001Can you. Call the word baby? Public school board meeting. Go call. President Bailey. Here. Goodwin. Here. Mr. Lacey here, Mr. Reinert. Present. Mr. Smith here, Mr. Walker. Present. Miss garrison. Present. 17. Attendance. The flag bearer, Mary. Which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty. And. Settlement agreement. Thank you so much. President Bailey, have one recommendation for today. Long term sub settlement agreement. This has been in for about 7 to 10 months. It actually is backdated to last July 1st to 2025. Actually, before that, the conversation came up in the negotiated agreement with the Da for the two year agreement. We weren't able to settle it then, but we were able to settle it now. So I would ask that the board vote to approve this agreement that takes long term subs into step one
002in general, period. And then in also they become members of the DEA immediately, but still have a 60 day probation. So moved. Second questions? Comment. Yes. My question I wanted to find out. I see that it's retro for active subs, and I was curious why it wouldn't go back to those who may have left the district on good terms but weren't, you know, paid adequately since this is going to go back to when they might have been with us. We had a conversation about that, and I can't I can't recall Da was in the room or not, Madam Treasurer, but we talked about Kelly was there and we talked about the difficulty of being able to track those individuals down. We did not think it was actually relatively feasible. And Madam Chair, you can add
003to my comments. I don't know what it was. Did you? Yeah. Maybe. Okay. Maybe. Needs to repeat the question to. The Madam Treasurer. My question was for those whom it would benefit, who were with us as long term subs and good standing, but are no longer active. I wanted to find out. Why wouldn't the retro be applied to those individuals so they would be sent the funds that they hadn't received? Can I ask it a different way. Please. For the people who resigned and told us they was leaving because the pay was not what they thought it was going to be for the upcoming year? Why are we not paying them the money as well? So the people resigned because they thought the pay wasn't going to be what it was. This is not we're
004not paying the long term subs more. We're actually paying them. At step one they wanted to be paid more. Now, if we had agreed to pay them more, then it's a compensation about going going back and talk about that compensatory delta between the two. But in exchange for them coming in at step one, the union agreed to say, hey, let them become immediate members. Yeah, I get that. But like this, number one says that long term subs with the masters will be placed at master's. Step one. The when we first did the MOU was because the certified teacher and long term subs were making the same pay. So this is basically saying again that we're now going back to keep that in line for this one year and then flipping it for the upcoming year
005to be that MOU that we did. Or is that different? We're not changing it for one year. This is a this is two years. But I think you're I think to go back to you and this sort of thing. Are there any individuals who should be paid, who are gone, who should be paid the master's level entry, entry, entry salary. Right. And I don't know how many individuals those are. I remember the conversation, but I remember us in the room saying, hey, how do we find those people? What's what's the mechanism to to to get them back here to, to pay them. For me, if it's money out there, then I'm fine with my money is going to come. But I think you have a functioning HR department who they keep a great record to
006try to reach out to people. I, I just, I if possible. I'm just I have no issue with voting on this today, but I would like to see just what that looks like for those, because I do know that we did have people who even emailed us when they were leaving because they were anticipating being at a level, but then they were not placed at that level because of this. Oh, duck the good one. Right. Miss Gibson? Oh, I'm just that they're adding to. So go ahead. I just I want to make sure I'm reading the document. Correct. So in line one this is for this school year putting individuals who have a master's degree on step one of that. Is that correct? That's correct. In line three. It is individuals effective next school year.
007The way it reads because it says all a long term stuff. It doesn't matter on your degree or not. You actually take a decrease back to step one. Is that correct? That is correct. So I'm not sure if you guys are I think what you guys are talking about the master's level. Stuff. But they go, so that's this current school year. So if there is individuals in this school year, they would receive that if they haven't already got. That is not correct. That's it for this school year. That's correct for this year. We're finishing 26. Now right. So if they work for us now, right. Next year they will be 51. So we for 1000 because back. Because this is negotiated we can't change the MOU from our side. But what you're saying about retro
008and all that, that would have to be something we would have to agree with with them. So they can't change what this one is. But both of your concerns here are something that they would still have to negotiate if they wanted individuals. Well, I don't even know if the world will see that, but that is something you guys should take their comments and even see if it's open for negotiation on that piece, because we can't change this document. And you're speaking of individuals who are. I mean, that's something that's a that's an agreement with that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's not there. So you're talking about people from the 2526. Correct. So who may have quit now. So even if they didn't work by the time. Were but they were left. Okay. So in the 25
009the request for Doctor Lawrence. Number two. Is. Just really number two, that last sentence. I. I feel like it's actually since we're just talking about feel like it's number one, I think you're saying, hey, doctor Lauren, two people. Okay. Number two, because of the active part of me saying those who would not be here anymore would no longer then be counted into that active employee part. Is that right? Yes. That's what I think. So you're asking for people who work or who were on our rosters at the start of July 1st, 2025. Is that correct? Mr. Walker? Mr.. Garrett. Okay. Correct. All right. And who? Who left? Correct. Who left? Yeah. All right. But they. Were done on good terms. Meaning they are eligible for rehire. Yes. Right. And if they're those type of individuals
010that would have received something, because only those people would have received the people that master's degree who were being paid at a bachelor's. Those are the people because there's no difference from people who had a bachelor's. Correct. So the long term subs, who are masters, who started this year being paid as at a bachelor's rate, who said, I'm leaving? You said, hey, where are those people? And what's the compensatory difference between however long they worked as a long term sub where the master's getting paid as a bachelor? Yeah, but they were still already get paid for the 2526 school year because. Yeah, but this. Yeah. Okay. The legal drafters. Yeah. Yes. Negotiated okay. Because. This is this is confusing. All right. But if you guys just find that question for them, see how many others
011is. And then if even they're willing to negotiate that for those individuals to be compensated, I guess. Yes. So for. Me I'm. Yeah, that but I'm. Is this saying just those who are. Why did it. Why did I highlight. So this makes this reading. That's what we did away with before the MOU that we had agreed with day. As far as if a person has a master's, then they would get paid still at a first year teacher rate even with the master. So now this is undoing that. This is what they negotiated, man. So I think that yeah. His signature is down on the bottom. So my, my. Says Neil Mahoney. Is in cursive. Yeah. That's what. Yeah. So my okay so it's a two part question. One it is since this highlights master's degrees.
012Never mind. No it's just too because I have to realize I'm on the other side. So I can't do that. I'm good. I'm right. Just the first question was my question. All right, Mr. Smith, I'm good. Everything is good. I just wanted to say thank you. I'm glad you did. Good. All right. President. Bailey. Yes. Doctor. Goodwin. Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Miss Reinhardt. Yes. Mr. Walker. Yes. Miss garrison. Yes. Seven yeses. Yeah. Resolution to adopt board policy. Second reading. And so much of the Board of Education is committed to the continuing updating of its policies, rules and regulations. And the Board of Education brought forward at this time the second reading and compliance with board foul. Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Board of Education, the date in school District County, Ohio,
013hereby accepting the following policy that has been codified for inclusion in the Handbook of Policy, Rules and Regulations. GCP New Policy, employee discipline, accountability, and Restorative practices. I move that we adopt this policy second. Questions or concerns? I have some questions. Mr. President. I was not here when this passed through. First reading on on a related note, the video for the 27th is not online, and I would like to see if we can figure out if that was recorded or taped and put online. Can you explain why this did not go through policy committee and came straight to the board, please? Yes. Well you want. I think it was it was more than one board member who was okay with bringing the policy forward. I mean. I think you can go through it. Thank you.
014So this policy was actually bought directly to the board based on several concerns that board members have had with personnel, matters that cannot be discussed here because they have been discussed in executive session. The request was to codify a discipline policy and work with the legal team of that piece of it. After that piece, I sent this out to individuals about a week ago. I think now brought it here first reading for individuals to review and to see if they had anything added on. Most of the things in this, actually, I think everything in this policy are things that this board as a whole has addressed over the last two years and that we have found issues with. The board members were asked at the last meeting to go through and if anything, bring it
015back. And I do want to know to one of the functions of the Board of Education that is actually a function of the Board of Education is to do in draft legislation. Although we do have a policy committee, it is not that every policy is appropriate for a committee of which we are making the policies for goes to that piece of it. So based on, again, the request of the Board of Education based on personal issues, that is how we got here today. And does this supersede any contracts or bargaining agreements that we have? It does not. Superstar. You can't do that because that would be illegal. And I'm stating for the. Record, it's not you can't do that. And it does specify that in there as well. Yeah. It's actually it's in there right.
016It is one. It is. Yes it is. And it's actually in line to it's going to be a really good policy because it does it has taken account every bargaining agreement that we have. They have discipline a little bit different. And now our policy has written it out to guide our human resource team, as well as supervisors who do items that don't rise to the human resource level for them to get involved, to follow a systematic approach of how discipline is applied. This policy will allow a lot more transparency with discipline as well as fairness and consistency, which is what we need to see as a board of education across the board. Thank you. My second question. Are we just was the motion only for the second reading? It was not for the first and
017second simultaneous reading. No, that is something else. Okay. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Mr. Reinhardt, I do believe. Yes, ma'am. I do believe this also applies to use for our direct reports. Thank you, I appreciate it. Did you say that again? Because I couldn't. Hear the whispering. I said I believe we this is also applicable to our direct reports. Oh, anybody else? I'm sorry. President Bailey. Yes, doctor. Goodwin. Yes. Mr.. Lacey? Yes, Mr.. Smith? Yes, miss. Reynolds. Yes, Mr. Walker? Yes, Miss Garrison. Abstain. Six. Yes, one. Abstain. Thank you. Okay. Second one. This second one is for simultaneous first and second reading. This has been brought forward from our payroll department, as you guys, if you know, in there, there is one change that adds one slash or to go with the intent
018of the policy right there. So let me read this and we'll see. And it was brought to the Board of Education because again, it is affecting an actual practice that they have right now. And they wanted to get that remedy. Insomuch as the Board of Education is committed to the continuing updating of its policies, rules and regulation. Mayo and the committee which was appointed has been working towards that goal. The following is brought at this time for simultaneous first and second reading and compliance with board file. Now, therefore, the Board of Education of the Dayton City School District, Montgomery County, Ohio, hereby accepts and adopts the following policy, which has been codified for inclusion in the Handbooks of Policy, Rules and Regulations. GCB professional staff, vacation and holidays. Administrators and supervisors. The change is a
019minor revision and it is on page one, as the intent of the policy was to apply to contracts that were in July 1st. I move that we adopt these policies. Second concerns or questions? I have a question, Mr. President. Thank you. Is this time sensitive so that it cannot go up for first reading this week and second reading next week? Yes, it is time sensitive. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Oklahoma. President. Bailey. Yes. Doctor. Goodwin. Yes. Mr.. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes. Miss Reinert. Yes. Mr. Walker. Yes. Miss garrison. Yes. Seven yeses. Pursuant to section 121.222 of the Ohio Code, I move that this board go into executive session. This meeting is being held to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, compensation of a public employee. To discuss specialized details of security
020arrangements. Second. President. Bailey. Yes. Doctor. Goodwin. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Reynolds. Yes. Mr. Walker. Yes. Miss garrison. Yes. Seven yeses. Let the record show that the Board of Education of the Dayton City School District has just completed an executive session during which it considered the appointment, employment, dismissal or and or compensation of public employee and matters of security as second. Questions. Concerns. President. Bailey. Yes. Doctor. Goodwin. Yes. Mr.. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes. Miss Reinhardt. Yes. Mr. Walker. Yes. Miss garrison. Yes. Seven. Yes. That will. Be what I want. President. Bailey. Yes. Doctor. Goodwin. Yes, Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Miss Reinhardt. Yes. Mr. Walker? Yes. Miss garrison. Yes. Seven yeses.