001the Board of Education uh policy subcommittee on what's today's hey the 20th 2018 September 28th um Miss jaczynski please call the roll sure Mr grippo here Ms Rosenberg here Mr White oh you can hear him Tim you're muted but he's here so you have a quorum yeah okay uh please rise for the pledge foreign I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for us that must always look so great in on video I've never actually watched that part see everyone or at least myself stand up right depending whose camera is on um okay um Public public comment has there was there any public comment before on the agenda or anything like that we have
002none as as far as I've received okay and I hadn't seen anything either um or has been shared with me so I guess we'll move on to review policies part three um where did you want to begin I guess we'll begin at the first one school activity makes sense okay the school activity fund is um very limited uh are you still do you see the uh popped up a draft policy or am I yeah okay um there are very very limited changes in the policy itself you can see the highlighted um I guess redlined if you will changes from the title of director of management and Personnel to Chief Operating Officer those are the only changes embedded in the policy the uh regulation has some additional changes Jeff let me just stop you out we
003only see or I only see the linked that's what I thought let me try it this way um I will okay you should be able to see it now yeah all right so [Music] um just to recap the changes in the policy itself which require board approval are extremely limited uh only change in the title of director management Personnel the chief operating officer uh the rest of this document is really attached for more for your information this is a regulation that does not require uh approval but um again for your information and I I would add within this we've updated this with the support of the auditing firm that went through our uh our Student Activity accounts in Incorporated The Limited changes that they recommended so for example in here you'll see things like this
004my school box that's our payment method and then you'll see this those are really the Marquee changes uh we had each School independently using uh strategies to record the um the money that was coming and going from as simple as a Google spreadsheet or an Excel sheet to you know more signif more significant like accounting software and it was a recommendation that we have a uniform strategy across buildings and so that's why we went to that EP EST I think it is uh format for the accounting so this is a very limited change in the policy there so what you just showed us was the regulation well the policy was there um to that's only that first page on the link uh where the only thing that's different is where it says the director of
005management Personnel we take that out and say Chief Operating Officer um Shall Serve as the treasurer of such fund then in the second the next paragraph I should say it's actually a third paragraph where it says the director we change it to the clo so these are those are very limited changes in the policy and there was no further recommendation all right so wasn't didn't um forget who it was uh someone who works for Vin she she trimmed down we had a I guess on a I want to call it an accounting policy I forget the number of it that was like 20 pages and she paired it down to three pages or three or four pages yeah that that might be the regulation so that was a regulation that wasn't the actual policy I
006I don't believe it was the policy um I think it was the regulation Carol I mean certainly correct me um but I I don't think it was the policy you're on me it was the regulation yeah she took what was like separately listed in every single one of the schools and she combined them into one thing instead of listing them separately so this you know it's still what you'll see here it it says 48 pages but it's because in this copy that we shared with you all of this policy here that you can see is new it's it and when eventually you get to the place where it's old and then it that's all crossed out so you know to your point Adam there were 30 pages and now it's 18. okay you know all
007right so I just wanted to be clear on that um so then so I guess I guess that's what I was reading way back in the day yeah and so this is all that old stuff and this is from like 1996 or something right yes um yeah um I don't know 96 yeah good memory well yeah I just remember discussing it with Tony and being well this is really old but it's accounting so it's not necessarily that out of date it was more about and I even talked with uh with Tim about it it's like you know is it are there any uh gasby you know regulations to be concerned about and uh but at least the Otters otters have gone through and have have changed what or has made their recommendations and those changes
008have been uh Incorporated yeah yeah okay um any uh questions uh from Sam or Tim on this okay all right so as far as action on this the only action really that really needs to be taken for from a policy point of view is just uh for our first reading is that the titles some of the titles have changed and some of the software references have changed but really from a policy perspective the only thing that needs action is the policy okay there is the uh you know the policy with the two title changes right regulation is not something that the board takes action on right right uh Sam go ahead are we just changing it because we don't have a position that's the director of management and personnel yes or okay we say we
009say this person is responsible for all the accounting but we don't have that person yeah you know we have the Chief Operating Officer so that's why we made the change because I right away thought to a human resources person first versus a you know a Vinnie that's why right six I would say but okay um Tim yeah I'm just wondering in general throughout the policies this is not something that's like really spent a lot of time on right now but with regard to putting titles in it would it make more sense to just change all the titles to the superintendent superintendent or his designee eliminate titles from policies and regulations and then it just moves forward from there and not something to do tonight but just a thought yeah I mean we could ask uh
010about that oh okay yeah if Kade you know if there's I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't be okay but I would want to ask somebody who deals with a lot of policy if there's something that we're missing but sure I think it's a reasonable question I mean my only thought about doing that Tim would be perhaps is you know um Auditors always like their separation of Duties and if it's and you know that let's say a chief operating officer you know answers to the superintendent but does that muddy the lines of uh I know the the Orcs or anything you'd say I don't know I don't know I'm just talking out loud I have no idea I agree Adam I mean you know I would say these superintendent has obviously the full
011authority of oversight so therefore the onus lies upon him to basically ensure that these various areas are acting within but again yeah I suppose I guess yeah right the superintendent has the ultimate decision right is that is that usually how things are are handled where like let's say Vin would sign off but then you also need to review and sign off if that would be the usual type of uh yeah depending on the level I mean I'm responsible for everything that goes well and Ben is responsible for the things that don't I mean that's our general rule of thumb that we try and follow but yeah ultimately I guess I am responsible and not you know the superintendent would be responsible for everything um I think I hear what Tim's saying just for reading uh
012and ease of and making sure that this is never an issue that we have to do this again you know yeah that's a fair question um I'll ask all right so I think for now I get you know we probably end up moving this forward I think as is um but we could always um you know if Jeff you could look into that to see maybe maybe that'll be something we'll start doing for you uniformity purposes too right so yeah because we have had to change uh well several policies in the past just to change titles right to have them go through all the meetings just to change the title yeah well we were going through doing some of that cleanup stuff a few years ago we did a fair amount of that yeah so
013but if we if we adopted a strategy like that we probably wouldn't start from policy one and spend forever going through it just as we hit it we would do something like that right right okay so in this case every 26 years yeah let me get around to it well now's our chance now's our chance we can always make that Amendment you know at our next meeting right right okay so uh we're okay with the way it reads right now then for this one all right uh we'll move on to um well wrong tab the next nepotism yeah that this was uh you had asked to kind of bring this up uh I think is a result of the uh board meeting where we had the conversation about cousins who worked in our school system
014um and we just I think wanted to revisit it to take a look at what the the policy said around nepotism so I'll pull it up well it wasn't even necessarily that it was that I think you had mentioned in our in our public comments that the attorneys had looked at um the policy and made determinations that some of it was no longer valid right because that the way we had written this policy originally would have ended up being too strict um uh against what the actual lawful findings were right so right so uh the key point that the attorneys have made to us is that um the state of Connecticut determines uh nepotism to exist where there is a supervisory basically relationship and how they dictate that are things like um does the person
015uh set that other person's there's one family member set the other's schedule are they uh related are they influential and compensated related decisions um do they have any Authority uh to recommend in employment for that person um and and so and they they outline you here you can see in the middle of the page this includes but not limited to decisions concerning hiring promotion transfer discipline termination salary evaluation or other similar Personnel actions action so um in this case you know we can employ relatives as long as they don't have that relationship if you recall Adam because you were on the policy committee when we made this initial where we adopted this version um what back in 2019 yes the um we had an assistant principal whose sister-in-law was a teacher in that building um
016she didn't evaluate that teacher nevertheless we transferred the teacher to a different building um at the time just to avoid the perception so you know that we don't have in our school system now as much as we have many relatives um we do not have any violations of this well that's wonderful to hear yeah sensitive it seems pretty basic right yeah um so then according to the the new interpretation then eighth of family member can determine workload potentially right because that in the because I guess we can use the the case as an example because I guess it was held in public right so we can comment yep um so in that instance because the cousin was could have was was determining I guess jobs workload on that day but did not determine the schedule
017that's okay according to as crazy as this sounds to me foramen which is what you're describing yeah is specifically carved out like that's not to your point they don't um they can assign duties but they don't have any traditional like Personnel related Authority they don't evaluate individuals they don't do many of these other things um that we were just talking about which is a little crazy to me but it's specifically carved out right uh Tim go ahead yeah so I mean just talking about this specific situation it just seems crazy to me that you have the manager so the you actually have the administrative line and that's not related and then you have the dotted line to the related person it just it seems to me that although the supervisor is not related they are
018going to place significant reliance on the person who the dotted line is in a in a tip in this department situation yeah on the foreman you're going to say well is this person doing a good job I mean I think I do that I think most people would do that you don't just make sort of your decisions in a vacuum because you know you have 10 of your work day involved with somebody oh they do a good job or a bad job what happens you know when I'm not looking type of thing are people people doing a good job so this makes absolutely no sense to me and this has nothing to do with anyone in particular um it's just in principle I just don't feel like this sort of situation should exist so my
019question is is there anything that we could do to change that um not that I did we yeah we yeah so much facts that we did but the uh no and I don't want to take anything away from you it's like we ended up in this one specific situation where it's getting parsed a little bit more and and I got it I get it how this happens but I said it during that meeting I'm like the bottom line to me is it still just doesn't feel right um because of the situation I just described where I think any you know a normal manager is probably going to have play some Alliance on other people um and so that's why I'm just not comfortable with this situation so if there is anything I don't you know
020how we could change it legally I don't want to do anything you know wrong per se but I also feel like the Situation's not appropriate right speaking of you know legal um implications I mean I I think because we're discussing the policy and not the individual I mean as much as the individual because you know from a legal perspective if we're discussing you know an individual's um role uh capacity in the organization and they're supposed to be provided notice of such conversation and invitation um but you know again I want to we're not discussing a certain person's performance here we're talking about the nepotism policies it relates to these situations and that I'm I'm happy to review with vin um I mean I think it's logical to try and avoid that sort of situation and
021I think we've addressed that but you know in that in that case if you recall the desire was to transfer um to a position where they would be reporting to a family member as a foreman and we initially cited that as nepotism and declined that transfer a legal guidance said that that wasn't a valid reason oh you because it's not technically nepotism well was that legal guidance predicated on policy in any way there's predicated on the law okay so maybe it doesn't maybe it does okay I mean maybe that's why you know again the the if you recall the transfer request was put in which would have made the individual working with their family member and a relationship where one family members the foreman and the other wasn't we rejected the request for transfer based
022on the grounds that it was nepotism our attorney reviewed that and said well technically you can't do that it's not nepotism because you have the Confluence of two different pieces coming together here uh uh one is the nepotism law itself and the other is um the bar collective bargaining agreement um that allows for the requests to be made in a public school system with a collective bargaining group when they can make that request I can't cite a law uh that that is it would be a violation of the law to say that this is nepotism well it's not right that's I don't mean violation of the law like I'm breaking speeding law but it's an interpretation that's incorrect um was the feedback so yes I mean we we do try and avoid that but you
023know it's what's nepotism nepotism is the way we have it defined in our policy is the law defines it I don't know if that makes sense no it does it that makes 100 sense um yeah it's the I I wasn't sure so I'll just say from the collective bargaining agreement I actually I was like okay that's an argument that seems reasonable to me that was being made in that situation but um but just generally the point is is that the nepotism policy that we have is is basically just mirroring the law and it we don't have the authority to refine it further right um if that's the case now I don't believe so in a public in a public uh institution but the uh as you were talking about I think maybe the way to
024address it is through the collective bargaining agreement okay so then yeah and I haven't gotten into the details of the of the Union contract like I mean so so then our policy per the law is sound the instance that we were discussing which is public right that was just using it as an example and not speaking about it specifically right specific case wise just as an example um so that there was an interpretation of the law as applied to regulation right in that instance I suppose but the actual references in our policy and the way the policy is written is still sound according to the law and according to uh uh what's uh per cop per uh Employment contract I forget that the term yeah the collective bargaining lot the bargaining yes that it's still
025not in violation it's just that it's just in this specific instance there was a I guess a gray area that needed interpretation right and then it was interpreted by our attorneys or or jointly with whomever right right to say that that was a yeah it's a gray area I mean I mean obviously when we adopted that policy it was three years ago the uh incident in question was about a year ago and I'll have Floyd take another look at it um just to see if anything's changed but you know I believe our policy to be sound and that was our interpretation of that relationship which you know I wouldn't think that a foreman I would think a foreman position would be supervisory in nature um but I guess technically it's not so uh right I'm
026not a lawyer and I I would think I live and I learn I guess yeah yeah Common Sense would say yes but apparently there's a a loophole much of law is not dictated by Common Sense I guess right yes but I'll have Floyd take another look at it just to affirm yeah um but yeah yeah we just put it on I I wanted it on the agenda to make sure that we could take a look at it to see if we had to change something because the law was less strict than how we envisioned the the policy to be right in our mind right so so I think what we'll do is um if it's okay with you guys have Floyd take a look at it I can send an update to the full board
027if it's um if it's still accurate if it's not then we'll take it back to policy and make any amendments as necessary I'm okay with that put on the next agenda if that okay okay great plan um let's see up next week oh here we go holy smoke oh so we have oh boy all right we'll just go to let's see Title Nine here we go digging in yeah so [Music] um the Title IX policy uh We've we spent a fair amount of time on this when did we update that one that was I want to say a couple years ago as well with the change 2019 probably 2019 yeah with the change in the law um 2021 we adopted this so a year ago um but we adopted it with caveats right because there
028was like everything was in transition yeah and so the uh we we've had a chance now for a Year's worth a little more than a Year's worth of uh legal processes across the country and across Connecticut and we met with our attorney who handles these sort of cases she took a look at our policy and said it's you know it's hard to read it's you know and I forget what the other policy was that we all looked at in Bertram and Moses sent us a revision to it and say oh yeah we just like that one better it's much do you remember that uh it was uh last year at some point but I I thought that was our bullying policy or yes yeah thank you and uh so we in this case have the
029same thing where the policy this one you know typically we derive our policies from Cade um and sometimes they're you know spot on they're always legally sound but sometimes they could be particularly when things are a little bit more complex hard to navigate and um so Rebecca our attorney at um Bertram Moses sent us this revised policy for your information I also included is a point of reference the regulations um in here and you know I'm not gonna just scroll through the whole thing because it's between the policy and the regulation it's more than a dozen pages that we're not going to be able to sit and read the whole thing but um what I'll say is that the policy itself is much easier to read the regulation is much easier to follow but don't
030get too used to it um the office of civil rights who oversees Title IX uh is revising they're coming through the public comment period on revisions it will probably probably be in Rebecca's estimation somewhere about a year from now that changes come again and I I know you may have heard me complain about this um this uh policy or the from uh OCR because it really I think it does not protect uh kids and it's not very suitable to a um a school system setting this is more Collegiate in nature where people are have legal representatives in their you know dealing with different sides of issues and collecting evidence and in a different way than might happen in fourth grade so we're still at that level right now where it's still more of a personal
031proceeding yep okay so so even this this okay I'll have to admit I did not have a chance to read through it um so this uh because I I would have moved to table it for months uh because I I know that just remembering the old policy out great I mean that the old one was I think 40 pages if I recall yeah we're on the 12 so that's an improvement um but um yeah I would I would move to table this one just so we can all read through it a little bit more even though it's going to change again um it's just to kind of see what's changed already because we knew that I think the last time we had even though it says up we adopted 2021 we had originally had the
032one from 2020 which was very different from the one that we adopted in 2021 so um I guess and so this is more of a like you said it's gone through some legal revisions and some court cases and that sort of thing and it's still not done still not right at least for us yeah it's gonna change and I think what um I what we try to do with this revision is provide much greater Clarity around the process and what's going on you know this is the sort of thing where um when there's an allegation of sexual harassment um then you know every witness statement is public basically for both sides um and it's very hard uh for uh an adult let alone a child to step forward and tell you honestly what's going on
033when they know that their entire peer group will know exactly what they said if you know it's really a tough spot it's not not really designed for this uh the setting in my opinion but I think that's a lot of people's opinion which is why it's changing uh Tim go ahead yeah so wait just uh two things Adam you said that uh you want to table this for a month uh yeah I I think I'll make them I can make a motion on that in one second um but I just want to in the meantime Jeff just really simply so this is moving it's a moving Target and it has been for years if something arises there could be something right now in front of you I don't know I don't really want to ask
034right in this meeting um are you getting hand holding from the attorneys yeah absolutely okay yeah because this process is very new um and it's very different than anything we've engaged in in the past so yeah we we do solicit their guidance um to work through them in a way that follows the law uh supports both parties as is required the uh person the alleged perpetrator and the victim uh alleged victim and you know so yes we have had to use that um yes I mean that makes sense to me then is this the same policy that would fall in line with I don't think it's the office of civil rights there's another um because these the office of civil rights is that federal or state that you're referring to there firstly that's Federal that's
035Federal okay um but there's the hro is the Connecticut right now do they do they derive their Authority from something different than Title IX or is that because I forget yeah on it yeah chro and OCR have a broader umbrella than sexual harassment so it's um really discrimination in any form is under those umbrellas this is just one this gender-based discrimination um is is specific to Title IX okay and does this have anything you know we we had a board member bring up something related to regulation from the USDA is that do you recall that um yeah vaguely because I thought there was a reference to Title IX in that as well and I wasn't sure if that needs to be incorporated since that was I think a a presidential uh decree or something like
036that I wasn't sure if that's the yeah it's not related to this not related but okay so if that's not Title IX either just to make just so we're keeping every all the uh the silos silos well that's I think that's one of the challenges Adam is that there's not you know it's not there aren't clear boundaries where Title IX is in effect applicable to any you know public institution across the board in most private institutions really um you know so in a federal assistance program or in a federal uh you know Food Service program that the USDA administers the uh you would be required to not violate Title IX or title 6 which is a another uh discrimination based law so there is some bleed but it's not there's nothing that's going to influence
037our food service right he does all right so um yeah I I think I would just like the table just so at least so I had a chance to read all what if it was 12 Pages revised yeah whatever it is just to read through it once without you know taking up a lot of time at at this meeting you know just a um because you know we used to have those four hour meetings where we would kind of do that and this will work out because actually uh Rebecca is our expert in this um or Floyd you know his versed as well but um you and I had talked about other potential agenda items that you know the this it would be perfect that this person could touch on our attorney Kel Touch come
038on that'd be great on a subsequent meeting okay um so do we have to table it or we just take no action on it just take no action yeah it's not up for reading necessarily okay so then if everyone's okay then we will just take no action on it for now because it's sort of in effect already because it's federal law anyway right this is more of a formality but as we all know words matter and we'll just make sure do our do due diligence right to make sure we read the words so at least in my point because I didn't read the words and I would like to so um uh Sam go ahead do we I mean this semi relates to establish the various tiers of You Know Chief investigator um I forgot
039all the different titles sure the decision maker investigator that's some of the complexity um I'm saying I'm not sure why but with your with your mic open are you guys getting uh yeah I'm getting I have some feedback we can hear you but there's like this interesting bizarre clicking noise anyway um those roles are not necessarily static there's a a Title IX coordinator who's Robin and Kerry that that role is static she will perpetually be that person the title and coordinator until we change her there are other roles that you mentioned like the investigator and the decision maker um to me they sound kind of like made for TV names but the decision maker it can be flexible depending on the circumstances the investigator will be flexible uh depending on the circumstances so we will
040assign those individuals because there are very clear rules around the person can't have any like really uh affiliations with either party and so you know if I make one principle the the Perpetual investigator decision maker and the complaint comes from their building and this is somebody they've supervised it's like there's a conflict there so we have to find somebody so we're providing that flexibility is is what the attorney says that's good yeah Silver Lining yeah that's why I understand something's going I don't know if it's the head I don't know that's that's the thing Haywire yeah okay uh so we will take no action on that uh so we will go to oh our our old friend electronic board meetings um I so we have I guess we have to make it an official bylaw
041is that uh since now even though it's it's law right state law right yes yeah it's a little bit like what we had talked about previously uh in our last board meeting about the fact that the full board is adopting um this is a little little preview but the full board is adopting our goals um we still have to in our next policy meeting take that up and build it into our policy manual um and this is another one of those things even with the Title IX when the Law changes um oh this is the wrong one you when the Law changes uh you still need to update the policy in this one is our updated policy on electronic meetings of which I know we're all fans uh and this uh just kind of outlines
042what the legal and particularly as it relates to foia uh Freedom of Information Act uh requirements are to hold these meetings um did we ever uh figure out I don't know if maybe it was a technical aspect but if we like if we didn't anticipate that there was going to be uh public comment um but someone wanted to comment during one of our meetings right even though right it would be at the the I guess the will and pleasure of the of the chair right whether or not the entertain common but if someone wanted to do that and we're not in a physical place right like this um do we have a a way of allowing that would is there was there something in there about um like could they email ahead of time to
043say that they wanted to make a comment or anything like that um do we have that ability um well we did recently change our uh email if you recall when we started to do remote uh meetings we had I think it was uh CPS covid-19 at cheshire.k12 or whatever was and we would take many questions if you remember in the early days like yeah it would almost be like pure q a um and we have recently changed Carol can you remind me what the new email address is I think it's CPS comments or something uh Boe comments yeah Boe comments at cheshire.k12.o.e contacts contact yeah yeah so um I'm just looking in the policy because I want to say board conducts meeting other than executive session um it shall provide any member of the public
044a written request submitted last 24 hours prior to such meeting um physical location of equipment necessary to attend such meeting in real time so if somebody needs equipment and they notify us they can participate um and then the same opportunities to uh participate via the email so you can use the public uh Board of Ed contact email to submit questions and comments that way too okay because as you guys know the public comment section is not necessarily it's exactly what it says it is it's an opportunity to State your uh common it's not an engagement in Q a necessarily but is a quick plug next month we do have our Board of Ed Forum coming up um great opportunity people want to engage in dialogue with board members and central office administrators without the public
045cameras we do have this meeting annually to be able to allow people that in privacy and opportunity for dialogue because the the public spotlight's not for everybody right because I think um because yeah there's no real technical solution other than writing an email because if you if you hand out a link to our meeting that I get that kind of creates a problem because of the link is shared publicly yeah it could be hijacked so right what they do say is that if you notify US 24 hours in advance of the meeting you can we'll have to set up a place for you a physical location to go to participate where somebody would chaperone in effect okay because I and and for me personally I mean I'd always be willing if there was like some
046overwhelming public sentiment where you know people wanted to comment I'm for me it's just for me personally I'd be willing to you know change the meeting to a public location as well you know at least for the means that I share anyway right um so um yes there's always ways around it unfortunately yeah there's no good way to handle that unless um I guess unless we added something about like if uh something about 48 hours if that was a preference perhaps if they notice five within 48 hours then we could change our location because then that gives us that 24 hour that puts us in the 24-hour window so that we could notify that the location would change right that would be yeah and I don't know if that you know the likelihood the I
047mean well here's the other thing though that if that were to take place and we said it was going to be a remote meeting we would simply do something like move to the humiston boardroom and project it remotely so that it's it's still Vermont I mean we could change Where We Are on a half hour's notice really right okay necessary you know instead of just taking it from your house or whatever let's or your office in my case it's Carol let's just go to the board of ed conference room right you know and then you can still hold it remotely like we would all right so there are ways around it then yeah I think we're pretty good okay all right great um so uh for I forget so for bylaws we don't have to
048do free readings right um but I haven't received any direction from our chair either to Fast Track you do have to do three meetings as well okay well and we have fast tracked bylaws you can fast track but it's generally better to do the three readings you would only Fast Track if it was like um yeah right okay and yeah because this does deal with public comment and stuff like it would be better to right hip ample time okay uh Sam go ahead this is just more of a process question actually is there a um not I don't want to say mandate but a requirement in that we have to have three reads on policy and rights based on kabe's action or we can't expedite certain policies for final approval so policies themselves require three
049readings if the regulations don't get read at all policies in in bylaws of the board require the three readings there is a carve out though if there is um an urgency for some reason to change a policy uh post haste sort of thing that motion could be made at a board meeting and adopted with unanimous uh I want to say it's unanimous I don't even think it's like three-fifths or you know they pretty sure has to be unanimous uh vote of the board to Institute the policy change immediately regulations are they're kind of like the the internal operation rules of how we uh facilitate the policies those do not get board approval right yeah we we um we changed the we Fast Track the policy for I guess the order of agenda right yes and
050when was that in 2020 21 I think um where we change we put public comment it was all the way at the bottom and we moved it to position three um and we fast tracked that um but I think that's the the only thing we ever did uh that was fast tracked um it's designed to give the public ample opportunity to review and comment on policy and changes adjustments right especially yet so and this this one would be strange because it's I guess it's state law now right so it's right it's different because before we were we were running under a Governor's uh executive order before so um and then that expired so then that luckily they passed the law allowing it for for subcommittees right not for board not for Maine business meetings I
051don't think right because that was different of course I think you can do it for business meetings as well actually oh I was just looking at that that policy that um bylaw today and it says after the policy committee refers to proposal to the full board the proposed policy or amended policy shall be read at three board meetings if the board concludes that for good cause the policy should be adopted after the first reading it may decide by five affirmative votes of the board to waive the second and third readings an additional formal vote with at least four affirmative votes of the board is required to adopt the policy or as proposed or amended okay so it does have to go to the full board like Adam as the chair right now cannot expedite it
052right via committee okay I thought it was uh I knew it was a higher standard I thought it was unanimous but it's just five I thought it was uh well that's what that's two-thirds right yeah quick math not just majority vote right okay so it could happen if we wanted to uh so when I when it's read at the next business meeting when I when we go through our our report and I if I read it in its entirety I suppose I could or or something that effect then we could um there could be emotion I guess at that point to do that so I'm just saying only just for efficiency say that there's certain things that because it's statute that we don't necessarily have to go through three iterations of something if we can
053fast track it that's all I'm just trying to right all right and there is a different threshold with bylaw than there is with policy policy we've never we've never fast tracked policy I think that's a that's set in stone that the for public comment purposes um that is uh uh needs to be three readings but because of bylaws almost like an internal governance that I think we have that Latitude um so um I'll I'll discuss that with uh with Tony our chair and uh for Jeff that's just for public reference um uh so and uh and see what he thinks about that because you know we we could go ahead and do that so I'll I'll follow up on that um so let's see so is that that's the end of our our first first
054reading reading so then we would we were going to move school activity fund and electric um electronic board meetings right for our first reading theoretically right or technically um all right so I will make a motion uh move that policy 35 43 school activity fund and bylaw 9321.2 electronic board education meetings be moved for a first reading second in seconds um is there any additional discussion on that okay um all in favor raise your hand or say aye there we go it is um it is unanimous for those thank you very much and you have to nope here we go so we'll move to item number four which is the review of food service charging policy so this um this policy uh is a change in the law and the uh real guidance here is
055about meal charging um in here where I just highlighted uh when the students balance is equal to 30 days of a negative balance then they can be referred to the homeless liaison uh Robin and Kerry is getting a lot of air time tonight because that's also her role so did that change if I recall wasn't that 20 days you know I apologize Adam that I don't know the number I don't know that that changed I think that the the 30 days was a new thing I think what was the issue was that previously school districts would be able to in effect what we would do is not withhold lunch but provide a scaled down lunch um when you exceeded well beyond your charging and you weren't paying that it would be like a sandwich fruit
056milk kind of thing not the full scale and that was fairly common practice across Connecticut the law has changed now that it's just and I do appreciate this that it's a more of a referral to address the issue with the parent in some way rather than you know putting it on a a young child I mean if you're 18 it's a little bit different you know then you're eight but and launch staff too right because yeah you get the nod you're like okay you got to get that kid the uh the special lunch yeah you know it's a tough spot for everybody involved right so so that's not practice anymore it's basically if there's a payment issue it gets referred to um liaison and they kind of hang out on the background I mean typically
057I mean if before it gets to 30 days usually the principal gets involved in some way right you know to just first of all make sure the child's okay the family's okay and then you know if they are can you make a payment to try and square up on the lunch so of course we have the luxury of not having to worry about this for through November for a little while longer right yeah free you know lunch and breakfast but uh ultimately I'm imagining it will probably become an issue again um I I guess on that note just I I guess it's a little off topic but um as far as the the funding goes are we going to have to engage in some sort of uh public information uh uh uh right scratching or
058something like that for the parents so that they they're more aware again of what's going to happen yeah I think we've I know that we've sent information to families about the free meals and everything and the fact that it would ultimately end um certainly is that date draws closer we will Blitz people with that information about hey you know this is when we anticipate the money running out if you will um and please make sure you find your child's account in advance right well I think since our meeting what was it last year where I then became acquainted with uh parent Square uh in the app and everything that personally I found that the communication is is pretty effective it goes through the app you get an email you know you get at least two
059or three notifications for every uh for every message so yeah and you can personalize that yeah right so I've I've personally found it effective anyway yeah I'm keeping uh up to date there's a dad I benefit from the prodding so getting the alert on the phone or whatever and you know that's helpful right I mean it was it's a Gorilla Marketing you know they say what was it it's like nine times or something so at least you get three so it's something yeah uh so um okay so um are there any uh questions or additional comments on this policy um okay seeing none I'll uh make a motion to move um policy 35 42.43 food service charging policy for a second reading do I have a second Tim all right Tim got his hand up
060first um any other discussion all in favor it is unanimous great thank you um and we'll move on to a third reading uh is there any material changes to these policies I guess we're going to do a high level review there there haven't been if that's okay all right yeah yeah no yeah I wasn't sure if we wanted to go through a high level you know uh the the those were all statutory changes I recall the distribution yes Advanced courses definitely was challenging curriculum program and gifted and talented all were statutory additions um I know where was it that Sam had a question about it might have been semantics yes it was it was one word yeah which one was that Carol the will or yeah 61.72. so if you look at the last one
061I can share it on the screen if you want here real quick um sorry so in the gifted and talented students program it's the identification process is based on multi-criteria assessment process typically including both subjective and objective data the process and that um we had in the draft must include multiple measures in order to identify students strengths in the intellectual ability creativity or specific academic area I think Samantha had asked you know will you know to me that I went back and looked at the statutory language and it's not required must versus will so um whatever you want to proceed with is fine will sounds less um forceful forceful right but I don't know if if the meeting is is the same it has to be different right because why would there be two different
062words unless just it's verbiage context I I don't know uh I'm not an English major oh oh Tim do you have a comment I'm perfectly comfortable with whatever I I mean there are two slightly different words but I'm comfortable with either doesn't I I gotta break up my phone I I'm just gonna google it just for my own Peace of Mind here let's see uh is is that is that still acceptable in Academia to to use Google maybe not I don't know it is for me let's see using will shell must as verbs and the difference between must and will is that must as to do with certainty uh indicates that the speaker is certain that the subject will have executed the predicate um will is to wish desire or will that's you know so
063we talked about seems more definitive is the must but I think I I would go back with the must because of the fact that it is definitive in nature yeah because it seems like will is like a an intention or a hope is like you know it's happening right yeah it's happening right we are doing that that is it's an absolute issue yes yes yeah to go with must all right well thanks um you know I think I learned something there there is a difference you know and that's the only thing that we had any questions on of those remaining policies great um then I will make a motion uh move that policy 1140 distribution of materials to and by students um 61 41.51 Advanced courses or programs 6141.52 challenging curriculum program and 6172.1 gifted
064and talents gifted and talented students um be moved to a third and final reading do I have a second I'm going to give it to Sam this time uh is there any additional discussion seeing none all in favor it is unanimous fantastic um let's see we have no other uh agenda items I'll just I guess I'll just sort of repeat for my own clarification uh we have decided to take no action currently on the nepotism policy and the Title IX policy just so that we can get further uh clarification from our attorneys I guess right and have a chance to review further um okay then I don't know if you want to mention that um in light of the substantial referendum depending on November 8th and um speaking commitments uh we're not we didn't plan
065on holding a policy committee meeting next month uh when we're going to do that in November yes thank you for mentioning that uh Jeff we will not uh hold a meeting in October because of our other substantial commitments and we will reconvene in November probably well we'll call it first half of November hopefully right because in the second half of November gets busy anyway yeah Thanksgiving so yeah the first half of November will be super busy with all sorts of fun things that aren't Thanksgiving related okay uh that being said um can I have a motion to adjourn all right so uh I'll make a motion to adjourn uh we'll go Tim second all in favor is unanimous this meeting is adjourned thank you everybody good night everybody all right have a good