001hi good morning today is Tuesday the 18th this is a regular meeting of the Darian Board of Education policy subcommittee meeting uh this morning on the agenda we have three proposed rules that have been brought forth by the administration uh in consultation with our outside Council March okays so the gift policy was sent back from the board to consider the limits that we had put on um that we had recommended I in discussion with Dr adley you know we stand by the proposals that we made shipment and goodwi does not have a model policy so this is not necessary our current policy would need to be either revised or repealed because it doesn't reflect the current practice got it Sarah you have comments no I me go ahead start so I thought you were gonna
002go no I mean I I mean I agree that we need to have a policy um I think um can you remind us what the board conversation was and what with what we need to what's problems we need to solve I think it was around the limits right we felt right do we do we need limits um I did as you saw in the memo I did check with Mrs Klein she feels whatever the rule is there should be one rule for everyone because the question was whether special education teachers and service providers should be treated differently she felt no right okay so I think and if I remember correctly there was also the conversation that it should be um like the class gift should be you know a certain amount per student in that
003class right so um I don't what does the policy say for the limit sorry let go so the proposal is $15 for holiday gift and 2 a total of 40 which I think reflects the current cdsp practice yeah exactly and every several years they had all the PTO get together and they discuss whether it's still appropriate or whether they need to raise it and then all but all seven school or sorry all five elementary schools have to be in agreement before they'll change the amount so I guess the question is because cdsp does change it on a quasi regular basis if we quantify a number in policy and then cdsp feels there should be change then we have to come back to this table to do like how how do we solve that problem I'm
004not so sure that it's a CD not so sure that it's a cdsp problem or what they give or what they don't give other than the gift policy I guess right I guess it's coming through the gift policy I guess I it would be nice if they were in line with that right yes that's probably because it's technically it's a gift yeah right so yeah I mean it's all voluntary nothing it's not nothing's required by any parent ever um I thought that was sent back because um a couple board members were worried that by putting any amount on we were limiting people that might want to give more um but this is more this advice from cdsp is more about the group gift that because often classes want to give a gift together for the
005whole class and then on top of that some parents do give additional gifts um and so this is here to sort of guide them I thought but also people don't necessarily follow this individually you know sometimes parents are just going to give what they want to give um so I don't want to be I think having this limit on the idea of a classwide organized gift giving is practical and helpful there are some other districts who put a higher limit for individual gifts like new Canan for example has $50 for any no staff is allowed to accept a gift and excess of $150 group gifts can be $25 per you know per family whatever so um you know with without a limit you know there are stories um about families who feel pressured in competitions
006and is that how you're measuring the worth of a teacher you know by who gives the biggest present so you just said I'm sorry and new Canan that the policy is that teachers can accept a bigger gift cannot accept a gift larger than $50 unless it's a group gift and then they have the guidance that we have but our policy isn't prescribed for the teacher or is it the idea is they can't accept it but they do or how does that work for us so it would depend it we're looking for guidance on how you want us to draft it right now it just says that um to present a gift shall not be elaborate unduly expensive or cash so it's that's the burden on the Family actually Dr adley picked up that it says
007the student it should probably be the parent or the family right says that so um so it can go in a variety of ways if you you know if you put it on a a teacher then potentially it's you know a term of employment yeah I'm a little wary of putting it on the teacher just because I think that that puts the teacher in an awkward position um so I mean I've always had the opinion I kind of don't care I don't think there should be a limit um as long as it's disclosed and whether that's uh you know a teachers gift or gift to the schools I we have a lot of generous parents we appreciate their support um I do understand this idea that having competition among parents we don't really want to
008create that but you know if somebody has the wherewithal that they want to do something extremely generous I don't know why we would preclude that um I think in terms of these numbers like 25 50 like it's going to be really hard to to monitor this sort of thing I have no idea how we keep track track of that now so I don't know if we just pick a number that's a little higher give a little more room say 100 bucks and move on and just keep it uh you know not exorbitant but you know something where we're not going to be having footfalls small dollar amounts yeah I say some guideline would probably be helpful and the the uh the oversight of it at the moment is not that tight right um so uh
009I think putting some guideline would be helpful so it doesn't go all over the place um but the actual administration of this doesn't really come through the board per right so it's it's loose in that regard too there's there's the honor System of understanding that this is what it is essentially but so therefore we given some guidelines I think right keep some barriers around it I'm fine with I mean I I just wary of putting a specific number on it because it will change you know so it will agree um I don't know how you do that we could just put a language around say not egregious or not excessive or something wrong and see how it goes I I don't think this has been a big problem in the past has it no uh
010but uh uh Student Activity accounts these types of funds um can be can be problematic um just try give some guidance around it I'm would prefer to leave it as is to be honest because I still feel like there's room for individual parents to give individual gifts and this is sort of you know a recommended way of doing when they do the group gifts because an individual parent is not going to go look at our policy but the PTO will so if we're g to leave it the way it is we should remove the word cash because I I think we know people give cash and then the last paragraph which talks about gifts to the school that's covered by our gift box okay so strike the third paragraph and take out cash cash and
011then change student to family yep that's fine works for me great okay so seems we have consensus around that we head to the board please thank you all right number two okay Title Nine let me just clarify um that this is a moving Target and so what you have here our the policy for Title 9 for both students and Personnel that's on the website is the final rule of 2024 so the proposed so the final rule of 2024 was um held invalid by the district court in Kentucky and affirmed by the department of education's office of civil rights in January of this year that it was not a effective for any state so um Shipman and Goodwin's website is getting updated in bits and pieces but the proposed um Title 9 policy for students and
012Personnel represents the 2020 guidance which is now in effect so it wasn't I mean there there is Dr adley and I have a little cheat sheet because it's so hard to to understand the difference but it goes back um to a much narrower definition of sexual harassment sexual discrimination is the same obviously any sexual violence is the same but it's a narrower definition of sexual harassment and it provides a much more complicated system of Investigations it's a bifurcated um procedure so you have to have a different investigator and a different decision maker which is actually another unfunded mandate because districts have hired investigators because of the complicated nature of the um of the process the only additional guidance that I got from Jessica last night is because of the difference between Connecticut state law and
013Title Nine she suggests that we remove the reference to to Title Nine [Music] um which we already did she didn't think we had already done it but it's so T Connecticut covers things that are not covered by Title 9 and we're still subject to Connecticut law but that's already that's already been done for the most part but we'll go through with Jessica and make sure that all references to Title 9 don't conflict with Connecticut Law so I guess my question would be you mentioned this is a moving Target I'm not sure everything in here is even accurate today with some executive actions and some other things that are going on so I'm not sure we should really be moving forward with this at this time until we kind of get so advice from Shipman and
014Goodwin is that we're still subject to Connecticut Law and the things in here that don't align to the executive order over which there's still some concern about whether it's enforcable that we're still subject to Connecticut Law and that that's why those Provisions are here yeah I don't want to get into a a battle over you know who has whose law we're following or which we're following we doing Federal we doing state are we in a situation where we're doing one but not the other and I appreciate that um I appreciate that there's you know different level but I I think this to your point is a moving Target maybe we best table this for a little while and see how it shakes out so the problem is that when someone accuses somebody of sexual harassment
015we are required to follow the procedures here not the procedures on the website so we have to do something because those procedures are no longer in effect then we need very strict clarity as to which pieces we're applying which ones we're not I see guidance sorry I didn't me to step by um if we are getting our money from the state and we're following state law I don't understand why we wouldn't just do what the state has clarified that we're supposed to do for now and then if things change come back to the table and change them again the major differences are obviously in the definitions of who is a protected class and that is Connecticut Law is broader than federal law but the procedures as far as investigations were required to follow so my
016view is that we need to follow what our council is telling us to do so I would agree with that I ad in administering this administra we would have to follow state of off of well in even that part of the federal law that covers the procedure we're required we can't do it the old way which we were all very happy with the old way but that's not it seems very complicated yeah I mean there's a federal preeminence question here which I don't think this subcommittee ready to answer if our Council doesn't really know and we don't really know and we don't know what the state of the regulation is and I hear that the state has some rules but we also do have Federal rules which would be you know take precedence over the
017state rules so this is really probably something we're best to just leave under the old rules and if somebody wants to do something from the state they can let us know but so what I I may have misspoke about the moving Target they want to tweak some other provisions of this with things like adding the ability to hire an independent investigator which districts are doing doing anyway um I understand what you're saying I mean they don't Shipman and Goodwin does not advise this but if the board would like to make some motions to revise the parts of the policy that don't affect the procedure they're welcome to do that we would not then be in compliance with state law so sounds like there's not a lot of agreement on this one well I right now
018there's two two versus one agreement and I I mean I am a believer and we've paid people a lot of money as a board to advise us on what legally is um required of us to do and they're saying we need to do this and I appreciate that but I I bet they don't I mean the state of Connecticut has specifically addressed some of the things that I think that you're concerned with but there's Federal issues that would take precedence over that and so I'm sure even if we got Council in here which I think is probably a good next step for the whole board that we see this I would suggest that at least you know they're they're going to tell us like it's kind of unclear it's hard for them to tell but
019so I think this is probably a broad discussion so since March talks to them is that what they're gonna say they're they're going to say that the only Provisions that they are uncertain about are the provisions that in include under the definition of sexual harassment sexual identity and sexual correct so then we're going to adopt a standard that the state has um promulgated that may be in conflict with the Federal so we're going to put ourselves in kind of a clandry there so I don't think that's a great place to but the state of Connecticut has said that we need to follow state law yes but the federal government takes priority over the state law so we're now going to put ourselves in the middle of a potential conflict which I don't see why we
020would go into that willingly when we don't have to do anything state if the federal law if the state sorry I was just gonna say if the state changes its um guidance we can change our guidance and to me doing what the state tells us right now also has the added benefit of letting all of our students know that we feel that they all deserve to feel safe and secure so the problem with doing nothing is that we're required to follow the procedure that's in the regulations for the investigation that's why even though they don't suggest this I said well what happens in this instance and they said the board could introduce a motion to remove the language that they find conflicts with federal law so it sounds like we should probably kick this back
021to the full board for discussion and then we definitely need to hear more from Shipman and goodwi when that we have that conversation that's fine that's fine we want to send it up to the board my question is um I appreciate the memo it's hard for me though to track what exactly is the where so be helpful to me maybe see in some sort of grid here's this language here's who's in agreement and who's not here's what's outstanding so that we could really understand as a board from a really structured way what is truly Up For Debate um I think to your to the point everyone's making there are where where we're all in agreement on something and there's no conflict that's fine but would be helpful to for the board to understand where there's
022actual conflict so we can understand what's at risk or not at risk it would be it would be a simple grid because the only thing that conflicts right now with Federal laot is Connecticut's definition of what's a protected class and that because Connecticut includes gender identity and gender expression and the federal government has by executive order said that that is not included so everything else we're required federal and state law agree on the procedure they don't where they diverge is on the definition of protected class but I could that I mean that crit is is easy enough to so we agree to kick it back to the full board yeah I mean I think we have to approve this um right but I think to your I mean your question is whether or not you
023want to include gender identity or not and I absolutely do but we are a board of nine so right and it would be helpful to have Shipman and Goodman here I think I mean it's we can we can also have them write a memo I mean it's a very simple let's start memo it's a very simple memo they don't they honestly at this point they don't know what the consequence would be of in of not including that language but it's a here's the deal it's a small part of the policy and and we're required to follow the rest of it so when we have a sexual harassment complaint when we give a policy to the families so that they can track what we're doing it really needs to be the part that has been then
024we don't need shipment and goodmen we need to decide whether the nine of us want to protect all students or leave some students out of the sexual harassment categories we'll get an opinion of what the consequence would be of not you know of following Connecticut Law when federal law is not necessarily in alignment and I understand what you're saying about the supremacy clause but that's the only part the right and yeah and I don't understand the encouragement to adopt quickly that ship and gave if this is in state of flux so just curious to what that is from them because as of January 9th the policy on our website is no longer effective that's and we have sadly continue to have sexual harassment claims that's the reason Joanna you just said something about protecting students
025I just wanted to clarify of course the policy is meant to protect all students it's just identifying which are protected classes but it just sounded like we were protecting all students and I think the goal is always to protect all students right but if someone has been sexually harassed for their General identity and we don't have that listed here then they will have no recourse under this policy in terms of the protected class understood I just the way the language used I just want wanted it to be clear that all we of course start with all students so it's going to come to the board is that like yeah I think that's where we are policy number three March can I just clarify how quickly you want us to go to the board like you're
026talking like which is fine if that's fine yeah okay well I think we would be dependent on Shipman's comment didn't we ask for memo yeah so they're they'll do it okay so the Discrimination policy has been updated as well the title N9 used to require that all appeal processes in our policies for non-discrimination for 504 had to be um uniform title n then decided that they didn't need to be uniform but as a best practice Shipman and Goodwin Feld for ease of the administration and for parents that the appeals processes should be uniform so the Discrimination policy has been revised to um relax the timelines a little bit to allow parents who are appealing a decision um a little more time to submit paperwork and then after they submit paperwork then the superintendent or design
027has 30 days um to render a decision that's a little bit looser not a lot um but a little bit and then the other um part that has been updated is that um Connecticut state law again prohibits epithets on the basis of sexual Identity or gender expression and so that has been included to comply with state law so I assume that maybe we want a memo on that too seems like it's the same issue so maybe they can cut and paste that work for you Jo yep okay Sarah yep okay so it sounds like we're g to move ahead but we'd like more information from shipment please and that's that's all I see on the agenda for today we have any public comment we have nobody online or in the audience should I still say
028it um no no all right and that's going to conclude our meeting today on March 18th of the deran policy