final votes, actions or deci decisions will be taken in open session at this time 6:30. >> Oh yes, Madam President, I would like to ask for clarification on that that that item does fall beneath the code that was just stated. >> Yeah, it does. I mean, it's um I don't have the agenda right in front of me, but it fits into board duties, which is a very clear exception to the Texas Open Meetings Act. >> So, it does fall under board duties, which does fall under the code stated. So, we are within legal bounds. >> It looks like that code to me was concerning individuals and classes of employees, which is why the superintendent was under there. Didn't look like

043it had any board duties in it when I went through it. Um it is deliberation regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of a public officer. You guys are public officer and the operating procedures manuals regarding your duties. In addition, your operating procedures manual includes some of the duties and the goals of the superintendent and those are as part of his evaluation and those are also allowed in close session. as an exception to the test about being individual officers though and not a class of officers. So, I'm concerned that this doesn't belong in close session. >> Noted. Thank you very much. All um the time is 6:36 and we are now in close session. All right. The time is in reality 6:04. Just for the record, I'd like to correct that the

044clock was off at the dis um at the beginning and the end of last session and we actually opened the board meeting at 5 and we concluded our special hearing um at 5:36. Out of an abundance of caution, the time is 6:04 and the board has come forth back to open session to discuss um superintendent goals planning and schoolboard operating procedures in open session. However, we will move anything that has to do with superintendent goals and planning and things related to the superintendent's employment to closed session. All right, I will turn this over to our docus reps here. Okay. Well, good evening. If you will, you should have a copy of the board operating procedures that the draft that we're looking through. And we are on the section entitled trustee goals and strategic plan beginning

045on page 13. And >> so I'm gonna give just a moment to make sure that >> I'm not on speaker. We already had a copy of this, but there's another one for you to have. So, we are reviewing we are reviewing a draft of the potential board operating procedures for consideration for the board and um we are helping to facilitate this conversation and gather input from from you all as board members. My understanding is that you had a copy of the draft where you were able to read and make notations so that we could all prepare for this discussion this evening. Um, and so that's what I'm operating under the assumption of this evening. And so with that, I have marked that we need to discuss starting at trustee goals and strategic plan. If it's

046okay, I'm going to hang on just one moment. Wait for wait just a moment. Everybody have a copy while I'm waiting and checking? Yes. Okay. So, while we're waiting for her, I I do understand we received this copy prior to this meeting. I just want to be clear that we are we were leaving off at the end of page 12 and the in our previous um meeting of the information that was presented. And as far as this draft goes, where do we pick up at the end of page >> at the beginning >> 12 of the previous version? I have marked that we are that we are starting at the new section of trustee goals and strategic plan. >> Okay. It's just the page numbers aren't matching >> and they may they may not have

047been because we've updated some edits based on input. So they may be a little bit >> original 1 through 12 pages. So make sure and then and then my copy also has sections where um legal counsel has you know aligned the law so I have comments so it moves my numbering on the on the digital problem >> trusty goals and strategic plan I'll go by title >> that would be helpful thank you >> and then what page number is that for y'all >> that was page 13 of the previous version >> yep okay so uh because you've had a chance to read in advance and make notations what I'd like to do is just walk through each of these section by section and then you can speak up if there's things that that need to

048be discussed or recommendations or suggestions that uh you'd like to make u and we'll get some feedback in terms of how we can further um finalize these documents and um they'll be more ripe for um a vote for y'all. So with that, we have a section that says, "How will the Conraistd Board of Trustees achieve trustee goals?" And I'd like to just open it up to this. This is really like just over slightly over one page. So I think we just start from the beginning. Do I have some comments or concerns or suggestions that need discussion in this section? Um, I would just make a recommendation where uh and the goals utilize BQ, BQA, BQB to be spelled out since it's not already delineated in the document. >> Okay. >> Is that a policy? >>

049That's a policy reference. So, you thinking >> BQ is a policy? >> No, I know. >> You think board state board policy formally? I like that. That's a great suggestion. >> It's just not mentioned in this document. So for clarity, >> I want to make sure I understand. You actually just want it to make the marker of this is board policy. You don't want the actual policy in there. >> Just I want the name. >> Got it. >> So what I'm adjusting in each of these. Do you want to come join us? All right. >> So what I'm doing is I'm adjusting that on my copy and I'm doing this in suggestion mode so that we're that I can capture this correctly. Board policy BQ planning and decision-making process. board policy, BQA, planning and decision

050making process, CISD district level, etc. So, I'm adding board planning to the in to the beginning of those so that it's clear that it's indicating >> some Yeah, someone in the in the public is reading it, they know exactly what we're referring to. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um something else that um a question I have I didn't see and I don't know if it's required a mid like midcourse adjustment if there's anything to the strategic plan if that's needed. I don't see, you know, does the board have to reapprove those? Is there a process for that? And does that need to be documented in this section? So, it sounds to me what's up for some discussion is whether or not we we need to add some language in for what the iteration of

051that strategic plan looks like. >> Where's Dr. Vincent? >> I would assume that would be part of Dr. Vincent's um strategic plan, right? kind of the court the regular regular updates. So, we'll be seeing that as part of the goals. >> Well, if there's a if he's are you saying if he makes an adjustment to the strategic goals? >> I'm not saying the like the review of progress. Yeah. I'm just saying like an adjustment to anything that was part of the five-year plan. >> Any of a goal goal a goal was added to that strategic plan andor is accomplished needs to be removed. What be it? I want to make sure I understand. You want a formal thought process that says if a need arises for a change, it will be brought back to the

052board. >> Correct. >> Is it can it be that simple? >> Yep. >> Does that work? >> Where do you want to put that? You're suggesting that >> third paragraph. >> Okay. I just >> I just want to make sure that we're all looking at the same thing. So, as soon as you get that correction or that edit, would you stop for just a second? Yes. Okay. So, I was going to put a notation, but do we want to try to word submit that so that we can all hear it so that it's complete? As >> to be very honest, I have no idea what has been discussed because I just found where we were because titles were changed. >> So, we didn't know where we were. So, go ahead. >> Okay. So would you

053would you mind Miss Gambino suggesting where in >> the section you'd like for that addition to be made? Let's start there and then I we can direct everybody to where we're >> uh Okay. So I'm looking at page >> Hold on. >> 13 of the document we were supposed to look >> I'm just looking at the new one at this point. >> Okay. You're looking at the new one which if I'm not mistaken is page seven. >> Correct. Good. Just because I just >> Are we are we looking at the old version or the new version when we're editing? So at this point from from this section on it would be the same. It would be the same language. Yes. >> But it's a new version. So we're page seven of the new version. >>

054We're page seven. If you have the new version it would be page seven then. >> Okay. >> But it's the same language for >> No, because on the top of that it it says on page seven district goals and superintendent priorities. But at the top of page 13 it says trustee goals and strategic plan. We I I believe because we were there was a suggestion that we realign the language so that it all matched. So >> Okay. And that's fine. I just wanted that's why it was taking us a little while because we were going based on the title and it wasn't matching up and so we had to go word for word looking for it. So okay >> that's what I was trying to say but I do I'm looking in answer to your

055question Trustee Dawson. I'm looking at page 13 of the old but I've also got page seven up just to look of the new just to look. So go ahead. I'm sorry, Miss Gam uh Trusty Gambia. >> Um in terms of where it would apply, um I I mean probably at the end would probably be sufficient >> at the end of the entire section. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Or or the second to last paragraph where it talks about implementing a five-year superintendent strategic plan >> at the end of that first sentence. That's where I had my cursor, but I also want to make sure it's where >> I think >> where the suggestion is >> being made. >> And >> yeah, these are different documents. >> These are completely different documents. >> These are

056different documents. >> So, um, >> cuz I'm looking at the new one and it looks completely different from what I'm looking at. >> Does the one that you're looking How many pages does the one you're looking at have? >> Like the old one? >> The old one? >> 41. Which one do you have? Which one? >> The one that we left here with and we said we were going to go through and edit 43. >> I'm I'm looking at the one that y'all sent um recently on my computer. >> I think we And it's the same as this. So >> the problem is that you've all made notes depending on whichever one you either printed out or kept with you that you were looking at originally. Correct. What? Yes. So >> So I I personally

057use the original document that we left here with after the first meeting. I I'm only speaking for myself, but I would that's that was the plan. >> That's what I did because we'd said we'd go from this document >> on to Yes, that's what I'm also editing. >> So that's And did you use that old document or did you go from the new? >> I was using the new document, but I just got a new print of the old document. >> Okay. >> I do I like the new docu and it's much cleaner. So looks fairly good. >> I have not. >> The problem is you guys sent new edits and we're looking we're all looking at different versions. Well, so, so I would say 99% of the edits are from that initial 13 pages.

058Now, if there was, if there was language that was aligned, for example, district versus the use of trustees or the strategic plan was named specifically as opposed to superintendent priorities or however that got shifted, then there were some of those that were made, but but the vast majority should be very similar. Would you like >> when you say similar, I mean these are just by by the first two pages, these are very different. So, Well, yes, they're going to be Yes. I we received a from that very first from the first time that we were all together, we received feedback and made those updates >> with the assumption. Yes. With the assumption that we would start with on the old document, the original document and review >> last month from page 13. Now, in the

059new document, we can I'm gonna I'm gonna Can we have that printed out? So, um, because I can pull it up and toggle digitally either way and that way we can >> we can give you references. Hang on just a second. Let me pull that out. >> Because one thing we want to avoid being out here per legal advice is that we're we're not going to be discussing superintendent specific items. And it looks to me like at least just reviewing the first couple of pages that they're interwoven now with where we left off from the old document versus where we're picking up in this new document. So >> concept, >> if you could clarify, maybe give me some um information or some feedback on that because >> Sure. >> I was looking at the old

060document and this is going to be very confusing moving forward. Yeah, we need to Well, yes, I think we can. I think we just need to make sure that we're referencing, you know, both documents. So, you the the document that >> you should have received on February 3rd. I'm looking at that. I'm right now. >> You have that one up. I'm still showing >> I'm still showing where we have the trusty goals and strategic plan and that so >> on page 13. That's what that's what I'm showing. We've had the suggestion for board policy to be added to the BQBa and BQB series just so that there's clarity. And then you see where the the square bullets well they're not bullets but the square check list is down there um about the third paragraph. >>

061So what we're trying to decide at this point moving on do you see the paragraph where it says to ensure trustee goal achievement the superintendent will develop a five-year superintendent strategic plan. Um, so what Trusty Gambino has proposed is that we add some language in there. Um, maybe within the bottom of that paragraph or at the end of the section, whichever y'all believe would be more most appropriate, um, is some type of language that allows for the iteration or review of that strategic plan as as part of this language. >> Am I am I summarizing your suggestion correctly? >> Yeah. Three pages of an of the old document now make up one page of the new document. That's what it looks like. >> Be very true. >> So let's if we're comparing because then we

062jump to officer duties. >> I think the question is on the strategic plan you guys are considering evaluating the superintendent on that strategic plan and the goals in that strategic plan. So, do you want to explicitly put in here that you're going to approve the superintendent strategic plan? >> Is that >> school board member Gambino? Is that what you're Is that what she's referring to? >> I I don't know that that's not I think she's just wanting to be able to have flexibility to address the five-year strategic plan if we need to >> to re-evaluate if at some point. >> Okay. >> Yeah. if there's any adjustments that need to be made to it, added to it, or the direction changes before that said time. >> Okay. >> But yeah, >> I just don't know

063what what version we're using to add that in. >> These are two different versions. >> So I what I'm what I have is the digital the digital copy of the most recent version. so that I can make suggested edits so that way I can encapsulate what those what our discussion is and what our um suggested edits are for a final clean version. So I'm looking at the most recent document and my only point is that we didn't even touch on the we stopped at page 14 and page seven of the new document has been updated. Right? Just so we're all are yall all aware of that. here. So, the the new one came to us yesterday. Um, it was linked in the email Dr. Vincson sent us. >> I understand that, but I've made my

064notations back at the for back at the in February and when we were here and we said when we left, we said that we would work from this document for edits. I was not aware that the second part of our meeting had been changed as well. So that is where the confusion has come in. You may have just looked at it yesterday, but we were working on this last month. >> Please review and be prepared to discuss. I've also read the other one. I just I thought this was the cleaned up version of the other one. >> We didn't get all the way through the document. You weren't here. We got to page 14 and we stopped. So nothing was addressed. >> Okay. So let's just pick up where we are so we can keep

065moving. Um could you ref rephrase what? >> Yes. So the suggestion was inside of the strategic plan component to leave room for iteration of that five-year plan. Um, so on inside of and everybody found the the paragraph that says to ensure trustee goal achievement, the superintendent will develop and implement a fiveyear superintendent strategic plan. >> You see that >> paragraph in this section. Okay. >> In the old version, >> it aligns with trustees goals and includes priority strategies, timelines, and milestones for achievement. And so I think what Mr. Morrison said was that a way that could encapsulate room for iteration or change but um with board oversight is that we can add a sentence that says the strategic plan will not be altered or adjusted without board approval. Mhm. >> So if there are iterations

066during that fiveyear once there's an initial five-year plan that is developed and adopted then any of those of those iterations or if there needs to be a change within that five years or an adjustment um of the content of the document then it could be proposed by district administration and then this language would ensure that it would be seen by the board at that time. >> Sounds good. >> Hope that works. >> All right. I have that in as a suggested update. >> Could I ask a question? On um page 10, it says the school board and superintendent will fully effectuate this policy by Mar March 1st, 2026. I was wondering if we were intending the policy to be retroactive after we adopt it or if we need to change that date. >> Can we

067stay where we are at the moment and adjust that when we get to it? >> Okay. Thank you. >> We already went past that page, so I just wanted to make sure we got >> We're still on page seven. She's on page 10. >> I know she went to 10. >> Okay. >> God. >> Okay. So, do we want to move and take a look at the next section? >> Yes. >> Is everyone ready? >> Thank you. Move forward, please. >> Can you call the title of that section? >> I will. So, the the next section that that follows would be the superintendent evaluation section. And I'm going to pause here because I know that there are oftent times that superintendent evaluation discussion is something that occurs in close. So I don't know what y'all

068want to discuss. >> Can you Wow. I'm sorry about this. This is very >> confusing. >> Are we doing superintendent evaluation in close session? >> That's going to be done in close session per legal advice is what I was understanding. >> That's why I'm pausing to make sure understand >> skip this section. >> Okay. But for clarification, what page and what paragraph are you on? >> I'm on old page 15. >> Mhm. >> What? Superintendent. >> What new page? So, are we going off the old or we going through the new? >> My page is a lot. So >> I So basically we're skipping over all of the superintendent segment and we are now on page eight if I'm not mistaken of the new document. >> Let me pull up >> which is off. >>

069Can we can we reference both? >> Yeah, I don't have the the new document. I have the sections. >> Can well can one of you provide the new page number and the old page number just so we are >> old page number one officer duties. Correct. >> Correct. 18. >> Page 18. >> Yes. Okay. Looks like new page starts at the bottom of seven. >> The title is seven and then we're on new page. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes. >> Is that the Oh, did they say old page seven? >> Thank you, sir. I just want to be crystal clear about where we're at and and the verbiage we're looking at from version to version. >> Okay. So, we're going we what we're doing if you in the old version that was just printed out page

07015 through 17 we are skipping because that's appropriate for close session and we are on the section officer duties which is page 18 of the document that was just handed out and it's page bottom is 78 top of eight. >> Okay, got it. >> So, if you're taking notes of the old documents on page Okay. And just a quick reminder because um I we we do have this colorcoded, right? And so what you see in orange is board policy. what you see in red is potentially going to need to be aligned um or changed >> uh with so we have those highlighted because remember that we um we conducted a review for uh the one of the original documents to have some forward- facing language and some other components and then there was also um

071a very in-depth legal review by Cara Belaloo and her team and then we worked together to try to make sure that that um that legal review made sense. So, where there was board policy quoted um and cited, we wanted that to be really clear. So, the vast majority of this uh section you're going to see as board policy, but there are some things that if we're going to be adding those, like in red, we need to discuss those and that may require a change in board policy, which is fine. We just need to flag it so that the legal team knows to make those adjustments. And that was confusing because your new document took out the color coding. So that's why I definitely wanted >> Yes, we don't have color coding in your document. >>

072The new document does not have the >> But our old one does >> look at the new Can I just come physically look at this? >> Yes, ma'am. By all means. >> Oh, there she goes. That's a side by side. This is Yeah, this is got this yesterday. >> Yeah, there there was one in email yesterday. It looks to be the same as the one that we just got in this folder. >> Well, this is not the same as the original. >> Yes, >> I understand that. I'm just pointing out and I want it on the record that we were making notations in the color-coded version because it was colorcoded. >> That's correct. >> Okay, >> that's correct. Okay. So, just to clarify, >> we want to we want to look at the color-coded version

073because that is going to be the most up to date. It's aligned with what was in review last month and it's aligned with >> where the the document was as we left off. So, that color coded version is what we want to look at. >> So, the orange is what is currently board policy and if we see red we it's okay, but we'll just need to update our board policy to reflect that. Correct. >> Yes. Potentially. >> Potentially. if it doesn't misalign and I'm going to defer to to legal who's here for that purpose. Um we can walk through that in red. So with that initial officer duty section 18 um what are the duties of contradity board of trustee officers that first introductory section and again that's orange so it is board policy. Um,

074do we have any comments on that section, that introductory section? >> Is it really necessary for us to have as many officers like assistant secretary? I mean, the only reason I'm asking is is it means that two trustees are just not officers. I mean, it's just kind of repetitious. And so, I was just wondering as well as second vice president. >> So, what Dr. Vincent, what are you used to? And I also >> President, vice president, secretary. >> Okay. And then and it we do stipulate in here if for some reason we have a the need to replace, we can redo it. >> Absolutely. From my current understanding, you have a you have a two-year tenure with regard to what you do and then you reelect officers with each election. >> Yeah. And by law,

075you have to go back and every annually and uh you know actually vote to to to keep the the officers you have but by policy and process you go do that every two years. >> So we currently do it every two years. >> And Miss Belaloo and um I'm going to say doc sententas together. >> Um for y'all I mean is it customary? I mean do you normally see that many officers or is it generally just simpler like what we were just referring to? >> I I see simpler. Um but but it's re it's really a local decision in terms of those additional um seats as you know as officers. I don't know if you have anything you want to >> I usually see simpler >> president Odinweller I'm okay with removing second vice president

076and assistant secretary >> everyone else is as well >> I am as well >> I was just asking so thank you. >> No thank you. I'm glad you asked. I had made that note. So to clarify with that and what what we would do is I would indicate that what y'all are suggesting to to look at in in a more final draft would be that the second vice president and the assistant secretary is removed. Um that would also require change in board policy. So we're going to flag that as a suggestion so that the board policy would need to be aligned and adopted and then that way we have the procedures and the policy aligned. >> Correct. Well, and then would that be implemented for this next, you know, election cycle since we already have

077people in these positions right now? >> I we will have to do a whole new election change anyway or vote. I'm just saying. So, yes. And then in relation to what Trustee Simler was just saying a moment ago, in the um >> the next date, it'll become effective what with whichever date she was referring to. Um, we could evaluate then too, but according to this, it would be the next election cycle. >> Okay. >> Trusty Dawson, may I speak to that? >> I think some of that will be in your adoption language when you adopt these and you you you specify out these are adopted tonight with David material starting >> next day >> when Yes. Okay. I don't think you have to define that in here nor do I think you have to worry

078about it. I think you can specify that in the motion to adopt later. >> Sounds good. Thank you. Yeah, that'll be fine. >> Okay. So, I think we need to move back and Did you want to talk about >> uh I think that's down inside of the election. >> Is there anything that you want to comment on on the on the red bullets? Is there anything I mean we talked big picture. So before we move to another section, do are do do any of you want to discuss any of the bullets under president, first vice president, secretary? >> I'm holding Miss Horton, Trusty Horton's documents. She has written. >> Okay. Would you like >> I don't know what your pleasure is on that, but her written. Would you like me to present what trustee Horton

079has in her written, >> please? Sure. >> Um under third bullet, the red one, under president approves all Congress trust trustees agendas. There's language that she has written in that says aligning with the superintendent, the president approves all Conrod pieces. Don't know if that's necessary. Just telling you what she has on the page. >> It Oh, go ahead. >> And then that's the first one she has comments on. She has struck through appoints Conrod Board of Trustees um to committees created by the Congo board of trustees. That was struck out on hers. And then her final bullet uh the president can speak on behalf. She added the word can in referring to that with for approval. >> So those are her notes. >> Can you read the second note that she has? >> Yes. May

080I show them? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> And then there's >> as far as the first one that she she mentioned. Actually, the superintendent puts together the agenda and I'm just approving it based on that or we do it to you know like kind of simultaneously. So to me I don't think it's necessary to make that change. That's Oh, sorry. >> And we that's in here later on. >> Yeah, it's actually in there under his deal. So, I don't think that that's >> I just don't think I mean because really honestly Dr. Vincent puts it together and then um brings it to myself and then we approve it for Caras for >> that's what happens though. Why not just notate it? It's not many more. >> It is under his duties and we just

081didn't discuss it because we skipped over. >> We align it under the president duties and it'll just align with his as well. it might make more sense, >> but her duty is not to create the agenda. It's just to approve it >> and said, well, her trusty Horton said in aligning with the superintendent. So, >> I don't think it's necessary. >> So, how do we want to read? >> So, can you make a suggestion on how you want that to >> I I just think that I mean I it's just stating that a president has to approve the agenda. Someone has to approve the agenda for posting. So that's all it's stating is that they approve the agenda. >> It's clear under the superintendent's responsibilities that he prepares the agenda. >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree.

082I say leave it as is. >> Yeah. >> All right. So moving on to the next part. The next one was to strike through appoints committee chair or committee members. And that actually is a board duty because of the fact that someone has to decide who's going to be on each of the the financial committee and in the um safety committee. So >> can we strike through created by the Conor D board of trustees because those committees are already formed? >> Yeah. >> Yes. But does it say created by the Conor? Oh, okay. >> Well, I think that it's probably specifying that. So because there are numerous committees that are that are appointed and created for school districts that are administratively created and so I think it's just specifying that those committee we can reword

083it to where it's more clean or clear. >> Are those in alignment with state education code that those specific committees? >> No. I mean the thing is is that I've had tons of different kinds of committees. >> One time we've had a we had a marketing committee at one point in time. we had a real estate, you know, a deal where we, you know, it just, you know, based on a need, you know, and we did annual goals, we'd say, you know, we need to focus on this at this particular moment in time. And so that we would just do that and have that. Um, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, you know, uh, I have, you know, traditionally kind of brought stuff to everybody, but in the situation like finance and things like that,

084it's really your pleasure. >> But at this point, it does state that it would be that the committees would be created by the trustees. All I would be doing is or the president would be doing is appointing who would be on those. >> Absolutely. And that's the pleasure of the president. >> Okay. But so I I I mean >> so leave it. >> I'm fine with that. >> I'm fine with it. I'm fine with that. >> But if you don't >> in traditional terms, you know, when I would do this >> by my process that I've had when when the new board president would come in, I would actually say, "Okay, we need to fulfill these these roles. Do we want to keep them static?" You know, what is your pleasure as far as those

085kind of things? And traditionally they would say, "Oh, I know somebody wanted to be really interested in this or doing that or they have a really gift in this situation or area." So, you know, that's my experience. >> And the last request by Trustee Horton where it says speaks can speak on behalf with board approval. I don't feel that that is actually a reasonable change because there are many times we have to make a decision and we won't be together as a board for a comment or something to be made and I work or the president would work with the executive communications director to come out with a statement and we can't call a special meeting and wait five days and make a posting to get a response. I agree on that >> and so

086that's the only reason why I call that one into that's the purpose of it >> as a part of emergency operations planning and the like. Uh Cara, do you know in that process that there really isn't a legal standard for it? It's just the notion of what's protocol. >> Yeah. >> I mean I put this language in here because when I've worked with boards before, you need a clear spokesperson. >> Yeah. >> And if you don't have it, it becomes very confusing who has the authorization to speak on behalf of the board. And that duty normally belongs to the board president. Well, and that is understandable, but more importantly for me, if we were to wait on a board approval, you have to call a special meeting. It has to be five working days prior.

087You have to post an agenda. You have to call the meeting in. And it just to me, it's just not a realistic >> I think we're on the same I think we should leave it a meeting. I think it was more just making sure that it represents what the entire board. So it could also state operates a spokesperson for the Conroyc board of trustees which is I mean it's it seems like it's slicing it one way or slicing it the other but there there is also another section that when it's talking about communications that discusses the board president as the spokesperson which is a very typical practice. Now the reason these are in red is just that they are not included in writing in board policy so it would need alignment. So, it's marked boldly

088for alignment, but we're but that can be adjusted. Um, and you will find the other sections, you know, that are talking about communication also mention spokesperson as board president. So, we can align that language and say operates a spokesperson for the Conorc board of trustees or we can leave it as speaks on behalf of Conor ISD board of trustees. >> I just >> whichever y'all prefer. >> I think they mean the same thing. >> I think just leave it the way it is. >> I think it's fine the way it is. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything on first vice president? >> No, I didn't have anything. >> We are gonna strike through second vice president. I would also recommend then just listing that as vice president instead of first. >> Yes. >> So, I'm

089going to make that adjustment. Okay. Anything on secretary? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. So, that moves us into officer elections. And this is a great opportunity in this section. Again, we're colorcoded. Green is um largely what was developed um initially with the uh draft of the procedures that we received. It's uh it's to for lack of better words local language. It doesn't run a foul of board policy, but it also doesn't hold the weight of board policy or or laws. So, in orange, you see board policy. in green you you see what would be local and and can be easily adjusted without additional steps. Okay. Um officer elections. Do we have anything in the first three bullets? That's board policy. I'm going to start with that. >> I had one on the second bullet. Um

090officers will serve for a term of two years um or until a successor is elected. Can we make that more specific and say unless a vacancy is open? Cuz I I'm not sure what until a successor is elect. I'm not sure. >> I thought I saw that in here. >> The one above that says a vacancy among it addresses a vacancy >> because we have a vacancy in the first bullet. Um so I I just think it aligns better, but I'll leave it to you. >> I see what you're saying. So what would your proposed say it again please? >> So we would cut until a successor is elected and put um unless a vacancy is open or something along those lines. >> Go ahead. >> Trusty Dawson, you open to just cutting out after

091or just just good too. >> Yeah, I'm fine with that. >> You'll orange is direct from policy. So that's also going to be another policy change if we make that change. I just want to make sure and remind everybody of that. Mhm. >> Okay. So, your recommendation is officers will serve for a term of two years. >> DS offered that as a thought possibility. >> I thought that as well. >> It's very simple. Yes. >> So, I'm just making sure that you >> just strike the or until a successor is elected. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that do you want to recogn the the first tick gets it at >> because the vacancy will be filled by majority action. >> Yeah, I concur. It's simple. >> Okay. >> Do you have any concerns

092with that? Okay. Just double checking. We have it right here. So, we're going to check and make sure especially if it's aval adjustment. >> Okay. Um officers may succeed themselves in office. Okay. So, those are all of the board policy bullets. Um let's go three by three. the next three bullets. >> I don't have anything with one. Does anyone have anything with one? That one. The first green bullet. Okay. Then I do have something with the second green bullet because it's actually >> um the last two election cycles. No, actually the last election cycle we ended up with our board sworn in before the November meeting. So, um I don't know the wording that we need to make that change because it it says we'll be held at the regularly scheduled November I mean December

093meeting but we actually had >> you saying you say it's the first scheduled meeting after >> after the election that yes that because we would have had a board with no president or officers >> say November right >> well it may not always fall that fall that way but it did for us and it did for you So >> election of the eligible Conrad Board of Trustees officers will be held at the first regularly scheduled meeting thereafter >> post >> or post election. >> That works. >> That's good. >> And so that you know trustees um trustee Horton weighed in on this as well and that was the recommendation that the words in the election would be installed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I had one on the the bullet after that. Um, we have extra

094extraordinary circumstance. Can we define maybe what that means? >> Yeah. >> Death. >> Well, that's true, but that would be a >> vac sometimes what would happen. And I've had a board member move before, you know, than a situation where they had to go with that where they had to, you know, that a circumstance where, you know, they had to take care of an elderly person or, you know, there's different kind of it's just >> oh, they could have served but not take an officer's pres position and that would still be it would be a vacancy, but it wouldn't be a >> So, you can vacate. You can vacate for any reason. >> And I'm circumstances pretty self-explanatory. Just a circumstance that isn't ordinary. Sorry, >> I'm going to jump to the new version. Don't

095think I see it in the previous version that we were working on, but the second bullet on page eight at the bottom of your new version says any board member may be considered for the offices of president or >> I think that's an incorrect version. I think that that is not that one anymore. Happy happy tonight. >> I don't know if I got a copy that that should have circulated and this is where we left off because the colorcoded version is post my review and >> I have no idea review. >> Okay. I just hated disregard it because you put so much work into it. But I will disregard >> Yes. Just I would disregard that and and move only from the colorcoded version. that I agree with you. That language is from what I

096can tell not it's prior to even when the review happened in February. >> Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> I want to be recognized by the chair. >> Oh, so sorry. >> Trustee Semler, please if I say that wrong, correct me. >> That's right. >> Uh made a statement a second ago and did not I did not hear what you said. >> Oh, I just said um extraordinary circumstance. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. That's what I'm Okay. I thought you were asking for a definition of that. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, so we have that it's relatively self-explanatory. I have a suggestion to maybe clarify where I mean we can add a parenthetical to give examples. You can further define that. You can leave it and make that determination later as a group.

097Um, that's not that's not easy to do in the moment. So, it's it's really >> I'm concerned if you put examples, you're going to lock us into specific examples. >> It will. I mean, >> I'll just mention I've experienced or heard of where boards have been convicted of felonies. Um, you know, there's just a variety of things that have people want to resign from office because they don't have the time to do it. >> What if certain people just don't like certain people being officers? Is that an extraordinary? >> That would not be an extraordinary circumstance. So, it has to be like something different than just you don't like your slate of officers. >> Okay. But I'm fine with it. >> Okay. Thank you, Trusty Dawson. I had nothing else on that page. >> Anyone

098else have something on that page? >> I'd like to approach and show you. This is Trusty Hortons. >> Approach the bench, sir. I was going to say that but my mental uh striking of that bullet altogether about selecting of officers in executive session she has struck that >> I'll let y'all >> is there a reason it >> okay >> is there a reason given >> no ma'am >> is there a reason legally we couldn't do that >> I'm sorry Hold on he'll I'll get him to come back to the fourth Okay. The fourth green bullet under officer. >> Yeah. If I mean if you want to strike it, you can. >> I I'm good with it. >> You good with keeping it? >> Keeping it. >> I am too. >> Okay, that's two. Keep >>

099that. It says may deliberate. We would have to still publicly come out and make this vote out and >> open. So, I'm good with keeping it. >> One, two, three, four. Okay. Keep. >> And Okay. So, u we're going to the re it sounds like the the final recommendation um is the board may deliberate selection of board officers in close session is that that language keep in there and may is that you are not required to but you may and so it provides that flexibility for what what you decide. So, um it's not really roping you in either way, but it's allowing you the opportunity to choose open or closed or entertain that motion at that time. And Miss Belvelude, just for clarification, is that allowed by law? >> Yeah. >> I I I wouldn't

100anticipate it would be in here if it wasn't, but want to be sure. >> All right. Uh the election process will be conducted as follows. So, this is these uh there's four sub bullets. Anything on that last section that we need to go through? >> Yeah, ma'am. Not for me. >> This sorry, the calendar >> the election process will be conducted as well. We're getting We're almost to the calendar. We're good. >> Okay, >> we're good. >> All right, we're ready to move the next section. >> I just want to say I like this section. I don't know who's not process that one. >> It was good. It was really fully mine. >> I'm going to say Dr. Vincent >> and I helped you. >> I like having a calendar. I like having, you know,

101this is what is on the horizon for us for planning purposes. >> One of the things that I've always take practice of and we're still getting the process of getting our goal. guys, we've not been here very long of getting the notion down of of a calendar of of what you're gonna be able to review. So, it's a good thing. But I didn't create it. >> I liked it, too. >> You did. >> I don't. I just like >> So, I'm going to give I'm going to give Miss credit here because you you you recall that we received a version of a of the of the document and we did not want to make substantive changes because there had been a lot of work and we wanted to be sure that was honored. So, um

102but I'm going to give it credit where it's due. I think this is heavily written in by Miss Blue. So, >> thank you. Yes. Do we have anything that we want to go over within this section or are we good on the annual trustee calendar? It's a short section. >> I think we're good to move forward. >> Everybody good? I'm trying to make eye contact with every >> for the record. No changes on Trusty Horton's document. >> Thank you. >> Oh, perfect. Thank you. Okay, so that brings us to our next section and then the updated new colorcoded version, not the the trustee training and that's should be on page 21 of the document we're all looking at. Okay, so um we have blue was the law. >> Yes, >> blue is the law in

103our final verbage and cannot be >> blue is final verbage. Yes. Okay, so Texas law and I know we have we have more color coding. I have to keep it right here even and I even draft it. Um okay. So again reminder anything in green is can easily be shifted if needed but we do need to maintain um the section in blue um in whole if we're going to keep that language in here but it is also the law already and so I think it's wise a wise addition for us to keep in. All right. Any question or any any on the first paragraph? Any comments there? >> What is local training? Oh, sorry. I'm this the second paragraph. >> Okay. You ready to move to the second paragraph? >> The following guidelines will apply

104to training. And then we have several bullets. Let's bullet one. Anything we need to look at in bullet one. >> I was just wondering what local train what we consider local training >> because it says um training is local. Traditionally, when you're talking about local training, it's when we'll bring somebody in like this. Uh corporate training is when you're going to go to a conference, if you're going to go to a an event or whatever that might be. Uh and so those are the two different types of of training. All of them have sort of the same certification process like I'm actually a trainer that for uh for uh tea as far as you know like like they they are so but anyway but you can do that locally or you can go somewhere >>

105and it doesn't the language doesn't limit you from having those those conference or the non-local the or the the non-inhouse because it says to the extent practically right and there's just going to be some training that you may have to to gain elsewhere you know at times or it's more economical for example or something like that so I don't I don't think it as as written it locks you into to either, but it's just saying that's the preference if if practicable. >> Okay. Because I know multiple trustes have been wanting to go to different conferences for training. So would that rule that out or would that mean people can't go to the conferences or >> do we So I mean that's a great question. I I would say that it's written to where that can

106be considered. I don't think that it's a hard no on if it's not a local training. My request would be this is that if you're going to request to go to training is to uh make make the request to the board president and and in and the and the superintendent because no superintendent for me because you don't want me making your travel plans but Porsche will need to. So we'll through that process we'll make that happen. >> And so so one of the things that we could add is either a sub bullet or an additional that section that clarifies if this is not going to be a locally provided training or arranged training. >> That would be valuable. So that was one of the things that was wanted to be covered while we were here.

107So that would be good. Be very very practical and make sure everybody's knowledgeable about it. >> What about the online trainings that are available like where you can get do your online trainings for? I mean like TOMA is an example where we have to watch an online training. Would that count or we have to do a local board? >> No, I think that think that you I think that there's compliance training like you know all of the things cyber security and all those kind of things. Those are just standard as far as having to get them and and when they're done by the um service centers or those kind of things, that's where we typically have done those. >> I just don't want to suffer through training and find out that it doesn't count. >>

108I would not want you to go through cyber security training and have it not count. I'm with you. >> Thank you. >> With you on that. >> Do you want language added in here that allows more for conference attendance? >> Do you want to broaden it out so it's more clear that you can attend conference? Maybe we should work on this sentence in general too because I wanted to add in that the training aligns with board values. It's important to me. Um, so I don't know if we can maybe just, you know, add in another sentence that kind of gets at conferences, you know, non-local training as well as >> okay. To the extent practicable, the president and superintendent will collaborate to >> practice practicable practice >> practicable. Okay. Um, well, collaborate to ensure Conro

109ISD board of trustees training is tailored to support the Conro ISD. I mean, we could just take out the word local. >> Um, >> and I was just saying we could take out the word local and tailored to support the strategic goals is or the what I mean and values. Is that what you were getting at, Trusty Dawson? by adding those two words. >> Yeah. I mean, we can say it like that or we can >> I mean, because I don't know if it needs another sentence if we can manipulate those words into there. And >> could we just say um ensure Conor ISD board of trustees training aligns with board values, is local to the extent possible, comma, and tailored to support and the rest of that as is. that works too. >> Yeah.

110Who's mandating that we have the training? >> You know, you the the the Texas education code is going to comply that you have those those trainings. Uh and actually I'd be I can put that in your brief this week about what the compliance trainings are. You know, I know that uh Trustee Gambino is going through the gauntlet right now of all the new stuff, but you're required I think 10 hours of regular training a year. A lot some of that's going to be um it's going to be team building and then the other one's going to be your uh your compliance training, you know, cyber security and those kind of things. And the rest of it's going to just be general training. >> So, should we add more stipulations to the training or should we

111just let people get the training required by it just seems like we're adding a lot of extra things to the training. it's going to make it more difficult to obtain and we really do need to make sure >> I'll say this that if you have to do that that oftent times that the agency or somebody new law will come in and you have to go add a new training and then you have to add it to board policy the more general sometimes the better it is as far as that stuff goes but I a trustee can be I'm sorry >> well I I would say that um probably outside of the SOP there does need to be a defined um trustee learning plan that has everything identified that is required by law from a compliance

112you know whatever the regulations say that we have to have um with the frequency of completion. So that should probably that should be um something separate if it already exists. Perfect. >> I think you guys could add those a superintendent duty that you want him we've already been discussing this as we speak. Um a superintendent duty to keep a >> I think it's already in the under that that that segment >> because I read it. It's similar to the checklist I gave you as far as all those things that you know to to you know your how many trainings and all that stuff you had to get. >> Yeah. But I I agree with you. I don't think we need to I'm not one for replicating things in multiple places because then you have to

113remember to update them. I don't think you need it here. But as long as it's stated somewhere that the superintendent is keeping up with it and we have the separate training for trustees listed, I think we're fine. I don't think >> I suggest you guys include it here as a superintendent duty just because then it's a yeah, it's a duty of his that he knows >> and add it in here. Um, I'm just going to mention I'm great with I'm the one that puts some parameters around the um training and the reason that I did that and I'm very obviously you're the board and can do what you want. Um, the reason why I do that is because I find that a lot of times board members when they're getting training, especially new board members,

114um, or even as you progress, it can be a little unfocused and so trainers don't know what to focus on and you're not really thinking through what are the priorities for the district. So, I always like to encourage the board to consider at least saying that training has to include the board goals, the superintendent um, strategic plan, the calendar, these operating procedures. Um, so that's that's why that is that way is to direct some of that intensity and action in the direction that's that helps board boards most with their duties. >> Well, and I would say as we were talking about whether it should be local or outside of that, if anything that we're attending should, you know, we should if we're going to go to said conference, then said conference should we should identify

115what we are going to be learning in that conference and align it and and align it here. And so that's what should be brought back. The bigger question is do you want to get rid of the parameters that are here? >> I don't particularly >> it's very complicated. It it whenever I've had to do training for work, it's like this is the training you're expected to complete. Check the box. Make sure you do your training. And this makes it very difficult. >> Well, the difference though is Trusty Semler is that what we're discussing in the SOP has already been done by your job. And so they're just telling you at that point, this is what you need to do because they've already done that due diligence on the back side. So what this is doing

116is very similar to any HR or you know in any organization is they're saying these are the requirements that we will require training for our employees and or if we send them to conferences it's all the stipulations. So you're right it's we do what what's easy is that list that that Dr. Vincent is putting together. This is just saying what the requirements are in order to take that training >> is that is limited to that. I mean, if you look at the uh TEA's training requirements, there's several hours that are undefined per year that you have to get. So, it's not there's there's trainings you have to get. You have to get school safety, human trafficking, open meetings act, you know, all the these kinds of trainings, but then there's a outside of that, there's

117a lot of hours you can get that are just open to your discretion. And what really this is aimed at is with your discretionary hours, let's focus them on the highest impact types of training. >> Yes, I agree. >> If that makes any sense. >> I agree. I mean, it should be strategic. >> On the EA website, there's a list of schoolboard training requirements and then they have a list of eligible eligible providers linked next to it. I think we should just be able to click on one of the eligible providers and do our training. Just keep it simple. >> Well, the list of eligible providers is not necessarily trainings per se. It's who holds the credential to deliver the trainings. Okay? >> So, like if you just click a name on there, you may

118or may not have trainings associated with them. It's going to be those people that are going to want to charge you to come to their training. >> Okay, >> does that make sense? >> Yeah, that's complicated. >> And so, and the one thing that I will say is I have sat through our original board training. I've sat through their board training that TEA came and done did. And then now I'm sitting through training you're doing for trustee Gambino. And I'm telling you, you pick up on different things at all of them. So, I I mean I'm I'm glad that I'm taking advantage of getting those right here, but that it may not always work that way. So, I like being able to have options. >> So, are we saying we want to leave it the

119way it is so that it does >> there is an edit on the table, but I don't think it cut out those things. >> So, I put a couple of I I mean, we can leave that. I'm I'm listening and putting in a couple of of more specific bulleted edits as you're discussing just so that we can consider the language. But if we're fine leaving it, we'll move forward. If you want to hear what I've typed, we can chew on it a little bit because I I feel like I heard the something to the effect of the superintendent will maintain an annual board of trustees training list and log to ensure that training offered aligns to the mandated training for Texas boards of trustees. Um, so I have it's just again like I'm typing as

120I'm listening and then another sub bullet that says for individually desired trustee training trustees will submit requested training attendance to the board president and the superintendent. Now that's I don't feel like that that that might be plenty. It might not be quite finished out but that I think that captures what we what we were trying to ensure. So if you're if you're wanting to go do the training that you submit it to the press so that way it'll help with that maintain that log and ma manage that yes it's moving forward. >> Is that for approval or there just >> we need to talk through that. I I put it very basic so that there could be some more discussion on how that language needs to look and feel. >> Well I think if it

121did require approval it would be based on if the training was pertinent to the trustee goals strategic plan or the superintendent. Is that No. Could this just be in general? >> I just want to make sure it's clear if the president and the superintendent have to approve the training or not or if it's just uh FYI. >> I think we should have to make the case of how it it aligns with our goals and strategic plan if we're going to be using district resources, taxpayer money. I think we should have to make the case for why it's pertinent. So then what I'm hearing you say, Trusty Doss, unless I'm missing the mark here, is the first two bullets that uh Miss Duncan has put into play, um this and this. And then when training is

122approved, it is considered from topics like this. >> Could you read those two again? >> Does that make sense? So you're not locked, but you can see the choices of where maybe you want to flow your training. >> And this is beyond the compliance training, right? That we have to >> Yes. Complant. Yeah. >> Okay. Correct. This is supplemental training. >> This is supplemental. >> The following guidelines will apply to training. And I'm going to read this because there's been a slight adjustment y'all requested in that section too. To the extent practicable, the president and superintendent will collaborate to ensure Conor ISD board of trustees training aligns with board values, is local to the extent possible, and is tailored to support the Conor D board of trustees in adopting, monitoring, communicating, and evaluating Conor Board

123of Trustees goals, the strategic plan, and the superintendent's evaluation. Could you could you note that that's the supplemental training since we're saying it's the supplemental training, not all training because I want to make sure that everyone has an easy time getting what's legally required training however they can, but the supplemental training I think it it makes >> that's actually fair because the thing is is your compliance and the rest of it >> that's required. Okay. So yeah, in that very first bullet you would suggest putting supplemental training >> I think. Yeah, right before you there was one like the first sentence where you said training training. So we would just say supplemental training align. Yes, >> but what if but what if a trustee wants to do something that's not supplemental? Would it be going

124through the superintendent as well? >> So, I have two sub bullets. >> Okay, I just that's fine. We'll stop right there. That's fine. >> So, I have two sub bullets under here and what's up for for consideration from um from Miss Belaloo is to determine whether or not we need that to be approval because right now the language doesn't quite say that. So, right after that first bullet that we just read. So now we've st we've stated that to ensure the Conor D board of trustes supplemental training aligns with board values and so on for the rest of that paragraph that we've altered. Okay. Then I have two sub bullets that are up for discussion or that have been discussed as we've as we've walked through this. The first one is the superintendent will maintain

125an annual board of trustees training list and log to ensure that training offered aligns to the mandated training for Texas boards of trustees. It's a mouthful. >> One more time, please. >> Do you have any other word smithing suggestions on that one? The superintendent will maintain an annual board of trustees training list and log to ensure that training offered aligns to the mandated training for Texas boards of trustees. >> I think it should just be that not just he'll keep a list. He will keep the mandated whatever you just said that piece. >> So, he has that. It's it's whatever is mandated for us. It's not just a list that he has created. It's whatever is legally required, whatever that title we want to give it. And then of course the log and then I

126don't think you need the the end part. >> So you like the man so you like maybe the superintendent will maintain an annual board of trustees mandated training list. >> Okay. So that >> training curriculum >> and ensure we're in compliance. >> Training curriculum. >> You want compliance? >> I'm I'm accustomed to that guys. You know in in in future form we will do that. It's not is it all I don't know if we can say compliance. Is it all compliance related topics or >> I think she means in compliance with what's required not not necessarily >> well I mean I think that's where we have to use the language you know carefully. Is there is it like legally uh compliant content? Is it based on the Texas Education Code? If it's if it's a

127combination then we can't just say compliance. >> Well it's it's all mandatory. >> So then just mandatory. Yeah. >> Yeah. mandatory mandatory >> whether it's supplemental or not. We're mandated to have so much training. >> Mandated to have a certain number of training hours. Some of that's required in certain subjects and some of it's open. >> So just mandated good. >> Okay. >> So the superintendent will maintain an annual board of trustees mandated training list and trustee attendance log to ensure that training offered aligns to the mandated training for Texas boards of trustees. >> Sounds good. >> Yes. Okay. And then the second sub bullet we have that we that we need to to finish out or consider is for individually desired trustee training. Trustees will submit requested training attendance to the board president and

128the superintendent. What's been put out there is whether or not it should say for approval. So they will submit requested training attendance for approval. And maybe the supplemental word there would be important as well >> for individually desired supplemental trustee training. >> I mean some of it like we've said there is there are local choice. It's still mandated because it's the number of total hours and it needs to be done. So there's a there's kind of this both and that's a little it's a little squirly. >> The supplemental is outside. So let's define this. When we say supplemental training, this is me, Trusty Gambino, I want to go to this conference because I believe it'll help my education, but it's not part of my mandated training, which is certain hours that are defined, certain topics,

129and then there's that other area. Is that is that correct? >> So, if you I I don't I mean, I'm I'm don't know the I can't recall the exact number of hours. I don't know if you can. >> So, let's pretend it's 20 hours. required hours and 16 of them were all mandated and you have four flex hours. You still have to get the four hours to meet the mandated requirement of hours. You just have choice in the learning. Do you see what I mean? >> Right. So, are we saying so let's that's what I want to define. Are we saying that four hours is what we're calling supplemental? Is that what we're Is that Yes. Okay. >> So, do you like the sub bullets? You feel that they're >> read that. Could you read

130the second one again, please? For individually desired trustee training, trustees will submit requested training attendance to the board president and the superintendent. >> But is that for approval? >> Right. So do we add for approval in there? >> Should approval come to the whole board? >> I I don't necessarily want to go down that path. >> My only reason for that is if someone comes finds out if we put it to the whole board. If let's say Trustee May learns of something that is going to happen at the last minute she finds out about it and she wants to attend it and she's contacts Dr. Vincent and whoever's the board president. I don't want her to miss something because we don't have a board meeting to have a vote on it. >> I I go

131back on my previous statement. I think they should just submit it to the superintendent and the board president. Period. just submit it. >> Not for approval. >> That that just gets dicey with the approval. I think >> I'm gonna I'm gonna weigh in if that's okay and I'm going to give you a couple of examples. Okay. Every teaching profession you can think of has an association. There's a CTE association, an athletic association, a fine arts association. There's all these conferences. So you may find a conference CTE presenting. You may they may have a board member track and in that board member track they may be talking about just three hours of X Y and Z that you really want to be passionate about but the investment into that to get into that conference is three

132grand. >> Right. >> So does that support the goal of the board collectively for you to go take a 4-hour workshop at a CTE class versus >> and I I've got feelings we've all got Tasby Tasbo whatever I'm just throwing it out. You pay that fee and you have three days of opportunities and you can do your pick and choose menu of what you want from the workshop and you can do your mandated menus. That's a conference that I think you might say, "Yeah, that makes sense because I can get all these pieces here and this extra here. Now go back to the CTE conference for that same or very similar amount of money. I only get this. I get three hours that are beneficial." So I think that for I'm just going to give

133you my opinion. I think it's important that you have of some version of an approval path there. Um, I really do believe that. Now, >> even if that path doesn't require board approval, >> I agree with Trustee Dawson. I'm not sure you need to be in that. I think you have an elected representative and you have an appointed superintendent and I think you I would hand them the charge of determining that path. >> I I think there's also a limited budget with these and so then that has to also be uniformally delineated. And so you might have a conference that's that's you know got a large amount of travel attached to it etc. So you have to be we have to be cognizant of the budget alignment there and we have to be able to

134track those those district expenses right and so um that that's another piece of that to me that I have I would just like for >> us to consider for y'all to think about. >> It's basically the bang for the buck. Are we getting the bang for the buck? And do we have the bucks? >> We divide the train. >> And if someone doesn't seek the approval to attend, there's not the knowledge of if the finances are there, right? >> I would I would assume that that's accurate that approval has to come from the district for reimbursement. >> There's an approval path somewhere. I I mean I agree. I think there needs to be some type of approval path. Maybe it doesn't need to come to everybody, but there, you know, it is a checks and

135balances type thing. And on top of that, kind of to your example, you know, at the end of the day, when you go to a conference, um, and I speak, you know, professionally, you know, working in this area, if if someone is bringing something and they want to go to a conference, it has to be bringing value back to the organization. And so, you know, if I'm going to select something, obviously I I believe that I'm choosing something that would bring value. Um, nonetheless, I don't think there should be a problem with me bringing to someone that has to approve it. That's customary. >> It is. >> It's SOP of any company, too. >> Yes, it is. It is customary. And and then, of course, there's the budgetary aspect of it as well. >> That's

136my main. >> So, the question is, who do we want it to be? board, board president, superintendent. >> I'd be fine with the two of you doing it that Dr. Vincent and the president of the board. >> Okay. >> That's how it's always been with me in the past. >> I think so shared. >> I mean, the thing is is the two we have to use good judgment as far as that stuff goes and that's where you know where it is and there's a certain amount that that implied. >> Okay. So what I've adjusted based on this language is based on this this most recent discussion is for individually desired supplemental training trustees will submit requested training attendance for approval to the board president and the superintendent. >> Great. Okay. >> I um just legally

137I have a little bit of a problem with the superintendent approving it um because the superintendent's your employee. >> Yeah. I was going to say, can we maybe the board approves and a review? >> Maybe the superintendent can provide budgetary recommendation and the president approved. >> I'm the travel agent. You know, that's the thing that it is is that >> you read my mind. I was going to say >> I mean I do because we aren't theoretically supposed to go directly to the employee and ask for that information. We're supposed to go through the superintendent. So the the budgetary part of it I could see. I know we're we're really bad about this. it. I mean, it happens all the time where we pick up the keyboard or the phone and and we ask that

138person in the staff member, but really if we're putting something together, it should be in writing that it go that he's included or the superintendent in general is, you know, to give the budgetary. I understand the employee aspect of it, but I think we need to know the budgetary through him. So what what would you re I mean from that legal perspective would you what would you recommend shifting at the end of that sentence so that there's knowledge by the superintendent >> I would just say the superintendent can pro they'll notify the president and the superintendent and the superintendent will provide um budget advice but the president approves. We don't have that exact work on it. >> Just a question. I don't know if it needs to be in there. Is it a >> Is

139this a formal request? Like you have to fill out a form. Is that something we just have to figure out? >> I love a good form. >> I can create a form. >> I'll make a Google doc. >> Yeah. >> So, we have a paper trail. >> We're in the process of doing so many. So, it's of these. So, it's a good thing for us to just have them all in one place. >> Perfect. >> And I don't know that it needs to be in there in this document that we say that we'll have it. Yeah. >> Agreed. >> I currently don't have a tracking tool that I get to use and so this might serve as a tracking tool for us anyway. So, that'd be good. >> I think so. Um, I do have

140one question that I wrote on the one wrong one that was sent. Um, I don't know that it's falls in the SOP. Maybe it's policy, but just questions about training expenditure limits, uh, daily prediums. Um, >> it's really hard because there's sometimes there's things that are more expensive and there's not. I've tried to put standards on these. It's just it's just good judgment as far as that stuff goes. I mean, I've put parameters on things that then it caused the situation where I couldn't do it. It's just super hard. I I wish I had a parameter on it. You do however have a um budget that you adopt for yourselves as a board. And so that's why >> um I think that if you're asking a superintendent for consultation about what's happening with your budget.

141Um >> another thing that we have talked about is that each, you know, each trustee is given an individual budget for training. Sometimes that doesn't work so well because trustees attend conferences together. I don't know. So, um, what you have going on right now, I think, is just kind of a a block of money that's, uh, obviously you have to train. It's a state requirement. Um, and then and you're you're all able to access that money, but now you're putting parameters that it has to be aligned with board values, approved by the president, some safeguards to the use of that money. >> Okay. So I added a third sub bullet that states trustee trustee request to attend supplemental training will be submitted via a superintendent created form and I then it's going to encompass a

142lot of what you just said in my opinion. It checks those boxes and then there's the budgetary component and then that form can then be provided for final approval by by the board president. So that's how that would flow is what I'm what I'm hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. So we have three sub bullets there and we've gone through those. I don't want to I don't want to belabor but I also want to >> okay move on. >> All right. All right. >> So everything else is going away. All this >> so all of so the second bullet >> the training will prioritize Conra. So training will prioritize Connory board of trustees knowledge and skills around the following topics. We've already aligned them up up above. You can keep this and further solidify what's important

143to you. Um I still think we should just stick with what is the statutory requirement. I don't think we need to list extra in our board policies. I think that makes it more complicated. and then if anything changes, we're going to have to go back and change what's in the policy or procedure. And I I think we should strike that part personally. >> Okay. So what I'm hearing is that based on all of the very detailed amount of work we conducted within that first bullet and those sub bullets which I may align just make them all four bullets um that um trustee similar is stating it really makes that second bullet and set of sub bullets superfluous and we can get rid of that. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Yes. Okay. Anyone else? any

144legal perspective you want to provide on that? >> Trusty Horton had no written notes on that so we all aware. >> So we're going to delete that. >> So that's going to go. >> Okay. >> We identified them. >> I think we identified them in the general overall up above >> and in trying to be a little bit less verbose that I'm good with that. >> I'm I've got them struck. >> Perfect. >> Okay. That moves us to to board meetings. I want to check with everybody, make sure we're okay to move forward. Does anybody need a break? >> Keep going. >> Okay. All right. So, this next page, we have all four colors. >> Next, the next page is very colorful. We have what starts out as an intro in board policy. Um, and

145then we've we've got to have some legal discussion around um the Open Meetings Act, and that's something that my understanding has been in discussion. So, I'm going to let Miss Blue discuss that second paragraph with you. Um, and then yes, then that a lot of this is is etched out in law. So, >> can we stick to that first paragraph before we move to that? >> Yes. I just wanted to summarize where we've got we've got a few speakers that need to step up here. Um, so let's start with comments in that first paragraph. I didn't you can continue with your summary. I just want to stop. >> No, I that was it. Yes, ma'am. >> In paragraph one, may I approach the bench? >> Yes, sir. You may. >> One, Trusty Horton has redlined

146or straight line that out. I think it's a second sentence about changing the board meeting for convenience. >> I don't think we should take that away. >> So, that is listed in board policy. a change that would require board policy change which is fine but I just want to make sure and remind you >> my suggestion on that is it's really an important essential because like right now like next year I'm going to request that we take our board meeting and make it one week later than the the spring break. That way y'all I can give y'all more time to get prepared for different things. >> My next point. >> Yeah. Because it gives you more flexibility when you might not be thinking about that. And then especially when it comes to Christmas and for

147you know Thanksgiving and those kind of things. That way you can move things around so y'all aren't rushed to get to the next board meeting. >> Well, one thing I've noticed, and this is just something over the past three years that has really been noticed, is that every third Tuesday typically falls after a holiday. You have >> it does >> Thanksgiving or before a So, it does in it does affect the ability for staff to get us information. if we have questions on especially if the holiday is a Monday then you have a board meeting on Tuesday you didn't receive the information maybe until Friday. So my question to the board and to you um Dr. Vincent would be are we are we set on that third Tuesday of the month being the standard just

148because the third Tuesday just based on my last three years is always after a holiday. What I would suggest is that it that the that when is that going to be the precedence for that? I would just suggest that we go back take a look at the at the board calendar for the year and say okay that's going to be the day after turkey day. Let's get some opportunity for for flexibility. That was my hope and goal for this next year is that we could be able to do that because again >> okay I'm going give you the example that we're going to have a board meeting on the 17th. I have to get you your board packet on the 3 and then because of the new open meetings act stuff, not the the fourth.

149Uh but anyway, at the end of the day, um we're going to have spring break and then we're going to come right back to it. So then you don't have that week to prepare. So I'm having those small group meetings this week. You know, it's just rough. Well, and in addition, not to be a wah wah wah, but the the board then ends up spending our holiday weekends and so forth always having to dive through all this info. So, >> it's not very Christmassy. It's not just the not just the in put out if if we're putting out the calendar. So making the change of the third Tuesday isn't quite as critical as making our calendar referenced the year in advance like we do on our website. >> I totally get what what she's talking

150about though standard could be kept. However, there could be I especially don't agree with the um when determined necessary taking that out because my point is that I think that we come across several instances where um a board meeting could be adjusted for convenience. >> My other concern is Dr. and we've been looking at readjusting the our agendas to moving our closed session to the 5:00 um >> time frame and um and I don't know the wording here in this policy, but the way it's stated, we technically wouldn't be starting until 6:00, but we're constantly trying to use time more effectively and wisely. And so, um, >> the fact that we put six, I don't know if if we if it should say at 5 with general business starting approximately at 6 or around or

151at six or what. I don't know. >> Well, the thing is, you know, I've done it a couple of different ways. And there's a little bit of latitude here, I think, I guess, because, you know, usually when they're doing this, it's so public people are going to show up for the open meeting. >> Exactly. >> And so when they're going to be showing up for that, but I mean, Cara, that would be up to you as far as what I can do legally. I mean you can definitely put your board policy states this so it's just what do you want I think that you guys if you want more flexibility you could just say >> you know the board even will establish agenda with starting meeting times and remove the Tuesday remove the five the

152six o'clock and just give yourself >> leeway >> I like that >> um one thing I would recommend if you're going to do that is to try to adopt the calendar of board meetings and which is what we we already do. Yes. >> So my I think that would make it um >> again I just want I just want the the public I hate that when we make changes and I love that now we're going to try to meet our principles and have conversation with them. Well, we don't need to hold our public sitting here waiting while we're doing that. and but we want to start that at 5 because that doesn't affect people trying to get here and they don't need to be sitting here waiting on us. >> Although I will say to

153take into consideration that we need a a minimal standard just so that the public is aware when our typical meetings are held in time of that they will begin. So, are we saying that here in the are we just saying that we don't want to define it as being the third Tuesday at 5 that maybe it just maybe it should be referencing the annual calendar annual >> proposted meetings? >> Yeah. Can So, can we re reward that and remove that? >> I don't think we want to get into the nitty-gritty of the how the meeting is going to be >> organized. Organized. Yes. But could we >> I will say one thing that's bothersome to me right now is that you guys are starting your board meetings at 5, but it's posted all over your

154website and I've actually brought this up to um Andrew at six and that's what it says in your board policy. So I just want to give you guys as much authority if we adopt the calendar of the meetings in advance. The main point is is the public knows when the meetings are. >> Maybe we could keep the public portion closer to six. That's what I was getting at. Yeah. But not stick that. >> That's that was the idea. >> Okay. >> That that was exactly like we could start with the um you know at the five for our time with meeting the employees and the so on and so forth and then do the board business starting at six. Not that that's not board business but public business at six. >> So just taking off

155the specific time and date, >> right? >> I think that will fix that. And then we said we'd leave the discretion to change it. Leave that in there. Right. >> Yes. So what I have based on the discussion for sample language here is regular meetings of the board shall normally be held monthly based on an annually adopted meeting schedule. >> Perfect. >> Yes. Correct. Now I mean I like annually because it gives some specificity but it can also just say adopted meeting schedule. >> Well that's that's in common practice too. developed by the superintendent and approved by the board or something. >> That's fine with me and that gives some um responsibility lines that are clear. >> Okay, >> just going back. We did say that annual calendar would be developed and posted by September

156one annually. >> I'm going have to get on to that now. Then get me I'm a little late. >> So, can we look at doing a different Tuesday? is that >> Oh, absolutely. The thing, you know, whenever I've developed these before, it seemed like half of the year to to to Trusty Duncan's point, we would have it the regular time and the other time there was there's just so much going on and it falls on a bad time and it my thing is I want y'all to be prepared for the board meeting and I don't I want y'all to have the ability to make practical sense out of stuff. So, yeah. >> So, can you come back to us analyzing the different >> Oh, yeah. Okay. That's going to be good. Expect a calendar soon.

157I'm sure we'll have different scenarios, color coding and everything. >> Yeah, I'm thinking fuchsia and in gold. >> Um, if we could move on, I had one other point in this paragraph. Um, first of all, I wanted to understand what a special meeting versus an emergency meeting is. >> Tonight was a special meeting, the hearing and the um Oh, the items with Dr. when we had to hire and do our meetings for >> Well, I'm superended. >> Should we define what that is in here or No, >> I think it's def it might be defined. >> I think it's defined in law anyway. There's there's a there's an emergency. Well, I noticed I noticed in the third paragraph that um three members of the board have to call an emergency meeting and I just think

158we should be consistent with that and have three members h can call a special meeting. >> That makes sense. >> Let me I'll have to check and see if that's legal. I'll check >> I think it was like that for the emergency meeting because of the nature of the situation. It is >> Is that in law? Yeah, it is. So, she's checking that and then we can um come back and and work on that language because it's it's pretty prescribed. >> It's pretty prescribed. >> If that's the case, >> okay, so uh I heard September one and added that to the end of that first sentence that we just rearranged in terms of the meetings. So, it just just to pick up right there where we left off. Regular meetings of the board shell. Do

159y'all like normally or typically? I know it seems >> typically. No, I don't. >> I do as well actually, but okay. Regular meetings of the board shall typically be held monthly based on an annually adopted meeting schedule developed by the superintendent and adopted by the board of trustees by September 1 each year. >> Okay. And then uh I don't have any other changes in that board policy language for the rest of that first paragraph. Um, in red we have the notice of regular and special meetings um, in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, which I don't know what you if you if there's any comment you want to make. This was you had flagged it because of the updates to Toma. >> Yeah, we have put that in red because you just wanted to

160make sure that we had a chance to talk about what the what that posting was. key concern um that we were having that we were trying to address here. I'm not sure if this is right where this is, but um is in your board policy right now. It talks about how far in advance of the meeting the board or the superintendent is going to provide you the board packet or information. And now because of the new TOMA, we have to post essentially five days. So, um, we need to we need to figure out how many days in advance of, um, that posting you guys want to see the board materials. Right now, you're receiving the board materials on the date and time of posting, I think, generally. So, generally, you're getting the agenda and the

161board packet and the information on the date um, the agenda is being posted. >> I would like to get it beforehand personally. So the yeah the question becomes how far in advance and because that also creates you know a backward calendar for the superintendent. >> What is the requirement for TOMA? >> The Toma requirement is five days >> calendar days business >> business days. >> So usually you guys are going to post on Wednesday for a Tuesday meeting. >> So like Monday >> I mean >> the only issue with that is what is the burden? >> It is a burden >> from your perspective. So we can weigh that lay that out with this. >> You know, I would like the opportunity to just talk to my staff about what's reasonable and then set the

162protocol as far as what we need to get organized for because I want to make sure it's it's regular, it's complete and all that that that information, especially when we have to add something, you know, to to the >> because if we don't finalize for five I mean five days is the legal requirement. And so up until that point, one one observation is that if it's not final and we do receive the information, then we also receive a second wave of information or the first wave maybe not is complete or maybe not might not be complete just because of the nature of >> developing the agenda. >> One thing that's happening is he's obviously doing briefings. >> So you're getting information earlier I think right now than than would anyway. But yeah, right, >> we

163have to change something in your board policy because right now you would receive your board information after that five days. >> So we we just need to figure that out. >> I I will just state from my perspective of what I watch our our staff go through in preparation for board meetings and it doesn't seem like it would be that big a difference. It used to be that it would go up at 5:00 on Friday and we got our board book at 5:00 on Friday and we managed to back it up and request that we get it at least by Tuesday or Wednesday if possible from when Dr. Landry was in place and um and when Dr. Vincent was here, we were trying for the Tuesday or Wednesday. This was before the TOMA change. And

164I know it's a it's a it's a challenge because it's not just that they're doing that work to produce for the board meeting. I mean for the for the board meeting, but they're also doing all their other work at the same time. And and so my only concern with um in answer to the draft book, which is what we were really getting was a draft board book and then we would get the final board book. I I just if we are going to ask for it on Monday or even Tuesday, Tuesday maybe isn't as big a challenge for them, but Monday is I think a real crunch for our staff. I think it's a real >> I think Tuesday is actually you know if we had if we could you know >> I'm just speaking

165from what I see them I don't want to say scrambling but I mean they're doing >> well the thing is >> multiple juggling multiple things and >> in traditional terms we're trying to make sure that you get the most latest and greatest information in timely ways and so we're always updating different things as far as that stuff goes and so uh yeah we can work we can work on that. My only consideration would be there's just yeah identifying the burden and then be that's a great thing to mention is that we're doing the small groups now too so we get information early on certain topics but the package deal maybe we don't receive it as soon to trusty Dawson's point I don't know if you would be okay with receiving the full package a little

166later just with this fiveday I feel like that would be sufficient >> so given that we get information Um, personally, um, receiving it on Wednesday, I mean, unless I'm getting it at 8 a.m., right? So, that's only four business days to be able to while there's and I hear what you're saying. I appreciate the fact that everyone's working on it, but every there's a lot of people creating it, but there's just like me going through everything that you've given 500 pages. >> So, you know, now, so something just as a consideration, I personally would like it earlier, right? Um, it doesn't have to be complete. You know, if there was a way to receive it where it's in a place that we know that you may potentially be adding something to it or, >> you

167know, where it's real time where the agenda is set and as you're updating it, we're seeing real time edits. And so, at that point, it's and as long as it's clear what version it is or >> Yeah. So, there would have to be some mechanics to make that work. But like I would be fine if I saw the agenda and I'm like, "Oh, here's version one. Oh, look, there's a version two." It would just have to be some clear communication and guidelines. >> Usually it says draft. So that helps. >> Well, I'm just saying like instead of getting that final PDF document, if you're needing to make updates during that week, me personally, I would be fine with it as long as I knew where to go >> to get it or if I needed

168to see it real time if that made it easier. But nonetheless, I would like that's that's a lot easier to do. What one thing also we're going to look at to do software that's going to be more portal driven and so we where all of the different groups are going to be responsible for putting their information in and so that's that's something we can do. >> So that might help. >> I I just want to make a comment and um really thank you and um your team because the board brief helps so much. Often when we get the agenda now I've already seen that information. Thank you. um or some iteration of it. So, it's not like a brand new um you know uh topic with data that I'm having to look at for the

169first time. So, think kudos to the board brief. It's chalk full of information every single >> I and I would I would agree because I am feeling that by the time we do small group by the time we do the board brief I actually have a much clearer understanding of where and we've seen sometimes in the board brief because it's weekly we're seeing stuff or information and data and all sorts of stuff multiple times that it makes it easier when the board book comes out I can digest it quicker. Well, the thought behind it is too, you know, that we synthesize the information based on your feedback. And so when we hear from you that this is different or that's different, then we can synthesize that by the time you get to a board meeting,

170you know, when we talk to you say, "Oh, that questions there." I had to be more clear about how we're we're describing that. So that Thank you. >> Can I ask just again the timeline of when we do small groups versus draft versus public? Just so I understand. >> Okay. >> What is the what is the goal like? What day do we do small? Is it >> Well, I mean the thing before the problem is is that like it's the problem with like with the calendar right now like for spring break. I'm doing this this week on the 4th and you're having the board meeting on the 17th >> or the >> Yes. >> Yeah. Well, because the thing is we have a spring break in between all that and I'm trying to get that

171fit in because that Tuesday following it's just it's you know. So that's why >> typically what is your goal to do the week the week prior >> the week prior so that way you're and it's kind of an opportunity >> in a draft before the final is >> yeah because I mean that way you have the at toy Gambino's point the the fullest and most complete version of what we're you're going to ask you to consider at the board meeting. So you're incredibly prepared for the board meeting, right? And so then you've seen it a couple of times. >> Well, I'm fine with the way we're we're doing it. >> Thank you very much. >> And we don't have to spell that out here. That >> really >> Yeah, we don't. So, we should probably

172move on to guys. We've got a lot to go through. >> Okay. So, I'm going to I'm going to pull us back into the the red language. >> Oh, I was already on another page >> on board meetings. And can we not go like line by line? Yeah, I I don't know. This is going to take a while. >> I just wanted to make sure. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I think that's >> Is there anything else on this page that anyone has questions on? >> Are we on page 22 of the old? >> Yes. >> Oh, yes. Let me let me just show you. >> I'll just come back. >> Why don't at the other end there? Mike, >> pick it up. Trustee. >> The other question. I'm sorry guys. Um, the other question that's right

173here. >> Would you be more >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> To have you read it once so we don't have to all >> I am happy to do that. >> That would be great. >> I mean, we're sitting here and it's just going on later and later. So, if you could just quick read to us, that would be good. >> Second paragraph the red the question in letters. uh posed is how how do we notify um board of trustees shall be given notice of regular the question is how >> can I just say that I've been on this board for over three years and we've never had an emergency meeting so >> I' I've been in the school business I've been a superintendent for 20 plus years I've never had an emergency meeting

174they're free between >> well this is a this is for the regular and special meetings and then the the very latter part of this sentence is for the emergency. >> I think she's asking how is that notice delivered so that we can specify it in here or does it need >> the superintendent notifies us of pretty much everything. So I'm I'm fine with this without the word how it's in our weekly board. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Next paragraph, last statement. Um the board presidential call emergency meeting was determined by etc etc. and then as defined by and she has inserted the words legal code. Don't know if that has meaning. I think I think what's here is probably sufficient. >> I think it's sufficient. >> Well, it's it's defined by law and then it's

175also codified already in board policy. So, I mean, we can make changes, but if we don't have to, >> we're covered. We're good. >> There's a legal advantage to that recommendation. Okay. >> A couple things. Um on the special meeting I the minimum if you if essentially what the law says is if the three people request a meeting the board president has to call it um there's no minimum to call a special meeting. So I think the board has just said instead of having it be the required legal of three two people can request a special meeting. Um so if you want to keep that uniform at three >> I thought we already went did that and changed it to three. >> Just checking legal. >> Oh okay. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure.

176>> Yeah. So, we Okay, so we changed it to three. >> Yes. >> Um the one thing that did come up here is and this is actually been a bit of a >> an issue is I think right now your current board policy says that the board is going to find out about a special meeting when the agenda is posted. Do you guys want if if there is a special meeting being called, how far in advance should the board be be should the president have to alert the board or what should that process? >> What is the what is that legal requirement? Is there one? >> You would No, that's why you can just call it at the same time as >> the agenda goes out could be when you would find out about the

177meeting. >> You said it has to be three days in advance for an emergency meeting. >> It has to be I'm not talking about emergencies. talking about special, you're going to have a calendar for regular, right? >> And then you're going to have um special meetings, >> and I'm only bringing this up because it actually has been an issue when we've been trying to have special meetings. How far in advance of the agenda going up? Do you need to be alerted of the meeting or can you just be alerted the day the agenda is going up, which is what this says? >> By law, we have to post a special meeting notice. What? >> Five days. It's the same as for a regular >> five days is sufficient, I would think. I mean, our special

178meetings, we've been having one almost every month. So, I mean, it does help to know like so we can plan ahead. >> On the calendar in the past, the first Tuesday of every month, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's the first Tuesday of every month was set aside for a potential special meeting. I don't know, maybe that wasn't understood, but that would to me sounds like a calendar issue or something we could include on the calendar where that might be reserved for any special meeting needed. >> That's how we've done it in the past. Yeah, we we've we we put a a placeholder for that so everybody knows to kind of be there. >> There's a couple of months we don't hold them like Fourth of July week and you know because it's

179usually the first Tuesday of the month, but can we continue doing that and have this be sufficient? >> Could we we don't do it in May though, right? Graduation and everything. >> I don't I don't think we have one on the calendar right now in May. No, I'm being confirmed. >> You know, and I'm also trying to put those frame them in to the board meetings, too. Yeah, I appreciate it. >> So, it's just going to be part of the calendar. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And that's how it's been in the past. So, that's okay. >> And then otherwise, if it's not on there, but she has to call a special meeting for some reason, you guys are fine with finding out on the day that she >> puts the agenda up. We I'm I'm

180not talking about I'm just talking in general about >> the the superintendent even even former administration and former administration before that usually contacted all the trustees immediately of um of a need for a meeting and we've been able to operate that quickly and it an agenda didn't go up before we were contacted. So >> So do you want to just say as soon as practicable? >> Yeah. See, I can't say that word practical. There we go. >> Component >> with the understanding that a quorum only a quorum is necessary >> instead of at the same time as soon >> but no later. But no later. So as soon >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm just trying to move us along. >> Was there Was there anything else on this page? >> Okay. Go to the

181next page. >> Okay. Maybe I can skip several pages. Okay, more words about that. Okay, there was nothing else on the remainder of this page. And so we're down to notice of Connor ISD board of trustee meetings. Again, that was most of all that's in blue, so it's law. Um the next section is Connor ISD board of trustees meeting agendas. Any suggestions or discussion there? >> Why? No. If you're going to put No, but if you're going to put the red part, if we're going to keep the red part in, then instead of saying on the same day, it say by the same day because then it makes it even if we get it to them earlier. But it's just mincing words. >> So you think by the same day? >> Well, no, that's when

182it's made public. on the same day the agenda is made public >> honor before >> and we're talking about that very first paragraph right >> um the the Conroyc board of trustees meetings and agendas the red paragraph at the bottom of page 22 we're adding that I mean that's proposed change >> and we all said we were good with it but if we're putting it in there with a policy change a potential need for a policy change, then it should just say honor by. >> Okay. I have honor before you like honor by >> or whichever way. I'm just saying that it it puts us in alignment with what >> with what we decided >> you did above. So, I was just trying to keep it consistent. >> I like it. I've got that noted

183and I've got that changed. >> I have nothing on 23 or 24. So, >> I had something on 23. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm just confused. Under uh Conor D board of trustes conduct during meetings. Um if you go down to the Conor ISD board of trustees agree to conduct meetings via the following procedures what's in green. Um the second bullet under that one says to first seek recognition from the board president before commenting on a topic being discussed and direct questions to the president. So there's that um bullet and then if you go down to the bottom bullet it says the president shall not interfere with debate. the president may halt discussion if the Conor D board of trustees has agreed to a time limitation. It just seems like saying the president shall not

184interfere with debate kind of conflicts with the other bullet points in those paragraphs. So I would suggest that >> either we remove that or >> change it so it all aligns. >> I I also put with the second bullet I thought it was a little bit overkill so I think we could just >> You mean the last one? The second bullet underline >> just to strike that. >> Mhm. >> So bullet point number two go but leave the last one in. Is that what you're saying? >> The first sentence and the last like the last bullet point that first sentence conflicts with the rest of what the paragraph or the bullet points all the bullet points are saying. So I'm not sure how you tore that. >> I think the only reason that's there is

185it's kind of part of Robert's rules of order. But I don't I don't care one way or the other. I could see what what you're saying with the last one. So, >> second bullet. >> Yes. >> Um, Trusty Horton has that struck completely removed on her notes, >> but that does coincide with Robert's rules of order. So, >> and just a reminder that this is also going to require a board policy change, which again is fine as long as it's purposeful and we're going to have to make sure we align them. But our and our policy does state that we adhere to Robert Schulz order >> and this one does this operating procedure also is saying it. So >> I don't know but I think if you just struck the president shall not interfere with

186debate it would all shore up. It just I don't think that really aligns with Robert's rules so much either because the president is supposed to direct the discussion of the board if we're following Robert's r tools >> which is why the second bullet is needed. So like if you took out the final bullet where it says the president shall not interf. >> I think what so what I'm think I'm understanding you saying is if we're if we're saying that the president isn't going to interfere with debate that appears to be conflicting with the board having to first seek recognition from the board president. >> Yeah. And then directly after that it says the president may halt discussion which would technically be interfering with debate. >> Right. But there's a but there's an if. That's if

187there's a time limitation. So is so that's supposed to be when that time limit has expired, right? So I I think if you're not >> I don't think that the bullet itself >> is conflicting. I understand what you're saying about that bullet up top. I think I think though once the debate has begun, they're they're not stopping that, but it's managing the order of that discussion initially starting. So I don't know if there's a way to word it better or if it just removed I it's up to you. >> Well, it says it like to first seek recognition from the board president. I mean that is technically making it a line. I >> So are you saying I'm just wanting to make sure I understand trustee summaril to remove at the very last bullet point

188the first sentence >> and then just leave the rest of it. >> Yeah. I just I don't think the first sentence makes sense. >> Okay. So take out the president shall not interfere with debate. >> I think that's fine. >> Yeah. I just Yeah, that's fine. >> Just a reminder, this takes for policy change >> change. I know, but we're already making several other policy changes. So, >> and I mean the the point is let's let's follow Robert's rules of order or let Yeah, let's make sure >> or you could even say like we'll follow Robert's rules of order and then we'll be aligned to that. I think it >> it is in there. It is in here. >> Well, if it's in there then, you know, the rest of it probably doesn't need to

189be stated. >> Okay. And then so after the board policy bullets, we have all the green the remaining green bullets of that section. >> Oh, hold on. Sorry. I had one before we get to that the trustee minutes. Could we strike um by the board secretary because we have it says or clerk we have someone that's always doing the minutes and our regular meetings. So I would just like to strike the board secretary. Um, and then I think we need to add in for close session that the secretary will be doing the minutes. >> Okay. >> Are you under >> right under in the orange Conor ISTD board of trustee minutes? That very first >> Oh, up above line. Oh, >> okay. >> Sorry. >> Oh, we kind of skipped over that part, but >>

190it says or clerk. Yeah. I just want to strike board secretary. Okay. I just want to make sure my control >> just put a comma that says delete because what I also need to see is if that's in the secretary duties. You could just put a comma in there that says delete the secretary minutes. >> Okay. >> Then check. It's just that's not what we're actually doing. So shall be approved by both signed by the board president and the board secretary. >> But then I do think we need to add that the secretary takes minutes for the close session. >> I agree. >> You're not eliminating the signature board because it's not primary. I'm shocked at best right here. >> They're saying it wants to >> where it says clerk. action shall be carefully reported

191by the board secretary or clerk. You just want to take that out. Is that what I'm understanding? >> She wants board secretary out. >> That's being done by >> Okay. The I don't think the secretary is ever taking minutes of open meetings. >> Okay. >> To my knowledge. >> Okay. So, we're just aligning that to actual practice by removing that as a secretary duty. I mean, the language allows for both or either this way, but I'm I mean, that is we can absolutely do that. >> It just says that ensures an accurate record is kept proceedings and if I'm signing off on the agenda meetings, then that's achieving that. >> Yep. Okay, I have that struck. And so now wants to add and um keep a certified agenda during post session. The secretary will keep

192a certified agenda during post session and we probably need to put that in the secretary as well. And I'm going to put that as green because that's Okay, I have that adjustment. >> Thank you. That's all I had. >> Absolutely. >> Second second paragraph. May I move? >> Oh, wait. on the same page, >> page 23, the or >> on the trustee minute >> where it says the official minutes of the Conro SD board of trustees shall be retained on file and off to the superintendent and shall be available on this document that is scratched and it says the superintendent and shall be posted on the board web page. >> It is. >> No, I'm just Yeah, I'm just >> No, it is it's already done. >> So, >> we don't need it. >> Don't

193need it. That's okay. And I think that shall be available for examination during regular office hours. Um it's covered if it's posted. This would require it to be posted. This allows for available to come in and examine which is also something that that can be done. Um or the posting if it's posted. So this is a bit broader and part of policy. So I I would um >> I would agree with leaving that because you can do both. >> Okay. >> Right. Okay. So, now we're back and we're going to I'm going to make sure that we we don't have any other bullets in the section of uh conduct during meetings that we need to go through. We have the local bullets in green. >> Sorry, I had a question about that texting, emailing, phone

194calls, um electronic devices thing. I just it seems like everybody usually has their phones out and our board meetings are so long that it's kind of problematic to not be able to like text your kid back if they ask you something. We're here for eight hours. So, I just I'm a little bit concerned about having to walk out of the board meeting to avoid distractions if my family needs me for a second. >> I I understood that as well, but I felt like it allowed for it when it said um unless there is an emergency or other significant matter. And to me, I mean, there's in this particular board, there are a lot of there a lot of moms on it. And in addition, it's on a school night. And in addition, as long as

195it's not um a distraction or causing a problem, I I think it actually addresses that >> or other significant matter. >> I'm sorry. So, since that's not in board policy or required by law, could we just strike it? >> I think that would be wise. >> Was that added? I mean, I know that that's been a topic of discussion among the public. >> That be a reminder. The reason I added in there is because sometimes new board members, the perception is sometimes when you're on your phones that you're not focused, >> not focused, doing things that are inappropriate or andor I've also had a lot of public information requests for texts that were happening during that time. So, I just always like to remind board members of the that perception and lay it out as

196an expectation. That's why it's in there. Totally up to you what you do. I'm fine. >> I just everybody has an electronic device or phone out right now. So I I just think if we're going to say it, then we need to do it. Maybe we should just kind of trust the board members to be adults and you know conduct themselves in a business like manner. >> You you can also shift it. You can also say minimize the use of or you you know so it's up to >> I think minimize would be good. Yeah. I think minimize use of >> Yeah, I'm just It is distracting >> just like strike the focus on the meeting part and say minimize use of cell phones. >> I don't think they heard it but they may. May

197I I I just want to reiterate what um uh legal said and that is this is a reminder that when this is up and somebody there's watching and they want your texts, they can get them. >> That's just a to me this is a very subtle reminder. It is just nicely nicely written. >> I would I would still go with minimize use of cell phones. >> I agree. >> Okay. So, it would say minimize use of cell phones or engaging in texting unless there is an emergency emergency or other significant matter >> and then strike the bullet above that the one that starts focus on meeting at hand. >> Okay. So that one is kind of u more more specific as to the the broader with electronic devices and >> it just seems a bit

198redundant. I mean >> it's broader than >> so the only thing that I've if that's not redundant would be the conducting private or side discussions and that is um I think an etiquette piece worth talking about. It's it's distracting. There's recordings going on things like that. So I I would I would suggest we talk through that. I mean, I'm if if everybody doesn't have a problem with striking, that's fine. I just think that's probably the one piece that looks to me to not be redundant. >> Why not just say minimize the use of cell phones or engaging in texting unless there's an emergency or other significant matter or just minimize use of cell phones or engaging in texting period and say um minimize conducting private or side discussions or you know don't conduct private or

199side discussions, something like that. Focus on the meeting at hand and avoid conducting side discussions. >> That's where your claim goes. >> So, focus on the meeting at hand. Avoid distractions. >> But you're suggesting deletion of the of all of that up until con and then stay um and conduct. >> I would say minimize use of cell phones or engaging in texting. Focus on the meeting at hand. Avoid distractions and avoid conducting private or side discussions. Okay. >> So, if I do that, are you proposing to put it in as one bullet or keep it as the two separate bullets? >> Uh, put it in as one bullet just together. >> I'm fine with that as well. >> When you get that, would you reread it, please? >> You want Yeah. Let me let me

200read words with it then. I'm going to highlight so we can move forward. But >> well, it's okay. I mean, I think we got >> the gist of it. >> They're comfortable. They're comfortable with it. We can move on. Let's move on. >> Okay. If we're comfortable with the proposed suggestion, I we will clean that up and get that where it needs to be. I'm going to highlight and move that forward. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Board meeting reports and presentations. This is kind of our legal base. that first paragraph. >> I'm good with it to run >> with which one >> we are in on board meeting reports and presentations. >> Good to answer. >> No, I'm great with this. >> Yes. And we have board meeting close session. >> Final thought too. >>

201Me as well. Yes, contract just um there are a few of these as we progress that um and we can talk about those in the appropriate close session as well, but there are a few of these red that are indicative that it is within the superintendent's contract and so we wanted that document aligned as well. So, Miss Blue did a great job of looking at that um legal document as well as these operating procedures. So, that's where that red is coming from. So, There's no suggested changes. It's fine. But I did want you to know why that's in red. >> Okay. Um public attendant, do you have something? >> I do. So, Trusty Horton has last four sentences of that red paragraph struck. >> Um this is you can go into close session. Yes, we

202need we're not going to talk about that. >> We can't do superintendent items here. Thank you. Um >> so uh just marking that for any other discussions. Okay. Um for future let's see public attendance at Conor ISD meetings. >> I know that. >> What page are we on? I'm sorry. >> Uh the old I got it. Okay. >> 25. >> Okay. Anything on how are the Conrad Board of Trustees agendas created? >> I had one. Could we define what it means to timely submit uh an agenda item because I know this has come up in the past. >> Yes, ma'am. That actually that's a great question. Dr. Vincent, myself and Cara have been working on putting together when when you were mentioning earlier, I think Miss Gambino, Trusty Gambino was mentioning where these items would

203be located. I've asked that um well actually Miss Belaloo started it where she was asking for a location to be created that was a link just like where we put in our forms, our records requests and our policy request changes and the agenda. And so currently we have I think four going on right now that we're trying to get established for y'all to be included in every board brief where the link will be there for you to be able to request. Now as far as your timeline that's being defined as far as that and in conjunction of backdating for when their agenda has to be complete and all and then enough time for y'all. So we're still creating that that exact number we're going to have. We are getting we're working. >> I think that

204will you know >> Yes. Can it just reference whatever that >> Yeah, I think we can add a reference here that the superintendent will create um a submission form >> a board agenda submission form. Um but that still begs the question and there have been a couple of concerns with this. Um, how far in do you guys want to put in a a self timeline for how far in advance of a meeting you would have to tell Misty you want for board president? >> That's what I was asking. >> But my question for you on that is I don't know that that's been determined as of yet. >> That's what I I >> So that's the concern. I would rather us make a note here to revise that and bring it back and when to

205the trustees when we make all these changes and we all see it again for the final review that then we could implement that date. >> This will require board policy change anyway but just something to think about again is we have to post the agenda five days five business days before the meeting. So the question is, if you guys wanted something on the agenda, how far in advance of that >> did you have to submit this form? >> Could you leave board policy alone and then have a local determination of of when that is timely or would you recommend putting it into putting it into because I think it should be. >> I think it needs to be. I just think that um it's not known. I mean, I didn't know until I was sitting

206in this position how much has to be organized, gathered, kept checked, legal, everything before things can actually be prepared and on the agenda and giving the the time for it to get onto the agenda legally. Um, I just don't know what that date is yet. I mean, I'd love to say that it needs to be five days prior to the board's agenda posting, but I know that's not realistically enough time. >> Um, to could we, you know, these meetings are very long. Is there some way that we could, you know, like let's say all seven of us requested an agenda item, right? Like, is there a way to maybe limit what we have in any meeting? I know that could get really tricky to figure out, but I just want to be mindful of all

207of our time and I know everything's urgent to all of us, whatever we're submitting to to be looked at, but is there some kind of parameters we can put in place? >> No, I can go in and try to look at that because I know there's a lot and you know, honestly, one of the things that I'm going to ask and request of you is we're fixing to start going deep diving into curriculum and instruction and designing our systems to support that. And so, you know, there's a lot of things that I have backlogged for y'all to talk about. I mean, backlogged. >> Yeah. >> And uh you know, from from cell phones to to uh dress code to all those kind of things that I really want to get to. I mean, that that

208are, you know, really important because in all honesty, you're making plans for next year, right? And so, you have to do that. And so, yeah, I I would like to figure out a way to make that happen. >> Maybe Dr. Vincent, you know, as we request things, you could just send in a board brief like, "Hey, I'm thinking here's the items. Here's maybe the months that, you know, we're we're thinking." >> Actually, I can just share it with you because I already have it. >> Yeah. What? >> I could even share it with you because I already have it and I just keep pushing it down further >> because if we don't hear like let's say, you know, I ask about cell phones. If I know, hey, we're going to cover this in May, I'm

209not going to ask you about. >> No, no, no. The thing is that that's one of the things that that really is important because I mean all those kind of things and as we create policy and plans because you have to get it done so you're planning for the next year for for for uh um you know your handbooks and stuff. So >> yeah, I guess it's just being able to put a plan for what all of our requests are and a timely you know spread out fashion. >> Uh no, I'd love it. >> I would I like that. But I would also like to just point out that actually each month trustees may have one or two items on the agenda. >> I'm just saying >> I I know. So I mean I'm just

210saying that it's not we're not overloading the agenda as much as just the agendas are. So >> I I would just I would just I'm excuse me. I would just add that um with the request that maybe there are some parameters of what type of agenda item it is. Is it, you know, is there just give it some type of category category so that maybe you can prioritize it based on the categories that selected because there's going to be some topics that are not as urgent as others and so the trustee we would need to be able to identify that and to have that conversation but on that form be able to put where we think it lies >> on the form that we so sorry Dr. But on the form that we've been working

211on, it has drop downs on does is this an emergency item, is this a whatever. But one of the things you all need to understand is that once a a trustee makes a request for an item to be on the agenda, the president by law is required to get it on the agenda within two meetings. So it's it makes it I mean unless the trustee agrees to the delay on it >> I am but or whomever is sitt seated here is required. So >> yeah the thing that and but to that to that point like uh you know uh trusty Dawson that said some of the cell phones oh yeah we've got to because I've got to look through that for for the the handbook. So it's it's a legit deal but then you're going

212huh how do you get that done? It's it's complicated and and that's the other thing too is even with regard to board policy. Uh one of the things that uh we've set forward as as a precedent is we have a 30-day plan after you see received the formal draft of the board policy that you have a chance to review it so that we can put it in exe in consent agenda because at the end of the day we want to make sure you have the due diligence time to make that work. But that will some of these things we're kind of redesigning especially as the board agenda goes. We're going to be it'll help us. >> Yeah. My only point is I just want to not overwhelm you guys. I want us to be fair

213to each other and all of our time. So, >> well, I mean, it's right now we're it's it's 8:00. We've been at this since 5. And uh how much we know how how how through fresh are you right now to make these things done. And I mean, it's it's a challenge for for us, you know. And I the one thing too, guys, I want you to know I want you to be proud of what you're doing. And I want it to be meaningful while you have you spend your time here. And uh that's always my goal. So, you know, it's time well spent. It's just I'm worried about you getting tired. >> Okay. So, did we didn't answer Trusty Dawson's original question on >> what the deadline time is, but is there a way to

214make a notation there that we fill that in? That's what I in in our final draft so that we can move on. >> Yes, ma'am. I've put topics are considered timely submitted when and then I put a note pending final decision and I've highlighted that. Yes, I've got that ready for us to move right along. >> I do have one item at the one word at the bottom of page 25 which did come up in a um situation this last year. So, I want to make sure we define this more clearly. Um and I had forgotten it until I looked here and saw the the note. And it says that the very bottom paragraph, the board president shall not have authority to remove from the agenda a subject requested by a trustee without the trustee

215specific authorization. I request that we add the um that the shall not have the authority to remove from the final agenda. >> Why does that make a difference? >> Um there was some question final posted agenda. posted agenda. Um, Miss Beloo, would you please um address that question when it comes to um I know we had some question about well >> it seems like it seems like what you're saying is like in the draft agenda is items can be added but in the final agenda you can't remove it but if it's posted you can't remove it under law so it doesn't really make sense. So it it mattered because what happened was um >> a trustee had asked for an item to be on the agenda and the agenda was about to be posted within

216the day and um and and then I didn't put it on in the October meeting because they didn't ask for it to be on they just asked for it to be on that agenda and and it was an item that happened in that month. And so by saying when I when it didn't go on because we didn't have the time to put it on the agenda that month, she didn't ask for it to be considered in the next month as well and there was a communication issue there. So by saying that I was being told I removed something from the agenda and I didn't remove it. It was never on the final agenda. >> Yeah. But if it's a final agenda, you can't remove it anyway. So it doesn't really make sense to say final.

217>> Well, it was a question for the person. So, I'm just saying by stating that it if if if we just stated the word final agenda, it covers it and that it's not ambiguous to someone. I mean, it just seems like it's >> final posted. That is the law. I mean, but um it did come up that >> a a board we pulled a a item that wasn't ready very close to the agenda deadline >> and then a board member said, "Well, you can't pull an item that you've already agreed to put on the agenda, >> which we never had, >> but and ultimately the president retains authority right up until it's posted." But the argument came up, well, you said you were going to put it on and this language says this. I would

218even strike this language as just not necessary. But um that was the confusion if I'm making these. >> But it's in >> this is in policy, right? Because it's an orange. >> It's in policy. >> But so that's what I'm asking is can we make a change where it's not ambiguous. That's all I'm caring about. >> That's fine. >> I will say this. Sometimes when you want something on the agenda and you force it to get it on the agenda because we need a little bit more time to make sure it's all correct and clear and all those kind of things. Yes, I know. >> So, I've put in an adjustment for that that final sentence to read the board president shall not have authority to remove from the final comma posted agenda a sub

219uh subject requested by a trustee without that trustee specific authorization. >> But how would I'm just curious how the board president would ever have the authority to remove something from the final posted agenda. >> It's not. >> So why would why would we write that? Because as I stated, she assumed that it was she was stating that once it was requested to be on that >> if you write it like that, it makes it sound like you do have that authority except that it's written here. So you don't but >> you could just strike that line. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm good striking it. >> You just strike the entire sentence. >> I'm good with that. Either define it or strike it. >> Strike it. Gone. It's >> moving on. >> Page 26. >> All

220right. Page 26. So we have how our consent agenda items created. Anything there? I don't have anything on this page. Okay. >> Neither do I. Okay. All right. So we have how trustees. Okay. You don't have anything on the communicate regarding agenda items on the superintendent. And Jesse, can you >> nothing on page 26? >> I have nothing on 26. >> So I'm on 26. Yes. On the last paragraph, where do I find past and upcoming board meeting agendas? I don't think this is pertinent to where do I find past and upcoming board meeting agendas? Is that you feel like that shouldn't be in there or >> Yeah, I don't to This is for the This is the board operating procedures, right? I think I'll let you guys. >> Yes. So part of so part

221of what these are, remember that this is not in a final format. It's going to be in a forward- facing document that's meant as a two-way communication. And so there are some sections in there so that people can go see where all of these things are posted so that they just for that added resource or that added point of clarity. Okay. So that just kind of aligns with that um document where while these are for the board operating procedures, they're also for the public to be able to see access and understand what the board is doing if that makes sense. I'm I I'm not married to it. I'm happy if y'all want to strike that to strike it. >> It's not a big deal. >> Okay. >> Do you want to take a break? >>

222Um so I I would propose we have not had a break in a >> That's what we were just about to ask for >> and we're in a new section. So I I would suggest that we go ahead and take a break. How long would y'all like? And let's do that. >> Five minutes. >> We were going to end up doing 10. >> I know. So, if we more than All right. So, the time is I have to look at the right clock. 8:19. Correct gentlemen? 8:19. The board will take a five minute break. So, let's just say let's be back at let's just say 8:30. Okay. The time is 8:33. We are back in session and we are picking up on page 27. >> Yes, we are, >> Miss Duncan. >> Okay, so you

223all you all are doing wonderful work. This is this is a tedious process. Um, so thank you for sticking with me, but words matter and what we're doing here matters tonight. So, thank you for thank you for hanging in there. I am going to try to do a couple of things to pick up the pace but without losing any of the great quality discussion that we've had so far. Um I'm really proud of the the alignment and the robust discussion. I want to keep that going. Um and so I'm going to ask that we streamline our conversation to the procedures. It's hard because a lot of the procedures are related to all these other components and pieces and some of them do need to to enter in here. So I understand that. Um, so along

224along those lines, I am going to name the section and then ask if there's any feedback for each section and we're just gonna if you have it, we'll talk about it. Otherwise, we're going to move to the next section. Um, so >> let's drive it. >> Let's Here we go. Okay. So, trustee communication is where we've left off. So, do I have any suggestions or feedback on the trustee communication section? >> I have a question about it. Um, on the bottom of 27, communication from citizens, I think we'd agreed previously that the board president, if we were all emailed, would be the one to respond. Is that right? That like if we were all if we got an email where like the citizen CCD all of the board members on it, that the board president

225would respond to that one because that way the citizen wouldn't get like seven different emails back. Is that right? Did Did we decide that at some point? I I wasn't aware of it, but I was replying to them usually in conjunction with ask making sure I didn't put us in any legal jeopardy. >> That's customary from my my previous experience. >> Okay. And then then if like somebody emailed us individually, then we would respond and pass them to the superintendent, but I thought maybe we should write that down like the board president will because I think people get confused too because they won't get a response from all the board members. >> I actually think that's in here. >> Is it in here? It was in here too, but >> I I think and it

226says that >> that you all could receive a copy of that response. >> Yeah. >> In here it says that. >> Well, it just would be good because I don't I don't want people to feel like they're not getting a response. Exactly. >> But we also, you know, we just need to make it clear how we're responding. >> Okay, here it is. It's the third bubble b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b bullet under communication by spokesperson and it says if the Conro ISD board of trustees board of president responds to an inquiry and write writing on behalf of the Conrad board of trustees which I usually don't do it on behalf. I usually do it just stating from a board kind

227of perspective but um all trustees must receive a copy of the response. So it does state that because I don't like that >> I'm limited in sharing that with you all. >> It's still a public record. We're not deliberating, but in here it states that you all can have that copy. So that's good. >> It says we must receive that copy. I don't know if you've been >> It's not been in here before. >> Yeah, that's what that's what's in here is a proposed change. So if we get an email where all of us are CCed on it, the board president replies and CC's us. >> So in previous, you know, just to that point, uh you know, I when I always respond to and then I send y'all a response and blind copy all

228that for that part. Uh some some in in previous I've had board presidents that will email me. I've responded and then I take that and I then communicate that to y'all so that doesn't violate anyone issues. I do have a little concern though that the the citizen doesn't feel like the board replied to them. So you So if there's a way to um address this I I'm going to address this you know um >> I always would encourage you to say on behalf of the trustees >> you know in >> No, I don't mean me. I mean if you're going to respond to it >> no I like it. I think that I think they need to hear from the board and the thing is then you'll just email me and just on behalf of

229the board and then that way it works and everybody feels communicated with and they feel whole as far as that process goes. >> In this particular case, Miss Beloo, we're we're okay that we CC it back to everyone. I just want to make sure legally. >> Yeah, but you just can't deliberate. >> Yes. At all. >> We understand that. >> Nobody can respond. >> Right. I just want to make sure >> 100% of the time what I do is I just it goes to her and the Beverly BCC. So she nobody can respond to anybody >> and I generally try to make sure Dr. Vincent knows what's been responded and um Miss Belaloo so that we're not going on. So anyway, move on. >> Can I just ask a clarifying question? Um does but that

230doesn't preclude or or prevent a another trustee from responding as well. Correct. >> I think that's where you really start skating with that potential for for inadvertent deliberation. inadvertently. My my request is this. >> Not CC seeing any other like if the board president responded, >> but it just happened to be something that another trustee had knowledge of. Could the other trustee also respond but obviously not seeing any other trustee? >> Oh, okay. >> Totally up to you. I mean the idea here is that the president would speak on all of your behalf and you wouldn't >> but there might be times when another trustee has an expertise in something or knowledge of something that it would make more sense or it would make sense for that trustee to respond like I don't think that

231the president's voice should diminish other board members voices if they have I mean >> I just want to make sure I understand >> in a particular situation this happens not frequently but but some somewhat often you know a board member would say, "Hey, you know, I had some information about this." And I say, "Yeah, go ahead and share that with them." And I I don't know if I would share that with I don't know. Sometimes I'll say, "Hey, well, you know, this person had that thing to share with, but not on a frequent basis, but some infrequently that happened." >> Do you want to add that in here then that if a board member But I think that we're all responding to different emails, correct? I mean, >> I think it's at our discretion. Yeah,

232I think and we did discuss this. It was discussed in close session, so I'm not sure I can speak about what we discussed. Then >> there is a I mean that that first sub bullet does say the Conrad board of trustees present will clearly indicate when speaking in official capacity. So we have that or as an individual trustee which I think is what you were talking about there. So just kind of taking a step back um you know and then the second bullet is similar in that all of the board of trustees refrain from speaking for the Conor IC board of trustes will explain they're speaking in their individual capacity as a trustee and I think that's what you're maybe speaking to. >> Correct. So I mean we have that bullet in there to guide

233to guide that. So >> just making sure I understood >> I would we have the bullets in there to guide both of those um examples. I think >> I just wanted to make sure that procedure wasn't changing. So thank you. >> Okay. I I had one question. Do I have any other changes or suggestions for that section? Okay. That puts us on page 28. No, I have >> I have citizen participation at board meetings. >> Whatever that page is. >> Everybody make it to that section. My printed copy shows 30. >> This is still communicate general communication. >> Yeah, we have 28 and 29 still to go. >> I think she's going by section. >> Oh, I'm sorry. By section. So, >> oh, sorry. I didn't have anything for that one. >> I didn't have

234anything for 28 and 29 either. >> Okay, I'm going I'm going super fast. >> Okay, let's I like it. Okay, so for this section, citizen participation at board meetings, what I mean is every everything from all the subsections, all the bullets, anything you see underneath citizen participation at board meetings. Let's let's talk about that. Do I have any suggestions or questions on I I had one at the bottom of page 30 under procedures for conducting public comment. I would like to add um audience shall not enter into discussion nor debate or be disruptive >> on matters being considered by the board of trustees and can be removed. where you want to kind of language on if what what happens if they're being disrupted? >> I actually have added that in the last couple of years

235as some of my board board operating procedures because of a the lack of civility that people have been showing lately. And so, you know, you could add that in there. And then actually there's a pre-qualifying statement that the that the it wouldn't require this, but that the board president can add and say, you know, anybody that does this, this, and this can is subject to removal. >> But where were you wanting to add that trust? Yeah, cuz this is for public comment only. >> Yeah. >> Oh, well, but it but then it's talking about audience shall not enter into discussion or debate. So, that's not public comment. I It's in the public comment section, but that sentence is not referring to public comment. >> And this is language this is language pulled from beed. So,

236what you're I think I'm hearing you propose is maybe another either a board policy change or another local bullet that's additional inside of here that's request. But when we have such a specific board policy section, I think it might be a good idea to change it in both. Don't you agree? Okay. So, you'd like to add onto that first bullet something to the effect of the if they're going if they're being disruptive or causing >> the board discussion to halt essentially. >> And I have that exact language. I can get to you get it with you and I can put it in the brief because it's really good >> and it really was effective. >> Okay. >> Do we want to leave that make a note on that one like we did on the other

237one to >> I honestly don't care where we put it. Just >> Yeah. I had It took a little time. We got this done. I'll get it to y'all because it's really good. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I have that. I have that noted. Do we have anything else? I did have a question on page 31 if we're moving on. Yeah, go ahead. >> I was a little um I'm sorry. Did Oh, okay. Okay. Um I was a little concerned that >> I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm correcting something. >> Just citizenship participation. >> Citizenship. >> I think it could say either, but it's in board policy. >> I I would Okay. Sorry. That was the board members notes that wasn't present. It was up above where you were. So, okay, now I'm ready. >> Oh,

238no, that's fine. >> My apologies. Okay. >> Um, that last bullet point on page 30 falls over onto page 31. It's quite extensive and long. And it says, "Public comment shall occur at the beginning of the meeting when necessary for effective meeting management or to accommodate large numbers of individuals wishing to address the board. Um, the presiding officer may make adjustments to citizen p participation procedures, including adjusting when citizen participation occurred during the meeting, which I understood. We've already done some of that before. Reordering agenda items. We've done that before. This is the one that I have a concern about. Deferring citizen participation on non-aggenda items. >> Continuing agenda items to a late a later meeting. So my concern there that is current board policy. Of course we haven't done that. >> Um I'm I'm

239just drawing that to the attention of the trustees um to ask and I'm actually asking are we allowed in a regular board meeting to defer a citizen from being able to address the board even after they've signed up? Is that even legally? >> I mean, I'm I'm gonna have to look. >> Okay. Well, I just think that warrants a look. That's all I would say. That's a concern to me. >> Some boards, you guys, basically what your policy says is that during regular meetings, anybody can talk about anything whether it's on the agenda or not. But during special meetings, you can only talk about some boards limit regular meetings, too, to where you can only talk about items on the agenda. I think in practice we're not deferring it. So I think we should just

240cut that. >> Just cut it. >> Yeah, we're not doing that in practice. >> All right. There are times I I mean the times that I've seen something like that occur is if you have a topic where you have a ton of public commenters and it's going to take the hours and the meeting you know that that you would limit that to those that were speaking only to that to the agenda as a as an objective way to minimize and defer the comment those non-aggenda comments to later time. I would say that that's it needs to be used in extreme. >> I'm not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of limiting the citizens voice. >> Okay. So, you policy. >> That's why I think it needs to be removed. That's where I was

241getting at. I was concerned that that's their only time to address publicly something that they are concerned, passionate, whatever. I just don't think it's >> it's reasonable. So, >> yeah. Do you want to hold the language for workshops where they're stuck to the agenda or held to the agenda items? >> Yes, I think it should be strictly special meetings and workshops that should continue to be based on the agenda. >> Do you want to separate your public comment time for those that want to speak to agenda items versus those? Okay, just ask. >> No, just keep it simple. >> Perfect. Just asking. Okay. So, obstruct that from the list. >> Uh, and the second to last comment or bullet, um, >> in the orange or in the >> in the green. Sorry. >> Okay. Wait,

242hold on. I'm still in the orange. I have one more. >> Um, it says specific factual information. This the the third bullet point down in orange. Specific factual information or recitation of existing Conrod Board of Trustee policy may be furnished by the Conrac board of trustees in response to citizen part participation. Um I feel like there should be I would like to see that there's the ability for um addressing non-factual statement. So, I'm just wondering if if that's in there. So, I I don't think it should be done all the time, but I'm just stating that there's been many times lately that there have been things stated that were not factual and there is um and they're stating it up there as if it is fact. And that's the only reason why or they'll say

243I have a PI that states something and it's not actually accurate. And so I don't know if there's a way of adjusting that or if there's a need to, but that's just my question that I brought forward. >> Okay, let me reread. >> Let me look at that legally. >> Okay, that's fine. It's a little sensitive, but yeah, we can um we can look at it and fine. That is perfectly fine. I'm open to that that the look at that and getting back >> concerns about deliberation, things not being posted, stuff like that. So, let me look at it. she wants to add. You just put like non factual >> and I don't really know what that looks like. I'm just stating it. Um I mean Miss Miss Garza has brought up several times something

244that was stated and has and has had to go back to the person and say something. >> I think that's what that's saying though. That specific factual information. >> That's how I read it. That that is we can recite specific factual information. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Trusty Dawson, go right ahead on yours now. >> Um the second to last bullet in green, um public comment participant shall not approach board members unless authorized by the president. Um I don't think people know this. So how can we because people just kind of come up here. Um >> I've started telling them you know you you who to go to either he either one of them with their materials but >> yeah Just not sure how we >> Yeah. Can we Can we keep it on like what's

245written here? Cuz I mean I think we can talk about how to do it later. >> I can work on a protocol for that. >> Yeah, it's getting really late. And if we could just focus on like what the words are saying. >> Are you saying you want that listed in here? Like how we tell people? >> Yeah, I'm just saying practically I don't think people are aware of this bullet point. So >> well this will be an external facing document and also um >> the board president could say it when she talks about public comment as a reminder talked about that as a reminder don't approach unless you're asked and if you have something to give to the board you give it to the clerk or whatever. Yeah, that that works great. >> Okay,

246>> we'll add something. >> I can also put a container for that. >> Do you want those procedures specified in that bullet or do you >> We can just put it in a script. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else from that section? >> No, ma'am. >> Next page. I have something. >> Okay. What you got? Um, next to last bullet which is old page 32, participants secondary participants are welcome to discuss their own student or themselves if they are students. Otherwise, common board of trustees will not make comments that might identify any other student. Make sense? Um, addition requested is this add something where they cannot name employees in citizen participation. >> And just as a reminder, this is what trustee Horton left his notes. So he's reciting that so that that consideration

247is discussed. >> If we don't know that they're going to use an employes's name, we I mean I don't know. >> Is it not the same as if we don't know if they're going to use a student's name though? >> Yeah. >> I mean, one difference though is that >> using a student's name is a can be a Furpa violation and cause other legal issues whereas the employee names can't. So >> it's just one of those restrictions on freedom of >> um Well, if they're and if they're complimenting someone, an employee, you'd want, you know, to them to be able to acknowledge them publicly. >> I think sometimes also being able to refer to the >> the the the grievance policy if there's a concern and you, you know, reaffirming that, you know, it's very

248limited when you can can step in, but, you know, it's nice to be able to protect your employees when you can. So, that one's just a really that one's challenging. So, I don't know what your advice is on that insertion. It's really up to you. >> I'm fine with the way it is at the moment. >> Well, I've always just said that we don't use any names at all. I mean, because it's the best most broad protocol because if you're doing that and you're identifying something, there is no they have no recourse. I mean, so you can just say what you want to. So, and uh you know, my encouragement to the board president was just to stop him and say again, we're not going to use names, you know, as far as that goes.

249Fair. >> I think I think that is why we are allowed to do individual grievances in close session is to protect people's >> privacy. We could we could also put we could have known names names. >> Well, I Yeah, >> you know, >> this one's specifically about student, but we're broadening it to employees and not So, >> I'll put a comment in to that to update that and address it. >> So, that so that's to say again going back to it's a positive thing. They still can't use the the teacher's name. >> Well, the deal is is that you know uh I just when you're you know they were I mean I've really never had that happen. Usually when they come in they're just mad at something. But I mean at the end of the

250day uh you know that's usually the thank you note. But yeah, >> that's a that's a great point. >> Touche. That's really is I never thought about that. >> I don't know that we can special specify >> I've heard I've heard some positive things about teachers and this is green so it's not law or or policy so we can't really restrictive >> we can get a little yes and I think it it may end up looking something along the lines of you know we strongly recommend or we >> we can make a suggestion >> suggest strongly or something so we'll we'll put that in and get that up. >> I never thought about that. That's do. >> Okay. >> Page 33. >> All right. So, we are at a yet the next section. This is

251we're on page 33. Suggestions, concerns, or grievances made to trustees. So, you got a combination of green changeable language and board policy so that they're all aligned. >> I don't have anything for Anybody else? Any notes to discuss on that section? >> Are we moving forward? >> Don't wait too long. >> Yeah, let's keep going. Don't Yeah, don't wait. >> Page 34. >> Page 36. >> Page. >> That whole thing. 36. I'm good. I have nothing on. Okay. So, just to be clear, we're we're all the way through page 35 with no needed suggestions on that particular section. We are moving to page 36. Media inquiries to trustees. >> Any suggestions there? >> I'm good. >> N >> everybody is good. >> Okay. 37. Trustee visits to campus. I did have a question on this

252one. I'm sorry, but >> this is why we're doing this. >> I know. Um, but I don't want um a trustee to ever feel like they can't visit on campuses and or it's a it's a burden on trustees to be on a campus. Today I was told that always consider you have an invitation on our campus. However, here the language states that um we don't enter into areas or classrooms without an administrator present, which I understand that we want to have some guidelines and so forth. I I'm not questioning that. I just don't I I want to make sure that we don't put so many rules in here that it makes us feel like we're burdening the staff if we make a campus visit. I think from an administrator perspective that having some of these

253parameters will keep that from feeling like a burden and more like a oh please come. So so I mean just from that's just as an administrator of of you know with inner public education I think I think it it will help that. Now are are some of these too stringent? Are there too many? Do we need to adjust that? That's the to me that's the question I pose back to you is which ones which ones in the wording do we need to look at and maybe work on so that we're respectful of those protocols and requirements and the safety um and the execution of the educational program but it doesn't feel like that that punitive feeling either. >> I don't I think I've always followed all of these when I've visited a campus so I

254don't really see any issues with it. But it's always seemed to flow pretty well. >> My only one was the third from the bottom. Um that we need to give sufficient notice. >> That's the one that I think that's my question mark. >> And mine is more from a parent standpoint. Like probably not going to tell you if I'm going to go have lunch with my kids. >> No, that's not practical. >> Yeah, there's a different but there's a trustees as parents or guardians page. So, >> but that's I feel like some of it was kind of hitting at different points on that. you're going as your as a parent, not as a trustee. >> Yeah. I think we're supposed to identify whether we're acting as a parent or a trustee. Also, >> there'll be

255times on an occasion where Excuse me. Go ahead. >> Go right ahead, sir. >> No, the thing is that there'll be times when you're asked to judge things and be in in that spot, you know, sometimes you're with a principal, sometimes you're not. >> And so, you know, if you want to really do the important work of the door judging contest, you know that you know that sometimes you don't have the principal with you. So, >> well, I guess where my main one was is that some many of us have great working relationships with a variety of the principles on our campus. So, it may be a moot point, but Dr. Vincent, we have that working relationship, every one of us, with you that if we were to shoot you a text and say, "Hey,

256I'm passing Stockton. Do you mind if we stop in and visit the campus?" You know, is that going to be considered sufficient notice? >> Well, I that's fine with me. just realized that Carlton's going to keep you a long time. >> I understand. And then if we visit some campuses, we'll see the data room and I understand that. But my point is is >> is it okay? Is that sufficient notice? >> Yeah. I in my mind, one of the things that we've recovered with Ron's uh you know, data is that they want to see you more. >> And so if we can find a way to coordinate that, you know, I think that we can find try to find a happy medium. I mean, >> what is sufficient notice? >> I mean, I just think

257let me know, hey, I went by there. I mean, take a take a selfie with the with the people because I think it's kind of fun to do >> that's after the fact. >> Yeah, I guess so. >> Well, I mean, is it is it more like, you know, if you're going to stop by and say hi and, you know, bring them something nice. I mean, I don't know that you don't need a lot, but if you're you want to go have a conversation, I mean, >> you know, sufficient notice would be probably a few days like, "Hey," or, you know, >> you know, it kind of answers itself. Like, if somebody says, "I'm not available. We can't do that today." Seems like sufficient notice. I think it's fine the way it's written. >> That's

258fine with me. Moving on. >> Okay. So then this lens a lot to the conversation we were just having in the next section is trustees as parents or guardians. No comments. Anything there? >> No. >> All right. >> It's a little awkward when you go to take your kid lunch. I'm just here as their parent. >> I know. >> I'm not a trustee right now. I usually just don't tell them I'm a trustee. I'm just my kid's mom. >> Anything to change or do with that though? >> Okay. Uh, all right. So, then we have trustee and superintendent communication is the next section and we're on page 39. Guys, I think we could actually get done at this time. Um, I just had one thing. Um the second tick, the orange, um superintendent keeping us

259informed of significant issues. I just want you to feel like you don't have to tell us everything like if there's a traffic accident like what would be like a significant issue because I just want to make sure you're guarding your time. >> No. Well, the thing is is that, you know, I know that you're referring to the emergency things that I'll give you as far as, you know, it's really important especially like when you're in a neighborhood and the and the lights go out or something. You know, there there's and I mean and some people will invariably call you >> and so I just wanted y'all to have the heads up on that kind of stuff. >> If you want to do that, that's okay. >> I I really enjoy it and I keep you

260informed, you know, it's just Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But yeah, it's >> I don't It's weird that I enjoyed that, but >> you feel weird that that's on video, but As long as it's not as long as it's not burdensome, you know, or taking away your time from other things. >> No, really. Honestly, the thing is is that no surprises is no surprises. I >> it just it makes me feel better that y'all know because sometimes, you know, and plus it's nice that y'all can go y'all can spread the word, too, from people because, you know, y'all y'all's network of information. Thank you for asking. >> That's fine. I got it. That's all. >> Anything else on this communication? >> Nope. >> Section? And >> we so on page 41 >> we have the

261Conor IC uh board of trustees self evaluation and this is local so any suggestions changes questions >> I just had a question is this for the entire board or individual boards um or individual members I should What is the intent to be for the entire >> Okay. >> As a whole? >> Yes. >> A governing body. >> And is this a public doc facing document or >> it would be pable and public facing >> and we're evaluating ourselves? >> Okay. >> So, this is not required by law or policy. This is just voluntary. >> Can we not do it then? >> No. >> I've never >> I don't >> I've never had I've never done it. I I I think this could be strike it. >> Yeah, it it seems like it's something that would

262be timeconsuming and problematic. >> Well, and I mean, yeah, I think it would be more beneficial if it was evaluated. Someone was evaluating us, but >> people tell us all the time how we're doing. I mean, they think they do. It's ongoing. But yeah, I mean, if if we're not going to be able to do anything substantial with this, I >> Yeah, we get rid Also, when you're implementing a an updated procedures document, a an instrument that allows you to see how are we performing based on what we've adopted and agreed to use as our decorum and and behavior as a board collective, which does make up individual behavior obviously, but um I mean it is local and so you want it gone, it can >> I'll just say this, the reason this is in

263here is because it's a strongly recommended by TEA. Most board management books and um best practices for just any management team are that you do self pause and self-evaluate. So that's another principle. The final thing is um why some boards like to keep this in here is because they like to demonstrate that >> they're evaluating themselves. Just as all teachers and the superintendent are all being evaluated, they're also willing to be evaluate themselves. So those are kind of the three primary ration for it. It's certainly not a legal requirement. >> We're we're elected, not >> employed. >> But I we're asking everyone else to evaluate. I think it's only fair that we evaluate ourselves as well. >> I disagree. >> I do too. I you know, we are not paid employees and we already spend

264considerable time doing this. I think self-evaluation is >> kind of daily >> extra. >> I Oh, sorry. Well, I was going to say, I mean, there there's nothing wrong with with being able to identify how the goals that have been set for the district. That's right. How we have I mean, we are helping drive, right? We're working alongside you, but that the board has a stake in that, too. So, um I mean, it's not like and from a being penalized. We're not necessarily penalized, but it is just showing it's a good faith. It's probably more than anything, >> but we are in open meetings for every meeting where people can see everything that we're doing. That's not representative of how other employees are >> are evaluated. So, I mean, if people really want to know

265how we're doing, like they can watch the board meetings and see exactly how we're doing, >> they can come public comment. My only my only comment on this is is I don't think it's a negative to put out and maybe it's not a self-evaluation, but maybe the answers to these things at the bottom where it says um where we stand, but I guess if we're doing it, if we're already publicly having the meetings on HB3 plans and strategic plans and all of those, I guess it's already out there. Yeah, we're just restating what we've already done, >> but it's in the forward facing document. It would keep prevent people from having to go to all the different locations to see where are we on the HB3 goals. Where are we on the And so I

266could just see that there could be a place. >> I don't know. I could see it both ways is what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily saying a self-evaluation as much as I'm just stating a a strategic spot for people to see. But then again, we're already putting that out there. Dr. Landry, aren't we already putting it out there in a variety of different locations or is it all in one place? Things such as our our HB3 plans and our uh how we're doing, how our goals are being achieved and things like that. Is it not out there? >> I think it's in our teaching and learning page. on the website and a couple other as well as we presented it here public >> right an open meeting >> now now that we've kind of talked

267about this I just thought about I just the criteria that's listed here I don't know that we need to do anything different because I think what we're saying is it's already happening I don't think it's bad having this in here maybe it's instead of doing a self-evaluation maybe it's just kind of redirecting to kind of the overall um >> the progress Yeah, that the district is already performing because at the end of the day, the board is ultimately accountable for everything that's done, right? So, it's a direct reflection. So, maybe it just needs to be rewarded and not so much a self-evaluation, just >> pointing back to what we already are doing. >> U Miss Belveloo on section 11.182, it does talk about board improvement and evaluation tool. I mean, they found it important enough

268to put it in the statute. It's not a requirement, but >> it is very much strongly recommended by the Texas Education Agency. Like if you do any of their effective district framework or Lonear governance, they're going to say it's one of the number one principles. >> I'd like to keep it, but maybe we could take a vote. >> Well, may I have I want to speak to it. For me, the the reason I find it important and worth the consideration you're giving it is because you're governing a learning organization that's built on self-develop selfdevelopment, self-evaluation because that's what we expect of kids >> and teachers and right again I completely respect the fact that you're evaluated in November semian whatever >> evaluated every month. However, you are in the governance position of a learning organization

269and I think that's why TEA probably for lack of a better term >> governance recommends it and I >> every one of these criteria though are criteria that yes we control well we don't direct we indirectly control right so that these are criteria that the district is graded on not the trustees so it's kind of hard to >> you could remove the criteria and just create your own evaluation tool. And that often makes the most sense, right? You could determine what do you want to be evaluated on accomplishing over the next 12 months. >> That just to me seems like a waste of time. But whatever you want to do, >> the vote maybe on if we want to have this or not. >> Well, the other we can we can take some of the

270different feedback from what we're hearing. We can adjust slightly and then it's up to y'all which which you decide to to keep or strike in the final in the final >> dollar green again. Sorry is the green >> the green is is local. It's >> it's recom it's a recommendation policy. >> It is a best practice you know I mean and we you know when you look at this it's it's a team self-evaluation. How are we are we are we behaving as we've agreed to behave and using that decorum and following our standards as a board. Are we sticking with the trustee goals that we've set forward and are did we conduct that evaluation right? It's just stop look and listen for you to determine how you feel that you're doing as a team. >>

271This goes back though to we we vow when we are sworn in we we vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the te state of Texas. We don't we're not controlled by anything other than that. So I I would find it hard to find applicable criteria to apply in this situation. >> Squat says the commissioner shall develop a board of trustees improvement and evaluation tool. So there's one out there, correct? >> Oh yeah. I mean he has he invests a lot of time on this effort. >> So could we could we just could you take a stab at rewarding this um based on kind of what you've heard and then just review it >> collectively? it might be a valuable thing because we're still working on my evaluation tool. >> And

272so now that we've got all the data and stuff like that in, then maybe we can go back and look and see if that would there's any value to to collecting it. And so because again, we're we're still in this new process. >> I think it makes sense to align everyone's expectations, right? Because what we expect of you, you're going to then put that on the administrators and principles, correct? It's going to align. >> The board should align. We all should align with the same expectations. And if we're not willing to self- evvaluate, I have a problem with that. >> We're not perfect either. I think we've all determined that. So I I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to have. >> I've never done it before, but I'm willing to take a look and see

273what works. >> I think it's a necessary >> provide. We we will work on the we will work on simplifying it and then um perhaps even just referencing the model document from >> you know the commissioner and that way it's it's not a process for development. It's not a bunch of of time but that the spirit of the self-evaluating >> concept is there. >> It's modeling what we want to see in other people. It's leadership. >> It's 912. >> Yes. Moving on, please. All right. >> To our last item. >> Okay. So, I want to um I want to talk for just a moment about trustee sanctions. Um and just let y'all know that while these these are in here for discussion, um I' I've read a recommendation that came through in writing. Um gosh

274I can't I can't anyway I read that and I want to start up front by by stating that these censures are or these sanctions or censures are um typically reserved for some um behavior that is very serious in nature right um you know criminal behavior or you know bribery or conflict or things like that >> it needs to state that then >> so so there was some suggestion in writing and I'm I'm just going to be upfront since that came to me a while back. I paused that and said that's great feedback. I'm going to bring that. So, I'm doing that upfront to let you know that there was a suggestion for um whether it's an illustrations or examples or defining, you know, when this might be appropriate use. So, >> was that suggestion from

275the public or from >> No, it was from the board. It was it was relayed to me from a board member. Okay. But I just I wanted to make sure that we I because that came to me in writing that it was also presented here for discussion. Um >> Tiffany and I talked about this today too. We did >> because the severity of how we are and what we're doing. I mean we just need to make sure that it's very explicit and it's not, you know, as far as how that goes. And so >> I think that when you start talking about material censures too, you're going to start to get into some First Amendment issues and I'm very concerned about that happening. I just I am concerned about this this section um it being

276weaponized >> by any of us um and anyone in the future, right? That that may come in and have different political views or whatever >> predicated on that being the case. I think that's what we're trying to do is is reorganize this to be explicitly organized around egregious behaviors as far as that goes. >> So, are we going to kind of redo this section? Yeah, I think >> would that be handled by law enforcement? I mean, if there's an egregious I mean, if you're breaking the law, then this is really again unnecessary because >> Yeah, I I don't like that we're saying that people have to resign from the board if the board decides it to. I think that should comply with statutory. >> Yeah, we don't have that control. >> That's a great point.

277>> We don't have that authority. >> I think there should be some level of accountability, right? if we just went through 40 pages of what we are or not going to do. Um, we have to have some way of enforcing that. Um, but I think a sensor is um I think it's problematic. >> So, I'm not sure if we could find some kind of middle ground where maybe we talk about it in close session >> and then we move on. I think the should be purely verbal. >> This is not a required section. This is an optional section. Um the the portion in blue is just if you have this section that is allowable by law to discuss and close, right? So um so that's that blue is in there just because this section is

278within your procedures. Now if this is something that you want to strike as in whole, that's something that you can do. Um or we we I do agree that some parameters on on what might qualify for censure worthy sanction worthy type of behavior would be really helpful for this section. We had talked about kind of removing the more punitive parts of this document and I do think that would be advisable just I it feels very it feels like it's trying to suppress trustes ability to engage in rigorous >> I don't want to leave this as part of our legacy for other board members in the future to have to >> I agree I'm not in favor of this section either >> so we want to strike it >> I I don't care about it being

279struck or not I do want to make sure that We have the right if someone legally gets in trouble for something that they can be removed or not. I mean, they stay on. >> We don't have to. >> No, I'm not saying us that we remove them. I'm just saying can they be removed in some sort of process >> only if they've committed a felony? Really? >> Okay. That's all that's law. That's all that's what I'm getting at. >> That's not something the board would do. That would be a disqualifying act under Texas law for serving on the board. >> So, we don't need to explicitly state that. >> No. And the thing is like it's like Trusty Duncan was saying, if you you know, you're in that deep, you know, you're it's it's you

280know what I mean? We're not >> Yeah. Yeah. That's why I'm You said it better than me. But >> I'll also say that with or without this um policy, you can still do it. And I have seen boards just recently, I saw a board member be censured by other board members for what other board members perceived as inappropriate conduct. and they didn't have a this policy in place. >> Um the reason to have this policy sometimes is to allow like some options so that it's just not so wide open. >> This seems like it's out of our purview. >> Mhm. >> I think the point is that it's accountability for this document and and I don't know a fair way of doing that. >> Wouldn't the accountability be our word in signing the document? Yeah,

281>> I mean I would hope so. >> I'm not always seeing that. >> That's where an adjusted self evaluation >> could also be helpful, right? Because we were talking about that. So I know there's some that want to remove and some that want to keep on that one. But I feel like what I'm hearing is a pretty strong agreement that the the trustee sanction section is um I wish more adults could conduct themselves without tools like this. We're adults. We're grown women. We're expected to act that way. I find this completely unnecessary. >> I agree. I agree. >> I like the way Trusty Duncan said it. I don't want that to be our legacy. and let it be an example for educators. I mean, for everyone to meet an expectation that doesn't have to be

282in writing, >> I would just say, >> so um we have made it through the document. So, you've done a great job. We have I I so appreciate the input and feedback and so I um I'm excited to be able to get a final draft back to you. The last thing that I will end with is that there were some the sections that are received were worked on but there are a few sections that um and this is not an exhaustive list. It's just exemplary but like I feel like we don't have committees in here. Maybe trustee travel which can go along with some of the um training that we talked about earlier. Um some boards will put a board advocacy section in and what that looks and feels like and some parameters there. and

283we we don't specifically have a new trustee orientation program outlined. We have board some board training outlined. Um but it's it's a different process with that with that onboarding. So those are a few that that we saw that were worthy of noting to you all. Um it's it's a very detailed document already. Um but we do want you to feel that it's you know a document in whole. I don't know if you have some other sections in mind beyond that list that you feel like >> I agree with these and one of the things I want to do during the course of the year is try to start framing these out because it's the things y'all mentioned and so this your document and so we're working through this you know it was I was compelled

284with when when trusty can be you know was coming on and you know I pulled out my thing that I usually had done with with TASBY and so I started creating my own model and plan and process and so you know the thing is is that we as we fit that out you know to see you know our test case how it's going and how we can do better. So, >> well, what I'm wondering is though, should we draft these sections and include them in your next draft? So, they would be more about committees, um, more about trustee travel. Some of this is also coming from dialogue that's happened. So, more about trustee travel, more about board advocacy or even superintendent advocacy, >> and then new trustee um, orientation. Do you want those sections flushed

285for your next >> We've got 42 pages. So, I mean, it's getting really extensive. I don't think we need to add more sections. >> And with regard to on um onboarding or orientation for trustees, that's more of a procedural thing, right? Okay. That meets the moment. And that would be my one that would be my my one request that we procedurally make sure that we do some sort of it's what we have been discussing since the change in administration that we have nothing written out or in process or procedure. So if you could just do that so >> absolutely >> in all your spare time. >> I really kind of like my checklist thing. I may put some little things where you dot and it's finished. Very nice. So I can make that happen. >>

286May I one of the things that we had talked about early on way back when we first met was the goal was to get this to a document that you had that was readily available and then we said we can always come back and we can add or take away or remove at a set time. So I there is needs for these other sections. Don't hear us say they're not. We we also need there's you've got a long document. We know that there's there's building fatigue in getting to this point. we see that. So, I I honestly think that we move to get you the cleanest possible, best copy of what we have right now and that the goal is to get that implemented and then Dr. Vincent and I and and our team can

287talk about what it looks like to add on in the future because I think it's really important with the initiatives that are coming and the reports you're getting back. I think it's like to me I I think having a for lack of a better term a guide book. I think this is a great start. So I don't I don't I know there's other rabbit holes. I do and I'm keenly aware of those. But from a timing standpoint and where we are, maybe this is what we clean and then come back and talk whatever that looks like. >> We didn't draft whole sections just be because we also didn't want to make assumptions that that these were considered but but purposely not included because they might fit better procedurally somewhere else. So, we wanted to be

288respectful of that because we know there was a ton of work that was put into the document that led to the document that led to where we are tonight. And so, um so just just so you know, we wanted to really honor and respect what the document already had and what existed. And um we've already had discussion about the the potential for procedural addressing procedurally or administratively. >> Actually, in the sorry um on the committees, we've tried that didn't work very well. So, I'm gonna say we probably don't. >> Oh, I thought we just moved on from that list. Sorry. >> The travel I'm just looking at your list. The travel, we hit that with trap with trustee training. I think that would be included, right? Board advocacy. I would like to see that later,

289like maybe before legislative session. >> Well, we're going to Yeah, we're going to we're working on that because I there's two or three real big questions we need to ask about how we do it. >> Yeah, but I think that, you know, is later down the line and then the orientation I think is procedures. >> So, um I want to to the the orientation and training can rope into the list and log that we with the adjusted language that we made this evening. I >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that being said and what you um Ron what you had just commented on about this being >> it's basically a living breathing document. It's being molded and developed. It's intended to not uh hamstring any future boards that they can come back and make it work

290for what their time, their situation later. That leads me to a recommendation that was made to Dr. Vincent and I from um Trustee uh May about I know we kind of say it in the beginning of this, but she presented uh did you share it with them? I couldn't remember. Um it it it out it lays that out and I I think that the rest of the board should hear it and and um have that to consider that this go at the beginning that we are not by any ways trying to hamstring anyone in the future. This is just where we are as a board where we are in operating as a as a procedures and a process for us but it could be amended at any given time as a board sees fit. So,

291do you want to share that? >> I mean, I think you just said it, but yeah, I think >> Oh, sorry. >> Um, if I could just uh boil it down. I guess a concern that I had was there was a previous um I think it was a code of conduct. I don't even remember exactly what it was and it was floating around. It was very controversial and it didn't seem to have an author to it. Nobody like owned it, but it just was floating around. And I never want this to become that. I want because this is like a document that that we are creating, but the next board will inherit it and then the next board will inherit it. And I just want to make sure that that that we're able to say

292that to other boards, right? That it doesn't evolve into something and board members are just signing it without thinking about it and understanding this doesn't prevent them from doing their their duty. And I know you say it in there, but it's almost like a like a letter to the next board, right? And and in some of it, it could even say that, you know, these procedures reflect the collective agreements of a sitting board at a moment in time. Future boards retain full authority to amend, suspend, or replace these procedures as they see fit. Governance is not static. It evolves with leadership, community expectations, and district needs. And I think it just really lends itself like just a a letter to future boards. >> And I think so it sounds to me like you you've drafted

293a preface for the document in the in the sentiment of what you all feel. Take it >> and Yeah. I mean, so if that's something that y'all would like to see added as a preface that then I would walk the rest of the language through >> feels that way or not. So >> well this is a good time for that discussion. You know I think the alternative the the alternative thought process is we really want a sound document that we are all going to agree to to live and and conduct our proceedings by that have best practices so that hopefully those next boards want to continue that. But things change, people shift, times change, and there and you have to have an iterative concept. There's there's not going to be any policy or procedure and

294legislative changes come every couple of years. Like there there you have to know that any of these types of documents are going to have to have review and iteration. Um so I think that's a lovely way of putting that. I think we can blend those two concepts that you know we've worked hard to provide what we feel is a model document and that that we are all in agreement that we're going to use moving forward. But, you know, then adding that language you mentioned would be really good. So, if y'all if y'all would like to consider or see a preface with some of that blended language, we can certainly add that in. >> I would appreciate if you would add a draft of that if you make it. >> That'd be great. Also, as a

295reward for your toil and struggle tonight in your mailbox uh is uh the uh um and that's not a check, I wish. No, it's it's a it's it's Ron Morrison has has got his goals in in our in our everything all of your information down from the ser the study and it's just it we're going to really enjoy reading it. It's going to be really great. So, all of this stuff is coming together. >> Yeah, it's in your email. >> I I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we did not do the superintendent part. Are we doing that this evening or are we moving on? >> We could I have to leave soon, so I already overstayed. I was supposed to take one. >> It is up to y'all. >> We can

296we can I'm good. >> We're gonna we're going to be working on my board goals anyway. >> I think that would go more appropriate than I think. So I think it would go perfect hand in hand with that. So >> all right, your call. >> So if there's no further discussion, all right, seeing no further discussion um or business, this meeting is adjourned and the time is 9:28.