001I don't remember why things everyone I think is order. >> Hi Phil. >> Hi Bill. Um, so three >> 302 303 >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I don't see any changes we need to make on the agenda. Pretty selfexplanatory. And let's do a pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all business. Uh we're we just wanted the um on the student clubs policy, we were going to move to accept the schoolboard association model policy and their um but we wanted everyone to be involved with that vote [Music] to go before the board at Next schedules. Here we go. Is everyone okay with that? Phil. >> Yeah. >> Move that forward. Uh 821
002the public participation of board meetings was Karen and it was again the issue with attendance at the last meeting and bringing it to full review for the school board. >> Um are there any other changes that anyone has >> wording wise on that one? I think this was the one we wanted to use the maple run policy because it had more >> Yeah. than the VSBA policy. And I think that the only Yeah, there wasn't anything that was on VSBA only, but there were several things that were Maple Run only and they were just being a little bit more specific about public comment in particular section. I can review them if you want me to go through them or if you feel okay. >> What are the main main differences? >> Yeah. So um the
003main difference is um under implementation um the first sent two sentences there really around public participation those are maple run only um the other things that are maple run only um really center around public comment. So, the public comment um in the BSBA one, it breaks it out by things on the agenda and not on the agenda. In the maple round, it puts them all under one. Um but it gives more language around um the um setting aside time on the agenda for public comment and then that people can only address the board on items on the agenda. Um and that the board can use its discretion to allow additional time for visitors. Um and then a visitor should not expect the board to engage in conversation or answer questions directly but that the board
004may decide to do that. So it just gives a little bit if the the SBA one is just really small around that there is a public comment section um and they the chair can do a speaker list and that there can be time set aside for not items not on the agenda. The Maple Run one has more language about um whether people can ask clarifying questions um and the the board's response whether they choose to respond or not. So, I think it gives a little bit more language for the board to be able to um determine how it's going to handle public comments in particular uh in relation to uh agenda items than the BSBA one. >> It does say on line 31 regardless of whether or not it's >> Yeah. Sorry. Yes. Thank you.
005>> Um and I think the other one Oh, the other thing that's in here is the board can cut short number eight. Um, the board can cut short any testimony that becomes disrespectful or inflammatory that was not on the BSBA one. And I think the last time we talked about just that these were some of the things that came up as a result of some things I learned along the way. >> Yes. Any questions? No, I'm okay with the Maple Run policy. >> All right. So, we'll bring in >> Well, I think you just need to tell the board that you're as >> Okay. To keep it in place. >> We just update the matrix sheet. >> All right. in C12, the title 9, sexual harassment policy. Um, >> was that that was you? >>
006That was Yeah. >> Um, so I read through them both. There really are no everything that's in the um the model policy is included in the major run policy, just some formatting things. There are some corrections that are needed to make the run policy better. I've written them all out here, Aaron. I'll just run through them from here, but I'll just give you this. Everyone's good with them. >> Thank you. >> Um, specifically, so I'm looking at the maple policy >> on page four. Um, paragraph n limitation of scope should not be its own paragraph. That should be a sub sub paragraph of of paragraph m. It's limiting the scope of retaliation. And then likewise number three, so N3, sexual harassment, that should be paragraphed in. That's the actual definition of sexual harassment. So that
007should be popped out and then everything reumbered after that to make that correct. There are a few times when this refers to the actual definition of sexual harass and then if you go back and look for it, it's not listed correctly. Oh yeah, I see exactly concurrent to the from the state. >> Yeah. >> Um the state the state has submitted some inaccuracies as well. >> Okay. >> So going forward from what's in three sexual harassment down >> sexual harassment should be listed as N number three. >> Okay. And then four, five, and six would be changed to one, two, and three. On page 15 and again in paragraph C 2, it's referring to the sexual harassment definition. So it calls it 2M that needs to be updated to 2 M because 2M actually refers
008to retaliation and not sexual harassment. Yeah, >> there's a few. Um, page 16. This one's not a big one. D3B, the requirements of the information resolution process. That should be informal resolution process. Let's just type Um, this one's kind of nitpicky. Page 18 F1. Everywhere else in this refers to the title 9 coordinator and this under the initial decision maker section, it just says nine coordinator. So, you should include the word title in front of that. Um, page 19, the very top under section A, it's the same thing. That should be 2N and not 2 M because it's referring to the section definition. >> Which say again? Which section are you in? >> Oh, page 19, the very top. >> Yeah, >> just be too heavy. Yeah. page kind of in the middle it shows
009um supportive measures and then it gives the definition of section 2N that should actually be 2 too fast. I'll get this uh page 25 under both se both decision makers number three and investigators number four. Uh it says it refers it to section 2D2. That's very incorrect. It should be 5 F2 for both of those because it's referring just back to earlier within this section. [Music] And then on the the very last 5 C, I'm just suggesting some language be deleted. Um, it just say be made available to the public on it website. This talks about making materials available in the paper everywhere else within the policy. It just says on the website and it seems like this just was not edited to fall in line with the rest of the policy. And that also
010lines up with section 3F4. consistent was said same exact thing said 34 doesn't talk about the computer and the last the very last page page 26 um I suppose this would be for our consideration it lists these designated districts compliance officers um first I know the compliance officer everything else calls it a compliant title n compliance coordinator there's no definition of a compliance officer but then I would also So with the idea of just removing this totally out of the policy, other places within the policy say that this information has to be kept up to date in websites and school handbooks. This is just another place to update this information when it changes. And this is from 2020. I I don't know about how you know if all of these people are still accurate within
011these roles, if these are the correct contact information. I'm assuming it probably hasn't been looked at since 2020. So >> actually this is up to date. Is it? >> I think it's in there. >> We try to do we try to keep it up to date. >> Okay. If if everyone wants to keep it in, that's fine. In my mind, it's just another place to keep it updated. And the policy requires it be updated in several other places already, but it never mentions requiring it to be updated within the policy itself. I feel like I reviewed a policy that had it saying something about who the person was and we just said like refer to the just trying to remember. Do you know if we if in all the other policies if there was a
012a designated person that it was put in the policy? Is that like a consistent >> procedures right in the procedures in HHP? >> I'm just trying to think about Yeah. I'm just like wondering what are the consistent practices? with other policies that have named people. Does it name them or does it >> just curious? I just can't remember which one I reviewed that had people in it. >> I believe it's just >> we could ask Mark at Black about if we need to have this in the policy. I don't >> I think the policy would >> Yeah. Right. very close to other places. >> No, not the people just because people change. >> Yeah. >> Procedures. Yeah. >> Yeah. Procedures, handbooks, all those places they are. >> Yeah. >> We ask real quick, but I
013think you're right. >> I don't see it in the model policy from BSBA. There's a listing of personal >> the title. It is the section 5041. >> Okay. >> What did we say? Um I'm just curious. No, they were all in there. The contacts were all in the section 504 one at the end. Wow. You updated a lot of business. >> Yeah. >> I was just curious. So it does there are other policies that have the people named for different things if that >> you can see that if you want you know if it has to be there or not it changed >> if we can take them out take them out >> or just put a statement they coordinator listed in the handbook procedure that's already section three up to requires handbook on the
014website. >> Yeah, it's already in the policy required. >> Yeah, >> I agree. I think in the policy it's better to just list the actual position than the individual's name and then you can find the name on the website. It just makes it less to update. [Music] >> So everything else, the content is all the same as the model policy. It's just those corrections. Okay. >> I saw right in the model that came. [Music] >> All right. Um, >> hey Joanne. >> Hi. Sorry. Okay. just bat me around and tried on >> but you're okay. >> Good. >> I was stopped. >> I was like, "Are you on your phone?" He said, "No, she's looking over at the courthouse." >> Oh, no. >> Track little dead. >> Glad you're okay. Yeah, >> you're okay. >>
015Thanks. Yeah, >> totally fine. Try to be on time. You know >> how it works. [Music] Uh included in our packet is the revisions for the policy. Do we have to do anything about it? Uh really it's about some of the special education. So really there's different there's a code change for the special ed. It's going from required to a recommended policy. But it um I think it's fine if we have it. I was actually saying to we were prepping for this meeting that I was actually shocked because in every time we've had special education review the first thing they asked what's your special education policy? >> So maybe that's something that's just changed. We haven't had a special review in two years here. Um, but they're changing numbers and there's some legal reference changes.
016I don't think I missed anything else from you. So, you'll see those in here, but I still recommend to this group and I would hope for that we keep the policy. >> Do you know what the reason is that it's shifted from required to regulate? Did they give you like I'm just curious. just it seems like an interesting decision. >> Okay, fair enough. >> And the only reason I know that is looked on the website, >> right? >> Pointed to me on the website, really this isn't >> required. So there's some there's some you know there's some legal references. So I suggest taking the changes but and changing code number >> but we don't have anyone reviewing these right >> so that's >> it was it was discussed by having possibly Andrea the special education
017director possibly joining um >> but I did end up meeting with them and then just recording the changes here that they couldn't be with us today. >> Okay. >> so these are their recommendations recommendations right here. >> Yeah. [Music] >> Okay. Did everyone hear that on the special ed? Um they had Deandrea Rac and >> Brianna. >> Yeah, Brian did the >> um and these are the recommendations that they brought forward. So everyone is good with these based on those policies. Then we'll just move it to the full board. >> And this is just 5A. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Gota [Music] 582. >> 582. Brianna Brianna Brienne Brienne did all that. review for you there. >> Okay. >> And so we'll bring both those average class size. >> We did that last year. for. >>
018So, do we have to do it in here as a formality or >> I don't I don't think so. I think it's something that >> Okay, just leave it at because it says on here 85 2023, >> right? 8:15 2023. Sorry, I'm just catching up with you. >> It's okay. >> What number? >> Okay. >> 2024. adopted was adopted the BSBA. >> Okay. So, all right. >> So, you'll see that a lot of the updates adopted or us got quite a bit done here. >> Yeah, absolutely. So just some noninstructional operations left >> there's some board operations there's some personnel and well and we have a couple there can you help me out like bo so um there is no personel No policies remaining for the subcommittee to review. They did all of them. >>
019The only ones under students uh code C is uh harassment hazing and bolding HHP. Um which the HHB was adopted by MRUSD in 2016. The last BSBA update is 2015. um instruction. Um it looks like there's three policies or we just did special education. So two policies average class size and selection of library materials that the subcommittee has not um >> I was just looking at that. So just average class size. Sorry about that. That's my mistake. um under instruction that the subcommittee hasn't reviewed but updates MUSD has updated the policy since the BSBA model policy release >> right but one of the things that I remember how if I remember correctly this committee was formed was trying to get its sold like did we have things reviewed stuff that's old so I think >>
020like I would I would check the average class sizes yes were there. >> Um and then the community relations. Um like you have a community use of facilities. It was updated. It was updates were adopted on the 24th. It last VSBA was the 23rd. Non-school literature distribution. We haven't had anything there. It doesn't look like if I'm looking in the right two column either updates adopted or policy subre like that hasn't been looked at and there's some non instructional I think there were just saying there's some things in there >> and Bill um as a as a committee do we want to say like just moving forward now that we we're almost at we've got everything up to date um do we want to say that there's like a certain year mark that we like
021to One of the things that we used to that I used to do in my previous board with a subcom policy subcommittee is we actually looked at them all and said do we want to do like sections so the different sections and say this year we do this one just to get and it was a fiveyear rotation >> or we'll just divide there's 50 of them and we're going to do 10 every year and somehow we do that >> unless there's something and realizing there's some that might get updated so then you got to bring them >> forward >> and that and that that it's just a cycle. There's a plan you want that and it's just the plan that the board has for policy review. >> Great. >> Which is an easy one to
022do. It's just >> you can I've seen boards go both ways. Either happy we're going to do this section, you know, the student one is the longest or we're going to do so many a year. So, but you did this group has done the big majority of the work which is going through reviewing everything long. And then the subcommittee also is one where if the board says hey we need you to look into do we need a policy in this area doing that research. So I have another question where it says um NA like non that's just because um it was done in a you know >> it was done without a without a VSBA um model policy like all those ones that we have from on I'll just go to the board and operations
023from 835 down. >> Yes. So 835 there wasn't there isn't a model policy for student representative board of directors as far as I know of and then A53 A60 came from a different subcommittee that was done at board governance to start talking about how the board do we work with the organization that was all from that results phase part >> I think you were part of that joiner but I just don't remember >> um and then just trying and so those are ones that should get on a rotation Um, Grant Henderson let a lot of that. He was the chair of that subcommittee and so those got written from model templates that are international. Um, so we could say, hey, maybe those need to get done in three years from now. >> Okay. Maybe we
024can even just kind of make a little key, you know, at the bottom of this just with that just to remind us that that's just >> Yeah. Yeah. And then some of the other ones like the policy adoption and the flag raising and the fundraising, I know those came from other districts in Vermont >> that had done that >> so we could do some sort of >> So then the the harassment, hazing and bully is one >> that we can still do. >> You could do um I will tell you >> there's a reason you didn't. Yeah, we held back because >> well because in law it gives us the policy pretty much to the letter and same with the procedure the way Vermont law is structured. You definitely could review it but you wouldn't
025be able to take anything. We'd have to then be careful of how that changes in fact. >> I wouldn't want to Here's the question. I I'm not interested in changing you know whatever the Vermont state law federal law is or any of that. My question is I know that in the past we've had some issues more so the procedure >> and so is there anything that we could do to tighten up the policy or to reiterate within the policy to prevent that from happening. I I have I don't know the answer to that truly asking. >> Yeah. Um and you don't have to answer me right now either. >> I I can't think of something right now. That's a good question. Um I >> writing a policy that we have to make sure that you
026know that people get >> they get trainings. I don't know. I don't know what to do, but there's got to be something that we can do to prevent the procedure not being followed properly. >> I know that that's a lot. I'm trying to think about what does the board do on that and superintendent like Um, having had to sit through reviews of that, whether it's an independent review or our own internal audits, I know we've gotten better with that because of >> unfortunately get better at it in practice, right? >> You get better out of practice, but you also get better at it. >> Frankly, people believe it in the policy procedure. people that people are implementing it believing in the policy and the procedure and the tone in which it was put in place.
027>> Yes. I just think that sometimes people freeze when something like that happens at their school. It's not something that happens often which we hope that it's not something that happens often. >> It's actually the opposite. It's very regular. This what we're hearing from our legal team is that schools are being taken more and more time to actually have to do these because so much has gotten to the point that it it has the potential. Not that it is. It's not that ruins are saying it's happening. It's that someone can claim harassment or bullying and then you're right into a right >> investigation. And so our procedures got pretty good on that. But it's being the willingness to implement it and realize I'm gonna have to take a whole bunch of time to do something
028within a five window that takes a lot of resource. I don't know is there any is there any you know and are there any steps that be put in place to oversee it better and I don't mean the board to oversee it better but the administration to oversee it better to prevent um things >> yeah which is a great question I think about Yes. [Music] So, >> I wonder if Maryanne maybe if you and I sat and brought back to this group a proposal for review for set up for future years. >> Okay. Because what I used to have was a little different sheet than you see in front of you, but it had the adoption date and the BSBA date and then had five years of columns and it had a check mark for
029which one's getting reviewed. So it just had the slate you knew when you started in September. >> Here's this one. Here's the group we're doing this year. So if you'd like something like that, I'm sure join us by the next meeting. >> I've gone until first. [Music] Are there other policies that are not on here that you've u maybe heard about in some of the you know superintendent meetings that you attend monthly that you think would be beneficial for our board to take a look at or have something excuse me to take a look at >> and again don't have to answer right >> yeah I don't have there's nothing off the top of my head but that doesn't mean that there isn't >> um yeah my bias is that I'm always like fewer bossies
030>> and then I stumble into one that like oh we should have that but that's my natural bias so I have to watch myself >> right so we'll get together the three of them >> yeah when you're backst are we planning on keeping the next scheduled subcommittee meeting We need to we could go into November if we wanted to. >> November. >> Yeah. So skip October and then the next meeting will be um November 10th at 3. Is there anything on your schedule for anyone? Um, I'm in Guatemala. >> That's so exciting. >> You want to do October and skip November? >> Sure. Um, >> could we do the first Monday? Well, we'd have to meet [Music] I I believe we get back on the 12th. >> What if we did >> uh 17th of
031October? That would give us a time the first week to meet >> that. You mean the 17th of November, which is a Monday? >> Yeah. >> Would that work for people? >> 17th >> of November. I see just you nodding, so I'm taking that as a yes. >> Works for me. I have a hold on. Let me just check. One way [Music] I wish it was here instead of there, >> but is the next meeting just going to be uh basically the proposal >> proposal. Well, I have to answer two things that Joanna asked, which was what what other policies might we need and reflections on how the board policy on these interp. >> Okay. I I think I can do the 17th. I've got to be done by >> Yeah, I've got a 2:30
032appointment unfortunately in um >> you want to go. We could do the third. >> Do you want to do the third or the 27th? That's what the two months. >> You could do the third. >> I thought that's what the first thing you said, wasn't it? >> Uh, no. The the the regularly scheduled ones are the second Monday. So, that would be I can do the third. >> Yeah, the third was >> I was on the third. >> Okay. Third one's good. Karen, >> Jess, you good on the third? Okay, we'll do the same. >> Okay, [Music] >> thank you. >> I have I usually stack my Mondays and Tuesdays. >> All right, so our next meeting is on November 3rd. Yeah. And Okay. So meeting is adjourned 37. >> Thanks all you