001I'm going to call the policy meeting to order. Welcome everyone. Glad you're all here today. Um, Miss Gdeski, would you call the role, please? Mr. Werborg, present. Mr. Perry, present. Miss Justice. Okay. And I do declare we have a quorum. Present. Uh, this time we will do the pledge. But before we stand to do that, uh, I would like to introduce uh, Pastor Julia Hayes, the associate pastor from Writesville United Methodist Church. And she'll be doing our invocation afterwards. Again, it's great to have a live person here doing so. I'm so excited. So, Mr. Perry, would you lead us in the pledge today, sir? 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.
002I just kept leaning into it. No, it'll be good. Okay. Wonderful. Would you pray with me now? Holy and loving God, I thank you so much um for gathering us together today. God, I thank you for each and every person in this room. Thank you for calling them to this important work of supporting education through policy creation. Um God, I pray that in this time of their meeting that they um would have your spirit to guide them, that you would give them a vision of justice for all that would guide their decision-making. Um anytime that they are uh at an impass and and unsure what direction to go, Lord, would you show them the path forward? Um, we pray that you would help each person to speak well in such a way that they'd be
003understood by others and that you would open all of our ears up to hear from you and one another so that together we might discern what is your good and perfect will that brings about justice and goodness for all people and for all of the students involved. We love you and it is in Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you. Wonderful to be with you all today. Thank you. And again, thank you, Pastor Hayes, for being here today. Thank you very much. We will carry on with the approval of the agenda. I'll make that motion. I approve I make a motion we approve the agenda as provided. I'll second that motion. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. Uh all in favor, please signify by
004saying I. I. I. That passes two zero. All right. Um then we have the app uh approval of the minutes. [Applause] See that we have the minutes from the May meeting. I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the minutes as provided. Uh I'll second that motion. Okay. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor please signify by saying I. I I passes again two. Um we will carry on. Oh, I do want to take just a second before we go on to again uh congratulate all our graduates. I was going to do that at the beginning but kind of got off uh kilter there a little bit but uh we have uh had some great graduations in the last uh couple weeks and it's just been wonderful and uh just a real honor
005to be part of those graduations. So it was uh very very nice and very enjoyable and again uh we just wish the very best to all our graduates. Um we're going to carry on. Uh we'll start with policy 2210 which is the duty of officers. I was asked to uh add some verbiage to that which I did. Uh go down to that. Uh it's actually in two separate areas. Uh the we're looking at the section uh the first section uh talks about what the chair the duties of the chair are and we've added quite a lot. Um actually got a lot of this uh verbiage from uh actually a different state. Um I think it was Kansas that had a lot of this in here. also uh some some help from some of our uh
006board members and some ideas. Um but uh I'd like to move that on to the full board. Uh I'll make that motion. I'll second discussion. Any discussion? Yes. Okay. Um the uh I was wondering if adding an amendment to uh the policy proposal to allow the chair to delegate some of her duties when appropriate would be in order or let's have some discussion around that. I know that what people's thoughts are especially at chair since she is here today. Well um I I think that I'll be honest. I think that that we already have a lot of that in there where that she can delegate. I mean, I'll be honest, we had a uh Miss Mason will remember this quite a lengthy discussion with a former board member when I delegated uh you know, some
007of the the authority during the call to audience to the vice chair, which she continues to, you know, she was the vice chair at that time when when I did it. Uh and then um she discontinued that. But I mean I think that we um but anyway what would you like to add sir? Just a small sentence saying the chair uh may delegate uh uh duty her duties uh as she dee as he as they deem appropriate. Okay. Where would you say we should put that? Maybe under I maybe have an eye maybe. Yeah. Okay. I I have no problem with that. So, would you like to make that motion then? Yeah, I'll make a motion to add I and with the uh that the ch the chair uh has the authority to delegate uh
008her duties to another board member. Okay. All right. Mr. W. Yes, sir. In F insurance accountability. Mhm. My only concern is is that the board as a whole is supposed to hold the superintendent accountable for decisions and actions, not one specific board member. I don't know if the attorney wants to weigh in on that, but that might be something that Did you see Oh, yeah. Oh, I don't I mean because it's the whole board's responsibility to hold the superintendent accountable. I don't know if delineating one person is point of order. Um I made a motion. Did you second it? Did we vote for I? We haven't done that yet. Maybe we should vote for I then we can then we can deal with I apologize. I thought we would. All right, let's go ahead. Um,
009so all in favor of adding section I, please signify by saying I. I. All opposed. Okay. Carries two. Back to that. Sorry. Anyway, what I just said, I I don't know if it's appropriate to delineate one specific board member in that role rather than the full board. because individual board members aren't responsible for accountability superintendent. The full board is I you know I guess my my thought here is it doesn't say the chair ensures that the superintendent it says it helps. And to me that would be she does help. She's one of the seven people that does it. So she helps do that. You see that here? It's there's two there's two separate sections. I don't see a problem with that. The chair helps ensure that the board and the superintendent are accountable for their
010decision. Fair enough. Okay. Helps. Yeah, I think the operative word helps. I think the operative word has helped you, right? And I I do have to uh stand corrected. Um I I just said that Miss Mason was the vice chair when I first did that and actually Miss Bradford was was the vice chair when I first did that. Uh really needed that that authority. Okay. All right. So go ahead. One other point of discussion is wanted to know if um not that that's not happening now, but is there any um do we need something that says it giving a specific statement giving the board the authority to act if they deem the chair has not performed their duties in the timeline? Um, so basically some kind of a thing to hold the I think that's
011somewhere else in the policy that says I mean this specifically is talking about the Yeah, I think that's different policy because I think this is actually telling telling us what the the chair can do. And as far as what happens if the chair doesn't follow those rules, I number one, it could always be a a vote from the chair. That's one option, but that's not one we want to do, but I don't think you'd start there. I don't know if that would be Yes, Miss Mason. I'm trying to find it, but I believe that there's a policy that talks about um it choosing a different like the election of the chair that can be done not just in December, but as the board deems fit. So, I think that that would probably be a way
012to hold the the chair accountable, right? If that I'm just saying I know if for instance you forgot something you might not have to maybe just a little reminder from the board would be better than a whole new chair necessarily. I don't think you have to go ballistic and I think our board is very good at vocalizing when the chair has missed something. Yeah. Policy 2200 says you know the forward will chair will elect a chairperson or and vice chair for term of one year and or until his successor is elected. So that would be that would give us the option to I mean if the person said no I'm just not doing it. I mean I guess that would be one option. Okay. Well if you're satisfied with that then okay. All right. So
013again, I'll make the motion we carry on the uh amended version of 2210 to the full board. Uh is there a second? Second. Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. All opposed. Passes on to the full board for discussion. So that would be amended. Read this. 610. So here it is. 2210. Next we have 2330. Yes, I believe this one was mine. Um, this is to give um to revise slightly the process of individual board members being being able to add uh items to the agenda. M currently uh I believe our language says that if a board member in a second you know it uh it will be placed on on the agenda of a of a full board meeting within two meetings. Um this would give the option for the
014chair if they delegate it, if they deem it appropriate to uh instead um you know place that on the agenda of the appropriate committee if that's the best place for that you know discussion to start and and presuming that that committee uh meets within a couple of months uh of the time that the uh agenda item was put forward that I know some of our committees don't meet every month or sometimes we have some that meet, you know, maybe twice a year. So, we don't want to necessarily a board member to have to wait that long, but if it's within two months, I think, and it gets taken up by a committee. The other good thing I think about my language here, which is on the second page, is that um it allows the uh
015um the board member who's making the agenda item to uh participate and speak at the committee, even if they're not a member. Mhm. I think that sounds good. I don't have any problem with that. So, would I make a motion? Yes. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt policy changes indicated to this 20 2330. I'll second that. All in favor of moving 2330 on to the full board, please signify by saying I. I. I. Yes, sir. Could is there any way to add to the Okay, I'm kidding. Go ahead. Go ahead. Um, could she also direct like I send a weekly memo to the board and we meet once a month in uh superintendent office hours. Is there an a possibility for the board chair to also route those questions to there in
016case it's something that can get answered easily or quickly orformational and not take up the board's time at a meeting? I I think for purposes of like say you it was placing it on the agenda for an information session. I think that would be fine unless they're going to have a motion attached to it which right but what if it said something like certainformational items could be directed to be provided to the board by the superintendent. Just trying to think because a lot of times you guys are feeling like we're grinding through things at a board meeting that we're not terribly quick to to move things through. I didn't know if you wanted an option in there to make it a little cleaner, but I'm okay with that. Yeah, I'm that whatever you like. I
017would say board may sign agenda board committee blah blah or for certain informationational items may be provided to the board directly through established communication means okay I'll make a motion that we take that we add that verbage I'll second that motion all right in favor of uh now the amended amended amended the amended amended 2330 please signify by saying I I all opposed pairs two. You got that? You got that over there? So, I'm moving that over to to the amended version. Heading heading right down the road. Next, we have 3225. Close that. Open that. Believe this is Miss Brenson. This is Miss Brenson. Yes. Um what we have noticed is that in section on page 33 section D where it talks about privacy it states that you know students and employees visitors have no
018expectation of privacy anything they create, store, send, delete, receive or display when using the school systems network or devices um even if it's used for personal. And then it gets into the fact that we may without notice monitor, track and or log access communications and monitor file file server space, access, review, copy, store, delete, you know, contents of all the files. And then it says school system personnel may monitor online activities of individuals who access the internet via school own devices. Um so again last paragraph there D by the school systems network internet access email systems devices um individuals consent to have that use monitored by authorized school system personnel as described in this policy. Then when you turn over to section G and I don't know if this got added in some of the
019schoolboard associations you know the state ones or not. It states that um consent to the school systems use of monitoring systems to monitor and detect an appropriate use of of resources. Basically, you're asking the parent to sign. So, prior to using school system technological resources, students and employees must agree to comply with the requirements of this policy and the Gen AI policy and consent to the school systems use of monitoring systems to monitor and detect appropriate resources. And then at the very bottom it also talks about the parents. Um in addition the students parents must consent to the student accessing the internet and to the school systems monitoring the students internet activity you know and electronic mailbox. So I I do agree the parent needs to give permission for consent for the student to access
020the internet 100%. You know there but as far as the student and employee and the parent agreeing to the monitoring piece we do that anyway there's no way we could not if a parent says no I don't want that there's no way we could that kid would not have an account. There's nothing we could do right it's not possible. So, um, my recommendation was to strike out what's in red there on page 35. So, we're still asking for permission. We're still notifying them of the procedures. We're asking permission of the parents just for the use of the internet and making them aware of the fact of what resources the students have access to. All right. Yeah. Um so my issue a little bit is I understand the need for network security and monitoring and stuff
021and when I go to my day job at Corning uh you know I don't there is no expectation of privacy this is our computer our system and because I don't have a right to that job but our students on the other hand do have a right to an education according public education according to the North Carolina Constitution. So, it's not we have an obligation to give it to them. So, my question is this seems to be I don't know. I would ask our lawyers if they could comment, but my understanding of the parents bill of rights is that some of this stuff needs parental permission unless there is a um unless there you were talking about physical security monitoring like we were talking about with the you know Evan and the AI stuff where they
022do they draw an an exception to that. So my question of course is if we don't give them one-on-one device and and say you can't do it, is it so baked are these one-on-one devices so baked into the education of our students that they can't possibly pass their courses without them? Uh or is it just an optional nice thing? I guess I need some more clarity on that and also some clarity on the parents bill of rights or whether there is a thing because we can't you can't you know make one right contingent on relinquishing another for instance you know we have a right to vote there are certain restrictions you have to be a US citizen you have to be 18 years old you can't be a felon and you also have a fourth
023amendment right not to not have your house search without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause They can't go around. Somebody couldn't make an ele the general assembly could not legally and constitutionally make an election law saying that the only people who get the vote are the ones who have consented to have the house search without a warrant. I mean, you can't do that. So likewise, can can we really if there really truly is a bill a parent bill of rights, we can't make there and and it's so necess and it and they can't go to school here unless they use one of these devices or they can't successfully complete school here without using one of these devices. You're making them have to give up their parents' bill of rights just so
024that they can exercise their right to the free education they're supposed to get. So this is where I'm at. So maybe we can get some answers, I guess. Okay. So I'm I'm looking at the parents bill of rights right now and there's nothing stated in there about this that they're specifically talking about um direct the education and care of their child um to direct the upbringing or religious training of their child to enroll their child in a public or non-public school access and review all educational records. Make health care decisions. Um, that's an exception. Prohibit the creations, sharing or storage of biometric scans of their child without the parents written consent. Prohibit creating the sharing or storing of a child's blood um DNA without the parents consent. So there's nothing in there specifically, even when
025it gets to the video, it actually makes the exception for safety. So there is nothing in here that states that the um that we are basically by doing this we are removing the parents rights. Mr. uh it was a long question David and I think what you're asking me is can we monitor the kids if they're using our laptops without parent connection? Yeah I definitely think we can. I mean, we have to we as the school district, we're the the the children are our wards when they're with us. And, you know, I I think it's incumbent that if we're they're going to be using our laptop, our internet to access the internet, we got to monitor where they're going. So, I'm not sure we'd need per parental permission. The parents give us their kids during
026the day. And so, my opinion is that we have to watch them. We have to monitor them. We have to observe where they're going on the internet. So, I'm not sure we we need consent. What about after a while? A lot of these kids bring them home. It's still our laptop. And I think the idea that if we need to, we could go check that laptop to see where they've been. Um, you know, that that's my opinion. And just as a former principal, I got to say that I remember uh especially at the middle school level more than the elementary school level, you know, we had times that we had to go and and check because, you know, unfortunately children get themselves in bad places and if we don't monitor them, then, you know, heaven
027forbid we get something about, you know, one of our devices was used for, you know, a meetup or whatever else. And oh, I'm not I I am not at all thinking that network security isn't necessary. Uh uh I don't know about some of this isn't just internet though. I mean I believe there's other stuff if I'm correct that you're you're monitoring as far as application use or emails etc. Correct. I mean we archive all emails but we don't go into them and look at them unless somebody makes a public information request or a parent requests something. We don't it's not something that we look at. We do are required by law to do filtering and we have to filter on our device no matter where the device is at home or at school. So, we
028do do that as well. Um, as far as their internet activity, yes, we we monitor it. We have access to it. We don't go into it because it's a whole list of URLs unless somebody comes to us and say, "We've got a child. We suspect X, Y, and Z. Could you look and see?" And then that's when we go and look as well. Go ahead. I also make the point that you know the landmark ruling is that the North Carolina needs to provide a sound basic education. I think as we move into this next century even further that includes a basic understanding of technology and computers as well. I mean can you teach a kid without one? Sure. But not in the world they're going to live in after they graduate. I'm not suggesting that
029we don't use computers, but I guess as we found out a week ago, we should have backup plan in case the computers go down. So, um Well, of course we do. Of course we do. Yeah. And we and we do tell teachers, I think, you know, technology doesn't always work. Sometimes stuff happens and so the expectation is teachers do have backup plans. And sometimes you don't use the computer for every activity you do as well. Sometimes kids will go for several days and it's not part of the the lesson the teachers built, but it weaves in and out through a good number of them. And and back to, you know, where we, you know, the elementary level, I thought it was great and and I I looked over at Dr. Morton cuz he he had
030a great lesson I talk about all the time. But you know many years before the rest of us all caught up to him but you know where technology was was a one-stop but you know the the teacher was face to face with the children and then the TA was face to face with the children and maybe the children were reading independently out of a book as a third station and then maybe they go to technology for the fourth station. So it's part of the date but it's not you know it's not all they do. It's not like there you have an awful screen time. So any other Well, no. I mean, based off Mr. Cony's uh asurances that there there's nothing under the uh parent bill of rights that's going to we're going to run
031out of then then I'm okay with the team. Okay. I'll make a motion we move 3225 onto the full board as provided here. I shall second the motion. Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. 3225 as provided will be moved up. Me using my technology to do that. See, thank you, ma'am. All right. Next, we have um went ahead of myself. 26 2610, which is board attorney. We have a whole bunch of writing. Uh this actually came you gave me the sheet over here from this justice. Um the main change this is from this justice. Main change I'm proposing is language specific to the duties of the attorney to inform all board members that when questions are brought to them by a board member. It is the attorney's responsibility to inform
032the board of what questions were asked and what responses were given. So no board member is ever blindsided. We do not however have language that puts the semblance of urgency or timeline in this responsibility. I would like to see an amendment to the policy that states that every board member must be informed of the question and response within 24 hours or prior to any board or committee meeting, whichever comes first. Furthermore, 2610 also places restrictions on board members in regards to freerange access to the attorney, something that one board member vocalized to me that they did not agree with. So, it might be prudent to discuss the pros and cons of the current word and again from Miss Justice. So, we have in front of us the pink section. Uh, every board member must be
033informed of the question or response within 24 hours or prior to any board or committee meeting, whichever comes first. Inquiry. So, that's the new language in red, right? The pink section. Okay. Okay. Little different than our usual markup. So, any thoughts on that, Mr. Perry? Um, I am all for uh I would like to make sure that uh you know as long as people don't abuse uh individual board members don't abuse their uh their use of the attorneys. I think we should all be able to talk to them. Uh obviously if they start sending a bunch of billable hours, hey what you spend all these on because well I talked to board member A for you know 40 hours last month. Well, that' be a problem. But but otherwise, I think we should be able
034to do that. Um I just don't know is 24 hours feasible. I I have a ton of comment on these proposed changes. I would first say that Mr. Blanchard and I are trying not to overbuild the schools. When you talk about billable hours, we're very cognizant of what we're doing and what we're putting on that bill. And it would be very easy for that bill to to go crazy if we uh if we have to answer every question and and and and then forward it to every board member. There would be massive amounts of billing on that. And so I'm not sure how to reply. I would be concerned if it's my burden to report to everybody about every text or call I got or email I get at all times. I think it would
035flood the heck out of you guys. and and and and and double triple our bills. So, I'm I I think the burden on reporting on what you're hearing from me should fall within the board or or Mr. Blanchard. I I don't want to have that reporting requirement. Um you know, I there's uh that I I think there's some of the board members feel whether we're working for someone or we have a different agenda and I I don't think that's the case. Um, you know, I'm not sure how to address a lot of these different issues, though. I I could go on and on and on uh about this and I would say that as former chair and since we have our chair here, um, you know, the the chair has always been the one who's
036relied upon, you know, if you have a question, you go to the chair and say, "Hey, can I talk to the, you know, just so the chair is in the loop in the whole thing?" I mean I guess if we went this every board member is informed then she would also hear of it through that that mean but also if I have a question and I can go to her and just ask her that question and she says oh I've already you know I've already been in contact with Mr. about that and here's the answer to that then you know so maybe going you know the the current way we kind of do is we funnel through the chair and then the chair goes to to the attorneys as needed or says you know go
037ahead and you know call them you know like if I have a question about a policy you know it could be that she says spreading call um you know so that's the way it does now but I guess there is a concern from this justice that you know that maybe that's not working as well as you like or whatever. And I think it says right here, the chairperson or board normally decide whether board members when to seek uh legal advice or assistance on school matters. If an individual member of the board desires to consult consult directly with the attorney board must the board member must notify the chair person of the legal information sought. I mean so that's kind of the way it goes now is it goes through her and then comes back after
038her. Yeah. So, the only only thing I would say is I and not that it would happen with our current chair, but I could I've heard some horror stories from about former chairs who would keep the attorneys off for themselves and didn't want anybody else talking to them. Um, so we don't want a situation like that. But, um, so I don't think you necessarily need the permission of the chair, but going through the chair and informing them, hey, I'm going to call the attorney about this and maybe informing them beforehand and oh, wait a minute, I already got an answer. you don't even need to call them. I mean, that's fine, too, but as long as it's we're not saying you need the permission of the chair to talk to the attorney. I informing them
039seems good to me. Um, if I may, Chair Wor, in any attorney client relationship, there has to be a level of trust. And when Norwood and I field questions that are of high priority that all of you need to see, I'd like to think you can trust us to bring it to you. Then there are texts or calls that are quick off the cuff. What's your opinion on this? What's your opinion on that? And we don't bring that to the attention of the board. And and and I think there has to be that level of trust because if if we're required to bring everything to you guys, like I said at the front end of this, oh man, I'd have to drop everything and focus solely on reporting guidelines with you all. And we have
040some insurance companies that are like that. They want to know everything. And I'm fine with that because we bill them. I don't want to be that way to you all to the to the district where I'm, you know, our, like I said, our bills would would triple and and instead of a range of 15 to 25 every month, we would be pushing 75 grand because we're having to report someone's quick question or someone's quick text. So, with that, like, like I said, there has to be some element of trust. You guys hired us. We've established that attorney client relationship and you got to trust us to bring the the juicy issues, the most important issues up in front of you. And so I'm not sure how to I'm not sure I like uh that the
041pink highlighted section where we have to, you know, you're just going to have to trust us is is what I would hope you you you put down there. Okay. But would you be opposed to just like you said, you know, you got if if somebody asks you a very pertinent and relevant question and it's juicy as you described it, uh you're going to let us know and you're going to let everybody know on the board. And so is there some way of just let's take out this 24hour stuff and just say the board the board attorney shall inform individual board members of all pertinent or extremely important things or something. I I don't know. I guess I think I could help craft some language that um that dictates that. David. Yeah. So, why don't we
042then I'll I'll make a motion that we hold uh 2610 in policy uh and we'll let you craft some language. We'll bring it back for next month. Sounds good. Yeah. All right. I'll make the Sorry. I just wanted to give a little bit of clarity looking at policy already as it is. Um it's not just the chair that has access to the attorneys. It's also the chair of board committees that can consult with the attorneys. And already in policy, we do have the inquiry and response will be reported to all board members. So that part is already in there. Just wanted to make that note. Um I second the motion. Okay. So we'll hold 2610. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. All opposed. We'll keep 2610. Further discussion discussion. Hold on.
043I'm missing something before we go to the next one. Okay. I got too many papers. Page 40. You better go put yourself up. Wow. Looks like you don't have to rush. Okay. Okay. Here we go. Okay, going on to 4329, but I'm going to let Mr. Perry get you tell me when you're ready. Let me just find my I'll just pull it up in my words. I had to print it out, but my notes or my premeating notes. Somehow I managed to misplace them in this big pile for something. All right, so we got 4329, bullying and harassment. M. I think you had some of these uh verbiage. Uh we're adding discussion is adding biological sex. Biologically se um sex based harassment biological sex removing gender and gender identity and back to biological sex. Biologically
044based sex biological sex biologically sex base biological sex. That's it. Yeah, I'm going to want to withdraw all the we've already been through that. Sorry to all the references to adding the word biological before sex. Um the my main point though and I I I think I would again probably like it somebody to maybe craft a completely different new version of this entire policy. Uh the and maybe Dr. Barnes or Miss Barnum or somebody can uh could try try their hand at writing them. I'm not an expert on this, but these are three things that I noted that I I see wrong with policy. Now, um, some of the descriptions of bullying and harassment are the same as those found under title 9 and they shouldn't be part of the definitions here because this is
045other than to say these things over here and these are our title n things and for any title n you're covered under title nine and then this don't so I think we should probably eliminate reference references to stuff that's covered under title 9 in procedure other than say that if it's this see see our title N policy. Um the second thing is is there seems to be a contradiction in some of the language or whether the conduct of the bullying and harassment has to be deliberate or intended to cause harm or whether it can just be oh well it's unwanted or it doesn't have to be deliberate. So there seems to be contradiction in some of the language here. Um, and I don't necessarily think it has to be intentional, but we should be clear
046about it that it can be it could be both and under what circumstances. Um, the other thing is um the these long laundry list of protected classes that it gives as examples. I don't like these are title nine. Yes, we have to specify what we're talking about and but this is not title n. is everything other than all the bullying harassment for any other reason which we don't want to see for any student for any reason. So I don't think we need all these examples because again once you example protect the classes we want every student to be free from bullying harassment regardless of what reason is being done for on it whether it has anything to do with you know the typical protected classes or not. So and once you define some of these
047as okay these are protected the ones that are not listed suddenly become less important. So I think we just need to be very clear in our language that we're just not going to tolerate bullying harassment for any of towards any student for any reason at all and and forget all about all the protected classes except you know when it comes to title 9 and we have to obviously mention that. Those are the three things I like to see like a a complete rewrite of some of the section and I was hope so that's why I was hoping maybe I make a motion that we would uh table this till next month and then ask uh Dr. Barnes or Miss Farnum or a combination of both to have a stab at maybe re rewriting it with
048those considerations I had in mind. Dr. Barnes. So Julie, correct me if I'm wrong. This the frame of this comes from the North Carolina School Board Association. I'm a little reluctant to to not being an attorney obviously to vary widely from what is acceptable throughout the state as well. A couple responses to what you said. Just because something is title N doesn't mean it doesn't also fall under this policy as well. Sometimes a parent may say I don't want to pursue it as a title n but the school system still needs to be able to discipline and make appropriate choices in regards to this. You can be bullying and it cannot be title n or it can be, you know what I mean? But I I just would want a little more attorney guidance on
049changing this dramatically from what the state uses as its clear and standard guidelines. Julie, do you have anything to add to that? Yeah. And and I want to um point out that the policy in general is that bullying and harassing behavior is prohibited. It's not saying some. It's saying all bullying and harassment harassing behavior is prohibited. And then it goes into further section describing its relationship to other policies that specifically apply to bullying and harassing behavior that is prohibited by either federal uh law or other policies. So the this policy itself is overarching in the prohibition of all bullying and harassing behaviors, but it draws the connection to others that are more precise. Yeah. I I just think it's that if you're making that point, it's a little unclear when I read it. So, it
050it seems to that it's I think we could be more upfront and more and I and I I hope that that would case. Yeah, bullying, no excuses, no reasons. And if we're giving some examples, you know, about stuff that's yes, it includes this, yes, it includes this. But once you like you said once you include this this then you left out this then all of a sudden what you left out isn't as important you know from a from a reader's perspective. So you know what is specifically mentioned violates the policy but then you don't mention something else. Yeah, I understand that you you think this is overarching and it should be, but when you read it, you know, if you mention some things but don't mention all, then you get into a situation where the
051thing you don't mention isn't as important as the thing you mention. And so, so I just think maybe a little more clarity on that. Maybe could just be reordered slightly just to make that emphasis. Go ahead. Um, so what I'm reading here is we're trying to insert biologically biological or we're getting rid of that. We're getting rid of that. Okay. Yeah. We already have a fight again. And also some clarity to this policy is also like further explained in our student handbook and our code of conduct and things like that. So when you marry those two books together, it may make it a little clearer because students don't go to policy, they go to our student handbook. Parents don't go to policy, they go to our our our student handbook. So, it may be that
052some of that language is more clearly stated than there. And I think I think that's a great point. And I think that um the opening paragraphs frame the rest of the information. So if if we if we start looking at the secondary sections on um you know other violations, it's not as clearly framed as the opening paragraph that really talks about this is in relation to all bullying and harassment, whether it occurs on school property, on a school bus, at a bus stop, at an educational event, those kind of things. But I think I think looking at that and maybe highlighting some of those areas in the beginning might be helpful. Yeah. Like I look like if you look at B1 bullying is the deliberate conduct intended to harm another person. And then we're talking
053about harassing and number two it's harassing behavior may violence cause even if no harm is intended to the target or or no power imbalance is evident. you know, I don't know, you know, maybe that's maybe that's supposed to be the difference between bullying, harassment, and uh attempt. Is that what Yeah. And I also want to clarify, you bring up a great point. The definitions for bullying and harassment are defined in general statute. Maybe we should find it here too, so people know what to read, right? They are um the definitions inserted in this policy are from general statute and you know and they're listed on page 45. Yeah, I was mentioning cross references, you know, a lot of the prohibited conduct and procedures and stuff. Well, and these are also legal definitions of what these
054things are as well. What I what I would like to suggest, why don't we move it on up to the full board and we can have further discussion at that point. Yeah. Yeah, I just want to have an opportunity for Deon to uh Oh, you uh maybe you can have a conversation. Maybe there's a few things you can We're more than happy to look at it and I'll pass it to Brian and make it. Can you put that on our to-do list? Okay. Well, and then bring it back here next month then. You want to leave it here? Okay, we'll leave it here. All right. Well, going to do that. Uh I'll make a motion we leave 20 uh 4329 in policy. Second. All right. All in favor, please signify. Any other further discussion? If
055not, all in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Further discussion. All right. So, 4329 will stay. 5150 is next. Read my own writing. 41. 4150. I'm sorry. 4150. All right. Ah, that's funny. 4150 school assignment. We all probably got phone calls today about this, but we'll mention that. All right, we got some paperwork that Dr. Barnes is handing out. We'll take a moment to we'll answer that. I just wanted to have a Okay. Okay. So the discussion here uh the section under lottery assignment two the red section now reads the lottery assignment plan shall detail the procedures for how the lottery assignment procedures work. All lotteryies will provide an equal chance for all students to be selected. No weighted preference shall be made say the students geographical proximity to the school. I think that's
056the only section we had to change if I was correct. That's what I had noted and it is correct and that was sent to back to us from uh the full board last Tuesday. Right. Why don't you want to discuss what you've handed out to me? Just a just a couple of things and there's a lot to this lottery situation. The first thing I've got sort of two two issues. one is sort of morality and one is sort of legality. So the first thing of what I provided to you is the general statute for cooperative innovative high school programming. This is a designation that's given to CEK WEX and Isaac Bayer. This is a state program designed to establish joint programs with one or more uh high school and colleges to create opportunities for students.
057It specifically speaks to addressing and targeting students that are at risk of dropping out high school students with parents who did not continue education past high school and students who would benefit from accelerated academic instruction. Since this is a general statute, changing the lottery system for those cooperative innovative high schools, I am concerned puts that those programs in danger. Um, so the school assignment, I provided to you guys a copy of the school assignment protocols. Before you guys uh would vote on these, I would ask if you have read these and gone through them to make sure you understand the complexity of the lottery system as it currently sits because this would make significant changes to it. So, I didn't know if you guys had a chance to review this before this conversation. I just
058had a question about Go ahead. Yeah. Um the I'm I'm looking at this law and um my understanding is that the um my understanding is that the emission uh idea to use stuff like educational level and income are optional not required. Is that your understanding as well, Mr. Pro? Thank you. No, it says that the schools will target the following groups and then it lists those those specific kids. And then I've also provided a little bit of research about what factors cause students to drop out. Um just because I think it helps um center thinking on what kind of things you should be looking for. is is this I mean to me you know if we want to look out for kids who are at risk dropping out and at risk students I'm all for
059that but I don't think you can do that without an individual assessment you can't do that with a oh income level zip code and educational level that's not going to give you an accurate picture of who which child is at risk or which who is not there are probably plenty of kids in dysfunctional families who maybe live in the wealthier zip code or and their parents went to college that are still at risk, you know, and just defining it based off a lottery system seems ridiculous and unfair. I mean, if if you really want to help these kids, then let's reserve some spots for them and actually qualify them and actually determine yourself that these kids are indeed at risk and not just based upon demographics. Well, I mean, so I know that you didn't
060say this way when you say if you want to help kids because that's obviously what we do. But I mean, what this is is a state-f funded researchbased program and the research shows that these delineations are the most likely students to face barriers to graduation. I don't care about statistics. I care about individual children and making sure that each one gets an equal opportunity for success. And I don't want them discriminated on just because, you know, their parent wants went to college, may not even be using a degree or their parents is making a much a bunch of money and they're working two jobs just so they can they can help their family do do better and then penalizing them for that. I'm sorry. I'm for each equal opportunity for every child. So I don't
061care about statistics. I care about being fair to each individual child in the family. Just want the board to be aware of general statute. Well, and this pertains to you those three programs, correct? But the rest of the programs we could So the lottery system sort of encompasses Gregory, Snipes, Freeman, Codington, Eaton, and the three cooperative high schools. Did I get them all? Yes. Now, there's a lot of complexity. Gregory only does a lottery at kindergarten because as you go through a dual language program, you only enter into that program in the beginning. There's usually not a waiting list for Gregory because Gregory also has the stipulation that I don't have to follow the same class size guidance because they constantly lose children. They don't usually gain kids back in the upper grades. So their
062kindergartens are usually between 23 and 25 to account for that. So Gregory's lottery is not really the issue. Snipes and Freeman also don't have an issue with their lottery. They're usually all those kids get seated if they want to go to those schools. So you have Cington and Eaton over here and then the three cooperative high schools on the other side. And you could tell me if I'm wrong, but if there's besides the lottery, if if there is a if if the parents can prove that there's a you know a special need or an educational need something um I'm not saying it right, but say there's a like a qualifying factor beyond those things. They can just automatically qualify for the school, can they not? Yeah. Can you explain the hardship process? I think that's
063what Yeah. Are you talking about a hardship? Yeah. Okay. So um we take hardship applications and those are determined on an individual basis. The hardship guidelines are um established and have long been established by the board and those are a part of the um student enrollment assignment handbook that you have read and um so those are what's applied specifically when an individual hardship is requested. Now it doesn't mean that um requesting a hardship is always approved. Those have to be balanced with are there seats available? What's the um you know um basically what's the threshold for hardship that can't otherwise be accommodated? And then I want to mention you um mentioned something about special needs. If a student has special needs and needs to be placed in a certain program for the benefit of their
064um their progress, then the parent isn't required to request that. We make school assignment for children with special needs that meet that level of requiring a certain placement in order to make progress. Right. So, but there in those particular secretary is the I'm assuming you've allotted in in your calculations before you even start the lottery that there's going to be a certain number of hardship cases that we're going to all lot spaces for before we even have the lottery. Correct. So um no because then I would be relying on that statistical data to drive me to that. So I have to look at those individually and when it comes to the specifically the lottery schools only. So the lottery schools um as far as the year round. So Eaton and Codington are only lottery. They
065don't have an attendance zone. So I don't hold any out for hardships because you don't get a hardship to those schools because we have the rest of the schools that can accommodate any hardship needs. So the board already established that those would not be hardship spots. Um but then we run the lottery for each of those and then it's a tiered lottery so that it is a stop gap um collection based on the needs of the families. Uh do you want me to explain that Dr. Barnes? Why don't you a little bit? Okay. So, the the first tier is um makes ma mainly making sure that we sort out any family that has applied for a student to be there when they already have a sibling in the school. We don't want families to have
066kids in separate elementary schools. We don't want them to have to to choose that or have to accept that. So, the first is if you have a sibling in the school, then we capture you in the first tier. And most of the time we have more spots than that. So we collect all of those. The next tier and this is starts on uh actually this is in my standard operating procedure um right here. The next tier is for those doiciled in a specific zip code. So an under represented zip code. That's the next tier. So that we grab those and we always have more slots. So, let's say we have 50 kids apply to the lottery and we have um 40 seats available, right? So, we capture everybody that has a sibling first. We've got
067those. We grab the ones from the 28401. We move that out. Then, we go to family income. Again, it's self-reported. We don't we don't try to verify this. Um we we hope there's honesty. We expect there's honesty. So, we grab those. And then the the next tier is um based on parent self-report of their um own education and then we grab those. Most of the time we still have we drop them into a main bucket um because then they don't have any preferences any preferential tiers and then we run the lottery from that as well. And that's the same lottery process for all the schools we mentioned. It is this it is the lottery process for Eaton and Codington. Okay. Because Snipes and Freeman do have an attendance zone. They're not solely a lottery. Right.
068Right. Thank you. I'm going to stop you for a second because I So I'm understanding that my wife and I, we both have my master's degrees. So we would be discriminated against by the slaughter system because we have So basically we're saying that because we went to school and tried our best that my child wouldn't have the same right as a child somebody just graduated from high school. Is that correct? You would you would have the same right. You just might not have you won't have the same likelihood of being grabbed in the lottery because they're grabbed first. Yes. So the lottery was created um long before my time when um Cottington and Eaton were established. And my understanding in my research is the the weighted lottery for those schools was created to mitigate risk
069factors um that could interfere with student success or student access to those programs. And I also think that was probably during a time when the belief was that year- round schools proved to provide a more sound educational opportunity. I don't know that we would still argue that, but that has been a part of the standard operating procedure for some time. I was in a very intense meeting at uh North Topsel at one point with all the TOPS principles and every educational mind in the room felt like year round was better way to go. We actually of course the parents said you know that ain't happening. Oh yeah. No, but um yeah so I mean even the educational minds at that point in that room that so Mr. Bar questions. Um, the using the zip codes
070to the underrepresented areas, do you use zip 4? Do you get neighborhood specific? No, it's 28401 is what was established as the zip code of of that that catchment area. Would I'm going to get myself in trouble by doing this, so I'm going to say would you not equate some of this for these two schools anyway with what we have heard for the colleges and some of their um requirements now that have been lessened and taken away. um you know how it used to be that you know I have a dear friend who was born in Taiwan and he his children were able to go in to get things that my children weren't able to get because they were u you know minorities. Um would you would you not say that this current way it
071is for these two might mirror some of that? Uh, I would say that the standard operating procedure and the student enrollment and assignment plan has been driven by board pro priorities and decision and I'm implementing. I like that. Yes, sir. Yeah. I mean 2841 that's downtown. Is that correct? Yeah. So if you use downtown and you use income level and educational level, you got to basically you can't you're not factoring race in specifically, but really you're it's a back door as diversity, equity, inclusion. You're doing the same thing. Not not with that level of position, but you can bank on it. If you're looking downtown poor people with no with a high high school degree, that's probably what you're going to get. And the dear colleague letter that we got said we shouldn't be fooling
072around with these endarounds around their little ban there. So I think we're risking our federal funds again if we don't nip this in the bud somehow. I'm going to copy what Mr. Perry said and see if could we not could we not you could we not have two sidebyside policies? one. Obviously, I mean, I I'm going to say I I'm a rule follower and there's a law that says we can't do X, Y, and Z with our high school programs. So, we need I think we need to follow this policy. But for our um elementary, you know, do we not have two, you know, a high school policy for those schools and a an elementary level policy for those. All right. So, Statistics can cut both ways. Okay? You just use statistics to make a
073statement about ethnicity, which may or may not be accurate either. I will tell you at the end of the day, if you if you cut all my job down to the very bare bones of it, it is to graduate kids from high school with a plan for their success afterwards. That means getting every kid over the line. I think there's a fundamental question about whether or not everyone starts running from the same starting point. So I will tell you that morally I believe that supporting kids means different things to different kids and it means helping other kids helping some kids who may have other things stacked against them. Okay, who may have other things that inhibit them and giving them as much of a leg up as possible helps them get to graduation. So fundamentally
074I do believe that. I would tell you that I don't see as strong of the evidence of that with the year round model as I do with the early cooperative high schools. Those help kids graduate. Period. And the story. There's no argument. We can't agree with it. And the research and the legislation proves that. So if we took those off the table, we're left with my moral belief isn't necessarily what gets decided. It is the board's purview on that. You have a year- round principal sitting right here. I'd like to have her opinion on it as well, but I would be more concerned about us not being aware that as a district that matters. How we treat inequities as a general rule, I think, is is an important thing to remember. But can I ask
075please our our principal of the year? Absolutely. Yes, she is the principal of the year, isn't she? Yes, she is. Hi. Um so this system this tiered system that we're using um I think is is so far is not proving to really give um if you look at the numbers if you came to my school and you looked at uh how many children are there that come from these this pool um I'd say that it's it isn't significantly ly hasn't done anything different to our enrollment. Um, our school looks we have a a nice variety of children. So, it's not like our whole school is tipped over because of this tiered system. The sibling piece ends up taking care of itself along the way. So if you come from 28401 or you have a little
076low income, your education level of your parents, you know, those children's siblings all get in. So that kind of takes care of that too along the way. Um, but I think it's working fine. I mean, I don't I don't really see that there's just an outrageous advantage being given to people in this tiered system. And and I got to say, um, and I think year round school, as I just said, you know, we had a lot of great educational minds around the table saying that that is an advantage. But I think, you know, we also are very I would be very concerned if we said, well, going to Eden or Cington is the best thing in the world and these other schools just aren't as good because they I think they there's a lot of
077other great schools. That's a that's a very valid point. I'm going to make the I'm just going to go ahead and do it and you know, shoot yourself in the foot or whatever. I'd like to make a motion that we hold policy uh 4150 uh in policy and we and um I'm not going to take it upon myself. I'm going to say Mr. Perry, would you work with our attorney to write a second parallel policy um that we can use? I think I do think I agree with you 100% that we need to honor this uh law that's in front of us, but you know I I think we have two options. We can bring it on to the whole board and and fight it out there. Let's give I agree with you. Let's give
078them something more for you. If we're going to bring something to the board, let's bring parallel policies. one that you know basically says is is you keep it as it is and we use that for the high schools but then we can write a second policy that um is just for the you know for the two elementary schools. I'll second it for purposes of discussion. I'm still not convinced yet that we are required by the state to do this on the high school level but I could be convinced otherwise. So, but so long as we're not saying that we shall have two different ones, that we're holding it long enough so that we can work through it. Right. Well, and let's ask our attorney, you know, we have this um statute in front of us,
079115 C 23850. Um we have that out there. So, um what what's your feeling on that? I I do have an opinion. When I read the words shall target, I don't necessarily think we need to try to gain the system or weigh the lottery. Why can't we target through communication at the school level the kids who we think would, hey, you probably need to apply. Maybe you're not going to go to Harvard. You'd be a great boat maker. Go to CEK. So when I look at the lottery versus the words shall target, I don't think they're they're they're equal, right? That's the way I'm reading it. I I I I hear very clearly Mr. Perry's voice on on uh there can't be a weighted lottery because you can't pick favorites or you can't you can't
080make choices that because you want a certain outcome for certain people. It just has to be a blind lottery. That's my personal belief and I'm I'm personally glad that we're headed in that direction with our government. There can be no favoritism for race, color, socioeconomic status, where you come from because there are there aren't people who are rich that live in poor neighborhoods, people who are not educated who live in the better neighborhoods. So I I'm a big fan and I believe in the idea of no no weighted lottery blind lottery but at the same time I don't I feel we can adhere to this law this statute by targeting through communication through the process. Perhaps Dr. Barnes could have your principles look at those kids who best be served at those high schools and
081and encourage them to apply. We we do that. Go ahead. Yeah. But at the same but at the same time the lotteryies in my my humble opinion should be blind. So I think we're I want to separate this out and maybe can offer a a a little bit of a simpler solution than a whole separate policy. So for one, yes, Mr. Kroy, we do make sure that we are recruiting students who would need this type of opportunity to increase their likelihood of success. And for those for the cooperative innovative high schools, it's about the rubric. So it's not necessarily lottery, it's about the number of seats. I mean, it could kind of feel that way, but it's about the number of seats and where you fall on the rubric. And if you've had if you're,
082you know, potentially first time going to be first-time collegegoer, you you rise to the to the top on that. So, I think that's separate and based on our our interest in participating or our agreement in participating with Cooperative Innovative High School. But I think if the board um is no longer interested in maintaining weights for the lottery u and that would say specifically for the um the schools that have weighted lotteryies for elementary specifically Eaton and Codington. I think the simplest way to address that is making a statement that weighted lotteryies will not be utilized um aside from participation in the cooperative innovative high school application process. So it which is more like a rubric anyway than it is a a choice. Exactly. are the are the is the weight list at Wex CEK and
083Isaac Bear what is their typical weight list like? Every year is probably a little bit different and this might fall more in Dr. Hamilton's territory. Um I I help with the standard operating procedure but then Gene Hall yeah like works through those processes but it's going to depend on the number of kids that apply and that also makes that cut off a little bit different because the cutoff is going to be based on you can't say what's the cutoff score to get into WEX or CEK. It's going to be based on how many seats you have and how far down you go and then there's your cutoff score. But it sounds like it's not a weighted it sounds like it's not a lottery system. It's more based on need anyway. Yeah, it's a it's a
084rubric and slot system as opposed to lottery. But the weighted lottery for the year round schools and the restart schools is a board determined priority. And I think that could just be delineated in this same policy and doesn't require a second policy, right? Just remove weighted lottery. Well, so the the what you see there is that would you say that that's enough or do you think maybe we should have an extra line that says something about I would rule out the um cooperative innovative high school application process so just add like the line except for and you don't need the second section about save the students geographical pro proximity to the school because we have districting and that covers all of that. So no weighted preferences shall be made in lottery. This does not include
085the cooperative innovative high school application process. But do you want to bring something forward that Miss Barnhard mentioned to me that she was concerned about and one way she wanted. So, I'm not saying I'm necessarily poor, but I'm not as opposed to it as some some of the other reporting. Um, if if the if the student was currently attending a fa a failing school, whether they should be getting a leg out, do you have any thoughts on that? Um, I I wasn't prepared to talk about that, but I think um whatever the priorities of the board are for any again, that would be a weight. So, um, it would it would reapply a weighted preference. I'm just going to get I I would also put more of my effort towards making sure we didn't have
086any failing schools because if if you apply because you're at a failing school, that solves your problem, but doesn't solve the problem. Oh, I agree. I think our efforts and energy should be put towards not having any. I just want to bring it up and then I got one final question. Like you said, you could do a hardship, but then you've already done the lottery and then it the hardship just gets whatever is remaining of after the lottery is done. Is that if I if I'm understanding what you said earlier, why isn't that the one I'm sorry because I don't think that's what you said, right? So a hardship um has to be balanced with is is there an is this the only way to solve by approving the hardship? Is that the only way
087to solve the real hardship that exists for the family? And if there's any other way to solve that, then I can't approve those. But hardships are not based on the number of seats available. Hardships are based on how serious is the situation and there's there is there no other way to help this family make this right. So I guess my my overall question is if we've got kids who are at risk or really need this is we want to help them and of course we do. I mean, instead of giving them a weight in the lottery, can't we just take them if they meet a certain level of at risk factor? Well, if the at risk factor needs to identify itself to a very specific location, why is this the only location this hardship would
088work at is one question I think what you were trying to say, but also there are class size limits and enrollment limits at schools, right? Like what's what's uh Codington's capacity? 484. What is it? 484. And how many kids are there in the building now? 482. So that that's a part of that too where if I can't cram them into a classroom, I don't know where to put them over class size. I guess yeah, I wonder why you wouldn't pick those people first and then spot left over that. Well, because we don't know it first. Hardships come up all along. I mean, they don't we don't always know when a hardship's coming, right? And we don't put a limit. We don't say you can only tell us you have a hardship between, you know, April
089and June. Hardships can be submitted any time of the year because they may present themselves at any point in time. I I will say too about the, you know, believe me, I'd like to have another discussion on another day about I would like to see a year round middle school at some point and if we need another another uh year round elementary school in order to feed it, it gets that going. But I'd like to see that coming up with us. But there's a lot of kids from, you know, like my like my grandson whose father lives in Colorado, you know, and he's lucky enough to go to college. And it for him, it has nothing to do with how much money his father or mother make or any of that stuff. Has to do
090with his father lives in Colorado. He gets to you get to see him a lot more often due to the more frequent breaks instead of just being have to wait till summertime to see his father. So, you know, and that that those kinds of family issues go well beyond the the socioeconomic factors. That's where the hardship was and obviously the lottery worked in your grandson's case. Um, but I guess my point is is that you could have rich people that still parent living in California or something and they they could benefit from going to that school just as much as poor kids. I this is not I want to make sure this is not about rich or poor. This is about providing an an level playing field and I don't want to make that indicator
091that that is an indicator of whether the only indicator whether kids can be successful or not. Miss Kadeski, would you read the verbage that shared with us that she was suggesting that this last part of this last sentence, save the students geographic proximity to the school be removed, but unfortunately I didn't get the rest of what you wanted. So no preferences. Yes. So, um I think all of the red can remain until the last sentence and leave in no weighted preferences shall be made. Remove the rest of that. But I would make a statement that um uh this does not include the cooperative innovative high school programs. Okay. I will make a motion that we move that uh verbiage as part of policy 51 uh 4150. I'm having trouble with numbers today. Um onto the
092full board. Is there I'll take it for purposes of discussion. Um I would like to still though um move the conversation hold this policy. we can move this this particular amended version up to the board for full consideration so that at least we can deal with the elementary schools. I still think we need a further conversation about the high school and so I'd like to have it remain 4150 remain in policy. We can have a further discussion about the legalities of all that but still send this part up to the board. Are you okay with that? I don't know how we could do that because it was just one policy. So, we either send a policy or we can amend it again. Oh, yeah. We can bring it back. Yeah, we can definitely bring it
093back. All right. So, we'll move 4150 as amended onto the board and then we can bring it back if the board chooses. And there's the chair. So, she can do that if she so chooses. So, um we have a first and second on that. Um all in favor of moving 4150 as amended onto the full board. Please signify by saying I. I. All right. All opposed. All right. We're moving that on and then we should be able to kind of sprint through the last bit of this. Maybe the rest of it just all minor one. All right. So we got 1300,500600700 1760 2500 uh 7335 and 7820 all with minor changes. I'm going to skip over 9120 because I think that's the one you want to talk about. So we'll start with 1300. Um just
094basically moving uh removing the word discrimination and grievance procedure and sexual harassment sexual harassment etc etc. Uh make a motion we move 13 excuse me 1300 out to the full board. Is there a second? I'll second for purposes of discussion just have a brief discussion on that. Okay go ahead sir. So, did we finally get a verdict because I know we were talking about the titles of these things are title N sexual discrimination. We had a discuss in our last policy committee regards to that it's not just romantically based, it's sex. Should we be changing the title to sex harassment versus sexual? And I believe this all came from uh the school boards association, but uh Mr. Crownkey, your thoughts on that? I wasn't paying attention. I'm sorry. Oh. Uh, he's he's asking like for
0951300 whether Title 9 sex harassment u or sexual harassment and this did come I'm correct from the football association. Correct. In some references they were referring to sex harassment and other sexual harass which is one's more broad than the other. What do you think there Mr. I stick with sex harassment, but just not to add the extra what the school boards association said. 1300, 1300 uh, you know, title Nex and it used to say uh, sex discrimination, but now it says sexual harassment. But I'm just, you know, we kind of usually follow what I think we adhere to what the uh NCSBA has recommend. Okay. Okay. So again, they have made the they've changed it from sex discrimination to sexual harassment. All right. And I'll make a motion to carry 1300 to full forward. Is
096there a second? No. Second it, I guess. All right. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. Like sign. All right. And like say I purposently skipped over 90 uh 9120. We'll come back to that. 1500 pretty much the same thing. I I make a motion we move that on to the full board. I second that. All in favor please signify by saying I. I can moving and grooving now. 1600 governing principles. Are you the same thing? All in favor please. Uh I'll make a motion move 1600 on to full board. I'll second it. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. We're just moving and grooving here. I like that. 1,700. Same thing. Discrimination out and uh sexual harassment in. All in favor of I make a motion
097we move that to the full board. Second. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. And Mr. Wler, for those folks watching at home, this is just cleaning up the cross referencing. This is not changing any substantive policies at all. Absolutely not. That's correct. Uh 1742 uh just adds in some stuff uh at the bottom of section six uh deletes the word discrimination, grievance procedures and bullying and harassment behavior prohibited and adds in sexual harassment um reporting process, sexual harassment grievance process. So again, exactly as Dr. Warren you have said I'll make a motion we carry 17482 on to the full board. Is there a second? Second. All in favor of moving it on to the full board. Please signify by saying I. I. All right. Passes 22 uh 2020 two. I've been
098reporting that. I'm catching up. Prohibiting uh 1760. um just has some stuff in the cross references uh as in uh title sexual harassment prohibited conduct and reporting process. I make a motion we move that on to the full board at 1760. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. That passes 20. Uh 2500 hearings before the board. Uh I don't see where we changed. Let me see. Got to be here somewhere. Oh, there it is. All the way at the bottom. Pretty much the same thing across reference. Uh title N sexual harassment grievance policy. Uh deline or deleting title N sex discrimination. So not much of a change there. I make a motion we carry that on to the full board. Is there a second? Second. All in
099favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. Carries two. We'll be moving pretty fast here. Employee uses of social media. Lost the whole thing. They're back. I think we're back. Uh, section 10 against sexual harassment, delete, uh, getting rid of sex. uh discrimination and making sexual harassment. I make a motion we carry that out to the full board and some cross references. Is there a second? I'll second for discussion. Go ahead, sir. You want to discuss? No. Just want to have a chance to quickly look at it. Okay. All right. So, I'll second it. Yeah. Okay. All in favor of moving 7335 on to full board, please signify by saying I. I I S20 and finally 7820 personnel files and I think we cross references one didn't write this one down. Yeah. cross references again
100deleting uh deleting discrimination and grievance procedures and editing sexual harassment and reporting process. I make a motion we carry that on to the full board. Is there a second? Second. Discussion hearing none. All in favor of 7820 to the full board, please signify by saying I. I. I. And opposed. passes two 0. So, we'll go back up to 9120. This is bidding for construction work. And there's a whole section deleted here. Well, some of that was what I originally had uh put in that was in the red crossed out. Now, I believe the part in blue was proper Miss Sutton if I'm correct. Senator B. I think this is one that went to the board last or earlier this month and it was sent back, but I wasn't clear on why why it was sent
101back. I don't remember. You remember? I don't recall, but you you also were not present. Oh, that's right. Yeah, I was there. That's right. That's that's why I don't remember. I was trying to lose. I don't remember. I was there and I don't remember either. I don't remember. Dr. Bar, do you remember? Well, I guess I I think it might be the concern about whether or not this is going to get us sideways with general statute. Oh, because the original language from general statute and we had adjusted it so it took out some of those things. That was a conversation. That's true. And again, my I'm sorry, M. My understanding is that we can make a more restrictive policy than the state requires, but we can't go less. Right. So, the suggestion now from you,
102Sutton is to put the the blue words. Correct. I I believe to um what was deleted to bring that back and leave it as it was, I believe was the recommendation because that that matches general statute. Okay, that's precisely the language that again the getting the I think the diversity, equity, inclusion, it might match the statute, but we're if we don't get rid of it, we're also looking at perhaps violating the deity. So the at least this language, you know, they're still going to do the reporting requirements. They're still going to be they're still going to be reaching out to all local businesses including minority owned businesses. Am I correct? And and encouraging them to come. But we at least in our policy don't have to have language that just on its face seems like
103it's going to fly right in the smack of the in contradiction to the your colleague letter. I don't think there was a change from um I think Darington and Smith does the board policy revisions. I don't think we had an update to this policy from them if I'm correct. I don't think they had a language change. The other thing that I wanted in here, which I think you said you were going to encourage them to do anyway, was if we could create a preference, and then I was told that maybe we can't, is have a preference for local businesses versus just North Carolina businesses. Um, but that's what that wasn't the original. I wanted to create a if anybody was going to get a preference, it should be our local community businesses. Um, and the
104general statute specifically says we are not allowed to do that. Yeah. So, we need to talk to our legislator. So, I don't really see any problems with the blue one myself, but I don't know what what do you think, Mr. World? But you can just go back to the original and leave it as it is right now. Or but I still think you you you I think you do have some language that it's currently in there cuz we're not seeing the current language in this or maybe in the deleted section. I think the deleted section. Yeah. Superintendent on behalf of the board shall certify good faith efforts have been made to increase participation in construction contracts by minorityowned and female owned businesses as required by policy 9125 participating by minority businesses to will grant North
105Carolina resident uh firm providing architectural engineering surveying construction management at risk service design build services or public private construction services a preference over non-resident firm if the home state of the non-resident firm has a practice in granting a preference in its residential firm over North Carolina resident firms any preference granted to a resident firm shall be in the same manner the same basis and the same extent as the preference granted by the non-resident's firm's home State school systems bid documents shall require that non-resident firms disclose and describe any construction contract preferences granted by the home the firm the firm's home state that's what it it had some of that stuff in the beginning is going to get us in trouble with the executive orders well to some extent it's hard because mom and dad are
106fighting Right. The federal government and the state are in disagreement here. Yeah, that's what I was going to comment on. Right now, we have a statemandated section. We're following state law here, but at the same time, we've got new directives from the federal government. I'm inclined to suggest we leave this in committee for the time being and watch this issue play out. I don't feel we need to be uh trends setter in either direction. uh and and I think it will put out and for the time being though I would just leave it as is and uh leave it in committee because we see we get some dictation from somebody clear I won't survive in state or federal prison so I'd rather not have to pick up yeah I heard you know the shorter guys
107don't make attention I'm sorry I I just some levity. Mr. Perry, Mr. Go, is there any um litigation around this that we should be aware that's going to courts right now? Do we have an EPA or one that may be? No, not that I'm aware of right now, but I I do feel that we're not the only people talking about the disparity between the federal government and the state law. It's going to have to be worked out. I think I'm going to go with uh Mr. Ksky's wisdom. I'm going to make a motion that we hold policy 9120 in policy. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All any further discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Passes 20 bidding for construction work will stay with us. So we have 21 2610 4329
108and now uh 9120 all with us. Um and I think we've we've run out of fun things to do. So, um um I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. We are adjourned.