001Calling the agenda review meeting to order. Miss Buoie, would you please call the role? >> Good afternoon. Melissa Mason >> here. >> Josie Barnhard >> here. >> Pat Bradford, >> I am here. >> Judy Justice >> here. >> Dr. Tim Merrick >> here. >> David Perry >> here. >> And Pete Wlebore. >> I'm present. Um, so we're going to have the moment moment of the invocation, I'm sorry. And then, um, after that, um, I believe Miss Bradford is going to lead the pledge. So, >> I am Gail Taber. I am the pastor of Salt Inclusive Methodist Community, and I invite you to pray with me, y'all. Holy one, today as we gather to do the work of providing for the education of all the children in New Hver County, we first pause to remember to
002be grateful. We give thanks for the absolute joy of living in this beautiful place and for the beauty of your creation and our mandate to care for all that is in it, especially the children who are often seen as the least among us. We pray not just for the physical safety of all the students and teachers in our schools, but that we would be creating spaces where all are seen, heard, and appreciated. Not just because not just because of our differences, but because just as beautiful music is made and harmony comes from blending of different voices, so the beauty of humanity shines in our differences. guide us as we face times of concern and fear that our choices and our vision will be ever toward all and especially to all of those who are most
003vulnerable. May the decisions made here be inclusive and equitable even when we have difference of opinions. Give us a spirit of unity. Help us not just to listen to others as they share their point of view, but to hold them in full regard for all of our shared humanity. aid us and aid this body to work as a unified team as they lead New Hter County Schools. May every child and family know their worth and their value to this body and to the community at large in our everchanging world. We pray for these board members and for the various level of official and staff who serve the students and the families of New Hmer County Schools. bless this body with their decisions that it would be of benefit to all those who work for, attend,
004or have a child or person for whom they care in New Hmer County schools. We offer this in all the names of the one we call holy. Amen. >> Amen. I pledge algiance 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. >> All right. Um I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I any opposed? That passes 7 to zero. Um, now we're going to look over at our proposed agenda items for the regular meeting. Um, Miss Barnhart, will you keep the time for me? >> Sure. All right. So, uh, starting off, we have call to order, roll
005call, invocation, presentation of colors, national anthem, pledge of allegiance. the approval of the agenda. Uh the approval of the minutes. Um recognitions. How long do we need for recognition? >> Um there are no classified employee recognitions this month. Um and we only have one administrative introduction. So >> five minutes. >> Yeah, two minutes. Five minutes. Something like that would be just great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um next we have um is there any other there is so how long do you need for >> 10 and that is for which for what >> regular recognition. So um so that would be we're going to say 10 for that. Okay. All right. Next we have teacher voice. We have someone to speak for teacher voice. >> Okay. Our teacher of the year. >> Excellent. >> For 10
006minutes. >> Um how long do we usually give that? I think it's 10 minutes. Yeah. >> Okay. Superintendence report. Board chair report. You only need five, right? >> Seems like that's what you're telling me. Yes. Five is great. No, five is fine. >> Three and a half. Do I hear three? >> I've knocked down five. Anita >> 2.75. No. All right. >> Um then we have call to audience. Um under information. This is there so that we can make sure that the public has access to all of this information. Not everybody watches the agenda review. So we have this under there um for that reason. So, um, the New Hmer County Schools Accountability Presentation, um, hopefully you've had a chance to kind of briefly look through that. Does anybody have questions about it at this
007point? I think we've all kind of heard it, Miss Bradford. >> Where do we go from here? It's awesome. Um, it's just a fabulous presentation. We need to get that out into the airways and the byways and so on. Um, but where what what happens after this? Now, we have this report. What happens next? Anything? I think that's going to lend us into our strategic plan update. >> So, I can kind of give you a little more ideas on that when it gets to that if that's all right with you guys. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Um, after that, we have the discipline data. Um, how long do you need for that, Miss Barnum? >> I think 10 minutes is appropriate. >> Okay. All righty. Um, anybody have any? Okay. Uh, moving to consensus items.
008We have the Wanganger contract for MEAC acoustical shell system. Does anybody have questions about that? Okay. Uh, we have theou listed under B. And I think that there were a couple people that had Oh, no, not that one. It was the next one. Um, any questions about that? It's >> that's different. >> This is a different one. This is with the University of Phoenix. >> Understood. >> Yeah. Um, next is the 2526 restart school calendar. Anybody have any questions about that? >> It's applicable to this one. I was just curious because I know we're in the process of creating and approving a two-year calendar, but we're not ready to do that. This is just an adjustment to the currently posted calendar. >> This is an adjustment to the calendar that they are currently in. >>
009Thank you. Okay. Um, next is memorandum of understanding between New Hmer County Schools and UNCC Greensboro for student interns for speech therapy. Anybody have any? >> I would just ask if this one is just an update from last year. It's just a renewal from last year. >> It's not. These are um based specifically on the request for an intern. So, they are done um at that time. We have used UNCC uh G in the past for interns, but this one is for a different intern. >> Okay, thank you. All right. Um E, New Hover County PreKU. And I know there were a couple people that had some questions about that. I see Miss Barnhart's hand. I know Dr. Merrick has some questions. Um and I think Mr. Perry, you also had had some questions when
010we talked yesterday. Um Dr. Merrick, go ahead. >> Okay. Um I am a little confused by thisou. Um it I know that we lost approximately the same amount of of of funding for the six classrooms etc. Um, and so my question was, hey, did someone change their mind and give it back to us and I don't know about it or is this for the original six that we normally had that we had precoid? And the question is if we if they are for that original six classrooms, why are we signing theou now? Would isn't that already in force? Because this is for the 2526 season. Yes. >> Yes. So this is no change to the previous information that was provided. So, thisou incorporates the $975,000 reduction that we've already talked about. Um, the county, we
011were going back and forth on some changes to theou. And so, um, they actually had this ready last month, but it was after the date I could add things to the agenda for us. And so, that's why it's later. And then before that, we were still in negotiations. So, the changes um to theou compared to last year, of course, that dollar amount changed. Um that's a reduction of that 97 975,000. Um and then they also allowed us to um locate pre preK sites um wherever the highest need was based on our current program and our enrollment. And that was something we talked about about during the budget process. Um but but now that's actually in theouou. Um before it listed um specific centers and schools that and those were the only ones we could use
012with this funding. So that was a change. >> And then um we also had a change the last bullet says um not to exceed 20 children. Before it was 18. So that gave us a little bit more flexibility, too. If we had the ability to if we had a couple kids come in and we could place them in a classroom, it allows us to go over the 18. Um, not that that's necessarily what we're trying to do, but we would have that flexibility that we didn't have before. So, it just took us a little while to negotiate. The funding was actually approved during the budget process, but the requirements we wanted to make a couple of changes to thisou compared to previous years. >> So, this is theou for these six classrooms that we already
013knew we had and they had for pre-COVID. Thank you. >> That's correct. >> Appreciate it. >> But allowing us to spread out the locations also allows us to work with NC PreK to bring more funding in. >> All right. Any other questions on that one? Miss Barnhartt, did you >> um I did have a clarifying question with this. Um moving forward to next year, I know part of the issue was promising seats, so I didn't know where we were at with um I know we're not accepting yet, but when we get to the point of opening applications, do we know that number that we know for sure where we're going to be able to serve students so we don't accept more applicants than we can fund them for? Does that make sense my question? >>
014It it does. We wanted to try to do some of these steps first to see how much better the money would flow >> before we decide on seats for next year. >> Okay, >> Mr. Perry. >> And um so we as far as this prek thing, we still have the the task in front of us. We are with this we are set for the year, but we still have to figure out the long-term solutions and health of this. This is something we're going to have to do fairly soon as a board to figure this all out for the long-term health of our prek moving forward. Am I correct in that? >> The solutions are going to be presented to you through the budget process about how we want to work with the funding that we
015have. So, I think that's going to bring you several different options of looking at where do we want to go next. Great. >> All right. Anything else? Okay. Uh, next up is policy. Um, Mr. do you think we need 25 minutes or do you think we need more? Cuz I know there's a lot. >> You never know. 25 minutes, 4 hours, 20 minutes late. Yeah. Um most of the things are just um things we got from NC ncsa. I got my letters down. Um but there might be a a couple that we, you know, spend a little more time on. So I would say maybe 20 minutes. >> There's 25. >> I know 25 there right now. >> Leave it to 20. Let's Okay. 25 minutes. >> Leave it at 25. >> 25 minutes. >>
016Okay. >> Cuz we always end up adding five minutes. How we >> there? >> Depending on how much time we have. >> Okay. Yep. >> Um Okay. Excellent. Mr. Perry. >> Um the um is the wireless communication devices the policy update? I haven't read them over yet. Um the uh are those reflected of uh the new state law 805 and >> 438. >> Yes, it's in there. >> We were talking about the uh 4318. I was asking that whether it reflected the new state law. >> Oh yes. Yes. They um that was the recommendation from the um North Carolina School Board Association. incorporate that. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? Okay. >> Now, there's 16 of them for 25 minutes. So, when we do it, can we can you break
017that out into the math so that we we get through all of them this time? Ideally, >> ideally, um I think that there's a couple after having spoken with some board members that there's a couple that um they want to pull out and be able to kind of discuss and possibly, you know, >> can we know that in advance? So, we can >> um I believe one of them was the was board committees 2230. Is that correct? >> School assignment as well. >> School assignment 4150. And you were good with everything else when we talked or was there other other cuz most of the other ones are the rest of them are NCSBA changes. So when we talked those those two stick out to me as the ones that you you had wanted to >>
018those the main ones I think. Yeah. >> Um so >> those two out of the 16. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> Cool. Good idea. >> Yep. All right. >> Oh, and 2335. >> 2335. That one, too. Okay. That one is not an NCSBA change. >> What's 2335? >> That's advanced delivery of meeting materials. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, all right. Let's >> Let's go to 30 minutes and then then if it's less, we'll all be happy. >> I like that. >> Mr. Scott, >> way to >> shift the perspective. I like that. Um, all right. So, next, um, old business. We have proposed bond projects. We gave that 30 minutes because I think we do need to have like a healthy discussion of it. Yep. >> Um, and some of that discussion is going to
019occur today when it comes to new handover, but also um, continuing that into old business. So, I thought 30 minutes was sufficient. Um, our board attorneys, both our general counsel and our EC are coming due. So, we have to determine if we want to continue, if we want to, um, and if so, with both, with one, um, if we want to utilize the same contract, how long we want that term to be. So, these are all kind of the the discussions that we're going to be having about that. >> You Yes, Miss Bradford. >> Yes, it's under old business stuff. Yes, >> I might say that. >> Oh, hang on. This justice was next. >> Well, I get a little confused sometimes. Originally, this was supposed to be done in June, right? Isn't that according
020to policy? Aren't we supposed to do it from June? >> Contract is due due. It ends um December 30th. >> Yeah, that's so we have to before that because if >> so, obviously we have changed that in the text. >> Okay. If we determine um one way or the other that we are not we will then have to we're not going to continue then we have to develop an >> RF. So over the last two years the time frame >> the contracts have kind of you know shifted in how they're how where they're ending. >> Yeah. Um no this is fine. I mean it's working now. >> Your memory is right. It was June. It some of them used to rotate to June. >> Yeah. It used to get switched. >> Mr. Mr. Wabore, >>
021I might suggest that we go to, you know, since we have two teams of attorneys to speak of, why don't we go to 20 minutes and then we have 10 minutes 10. >> That sounds reasonable. Um, I think Dr. Merrick and then Mr. Perry, >> I think just in terms of future planning, um, I think things are working. Uh I'm not here to try to cause any uh guff, but I think in terms of future thinking, if December 30th is our our need to to sign, we do need to look at this much sooner than a than an October meeting in case there were issues we need. So I I'd like to just sort of put it in our minds that we think next June or July we start taking a look at this in
022case >> in case these guys have soured on us or are we on them? You know, >> um Mr. >> A family member you're stuck with with the contracts on it. >> Yes. So, I I guess I just have a question about this. Some of this will probably involve evaluating how we believe uh uh both our board attorneys and our EC attorneys are doing. And I'm wondering uh is some of that might be privileged communication. Can all this be done in open session or should we consider moving this to close session for part of it? >> Your approach. I believe that we we vote on the board of attorneys in public while while the billing information is not public unless redacted. um we vote on this in in public and I believe we've discussed it
023in public as well um in the past when we had our when we had >> do we need to have those some earlier discussions with the failing before you know how we do it sometimes we we discuss it in there and then we come out here and go you know but depending on what it is >> I don't believe it's closed session um Miss Bradford and Dr. there. >> I would remind you that Miss Crystal has in her office a stack about that big of the invoices for the last year for all attorneys. And you can make an appointment with her and go sit down in the office and look at those because they are unredacted and get a feel for where we're spending our money and what the attorneys are doing. Both these two
024and the the third one. >> Third one. Well, one, two, three, um, >> Dr. Merrick. And then >> yeah, I I I would say that this is a contract. >> It's not personnel per se. >> And so therefore, it would need to be discussed in in open. >> Um I I I do I would like to have perhaps uh whether that would come from uh Miss Sutton or whether it would come from our attorneys, I would like to have a you know fairly regular declaration of how much money we're spending. I think the the public deserves to know that. And I think if we could incorporate that into our our financial reports each month. That would be nice >> with a quarterly update. >> Yeah, I like that. >> Um, Miss Justice, >> um, just
025wanted to give a little historical perspective here. The reason I said June in the fashion, it has always been a concern. Uh, in the past up until the last two years when I wasn't on the board, we had been doing it in June was the date and the information was supposed to come out previous to June. you know, somebody else was going to be also, you know, competing for the position or whatever. The point the point is that we never do seem to have enough time ahead of time to get the information to us to have a a safe feeling discussion about it. So, you know, we we need to focus in my opinion, we need to go back a couple months pre, you know, ahead of time in the future >> um and do
026this. And then I I believe uh uh Miss Barnhart or my colleague had just mentioned about the school year about the year, you know, from year to year. We're we're a school year. We're different from a regular annual you know concerns. We don't go from January to January. We go from July, July. So that was the reason in the past we had done it in June. And that's to me it seems since that is our official annual you know way we go through the year that maybe we should and we could do this maybe in policy look at changing it back to June just because then it goes along coordinate co coordinates with everything else that we do as far as making decisions for contracts and budgets. >> Um Miss Bonher >> I I'm going
027to echo my colleagues the right sentiment. Um, I think it dealt with the terms of the contract though and so I think in terms of the contract it was a six months or 18month which got us into a weird window but because we operate um from a school year calendar perspective I do think as we look for if we're going to continue a contract for it to be finishing in June. So that would either be a six-month or 18month contract I think but that's where it was not a policy change it was a contract terms of contract that happened. So, I just wanted to bring clarity with that that I agree um with the conversation. >> Um Mford, to address other board members concerns, it might be fun in close session to just have a
028little update of where we are in EC, you know, because that we can't talk in in an open meeting what's going on, what our attorneys are handling in EC. >> Why not? Um, well, if it's gonna be protected students for we talk about individual students or we talk about overall >> I don't I don't know. We just we could use an update. But if you go and look at the attorney bills, you'll see how much we spend monthly with Crosley McIntyre, how much we spent with Sink, how much we spent with Darington Smith, how much we spent with Warner School. We don't have a contract with the Smith any longer. School we do. >> Um, I'll leave that, >> but it's expired. Yeah. So, you know, the only two are Sync, which do an EC,
029and Crossley McIntyre. Um, but you can look at those bills. I did a a hand math count, and you'd never want to look at my math at a hand count without a spreadsheet. So, I have an understanding of that, but you can go sit down in the office and, you know, plan it 45 minutes, and you'll have a real good idea of what we're doing. And um just to kind of speak to the time frame that we brought this forward to our board clerk's credit, she has been mentioning this to the superintendent and I over the past month or so um actually before that. So it was more a call on my part and um I I'll take the brunt for that um that it didn't happen sooner. Um so and I know that Dr.
030Barnes has been is it are you good with um allowing Dr. Barnes before. >> Yeah. A couple of things. One, I think uh Miss Barnhard, I think your recollection is correct. I think you gave a sixmonth sort of trial period at one point and that's how we got off cycle. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um but to that, I think what several of you are getting at, and I appreciate that, is that we also as a senior staff interact significantly with the attorneys. What I will ask my senior staff to do, this is you guys take a note please. uh we'll provide you guys sort of a summary of the work that we've done with our attorneys and sort of our opinion on the work so that that may help influence your thinking as well. So
031I'll provide that to you next week. >> Perfect. And then Mr. Perry and Dr. Merrick. >> So I I agree with what my colleagues straight in front of me said. Uh the I really wish I could just say anyway. Um the um you know I agree that yeah maybe some time during close session where we could get a status update on some of these DC cases. And so I'd like to make a motion that we somehow move uh this piece of uh uh of stuff after the uh close session on next Tuesday. >> Second. >> So you're wanting to move the board attorney discussion until after close session. >> Do you want to move old business to after or just that one? Either way. >> So, the difficulty um there was a first and a
032second. So, the difficulty is how much do we have in close session? >> Next week. Okay. Um that also means that anything happening previous to that is going to determine whether we have time to address the three those three things. We have to address the board's bond projects. We have to. So, that is a non-negotiable. So if we go over on anything prior to that and we don't have enough time after close session to be able to discuss that >> that would we can't do that. So that would be my disc my concern with that. Additionally um when it comes to the board of attorneys we need to make a decision on that ASAP as well. Um I I don't want that to have the same problem where we do it after closed session and
033then we don't have time to do it because we have met our because again everything prior to that is going to determine what we can cover after closed. Um so that's my concern with that. Oh, Miss Bradford >> discussion. Could Miss Barnum update us today in close session and get that off our plate for before next week? Is that Are you prepared? Could you do that? >> I can I can certainly provide um an an idea of how we are using our special ed attorney and and other like legal activities. For sure. So we could have that discussion at for today's close session rather than I do know we have a relatively full close session. So that's the other >> also if the board has the appetite the attorneys as well what you could do
034is just do an addendum to their current contract to run to June 30th >> give yourself some running room and then make then the that resets the shot clock if that makes sense. >> That's the regular but as far as EC goes I know that's the concern. Yeah, cuz it runs out. >> So that runs out in December >> and the new person would the new person would need time to get up and >> we could do an addendum the same way. >> So there's um currently a motion to move just board attorneys until after closed session. Um is there any further discussion on that? >> Mr. work. >> I would just like to ask Perry if he my colleague all the way around the table if he want to remove that since we just
035heard that we can hear majority of that today. >> If he wants to resend the motion it gives us time to think about it. >> Um so I guess um I just I I wish if Miss Barnum had knew she was going to do that today I probably feel more comfortable. you saying you can are you pretty confident give us anything that we need today or are um you know I guess they're just asking you or or are you going to have to be or going to have to get back to you? >> I think it depends on the questions that I'm asked but I can give a a pretty specific overview of how we're utilizing services and and our performance. >> Okay. Well, if you're confident then I'll be confident and I'll work through
036the motion. Okay. Right. Right. Madam Chair, I had >> Dr. Merrick >> waiting on before. Um, based on what we're saying, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we have a, uh, have a a survey that we start in in May of of the district staff and the board to find out our feelings about our legal representation so that we can in June make some decent decisions rather than just kind of waiting till June and going, "Oh, I wonder how we're doing." If we start the process earlier and we ask the staff uh their opinions and their needs and are they being met and we ask the board how we feel about our representation. It's just a process by which we're able to make some decent decisions ahead of time. So if we do
037need to put out an RFP, we can do that. >> Second that. >> Okay, >> Miss Justice. >> Well, excuse me. May is almost too late. Uh even though it's the end of the year. This is always part of the problem is we're trying to crowd everything in. It just happens. >> Why don't you amend the motion then to April or something? >> Midappril maybe. >> You could always you could always adjust your motion. >> Adjust your >> Oh, then I'll do it myself. >> Yeah. No, I I would move that we would start the process in April and and put it on our uh March. I'm going to do it in March. >> Okay. Let's do it in March and put it on our February uh agenda to get that survey started. >> Miss
038Barnhard, I see your hand over there. >> Thank you. >> I will remain in second. >> Thank you, sir. >> Madam Chair, I would just like some clarity. I I saw some head shaking whenever there was discussion. Can there just be provided clarity for the legal contracts and services that we are being provided? There was two names. They're not for EC. And I saw some head shaking. So if Miss Varnon could speak to who is representing us for AC cases, >> we are only utilizing sync law which is >> only one representation. Okay. Thank you. >> No, and Miss Miss um Miss Brad, >> I can clear that. I looked at the previous 18 months of building. So we had some some because remember if you do the work today that bill is probably not
039going to come in for 45 days or 60 days. So that's in a rears and that's why we had uh Darington show up for $700 and Pornish Bull show up for $600. >> All right. So there is a motion Mr. Perry. I'm just quickly do we have I think I heard at one point some at some point during discussion that we I mean if if so we could probably say Fington is not currently on anything because I think at one point we were saying we even if we would keep existing attorneys on a case to continue to represent us um most of the time um so we can say definitively there are none of kind of left Guess we see you litigation matters. >> Yeah. Are there any litigation matter that other firms? >> Oh
040yeah. >> So the the only thing that that could possibly come up is a settlement that has already been determined in the past and if attorneys reach out and there's any matter that we need to resolve regarding an an older settlement. But I don't see that happening since there's been so much time. All right, Mr. Wilson, if >> I could just clarify too, I think that also some of the things like that our insurance company does, we don't have control of who's represents us. They they were going to give us, you know, it could be Darren or whoever else. >> That's outside our decision. >> We don't have that control. >> Correct. Yeah. >> All right. So there is a motion to survey district staff and board in March um regarding legal representation. Um and
041it will be on the February agenda. Sir, >> I just said you said district staff. So we're just talking about this the senior leadership, right? >> That was what you were referring to organ trying to do. >> In fairness to our attorneys, I would encourage us to localize that to the people who have impact and in communication with them. >> Okay. which really would be our senior staff and our >> absolutely it's just cabinet cabinet. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That was I was gonna go. So >> is go ahead. >> Is the goal of the motion to say like we as a board are going to create a survey of the people who's using the attorney in addition to us? What is purp is the purpose just to make sure we have a conversation in
042February so we can do this sooner? I'm just trying to gain clarity on if I vote yes on this >> what happens >> be because if what's the difference of having a conversation or a survey. >> So I just want to know if it's the goal is just to make sure that we're getting it done in February so we can have that information to better inform our decision- making >> or are we coming up with a specific set of questions >> for this? I'm just curious. >> Dr. Mayor. Yeah, I've watched even when I wasn't on the board, I've watched as we have tried to hire uh new attorneys that we've gone through the search process and it's been a little Yeah, it hasn't been real smooth, right? And it and it typically doesn't get
043done in time. And uh what I'm I'm trying to do is formalize a process by which we can uh have the data available to make decisions in enough time that we can send out RFPs if we do need to change uh representation. Um, and I would uh I would actually task the the senior staff uh with prep preparing uh the survey because they're the ones that actually do the most time and most contact with attorneys to know what we need and what we need to look for >> and I'll still provide you the memo anyway and you guys may say well that's worked and if not we can always design something. I'm not worried about that. Okay. Does that provide more clarity for you as far? >> I'm I mean, so we're just trying to
044get our the staff to create a survey to say what feedback. I mean, I I guess I'm just curious because if we have a contract with the attorneys and we don't extend the contract, then it is a month-to-month like option. It's just we don't have it's not that we wouldn't have representation. It just we don't have a formalized >> to a certain amount of time contract. >> So yeah, I don't think this is necessary, I guess, is what I'm trying to get at. If we're saying we're going to be provided a memo of stuff, um I understand of saying let's try to shoot for this in February and I'm fine with marking ear marking for next February to make sure this is on the agenda for a conversation, but I don't think this is necessary
045to do that for the staff to do that for us. >> Okay. Um Mr. Perry and then Miss Bradford. Um could we substitute I I think I getting my colleague probably still uh saying um the I think to some extent I think we um we want to um perhaps it's like what we do with uh Superintendent Barnes we want to evaluate them and give us enough time to to do an evaluation on uh so maybe evaluate an evaluation is better idea than a survey per se because I was thinking the same thing like so the senior staff is going to create a survey and who are they going to do survey themselves? Yeah. >> I mean so but an evaluation I think might be helpful uh if they could some you know guidelines evaluation tool
046like a rubric. >> Yeah, I'm happy to modify uh to say an evaluation rather than a survey because I agree. Okay, Miss Bradford. >> And my thought was have the superintendent since he meets with the staff all the time, have him gather that information for us. We either trust him or we don't trust him. Have him gather the information and report it to us so that we don't have a document that then can go to the media and cause us trouble and all of that. Um, we do need to gather the information but just do it through him. We have routine meetings with him, two on one, three onone. Um, so he could report back what the staff has said and we give him the February deadline to have that ready for us. It's just
047a little less formal than creating a rubric. Much less formal and less complicated. I don't see the necessity of the survey either. >> Okay, Miss Justice. >> Well, that was what I was thinking. Um, first of all, our senior staff are all excellent professionals that are more than capable of designing something that will be simple but accurate. Uh, reason they're at the level they are in an education that they really respect and appreciate what they can do. The superintendent's got tons of things. Um, and I honestly was shocked to hear that we're trying to keep things from the public. That is not why we were put here. That is not our job. The public needs to know except for private as far as our students and staff go. Um that is what our responsibility is
048to them. So you know I'm not planning on giving anything to the media. But if that media requests that you lift it, that's okay. And if you're afraid of some kind of revelation, then we're doing something wrong. >> No, I was just looking for the ma'am. >> Dr. Merrick. >> Um, I'm agreeing with my colleague to the left. I I know that our job is easier when we can do it in the dark, but it's just not what we're supposed to do. I mean, for efficiency sake, it's just so much easier when we don't have a whole lot of public hoover going around. I do appreciate that. And yet we are public servants and we are we are accountable uh to the to the public and transparency is something that I think that the the
049public doesn't always trust us on. So while I I agree with my colleague across the way I understand the I understand the intent. Um I I have to you know respectfully disagree because the public needs to know. So my only question because I haven't said anything. U my only question would be for our senior staff. I know that they are very busy individuals and they have a lot on their plates. Um for them to get together and create a survey or a rubric. I want to be respectful of their time as well. Um because we are not the only job that they have. they have a lot and and they are part of the reason that our that our district runs the way that it does. So my question would be is this an excessive
050burden for our senior staff to create a rubric or any kind of evaluation tool um because I don't want to overburden them. >> First off, I speak for all of us when I say to you guys, thank you for that being a concern. Um, I think it really comes down to what what again what our shot clock is. I can certainly develop a memo that can be public or private. You know, just kind of giving you feedback on our experiences and what we're seeing, the value we're retaining from our attorneys, that's not a big deal at all. I can I can knock that out. If you're saying, "Okay, let's let's be thinking about what we're going to do in June." That obviously gives me us a much longer runway. So, I think that just to
051make it simpler and to sort of move the ball down the field, I'm mixing metaphors, but let us go ahead and give you sort of a an update of our opinion that we could I'll provide to you by what's today? Thursday, by board meeting day next week. Then you guys can have a little bit of idea which way you want to jump. And if it's not detailed enough, then we can sort of go from there. So I think that the concern is for future as far as the future for next year as we're looking at contracts for next year. Um what does that look like? Is that going to be a burden for us to throw one more thing on the plate of the senior staff? >> I think you guys asking us every year
052for an update as to our in involvement and interactions with our attorneys is perfectly appropriate. >> Okay. So, not necessarily an evaluation tool, but an update is what you're >> and and let me why don't I take a swing at it and you feel like if it's if that's detailed enough for your guys' decision making, cool. If you guys want more, we can always adapt it. >> So, at present, we have a motion on the table to for um senior staff to develop an evaluation tool to be used um for our legal to be uh discussed in February. Um, and then they can do that in March. So, that's what's currently on the table. Um, and there was a first and a second. So, uh, Miss Louie, will you call the role on that? >>
053Mr. Wore, >> yes. >> Miss Barnhard, >> no. >> Miss Mason, >> no. >> Miss Bradford, >> no. >> Miss Justice, >> yes. >> Mr. Perry, >> yes. and Dr. Mary. >> Yes. >> All right, that passes 4 to three. So, are we good with the board attorney um being 20 minutes for next week? Is that reasonable? Yes. >> Okay. Continuing, we have school bus stop arm violation ordinance. We only have that for five minutes. Um I don't know if anybody has any questions on that. Um it's really just an update. Correct. Sir. Uh, Mr. Perry. >> Yeah. I just want if we can include in that any kind of a thing is, you know, you know, I, you know, some of it has to do with us collecting revenue and that's less of a
054concern to me than actually the safety of our students obviously. So, um, probably nice, but safety of our students paramount. Um but uh the I want to I've gone around to enough bus stops to to know that some of these uh seem like there are very busy intersections and can we get some kind of a uh you know maybe an update of you know where I know we have a lack of bus drivers so um so what we can do to you to make this you know you know if you're out on college road somewhere uh you're a lot likely to somebody blow by the school bus than if you're off on some side street somewhere, you know. Um so anyway, uh maybe you could include an update in along with this discussion. >> We
055we could have a a a team of bus drivers waiting in the wings at like a like a squad. We could have all the bus drivers want. don't know how a bus driver supply would stop or impact on people blowing by the stop sign. >> So, I can certainly give you an update of where we are with with resignations and sort of what the how many bus drivers we have and don't have. I don't know if that the correlary between having bus drivers and stopping people from breaking the law is the same thing. No, >> but I can certainly give you an update. >> Bar, >> thank you. speaking um kind of what my colleague had just said about there's two there's two ideas here is a revenue potential revenue source but then also the
056safety of our students and so I think what would be helpful is looking at the data >> for um I think at one point it was like a hundred violations a day of that might be from the state level um I think this was pre-D Morgan when we got a stat like that so um I don't know if we have a local um data point to say how many stop on violations are we seeing in New Her County because if this is an element that we could potentially curb some of that whether or not it's a active revenue source that's that's one thing of a check but if it's also able to help curb some of that I know that we have increased the stop arm that comes out we have extra lights on buses
057and things like that so we have done elements to make it safer for our students and um our bus drivers. But if this is another thing that could potentially happen, knowing that data point of how many violations are occurring could help us inform the decision of if they want to court or not with this. Okay, Miss Bradford, I was talking to somebody about that this week and you know because they were saying, "Well, I think the red I was in an Uber. The red light cameras have gone away." And I said, "Well, I know they they voted to have them go away, but are they actually still gone away?" I still have that fear when I go through an intersection. And we talked about the stop we we talked about the stop arm. And I
058know it won't generate a whole lot of revenue, but if there is a a new consequence for blowing through a school bus stop arm, I think it will get press. It will become a public awareness campaign. And maybe we'll actually get people stop to stop doing it, which is is my goal. I don't care so much about the revenue, although every dollar counts. Um, but that if people stop, I I really don't think that people know to pull over when there's an emergency vehicle coming. I don't think they know when they're supposed to pull over for a school bus or which not because I'm out there a lot driving and and I just really don't think they know or else they don't care about the penalty, one of the two. So, I think that would
059help us. At the same time, at some point, I'm just going to throw this out there because I thought of it. I'd like an update on the lottery money. Where are we with that? because other counties get a ton of lottery money. It actually comes to the schools and ours was supposed to come to us and then they took it took took a good portion away. So, can we get an update on that somewhere? >> We got 3.3 million >> million based on >> Justice, Miss Justice, >> the lottery money is directly for the facilities and didn't we get a good shot? >> Yeah, we did. >> Yeah. So, if I'm not mistaken and they they they because it was bringing in so much, they took part of it away from it. I just make
060>> what? >> I'm sorry. I'm I don't understand. I'm just I never heard that. >> Dr. the the the And correct me if I'm wrong, Ashley. Okay, she's ready to roll. >> Um >> I'm confused. >> The the amount of money that the that the lottery generates is capped at the state level >> at a hundred million. >> That's correct. >> $und00 million. So when you're thinking about did they take some of that money away I think the if you read the lottery money a certain portion is required to go to schools they did lower that percentage several years ago >> is that what you're referring to >> that's not a recent change >> but it's been 2017 something like that it's been a while >> right uh Dr. Merrick >> isn't that based somewhat
061on the grants that we uh submit Dr. Morgan, isn't that how some of that money comes from the lottery facilities? >> Yes, sir. The we have submitted lottery applications for specific projects that were that were approved through the budget process. >> And do you have a sense of how much we got this year? Seems to me it was 3.2 or >> 3.2 is right under that. Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. For clarification, Miss Bradley, do we only get lottery money if we apply for it? >> No, they do. No, we we receive um allocations that we can pull down, but in order to actually have that money transferred into our bank account, we have to submit applications and they have to get approved and then the money's actually transferred to us. So,
062the state holds it for us and then transfers it once we have an approved application. Thanks. >> Um so, it seems like we need a little more time for that bus stop arm. So, can we do 10? Do you think 10 is sufficient for that? >> Yes. >> Based off of discussion. Um, we don't have anything under new business. And madam chair, I have a question about that. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, I had submitted a couple agenda items. Some have been carryover. Um, but I don't see them on this list here. specifically talking about women's wrestling, talking about replicating the RISE program um throughout our district so we can close the achievement gap, talking about um where we're at for third grade reading proficiency. And um also, we are ending the CIS grant. So, I
063wanted to see if there's an opportunity for us to either reapply for that or if there's a way that we can make a request from your government to mirror some of the success that we're seeing at Forest Hills. So, I just didn't know if those are going to be on next month's agenda or >> That's what we have slated. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, some of those are and then some are um being covered in other arenas. >> Okay. As in >> as in uh the meetings with the superintendent and memos. Correct. >> And I think you're going to hear some third grade reading through the strategic >> and that today too. Okay. >> Elizabeth and Yeah. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um close session. We only have uh 10 minutes listed for that.
064So barring any unforeseen circumstances, we shouldn't need much time. Uh personnel report, correspondence 5 minutes, announcements 5 minutes, and adjournment. What do we have for time? >> We are over by 10 minutes. And so my recommendation would be to shorten the length of policy from a 30-minute discussion to 20-minut discussion, but we're over by 10 minutes. So unless you want to cut something else out of that, I recommend that we shorten the discussion for policy consensus because that's what this is is items that were so in looking at what we have changed. [Applause] Uh the discipline data is 10. We didn't have a time frame on that before. We added five minutes to policy from previous. We added five minutes to the board attorney discussion. We added five minutes to the bus stop arm. Um
065reducing five 10 >> 15 reducing the five minutes off of those and putting them back at the where they were would give us that time. >> Is the board amendable to that? Uh Mr. Perry, >> my only concern with regards to policy. It seems like we are never getting through policy all the policy items uh at our meetings and then as a result we are actually once we're through with this agenda we actually have a couple policy items we're we're taking up today. So we're just kicking the can down the road here and so I mean at some point we need to make up some time and get ahead of the game rather than and otherwise you know some of these things are going to be months on end before we finally get to >>
066agreed. Um, Madam Chair, >> Miss Bradford. >> Um, consensus items. There's only five. If no one has any early objections to those items, then we need 10 minutes from there. Can't we just make a motion to adopt the consensus items? We could even do that today and get that 10 minutes off. I'm just hunting up the time. >> Will of the board. >> So, is that a motion? Yes, ma'am. >> Can you say that? Restate that, please. >> I I move that we adopt the consensus items X uh 12, A, B, C, and D, and E. Adopt those today. >> Is there a second? >> Second for discussion. >> Okay. >> Dr. Mer and Miss Barnhart. Madam Chair, if you could remind us when you went through this and you asked about each of these
067items, I did not hear any discussion with us. But what it didn't occur to me is do you think there would be discussion amongst the public? Does the public would the public uh want to know more about these or want us to bring them forward? I I didn't see anything controversial in that, but I I see that the superintendent has an opinion. Miss Barard, >> I do not believe that we should be adopting these consensus items today because they have not been posted. I do not think it's going to take 10 minutes. So, I do agree with my colleague to left in the discussion that we will be able to make up time that 10-minute window if we make a motion to adopt consensus item that would eliminate 10 minutes from next week's agenda, but
068I do not think that we should be passing it today. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Uh Dr. Just remember like the colleague to my right, >> Miss Barnhart said, um, these have not been released to the public yet for review. >> There's nothing wrong with a a ladies and gentlemen's agreement that you guys are going to say we know these are good. >> Consensus items just roll on through and then there's your 10 minutes right there. >> Yeah. Madam chair, I would amend my own motion to say that we give consensus item two minutes and that if anyone has an objection to these now, you got between now and Monday to resolve them with the staff member. >> I will second that also. >> Okay. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> Mr. Perry.
069>> So it would be two minutes >> if we kind of two minutes. my what happens like I used as my colleague secret my left said you know the community has not had a chance to see CD so what if they come up and call our audience and say something that's thoughtprovoking so >> then things will change a lot >> I >> that's when we >> they are consensus items and because we do cover them here we have the opportunity community to have already looked through them to ask all the questions that we have. And because we've already been through them and we've asked the questions, um it stands to reason that generally speaking in the past when it's been a consensus item, it's been I move that we approve D and we go through
070and it doesn't take more than two minutes generally speaking regardless. Um and so I I am in agreement that 2 minutes is sufficient for I don't I because we have had the opportunity already to discuss it. We have had the opportunity to ask the questions and we have had the opportunity to look through the documentation. Um I I'm I'm okay with only having it be two minutes. So Mr. just quickly to reply. Um the I I agree we're going to have our minds made up on uh quickly, but I mean I just want to make sure that the the community knows when they come here that we are listening and that if they do say something that could change their minds that we're going to be responsive to that, you know, and maybe they're going
071to come up with a great point I didn't even think of. So I just want to make sure that the community knows. I'll go ahead and vote this two minutes, but if you if you tell me some thoughtprovoking things aren't call audience, I'm I'm listening to you and I might change my mind. And so, all right. Thanks. >> And I think that we listen by using our vote as our voice. >> Um, so there's a motion to make consensus items two minutes. Um, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> That passes seven to zero. Where where does that put us time frame wise? >> I we need a little bit of clarification, Madam Chair. Are we going back to the 25 minutes per policy, the
07215 for board attorneys, and the five for school bus arm, or are we keeping it the 30, 20, and 10 that we had talked about increasing it to? >> I had suggested going back. That was before um Miss Bradford made that motion. Um Dr. I would move that we do go back to the original times on those because you know some of these discussions invariably run over and uh you know I I'd hate to be approving an agenda that was right at 4 hours. >> So I I and I think we can we've done a lot of the discussing today. I think we've we've covered a lot of the ground and I think that if we need to say something uh the public needs to hear it fine but generally speaking I think we can
073get through it. So your motion is to go back to the original times and I'll second that. Um >> it was posted at 227 >> just um I've heard from my colleague around the way and you know usually we take a break after policy out after a full audience meeting that's not figured in. >> So that would be at 227 if you if you have a 5m minute break you would be 5 minutes under four hours with that. So >> it would be it would be a very close time frame but it would still be >> going back to the original times of 25 15 and five. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Madam Chair, can we can we look at we have two information items. One of them is the accountability presentation and the other
074one is discipline and we've allowed 20 minutes for that. I don't know if it's 15 and 5 or 10 and 10 or what it is, but could either of those be moved to the next agenda briefing? What are the timelines of those two reports of information? >> I I mean, if I could just speak, and I don't know, I'm just going to speak for myself. Um, based off of what we've heard in the community, I think that it's pretty relevant that we do it now. Um, I think us pushing it off more and more, there's going to be >> some frustration, I think, from the community when it comes to that. So, I would I would not want to push it further on. Um, we do have a motion to go back to the original
075times that were stated on the agenda. Um, and there was a second. So, uh, all those in favor signify by saying I >> I opposed. That passes 7 to zero. And that does keep us under the four hours, Miss. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Five minute for break. >> Three minutes buffer. >> Awesome. Wash your hands. >> That means the five minute break has to be a five minute break. All right. Um, next up timer right behind you. >> We do have a timer. Um, all right. So, next up we have the strategic plan. Everybody's good. Do we need any kind of quick bathroom break or are we good to keep going? We're good to keep going. Give me five minutes. >> I mean, in light of the fact that we do have such
076a heavy agenda, can you hold off for a little bit? >> Well, few minutes, not for two hours. >> Well, no, not for two hours. All right. So, we're going to go strategic plan update. Um, we can take a break after the um Robert's rules of order training if that is sufficient for everybody. Okay. All right. Strategic plan update. Can >> you go? We'll start with number one. So several months ago, the board sort of directed us to look at updating and sort of revising our strategic plan. As you remember, our first version had six. And what we looked at is this is year four of five of the current strategic plan. Next year, the board will go through the process of the listening, the guiding, and the building of a new strategic plan that
077will take us from 2027 to 2031. So, our work here was really designed to try to work with where the district is now, our current goals now, and sort of not start the ball all the way over from the beginning because we will be doing that work next year. So, if you can go to the next slide, please. What we talked about is this is something that I've shared with you in um during superintendent office hours and have given you a couple of times by email. But what it really does is it zeros in on the four areas that I have heard the most from during my listening tours, the budget process and in conversation with the board. academic excellence still being obviously the the the first thing in the goal, that being always going
078to be one of our pillars. And we sort of aligned something for a safe and supportive learning environment and a safe and supportive working environment. And sort of looking for aligning and making sure that that talks about the safety of our students, the culture of our buildings, and the learning environments themselves. And then obviously fourth is talking about strengthening family and community connections and making sure we're enhancing and looking for opportunities for students to be ready for postsecary work. So the next step from here what I would like the board to do is is to sort of give us the go back one slide please to give us sort of a green light a little bit to continue our work. And next month, what I'll be bringing you based on my superintendent goals that we've
079discussed, based on six initiatives that we've heard, focusing in on six main initiatives for the district for this school year. Now you can go to the next one. And what we've done is we've looked at basically six important significant initiatives for the district. And you're seeing several of them listed several times because they hit more than one pillar. But what you're looking at are graduation rate, math one, third grade reading. Those are our primary significant academic concerns based on our scores, based on conversation with teachers, based on talk with parents. We also have one for attendance, one for safe and civil schools, which is our development of behavior controls and modifications in building um efficacy with students and teachers. And then the last one is transparency, accountability, and accessibility, which we really saw developing last
080year through our budget process of making sure that the public was aware that our practices are transparent, and that we're being collaborative and communicative with our public. So, what you see here, if you go back one slide, please, is sort of our refresh of our current strategic plan. Next month, what we'll be bringing you are the six main initiatives and their goals and what that work will be doing to move us forward in the district. So, what you're looking at right now is sort of you're picking the restaurant. >> If you go one slide forward this No, forward. There you go. Here's the menu. Now, there'll be another version of the recipe itself that's going to be developed with teachers, with staff to really get into the minutia of it, but we wanted to make
081sure that the board is in line with what our our initiatives are and that the initiatives are leading us towards our strategic plan and my superintendent goals. Miss Barnhart >> just to clarity um and maybe the analogy is temperature of in addition to the goals themselves that we have are we going to see a yellow light, green light, red light of where we are at in achieving those goals when you present it to us because I would be interested in that and I didn't know if that was part of the idea of what you're going to bring to us or if you're still thinking through that. So next month we've started the work of developing um what we wanted to use is obviously much of the work that's being being done with safe and civil
082schools involves something called the stoic framework >> which is a model for how you do improvement. And so we are putting each of these six initiatives through the stoic model to make sure it's very clear and and detailed of what's being done. We can certainly add sort of a red light green light to it. However, I would tell you that most of these things are going to be in the yellow red light area because they're initiatives that we're focusing on. >> Okay. >> But, um, yeah, we can certainly do that if that helps. And then sort of I would say the next step after that is to give you sort of a quarterly update on each of the six initiatives or we could even pick one each month and sort of highlight for the board
083the work being done on each of our main initiatives. What I wanted to do is make this more transparent, more user friendly, and more workable at the school level for our instruction. I also wanted to highlight that the Silic model is the model we'll be using to do our work. And so that's why these six initiatives really bubbled out of the conversation with teachers and families. graduation rate, math one, third grade reading, transparency, accountability, accessibility, safe and civil schools, and attendance. Thank you. I knew I missed one of them. for those six really being the focus areas that I felt like the board uh through the work of developing my goals and in conversation with families has been the priorities >> justice >> um I went through this process extensively when we came up with
084the original strategic plan say I'm disappointed is an understatement um and Dr. Barnes, you did a great job in doing your job, but this is leaving off a lot of concerns of the community that were originally demanded. Um, I would like to see the original strategic plan next to this. And you can see obviously the chunks that are left out. >> A lot of it has to do with equity and um, excuse me, that's definitely tied into our failing schools. It's a fact. can't be ignored because people political politically say they want to. >> Madam Chair, >> can you keep the politics out, please? >> You can't. That's how we fund our schools and that's how our schools operate. >> Now, there's nothing we can do to change this and you've done a great job
085after the circumstances because of the political realities and that is part of the schools. But I'm just saying that for the sake of our kids and the ones that have been failed in the system over the decades, we were taking a real forward step to acknowledge their needs and now I hate to see us go back in time. >> Uh, Miss Bford, >> um, I would just ask about the first one, obviously reading and math, but didn't we have some science scores that you wanted to like give some more focus towards science? I don't see it reflected there. you okay if I Yeah, sorry. I didn't want to jump in. So, um, yes, I wanted to keep us to six initiatives because I really feel like when you make everything a priority, nothing's a priority.
086I do feel like our science scores, our fifth grade science, um, biology is the main concern in our science world. However, because part of that I do feel was due to the change of the test, I think that some of that rebound will occur on its own. But remember, just because it's not listed as initiative doesn't mean we're like, it's good. So, we're still focusing on numerous areas, but I needed to be able to shine a light on the things that were of critical importance. >> Dr. Merrick, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I don't want to beat a dead horse and I um and I do appreciate very much what you've done. Um, one of my biggest concerns, uh, one of the things that drove me to run for this office was the significant
087achievement gaps we have from one school to the next. You know, we have some of the very top performing schools in the state and we also have some of the lowest performing schools >> and we do have serious concerns in our community. New Hannburg County is is unlike any other county in North Carolina in terms of how the public feels opportunity and access. You know, the the the racial discord that still exists in in New Hampshire County can't be ignored. And I do know that changes at the federal level have caused us to have to be concerned about our languaging. And I understand that. I look at what the city has done and what the county has done in terms of rebranding their committees. So, they no longer use the words diversity, equity, and inclusion,
088but are still focused on making sure that those exist. It's not so much that I ever doubt you, Dr. Barnes that you are making sure that we're are addressing every child's needs. But the public perception here that when we take away one of the main things the public asked of us which was diversity, equity, inclusion, and we take it off completely without at least reassuring the public that it's something we care about that we have low performing schools that we have I don't have any other way of saying it that we have racial inequity in our county. we we we have to address this on some level. And I'm I don't have the answer, but I'm hoping that somehow through the branding of this new strategic plan, we can start to we can address that
089in a way that is both not going to get us in trouble with the federal government, but also let our public know that we we are absolutely committed to this. >> U Mr. Perry and then Mhart and then Mr. Um, so this is only for the remainder of this school year. Correct. next s >> cuz one of the things that you know I that I was discussing uh with our chair as late as yesterday um was is I I believe that teaching our kids civics and how to uh engage in public discussion uh in a respectful and nonviolent manner is something that we need to concentrate teaching our kids because if we don't do it, they're going to be left to the all the other people to the violent elements that are out there that
090will that will teach them the wrong way of standing up for what they believe in. And this is becoming more and more of a problem. So, I'd like to get something in there if not for this school year, for next as far as, you know, making our part of our job is is is not only to educate our kids, but to help create the next generation of of of great citizens. And I think we have a responsibility to do that. not by indoctrinating them or telling them what to think or what to believe in, but how how to have that disc discourse in the American way, which is respectful and nonviolent. So, I'd like to see if we could somehow incorporate that, if not for this year, for next, because I think it's it becoming
091a a bigger and bigger issue. I just recently read an article that says that 25 to 30% of, you know, people think that using violence to suppress free speech is okay. Well, no, it's not. And you know, we have got to put an end to that kind of attitude and show students, not just from an academic standpoint, from a practical standpoint, there's a right way to do this and a wrong way. And I think we need to do something about that in our strategic plan. Sorry, my mic went out. >> You died on me. Um, Miss Barnhart, you were next. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, there was a few discussion items that I had seconded for this month so we could actually have some conversation. We have a lot of targeted initiatives to support
092closing the achievement gap at all of our schools. We have advanced teacher roles which last I checked and you can check my number if I'm wrong, it's positively affecting 565 of our students. The amount of growth that those students um have shown from last year to this year is amazing. That's a 5-year grant that was funded through the general assembly. We had two grants for schools. The CIS grant Forest Hills, shout out to all of the people over there. They were an F school and what are we now? See, that's awesome work taking place. We are absolutely closing the gap. We have seen growth scores um through the roof. I know when we discuss data, I know some of us and myself included, it it's hard to see, man, this school slipped back down. But
093if you dive into it and you're seeing how many of our teachers are highly effective, that is something to celebrate. So, when we're talking about things that we are doing, we are I am absolutely in favor of supporting all of our students. I asked this question too because capacity issues were something that came up and we had a small thing called redistricting back in 2021 and we shuffled kids around and I said, I want to know the effectiveness of how those kids are actually doing because if we just bust them to a different school and they're not learning, we are not doing our job. And I'm going to say that very clear. When we look at practices that are working and are working well, the RISE program is another one in our district. They have
094closed the gap to every single kid. Math one, that is awesome. I mean, we're sitting here saying, "These are the goals we want to see improve." And we have people in our district doing it day in and day out. So, shout out. I'm looking at you staff. Shout out to our staff who are doing this. We have great initiatives and just continuing on that forward train of thought that we can do this and close the gap. Are we where we want to be? No. But there's always room to grow. And so coming in today, I I hear the frustration. But I will not end this meeting without saying I know how hard our people are working and we have highly effective practice. We we have so many national board more than the state if I
095recollect more than the state nationally birds board certified teachers that have highly effective practices of teaching and we want to continue to replicate them. We want to talk about empowering our students and giving great opportunities. It's just um yeah, I'm not going to let this meeting go by without saying that that there are great things happening and we're going to continue to support those initiatives that are closing the gap. So, thank you, >> Mr. Wilmore. >> I do thank all my colleagues for their their uh comments, but I think if we look closely at what Dr. Barnes was prepared here. I think that we would close a gap if we cultivate a positive collaborative community where employees thrive because if the employees thrive, the students will thrive. Being engaged, valued, and equipped to reach their
096full potential. You know, uh I think every bit of data we've seen shows a highly effective teacher will uh enable students to thrive and to do great and to, you know, close those gaps. uh you know um you know through rigorous academic at uh academics at every grade level uh they will attain skills knowledge and attributes for productive citizenship again if we can reach that goal if we all our students reach that goal you know what we won't have to worry about any gaps so I think this is actually you know raising the bar high higher I'd say uh but I think it is um you know and again I think that this does address what my colleague around the way said, you know, I think we do need uh to to raise the bar
097for every single student. Um I think we have seen some great growth at some of our uh lower performing schools, but you know, again, until we have every single student and every single school thriving and doing wonderfully, we you know, we've got to keep raising that bar. And uh but I think that this uh does put in um in words what we need to do. I mean, I think it's it does address all the above. So, thank you, Dr. points. >> Miss Bradford, >> I would just agree with what we have just recently heard. And if I understood this correctly, the first slide was restaurant and this is menu and the next drill down is going to be the recipes. >> This is sort of restaurant. The initiatives are sort of the menu, >> okay,
098>> that you'll see next month. I just wanted to make sure they were really targeted and >> and my concern was also with citizenship was also with civics but I see in that first one um students will attain the skills knowledge and attributes for productive citizenship. So I think it's possible when you come back with the recipe you'll have more in that vein for us to consider. So I'm going to let that one I'm just going to trust them that they're going to build on that. um because I had the same concern. But I I think I'm happy with what I've seen so far. We're not there yet, but I think you're definitely you definitely we're good so far. >> So, we are um way past the time. >> We are way past the time
099limit that we had established for that. Um so, I am going to move on to the next and this um >> make one closing comment. >> Sure thing, Dr. Barnes. Make sure you're on. You're good. >> Uh I'm on. So, um, the board's responsibility is to provide me with the destination where they want the district to go. This is that document. I am certainly not trying to sort of usurp that authority. I was trying to work within the bounds of what we already had. The board can certainly come down with a work session or something else to tweak this or work with this. What I was trying to do was make sure that once the ball is rolling, we don't lose momentum. I share some of the concerns about making sure that every child is
100seen and heard. However, I want to also make sure that we are doing the best for the students that we have. The board can certainly certainly decide to come back and revamp this now. I was trying to not have you have to do that because you're going to be doing the entire cycle again next year. But this is one of those will of the board things. You know, I think I've said to the public, I've said on the news that uh I treat children the way I believe children should be treated. And that's not a policy thing. That's not a strategic plan thing. That's a me thing. So, we are going to take care of children. We're going to respect the dignity of every child. That's not doesn't have to be in this plan to
101have that happen. So, I think I just want to know the destination where you want us to go and then it's my job and the staff's job to get us there. So, I think as long as this is the port you want the ship to drive to, cool. If not, I think you'll need to spend that time reworking that to make sure that I can move the cruise ship which way you want to go. >> All right. Thank you, Dr. Barnes. Um, next up, there was a request at the um last at our work session uh to just kind of briefly give uh just a short synopsis of how the um Isaac Bear ad hoc committee was created by the finance, bond, and capital. Um, I would defer to the chair of that. Um, if
102she would uh just kind of share just a brief overview of how that happened, what that looks like, if it's still going, that would be spectacular. >> Okay. Um some months back we as a committee um were asked to entertain the idea of an ANDOK committee for studying Isaac Bear separately away from the bond because of the public uh for the ownership of the land issue and the uh the next month we came back and we voted on the committee um to create that ad hoc committee under the finance capital and bond committee and we have one staff member and one board member on it and a couple of others. They have been I don't know that they've had any formal meetings. You can correct me, but we've been meeting. We talked about it at
103length 30 minutes before this meeting started with ideas. I think as we continue to throw around ideas, one of them is going to stick sooner or later. Um, and everyone is out there driving, looking at property, talking to people. And so, um, the committee voted as a committee to take Isaac Bear off the consideration for the bond this time because of the ownership of the land and the the the consensus of the committee that there is no appetite to enter into building a building on land that we don't own and making that a priority above all of these other priorities. So, that's where we are and Dr. Morgan can contribute because we just talked about this with a couple ideas in the meeting before this >> and just for clarification how many members of this
104committee are voting members? >> Um there Miss Barard correct me there's you there's Dr. Morgan there's uh county commissioner Walker and Livian Jones. No, I mean as far as like the the whole finance, how many voting members of the are there of the finance committee itself? >> Well, there were 18 until last month, but then the county staff, Eric and Lisa and Amanda took themselves off. They they don't want to vote. So, that will change our voting structure. >> So, it would be 15. So, it's not strictly board members voting on this committee. It is also individuals, the commissioners um that are also voting members of the committee. >> Yeah. and and and principles, um staff members. Um we've got senior senior staff, high school, um elementary and middle. We have an ED, we have
105a school treasurer. Um it's a really great and then we have business people. It's a great mix of people so that we could get and some of those have lots of bond experience and Natalie English from the chamber. Um and and that that mix of people we worked on so hard last October to create so that we knew when we got to this position if we were going to go forward with the bond that we'd have the right talent. We have a finance guy who doesn't talk a lot but when he talks it's really important. Um so it's it's a good committee and I think the ad hoc will get where we need to go sooner or later. Dr. Barnes has met with a number of people at the UNC campus. Um but that's a
106it's a moving target to find the appetite to do it and then the land and the way to do it. >> So my my question would be is there um I've never had experience with a committee forming an ad hoc. So do we know if there is any set procedure in place for that or is that just something that we have not determined yet? >> Um that's my question. asked the attorney, but I'm 90% sure that Roberts and all that sets out how you can have, you know, a little committee. It is a short-term committee hopefully. I mean, I really thought we'd be further than where we are by now, but it's a very complex issue this one. >> Um, and again, we talked about it in the 30 minutes before we came in here
107um at at length and we don't have any solutions yet, but I do believe with the minds that are on it that sooner or later we'll come up with a couple of options. But I didn't envision it going longer than short term. And you can always form a a committee can always form an ad hoc to study something short term separately from the body and then they report back to the body and then that committee then reports to the board. >> So we followed procedure in terms of the you know we didn't do it instantaneously. We did it properly. And I believe that we're we're all in line with with any requirements. If somebody knows differently they're welcome to bring it forward. >> Um I want to real quick just ask Dr. Morgan. Um, as
108far as the progress of that committee, could you kind of speak to that? >> I can. I I mean, to Miss Bradford's point, we've really not met. There's been a lot of communication, but I think part of the problem is that the majority of the work that we would need that I thought we were going to be looking at pulling together for that ad hoc committee has has kind of already been done. And I think part of that was my misunderstanding in talking with Miss Bradford at what the what the goal of the committee was. I followed up with um Miss Barnhart and Miss Bradford afterwards to say it seems like we've got a lot of the work has already been accomplished. The real question is where do we get the money to move forward?
109>> Right. Right. >> Absolutely. >> Um I'm sure we've never heard that before. Um so at any rate at that point the conversation really kind of became more about okay what role does this would this committee have if we're trying to identify funds? And I think that led to a number of offshoot conversations, just people trying to figure out um and I say that meaning like I know we've talked informally. I know Miss Barnhart has talked to other people. I know it's just been a kind of more of like brainstorming. >> Could we do this? Could we do that? In the last finance committee um or maybe two finance committee meetings ago a conver um I mentioned something about a private partner uh public private partnership and then Miss English asked what would that look
110like and I said very honestly I really don't know um for the schools and so since then we kind of looked into what that might look like and got you know some notes on that but beyond that the conversation hasn't gone very far. >> Okay >> so there's that. I also think that one and I apologize. I also think that once the focus turned to some of the other projects in terms of the discussion in the finance committee that has taken a bit of a backseat because we've been talking so much more in depth about the other projects that were on there. >> Um so before I call in anybody just so we know there was only five minutes allotted to that and we are over. So, if we can keep our comments brief, um,
111that would be greatly appreciated because we do have a pretty big closed session in addition to all the other things that I think are probably going to take longer than the allotted time as well. So, um, Mr. Perry was next. >> I'll try to make it quick. Um, I I I don't have any problem with the ad hoc committee. sounds like a great idea, but I think pursuant to our current policy, I'm not sure without a full board vote that that would be legal or under our our policy. So, um the I'm not saying that we shouldn't have it or or or that that a committee shouldn't be able to establish its own ad hoc though. I'd like to make a motion that we however send this. >> This is this is not a this
112is under information. We can't make motions on this. Well, then I would like to recommend to my uh to the chairman of of the policy committee to take this up and to and to give uh definitively give um a subcommittee the right to make their own ad hoc committees. Um, >> oh, and and I will just note that um as it was um cited by my colleague, if if indeed it is under Robert's rules, we are going to be talking about the Robert's rules training so that we will all have access to um that information at some point as well um after our training that we might be able to understand the procedure um if it indeed aligns as my colleague has said. Um, so that's just a thought as well. And I know that
113again we have I only have five minutes allotted toward this and I know I have two other people over here that want to speak. So I want to make sure I give them the opportunity. >> I'll check with Ken on the free membership. I'll get back. I'll report back. >> Dr. Merrick. >> Thank you. Um, very quickly, you know, I'm a stickler for doing things by the books. Um, according to policy 2230, to create a an ad hoc committee, um, it is up to the chairperson uh, with approval of the board to create a subcom to create an ad hoc committee. I know that I and other members of the board were were surprised last meeting when we found out there was an ad hoc committee that we knew nothing about. And I think it's
114a great idea to have an ad hoc committee. So don't I'm not I'm not putting uh I'm not upset that it was done but I'm upset that it was done improperly. It is up to the chairperson to get uh approval of the board in order to create an ad hoc committee and I hope we'll do that appropriately in the future. Um and then real quick >> yeah real fast we did years ago I can't don't even know what happened to it had an ad hoc committee people were on and to solve the problems we're talking about now which are extremely complex and involve a lot more than we can even talk about in five hours probably. So, you know, this would be an excellent idea to reinst you know, put it back together again, but
115this time have the whole board boards in put because it's not just a matter of this financial group, but there is a lot more involved in this than just coming from that angle in the bond. >> Thank you. All right, Madam Chair, can I just make a point of clarification? >> We have we have gone way over ad hoc committee under a committee. It's not a board ad hoc committee. It's a committee ad hoc committee. >> So what I think the concern is and then I'm going to move on is that because there are board members on it. I think that is the concern >> regardless because there's board members on it. I think that's the concern. So um I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention because it was asked and the information
116was provided and like I said um in Robert's rules we're going to be getting that training soon sooner than later anyways. Um and so we'll all be on the same page as far as that goes. So continuing on um the new Hanover High School master plan selection um that Oh, okay. Uh Dr. >> I'm I'm not really sure if I need to do anything here. Um, I can >> but I I think I I believe the question was previously raised about whether or not the board had actually voted on a plan that had been presented and choosing one of those plans to move forward. And so >> the plan has been uploaded again if anybody would like to look at it. >> All right. Uh, Miss Bernard, >> I make a motion that we adopt
117the hybrid New Hover County M New Hover High School Master Plan. Second. >> All right. And discussion. I know Miss Bradford had her hand. Did you Was that before? >> I'm Are you good? >> See how this fleshes out. >> Okay. Mr. Perry, >> I just want to state for the record and I'm going to go along with this because it seems like it's the only option or at least the one that's been presented to us. we were technically given an option to maybe have a new high school that I think if we at least from a theor theoretical level would be the best investment for the future. I know there's a lot of people have a lot of nostalgia proud of what people in the past have done at New Handover High School at
118the current site, but we have to think about the next hundred years and not just the previous 100. You know, if it were possible, if there was a 60 acre track somewhere we could build a new high school, I think that would be the best thing to do. I think it'd be more cost-effective, could be done quicker, and um and we'd be best for the students overall. We want to make sure that our downtown students are having the same kind of quality campus as as our other high schools, but it seems like at least not we have not been presented with any possible track of land that we could actually get. So, it's a theoretical option that was only really presented to us with that isn't a realistic option. Well, at least which would have
119been more helpful if they had actually said, well, here's a here's an option that that's here's your fantasy option. Um, you know, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. So, the so I'm going to go along with this, but I will tell you if this if there is some, you know, if there's some 60 acre track of land out there that we could have had somewhere in the downtown area. People have been talking about the Wilmington Police Department area, uh, some of our other areas up there. Um, you know, it turns out that there there is a track of land we could have had and we go with this, then I'm not going to be happy. But from what everybody's telling me, there isn't. So, I guess I'm going to go with it.
120>> Um, Miss Bradford, >> um, I was Can I have clarification on the motion? Because does that then eliminate what my colleague just addressed? Does that take off the table find a piece of land that's 70 acres or more and build a high school from scratch? Is that going to then be off the table >> from her motion? Does that does that cover that? >> I would say yes because we were presented three options. Option one was just renovate only which I do not have a desire to do. Option two, which is the hybrid model, and I'm advocating for, is renovation and expansion and everything kitten doodle. Option three is find a mystical piece of land 60 acres and then so I'm saying the I would like for the board to consider going the direction
121of the hybrid model then take the other two off take what even whatever if we didn't have another option off the table like this the hybrid model looking at what would be encompassed in that for us to move forward in that direction. >> Dr. Merrick >> thank you. I think it's also worth noting that if we were to if we could have that mystical, mythical, magical bit of land, um, >> how would we come up with the uh what almost $300 million right away? >> 400 million for that. You know what when you include the land, right? >> Where did the whole >> Well, the fact of the matter is we don't the county doesn't have the debt ceiling to give us all those funds. And so we are we are constrained by the fact
122that we must do it in pieces. And when we do it in pieces, uh I agree with my colleague to the left that just a simple renovation where we still have disjointed curriculum uh aspects where we still have, you know, um a difficult cafeteria where we we don't have a a safe perimeter. It's just it doesn't make any sense. If if the public looks at the amount of money that we're going to spend on new Hannover High School and says it's a lot. Well, imagine that we probably should have started this 25 years ago >> or and and so that by the time we come up to now, we're spending this much money. Well, that's what happens when you when you defer maintenance. >> Yep. >> So, uh I'm very much in favor of this
123plan and I hope that we'll approve it. >> Mr. Wart, >> I just want to join in. Um you know, I do definitely hear my colleagues around the way, you know, be great. I mean I mean I I do remember when I drove the activity bus down to uh Ashley the first time and all the kids went oh ah this is unbelievable and you know and you know they had their their uh uh dugouts were bigger than half our school >> but um it was it was really nice and I mean it would be great if we could do that for New Hover 100%. Mhm. >> But as far as you know that there's very very little land left and uh I mean I think this is the best of our of our legitimate options
124left. >> And I I'd just like to say um going along with the theme that's been presented to to the district, 1% better, right? So how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. We can't do all of it in one fell swoop. We have to be able to take small bites of it, small chunks of it. And I think that that hybrid plan does that small bites and addresses I mean first and foremost for me going on that campus and seeing some of the safety concerns um though not structural the physical safety and the the accessibility that the public has to catwalk and seeing the they make the best of it uh cafeteria they make the best of it. They do what they can with what they have and we absolutely appreciate
125every single one of those individuals that work in that cafeteria, but they could have better. And so for me, it that hybrid model really leans toward that and giving giving our staff and our students in New Hover just that one 1% better every year. Um, and so I'm in support of it as well. Um, as of right now, we have a motion to um go with the hybrid mass uh the hybrid plan for New Hover High School. Um Miss Buoie, will you call the role? >> Dr. Merrick, >> yes. >> Mr. Perry, >> yes. >> Miss Justice, >> yes. >> Miss Barnhard, >> yes. >> Miss Mason, >> yes. >> Miss Bradford, >> yes. >> And Mr. >> Hi. >> So that passes seven to zero. Thank you board members. Um next we have um
126the Robert's rules of order training. Now um I wanted to make sure because we had multiple options. I wanted to make sure that the board had uh information regarding cost. Um what we don't have for some of them is the specifics as far as what's being provided. Um, uh, Miss Tannis Nelson asked that I give you all a her LinkedIn, um, resume. Thank you. Words. Um, her LinkedIn resume. Um, and, um, so I'm presenting to the board for us to determine which avenue we want to take. Um I let me pull up cuz I have um I have read it >> email. Yes, there's a document um attached in the agenda. So, um, based off of, um, there's only the only person that gave specifics about what they would be providing as far as details,
127um, was Miss Tannis Nelson and, um, she is local. So, uh, I kind of wanted to let the board take a peek, um, and kind of we can talk through who who we would like to go with as a board. Um, we do need to decide this pretty soon because we do need to get it on the books and and such. Mr. Wilbour. >> Well, um, I think uh, Mr. Justice and I or my colleague over there and I have actually heard Miss Nelson. I mean, I think very highly of her. She's a very great uh, present uh, uh, pres >> presenter. There you go. I know. >> What's in this water? I don't know quite sure. >> She's literally presenter, but uh, she did an excellent job before. uh I mean but you know
128looking at the the difference in prices I mean that's the thing too is we have to look at you know what cost what's most cost effective also I mean she's outstanding uh but I we also want something that's going to give us the you know the best bang for our buck all the way around so uh you know kind of go back and forth on that did either of uh the uh Carolina's academic learning network we heard from any any feedback uh or you know the NCSBA. I think we've actually had them ourselves before, but um have we heard any feedback on you know Ken uh you know from any you know did he give us any references or uh anything that said you know you know big county did it and it was wonderful
129or something. >> So as far as references go I don't have references. Um I do have I'm looking at the email from NCSBA. Um it would be um Adam Miller from um NCSBA who could provide that procedure parliamentary procedure training to the board. Um it would be a cost of 375 per hour plus mileage at the IRS rate which is about.7 cents per mile. Um and so we would we would have to kind of talk through the details of that. As far as um Miss Nelson goes, I have had conversations with her and um she is willing to work with us costwise um if need be. Um Miss Bradford and Miss Justice. Um, I remember an initial conversation with Kellen and there was another school district that had just hired them to do that and
130I don't remember what I heard, but um, if you take the 375 times 3 or 4 hours, you know, and and it's got to be probably three hours easy. Oh, so in terms of breaking down the cost, Kalen's half the price of Nelson and it looks like Kalen might be equal to um NCSBA. So, um from a budgetary standpoint, I'm going to I'm going to lean toward um they've been doing monthly free legal um seminars that I've been doing and they're just spot on. So, I think the latest and the greatest is going to come that way. Um, I would then ask what school board did they do? Did they get a recommendation? You can follow up and ask a couple of questions, but from cost percentage and my experience with their training, I'm I'm
131going to I'm going to I'm going to want to go with them. That's half the cost of the other. >> Wow. >> Um, Miss Justice topic. >> This is a politically funded organization. It is a fact. >> Okay. >> And that is something we should not be considering. We should have outside groups. Um I I I am really surprised that that hasn't been brought up before cuz it's a well-known fact that this is funded by um the John Lock. Um >> so we're going to focus on the training itself. >> Well well that's the point. >> If you're concerned about can you is there anything as far as the other other groups that you would be in favor of? >> You are against that. I understand. I understand. Is there any anything that you would
132like to >> Well, I don't think it's an appropriate it shouldn't even be on this list. We're making sure that we're providing all of the all of the options for our board. >> Well, uh obviously the schoolboard association is the most experienced because it goes statewide and does an excellent job. Um on the other hand, I've worked with Miss Nelson and she's literally internationally recognized as one of the best in the world. We are lucky to have her live locally. She's already trained us as uh my colleague to the lamp way over here has already mentioned. She's trained us. She's here. She's she's willing to make adjustments. She'll work on us one-on-one. She'll come back and she'll give us constant feedback. You're not going to be able to get that from the schoolboard association. And
133definitely, as I said, I think you're calling it Kalen. >> I'm very disturbed that's even up there. That's definitely political organization. >> We're providing all of the all of the opportunities. >> That's >> so we're going to we're going to focus on the Robert Trolls training. I I we understand >> that's very >> what you believe. I I I understand and I hear you. >> Um >> I can't remember who was Mr. Perry. Well, I was the one who originally bought this a motion forward that we do this. And one of the things is um because I don't want just a, you know, cookie cutter, you know, intro to Robert's rules kind of class. I want us to be able to get the the more indepth training. And it sounds to me it's like, you
134know, apples, we need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. And it sounds like what we were going to get was even though it's some more money, we're going to get a lot more of a we we can really custom design what what uh Miss Nelson's going to come over and tell us and she can evaluate where we are and really customize to get us where from where we're at to where we're going and where we like to be as far as Robert's rules knowledge. So, I'm going to be just voting, especially since she's local, which is I always prefer local, besides being the fact that we don't have to pay travel expenses. I I I like to go with local. So, >> in and real brief, if I could just interject um
135in in conversation with Miss Nelson, she's already been watching some of our board meetings, so she's been taking notes of some of the some of the concerns that we might have and some of the issues that we've struggled with with motions and things like that. and and and really wants to support our attorneys as well. Um and so that was she she is customizing it to this specific board and providing resources after the fact with support. So just to just to throw that out there, Dr. Merritt, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Um I think I understand your concern that we're not arguing about politics on this board. Um, and I agree with you. We just heard one of our colleagues say, uh, you know, that that they didn't want us to talk about something that
136was political. And there are some things that are kind of unavoidable, but this is not one of them. >> Except Robert's rules is not a political thing. >> It is not. But, but any text, any document, any rules are interpreted in a certain way. Um there are times when I've disagreed with some of our lawyers interpretations of of the rules and it seemed like you know it could go either way and then you choose how you interpret it. So I do not believe that we you know if I said hey you know the ACLU will come in here and do a do a training for us. I think it would probably ruffle some feathers. Um so I don't agree that that should be an option for us. Uh but to your point in terms of
137what I do want, I think that everything I've heard about uh Miss Nelson is really encouraging and I would I would vote for that. >> Miss Barnhart, >> thank you. I appreciate having different options to consider. Um the reality is we have a variety uh varying degrees of opinions on this board and that's not going to change no matter how much training you get from it. I'm just going to be direct here. Um, when we're looking at cost effectiveness, I I just did the calculated math of 103 from Raleigh times 27. I think we're looking at the lower end on the schoolboards association would be around 900 bucks. So, that's in the range of the first one option. I would not want to go more than that. I've participated in trainings from both of these
138entities from legal briefs to seminars. Um, I currently serve on the North Carolina School Board Association, the legislative committee. This is it's part of facilitating discussion. This is not um I do not believe that paying more money is going to solve the problems of this board because we have individuals and ideological differences that are vastly different from one another when it comes to certain ideas. So, my recommendation would be to cap out at $900. And if that is amendable to Miss Nelson who's locally, then I'm I'm happy to consider. I do not feel like the price that I'm seeing in that range is going to be. Um, but if she is open to that amount, then I will talk about that. But otherwise, I would be I would want to consider $900 for one of
139these three options. No, not to exceed that. Um, and where is this training, just for clarification, um, where is the funding for this coming from? Is that coming from your budget, sir? >> And do we have a cap on that? >> No. I think if this is going to help this board move forward, money is not the primary issue. >> Uh, Miss Justice. >> Um, well, everything we've heard it sounds like if we have Miss Nelson, it's very tailored to what our needs specifically are, which neither of the other entities would able be able to do at the level she can. Another thing is you pay what you get for. I'm not kidding. She's internationally known. If you know her background, you do you go, "Whoa, we're so lucky to have her live in our
140community." And having gone through the training with her before, she is as thorough as we're talking about. And we do need help. And it's not political. It's just stumbling around trying to figure out sometimes what the heck we're supposed to be doing. Yeah. You saw Robert's rules. The Durham books this thick. >> Hold on. >> Right there. >> Yeah. There you go. And I don't know any of us that have read it cover to cover. Um, Miss Bradford had her hand up a while ago and I >> Madam Chair, it's pretty much just a point of order. I think in 2023 there was a majority vote of the board to adopt the Carolina academic learning network as a funded training source for this board. So they have every right to be on consideration here. If
141board members don't like them, then they need to convince a majority of the board not to keep them as a training source. But we did have a majority vote to add them as a training source. And um I think if we ask them for a breakdown, I'm going to agree with uh my board member next to you saying, you know, cost to me is because, you know, it's it's more than double. And I don't have anything against Miss Nelson, but I'd like to know what Kalen could offer for that um in terms of apples to apples because $1,200 is a lot of money in this market that we're in right now. So, um if we have to if this has to be a vote today, I'm going to vote for the for the lower expense
142option. But if it's not, I'd request that we add uh we ask them to break it down as to what we get for that $800 to $900 if we cap it. And I think we had a motion on that, didn't we? Or was that a motion? Uh, there was I there was a motion. I think that was just a request suggestion. >> Yeah. I mean, okay, I'll make a motion to cap it at 8 at $900 or >> Oh, what? I have my hand. >> I know, Dr. Mer. >> Thank you. >> So, there I appreciate hearing from the superintendent that the money is not the most important issue. I think that from everything I've heard here that Miss Nelson has not only the most expertise, but also the most intimate knowledge of this board.
143And based on that, I'm going to move that we adopt uh Miss Nelson as the person to deliver the training and put into a small caveat that if you can negotiate price, that would be fine. >> So, we do have that initial motion first that we will have to vote on which was Miss Barnhart who said to cap it at >> that wasn't a motion and that was not a motion. >> She didn't mention >> that was not a motion. It was a >> I'm the first one to make a motion. >> Point of order, Madam Chair. She did before you. She did before you >> and I second it. >> Um so we'll vote on that one and then we'll vote on your motion as well. >> Okay. So the original motion is to
144um cap our spending at 900 for Robert's border train. >> Is that the motion? >> Oh, okay. >> That motion. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Miss Buoie, will you call the role on that? >> Miss Justice. No, >> Miss Barnhart. >> Yes, >> Miss Mason. >> No, >> Miss Bradford. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bour. >> Yes. >> Dr. Merrick, >> no. >> And Mr. Perry? >> No. >> All right, that motion fails. Um the next motion is to go with um Miss Nelson and negotiate price. >> Was that second? >> Yes. Thank you. Um >> point of clarity, >> Miss Barnhart, >> is there a number that we're negotiating to? >> No, there's not. I would be willing to pay the full amount especially uh based on expertise and what we've just heard
145about uh budget but I I I certainly believe in saving money when we can and you did say uh that she was amendable so I would leave it up to the chair uh in your negotiations. >> Okay. All right. Uh Miss Buie, will you call the role on that? >> Miss Barnhart. >> No. Miss Mason, >> yes. >> Miss Bradford, >> no. >> Mr. Wore, >> yes. >> Dr. Merrick, >> yes. >> Mr. Perry, >> yes. >> And Miss Justice, >> yes. >> That motion carries 5-2. Will you just let us know what that total amount? >> Yes. >> I have trust that our chair is gonna negotiate a good deal. >> All right. So, um, we are at almost 2:00. Um, and I did promise that we would have a short break in between
146this and our policy discussion. So, um, board members, I'm going to ask that you come back at 2 and there's going to be a brief break. >> So, is it part is it these policies we're discussing to vote on today? Board members, if you could come back, I need you back at at the table. We have four. So, I'm gonna Um what's next? Next up we have policy 2310. Um now this was um requested to be put on um prior to and we also have a um an addition that was suggested by another board member. um to the changes that had already been approved in um policy. So um my only concern with the original is that um in speaking with um individuals that are >> Could I have a copy of whatever this is?
147>> It should be online too. um in speaking to um and I'm only speaking to my the what we voted on in policy right now. Um, in speaking to individuals who are Robert's rule of order experts, um, it was it was noted that um, Robert's rules is, if I recall correctly, a shield, not a sword. And so to um, it was asked it was requested or recommended, not requested, it was recommended that the Robert's Rules of Order um, sighting be removed. And so I would I would make a motion um to remove the Robert's rules of order from the original >> which um >> the original >> which paragraph. >> So it is um under five. Yes. Wait, let me go on to the doc. >> Sorry, >> under public comment on page two. >>
148Thank you. I'm looking at a different Yes. >> Mr. part in red. >> Yes, it's a part in red on the original. >> Um, >> are we point of inquiry, Madame Chair? Are we talking about the the >> We're talking about the original that was from policy is that that would be my recommendation. >> Yes. But we're but we're now discussing the one that's online in our agenda review packet. >> There's actually two. So, it's the one on the left. >> Okay. The one on the left. Give me the number. >> 23. Can you can you can you explain it again? So you're saying take out the Robert's rules of order reference because of why? >> Because Robert's rules is meant to be used as a shield, not a sword. And so utilizing it to
149um establish rules and policies is not recommended >> by individuals um that are experts in Robert's rules. >> So >> it's just a recommendation. We don't have to support it. >> Say that board values put in order. >> Okay. There's a lot of talking and I haven't called on anybody. >> Point of order. >> Mr. Perry, is it a point of order or is a point of inquiry? >> Point of >> Okay. Thank you. >> Exactly where here it is. The change you want to make. >> It is in if you look at the agenda in supporting documents, it is policy 2310. There's nothing else in it. >> It's just policy 2310. And I'm I'm telling you if you hang on, go down to where the red part is, >> okay, >> in that it
150says the board values community input, that paragraph, >> and in there it cites Robert's rules of order. >> Additionally, it cites it under the third bullet point, adherence to these guidelines is required, and cites Robert's rules of order. I am making a motion that we remove that from that language. >> So that whole paragraph for clarification. >> Nope. >> just the citing >> just the in accordance with >> or yes. So in two places or one because it's in the paragraph and then it's in the third one third bullet point >> two both of those locations >> just the Robert Tools of order newly revised 12th edition >> in both of those sections >> that one sentence. >> May I request you just read what you would like it to say so that >> yes
151I can um what I would like it to say is the board values community input and is committed to ensuring all voices are heard in a respectful and orderly environment. Um, in accordance with district policy, the following guidelines apply to all speakers. Maintain civility and respect during your remarks. Shouting, harassment, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior will not be permitted. Direct comments to the board chair, not to individual members directly. Adherence to these guidelines is required. Speakers who violate them may be asked by the chair to rephrase or redirect redirect their comments. Board members may excuse themselves if they feel it's necessary. That is how I would like it to read. So that's motion. >> Yes, that is my motion. >> Point of query, madam chair. >> Yes, sir. >> If we Is this motion
152simply to remove this and then we will vote on whether or not we approve this or is this a motion to approve this with the >> It's just right now a motion to remove it. >> Okay. And then we're It's still on the table. Thank you, ma'am. >> Mr. Perry, >> does taking Robert's rules, the reference to Robert's rules out of this section in any way affect uh the ability of of a board member to object or make a point of order? >> No. >> Okay. >> Uh and um Mr. Blanchard or uh Mr. Prompy, can you just confirm that that is indeed the case? >> I believe that to be correct. >> Okay. Madam Chair, >> Miss Bradford and then Miss Justice. >> So taking it out of here, even though we don't have
153the logic of why you want to do it, but we still as a board in our policies are using Robert Tools of order, it's still codified in there in another policy. Okay. Yeah. All right. >> Well, that's what I was saying. Same thing. It's just redundant to have there twice is what you were saying, right? Um, no. It was recommended by an indivi a couple of individuals actually, um, who are experts in Robert's rules. In the conversations that I've had in train for the trainings, um, they recommended that that that be removed because it is because Robert's rules is a shield and a structure, not a sword. >> But it still would be redundant even if Yeah, I'm just adding it would also be redundant. >> Yeah. No, I agree with you. >> Yes, ma'am.
154Yes, ma'am. >> It's a shield and what? Not a sword. I like that. >> And I'm I'm hoping I'm saying that correctly. Um, so there is a motion to >> amend this uh policy to remove both of those sightings of Robert's rules of order. Um, and there that was seconded. So, um, I'm going wait for Miss Buoie to get back to her the table and I'm going to have you call the role for that. >> Mr. Wore, >> sure. >> Miss Bradford? >> Sure. >> Miss Mason? >> Yes. >> Miss Barnhart? >> Yes. >> Miss Justice? >> Yes. >> Mr. Perry? >> Yes. >> And Dr. Mary? >> Yes. >> All right. That passes 10 to zero. Um, now we do have an additional um, one of our colleagues has submitted some additional um, statements.
155So I want to give her the opportunity to explain what she has put before us. Um, and uh, so Miss Bradford, could you go go into some detail? >> This is the one on the right if you're online in that. And if not, you should each have a printed copy of this in front of you. I emailed it to you earlier in the week as well. And so obviously regular red language we just dealt with. So that's off the table with the bold red font is um a new addition and it's basically setting out. Now actually there's a couple things. If you look at number three, board members will not respond to individuals who address the board except to request clarification points made by the presenter. In this, I'm making a motion to adopt this.
156I would I would strike except request clarification of points made by the presenter. It's not something historically that we have done. We did it last meeting, but we've allowed only 60 minutes for call to audience. So if we have three call to audience members who speak and then we tie up 15 or 20 minutes with questions from the board to that person then we short the people at the end of the list. That's the only reason that I'm bringing it up. Um it could become a stumbling block for us to get everybody who signed up for call audience through if we start and engaging them from the board. Then number five is simply it's number five is just moves lower down. It's not taking it out. It's just moving it down. um that policy didn't
157have a lot of you know 1 2 3 4 5 6 ABC D whatever um and so I tried to clean it up a little bit obviously the Robert's rules of order there have now been struck in number five so number six um is is new language number seven corrects the general statute because it was wrong and then B C D E and F and G um are all new language It came from um conversations with the sheriff and um the board attendees can attest to these are the things that he said that he um that that that that law enforcement could do or could not do and it codifies it so that we don't have any more misunderstandings in the middle of the heat of moment of what law enforcement may or not be
158able to do at the moment that we may have to call on them and need them. So I can read through them one at a time if you want me to um or you can read them yourself. We can take them one at a time, but it is um it's just simply the the and the sheriff did say that he would like to see us have something in our policy that he would then be able to enforce with his people who were in the room or any other law enforcement that was in the room. Um and so with that, um I guess I would ask Mr. Blanchard or Mr. Concrete to say, you know, you were involved in the correspondence. You saw what he said that he signed off on it. uh actually sent the
159policy to him to look at to see if it was was what he had said and he said yes. >> Mr. Ky just to respond. >> Okay. >> All right. Um Dr. Merrick, >> I think Miss Justice was up first. >> Um this is a lot even though she sent it out early and then I've heard, you know, we've gone back and forth on it. uh this needs to be in policy. I don't think we this is not a good idea for us to be creating policy on the fly here. We've already run into problems with this before in the past doing it during actual agenda meetings or board meetings. So I make a motion that we take this and put it into policy where we can really discuss it thoroughly and and look at
160the meat of what's going on and then bring it back make it easier for everybody and be very wise use of our time too. I'm going to pause you because I do know that Miss Bradford did make the motion initially. >> Um, but I don't know if there was an opportunity for anybody to second it because you had made the motion to approve this. >> I did say it would be a motion and I would point out that I did this at the direction of the policy chair. He asked me to to reach out and and and and get information from the sheriff. So, I didn't do this under my known initiative. It did come. >> So, going back to the just the procedural, >> you second me. Um, there was a fir there was
161a motion made. Is there a second to the original motion? Because there was a motion and I don't think there was an opportunity for that. If that is >> is there a second? >> Okay. >> I'm going to just I'd like to speak, you know, I think >> well I I because I need a second or we have to move to her motion >> for for the purposes of discussion. I'll second. >> Okay. So for and so hold. >> Okay. I'm holding my motion. >> Okay. And then you had something you wanted to say. >> Well, I I you know, I I don't disagree that, you know, we shouldn't you because there's a lot there is a lot here. I don't I don't think it's the worst idea to bring it back, but I love
162to give myself more work or give us all the work, >> but I mean I mean to really look at it you because we're already changing some of the stuff as far as taking out the other pieces. So, I mean I think maybe the policy committee could bring it together, look at it over and then make full recommendation back to the whole board. So, I I think overall that would not be a bad idea. >> And my apologies, Dr. Merrick. >> That's fine. I appreciate it. I I will I'm almost always going to allow Mr. Wilbur to go first. >> Um I have just so many things I want to say about this policy. Um, but rather than going into all of them, I think the the most important thing to say is that this
163is a large rewrite of a policy that basically says we're doing the work of the policy committee here on the board. And that is not a good use of the board's time. It's also not a it's also stepping on the toes of the policy committee, you know, and you might go back to policy committee and I still might not like it, but I think that that's the proper way for this board to operate. Um, besides that, I do need to say that all the all the the quoting of the general statutes is going to be sending a very clear message to the public that says, you know what, we're watching you and we're going to punish you and we don't want you. It's basically telling the public that they we don't want them to speak
164up. And that's the last thing I want to have our board telling our public. I think that their input is essential. It's It's part of a basic democracy and I I'm going to Is there a motion on the floor? We talked about there is. Yeah. Okay. So, I can't uh >> We're just right now speaking to We're just speaking to the motion that >> I I I'm I'm against this motion. I'm against >> Mr. Perry, you're the next one. >> All right. Well, I guess I don't need to make a point of inquiry. Um but I guess I will make a point of inquiry. Um, first before I make my other comment, is the motion before us uh to send the entire policy back to policy or did we already vote earlier to accept the
165first version? >> No. So, the original vote and I'm sorry for the confusion. The original vote was my edit of the originally policy approved policy committee approved policy. That was the original one that did not approve the policy that approved the changes to that policy. The motion that was more recently made and the one that we will be voting on was Miss Bradford's um motion to approve the changes as amended by what she has sent to the board. >> That is that is what the current motion is. >> So before us is Miss Justice. >> No, hers Miss Bradfords is first and then all policy. Okay. So then I'll comment second on the on the other thing. I think um one of the things that um there's a lot here. I think um >> uh
166and I'm probably more in favor of some of it. Uh I don't have a problem with, you know, if we go back and pass the first part because we could always revisit. Most of that is the same here that in in in my colleagueu's version. um >> exactly >> uh as to the one that originally came out of policy. So, I'd like to be able to approve that version today if we can. >> Uh and then they can always send it back for policy for further review of these. Now, one thing I will say is is that um the Can I make it up? >> You go ahead with your comment before you I'm getting confused. the so I think um you know the one thing I will comment about this that which was the
167if if we really value what like I said before if we value what our our codle audience members are saying and we we really truly don't understand what they are saying and and especially if it comes to effect and actual vote that's coming that's upcoming soon thereafter I think it's important to be able to have the ability to ask for clarification if you if if if the speaker is not clear on something. I mean, otherwise, how are we going to know whether what they're saying and which may or may not change our vote. So, um I will say I don't like that part. Um this the rest of this I'm I don't know where I'm at. I just don't know enough. So, um, if I could make a substitute motion, I would like to to
168substitute a motion to say that that we vote for the the original version now and then send the rest of it back to policy for >> I'll second that. >> Okay. And, um, Miss Barhart, you were actually next in the lineup. >> Yeah. I think, um, you know, there's been a lot that's going on in this world. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. A lot of sadness coming out of Southport just a few days ago. Um to maintain civility and respect is the idea that we're discussing here. Um and there's been opportunities and you know we we can't share about everything that happens in our school district, but there is a set of expectations that we expect of our staff and of the people who are fostering relationships with our students. And so to outline
169what the expectation is is not targeting anything. And I heard the same argument whenever there was a discussion about accountability in board members to say what is the expectation of what can we actually do when there's an issue that we need to openly address because that's what we have to do on the open das whenever we address things. And we didn't pass it two and a half years ago, but then we just passed it a month ago because all of a sudden it wasn't or not not a month ago, a couple months ago because it wasn't less of an issue. Didn't change what the expectations are. It's just at the time whenever it was being presented in the policy was like, oh, there's this stigma that it's going to say that what well it says
170this is the expectations. So rather than have interpretation of like well what does it mean? No, there there should be civility and respect and discourse. We want to hear from our public. It does not need to be done in a way that you're shouting, harassing, making personal attacks. That's what we're discussing here to say that that's not allowed. And when a presenter comes up and engages in that, there are guidelines that our chair is going to follow to make them stop. And if they don't stop, then there will be consequences. That's what we're saying here. We want to engage the public in a civil respectful way. So I agree and I seconded my colleagues um we just passed of the amendment to strike the Robert's rules from that but then to look at what the
171policy committee has said to do. I support that. A lot of that is echoed in this um updated version. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with what is being said. I do think it is fair for the policy committee to have an open discussion about that prior to bring it to the board. Um, but I do think it's important before we go to our meeting Tuesday night that we pass this policy that outlines what civil discourse and respect looks like at our board meetings. >> Miss Justice, >> I'm honestly getting confused. There's too much information flying around about what is and what we're supposed to be doing. Um, I understood what you said, but on the other end, I got a little confused listening to her. And at this point, I think it needs to
172just take this. I would love to go ahead and vote on what we already did in policy. >> Yeah, >> that's what >> That's the substitute motion. >> But okay, as I said, it's getting a little crazy here. >> So, would you like some clarity? >> The clarity. And you know what you you already brought two changes that weren't even connected with this. I'm just saying that, you know, this is getting confusing. We could take it back to policy and maybe just do it right or vote for what we've already asked for and then take this other part back which is probably what should have been done. >> And that is what that is what our colleague has has substituted. >> I'm just trying to get all this clarified here. If people are listening I
173can see if people are getting confused because I definitely am. >> Is that clarified? >> Cleared up for you. >> I got it. I'm just trying to make sure everybody's clarified. >> Um Miss Bradford and then Dr. Um, I would take issue with the comment made earlier that this is a rewrite. This is in no way a remite rewrite. Number six on down is is adding codification of what we already know. So, I'm going to take a moment and say number six, North Carol New Hover County School Board of Education remains committed to ensuring meetings can be conducted in a safe, orderly, and lawful manner while balancing the rights of the public. North Carolina law directly addresses this issue. I think that one's pretty safe. Um, it does reference the general statute in a disruptions
174by a person or person of public meetings will be subject to action in accordance with that was already there. I just cleaned up the statute which was wrong. Law enforcement officers will support the board by enforcing the chairman's directive when attendees refused to comply with schoolboard meeting rules. We had a meeting recently where there was an argument between the call to audience member and the board chair, the call the audience member and the um board attorney and this is just codifying what should be known so that when they say it's not in your policy, we can say yes, it is. So number C, general statute there, I'm stating what general statute says so nobody has to look it up. Um and what the consequences for violating that general statute, it already exists. We're not creating
175this general statute. exists. It governs our meetings. Now, we're just saying this is what we're going by. D makes clear that the presiding officer of the meeting may direct any law enforcement officer to remove that person. We had the >> point of order, Madam Chair. >> We can we we've read. I don't think we need to hear everything that you've we don't need to read it all out again. It's it's just adding on to the confusion. >> What is What is your point of order? >> My point of order is madam chair that we already have this in front of us. we've read it and now we have uh taken a lot of time to read it all again and I think that's unnecessary. >> So I am going to take your point of order
176as not wellreceived and I'm going to allow her to finish. >> Thank you. >> As you like. >> Um I just heard some comments that people didn't understand it. They didn't get but I gave it to you in plenty of times who have read it and understood it and to call if you had any questions but I didn't get anybody to question me. So I just want to make it clear. Um, you know, we had uh the the chair direct law enforcement and there was some confusion. The board attorney got involved and things got a little little heavy there. This sets out exactly what the sheriff's department or any other law enforcement officer in the room can or cannot do. It's not new. It's not new. It's not unusual. It's just saying. And my whole
177point in doing this is when I go down to the county commission meetings, they're conducted with the quorum and order. When I go to the city council, except for the other night, they're conducted with order and decorum and law enforcement knows what they can and cannot do. This is just setting that out so that anybody just perusing our policy because they have nothing else to do will be able to see what the consequences are, what the instructions are, and so on. It's not a rewrite of this policy. So, that's my point. Some people said that they got it and they didn't understand it. I just wanted to make it clear so that the next time we meet on this, nobody has any doubt about what it actually says. so we can actually take a vote.
178>> Okay. Um, we have about a minute left in this discussion. Um, I know Dr. Merrick had his hand up, so I'm going to >> And before I start, Madam Chair, just to clarify that we are now uh discussing >> Mr. Perry's motion to pass the original >> correct >> form the original one with with the >> that was that originally came out of policy which a small amount of red uh and we took out Robert's rules. Now, on top of all of this, I am concerned about a policy that says things like um civility and respect. Um that's very difficult to define. Shouting is easy uh you know, pretty easy to define. Uh you know, personal attacks, that's difficult to define. Um name calling, I would agree you could you could do that, right?
179or profanity. You could say that. But when we say things like shouting, oh, when we say uh personal attacks and civility, I also want civility in our meetings. But I'm concerned with a vagueness. Policies should never be vague. They should be something that we can all clearly understand. And I'm going to use as a as an example. One of our audience members the other night spoke directly to one of our board members and they were speaking factually but they were also speaking in a tone of voice that sounded angry perhaps and so that made it sound like an attack but I don't know that we can how do you how do you make a distinction if someone is upset they might they might just be speaking because they're upset. It might not be mean. It
180might not be an attack, but they're concerned and upset. And then it just becomes now that someone has to interpret and make that choice. Oh, I think that was an attack. No, I think that was factual. That's hard to do. So, I think that I would I would like to see this go back to policy and and put in as much clarification about, you know, is it obscenity? Is it is it shouting? Is it I think those things are more easily discerned than civility. That's a it's a word or respect. That's a hard one. >> So I am because everybody has had the opportunity to speak. I am going to um move forward with voting on the substitute motion which is to adopt the original edits and move the remaining edits to policy. Uh Miss
181Buie, will you call the role? Mr. Pore. >> Sure. >> Miss Bradford. >> Sure. >> Miss Mason. >> Yes. >> Miss Barnhard. >> Okay. >> Miss Justice. >> Yes. >> Mr. Perry. >> Okie dokie. >> How many? >> And Dr. Merrick. >> Nah. >> You just made difficult. Was that a yes? >> That's a nah. >> What is that though? >> A nat is is is a no. >> Okay. Thank you. Clarifying. All right. That passes um six to that one. >> Um continuing on, we have uh the board attorney policy. We've had that one um kicked down the road for several months. Um and so we want to make we at the last meeting um said we wanted to do it for the agenda review. So, um, I wanted to I I'm going to
182turn it over actually to Mr. Wabore because he is the policy chair. So, I'm going to turn it over to him and and he can he can take the reigns on this one. >> First off, I got to tell you, I haven't laughed at the board me a long time. So, thank you all for that. That was good. That was good. Um, so basically the idea was uh Mr. Trumpy had talked about it too that if we tried to say um well, you know, that that we had a that the attorneys had to clarify to every board member within 24 hours um that the the cost would be uh prohibitive or at least go up quite a lot. Um so uh the substitute idea was every board member uh must be informed of the of
183the question and response but that is by the board you know. So basically we would take the emphasis of that that you know if I call Mr. uh Blanchard and said hey I get blah blah blah blah I would respond and send an email to all board that um and I don't think that's in here for some reason but that's what the idea was and and I think that's what um Mr. Ky and Mr. Blanchard had said might be the best way to do it and I and I do agree. I think that that way they're you know we would we would be the ones responsible for uh sharing that we had contacted again with the with the board uh uh chair's uh permission or if we if we're one of the folks that can
184do it otherwise that we would you know contact them. So I think that would be you know smarter way to do it because then we you know we don't get paid anyway do we? So anyway, um I guess but I guess for some reason it's not in exactly the way >> it doesn't say it just like that, does it? >> No, I don't. >> So, um I'm actually going to because you did mention the attorneys and because this does apply to them, I'm going to ask for I know that they had wanted to talk a bit about this themselves. So, I wanted to allow them the opportunity to to kind of talk about why why they are in support of this this type of adjustment and the legality and all. I mean, it's legal. So,
185just making sure that that we're all on the same page. >> Start first on that. I'm I'm happy any way you guys want to handle it, I can live with that. Brian may have some input on it. Um, one of the things that, and this may come as a surprise to some of you guys, but and this is not a proposal we have, but one suggestion I might have uh for you that may save money and a lot of headache board members is that at some point you may want to think about amending the policy to say that I've been trying to write it myself absent a request from the chair or vote of the board um board members shall not ask board attorney >> a question about behavior the acts or emissions of another
186board member >> Oh interesting Can you say that again? >> Of another board member. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Well, it says the chairperson of the board normally will disguise board members. >> No, I think he's referring to board members asking the attorneys to talk about other board members. >> Is what they did. Okay. Is what they did. And that that puts us in a real difficult spot. Um and and I I get questions like that from time to time. And you know, obviously you're spending money on it for one thing. The other thing is it's it's gives me heartburn. I don't know why heart, but I know it gives me heartburn. But um yeah, I other than that, the proposal um the the committee chair's proposal about um changing this to say that the board
187members should tell. I think that's a great idea as well. >> We just don't want to be in the middle. >> That helps anything out of the middle. Um and just to kind of repeat that verbiage that you said. You said absent approval from the board chair or vote of the board >> request by the board chair or by the board. >> What? >> The board attorney. >> Board attorney will >> board members shall not ask the board attorney to offer any opinion on the taxation. Can you write that down in the hand? >> Um um I know Miss Bradford had her hand up and then Miss Barnhart and then I don't know which one of you two was first. Three. Which one of you three was first? So Miss Bradford. >> Okay. Um that
188sounds awesome. And to go along with that, I had I had made a recommendation that we split paragraph three and and and and divide all that up three three into four to put in a new paragraph. And I have for over two months now been asking that we insert the language that says and you have a printed copy of this in front of you and we've been doing this since August. So board members do not have the authority to request board attorneys draft policies, resolutions or any legal documents without first obtaining approval of the chair of the school board or chair of the respective committee which the document is in connection with. In other words, we can't ask the board of attorneys. He's saying we can't ask about other board members, but we can't ask
189them to draft policy for us without direct approval of the chair or the chair, the committee chair. Um, I think that will help cut down on our cost and keep some redundancy down. And then at the same time, the red language we've been discussing, I I still question if 24 hours is not too tight of a window and can we put a couple of more hours on there, 36, you know, I'm just I'm not married to that. But I do think practically we're going to get into violation of this policy pretty quickly because it's such a short window, 24 hours. So if it could go to 36 or 32, whatever, um the will of the board is is fine with me, but I think 24 is too small. >> Okay. So, I would move to
190add that pop that that language that I just read as we consider the absence of board chair, board chair, the attorney recommended. >> I would make a motion to add that. I've been trying to do that for a while now. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second that for discussion. >> For discussion. Okay. Um, who did I say was next? I think it was Miss Spartan. >> I I feel like I appreciate these changes. However, I do think it should be the responsibility of the chair to inform. I know I have been um spoken to very disrespectfully by fellow board members and so I think you are elected as the chairperson and so for you to be the spokesperson of what is you you know in this current role madam chair um the
191spokesperson for the information I think is important because if some individuals are sharing information um and there is hostility with that sharing of information it help for the effectiveness of this board. And so I rather than every board member, I feel it should be the chairperson should be the one sharing information. Um I think when they first got on, I think it was you Mr. Wood or was the chairperson at the time. Um and when any sort of legal brief was given, it was forwarded by the chair or it was forwarded from the attorneys from permission from the chairperson. I'm sharing the following with you. So, I think that that helps with kind of just the chain of command of expectation so that it's not one person over the other, one board member over the
192other since you're elected into the chairperson position. >> And and if I might speak to that real briefly, um when our previous chair was in charge, we also did have a different set of attorneys. Um and that attorney did things differently. And to my knowledge, our attorneys have forwarded all of the information to board members without my request, which is absolutely within their their purview in my opinion. Um, and so it hasn't I haven't gotten information that hasn't been shared with the board um by our attorneys. >> So, just just a thought on that. Um, I don't know who was first, so I'm going to go ladies first. Miss Justice. >> Okay. Um, can I ask you for a second? >> I I was thinking along the lines of what we do when we speak
193to the media, just send out a general email. I talked to the attorney about this, this, and this. Uh, but then you brought up the fact about what would be the results of the conversation, and you, you know, what the attorneys would decide or what the, you know, not just what the topic was, but the decision. So then it gets a little more detailed. And for each one of us individually to do that, we are not the attorneys and we're not probably very good at doing it properly. So we might miss something. That would be possibly then either somebody that would be the focal point of that, possibly the chair or leave it as the way we are now. You said it was working good. Did you feel it was now? >> So I would
194say if we want to put it in policy will of the board is fine. Um and I absolutely understand. I I was just stating what the current practice was and and as compared to previous and I think that if if it's in policy then 10 years down the road if there is different legal representation that it's still in policy that this is this is how things are done and I don't think that that's I don't think that's unreasonable as far as but current practice I I just wanted to share what current practice was >> is working you say current >> for >> to my understanding ing. If people don't feel that way, then then that's something that we do need to address soon >> performing quite well. I mean, that's cheap. >> So, I just
195like I said, will of the board. I'm fine with whatever additions or subtractions we want to make. Um, it isn't unreasonable. Um, I'm going to just go straight down. So, Mr. Um so I I think uh you know there is some benefit for individual board members to be talking with short conversations for advice with our attorneys. I think we should be able to do that and we don't want necessarily our you know we don't need our our chair necessarily to you know be this guardian over our attorneys because sometimes we have legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with another board member. But like I know I've investigated policy things that I'm in policy committee where I wanted to ask them questions of our attorneys before before you know as I'm drawing up a thing.
196I don't want to have to make, well, Pete, can you relay this message to that guy? You know, I mean, cuz sometimes I've been assigned a certain when we going through all those DEI and gender identity policies earlier this year, there was a whole batch of them and and me and Pete decided we were going to kind of split them up and I'll do this half, you do that half, and you know, so >> what happened to me? >> I'm sorry. I have to talk to Pete on that one. But anyway, >> u, >> but anyway, I mean, I think I try not to, uh, you know, abuse, you know, by calling him every two seconds of the day, but I mean, occasionally, you know, we do. So, I mean, I'm not opposed to what,
197you know, uh, what Mr. Blanch had said, something like that in regards to, you know, don't be having conversations about other board members. But I think sometimes we have legitimate things about what we're working on and our proposals that we need our attorney's advice and and I I would just ask that Mr. Wabbor I think you're correct that the language here doesn't really state that it comes that that it's the board member themselves that has to is is responsible for disclosing it. I mean can you make a motion with that amendment in there cuz you sounds like you it was left out. >> There was already a motion made. at this point here. >> Um, and I do want to make sure the motion was made that you you had made. >> Yeah. And I
198would like to um amend that motion. >> Can I can I have Dr. Merrick speak first and then >> I don't necessarily agree that the system is working real well. Um, for instance, um, while we're talking about not going directly to the to the board, my colleague across the way had just told us that they went to the board to make sure that these legal things, uh, on the 2310 were all accurate, but I never heard back from anybody that that had happened. Um, I do think we have to have a reporting that it has to happen. Um whether we take it through the board chair and put more stuff on your plate, I'm not so sure, madam. But I think that even if a system is working now, I agree with you that we
199have to have it codified because we're going to have a different chair someday. We're going to have different lawyers someday. I think the one thing I was concerned that I spoke with you about yesterday is that if there is a problem with the chair, I mean, God forbid it does happen, then be it the vice chair or someone else on the board should be able to find a way to go to the board to say, "Hey, I've wanted to come to you. The board has the chair has blocked my ability to come to you and I'm concerned about the legalities, this, that, and the other." Right? We have to put something in here to protect board members ability to to call out the chair. If if you're going to be that strong of a g
200gatekeeper, then we need to have something. >> Okay. U Miss Bradford, >> I could use some more clarification on that. I don't know what that has to do with the board attorney right now, but um the motion I had made was three or four things. Split the paragraph into two to make it more reason readable. three three paragraph three and paragraph four add the language that I have given you about board members don't have the authority to request board attorneys to draft policies I did not ask them to draft a policy um resolutions or any legal documents I didn't do that and it did notify you but anyway that one plus what um Mr. Blanchard had said. And I am going to then ask that we strike this part that's in red in front of
201us. Every board member must be informed of the question and response within 24 hours prior to I'm going to I'm going to add that. I'm going to modify what I said to to strike that because I think it's too binding. I think we'll immediately start violating it. If there's another language to substitute, I'm willing to look at that. based on your comments, I'm I'm not sure where your aptitude is other than the one we've just heard. I'm not even sure who proposed that in the beginning. Um, but the 24-hour requirement and board member must do it. We've heard some conversation about it would be the chair, whatever. So, I need clarification on that. In the meantime, I I'm going to amend to strike that part. That's my motion. >> Oh, okay. >> And is there
202a second to that? >> Okay. There is no second to that. >> Okay. So we go back to the other one. All right. So um we are currently at time and here is here is what I am going to say. Um there are a lot of these additions. There's the addition that the attorney just wanted asked requested that we add. Um it is really difficult for me Mr. Worn. My my colleague knows where I'm going with this. It is really difficult for me to approve it without seeing it all together. Um, and I know we've kicked it down the road. I don't want to keep kicking it down the road, but I do want to make sure that we know exactly what we're voting for. >> And so I'm going to make a substitute motion
203to send it back to policy to make these changes. >> Send this to Pete as I think he needs it. >> All right, more to do. >> We are at time. Um uh I made that substitute motion to send this back to policy. >> Second >> and it was seconded. So um >> this board moves. >> We have passed our time. So I am just going to move forward with the vote on that. Um Miss Buie call the role. Sure. Why not? >> Miss Bradford. >> Um yes. >> Miss Mason. >> Yes. >> Miss Bontor. >> Yes. >> Miss Justice. And this is sending it back to policy, correct? >> Yes, >> Mr. Perry. >> That one, Mr. >> Dr. Merrick. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Sure. >> That passes seven to zero. Board
204association. Thank you. All right. >> Definitely. Maybe. Next up, I will entertain a motion to go into close session pursuant to general statute 143-318.11c for the following purposes. to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to general statute 115 C-402 and not considered a public record within the meaning of chapter 132 of the general statutes to prevent the disclosure of student records rendered confidential under family educational rights to consult with an attorney in order to preserve the attorney client privilege between the attorney and the board and to consider the qualifications competence performance character fitness conditions of appointment or conditions of initial employment of an individual employed or considered for employment with it with the school system or to hear or investigate a complaint complaint, charge or grievance by or against any
205individual employee. Do I hear such a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> That's oppos. >> We are in close. Have you It's been a long day for me, so I'm ready to go. >> That doesn't work. Julie, don't they have to come here? Board members, we are back. I will entertain a motion to approve the personnel report. >> Second. All right. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> We do. Uh opposed. That passes >> four. >> Five to six >> because Miss Justice wasn't quite here yet. So five to nothing. >> Oh, did you? Okay. Six to nothing. >> Um >> next uh committee reports. And I did have um Miss Barnhart did ask
206briefly for a um update on sustainability committee um and so and then I can um I just wanted to kind of share what we're what we've done so far and um uh what our plans are. So right now uh the committee consists of myself uh Dr. Morgan runs the committee and he does a fabulous job. Um it consists of an individual that was on soil and water. Um we have an individual from a couple of individuals from the county and some um school officials. Um so what we have started to talk about is kind of refining what we're what we're doing. Um, and our first two goals right now are to um draft a definition of what sustainability looks like for the district. And um the other one I'm scanning down sorry is to we've
207got a lot. We had several goals and so the first one was that. The second one was to develop a an audit. Um and we're right now developing a I guess a questionnaire of sorts to send out to the different schools to see where they are as far as garbage to gardens to see where they are as far as um if they have any gardens themselves, if they have if they recycle, um if they have any teams that do those things. what kinds of I can't remember if we did what kinds of pesticides that was on the list, but I'm not sure if we have that listed. Um, but what we're doing right now is developing that survey to send out to schools to find out what we do have and then to work forward
208from there. We would like to talk about more curriculum type things. So, we'll we'll probably be bringing some some things to our wonderful Dr. Hamilton. Um but that that's where we're at right now and just having a lot of great discussions about the resources that we have available for our kids um in addition to garbage to gardens and some of the other programs that are available um to our district that we can make it a a much healthier environment and yep so that is that is where we're at with that. Um >> want to say I said something on TV uh last night in regards to uh uh actually like seaweed growing and how how it can be so beneficial. >> Yes, it is >> getting rid of CO2 >> and it's so nutrient. >>
209I think there's lots of lots of amazing already established programs that we're we're starting to look at and I think that that's one that we can utilize. I think that that's something that we should look into as well. >> Um Miss Bradford, did you have commentary? ing two committee reports and I think that's where you know I've been remiss every month as giving committee report on finance capital and bond um but at the same time we met for the first meeting of the calendar committee and Dr. Hamilton is my just amazed at how well she ran that meeting, how efficient it was and the point we got to versus the years in the past. It was just exceptionally well done how she divided us up into groups and whatever. And so we're we are so
210far ahead of where we've been in the past and I I look forward to that one not being what it's been in the past. And basically everybody on that committee and it's huge. They're all in agreement pretty much. um finance, capital and bond will meet after our board meeting and they will then uh vote uh again. So what happens at our next board meeting will affect capital which is right after that and um yeah so y'all are welcome to come. >> All right and with that I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Yeah. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> There we go. All those in favor signify by saying I. I any opposed? >> Yes. >> That passes 6 to one. We are ajourned.