11/26/2025 Board of Education Workshop

001Madam Chair, >> welcome to this evening's Augusta School Department workshop. We are here in the CATC cafeteria. It's Wednesday, November 19th, 2025 and it is 6:35. Uh this meeting has been called to order. I'm going to also welcome our two future board members who are with us tonight and they will share their names as we go around the table and we'll start with Mr. or >> James or Beautiful War 3 John Reynolds at large. April Dan boys at large Shelby Tibido assistant superintendent >> Mike Tracy superintendent >> Muffy with them board chair >> Stacy Fortunado Ward one Susan Parks W 2 Rita Paul at large Bobby Joishard soon to be W four >> Sam Baker school board member elect one >> thank you um Mr. Mr. Hicks called in earlier tonight and said that he

002wouldn't be able to attend with us. Um the goal tonight is to have a conversation and maybe come out of here with a draft of a new policy or an amended policy or whatever we decide to do regarding our policy on beedh public participation at board meetings. You should have with you um a copy the Brienne Isacson copy that you have is actually our policy that they have marked up that was attached to your agenda. You could have printed that off. I think states I think Shel's making copies is she? >> Yes. >> And you also should have with you as well there should be a sample MSMA policy which is the sample that MSA has drafted for school boards. Susan also shared so that you would have a written copy of suggestions that she

003has for the policies tonight. And we also have a copy of a letter that we received from an an organization entitled Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions. And I'm going to let Mike uh Mr. Tracy speak to that letter that you have in front of you. We'll do that'll be one of the first things that we do before we embark upon recommendations or suggestions for changes in policy. BEDH. And so with that, Mr. Tracy, if you would just like to explain what that is, >> the fire letter or the foundation for >> So, thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. I um received we received notice the school department received notice a couple of months ago from um Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression about our public comment policy violating the first amendment to the

004United States Constitution. And so, um, the gentleman there was kind enough to take a phone call from me and just said, "Hey, we're open to hearing what the concerns are." And after a couple of times going back and forth, he was able to get me this letter that you all have in front of you tonight. It came in Monday. Monday, I was up sick. I didn't I was in meetings all morning. So, I just attended to this or peaked at it myself yesterday afternoon. Um, our attorneys I' I've forwarded this off to our attorneys. I I have had a conversation with Peter Low today about this. So, I I'd be happy to share that. Um, I don't think we've I don't think our attorneys are in a position that to give us exa an exhaustive

005review in relationship to their letter. Um, because again, we just they just received it from me yesterday afternoon. So, so I I'd be happy to talk you through that or I know that member parks also gave some comments. I I it's what's your pleasure? How would you what would you like to >> So what would you like to hear? >> What you said about >> it didn't get back to him. >> I talked with Peter Lo spoke with Peter Log. >> Oh, do you want to share what Peter said? >> I'd be happy. Is that what you like? >> Yes. >> All right. So I I think what might be easiest is to speak. I'm going to kind of double speak in a positive way from Fire's letter and Brandis redlined version. So I'm going

006to speak to both as we go down through that. I think it'll be frankly there was a lot of agreeing. So I'll go ahead and take you through what was said. So number one um and I don't I don't have every because it's again this is still flowing. So I'll give you what they said and we'll kind of go from there. But um number one in fire's letter to remove language about board meetings not being a public forum. Um when I talked with Peter today that would be your second paragraph on the front page of DEP the redline version says although the board meetings are not public forums. Um, you could say you could leave that there and say although the board meetings are not public forums, you could go on to say, [Music] I'm

007sorry. What? I'm I'm looking at the red line version. I'm trying to look at a fire letter that I haven't had a chance to even study. >> So, >> what are you? >> Yeah, let me let me back. >> What are you doing? >> Okay. during >> Can you just give us a general thing on the fire light rather than going step by step on it? >> Not really. >> Okay. >> I can't because I don't want it to be taken out of context. >> Okay. >> So, in in paragraph two >> of the red line Isacson version. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. They're saying that the portion of public comment that part of the meeting would be considered a limited public forum. So language language in that first par in that second paragraph if you

008were going to remove although board meetings are not public forums you would restate it that it's a limited public forum >> and that's what I suggested in my suggestions. >> Okay. So that that would um that was how Rand Isacson responded to item one. But it was important to have both not a public forum and limited public forum or that we could just say because board meetings are limited public forums the board will provide appropriate opportunities at its meetings for members of the public or was it important to say the not part as well? If if because what you're controlling is the portion on public comment. It their point was how however you say however you want to say that in that paragraph you can remove not a public forum. You a board meeting isn't

009a public forum. But if if that's tying people up and that's causing what could potentially lead to a lawsuit, it might be better stated that either board meetings are limited public forums or you could say the public comment portion of the board meeting are limited public forums. >> Okay. >> When I spoke with Peter, he said that's the board's pleasure. Neither one. But it should be noted that the public comment portion of the board meeting is a limited public form. Got It's constrained to matters of education. Educ matters of education. >> Okay, everybody. Any other questions on that? >> No, that makes sense. >> All right, I'll move on to number two. um eliminating a ban on certain specific employees or replace it with non-binding request to use other channels. Um that is in reference

010to Gran Isacson's new eye and that be on the second page of the red line version. Do you real? It's addressed in I and it's addressed in A. And so, um, Brand Isacson believes that the recommendations they've made in a and their new I proposed cover that recommendation. >> Is that is that the what fire is showing is their G That's actually showing that as paragraph three. >> No, no, no. G if there if you go into the you go back further uh where they get into our policy the EDH on page 204 the very last paragraph is G and it crosses out the no complaints or allegations will be allowed and they replace it with the board will generally not address individual personnel matters or comments concerning specific students >> yes >> during the

011public meeting. Therefore, the board encourages speakers to raise matters through alternative channels as outlined in policy K. >> It also says that >> can we can we not have comments without going through the chair please? Thank you. I'm sorry. >> You were speaking and >> Oh, I I wasn't recognized by the chair. You >> No, that's Yeah, that you go ahead. >> No, I'm just saying that that I just I'm done. [Music] May I answer her? >> Yes. I believe that was fires intent. >> Okay. >> J. So in in this they're talking about if employees if if employees have questions or concerns they want to illuminate publicly. Current policy says there's a there's a channel for that. Now, when I spoke with Bran Isacson in a if you look at their A, draw everybody's

012attention back to Bedh the red line version from Bran Isacson. Um in where it says priority will be given to vessel residents, school department employees, individual employees and/or employee groups will not be permitted to discuss matters for which a complaint or brief procedure are provided. If the board would like to make a concession on this one, then you could add a phrase that says unless it's a matter of public concern. which again that's >> I'm I'm I'm confused at this point, Mike. I'm not sure if we're supposed to be having discussions on the whole policy as we're comparing it to fire or if you're just giving us a quick overview on fire without comment at this point. I'm confused about that. >> Well, I'm just trying to go down through >> quickly. So, if people

013just want to wait as you go down through that, I I >> Yeah, you tell me what you want me to do. I think it would be easier if we went through the Brienne Isacson policy and as we go through it compare both fire Susan comments and comments from the boards as we work our way through the policy. >> Okay. >> Like start at the top of the policy and work our way through it. >> Anybody okay with that? >> Then then we have we know where we're going next. >> Brandon Iser is not our law firm. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> And you might you also have a copy of the name school management policy as well somewhere. I have it. I don't know what >> that'll that'll help Mike if we can

014just okay know comments as we go on our policy and and noting what fire said and you can also comment on what Brienne Isacson said about fire. I will do my make sense. Yeah, I'll do my best. So let's go back. Let me go back to the recommendation to paragraph two. Y >> although meetings are a limited public forum. Although board meetings are a limited public form is a recommendation there. You can see they've asked comments on school education matters. They thought our current policy is too restrictive. They thought they needed to broaden it to align with state law. Okay, that's why that's changes that. >> Do we have a copy of the law to look at too to see what's required in the legislative in the statute? >> No, but we can pull it

015up >> to see if that I for some reason I think educational matters is included. >> It it is >> in our in our legislation. >> It is, but I'll pull that up. >> Pull that up. It's main school board meeting statute and public participation school board meeting statute should come up. Okay, questions on that second paragraph. Moving on to the third paragraph. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Yep. >> Everybody good? Susan? So the so the MRSA 28 says educational matters or matters concerning education. Is that right? >> That's requirement. A school board must provide opportunity for the public to comment on school and education matters at its meetings. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And so to that point, Shelby, thank you. That's in the third paragraph. You'll see

016uh any they crossed out any subject directly related to the operations of the schools. Again, they broadened that to include school and education matters. They could be school and national school and education matters. Prior to that, it had to apply to Augusta schools. Okay. So, they broaden that out based on the statute that Shelby just read. except that comments regarding specific student matters or personnel may not be permitted as specified below. And we'll get into those details in a minute. Questions on those changes. Bruce, can you read that line? The last thing you just read? >> Um, it's the third paragraph. >> In the third paragraph, the third paragraph. Okay, everybody good? Okay. >> Anything from fire that needs to be commented on? >> Well, just that what that was an area that they mentioned

017if they they did a pretty exhaustive review that in their viewpoint they believe frankly uh staff could be spoken about. that that that's protected speech according to the first amendment and there was case law that they cited. Um, >> we we don't I I don't believe I don't believe that that I don't believe that that applies in Maine where we have main statute that governs confidentiality of employees and students and and our attorneys agree with that standpoint that if so what so for example if someone came in I want to I want to illustrate the difference if someone comes in and says in public comment session during their three minutes. People teachers are sleeping at the high school. They can say that they can say people anybody can come in members of the public can

018come in public conference 3 minutes there limited public forum in their space and say teachers are sleeping at the high school. But as soon as they say Mrs. Smith is sleeping at the high school. We have a duty to protect her confidentiality at that time. Now, the argument is, and I did speak with Ellen. The argument is, well, we're not saying Mrs. Smith. See, by allowing it, we're simply allowing persons of the public to speak about Mrs. Smith. We're not speaking about Mrs. Smith, right? We didn't say Mrs. Smith was sleeping. They said Mrs. Smith was sleep. Mrs. Smith was sleeping. And our attorneys are saying that based on our teacher contract and what they know of the main statute, we have a duty to preserve the confidentiality of our employees and students so that

019we can't allow a for an open forum to have people spoken about negatively or positively. That's why when Peter Low was here and he said you really during during public comment not the recognition part of your meeting during the recognition part of the meeting everybody knows that we've stated this is the section of the meeting where we're allowing recognitions of that nature >> from board members about whatever that thing is that's getting recognized during the limited public forum that 30 minutes or an hour whatever you said for public comment. That's where it's opened up to the member of the public being able to speak about whatever they want in relationship to school and education matters that but it's limited to and we'll get into this thing. So basically by the end of what you'll see

020today is unless someone is using fighting words, extreme threatening or extreme vulgarities that incite some kind of violence um or speaking about students or staff. Really anything goes during that and we'll get to that as we go through this. But that's does everybody see the nuance between >> teachers are sleeping in general versus Mrs. Smith is sleeping. So going back to that in that section, that leads us down into A. No, it doesn't. Because A talks about employees. So when you look, you asked me about what what the fire letter says about that. >> I got I got the part. I didn't see the part where they had taken our policy. Now I'm not seeing what they say. I'm only going to follow this. Okay. >> I'm not going to follow the comment because that

021significance. >> Okay. Are there questions thus far? We're going to head into a on the red line. Okay. A is the public they change to the public are welcome to participate provide as provided in this policy. Priority will be given to Augusta residents and school department employees. So in this section we would be using the statute that Shelby cited that says that we can create standards of conduct and time limits. Those are the two things you as the board can set in relationship to this limited part of your meeting. So Ran Isacson saying if in a minute you are going to set time limit and there's a 100 people at the meeting you then maybe you want to prioritize Augusta residents and staff than anybody else from out of town. Individual employees or employee groups

022are not will not be permitted to discuss matters for which complaint or grievance pre procedures are provided. those addressing the board need to state their name and then the municipality where they live and that was something fire recommended was that eliminate the requirement for speak speakers to state their address which brand they just said just tell just tell us where your town >> municipality [Music] >> okay questions I just wanted >> madam chair >> yes um I just wanted Uh one of the things they did fire did mention what with perusing this is that we should probably prioritize in the what we do um non-citizens who have children attending the Augusta school district because their towns do pay taxes for the school to run as well. >> You mean tuition students? >> Tuition students. Correct.

023So I knowing knowing that >> how would we how would we police that? How do we police? >> Well, they put their municipality. That's how we're policing it right now. What m what municipalities have schools? >> Eight of them. They're in there. Or you you could if you wanted to add a third layer, you could say parents with students in our schools, Augusta residents, school department employees, and parents with students in our schools. if you wanted to add that. I personally that's only a recommendation from it's not a recommendation from our attorneys which makes me hesitant. Making it more complicated than it is right now is a challenge. And I think they're technically not our students. They attend CATC which is its own entity. >> So we do have students from sending schools like Chelsea

024and other areas. We do >> we do but their schools are still responsible for them. >> No, not the CATC. I know. I know. Tuition tuition students, their schools are still responsible for them. They're responsible for >> high school in Whitefield, but >> but they still pay tuition, which makes their school board responsible for those students. >> So, they're still responsible for those special education services. The special ed director is responsible for those services >> for the So, a kid that comes from Chelsea comes into the high school, we have to have the special education director from Chelsea. I don't that we are not responsible for those services. So they're responsible for providing faith or all those things. They paid for them to come to attend, but they're still their student. >> So if a

025if one of those parents has an issue with the education that their children are receiving here, they're going to go to Whitefield School District. >> They could they have to start with their superintendent. >> Yep. They'd have to start with their s They have a superintendent. They have a school board. Okay. Is that the pleasure of the group? >> I hear other comments from other people on that. Do >> I feel like narrowing the scope too much or in a way broadening too much makes for a weird swamp of like then we have to nitpick and ask and so I kind I do like the priority will be given to us residents and school department employees as you did from the Brand Esson example. Um, I think this makes sense. I guess if it became

026an issue when people were feeling they didn't want to speak going up forward, it could make an amendment to the agenda, sorry, to the policy at that point. But I feel like for now, this works. Member Parks, >> I just don't think that there would be a way to verify that students from other SAUs are attending our school as tuition students. Um I I mean we would need to almost know ahead of time who wanted to speak and who their students were to just verify what that what's being said because how how are we going to know in a in a minute if the person is is um telling us the truth. >> Ju just to clarify that all people would be given an opportunity to speak, right? You're just saying that they would have

027to speak after this order, >> right? So tuition, someone from >> different town will all be given an opportunity at this time after these priority individuals, residents and employees and then all others after that >> and then oh and then at the end if someone decided oh I wanted to speak I didn't I'm from Augusta they could be the they could be the it wouldn't matter this prayer would be given and we are going on people's word that they do live in Whatever they put down for a 10. >> Okay, continue. Okay. Um B and I'm on page topic page two says the chair may limit the time allotted for comments on a particular issue um as well as the time each individual may speak. Um, my recommendation as well as both law firms would

028be for us to have a consistent total time and a consistent time for individuals to speak. And if you want my recommendation, I'd be happy to give it to you. >> What's your recommendation? >> 30 minutes total or an hour if you want because you combined the two. >> Uh, and then three minutes for individuals. So, what does it currently say? It says something about if there are a lot of a large crowd, then we can put a time limit. I don't love the idea of time limits just for time limit sake. And I think Muffy, you have shared before that it's hard because it sets a precedence from meeting to meeting, but when we had a meeting where only two remainer dads showed up to talk about buses, we gave them 45 minutes. And

029then when these people started showing up, we're like, "Nope, two minutes, three minutes." I feel like when your constituents come to you and talk to you in the grocery store at a soccer game, you don't go, "Wait a minute." And start a three minute timer. It's rude. We're here because they let us be here in a way. We're here to represent everybody. And I don't think that it is okay to limit it for limit's sake, if that makes any sense at all. If if I could respond to that, I think the intent of a limit is because this is a business meeting and we're there to conduct the board's business and we might not get our business conducted if we have an open public comment session that could go on for who knows that would

030just that would be my thinking of why the time limit >> I'm just saying it's rude >> for thank you I was thinking about one of the comments what we heard at a meeting that somebody said it's not fair that we It's not fair that um we have to wait till the end of the night to speak and we made the adjustment to public comment um earlier in the meeting agenda so they may have an earlier chance to speak. Um I I like the 30 minute timer with the 30 minute limit with with possibility of going longer if there's more people interested. um like we did in our meeting uh previously where we voted to add I think 15 or 20 minutes. Um I like that option because that gives us place to start. Um

031and the three minutes sounds reasonable to me. Member Parks, >> I um had said in let's see um number four on my page, make the time and the limit per person the same no matter how many public commenters there are such as three minutes per person. uh highlight the time frame and I'd like it to be written in this policy uh not something that's just said by now. Uh also somebody in the grocery store coming up to me that's a public forum. That is not a limited public forum. I would not time that person, but I would direct them to the appropriate official to take care of the complaint that they have or the concern that they have. So I that's comparing apples and oranges and I don't think it's rude to give a time

032limit in a limited public forum. Yeah, I was going to say I feel like it's on the other end it can be construed as being rude to have um the ent our entire city and our school department and our public um not have the consistency, not understand what's going to be available to them, have potential meetings, be dis just, you know, uh disrupted by folks that don't have kids in the school department. That's rude to our city. So there's different sense of rudeness here. I think we have to we have to be available to do our business and to do it well and thoughtfully. And so because we can vote to add public comment time when there are a lot of people or a real situation happening that requires us to listen longer and for

033to more people. We can vote to add time to that evening. My suggestion would be an hour because we did combine the two. Uh it would be before our voting. So it would be a a chunk of our meeting when we have a lot of participation. But that's what we want to showcase that we're available to hear and listen to viewpoints. But that there is a balance between there's a balance when folks come and say the same thing over and over and over again and we reduce the time for people to come and say other things. So we have to think about the negative space what we don't see when we are enabling public comment to go on for however long uh or inconsistently. I I liked the idea we had um at the training

034for MSBA's chairpeople I listened in and there was a board that has a time clock that they display. I'd be in favor of something like that to show people so it is less rude interrupting them so that they can themselves transparently see how much time they have available and get their points out. Um, so that's where I'm at with that. >> Thank you. >> Member or I didn't raise my hand after. >> No, I'm just checking in with everybody. >> Thank you. >> Member Reynolds. >> Yeah. um the the current city council places public comment in the beginning. It's I feel like it would be helpful for the people that come. They want to have their their place to speak. you can move that somewhere more conducive for everybody. And I also agree with time

035frame and then each person has an allotted amount of time to speak so that we have at least a little bit of a structure and understanding of when the meeting starts and ends without disruption for procedure like that. >> Every day and boys nothing. Okay. So what does that sound like to you? Well, I mean I am happy to do the pleasure of the board here. Would you can folks live with an hour for public comment and three minute? >> I think an hour is a long time. >> I think 45 minutes would be more appropriate. people people start getting really tired towards the end of those meetings and start getting a little testy and we've never had a lot of public comment on agenda items has never been very long. So what you're doing

036is really extending. >> It's not my policy. You know it's not what I'm doing. >> Right. So you're >> my thought would be I think an hour is a long time >> but it allow >> member for >> but it allows an hour doesn't mean an hour has to be filled because you're only allowing one person to speak at a time. >> No but also if you put it at 45 minutes you can still extend that. You still always have the option to extend it. If you put it at an hour you don't have the option to shorten it. >> You're letting 20 people speak. If you you do an hour, you're letting up to 20 people, right? >> Is that 3 minutes each? >> I'm okay with that. I know an hour long. Sorry.

037I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm hearing a consensus on it's sounding to me like it's an hour and three minutes each. Does anybody have a problem with that, Susan? >> No, that's fine. I just wanted to address what member Reynolds had talked about having this at the beginning of the meeting. That's that I it's already in the policy for the adjustment. That's already happened. That's >> We've already decided that, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I was just speaking an opinion based on >> Okay. Sounds like it's an It sounds like it's >> the consensus. Good. >> An hour and three minutes each. >> Yeah. >> And I and I'm happy to have that written down so that I don't have to be the bad guy. >> Perfect. and see >> works for me. >> Um

038it says currently in the event sizable audience the chair may require persons interested in speaking to sign up. Um so they may be called on a fair and efficient manner. My recommendation is you remove that authority and just say the board requires >> person which have you been doing anyway. I think he's a question. >> Oh, member Parks. Thank you. >> So, um >> I in my I said that um >> what number Susan? >> Well, I'm just trying to [Music] >> So, we require sign in so that we can differentiate Augusta residents from non Augusta residents. So, I'm I'm for having a sign in that where people are asked to to give us their municipality and their name and then you use that to prioritize the speakers and I think that should be in

039effect no matter how many there are in the public comment line. So are you suggesting it say persons interested in speaking to sign up and with sign up with their name and municipality in that sentence? >> Well that with then we'd be going back to a >> that's what you said there. >> Yeah that that's what I'm saying >> that but that's different saying it says those addressing the board need to state the name. This is saying the sign up would also include they need to say their name. >> Yes. So, there may need to be a sentence in A that talks about a signup sheet. And then as far as Yeah, you can take out C if you put a sentence in. >> And then for C, I would recommend well, I suggest that

040we take out in the event of a sizable audience, just for for any size audience. [Applause] Fortunately, during public comment, >> you know, he says those addressing the board need to state their name in the municipality where they live. For the record, I think you're asking for a step before that where they sign up. >> Yeah. Because then that's the only way that you've been able to differentiate those who are from Augusta to speak first and those who are not from Augusta to speak second. So if we say members of the public interested in speaking to the board need to sign up providing their name and municipality. >> I think if you allow me to add C to A. >> Yes. >> I'll be able to do just what >> Y. Okay. >> McCormick. >>

041Uh except you added a third level which is faculty who might not live in Augusta. So they won't put their municipality. They have to identify themselves as faculty. If a teacher wants to talk and they live in Basboro and they put Basboro, you're not going to let them talk in the order that you said you were. >> You need to add staff member to the sign up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We can do that. >> Member. >> Yeah. Based on that, I think it's a good idea. And I don't know if it's kosher or okay then to ask about, you know, like who you are because then we could prioritize parents too. like in the signup you could see teacher or parent who doesn't technically live in Augusta can then be so however the signup

042sheet can not be invasive of their privacy but can give you the right details then you can prioritize staff parents and Augusta folks first so I don't know if it's like who are you or if it's a little check box of which role are you >> that we can easily >> something like that yeah >> that way you can that way all of these like all of these issues or you know can be we can prioritize the right people >> and on the on the sign up thing can you put print please long as you're making that sign up sheet please noting that >> okay thank you okay >> questions >> D >> all right D uh during the set aside excuse me during the time set aside for public participation the chair may be

043responsible for recognizing all speakers who must identify themselves elves as they begin talking. Um, >> where did may come from instead of will. >> Will Mike made it up. >> It's Will. >> Will. Thank you. >> I did. I made it up. Never mind. >> Okay. >> And this is where um I spoke with Peter today and you might add a sentence that says speakers will be allowed to speak regardless of viewpoint. So the idea that we would address viewpoint discrimination, this might be the place to add a sentence for that. Unde all speakers will be allowed to speak regardless of that did come from both attorneys. I spoke to Drummond Woodson quickly on this matter and and fire mentioned eliminating that recognition the discretion to recognize speakers. They're asking us to remove it. We

044think we should address that concern by adding statement on everybody will allow be allowed to speak regardless of viewpoint. So our policy is clearly nondiscriminate nondiscriminative. >> Okay. Say the sentence that you want to add again. All speakers will be allowed to speak regardless of >> I would just say speakers >> just in case everybody doesn't get a turn to speak. Okay, we can say speakers will be allowed to speak regardless of >> comments. Thank you. You want to say speakers will be allowed to speak regardless of the point as long as it still regards educational matters or not. Is that repetition? >> Speakers will be allowed to speak educational and school matters regardless of your point. Mhm. >> Does that say that same sentence again >> on school and education matters? >> I think

045it makes >> Yep. >> Just another way of reminding. >> Yep. >> That's what we're here for. >> Yep. Comments. Everybody good? I'm going to assume you're good unless you raise your hand. >> E. >> Okay. Oh, I'm sorry, Katie. Um, >> you don't have to be sorry. I'm just curious though, is that really something that needs to be said? Like, is that not implied? Is that not what we do? >> What part? >> Saying that you're allowed to speak even if we don't agree with what you have to say. >> So, I don't think Reynolds, >> sorry. Thank you. When you looked at me, I took that. So yeah, I So no, I agree. It's funny as I'm writing this down like that is it's insane that this has to be inserted in. But

046I based off what I'm listening to Brand Isacson and them they're saying that that gives us where it's stated. It's now protecting us by saying that that that is now clearly stated. So it's it's a good thing is really what I >> I know I >> I agree to that. Yeah, it's crazy that we're in >> I'm done. Member Parks, >> I agree that it should be included in the policy. Uh, and one big reason is because that has been a big complaint about our school board business meetings. So to make it clear in here, I think it's very important. >> Member Fortunado. >> Yeah, and I agree. I think we've heard that from the actual speakers themselves saying we don't feel like we can speak. We fear retribution. we feel like we we don't

047and we can't speak because we're we're not sure that our our point of view is is popular or something to that effect. Not those exact words, but I feel like we've heard that from people actually speaking to us public comment. >> Okay, James, is this something you wanted to share? >> No. No. Just as long as we have the fact that that we're not going to be viewpoint discrimination going on, that would be great. >> Okay, >> that would be great. >> Seems that it we'll add that then. >> All right. E um there. So, um, when I talked with Peter Long today, he thought to address this and we went back and forth and cited some case law that um the in E I'm on E where it says speakers are not permitted to

048um share gossip. He thinks we should remove shared gossip and I think fire did as well because it's you you get into some what is >> um so Peter actually made the recommendation to remove the two words share gossip and it so it would say speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments use abusive language obscene and he's changing the word today from vulgar to profane. He thinks the word profane is a stronger word than vulgar and then goes on to say profane language that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting. the key phrase that should be added. And believe me, this is after multiple hours talking with a lot of folks, including law enforcement, >> that disrupts the orderly >> that Yeah. language that disrupts the orderly running of a meeting or threatens others

049or engage in behavior that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting. And maybe that's redundant, but that's what you told me to write. >> Can you read that as a whole? >> Yeah. >> You guys ready for me to reread this? >> Okay. Speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments, use abusive, obscene, or profane language that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting, or threatens others, or engage in behavior that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting. Examples of disruptive behavior include interrupting other speakers and exceeding the allotted time limit after the reminder of the chair. Assistant Super I had the words together. Assistant Superintendent Tibido. >> Why can't it read? Speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments, use abusive or profoundly profane language, threaten others, or engage in behavior that disrupts the

050orderly running of the meeting. Why do we have to put orderly running after? Because obscene language in and of itself, profane language in and of itself are defamatory comments in and of themselves a protected speech in the first amendment. So they have to trigger >> a disorderly content before we can take action on that. >> So for example, >> it's appropriate to read vulgar language from a library book, >> right? It's appropriate to um >> there's more I'll speak after you. >> So I'll I'll stop there. It's appropriate. So there are times when some of this language could be protected under the first amendment >> in context in its appropriate context. So that's why Peter was linking it to the disruptive meeting or disruptive meeting which so it's almost as if really what it should

051read what it should read is speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments that disrupt the orderly running of the meeting or use abusive language that disrupt the orderly running of the meeting. So the key is they have to they have to either threaten nor disrupt the order of the meeting in order to be limited or constrain speech. >> What's the definition of profane? >> No, I already know. I you don't need to look it up, but what's what is the definition of propane? You're going to put a word in there and you're going to give them a glossery >> because they already didn't know what obscene or vulgar or defamatory or what was the other word you used to say >> derogatory >> that >> thank you Susan for that word >> like do

052you so >> yeah know >> the definition of pro profane is relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical. >> What are we talking about? Well, >> well, the Supreme Court made a ruling on um um pornography. The Supreme Court justice said, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." >> Well, that's what gets us in trouble. >> I I'm unsure of people can use intimidating language in this writing. People can intimidate others from the podium as long as it doesn't disrupt the meeting cuz I have a problem with that. And I have a problem with that because our meetings have deteriorated and there have been times when I have been felt threatened and and intimidated. So to disrupt the meeting, James, I'm sorry if

053you find that humorous. I'm insulted by that behavior. I'm serious about this. You don't sit in that seat. You don't have the hairs on your neck stand up with some of the language that we've had to tolerate. And it's wrong. I wouldn't let kids in a classroom say it. I wouldn't let my own kids say it. And I certainly don't feel that it's right when they say it to any of you either. But I think we've taken some of these behaviors long enough. And if I'm afraid when I leave a meeting something wrong happened and the fact that I didn't have a crying hissy fit about it so that it disrupted the meeting, it was okay. So my reaction to the beha to the language determines whether it disrupts the meeting. I have a problem

054with that. Member Fortunado. >> My hand was up first. >> I understand. But I called on member Fortunado. >> Yeah. >> Um I was looking under it depends. Profane can be used in different ways. So as a verb to treat something sacred with abuse, irreverence or contempt. So I would I would assume like something sacred could in a meeting or place that we come together or to be based by wrong, unworthy or vulgar use. Um, I think there's a concern around the word, but I think if people know what profane is, they also know what profanity is. So, I know what profanity is. >> Remember McCorman? >> I know what profanity is. I don't know what profane language is necessarily. And like you got to dumb down for like there are people with college degrees

055coming in here and you every law and everything else is written at a sixth grade level. I don't I know what profane language is. I could list them right now if I wanted to but I'm not going to that Ronda Snider did that. I don't need to do that. But so now we have to define what sacred is like this is you got to find somewhere else. Okay. But I do need to share something that I've been struggling with for a while, Matthew, because you just opened that door, which is our meetings have deteriorated, but our meeting started in January with you opening the meeting going before we start our public comment session tonight. First of all, I would just like to welcome you for attending even though we may not agree with what you

056are about to say. and then you had somebody arrested. So, until you apologize publicly for that behavior, our meetings will continue like this because you're sitting there going, "It's deteriorated and it's it's James' fault because he says things and it's Katie's fault because she says things and it's everybody else's fault because they show up." It's not okay. So, if you want to address behaviors, you got to start with you, too. I think the context of the person being arrested was because he had violated the guidelines of the meeting three times. Had been asked to abide by the guidelines of the meeting three times, refused was asked to leave the meeting and did not leave the meeting. I did not have him arrested. He was arrested because he refused to follow the direction of the police.

057I did not have him arrested. >> Yes, you did. He waved the police over >> to ask the police to ask him to leave and he chose not to leave. At that point, it became a trespass. >> But but you what you were saying about our meetings deteriorating has now continued because now we have to pay between $800 and $1,000 for our attorney to come every time. We have to pay $400 for August to come every time. We have to pay for our security officer to to take time off from his day protecting students to come and protect us. I'm just >> I'm just saying a public apology would go a long way, but you don't have to because that's what we're doing. Students had your hand up. >> We have other members that would

058like to speak. I I'm I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your meeting, but we get back. >> We could address the policy. Member Parks >> because the has so much important information in it. I'm wondering if it should have, for example, speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments, use abusive language or profanity which could disrupt the orderly running of the meeting. And then the next bullet is threaten others or engage in behavior that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting. to just divide it up so that the disruption disruption of the orderly running of the meeting is is emphasized with each of those sections of the list, each of the parts of the list. >> I think that's what the attorneys was trying were trying to do >> and and

059just change profane language to profanity as a new noun. So I put it in to AI and put at the sixth grade level. It says speakers are not allowed to say mean or false things about others, use rude or inappropriate language, or act in ways that stop the meeting from running smoothly. Disruptive behavior includes things like talking over someone who is speaking or continuing to talk after time is up even after the chair remind you to stop. So I don't know if that's an example you want to look at. I'm looking at the MCD1 public policy comments and they there e says speakers are not permitted to share gossip, make defamatory comments or use abusive or offer language, >> which is the MSM, right? >> Right. >> I think the orderly line of the meeting

060is emphasized in there. You could add behaviors that >> language that behavior >> language or behaviors that >> dot dot. >> Sorry. >> Disrupt the orderly running of the meeting. >> I'm happy to do that. And I don't I don't think we have to have a polished version tonight. If I can get general sense of what you all want, we'll go back and redline it all up for your next policy. But I'm hoping Mill chair, I would just like to, you know, you see number nine, page two of the fire. So all pieces that you're talking about right now um as they go through and they give descriptions and they give notation down the bottom everything that you guys are saying is uh unconstitutional by by putting into policy. Just just to clarify that the

061fact that we have a letter from an organization called Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this is their interpretation of the law and just be I I don't necessarily agree that because they're stating it's unconstitutional that it is unconstitutional. Um my experience in reading this material has been that they showed some some unfamiliarity with main law because some of the things like the um regarding employees did not did not refer to main law and I don't think that I'm willing to go down the road that it's unconstitutional because this letter says that. That's just my personal opinion on this correspondence. Member McForman. >> So you have an organization who it's their job to tell you what is in the constitution and what is not and what is constitutional is what is not. It's why they

062exist and you're just going to say, "Well, you're not our attorney, so you don't know what you're talking about. That's not okay." Also, we had Ron Snder stand up with the blessing of her people that she works with, which I believe is the district attorney's office and came and said all of the things that are that we do that are unconstitutional. So, just because we don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean it's constitutional. Like, we should still be taking this seriously. I you cannot dismiss this letter just because you don't really like it. I I don't understand. I >> I'm not going to debate it with you, Member McCormack. Right. >> I said that was my feeling is that I didn't necessarily agree that it was unconstitutional. I didn't necessarily agree. So, I would appreciate

063that you don't twist my words, please. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Tracy. >> I don't know. >> Go ahead. I both attorney firms I I only verbally was able to talk with these guys quickly. Um both recognized fire did their homework and that they legitimize the letter that it was thoughtful, it was bright and that they um they had stuff to offer in front. I I think there was general agreement with a lot of their recommendations actually as as already seen. Um, in Maine there is the law that uh Shelby referenced that we're allowed to create standards of professional conduct. We're allowed to have reasonable conduct standards as well as time limits. It's in main statute. There's main law that governs confidentiality for students and employees. So, those are the things that like you're not like

064like I don't care who writes to us unless it's our attorneys and tells me something different. But both of our legal firms and you guys pay good money for me to call and for us to call and for you to get advice are saying that this is one area that although they see the like they're we should have rules that say we don't let kids swear in our school like we suspend them for doing that at the high school and like we're not going to be rude and disrespectful and use profanity in our public meetings. Now, if somebody comes in in Dallas and you say, "Please stop." Like, "Hey, we're trying to be trying to have a business meeting. Could you please not use those naughty words?" Like, we can say that. You can say

065that. You guys can have that rule. Now, if it gets challenged, we're you know, if it gets challenged, like if we try to have them arrested for saying the f- word, then Mrs. McCormick's right, fire's right, we probably would lose a first amendment argument with someone saying the f word. But it doesn't mean you should. Both attorney firms are saying keep those rules of stability in in decorum in your policy. Okay. So that's what I'm saying. That's what your attorneys are saying. >> And that's not dismissive of the fire letter. I'll just say that. >> Member Park. Well, uh to refer back to the two times that Mrs. Snder has attended our board business meetings. I I will ask her the next time I see her at KC County Pro court. I would like to

066see her license to practice law because if she's not a lawyer, then I am not going to rely on the things that she tells us because she did tell us that the night that Mr. Bodner uh began using a lot of profanity after she had given him permission from the Cohen versus California case. Uh that case is not about uh limited public forums and so that was that was inaccurate information and then Mr. responder took it and ran with it and said a couple of fbombs and um so I I cannot rely on her word unless unless I can find out that she's a an attorney of law in the state of Maine. >> So where are we at? I have four E1 suggestions >> to do them as bullets. >> Yeah. What what I

067was what if I go based on what number of parts just recommended we have. I'm going to try to put this together here. Mhm. >> Speakers are not permitted to make defamatory comments, use abusive or obscene language. Okay. Or profanity that disrupts the orderly running of the meeting. So, stop right there. Number four, >> who decides where is defamatory >> because it's that's that's subjective and if it's subjective there's viewpoint discrimination. >> The according to this policy the board chair would make that determination. Of course, as we've learned board has a mechanism to challenge the decision of the chair. So ultimately the chair and ultimately the board can make the determination on any one of these things. >> More based on what I heard you just say can't say obscene, abusive, profane that disrupts the

068orderly running of the meeting. But if they're standing at the podium during their three minutes and they decide to use the f-word as a comma, they're not disrupting the orderly running of the meeting. True or false? >> I I that was a point that I had tried to make earlier that I think they're two different things. I think there were actions that disrupt the meeting and I think then they're just language that you don't tolerate. I think that's what you're saying. if the language shouldn't have to be so bad it disrupts the meeting. >> I think I think what our attorneys are saying is if you're going to throw a red card at someone. >> How about a yellow card? >> A yellow card. Caution like a do not do that. Um, it would have

069to lead whatever they're doing, whether it's defamatory or abusive or obscene or profane, it would have to lead us to be deteriorating the function your government business that's going on. I I would like some guidance on that before we decide on that because I don't I I don't before all of none of these policies before said that that the language had to disrupt the meeting. This is the first time I'm hearing that things have to be so bad they disrupt the meeting. I mean, if someone is up there dropping the fbomb and no one's reacting, but we don't like it, but it's not disrupting the meeting and we let it go on, is that okay? Because I don't think it is. I mean, I'm thinking you can if someone's using any of those things that

070you said they shouldn't, you can warn them. you know the question if you're warning people and then warning them a second time and on the third time they're continuing to disrespect the rules then you could ask them to separate from >> okay so you're saying if the rule is you can't use naughty language and I don't mean that that way I mean any of those other words with it we have a rule that you can't use where's the disrupting the meeting how can as the chair I'm sitting there and I I I know sometimes I'm kind of black and white on interpreting this stuff. >> But if it says you have to disrupt the meeting, I can't even throw the yellow card because they haven't disrupted the meeting. I need to be able to say

071you're violating the guideline and the guideline has to be you can't say vulgar words or you can't say profanity. Then I throw a thing and the ultimate red card is because not because you've done profanity, it's because you've been warned not to and now you've done it three times and you've disregarded the guidelines. I think what our attorneys have said to that is that once if a person continues to obstruct the business meetings rules then they now become disrupt >> and that's disrupted the meeting. >> They become disordered. >> So you're saying >> so >> two yellow flags, two yellow cards start you on disruption because I have to say it. The question though is and I'm not I don't want to speak for Mrs. McCormick, but the question is what constitutes you know if

072I if I say the word hell is that a swear word or is another word a swear word? Um so I I think the question mark becomes at what point do we consider profanity profanity >> or do you just let the adults be the adults in the room? Like you're talking about free speech. It's not okay. We're gonna >> It won't be me. Never mind. >> I think I think if you've got a a general understanding of E, we can ask the inter attorneys to interpret that. >> Okay. So, send it. >> I I I don't I mean, >> okay. >> What we're going to do before this goes anywhere, whatever the draft is that we come up with, >> it's going to come back. >> It's going to go to the attorneys before it

073goes to the >> policy committee. Member Parks. two things. Um the um are we merely talking about the members of the board or are we talking about disruption of the meeting for everyone in the room? >> This is a public comment policy. So you're you're speaking about this is this is in relationship really to the public comment portion of your audience >> in the room. I think the determinate the chair is making the determination on this. >> Okay. All right. And then I would like to say I looked up the meaning for defamatory. It is about remarks and writing. It damages the good reputation of someone and it and can be slanderous or liless. And then another part another part of the definition talks about truth statements that are untrue. It's a a word that

074used to describe statements that are untrue, slanderous or lifeless. So I know that member or has used that first section, the untrue section of the definition of defamatory in a business meeting. Can I just remind you not to make negative comments about other board members? >> I was just stating a fact. >> Careful. >> Okay. I've looked it up so many times because of that incident. >> Okay. But that's what defamatory means in my phone. >> Other comments on section E. Have you got enough direction? >> I think so. >> See what happens because we got we got a wax. Yeah. I do have a question that relates to E. >> Yes. >> Um, threatens others. Is that in the language that you're >> threatens others or engage in behavior? >> So, what does threatening

075others mean? >> Threatening language is actually not protected speech. >> But what are we talking about? I'm going to take your board seat or I'm going to >> do bodily harm. Like, >> it's all perception. Because when it comes to like harassment or like any of those things, it's the perception of the person. They feel threatened by what you said. >> And the threshold for that is pretty >> right. It's not pretty. >> Pretty high. I mean, you got to >> but my threshold is going to be different than somebody else's threshold. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, the the legal threshold for it to be prosecuted is pretty high. >> So, we adding all these words to the glossery that we're giving out with our policy. I have to ask our attorneys about Okay.

076>> Okay. >> I just say neither attorney firm is saying eliminate your rules and have freaking free-for-all. Nobody said that. And so I I think that the that's the balance we're trying to strike here is is setting reasonable rules of conduct that everybody can mostly agree to uh without eliminating people's real free speech right to speak their minds during that three minutes. Letter F. All speakers are to address the chair and direct questions or comments to particular board members or the superintendent only with the approval of the chair. Requests for information and concerns that require further research may be referred to the superintendent to be addressed at a later time. That is there's no legal requirement for that, but that is part of Robert's rules anyway is to manage your meeting through the chair. So,

077I don't think fire addressed that and neither did um our attorneys change there. >> Oh, member McCoick. I'm sorry. >> I was reading the next one. >> So, all members are to address the chair and direct question or comments to particular board members or the superintendent only with the approval of the chair. Which is this current? But you tell them they you don't allow questions. >> When they ask you a question, you tell them we don't allow questions. >> We we can't answer questions. >> We don't answer questions. >> Questions. >> They ask questions all the time, but we don't answer them. >> You're supposed to not engage unless it's something that we ask for clarification. We can ask for clarification of a member of the public, but the board's not really entitled to answer

078questions of the public, >> right? But there have been instances where we do answer questions like during budget and things like that when that lady came, blonde lady with the banks, I don't remember her name. And that went on for a while. So again, our policy already says some of the things that it needs to say. It's just the subjective and objective issues. Correct. Not correct. Because we do allow it sometimes. Like if we like what they're saying and they want to tell us we're pretty, we're like, "Okay, yeah, do that." But if if not, then we're like, "Oh, nope. Sorry. We don't." And that's the strong arming part that people don't appreciate. >> You have a recommendation to make a change. >> Strike it if you're not going to take questions or say something

079about we'll collect your questions and get back to you. but then somebody would actually have to get back to them. >> There have been times when somebody's asked something and I've looked at the superintendent and said, "Can we follow up with that or can we look into that?" So, there has been that referral that happens. >> So, what was the instance and did we get back to them? >> I I don't remember. I don't remember. I remember something coming up and saying, "Can we'll look into that?" >> um >> member Fortunado. >> Thank you. It was the I think it was questions regarding what was happening with the health suit and there was questions about what was being there was a rumor that you were saying things were or a concern that there was things

080being done that weren't and you had to clarify. >> I remember a couple issues. One was that more recently bus stop issues. There have been a handful of things that I've >> had to research after a meeting. >> Right. But part of the purpose of that is not playing is not being in a situation where people are playing gotcha where questions are being asked that we don't have the answers to and it's it's an intentional putting somebody on the spot and it's and some of the questions that they've asked quite frankly don't have are rhetorical questions. >> Should we add to Mrs. McCormack's point? Should we add a statement that simply says questions may or may not be able to be answered at the time they're asked? >> So, you're going to put me in

081a position where they're now going to say to me, "So, is this one of your questions that can enhance?" I don't, you know, I'm I'm anticipating I'm a little gunshy sitting up there. >> My my concern, frankly, is that the board's typically not equipped to answer a day-to-day question. So when a parent or someone comes up and says, "Why is the hallway blue at Cody High School?" I mean, I might have to go research that answer myself. You sure, most of you will probably have to as well. So there's a difficulty in the assumption that we're going to be able to answer a question from >> member. Um, so again, I don't think that we have to commit to answering questions, but if it's going to be in there, then we have to come up

082with a mechanism. And previously I have asked if the minutes could capture at least who was the public that was speaking and maybe like uh Susan Parks came to speak to us about dogs in the classroom and had a question about do we check their records, vet records, shot records or something and we might not be able because we didn't have the right principal in the room to say the answer. So, somebody has to capture that and get back to Susan Parks and let her know the answer. It would be what I think the right thing to do is, but we're not currently doing that by the sounds of it. Sometimes we say that's a question for you to check with the building principal. Sometimes we do redirect them when it's something that's has an

083easy answer to it which would have been in that in the instance that you gave would have been the direction that that's a question for business principle I would suggest that you follow up with that assistant superintendent tippido it's a comment period it's not a question and answer period >> then why does it say it is my point >> that's that's where I'm going with Like what if if that if it's a common period, you're right. Like why would we have it? Correct. Like strike it. I don't know. I'm just asking. >> Member Damboy, >> I suggest we strike it. If we're not going to answer questions or take questions, just strike it. >> Do you want to just strike the word questions and leave comments in there? Mhm. >> Because requests for information or

084concerns could happen. >> You know, I need to know more about this bus stop and then you would direct somebody would direct me to go look into the bus stop. >> What are you taking? What are you suggesting? >> So in F the first sentence questions so that so all speakers are to address the chair in direct comments. >> Okay. You >> just take out questions. Would you folks anybody agree to that? Can you repeat again? >> It would the first sentence would read. All speakers are to address the chair and direct comments to particular board members of the superintendent or approval of the chair request for information concerns that require further research may be referred to the superintendent to address that time at a later time. >> So, can I just play that out?

085>> Sure. >> So, they get up there and they say, "I have a question for Katie McCormick. I want to know da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d and now this leaves you open to whether or not you're going to allow them to ask Ken Cormack a question and what would be your reason for saying yes or no I guess is I this one puts you in a spot Muffy I'm surprised it hasn't come up before >> something I know that speakers I know that the point of this is to say all speakers are to address the chair and your

086comments go to the chair. That's the point, right? This this whole part about direct questions and comments and particular board members or the superintendent, you don't want you don't my understanding is our practice has been not to allow the public members to come up there and address singular people or the superintendent. Correct. >> So I think you just all speakers are to address the chair period. I don't know something, but I feel like it's it's in here in other places already. So, I don't know why we have f at all on if I'm being honest. However, the the idea that we're going to future research things is nice to think that that does happen. I just have never heard of it actually happening. Like I you've never come to us and said, "Oh, hey, remember

087that person who asked a question about whatever? This is the answer I wanted to share with all of you." I don't I haven't I don't know that I've heard that before. >> Actually, it happened with the bus stops. >> What? >> Mike looked into the problem with the bus stops. >> I think assistant superintendent Tibido was before you. >> Isn't there something in Robert's rules about governing bodies about the whole question back and forth that you're not like you can't have that questions going back and forth? And the other part is is that some of the like if I'm sitting at those meetings I am writing down those questions and I try to address that in my next like report like the report up that we have or >> if it's super if it's appropriate

088>> not everything is appropriate for you folks. I'm just I you know I got 10 more years to deal with to do this. Uh most of what we deal with is my issue to deal with and you oversee me. That's how this works. And so when I get my self bristling, it's because people come out and they haven't followed the chamber of command going back to the grocery store. I'm glad they go to you in the grocery store, but your response should be go to have you set top of the I can't tell you how many emails I get and I'll the first one usually is have you spoken to the principal? And if they haven't, then that's what I I don't even entertain it. I might say thank you, you're it's important to me

089because it is important to me, but there's a chain of command that I have to honor. So, I'm not trying to get any >> Can I just ask is there a problem with F as it is? >> Is there a problem because I think we're looking for a problem that's not there. >> I'm okay if you want to address if you want to say all speakers are to address the chair. Period. I think Mrs. McCormick said this. Strike everything down to requests and then it's all speakers address the chair and then request for information or concerns that require further research may be referred to the superintendent to be addressed at a later time >> and then that takes out the whole thing you're arguing about. I'm fine with I mean I think that's okay. >>

090Member Reynolds. >> Yeah, thank you. Um I I wouldn't even mind combining this with E just due to the what it incorporates and it also gives them the directive in E about the some of the things you're saying also all comments are to be directed to the just so that way it eliminates that and makes it all one thing done. >> Member Parks. >> Well I I don't agree with with that suggestion. Uh but I did have another suggestion for F. I I agree with taking out which just all speakers are to address the chair. But there are some other things that I would like to add and I've had my list for other things that they would address to the chair as in may I approach the days. May I hand out these white

091papers to the board members and to see because it has not been cleared. >> Do we want to include that here? >> Members of the public, >> you could. Yeah. >> And to follow up on Susan's comment, nobody should, according to Robert's rules of order, nobody should be passing out anything to board members without permission. And if you've seen people, they've asked me permission. Like I think it was who passed it out by >> Was that did you pass stuff out? You asked, somebody did. Maybe Teresa asked or somebody asked, "Can I pass this out?" And that was with the permission of the chair. They passed that out. But nobody should be approaching the d the deas the das however you pronounce it without the permission of the chair. >> So not approach not hand

092out I'll rephrase this but what else? >> Member McCormack. >> What would be a reason that you would say no? Because I don't want you Muffy in a position where you have to say no to somebody and you're going to say yes to the next person because then it becomes misconstrued. So, when that lady asked, "Can I pass out a freaking post-it?" You told her, "No, a postit." You didn't know what she was going to do with it. >> I had a pretty good idea, Katie. >> Well, then that's viewpoint discrimination, Muffy. You shut her down the same way you shut down my video. I'm trying to help you get out of these problems. I So, you can say, "This is searching for a problem." Yeah, it's right there. I didn't see it before. I'm

093trying to help you. I get that you don't think that that's true, but that's what I'm trying to do is playing out these scenarios for you because I don't want to leave this board like this. This is terrible, but it's never going to change by clamping down on these people, which is what you need to understand, but we're not meeting it. Oh, >> to be in the recommendation on what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed. >> I just think it's too vague to say without the permission of the chair because sure, pass it out with whatever, but unless you're going to take a time out and go in another room and read what they have to say or whatever, read a blank postit, how can you say no? Sure. The answer should always

094be yes. Would you like to hand something to us? Sure. >> I would disagree with you, Katie, saying the answer should always be should always be no. >> Why? So, you want to say don't pass out anything? Don't approach Das. Don't ever Things are Things are not like they used to be, Katie. I don't know if they're passing out something that's dangerous. I don't know that. The lady asked if she could hand out blank blue Post-it notes, and you told her no. There was I'm not getting into it. >> I'm not >> member member parks. Is this on is this still on the same item? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um the woman who wanted to pass out post-it notes to us and to the entire audience was engaging in an activity. And I don't believe

095that a public comment period is an activity period. >> Well, then you should add that to the rules. >> You just interrupted me. >> Yes. >> Why? >> Susan, just continue, please. >> It was an activity. I believe that the the property of the public commenter is the podium and that's all. Thank you. >> Member McCormack, >> can we write down number M, no activities during public comment period? Because we really are, guys, they're adults and they're staying there and they have three minutes. If they want to play a recording, if they want to hand out a piece of paper, they should be able to do that. I get that you're not going to like it, but >> what I think it's time to ask for feedback from the rest of the board members. I

096think we're beating a dead horse here. Mayor Pel, member Pel, >> how which one? >> I don't do we need to have more specific information on that. >> No. >> Do you want to include something that says that people cannot approach or pass out stuff without the permission of the chair? >> Yep. >> Clarks, I think I know where you stand. Fortunado Dan boy. >> I don't think that there should be anything additional added. And if we're going to add, I hate to say this, but we shouldn't have allowed the the school Lincoln school to pass stuff out. If we're not going to allow anybody else to pass stuff out, Lincoln shouldn't have been able to pass stuff out either. >> They did ask permission. >> So, >> there should be if we're going to

097say we're not going to allow everybody to do it, nobody should do it. >> One or the other. It's one or the other. Member Reynolds. >> Well, first off, I do want to say thank you to whoever gave us the Robert Rose of order. That was nice. I brought that home and >> that was Bill Clark. >> Okay, that was nice. You don't have to read that. I appreciated that somebody's It is >> I'm going to thank him at the next meeting. >> Okay. I didn't I hadn't known >> it is recognizing like I'm sure it was society today. I understand the hesitation protecting people, things like that. But if you limit one, we have to limit it all. Or we that's the hard part. I don't that's like if we say yes, we have

098to say yes. Say no. You know what I mean? I don't know. >> Member or >> it's either yes or no. Either do it for everybody or don't do it for nobody. >> I I'll give you my opinion. My opinion is we leave it the way it is. I think it would have been too bad to not be able to accept the invitations from the students who wanted to pass them out by by our student representative. I think that was or the teacher. I can't remember who was passing those out. I think it's unfortunate that there can't be some discretion. I'm sorry, but there are just times when you just you're the board chair for a reason. You know, that's what my job is is to make those decisions. >> I don't I don't expect

099that everybody will like all of these all of the decisions. Some of you will like some of them. Some of you won't like some of them and and that's the way it is. Number four, our last comment. >> My question was around if people had things to share and wanted to pass them out, could we ask them to leave them on the table where they sign in and they're available to take if interested. >> Okay. Like an option >> sim similar to the where the agendas are and the signup sheet is they can leave them on the table. >> I think it's a great idea. So, how I picture this in my head working out, if you have something you'd like to leave for the board, please leave it on the table, but I have

100ideas that the public will also take it on the way out and and you might not get something that was intended. You know, the the logistics of it. That was our last comment. >> Yeah, the um it's a workshop. Muffy, stop. This is not okay. >> We're workshopping this. I'm trying to help you with a suggestion of putting a basket near Shelly for the items that people want to share. That's how the legislative body does it. There's a podium and right beside him is a basket. I watched it yesterday for something. There's a basket right beside the podium where the people set their stuff down and then the aid comes and gets it and hands it out. You can't just shut down what I have to say. It's not okay. Muffy >> member McCorm. That's

101her name. Member. >> Yes. Member McCorm. >> I'm sorry. Okay. And it's it's Madam Chair, please. I mean, you guys have asked me to help you with your combat. So, all right. Are we all set to move on to G? >> Go. Let's let's go move on to G and see what happens when you draft it up. >> Okay. Speech is personally direct, excuse me, speech that is a personal excuse me speech that is a personally directed attack on a person or group of people based on the race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion or age is likely to provoke incite violence or imminent flawless action will not per minute during public comment. >> Assistant superintendent to why couldn't that replace E? >> Because I think when what

102we were adding to E was what triggered the problem. >> I know. I'm just saying instead of instead of using E, just use G. >> Oh, E, not F. >> Oh. Oh. Because what is about discrimination? G specifically is about disc. >> But we're talking about abusive, obscene, or vulvanity or any of that. That's where this really is. May or may not be >> discriminatory from dropping fomb. You mean >> correct? Or I could be threatening you not based on me. >> Okay with G. >> Okay. H um this just I think this is just an ad with the speaker. Members of the board and superintendent may ask questions of any person who address the board but are expected to refrain from arguing or debating issues with the speaker. Questions must be addressed to the

103chair. >> Okay. >> So, member McCormack, >> please wait to be recognized. Member McCormack. So, we had an instance where uh all this says is and I'll go back to both of these. So, one says you can hand out stuff with the permission of the chair. The other one says questions must be addressed through the chair. That means all I have to do is raise my hand and let you know that I have a question. Correct or not correct? >> This is from Are you talking about you as a board member or as a member of the >> board member? Um, you might as board member might have a question for the member of the audience speaking. >> Yes. You'd be recognized by the chair >> and then I asked my question >> based on

104this. Yes. >> Through the chair. >> Correct. >> But you you say your question to me. >> No, I don't. You just recognize me. No, I don't. I don't have to say. No, because that's what we did last time and that's not how it goes. I don't have to ask you permission for every single syllable that's about to come out of my mouth because I am a human being and a grown-up and I don't have to do that. What I do have to do is raise my hand. Great for you to say, please. >> Sure, madam chair, please. What I do have to do, Madam Chair, is raise my hand so that you turn to me and say, member McCormack, and I say, I have a question for the speaker. And then you either allow

105it or you don't. I don't have to tell you what my and write it in cursive with perfect penmanship. This is not what this is. So either so somebody can hand something to the board with your permission but it is a yes or a no. And like with this this is a did I wait and get my hand raised and did you say my name or not. This is not about do you approve of my question. It is not that. So don't the through the chair does not mean does m does madame chair love what Katie is what member McCormack is about to say. Yes or no? Oh, you're never going to like what I have to say. I think we've established that. However, you don't get to ask me what my question is in

106order for that. That's >> my interpretation of this as the chair is that the chair has to determine if the question is appropriate. >> So, >> that's what that's what that's my interpretation regarding Robert's rules of order that the chair determines if a question is appropriate. >> I didn't ask for these rules. I'm just following them. >> Which rules? Robert's rules or these rules both >> member for so according to Robert's rules questions must be addressed through the chair means that all communication including answers to questions must be directed to the presiding officer not other members of the group when the member is speaking they should look at and address their commerce to the chair and when the question is asked the response should be given to the chair often with starting with a phrase

107like through the chair or madam chair >> right that's that's board member to board member that's not board member to That's I'm reading what the comment is in F and that is what I'm looking at. >> Okay. Well, could you write that down for Peter to please look into >> because I thought the point of this was to alleviate you having to make discretional on the-fly decisions that would then be appealed. I thought that was the goal of us handling this is doing it together. Yes or no? >> I don't think it's a yes or no question. Not to me. I think it I think it needs more than a yes or no answer. Huh? I'll respond to your question this way. I don't think the intent of tonight's activity is to make my life

108easier. Nope. I do not think that's why we're here tonight. I think we're here tonight to develop some guidelines that everybody understands that makes our meetings more civil so I don't have people saying that they're afraid to come to our board meetings. I don't like having members of the audience say to me that they were intimidated by speakers. I don't think that's right. So I'm looking for some guidance and some guidelines that has that promotes civil discourse rather than confrontation. That's what I was hoping to get. And I understand that my job for as the chair requires me to make some decisions that may or may not be prop be popular. I accept that. I understand that. But I can only go with what I know. I can only go with my own experiences. I

109can only go by what I've read in Robert's Rules of Order. Those are the resources that I have. I can't be who I'm not. I I don't know how you do that. I have certainly made an attempt in these past few meetings to be a little bit not as pushy. I've intentionally tried to address those concerns and I will continue to address those concerns. On the other hand, the expectation is that all board members would be trying to make our meetings more civil. That's my answer to your question. All right. Are >> we moving on? >> We're moving on. We're moving on. >> I have a different question. >> Member McCormack, I if if this continues, I'm going to have to go to the rule that everybody gets two chances to talk on on an

110item just so that we can get through this tonight. >> Madam McCormack, I mean chair. >> No, I like Madame McCormick better. Madam >> um so I feel like there are times when we say it's policy or there were times when you say we all say I read that in Robert's rules or let me pull out my phone real quick and see what Robert's rules says. So, how aside from Bill Clardy giving us all a copy of Robert's rules, are we all supposed to go on the same Robert's rules training if only two people or three people in the room have have attended a Robert's rules training or four people because I think Susan did it by herself. But I mean, how are you holding everybody to Robert's rules if you haven't shared Robert's rules

111with everybody else? >> Everybody's got a copy >> now. Yeah. I I I bought my own copy. Everybody was free to do that. If you if you want to learn Robert's rules, have that. And Susan, I think, can answer that. What do you have a plan in January for Robert's rules? >> Yes, we're having a whole day session and the morning session. It's about Robert's rules by a parliamentary expert named Carl Peace. So that's our attempt to do that. >> Okay. But I feel like in the meantime, until everybody has the same training, we should put a moratorum on. Well, I saw it in Robert's rules, so that's what we're doing. Like until everybody in the room is trained together. I feel like Robert's rules is just kind of this thing that we just invoke,

112but nobody can really prove it. Not really, unless we all pull out our phones real quick. I That is an opinion, and that is not popular, I'm sure. And and and just to clarify, I think it's in Robert's rules of order or it's in our policy, I don't remember which which that the that the parliamentarian advises the chair and the chair then has the choice to whether unless to listen to what the parliamentarian suggests on Robert's rules. >> It's still it's still a decision of the chair on whether to accept what the recommendation is regarding the interpretation of Robert's rules or not. The board's choice is if you don't like my interpretation of Robert's rules of order, you can overrule me as a board. >> You have that option. That's how that's how you do

113that. >> But I can I did do that this summer and you said, "I don't even know what this is." Remember the Apple fun? >> I do not. Okay. I'm not with that. Let's move on. >> No. No. I'm sorry. We're moving on. I letter I >> during public comment members of the public may not make a complaint or raise allegations regarding particular student. Members of the public also may not comment on personnel matters such as hiring promotion, promotion, evaluation, discipline, investigation or dismissal of the district employee, complaining, investigation or hearing of charges regarding district employee or the personal history, general character or conduct of the district employee during the public comment and public may not comment about such matters matters either in a negative or positive manner. Complaints regarding students or employee matter should

114be directed to the superintendent and other appropriate administrator outside of the board meeting so that they can be addressed through established policies and procedures. And this came from our executive session law. Also, title 20A section 6101 contains description of employee records that are protected and must be kept confidential. So that's basically what you're seeing here is that there's a these are the things that would be not protected under the first amendment to be spoken about publicly in >> member is it similar to the earlier question when it comes to the personnel like if you if it wasn't a teacher sleeping but it was a teacher being awesome could a parent come and say the teachers are awesome as long as they don't name which teacher. So is that kind so because you know negative posit

115like I'm down to hear you know like stuff the school district needs to improve on down to hear the stuff that's really going well right like I want >> all in general >> in general and so that's the idea is that when you add insert the negative positive it's to get it's to make sure we're covering our viewpoint discrimination but if for instance a parent was to come up and act start to say a name in a complimentary Three way scenario would be no name. You would stop and say no names. >> Please don't no personel matters individual. >> And then they could say okay I just wanted to say that it's going well or that the classroom teachers are doing a good job whatever or not a good job. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay.

116Okay, >> this is the greatest divergent, the disagreement between our attorneys and the firework is really this principle where I think they've tried to push a case that says anybody can come out and talk about any individual employee saying not me. So that's and that's fine. I mean, that's that's that's the biggest disagreement between our the two legal firms and the fire letter. >> Okay. Member, >> so that wouldn't this be an area where you would refer them to policy K? >> Yes. Yes. I was just looking to see if it was >> I mean we could add a line there. I mean it does say through established policies and procedures you could say >> such as one person. >> So there's the teacher contract which has agreements procedure that they that we would be

117held to with our p personnel. Um and of course there's a confidentiality. That's why you have the executive session when you're talking about students. Basically anything you have to go into executive session for those six reasons are the things protected that we can't talk about public session otherwise it would be a free-for-all be an open public forum at that point those are the things that >> okay so are you suggesting suggesting we should add policies to add >> or just or just leave it >> establish policies I think established policies covers Okay, moving on to J. The new J is in order to make efficient use of time. The board discourages duplication or repetition of comments to the board. The board requests that groups or organizations be represented by designated spokespersons. >> I have not

118enforced this. >> I don't know how and full disclosure. >> Remember McCormack? >> I think you strike the first sentence and leave the second sentence because you can't be like, "Oh, we already heard you. We already we already know you're on that team." So, nope, you can't talk. You can't do that. But you can ask that if they are a group or an organization to have a designated spokesperson. Are we in agreement to scratch the first sentence? >> Any problem with that? Scratching the first sentence. I >> got one. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Wearing down. >> Okay. The chair has the authority to stop any presentation that violates these guidelines or the privacy rights of others. member McCormick. >> So, does that mean that the board members that are offended by something that

119somebody says can't call point of order? >> Well, anybody at any time can call and then again it's up to the chair to determine whether the order of the meeting was viable. >> So, any So, instead of the chair, is it any board member has the authority to stop a prescription? Because we would, right? when the voter stops everything. >> Technically, >> a point of order might call for a vote. So, just a point of order doesn't necessarily stop anything. >> Correct. >> But in Robert's rules of order, a point of order could be called >> their time has to be stopped. >> Time would be stopped. You would make a judgment on whether the there was a order of the meeting was violated. If you determine it wasn't, it would carry. And unless people

120disagreed with the chair's decision, then you could appeal the decision to the chair. So moving to that type construct. >> Member Park says it. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Member Parks. >> Um, so yes, there have been certain members who have members of the board who have called points of order, but it hasn't been the cycle has not been completed in some of our board meetings. For example, I called a point of order when um the folks were disroing in the middle section of the audience of the council chambers and that wasn't follow through. >> So when a point of order is called, I can make a decision, right? And I made the decision not to stop it. >> But you didn't I mean wouldn't that have to be stated? >> Probably. But at the moment,

121Susan, that was a little >> I was beyond being able to do that. >> And then Stacy, well, another board member called a point of order last week when one of the speakers was getting into one of the audience members and former speakers personal space. >> I believe I signaled for the police at that moment in recognition of that. I think it would be good to have a statement from you to to close to have some closure on on the calling of a point. Here here's the problem. Sometimes it was more important to a judge the is to deal with the issue that was happening with the individual at that time than it was to make Robert's rules of order to say point of order and then deal with that. Well, that harassment continued. I

122wanted to stop what was happening first. That was my choice on that one. I thought in my decision and right or wrong, that was my decision to protect the person first. And that's one of those instances as the chair, you make those calls. McCormick. >> It's going to sound argumentative, but to Susan's point, when people have called point of order, you don't stop and ask them what their point is, you you proceed as though you assume you know what it is, and you you say, "We've asked that, so I know exactly what Susan is referring to." Um, and if you watch it back, maybe that could be a reflection. I don't know what happened. >> Okay. Well, so when somebody says point of order, you're are they not supposed to ask what the order is?

123>> I am. >> Let's not rules of orders again. >> I agree. >> I did not address it at the time. I agree. I did not and I'm not I'm not getting in the middle of this, but I >> there's no this that's the thing. I said it's going to sound argumentative, but >> that's okay. I'm what I'm what I'm trying to share is um procedurally it's probably a good idea for as we as we get into the next few meetings to if someone calls the point of order if it's during public comment to say please stop the person's time let's take a brief recess as a board and let's exam and it's going to like pump the brakes and it might take it's going to take a lot of time but then we can

124procedurally go through what is the point of order and then you know member Dan Boyise could you please tell us what your your point of order you challenged this question please tell what's the problem because a point of order means procedurally parliamentary procedure was violated some member viewed parliamentary procedure or a rule of the meeting was violated that's why you call a point of order right it was a distraction someone swore someone whatever it because someone's making a judgment that maybe the the chair didn't see. So my suggestion would be if it's during public comment, please stop the person's time. Sir, ma'am, we'll give you your time back. Let the board please review what the pro whatever the problem is, the point of order. Someone calls for a recess and then you review what that

125point. >> You shouldn't be talking about your point of order in a recess. >> Well, no. I mean, you you you could >> take a time you could take you could just suspending the speaker. What what I'm saying is so you're stopping the meeting to figure out what's going on, right? >> And then just enough time to figure out what's going on here. And the other thing I learned during recess is we should stay in our seats. In the past, we've left and maybe gone full, you know, removed ourselves from whatever the situation was. In a parliamentary procedure, the membership should stay in seats. then you can stand or you could deliberate freely but you should stay in your position. Um, so I'm again and then if this is an issue during the meeting with

126between membership, you should do the same thing. You know, let's if someone calls a point of order, slow it right down unless it's a quick jet. And again, this is the board chair makes ultimately makes that judgment. That's just my recommendation that you would procedurally slow yourselves down to say, okay, stop. What's going on? Why was this point of order called? Can we deal with the point of order? And then this once you've once you've removed the point of order, you're either making a determination to or not. Then if they don't like your determination, that can be appealed. But there's a process for that. So I'm just I'm just thinking that that might be and then once the point of order is clear, then you resume wherever you are at >> and and just remember

127to make a point of order, it has to be a violation of of parliamentary procedure >> or one of your rules or violation of policy or law. >> Right? So, one of the problems that I'm facing and I don't know what to do about it is when a speaker is speaking and there has been a violation or a point of order called or whatever. I don't know what to do when the speaker won't stop speaking. Well, the our attorneys have said that we we have the right to say, you know, to warn them, warn them again, and then a third time you call school security over our our police to say, "Please remove yourself from the podium." Because again, the the problem is you're the issue is you're going from you you're wanting you're wanting

128this person you're give you're giving the freedom for this person to speak for but to take that back away to take that back away from them they have to clearly have obstructed your rules and that would be where you're you know and then if if you made a judgment to have someone removed and the rest of the board disagree with your judgment then the board can appeal your decision in that moment even in relationship to the speaker or if it's during the rest of your meeting agenda the rest of the you folks >> m point being that in order for you for in order for your decision to be appealed in order for you to make a judgment on the point of order you have to hear what the point of order So I think

129that's where we're all at. Correct. >> I understand that. >> So are we making any changes to K? Okay. and L person persons who disrupt the meeting may be asked to leave and the chair may request law enforcement assistance as necessary to restore order. >> Would you speak to the discussions that you had with the attorneys regarding the difference in removing members of the audience versus moving the speaker at the podium? So, uh, our understanding for, um, removing someone from a me meeting would mean that they would have to clearly violate these rules, either the laws of Maine, the policies, or the rules of public participation. It's harder to remove someone during public participation because it's even though we have a limited public forum, this is their they have their constitutional right to speak for

130their three minutes during that time. So really, it's our job to listen to what they have to say for that three minutes. And so again, >> as long as they don't violate guidelines, >> if they if they violate the guidelines and they have multiple warnings from both us andor, you know, law enforcement, then they could be and then they still don't comply, then they could be asked to to leave the meeting. And so that's that's one thing during audience when when a member of the audience and there two different things during public participation they're three minutes they're speaking there's a there are a lot more protection for that individual speaking a member of the audience who's simply watching your government business they actually have less protections they have the right to be there to public

131meeting but they don't have the right to disrupt government business your your your business. So that's where it gets a little bit a little more there's a little more you have a little more latitude if someone were to be continue to be disruptive to have someone it would be more it it would be easier to have someone removed if they're constantly disruptive from an audience as opposed to their three minutes speaking their right to speak. Does that sound about right? Yes, but I'll speak there in a minute. Assistant Superintendent Tibido. >> So, if somebody's in the audience making comments while people are speaking or business is going on or facial expressions or any of that, >> who then does the board chair have to say that person is disrupting the business meeting? So, it has

132to be board chair. It could be anybody on the board. >> Gentleman with the beard with the blue shirt. Well, >> I mean, that's what the the board chair because she doesn't know his name. would say gentleman with a beard. >> She be the only one who said that. >> Yes. >> Are actually a board member could call the point of order. >> Yes. >> That's why I have a hand. That's why I was going to say yes. So it would be >> the chair's responsibility to share that. But it would be somebody if somebody on the board were to have a descriptive point of order disruptive. >> So and so is being disruptive. Could you speak to them and I would give them a warning? >> Yes or no? Right. using and I also

133agree that you using I'm not I'm understanding you're probably using wordage that was said to you because using the word disruptive is legally binding for the >> first amendment. What what's what's happening again is we have rules that you're trying to create that are fair standards of conduct. If those rules are those rules are violated continually, then you're stuck obstructing government business or you're becoming disorderly and and even and then after you've been asked by the pres presiding officer to leave and you don't leave then now you're trespassing. So there are conditions where you know we could ask someone to be to leave. You're not trying to get somebody arrested, but there are situations where, and again, the hope would be that people could come in and say what they have to say and go

134home. Um, any >> member Pella? >> Yeah. last I think last couple meetings I've noticed um I'm very distracted by what's going on in the backs of the room because >> we have so many people now that kind of walk out walk back in go and talk to someone at the corner then go and talk to someone over here then come back then go here like I I want to know like is that can we can we invoke more like hey point of order to just kind of get everybody sitting and paying attention to the meeting that I think they're there for to know what we're doing versus like it feels almost like they're organizing their own thing while our meeting is happening and that is distracting to me and I don't know what it

135makes me a worse board member because I can't focus on like what all businesses because there's constant movement and that might be a me problem but I'm just trying to understand how we can get to a point where it's a little bit more orderly in the sense that people that are there in the meeting are actually there to listen to the meeting. >> Yes, we have >> in conversations with an attorney. It's my understanding that if any of you feel distracted, you can call a point of order, the person will be spoken to. >> Okay, >> that's their yellow card. They'll get a second yellow card and part of the second yellow card will be if I have to speak to you again on the third violation, you will be asked to leave the meeting.

136>> Okay? Likewise, if people are asked to leave the meeting and are in the hallway and are still disruptive in the hallway, we can ask that they leave the building. Gotcha. Okay. >> So, that's right. I I >> That was my understanding of it. >> Member Parks. >> I I keep I'm distracted by the comingings and goings also the movement to film people like podium. Uh people leave their chairs to film a person at the podium. um which I find distracting and also um a problem. The the second thing I'd like to say which for me is the ele one of the elephants in the room is that at the at the last couple of meetings there was uh one person who um one public commenter who um let me just get my thoughts together

137because my brain is tight. um who was given five yellow cards. And then and there was an audience member and then the police officer came forward and stood in front of that person and said, "You need to go to the overflow room on the first floor." And the person who had gotten the five yellow cards did not move. and a police officer left in front of that person. I found that to be a big problem because it said to that person, "These yellow cards mean nothing. You can get as many as you want and nothing's going to happen." And that that's not right. That was disrupting the meeting and nothing was done. even though the chair gave several times with those yellow cards. So if if the police are going to be there, I expect

138them to do something. >> Well, or not come at all. Well, we we would want we I want them there because we want people to be able to feel safe going to and from their vehicles um and to help us maintain order. The feelings that we might have or the discomfort that people might have are not it's not right. it. We are public officials and it's uncomfortable and some of the the stuff that we've heard is uncomfortable, but we I am understanding from the district attorney's office that we haven't seen behavior that's chargeable or arrestable uh at this point. So that's that's the that's the answer whether we like that or >> but I don't think that's your question, Mike. No, >> I think her question is >> when someone has been repeatedly warned and

139they've gotten their it's red card time. >> Yes, we we can we can ask people to to leave in that specific instance you're talking about. I was involved with that. The city manager was there, the mayor was there, and the decision was made by a few of us to give that person one more chance. And so that was the direction that I was asked to give to the board chair that night. So that is what we did. Had there been a sixth violation, that person would have got removed. And so when we when we I came back in and there was there was a I'll go a warn final warning. It's like 10 o'clock at night, right? It's like a final warning and that's um if we're talking about the same instance, that's >> my

140understanding of that night. So, to answer your question, yes, people can be removed. I think people have to understand there are rules. We just have to make sure that we've given ample warning. We've educated people on this behavior is not okay and and law enforcement when we've asked them to get involved. They have to give us give a few warnings. So there are not like if if our chairperson's given five warnings or six warnings when she determines it's time to escalate this to the police. Then they have that they're called in. Then they have a judgment to make. And so we're it's we're turning it up immediately. We're turning that instance over to them to then make a judgment. >> Okay, that that's something to put aside for another conversation because there's more to say

141about that. But we've reached the end of this, but there's still some issues that I think that need to be included that aren't in this policy. One of those being people staying at the podium. And I think it's really important that people be required to stay at the podium during their three minutes. I also think it's important for people to know that there are certain parts of that room that are off limits to the public. That being the dis how do you say it Susan? Deis Dasis. >> Deis that the deis is definitely off limits. I don't know if you know that one of the members of the public actually sat in my chair where I had my purse. I had private information there and while we were out of the room that's not okay.

142So that's off limits and I think that needs to be put as well as any of the space. I noticed that one of the members of the public has been standing behind one of our employees during the meetings and she's most uncomfortable with that. I don't think that they should be anywhere. They need to be in front of the dis at all times from where we sit. That's our space. >> I don't know what you're saying. >> Where the where the das comes across. It's in a horseshoe. >> This space right here, that's their space. >> Behind. >> They shouldn't be behind anybody sitting at the dis. Nobody should be approaching anybody without permission to the das and that's for safety. Remember Damn boys >> that maybe we should ask the city to remove the

143chairs from that area or push them back rather than having them >> They're not sitting in chairs. They're getting up. >> Push the chairs back. And then we then they need to bring in some jersey barriers, >> stansions or something. >> Yes. >> Oh, >> and then that protects our staff on both sides. And if you're going to go that far, then maybe you need to make put the stansions around the um employee section. >> I don't think we have an employee section. >> They all seem to sit in the same place. >> That's their choice. It's not an employee section. I don't think we can restrict seating. >> Yeah, I don't know about that, but but we can look at stansions for that area. That's a good idea. And also I wanted to talk

144about um visuals, people bringing visuals. I know that some other school boards have limited the number of the size of visuals that people can use, how they can use visuals. I don't know if you had anything in your language about that, Susan. >> I I called it props. >> Products. >> Let's see. I said um number eight, no props during the public comment section. And then I went the difference adding something about the difference between a public comment and a public performance which is something that we have experienced. Um so Dr. Woodson said that a performance was not allowed and the comments must be reasonable. So I mean if we're going to limit people to the podium then what about the people who were disroing they were not at the podium and that was during

145the public conversation and maybe it needs to be people who are at the podium or they're seated in the audience. I don't I don't know what's your what's your what's your brothers people thoughts >> I I can I can add a statement that says should remain behind the podium to in reference to speakers >> that are addressing the board >> and audience members should be remain seated >> yeah I have >> they have to raise their hand and ask you if they can go to the bathroom >> should remain seated if they need to get Katie look >> but these are the silly things that are >> a lot of people will standing normally people so they're going to be standing >> right I I understand that >> or seated when possible >> I think

146just the only thing that I would say with this is there's a dis there's a there's a careful line between distraction versus disruption I'm You mentioned being distracted. I I probably get distracted during those meetings, too. >> We're probably not. I think it's unlawful to make someone, you know, make someone stop distracting me. I think it's okay to say people should be in in areas that are that are, you know, for the members of the public should stay in areas for members of the public. I think it's okay to say that. But if someone needs to go to the bathroom, I think it's going to be hard to police that. >> If something becomes a disruption, >> what's how you define disruption beyond distraction? >> I think it goes back to if it if it

147continues to happen. Member Pello says, you know, I've been watching the same thing four different times. Madam Chair, can you address the number with the beard and the blue shirt because he keeps distracting me. I can't pay attention in the meeting. It's distracting me. It's becoming a disruption for me. Okay. >> So, I think it's when a distraction becomes a disruption. >> I know that other schools have set the a limit on the size of like I know I think it was Kabunk they can only have like an uh I can't remember if it's 12 by 24 nothing bigger than 12 by 24 a size limit on how big a prop somebody can bring >> or I don't I mean you could say props that are disruptions but I don't know how you define that

148because there's certainly different levels of that as well. So I don't know but something some guidelines and I know they have a they have a definition of how large and um audiovisisual thing can be so I know it's legal. >> Do you folks want me to look into that? >> Yeah. >> Member Dan boys. >> So um I want to comment on the remain seating piece. um your that would be dabbling in um ADA. >> I'm not I'm not dying on that hill, April. I just >> Excuse me. I have not made very many comments and I'm just commenting based on my professional experience and I'm finding this meeting very univilized and I am not feeling safe making comments. >> My apologies. >> I'm talking about ADA compliance. We have people with ADHD, people with

149Tourette's, people that have lumbar spine issues that can't sit all the time that do need to get up. I'm just bringing that to light so people can think about those things when we're writing these comments. I'm done for tonight. I can't believe that this meeting is going away. Does do any other board members have any additions to this that we haven't talked about tonight? >> Member McCormack. >> I have a problem with the idea of no clapping because our mayor got up and nobody could clap for him because we have this rule and that that feels one-sided. So, are you going to put in a rule here about no clapping, about no props, about no seating time, about I mean, are we selling tickets to this show and like we're just going to not let

150anybody do anything because this is like we're talking about kindergarteners here. We're adults. This is disrespectful. member. >> Okay. >> Um, we've talked about props, visuals, but what about like you talked about recordings like shouldn't the people in speaking in front of us should be speaking to us, not be uh >> to talk about that? >> I I can ask the attorneys about all these questions. >> Okay. >> What What is a >> right >> you know, >> right? There's a lot of questions for us. >> I know that Robert's rules of order speaks to it. >> There it is. >> Excuse me. >> Not everybody knows what you're talking about. >> Robert's order speaks to 12 x 24 in. >> No, it speaks to visual. It speaks to recording. >> So they So a

151per >> member Reynolds. >> Thank you. Um, yeah. I would I would be against limiting people's movement. I don't agree with that. >> I was No, I know. I just want I'm sorry. I I'm agreeing with you on this, too, right? Got Let me get there. Can't limit them. Can't limit them moving >> a certain access beyond that can be safety. It's understandable. I'd be okay with that. Recognizing people being behind breakup. That's not great, right? Um, clapping. I feel like it all comes down to the disruptive thing too, right? Like I want to be able to clap for the things that I am happy about too. Sometimes some people clap about things that I'm not excited about. Not great, right? It's okay though, as long as they're not being disruptive. That's the key part

152of it, right? Period. We can't limit somebody's enjoyment or enthusiasm based on if we disagree or agree with it. It's about the level of disruptiveness. I don't know how to measure that in a policy though. That's just like an innate thing like like don't be disruptive. You can clap. I don't agree with that either, but clap. I don't know how to say that, but that's just like my opinion. I don't know >> cuz I like clapping when the kids do good. I like clap like, you know, >> member McCorman. >> I feel very strongly that it's their three minutes to do whatever they wish with their three minutes. If they want to hold up a sign, if they want to play a recording, if they want to play, if they want to pray, if they

153want to do anything, it's their three minutes. They're adults. If they choose to waste it doing something silly rather than actually giving us productive information, then let them. Hash let them, right? Who's What's that lady? Bnee Brown or whatever. Oh, thank you. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't mean to get my ladies mixed up. But like stunt like so what you just said mommy to your point >> that a sign madam chair thank you James for keeping me on thank you um you just said a sign can only be 12 by 24 right >> that's not what I said >> some >> I said some school board has that >> right >> so if we instituted a rule where a sign or a prop or whatever we're going to call it a poster could be 12 x

15424. I mean, we're also limiting a flag that was this tall. Correct. So, you are okay if it's 12 x 24, but you're not okay if it's their like, let them. It's their 3 minutes. They're adults. If they choose to waste it, let them. We have more rules in this than we do for kindergarteners. It's crazy. Member Fortunado I well I agree with McCormick Madam McCormack saying that it's their time still has to be regarding educational matters and school and praying and waving flags and being disruptful disrespectful in disrupting a meeting are not ways to talk about education and school matters. >> That's not true. member or >> and that to a point is viewpoint discrimination and it's unconstitutional. >> So I guess if we're going to be ending this here pretty soon, which would

155be going on for a while, it's unfortunate we've spent more time on on on talking about this public forum, how of how we are going to restrict people from being able to do so. We spent more time on how to how can we stop somebody from doing this and and what is our gate to go and arrest and kick them out then we than we actually have it. It's it's crazy. I I can't wait for us to pass this so that we can get the crap suited out of us. >> Again, may I debate? >> I'm not asking for a debate. I'm not asking you to answer my question for me. Again, we're talking about school matters. We're talking about making our people have been asking for clarification and definition. This is what we're bringing

156to the policy. If you don't agree with it, you don't have to vote for it, but you if it does get passed by the board, you have to obey and abide. >> No public opinion doesn't >> Did you want to be recognized, member? >> No, madam chair, I don't I wouldn't want to upset anybody. Mr. Tracy, would you like to wrap it up? I would I would be happy to um I think I have something to go on to get us another draft. Um I will ask about the questions that have come up. Um I can I can I ask Mr. over a question. Ask him a question. >> Mr. Can I May I ask you a question? >> By all means, superintendent, >> because I I agree with you. >> No. Um what what

157would you put in because we have to have some kind of what would you say is okay to police at a meeting like this? What would you think is an appropriate thing for the chairperson to stop? Maybe it's nothing. Maybe they should be able to say whatever they want. I just want to know what you would think is appropriate. >> I'm not against the time limits. We're giving in certain amount of time periods. I'm not against that. I I'm I'm against telling people what they can and can't say. That's what I defended. It was people's constitutional rights. And this we we never had this issue until last January. And last January is where everything went arry. And and I go back and I got it. Somebody's probably going to accuse me of attacking the chair,

158but I but I'm not attacking Miss Whip. I am directing this at the chair because for the last eight months she has been biased and uneven and subjective in the application of the rules. >> Can I add that that's that the stuff that is in that is in black and white of of just let people talk but that that hasn't happened. >> So can I let me answer some direct questions because I've heard you say that a lot. Should we be able to stop people speaking about personnel? >> Yes or no? >> Yes. To a point. >> Okay. Should we be able to stop public from speaking about students? >> Yes. >> Should we allow the public to speak and use threatening words? >> What? Define threatening. >> Threatening or fighting words. >> Define fighting.

159>> Did you read the Cullen case? Because the Cohen case in California talked about what's allowed for abuse of violent threatening language or not. And that's the same cases that that these attorneys are using to say the f word's okay. But I but I it's a like the very difference between someone saying f your rules versus f you. There's a those are two different statements, aren't they? So, I I just I just I just wanted to understand because I I I think people should be able to get up and say anything they want to say about it school and education matters. >> Absolutely. Yeah. And so so I just but what we're trying to understand in the policy in two hours is what is the board in general agreement on controlling in a limited public

160forum. We have to have some agreement with we're not going to let people talk about our school personnel. We're going to protect our employees. I heard you all agree to that. We're not going to let them talk about our students. I heard you all agree to that. We're not going to let people use threatening or violent language. those things are not protected by the first amendment in our limited public forum. We we so we have some general agreement about that but whether they can have some of the other detailed things I think are nuances we still have to work through. So I think you may have more general agreement than you than you think at this point. I think you've done a lot of work. I think you've got to a place where you've got

161some time limits with the agree to I think some real improvements with your policy. Um but and and maybe that's a good place to land but so good work. I will get a we'll get something to the next policy subcommittee. >> Um thank you. >> Are we adjourned? >> We are adjourned.