001Okay. >> Uh, good morning everyone. We'll call this meeting of the ASD School Board Governance Committee to order. Today is Thursday, September 25th at 11:01 a.m. Presence in the boardroom. Um, well, we'll go around and do introductions. I'll start. Carl Jacobs, Governance Acting Chair. Uh Mike Fleenstein, district chief information officer. >> Board member and committee member. >> Kelly, board member. >> Eric Sullivan, executive assistant. >> S Gifson, chief academic officer. >> Andy Ratliff, CFO, >> Bryant, superintendent. Marty Lang, chief of HR. >> Petty Ranger, man. >> Miss, we have members Wilson and >> uh member Wilson has not joined yet, but uh member Hollowman is on mine and so is member uh Mr. Anderson. >> Welcome all. We'll move to our agenda. Our first item is our rotating policy review. We'll bring up 4170, 427,
0024370ish. Uh first, just a reminder, we're reviewing these for any necessary changes or further revision. Um give your board members a second to digest. Is there any board member who wishes to revise this policy in any way or can we consider this review? Hearing and seeing no revisions, we'll move on to 4211 recruitment and selection. [Music] Any board member wish to make changes to this platform policy? You're going to see then we'll go to 4212 appointment conditions of employment. >> What does student help mean? member lesson. Can you reference the line? >> I'm sorry. Uh it's a second paragraph. Temporary substitute short-term and student help. >> What's student help? >> Student workers. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. We have staff, especially in the summer. Um works for >> my my son working in the IT
003department, clean Chromebooks for a summer. We've had students work in the business side and help with filing and special tasks. >> Okay. Member Higginson >> just for cl just for making a point but you know municipal charter prohibits us from being involved in employment decisions below an executive but the state law requires us to approve the list coming from the administration. So there is a conflict here but the state law overrides it. So we do it for that reason but otherwise we shouldn't be engaged in the selection and hiring of anybody below an executive charter requires a merit system principles which is in federal government guidelines pretty good pretty good reading basically an executive is someone who has policy making public advocacy uh responsibilities and that's listed in the federal regulations. So this one's it's
004just it's just there's a conflict here between municipal to and state policy. So we approve it, but we haven't taken any action to try to override anything below executive at all to my knowledge and I don't think we want to but we have to approve it. >> Hearing no other suggested amendments from board members, we'll go to 4212.8 employment relatives. Anything here before we move on? Seeing none, we'll go to 4213 assignment classification. >> Also just noting that member Wilson just viewed. >> Thank you, Member Wilson. Welcome. Any suggested changes on 4213 from board members board members hearing say none. We'll move on to 4215 evaluations aged. I um I have a question about this one because I wrote my first evaluation not too long ago. Um there isn't a requirement in here that we
005evaluate employees on a a minimum basis in terms of time frame and would administration be opposed to the board requiring that all employees receive and evaluate manually? Is that feasible? I don't we don't do it now. Is it feasible? >> We do that in practice. I think it's outlined in some of the contracts as well. The one pinch point may be the state allows us to do a performance evaluation every other year for certificated employees and we have adopted that in our agreement with the with AEA and part of that is to help principles manage the load of any the number of folks they have to evaluate any care so they can give it sort of due and their attention. Um so a policy at this level would compel us then I think to evaluate
006every person every year. >> So if there were a stipulation that you know unless provided by a contracts employment agreements I I just wonder how many folks have gone multiple years without an evaluation. Maybe it's not a significant number. Um, but I think that at least by annually, everyone deserves to know how they're doing and have documentation of it. And I don't think we're meeting that bar now across the board. I I don't have no idea if it's a significant issue or not. So is there some direction we can or should provide administration to try and move that bar with everyone? >> Part of the checkout process at the end of the year for our building principles is evaluating their completion of the evaluations both for certificated and classified. So in your estimation um m
007what percentage of ASD employees receive an evaluation no less than every two years? >> I would say over 95% receive evaluations. >> Right. I can think on that. It's helpful. Thank you. Anything else on this one for board members? >> Andy um >> member Hollow. Uh yeah, I wanted to weigh in. Um it was under Superintendent Bishop that we started the option of tenure teachers being evaluated every other year and I think that was a really good move. Um, a lot of people don't realize how consumptive the evaluation process is, but it unless things have changed, it begins with a staff meeting in early October and it goes on through March and it it's consumptive for both administrators and for the person being evaluated. So, as it stands right now, since it you can do
008every other year evaluations for tenure teachers, that means everybody's had at least four annual evaluations in a year, every year for four years. Um, and assuming they're not on a plan of improvement or anything, they can begin to skip a year. And I think that lets the administrators focus more on the evaluations they do. um if they get overloaded, uh it becomes more of a check off process. Um that it doesn't really benefit people much other than just shuffling a lot of paperwork. Um so I I think where we're headed right now, at least with the certificated staff, is a much better system. And I'll also note that anytime a principal really has concerns, they can begin an evaluation at any time or a focused evaluation. I'm blanking on the correct word for it, but
009uh where they do observations and give direct feedback and perhaps uh suggest uh ways of improving what teachers are doing. So I I do think if we make it too frequent, we lessen the quality of it. substantially and we don't want to do that. It might be interesting to ask um how many completed evaluations there are for administrators. I I know at one point they had sort of stopped happening, but when I say I'm talking about 10 years ago, I have no idea what's what's happened in relatively recent times, but I I do want to support uh tenure teachers being evaluated every other year. >> Thank you, Member Alman. Um is there someone from administration who can address this question regarding uh frequency of administrator evaluation? >> The intent is every year uh when I
010was a principal supervisor for five years and I did evaluation on every one of my principles every year. That is the expectation. Um that was part of the reason why we organized the way we did. So our principal supervisors had enough that they could actually get to all of those principal um evaluations. We are already actually just with the thing yesterday. We are looking at changing the principal at that point because we haven't really changed that in years to bring it here. I am the other thing about this is we have a committee that's up that stands up at least three times a year um called the seed committee which is a certified evaluation um educator evaluation document we go and it's a combination of people in this building as well as principles and um
011the teachers that we go through all of these processes around educator evaluation. So it gets updated almost yearly um in that realm as well. Um as as far as I I would say that as an you know I was a principal 20 years I got 20 evaluations. So I never ever missed no but I I was never missed but I think that pretty much yearly. >> Thank you both. Um, member >> if we change the provisions requiring something different than the state, then the contracts have to comply with the state and policies. So, we're going to be putting there I think on the system that doesn't have to be there to fix a problem that may not be a real problem to fix. So, but we recommend against that for that reason. >> Thank you.
012Hearing seeing no other comments, we can mark this as reviewed and move on 4216 probation and confirm the status. Any board member wish to make changes to hearing. Seeing none, we move to 4217 resignation. If board member wish to make changes on we may have one recommendation administratively. The last line of the third paragraph means the resignation presented to and accepted by the superintendent or designated may not be withdrawn by the employee. We encourage folks to notify us early if they're going to resign at the end of the school year. We incentivize that for for teachers um so that we kind of can anticipate what's going to happen during staffing season. And then we do have folks that over the next couple months sometimes do change their mind. we have on a limited space available
013of basis allowed them to resend when there's sort of no interruption like we haven't already staffed that position or cut that position or done something with FT that they occupied. Um, in reading this we realized that practice is a little bit out of alignment with what is actually an inboard policy and wondering if we could potentially pull this one and suggest some language on a limited space available basis only on a limited space available basis or something to that effect. >> Would deleting the last line accomplish your goal or just do you need to have >> very simply. >> Yeah. Um, does any board member object to us deleting the last line of this board policy and then putting it forward for a a votes revision? I guess >> I guess as I read it,
014of course, it can't be withdrawn by the employee, but the yeah without what you want to do is say without >> without management approval and um so is that all we need to do is add that in there? we do want to retain the right that once they reverse the resignation two months later I think change my mind they don't have the right to do that and that's reasonable but it's also reasonable that you want to be able to reverse it if they want to for good reason you find it's appropriate so if we left it there may not be withdrawn by the employee which I think is valuable without management without the superintendent or his or design just to be fair you speaking against just deleting the last line would rather something else. >>
015I would rather add something in there to put a qualifier on there that it can't be done without um approval. >> I think that would be a better thing for us too because it gives us a little more uh >> still control over it. >> Yeah. >> Um so then is admin comfortable bringing provision? Um I would say it sounds like it's going to be minor. So, if you could just send it to myself and Mr. Hollowman as a governance chair, we might not need to bring it back to committee. We'll just move it to a board vote on action once you guys have it. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we'll mark this as review noting that um a revision is coming from Madmen that'll go straight to the meeting agenda and then we'll go
016to 4218 dismissal suspension. Is there a board member who wishes to make changes here? Member Higgins. >> Um I I recognize probationary employees are there and you got the permanent employees. The only issue with probationary employees is eligibility for rehire other issues like that that may be out there. I don't think there does it there need to be anything in the policy out there or anything else or what's what is the practice because know that gets to be an issue of sometimes probationary employees decided it just doesn't work out right you can't come back to to work for the district without going through a process and I just question that kind of approach to that's a little bit of an issue to me >> we use probationary separation as an important tool for a lot
017of the social hourly employee positions that we have in the district. We hire folks, find out that they're not a particularly good fit for that job description. Oftentimes, appropriation separation does not interfere at all with their ability to apply for other positions in the district. In fact, often during that conversation, we're saying, "Hey, this wasn't a good fit." But we have a lot of other positions that you might consider at the district. It's only if there are some truly more disciplinary concerns that we would um flag their application in some way that might cause a review if they were to reapply for other positions in the district. So I would say the majority of probationary separations come with no additional restrictions for them applying for other positions in the district. I think a two-year type
018period or something like that. Um the I think you're referencing some previous conversations potentially where we ask and that's that's usually with non-retentions. So that is specific to certificated employees who we separate with on a probationary basis because they're non-tenured. >> Um and so that's sort of exclusive to that particular uh bargaining unit. For most of our bargaining units, a probationary separation does not come with any kind of >> There's language in the bargaining agreement that covers it. >> Yeah. >> Yep. To how long the probationary period is, what the eligibility look like. >> And I No problem. >> Any other questions? Member Higgins? >> No. >> Thank you. We'll mark 4218 as reviewed and we'll move to our last policy today as part of our routine for meal review 4222 periods and purpose. >>
019Can you go back to the other one just for a second for just a moment? >> Now says the school board may affirm modifiably vote the recommended personal action. Once again, we're back to the bar system principles, but is that something required by state law that we have to that we exercise that uh in regards to it or is it by contract or what what what is the the the authority? What does that authority come from? Because we've got a municipal charter. You've got I know we have to approve fires and fires and discharges, but I also knew we got involved with some appeal processes, but I'm not sure if that was important to the contract. But somewhere along here that seems to be kind of confusing to me as to um you know we
020we can appeal we can appeal suspensions, demotions, reduction in step any of those can be you know we can modify or revoke. It just seems kind of like that's really outside of our scope unless there was some legal requirement for us to do it. It would be a compliance issue with the munis charter. So if I could look at that from a legal standpoint before we go forward with this and say is this something we need to fix it on seems to me to be kind of he doesn't address the limitations of define the limitations >> I'm not sure the the origins of that language to me that falls under language in previous articles that would require us to put um those actions on a board report for board approval at at a meeting um
021because that's a we're severing our employment relationship. So I think it's more a notification um which >> you don't get any notification of suspension without pay >> right >> correct is that listed there as well no this is just >> reduction of pay and step >> we do get the dismissal notification people leaving we don't get not we get motions because he's going from one position to another >> but I just didn't you know I just don't know of authority we have if that policy is compliant with I know it's not within municipal charter and it doesn't cover just contract employees people that may not be under contract >> are you asking for changes to this >> I'm asking basically to just take a look at legal standpoint as what the board can and cannot
022do because it looks like it's out of compliance >> so we'll know for this one that we're going to mark it as reviewed and then administ ministration will review and determine if any changes are necessary and we'll bring them back to future. Thank you. We'll move on to our last board policy for review 422. We'll scroll down to the second half. >> Okay. Any board member wish to make modifications to 422? >> I almost feel like putting ball in Q is going to pay given our budget, but I won't. Let's leave it the way it is. U Mr. D. >> Uh our suggested revision would be uh where it says pair of professionals working in title one programs to strike the title one programs. There was a revision to the statutory language in 2022 that
023requires it now for all paraprofessionals. It used to be just exclusive to title one. So we would I think want to update the language here to reflect that and we can certainly work on that language and send it along with the 427. >> Perfect. >> So that would be just a minor change and scratching. >> Yep. >> Right. This we'll mark this as reviewed and then um once admin has a completed version we'll just move it straight to getting it checked out unless there's any different. >> With that said we've completed our policy review. So thank you everyone. Move on to B2 and 51.53 withholding grades diploma or transcripts. There's a modified version of this. >> Got it. Recommendation. >> Dr. I'm proposing this be deleted. Is an admin recommendation? It might be available. >>
024ASB policy revisions. >> Great. Okay. So this policy is proposed to be deleted then by AASB >> and we're seeking consensus from the committee to do that to move forward with sending this to the full board for a vote. If you like to delete a policy we probably want to vote on that as a group. >> Yeah. >> Why why refresh but why do we want to delete this particular issue? I mean you do have issues about withholding things and the transcripts that may come up. How was how was that handled or is it just not considered to be appropriate anymore? >> Did we receive any information from AASB regarding the recommendation of Solden? >> Um not that I'm aware of. I'd have to talk to Kate, but I think they just things that they
025bring forth ongoing policy revisions. I don't think they give us explanations on why. Uh again, we can choose to adopt or not what they recommend. would be an example where you wouldn't want to withhold diplomas or no it's not diplomas obviously that's in question or something but transcripts are great not sharing that if somebody's transferring something else or would ever withhold >> my understanding of our practice is that we have not withheld those things for I mean as long as I've been an administrator with the district uh we'll pursue you trying to collect the items back or get financial reimbursement from families. >> Yeah, usually that's that's if they owe something whether they have a a balance in the cafeteria or they have a lost book or they didn't return their football uniform or Chromebook.
026Um, and so usually it's that financial connection. We use this some somebody uses this as a as a way to try to compel families to clear those balances. We have not done that in practice as a district. So I don't think eliminating this changes anything for us and did you have additional information? >> I just um noticed that Miss Grant has joined us online as well and so and and so did Mr. Don member D. >> All right. Welcome member Don and his grant. Um, so it sounds like this is not something ASB does in practice. So we would align policy with practice happens also align with ASB recommendations. Is there any objection for the board to moving this to a meeting agenda for adoption? Hearing and seeing none, we'll do so. Thank you everyone.
027>> Same will be for this next one. This AR uh to delete is what is recommended. This is an associated AR5125.3. >> There any objection from the board to adding this to a future meeting agenda to align policy and regulation with our current >> basically correct >> hearing and seeing no objection. We'll move on to 61 item B4. Yeah. 6161.2 damage or lost instructional materials and equipments. >> And here's another it's another ASB review as well. >> The option to zoom in a bit more. I know back on my computer. I know. We all use the problem framework. Do you know? Have you ever made if somebody lost your computer, they have to work? What kind of what would you have them do? [Music] >> So somebody who is financially in poverty, they have to
028work for the district while somebody else their parents pay all >> that. There's a little conflict in the way that we apply this right now with this language. And so um I would want to modify it some. Right now it says it says would recharge the replacement value. Typically we charge the depreciated value of the asset. So if for instance they broke a computer and it was six years old then we wouldn't we don't charge them a replacement cost. We charge them the sixyear depreciated value of that particular asset. And then we purchase because some of it some of it's dimminimous if the device is no longer usable or close to no longer usable. And so we typically don't make them pay the full replacement cost. So rather that we'd rather put forward uh I
029say will be responsible for depreciated uh to to um equal to the current um um depreciated value of the material. >> It sounds like the this current suggested revision from ASB may not align with our current practice. So would it be best to take this one back to the workshop for a bit before we adopt? >> And I would like to see probably question whether or not we want this hell of that we have the right to make kids look for the district. I don't know what that would constitute but I don't know if I feel comfortable with that anyway. >> Okay. >> So we'll we'll my suggestion we'll um take this one back and ask it to be added for to an agenda. Um we'll give it a few months. So maybe in December
030enough time. >> Okay. We'll add 6161.2 a suggested revision to a December governance meeting and we'll consider this one resolved for now. Thank you everyone. And next up is 51 AR5116A. >> So that is from the administration, Mr. Chair. Um, and this has been a couple years in the making as we think about ways to expand access and opportunity to the district's choice programs. And in addition to other um tactics we've talked about like possibly transportation and other levers, one will be the way that we choose to manage our weight list. So, I'd like the team to um go in depth. >> Robin Harris is here. So >> Robin is our senior director of choice schools and she's been our lead in this work and is going to kind of um give a highlight of
031what this actually entails. >> Currently our weight lists are allowed to roll over from year to year and due to the fact that we are now changing systems our old system is suns setting and so we're bringing on scribbles as our new system for lottery capture. we felt that this was a great time to even tighten up a little bit of our lottery structures that we already had in place. So in some cases some of our schools have weight lists that are at length of 200 students um that and they stay on those from year to year and it is just more equitable and gives more students opportunity for us to wipe away those weight lists at the end of each year and have everyone reapply again the following year. So um this revised AR
032just refreshes our lottery each year so that families have equal access. Um it also helps to prohibit pre-screening or pre-in interviewing students so that once they are in the lottery then they all have a team meeting to talk about the student what the program offers and how we can best meet the students needs within that program. So that clarifies that for and prioritizes the fairness. So equally um we've created a monitoring regulation that holds school accountable um that would be centralized from my office and also utilizes contact logs and then principal attestations saying that they have gone through this process regularly so that we can do regular audits to make sure that we aren't holding interviews or again or pre-screening before the lottery runs so to speak or before they're actually inviting students in. We
033want all students to be welcome when they hit the lottery system and they are welcomed into each of our lottery programs. So um I think in short these revisions move us from um we had some exceptions and inconsistencies that was they kind of erode a little bit of trust and want to move to a process of transparency and consistency and equitability for all students. Um, how often is there you are you aware of charter school like pre-in before a lottery if the lottery occurred. How often does that happen? >> So con considering this is my second year. Um, I I don't have a an accurate number for you. Um, but I have had several instances where I've had to speak with principles about making sure that they are bringing a team together, especially if there's
034a student with disabilities. bringing the team together to have that conversation after the lottery runs rather than you have your lottery list and then pulling in those interviews and pre-screening those students out. Um, so we want to make sure that that's equitable. So there has been some instances, not not an excessive amount, but there have been some instances. So we want to make sure that it's equitable across the board. >> Right. So we're looking at the new AR member list. >> I have a question and maybe this uh for a conversation another time, but some of our schools had historically had really big weight list. >> Yes, Polaris comes to mind. Um it it seems bizarre to it has seemed um I don't know I haven't been able to square uh with that school let's
035say you know we have our PTRs and then they get x number of teachers even but the demand is there and perhaps the the physical space is there as well. I mean what am I trying to articulate? I'm trying to articulate um I don't fully understand why we can't admit more students when the building capacity seems to suggest that those students would fit and then we could allocate the teachers to follow the students. >> In Polaris's case specifically, I believe that um >> her space is actually one classroom availability at this point. Okay. So it's not an enormous amount of space that she would have available um Claris would have available to bring in more students. So and that and we do look at those numbers on a regular basis and I have conversations with
036you know where the bubbles are like two three is is a big bubble um for that school. So, um, but she doesn't have an enormous amount of space, but we do have conversations about additional staff when necessary, and we've done that with some of our schools this year with some of that holdback because the numbers, they could bring in more students. And it's not just Polaris. We've had that conversation with the AK choice as well. But one of the things you have to watch out for is if you do that like for one year >> that that means there's going to be and say you do it for two years that mean there's two classroom extra then three classrooms actually four classrooms extra then five so you only have one classroom you have to you
037have to watch out or else you're way overfilled >> okay I mean there's always reasons just >> it's a balance >> um under accountability and monitoring. Is there any opposition from administration to amending the last bullet point to specifically state that the annual report that's going to be generated um will be given to the board? >> If you would mind scrolling down towards the bottom of the [Music] >> so the annual report was generated summarizing moderate trends compliance enabled for improvement. I would like that to be given to our board and future boards and I want I would like that to be included in this administrative regulation as a commitment. Is there any >> I don't have any um opposition to that. Are there any technical reasons why we wouldn't be able to >> I
038think we'd need to it would it wouldn't come at the end of a school year per se. It would come probably in January because January is when the the new lottery opens and so that would be when the old lottery would be done because schools, you know, will take kids in December off the lottery if they have a bunch leave. So it would probably be we'd have the we instead of a a school year look at this we'd probably be looking at a calendar year January February getting the report. It's just because the lottery the lottery runs twice and the same pe the same we don't it won't purge a um weight list until after January after the first day of the second second semester. So that'd be kind of when you get the results.
039So it could include the monitoring lottery year lottery opening to lottery opening which is >> right and I'm less concerned about when we get the report as much as that when this annual report is generated that the board receives a copy. I also think I mean if we can receive it I don't know why it can't be made public and the only reason I'm this is a matter of interest for me is because there's been a lot of misrepresentation. There's been a significant um amount of misrepres misrepresentation regarding charter schools and their weight lists >> and I feel like transparency is a great way to kill that. One thing we don't have an ability to do I don't think in our reporting process is to tell how many schools each individual we might in the
040new program but you know and there might one one family may apply for 15 different lotteryies and be on 15 different weight lists in a year >> and so we'd have to just figure out maybe that that might be a piece of it >> okay we'll talk with Corey we were going to have a meeting >> so then um would it be possible to um not a lack of trust for administration, but I think it would be great to sit back around the table with the the tweaked version of this in a future month. We're not um as a reminder for the board, we're not in a position to require amendments, but I think this aligns with what our current vision and practice would be anyway regarding um charter school weight list. And so, would
041it be okay to schedule this for next month's meeting to look over the revis? >> Just a reminder, this isn't only for charter schools. This is for any of our >> lottery. >> Yeah. My only question to that is I know that this change would we're trying to have this change go into effect early enough to where it doesn't impact the current parents applying for next school year. So we can't delay this change too much longer month. >> Yeah. We we we want to make sure that going into our second semester, it's >> I'm envisioning you folks using your current practice that's outlined here, but just bringing it back as anformational item to show the commitment for the revision. >> Great. Yeah. Because the focus will be transparency parents too. >> We want to make
042sure that we're communicating that early on before then. So, >> okay. Member Higgins. >> Yeah. Does this thing have to I mean I was surprised to extreme the fact that they have ge ge you know what ge geological not geological location on the east side before anybody else is allowed to get it and I don't know what other types of exceptions out there or limiting where they come from first before everybody else can apply. I know we already give a preference of course we got kids already in the school. Uh we're not doing it because our youth to attend that school which would be like a all they got tacked on. But on this issue when I don't see this reflected in here of when what limitations or what they can do about limiting it
043for one group before they do it for the whole group. >> And that's it's not in this document. It's written into their charters. So for instance stream has that specifically written into their charters. And I can't think of another school necessary necessarily other than like Rilka having the language background to be able to apply after the first grade, you know, having those kinds of things within their charter. So, um, stream currently is one of the only ones that starts with the east side first and it was based on >> how that how Stream started 14 years ago and where it started and it was right there on the east side with their founders. I >> it's it's actually if you look under general provisions um pull up a little bit >> if you look under
044general provisions there priority category siblings and attendance area so it is in here >> that's where applicable yeah we didn't take those pieces out yeah but stream specifically has their east side written into there but others would where applicable would be neighborhood siblings and neighborhood students being entered in as a preference. >> Okay. I was thinking, you know, if we had made a change like to um pilate and Eagle Academy goes, you would want the people around there to be able to probably attend that school as opposed to bringing in somebody else first so that you can have this disruption for that for that family at that point or something like that. Picture that because they kind of replace the neighborhood school. If we move charter schools into potential schools in the future that we
045may do that's that's certainly not happen where they're located and to continue that access for the local community >> that we don't see that being in the policy see that is I don't know if it needs to be in policy or not as long as it's not blocky. >> So we're going to administration is going to move forward with their new practices. We'll bring uh this AR back next month to um review and commit to the minor revision regarding the annual report. And thank you M for your work in bringing this forward. Can I take a question real quick? >> Sure. >> Gender balance requirement. Has that ever been an issue? >> It hasn't necessarily again with stream. They have a memo um within their documents that state that they would like to have 50/50
046gender balance. But for ours, we have the two/3 no um grade level will have an imbalance of more than 2/3 to a third >> each. So we have that in there. >> The Alaskan Native Cultural Choice School isn't giving preference to Alaskan Natives is it? But it's but it's one of those things that gets attractive to that group. But maybe they may decide that as well. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I will mark this one as um disposition for review next month. And thank you everyone. We'll move on to our last agenda item 4119.12 4219.12 4319.12. >> Hi everyone. So, this came up last month as you were reviewing the board policy on harassment and it was brought up that we don't have an AR or a process that's laid out for employees when
047they need to file a complaint against their direct supervisor. So, this really just lays out the process for them. Essentially, what happens is um the employee if they want to file a complaint against their direct supervisor would go to that supervisor supervisor. Um, if it's a chief level complaint, then it would go directly to the superintendent's office. Um, and it would filter through there on who it would actually be assigned to to investigate the complaint. And if for any reason um, an employee doesn't know who their supervisor supervisor is, then there's a direct contact in my office through EEO that they can reach out to that would provide that information. Um so this was a request that was made during last month's um meeting and so this is just brought forth for everyone to review.
048memory. >> Yeah. And just from a best practices standpoint, generally if you you anybody from your supervisor all the way up to the superintendent or the HO, you can go wherever you're comfortable. You don't have to follow the chain of command. If it's not your supervisor, you have to go to the one above. They don't identify who you have to go. They identify the list of who's there and they encourage you if you're comfortable going to that level as opposed to being required to go to that supervisor above the supervisor. there could be 100 somebody comfortable doing. >> Um, and so I I just from a best practices standpoint, you got a lot of April policies out there with everything else with it, but don't look at look at also, look at any one of
049the ones you want, but they always give you that flexibility and pull it, but to go anywhere within the chain of command up or to human resources so that we don't have people feel uncomfortable not reporting it because they or get in trouble because you didn't follow the process. back to the children with that kind of issue. >> Member, >> I have a question. I understand that this is um intended to apply to employees of the district. Is there an analogous um AR for for if students have an issue with staff who essentially you know they're maybe not their teacher but you know somebody a principal for example is there a protocol for students to then go to your office >> no another location >> I've had a student approach me within the past year
050with this question >> so that's something that's come up a lot over the last year and that's something that um I've worked really closely with Marty and Sven on and it on through a new complaints dashboard um and we've worked through a lot of these processes and realize that they're not as transparent and easy to get out there. So, as we finish the complaints dashboard, we're working on that approach. Typically, what what is always said and what's said in our student handbooks is that if they can't work it out with um it starts at the lowest level. So it would start at the building principal and after that it would go to depending on the level either the elementary senior director typically again people don't know who this is so they're going to send it
051to the superintendent's office and what's going to happen is one of the uh administrators up there would get it and then they're going to take it over to the instructional division and have them handle it or follow up on it based on um the way that our regions are set up or or what they're supervising. um I'll say it's a work in progress and it's not I mean that is how the system has been structured and then to pat your point around this I think I'll defer to Marty I we don't have a specific office that I'm aware of in or that is not a function of employee relations um or another office in HR char that currently exists. So, the way that we're thinking the process will work is that my office will exist
052as the main complaint center, but again, we're kind of taking we're going to end up taking that uh process and doing something similar. So all of the complaints once we get the complaint dashboard up and running and and advertised in a way that the district and everybody in our community can understand is it will come to our office electronically and depending on what type of complaint it is. Um it will filter out to the appropriate office whether that's EEO or the instructional division um it could be something around transportation or like a citizens complaint and then we would still follow that process. It's just going to be done in an electronic way. >> Is there anything? >> If I could ask clarifying question, member Higgins. So when you're talking about them being able to bring
053it to any supervisor in the district, that's for the purpose of chain of command. >> In the chain of command, anyone in the chain of command for reporting purposes, not for investigation, right? And then or to human resources if they don't they don't know where to go and they can always go to human resources would be appropriate as well. That's pretty traditional. >> Uh do it that way. And then there's also usually language in there saying that they were going to get a response or something. They're going to get some type of followup uh after they raise a complaint. They're going to get some information at the end. That's an issue that's that has been raised that I've heard of that they don't always get a response. They don't know, okay, thank you very much.
054We looked into it. >> Um >> and the complaints dashboard has that process built in, but we didn't articulate that in the AR. We could certainly allude to that. And I'm wondering Tony if we could simply modify that first bullet to say the employee supervisor supervisor or anybody above their supervisor in the chain of complain >> right >> because I you know if somebody works in a school they got a complaint against their principal and they know somebody in student nutrition who's a senior director doesn't make sense for them to take the complaint there right it we we still want it to be within the sort of portion of the district that over >> council that people raising concerns outside of the chain command or simply spreading rumors and that's inappropriate because the person who's
055have the allegation raised against them doesn't have a chance to defend themsel and you're spreading stuff out negatively and that can result in in consequences as well. You you it needs to be treated confidentially to give both both parties a fair opportunity for an investigation uh before reaching any conclusion. a fair investigation, reach a reasonable conclusion. And so, uh, it it's putting in language saying if individuals are advised, they can, you know, you have to raise it within the chain of command. It's, you know, it's inappropriate to go outside that and I've got some old policies I'll give you if you want. But it it just that's an important issue that I've run into with all the investigations I've been involved with where you run into that they they start sharing it with others and
056the person being abused has had a fair chance and there'll be damage and that becomes a a performance issue that needs to be addressed as well. So when I meet with people I have a reading list I do and I always tell them you need to be advised you have to treat this confidentially except for this list this and document that I told the employee that so that if there was a problem later I've got a document saying I told them that >> we do have the section there addressing confidentiality >> and we do have that document at least from employee relations that that exists as well around confidentiality that they have to So, um, member Higgins, if you're comfortable, we can look at some alternative language for that first bullet point. We can look
057at some additional language about what information they will receive in response to filing their complaint. >> Um, and then bring back a draft next. >> And as you think on it, if there are other specific things that you might want to see represented, >> if I find something with an old policy, I'll see you electronic. >> Okay. So, is this something we'll be bringing back next month? Is that too soon? >> Two months. >> Okay. >> So, we'll note that we'll bring back AR this AR um for next month's governance agenda for a minority. >> Thank you. >> All right. That ends discussion of our agenda items. We have an item new business. There any board member wishes to discuss a new business item? Member Higgins, >> I'll just mention that as I mentioned in
058the board meeting, we have two and and NSBA is looking at uh the option of doing uh audits uh working with other school districts to provide resources similar to what council great city schools is doing. I'm working with that ASB is involved NSBA president as well as the president all engaged in that and they are working with their boards to do that. So, we're going to have some additional resources in the future hopefully and in the short term that can address some of the outstanding stuff. So, I think I just think that's going to give us a a better opportunity to have a third party objective working with the board, you know, uh and giving us more, you know, involvement than being removed out of the audit process. Is that something you'd like to put
059in writing for committee consideration and a vote or >> Let me go ahead and get get the confirmation from NSBA as well. And and then the other issue is I guess we talked to the board, but the NSBA president has agreed to meet with the board to review from the NSBA standpoint the roles and responsibilities of the of school boards different than the way Council of Basic Schools may present it. And I would like for that opportunity to be there. I think that's something there's a board vote on it. Do you go ahead and schedule it? I'm not sure, but at least want to see it die. And the second one is to become a member of that's a $400 cost. And then me then you get a free uh u attendance for one of
060the conferences and you get discounts from the others. So actually it's less expensive to have that in the future as well. You save money. So, I'd like to find out what process I need to do, whether that's governance, whether it's full board, or whether something has be done. >> Yeah, if you I'll just speak to the first step. If you're willing to send me an email requesting that a N SBA >> extended >> Yeah. Um, yeah, we'd like to send an invitation. I'm happy to see if we can work them into our next retreat. >> Okay. Okay. And then regarding uh a motion to expend district funds to join an organization, I think you would want to try and obtain a second and then uh probably can probably add that back on the governance agenda
061once you're ready. >> Okay. Then you go to governance school for spending $400. Remember is part of NSBA. >> Yeah. >> You're just paying for that additional services and then we have connect and we have a bunch of other stuff. ASB is recommending. Yeah, I think if we we can work with Sullivan to get you a memo, but I think if you wrote up a memo explaining what what we're doing and why, we probably could just bring it straight to the full board if you'd like. >> Okay. >> Right. So, we'll leave that with you. And so, once you have the memo finished, please send it to me and then please send me an email about inviting an SBA to um our next retreat. So, we'll wait for you on both those items. Um, member
062Hollowman, under new business. >> Uh, yes. I've got something I would ask uh Miss Sullivan to put up on the screen. Um, I'll read it real quick. The governance committee asks the administration to report on the general guidelines the district has for renting of outdoor fields and stadiums. The committee is asking for administrative regulations that differentiate between our fields that are close to residential housing with consideration giving given to allowed noise levels and total time events are happening through the weekend. Um I'm I'm getting a lot of feedback through the Huffman Alley um community council. This primarily involves South, but you know, regulations should be more general than that and look at the whole district. Uh the folks that live near the South High Stadium are quick to point out that it's unique and it
063was built after the housing was in place. Um, but they're they're getting loud noise levels from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays and in some cases even a little earlier than 10:00 a.m. on Sundays. Um, I don't know what our policies are and that or what our administrative regulations or policies and rentals might be. So, I'm asking for that as a starting point. Um, and I do think this should wind up being administrative regulation rather than board policy, but I would like for us to do some things that basically make us good neighbors uh to the people that live in close proximity to our outdoor fields and stadiums. Um, so I would need a second for this. Um because member member Halman because this wasn't listed on our agenda and because our
064meetings comply with the open meetings act my suggestion because it sounds like administration hasn't had I mean when did Dr. Brian when did your team get this? >> I I wasn't aware of a policy recommendation but the issue of noise. >> Okay. Yeah. So member Holland, my suggestion is that we um give this to administration to consider the best path forward and we can put this on governance agenda next month and whatever path is best administrative regulation or policy or maybe there's some internal practice we can review. Um I think being good neighbors is great. Um, I know that our fields are a public resource and in Alaska, especially important given the um the unique layout of our town. So, how it's handled, I think, is very critical. And so, I think we could take
065a bit more time. If you're not opposed to um adding this to next month's agenda so that we can figure out what policy remedy is the best avenue, >> right? Well, what this really isn't passing any kind of policy or regulation. it is asking the administration to come back and tell us if anything exists currently. I really don't know. Um, so it's it's essentially asking for a report and I don't think that violates open meetings act to do it and and the goal is to give them a month to uh to look at that and tell us what's in place and also if if there are no regulations in place um to contemplate some um or contemplate explaining why they're not. But >> so it's a little more than just me asking for personal information
066or making a personal request. I I would like for the weight of the committee to be behind it. >> Yes. >> But it is just a request. >> Yeah. Member element. I would second um administration coming with more institutional knowledge about how this process is handled to explain to the board next month. I think that's fine and we can figure out what next steps look like. >> That would work for me too. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Great. Member Higgins on new business. real quick. Um, just that uh I'm I'm working with with Andy in regards to a committee with purchasing, but I still haven't gotten any contacts on the audit committee members that were involved in the audit because um the president council of Great City uh supported the idea that one of them
067should be on the committee could be on the committee because they would have know what they recommendations like a community outreach to let people know what kind of jobs they what kind of contracts they can apply for, things like that. That was a little bit unusual and they may have experience with that, but I haven't got any contact with them. So, I can't call anyone to try to line that up, but I would like for that to be out there with something for the administration because I can't do that. You're going to go through the council of great city schools. They're going to be more responsive to you than you me anyway. >> All right. Um, not seeing anything else under new business. Our next meetings are 10:23 and 11:20. If there's nothing else before
068the committee, then we will note that adjournment has occurred at 12:03 p.m. Thank you everyone.