001meeting to order. Um, please rise for the pledge of allegiance [Music] and Next item on our agenda is approval of the February 26, 2025 agreement. >> Second. >> Any discussion, questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. >> Okay. Have we received any public comment either in person or online tonight? Not to no public comment. That brings us to number four. Um discussion and possible action on policy 5145. from the chair. I'm happy to give an update on this policy and then obviously open up some discussion to see if we're ready to vote this out of the committee and move it to the full board. Um just for a historical perspective, um the last time this came before the board, um we had some conversations about language that needed to be updated
002and modified to ensure that um it was legally sound and that we were um aligned with not only the law but best practice. Um, so we also had um our attorneys take a look at it and language was amended based on their review. And then it and then our attorneys recommended that the policy be then moved back and have um commissioners and administrators and our central office team take a look at the language to ensure again that um questions were answered, concerns were addressed and that's where we were. So, the policy proposed policy language went back out to commissioners and building administrators and our central office team for feedback. And from there, um, Deputy Superintendent Hawk really took the lead and I'd like to turn it over, um, to her so that she can speak
003to what happened after feedback started to be generated. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, so the our legal advisory team was concerned with a few different things. One of them was um what what would be searched if it would be um deaths or storage units. So they put some some language in here so that it can be gym bags, it can be storage units, it can be desks. Therefore, we don't have to um worry about uh where different items are found. Um they also wanted to make sure that we had the the reference, so the vape um pen uh vape items on here because uh sometimes when they do search and seizure, they're only looking for weapons. So, they were very cautious to make sure that every all of the items on here are in line with
004um state law and board policies. So, at this point, I ran it by both of the principles of both high schools as well as our director of security, and they all feel as though they're comfortable in implementing as this policy is written. Based on your review of the questions and concerns and the amended language presented by our council, um do you feel that the feedback received to date addressed the attorney's concerns and questions? Absolutely. Um, I spoke with all all people involved um about the attorney's concerns and they feel as though they are um ready to implement this to the letter of the policy. Um they feel comfortable. they have been uh hoping to have something in place, a policy in place to guide them with their um with their uses of the wands. So
005they are looking forward to uh this policy being passed. So at this time the policy that we have has been vetted, reviewed by our attorney. The recommendations and amendments made by the attorney have since been integrated into the policy that we have before us and our attorneys would consider this a legally sound policy. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for your work on that. I know there was a lot of back and forth behind the scenes um fielding, you know, questions that I had, feedback from administrators, feedback from our attorneys. Um, so I I definitely appreciate your work um on bringing the policy to where we are now. And I I just want to say I appreciate everybody's time and effort that has gone into this because this is an extremely important policy as
006it will help to make our schools safer. um and the attorney's uh recommendations. We spoke at length about all of them and I feel as though this is a very strong policy that will support the students and the administrators in Bristol. Amazing. Wonderful. And of course, we as commissioners do vote on policy. you don't vote on the administrative ranks, but have you had an opportunity to consider um some language for the administrative rights and sort of how this might roll out? Yes, we will be making regulations for the administrators to follow. We're going to be working with our SRO team, the Bristol Police, and um Steve Kabales, our um security uh director, so that everybody and everybody feels comfortable, everyone has the the language and um also it has a training on how to use
007it and we're going to rely on Steve's expertise. >> Okay. Wonderful. In terms of rollout, will this be um implemented at the high schools first and then followed by some of the other proposed sites like middle schools or Yes, we are starting at Bristol Eastern with the training and the regulations and we'll pilot it for a little bit just to make sure that everything is smooth and that we've thought through every uh detail and then we will bring over to Bristol central and then down to the middle schools. Thank you. Look forward to hearing um how smoothly the the roll out um was implemented and also you know any updates that we might be able to provide in future meetings. >> Thank you. One question that was coming up for me was um has there
008been any um thought around a process to gather any input once it's been implemented on what's working well if there's anything that might need to be tweaked or talked about further um you know given you know maybe the the number of occurrences would that be helpful I guess is a question as well >> yes it would be um we're very fortunate to have Steve and um some security personnel at at both of our high schools daily. Um so we will be able to get feedback very quickly and we'll be able to pivot and adjust if we need to. Um we can also ask the students how they are feeling about it. um as we'll probably have it rolled out either an advisor adise like in a in a smaller setting so that they can feel
009comfortable to ask questions that they may have. >> Thank you >> through the chair. Um and in previous meetings um we've had some conversation about being really skillful with the topics that we bring up in public. you know, the things that we're able to talk about publicly and the things that we might have to reserve um for a special meeting and and in a close session. Um, I wonder for next meeting if we might be able to confer with director Cavllis to determine if like what were what would be skillful to ask publicly about how things were rolling out and you know occurrences uh you know the rate at which searches and seizures were and what things we wouldn't want to ask publicly just so that that can guide us. Um, so we kind of
010know what to ask and what not to ask. >> Thank you. >> We do have two problems that are very much connected. Um, we have the 5125.123 and then the 5145.12. Um, any other discussions that we might need to have on either of them? Any other questions? >> And and the questions that I was asking and I and I think that your responses were referring to both agenda item four and five. Um, policy 5145.123A and policy 5145.12. Is that accurate that both of them have been vetted? And yes, both both of them have them. Thank you. I'd >> like to make a motion to move policy 5145.13A search and seized use of metal detectors before. >> Did you ask for the motion? I'm sorry, I was running at the same time. Or did you make
011the motion? the motion. >> Okay. Second. >> Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes and this agenda item will be moving to full board. Agenda item five. I'd like to make a motion for policy 5145.1 student search and seizure live in full board for >> second. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor I motion pass forward. So number six was review uh policy 2141 recruitment and treatment of superintendent. We received um some input that we started to review at the last policy committee meeting one or another. >> It was the it was the meeting before last meeting we reported. >> Yes. Okay. >> Because we we um sort of tabled it at the last meeting. >> Okay. to the meeting before last.
012Um, and so it's back on the agenda to pick up where we left off and continue that discussion. >> The chair, if I may, um, is is there any sort of historical perspective on um, bringing this to the policy committee just because it's been a few sessions and sessions? Yeah. So, This was brought to policy committee to really consider adding some language around um board reviewing a contract within 72 hours prior to signing. um just to ensure that you know the board has eyes on that contract that we're able to review it, ask any questions and you know really allow an opportunity for us to have a discussion or or ask questions and review it. Um so we had been reviewing it or it's been on our agenda for quite some time. We've been checking
013in on it and we did receive some feedback from Kate I believe two meetings ago for us to consider um as possible language and recommendations when considering um you know adding that language or exploring potentially adding some language around the board. I miss anything additional to add on that I believe two meetings ago we also if I remember correctly we read through specifically this is one some of the recommendations And certainly if we want to take a peek at those recommendations, if we want to pull them up and it will help refresh and I know we have um deputy superintendent Hawk here who may not have gotten the full full um update. be happy to to read through um the recommendations and suggestions that we had received from um Jodie Goler who's the senior staff
014associate for policy services. Uh so there were a couple points that he really call and focused on. One of his first suggestions would be to include language that really delineates um the following two points. Um the first the board shall direct the board chair or board chair or board chair or board or vice board chair in consultation with the board attorney to negotiate a contract within the sup um with the superintendent. The board chair shall present the superintendent finalized reviewed by council and science on the board within 72 hours. So those were his first two points. Additionally, as a side note, it would be permissible for the board to meet in executive session with its attorney to discuss contract guidelines. The attorney would be able to provide the board with reasonable guidelines around salary, benefits,
015other language options. The chair would have the opportunity to listen to the attorney and the board's conversations on these matters and keep them in mind when negotiating a contract. concern. And a point for us to consider would be that having the board and the attorney review the contract prior to the chair signing could lead to public negotiation process among all board members and would likely limit those superintendent candidates who would agree to engage in such a public process and begin their tenure uh with what could become contentious. when a board elects its chair, it does so with the understanding that that chair will speak for the board and serve its interests. Um, in uh his perspective, he said having the board chair and perhaps the vice chair work with the attorney to execute an agreed
016upon contract with superintendent ensures a smoother process. Um, and then before signing the contract, the board attorney should review it thoroughly to ensure the terms are written fairly and follow the law. Um, Uh he goes on to suggest that once the contract is signed, it is reasonable for the board chair to share that contract with the entire board. Um as it would be a public document and it would be appropriate for the board to have it before its general release. Um and then who's open to um any further discussion, comments, um a phone call if we needed further assistance with this. [Music] Thank you for that. So, how would we summarize um Jod's recommendations or or or concerns for, you know, and maybe consider what a skillful approach would be? was was our question to
017Jody how we would consider modifying our policy language to allow for the contract to be reviewed in advance of signature by the by board commissioners. it was the original um question was around prior to the chair signing. So um can the contract be reviewed by all commissioners and the BOE law firm within 72 hours prior to the chair signing. So that was the original question. >> Okay. So original question, prior to the chair signing, so the contract has been drawn up essentially and prior to the chair signing it, the the question is having the board have 72 hours to review. And with with with the purpose of then providing feedback or just or at least just being informed in advance of its general release, being able to review it prior to the chair signing. I
018think there's there's two things there when considering what Jod's recommendations are and how we would move forward is one, you know, the board looking at it before release so that everyone has a chance to see it before it's become, you know, a public document before the chair signs it and it's executed. or reviewing it with the intention of providing feedback that then may possibly modify the document before the signature because that sounds like what Jod's concerns surround the idea that now it could potentially become this negotiation where if the board collective maybe doesn't agree with the conditions of the contract then would we go back and say no we don't want the chair to sign it because there are some things here maybe we don't agree with I don't know ABCD salary compensation package whatever
019it is >> through the chair >> so from what I'm reading what I I just got the email from Jill because I hadn't read that note um it seems that it would be permissible for the board to meet in an executive session with its attorney attorney to discuss contract guidelines. The attorney would be able to provide the board with reasonable guidelines around salary, benefits, and other language options. The chair would have the opportunity to listen to the attorney and the board's conversation on these matters and keep them in mind when negotiating the contract. So, essentially, we have to set a salary range before we even go into the negotiation. And so once we were at the place to hire or make an offer, it seems reasonable to then schedule an executive session or have that
020conversation during our um board meetings that are not public or with our firm to come up with a plan and then for to move forward with the plan. And so I understand why we wouldn't want to change the policy to have it be a public negotiation. And I think that his suggestion would be able would be would allow for that to remain private and for the board to weigh in if we went into executive sessions. So or if we had the conversation in a in a meeting that wasn't public. So people could voice their opinion, but the board is going to set their um range. I would assume that a chair wouldn't go above a range without permission of of the board. So the salary range would be set prior. So I think there's safeguards
021in place where somebody couldn't go into a meeting and just negotiate more than what the board was willing to do. >> That was just one example. I was just picked salary, but you know, compensation packages or uh personal days or you know, I I I don't that's why I'm trying to flush this out to see if we get to the origin of the concern. So, we make sure we're addressing it head on. And I think we could go like if if we were to go into a negotiation and we agreed on three things, but the person we were negotiating with said, "I want something that wasn't previously discussed or agreed upon." I think it would be reasonable to say, "Then we go back to the full board and have a conversation before." If it was
022work from home two days a year, I don't think it'd be something we needed to go back to. But if it was something that had an impact on budget or a serious impact that we would go back I I don't you know I don't think a chair would just move forward and make some big promises that weren't previously discussed. I would hope >> I think you know to kind of hone in a little bit on the original because that's the original for the board to lay eyes on it and review it um to ensure that what has been agreed upon is reflected in that contract. Just to ensure you know that everything's accurate with what we're under the understanding of that. That's my understanding of the point like what was at the crux of this
023a question that someone had but we do have a policy to update as well in this for this. So the possibly um we had reached out to cave to see if they had any recommended language um around you know reviewing it within 72 hours of the share time. And so what we had just reviewed was the feedback that he had provided us. So, we wanted to explore if this was something um that they maybe have model language for already, if it's something that they've worked on before, kind of what their suggestion would be. >> And then you read Jod's feedback. >> I read. So essentially, would it be fair to say that it doesn't have model policy to address the board reviewing the contract prior to the chair assignment? >> They do not. >> It
024seems like it's not recommended. And alternatively, Pave recommended that the board could come together in executive session to discuss the conditions of the contract. Right. >> Yes. and and then commissioners could have questions answered directly by our council. Um, and ensure that the contract has been written and and and subsequent to the first contract. we would still have that opportunity as a board to come together with an with our council and look at a contract that may have been redlined and to see the updates. Correct. >> Yeah. We could we if we didn't want to go into a contract, if there were things that we wanted to talk about, we could then host another executive session. Um, I think it the idea would be once we came up with the range and we came up
025with the things we agreed upon to try to have that happen and then if you couldn't, we'd have to go back. >> Oh, no. I meant I meant that after So, let's say a contract has been successfully executed, >> you get a copy, >> right? But then the next contract, so if we're renewing a contract now and some of the contract language changes, >> the whole board, >> we would have opportunity as a board to come together again and then the attorney would, you know, provide us a copy redlinined to denote any changes so that we as a board would always be on the pulse of any, you know, contractual changes before it was executed, right? So if minding uh Cab and Jody Geller's um recommendations, is there any would there be any contract language
026revision should we choose to come together as a board in executive session before the contract is signed and executed. Um to discuss the conditions of the contract is is that something that would require a policy change? I don't believe so because we're using when you when you use a firm these things will be decided before we go in before we would make an offer and every subsequent contract would involve the board. So I don't think we need the one thing that stands out to me um one of the suggestions or one of the comments that was made um in their the suggestions is Chris says once the contract is signed it is reasonable for the board share to share the contract with the entire board as a courtesy. um it would be a public document
027and be appropriate for the board to have it before its general release. Is that in policy anymore that we know? Is that outlined in a process? I guess question that would be would that be helpful? Um do you have that outlined? I don't see a problem at all with adding language that says once the contract is executed, it's shared with the board because it goes to city hall uh for posting as well. So, it's public document. So, if that's a concern, I can support that. >> I I can see how it would be appropriate for the board to have it before it's done released to the public. Well, I I can appreciate that and I think that's probably something, you know, easy enough to implement. going back to the sort of the origin of the
028question and of the concern now I've only been on the board for a few years and so in my experience actually so I would reach out to others who have more time and more experience on the board but in the the experiences that I have had I don't recall the board coming together to review a contract in advance of it being signed And so I can appreciate and understand where the concern originated. And then also >> I don't think we've been on the board when it's happened, but >> maybe not. >> Yeah. But we have every time. Every time there's a new contract, we go into an executive session and the superintendent can negotiate terms and we discuss them as a board and we vote on the new contract. Like we we have to vote
029on a contract. So they show us historically they showed us who took it back. um it doesn't need to be taken back after it's not you know once you sign it but this was just how we did it since you've been on the board we haven't we haven't negotiated contract but yes it is a standard practice because you have to vote on it perfect so then it wouldn't necessarily be this leap of faith that there's a new practice it would just be part of our this persistent practice that we have already to ensure that um all board commissioners have an opportunity to be a part of that process. Perfect. And with legal requirement to make it public. I mean, as a courtesy, I think it's nice to give it to the board members. I don't
030think anyone would have a problem with that. If somebody feels like there needs to be language to enforce that, I support it. But I think we're at a place where everybody knows it's public now. >> Well, I can I can go either with that. So, yeah. So, we're in March and we would have April. So even if we were to get additional feedback from commissioners, we would still have time to bring back bring it back to policy and update policy language before we had to execute a new contract. >> Right. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it would be helpful to get some final feedback from commissioners to see um if there was any additional weigh in to see if we are comfortable with the language we have or if we think that there needs
031to be something codified in our policy to safeguard the process and we would have enough time to do that before a new contract is initiated. we would have time to vote it out of policy and to vote it vote at a full board meeting. Okay. >> But I I kind of want to make sure that the spirit of the request is really being addressed and affirmed. brings us to number seven. possible action on student representatives. M any updates on student representative side of the >> I haven't receive any formal updates just more um support of having student representatives being actively engaged in um the process but I don't know that we've had a chance really to sort of operationalize that and flesh it out and see how it would look in practice um conversations have
032been um continuing and we do have other states that we can look at who are doing this well. Um and I think we talked the last time this was on the agenda. Um, we did discuss um how we could engage student representatives a little more now between now and the end of the year and looking at how we would have an official quote unquote launch of having student representatives like actively engaged in a different way like partner um maybe for the start of the new school year and sort of engaging our junior reps and our departing senior reps to help us kind of frame those conversations and obviously um our school administrators as well. So maybe between now and next meeting with the support and help of um Mary and Iris, we can get the
033team sort of back together, get more feedback from commissioners to see um if there are questions or concerns. There was there was some really good feedback from some um commissioners at the last meeting that I want to make sure we bring into conversation with administrators. Um and I mean I would be happy to you know take the lead and kind of keep you informed of course but work with the team and see if we can get more feedback from commissioners and figure out how to bring that to um an an upcoming conversation with administrators and a central office. Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Our next policy meeting meeting is that time or should it be meeting out? What what are you thinking? >> Oh, yeah. Through the chair. Um, one of the things that I
034was excited about learning was that CAB, one of the consultants at CAB was able or is engaged in training of the student reps. And so I think maybe we should find out if that's something and that would kind of guide this and find out if we should pass this, you know, before or wait, you know, just the timing of it to align with when they would be ready. >> Are you are you referencing Nick Caruso? Because I think yeah, I had and I did have some conversations with him. Actually, I'm pretty sure I hope I don't miss you, but I'm pretty sure he said that he would be happy to come speak um at policy or even school family community partnerships about student representatives and the work that he's doing. I think he was working
035with um uh Hartford and some other and maybe that would be a great way to have like questions answered and like hear it from somebody who's immersed in it. Um so I could also reach out to Mr. Nicaruso and and see if he would be able to maybe for the next one. Yeah. SFCP meeting >> that. Yeah, that it would be great. I could I could work that. All right. Perfect. >> And get some guidance then on when we should put the policy on the agenda. [Music] Number eight and action policy 215 on this too. the chair, while you're looking for that and pursuant to this policy 5114, I I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I know that there was um some feedback from the policy audit and um I was this
036policy by a topic of the audit conversation or because if so, you might have feedback. If not, then that's absolutely okay. I just wasn't sure if this was one that maybe there's already model model policy to to update it. >> Um, thank you for the question. We didn't specifically talk about this policy. It was u more of an opportunity for Jod and Mary to meet and for Jod to understand that Mary in her new role will be uh working with the uh policy committee on implementing the revisions to the policies. It was more of an introduction to um the policy audit, the work that Jod does in support districts and also he provided some guidance to us on where we should start in terms of trying to tackle all the feedback um all the recommendations
037from the policy audit. It was really looking at um I believe there were 10 policies um that we really are in in alignment with state and federal law. So almost like a triage system where those would be the ones that we would focus on first. And we specifically talked about the title N policy where we um have to make sure that we are in alignment. I know there's been some changes because there was 2024 changes that came out and then with the new administration and with that court order that vacated the 2024. But we need to make sure that our that we're tight with Title Nine because obviously we want to be in alignment with Office of Civil Rights and and make sure that we're up to date with that. So that would probably be
038the first one we should tackle, >> but we can certainly circle that for Julia this one. >> Well, thank you for that. It says in series 2000 there's 13 policies recommended for update, but I'm not sure if we have the N. Now I don't have the numbers. >> I should also add our conversation with Jody. I asked about um making the public and the community was updated on the changes to the policy and revisions including administration and he just gave us guidance on making sure this is on the agenda during the meetings that we have with administrators with teachers with staff and also then I can include that in as part of my superintendent weekly message any changes about make sure we're Reason I asked is because I wanted to be sure that there wasn't
039any um you know timesensitive or potentially conflicting like if our language was in conflict with our statutory uh rights. just want to make sure that that wasn't a concern and maybe again understanding sort of historically how this item came to the agenda because I know we have a number of agenda items even outside of those that are actually in conflict with statute but that are a little bit outdated that we have in Q. So through the chair hiring of school administrators, this contract um I asked for it to be on the uh agenda because I wanted to have a discussion around the current contract language and our ability to see contracts s and sign contracts with board authority of non union uh positions that are hired at the um by the superintendent. Um currently it
040is our authority but it it doesn't exist in any policy language. Therefore it doesn't always consist it hasn't consistently happened. Uh and because we're responsible for balancing a budget, it's important that we know um how much contracts are being executed for. Well, I think I skipped right over agenda item eight because I was talking about agenda item number nine, 5114. So, if I confused anything, I apologize. I see that we're on eight. Well, guess right over that one. >> Yeah. So, Chair Ponds, with that um update you provided, were there areas in the policy that we think language needs to be either added or amended um to ensure that yes, I mean, we don't have sample language that I know of. I don't know if Jill received any um but the way that it's written
041now there is no language. >> Do you have a recommendation about you know how that language would read? Well, the language in the grant says the superintendent as the chief executive officer of the board of education shall be responsible for the professional leadership and skills necessary to translate the board's will into administrative action in fulfilling the superintendent's responsibilities for all aspects of school operations. The board recognizes the superintendent's critical responsibility in leading a highly functional administrative team. Therefore, in accordance with Connecticut General Statute 10-151, the blank, so Bristol Board of Education delegates the superintendent the authority to hire certified non-administrative and support positions for administrative and supervisory supervisory positions. The superintendent shall nominate at least one candidate to the board of education to fill a vacancy. The vote to approve the position by the board
042must occur within 14 calendar days after the superintendent's notification of the request to build to full to the full board of education. I think a sentence could go there. The next paragraph is short. If the board does not act favorably upon the superintendent's recommendation within this specified time, the superintendent shall recommend single alternative alternate candidates until the recommendation is approved. Or it could go there at the end. Once approved, um, the contract, it would have to be language to say that once approved, the contract must be signed by the board. I mean, that that's the language. >> That's the that's the the missing that's that's what's not in there, right? And so all of the contracts have Bristol Board of Ed board chair on a line item for signature, but we haven't gotten contracts for
043signature. So the policy would align to the law if we added that it had to be signed. [Music] >> Yeah. Oh, we do have the gate model policy. >> So, that's how you read, >> right? >> So, I don't know when when is the date on that. >> Uh 124. >> That's when adopted ours. [Music] You have 2151 right now. >> Yeah. >> Or 2151. There's any almost there. >> 2100. Is it 2100 collaboration? because I'm I'm wondering if that's you know that sentence being critical why it may not be included in Cab's model policy that one missing piece. Okay. So we'll Cross reference that with 21. >> Ours is very different. >> That's right. >> Different. Better different. Just different. >> Different. Okay. when reading at home nine minutes left. So we have currently
044policy 2100 um administration and it's administrative staff organization. The superintendent shall organize the staff to achieve the school district goals as expressed by the board of education. The superintendent shall be the administrator responsible to the board of education and shall identify lines of primary authority for all employees. The primary responsibility of the administrative staff is to help create and foster an environment of excellence in which students can learn most effectively. Just want to check is reading this out loud helpful. Yes, >> it is. >> Okay. Um, excellence in education includes ensuring district role models reflect diversity. In an effort to provide such role models, the board supports measures to increase diversity through effective recruitment and hiring practices. In accordance with its minority recruitment plan, the superintendent will on an annual basis provide the board with
045an organizational chart delineating staff positions, the direction of authority and staff responsibility based on job descriptions and required credentials/certifications. The superintendent will keep the administrative structure up to date in light of what need of the needs of supervision and accountability in the school system. Therefore, the superintendent may from time to time make changes to the organizational chart. The superintendent will inform the board of changes to the organizational chart in a timely manner. to effectuate its oversight responsibilities. Only the board may appoint and discharge discharge administrators. For purposes of this policy, administrator shall include the following endorsement codes 085, 092, and 093. For appointment, the superintendent shall recommend candidates for administrators other than the superintendent for consideration to the board. The board shall delegate to a hiring selection committee the responsibility of considering the candidacy of
046two or more candidates recommended by the superintendent and make a hiring recommendation for consideration by the entire board. The hiring committee, the hiring selection committee shall at a minimum including the chair of the board and or the chair of the personnel committee and or the chair of a committee the potential hire will work with during the tenure. In the event in the event the administrative role will be assigned as a leazison to multiple reports or two committees, the chair of the board shall decide which committee chair shall be seated. If the same person is responsible under items two and three, the chair of the board shall choose another board commissioner. Members from the school committee, BFT, BAPS, AFS, CME. Okay. I will participate on >> Oh, that's a one. I'm sorry. Will participate on the
047committee as appropriate. Notwithstanding, commissioner participation on the hiring selection committee should not affect the timeliness such that within the hiring process shall remain un unhappited unabated unabated. I'm not familiar with that word. The board will accept or reject the superintendent's recommendation at the next regular or special board meeting. The hiring selection committee will be conducted in accordance with the freedom of agreement. Not a lot of yeah crossover on that. So >> So I I don't think we're ready tonight to do this, but I think it's good to go back to Jody with the two different policies and kind of have a discussion about why they're so different and how to accomplish uh because I think there's some very good language in there about hiring committees. I don't think the new one does not have any
048language about hiring committees. Um, and so I think this is one of those cases where we need a hybrid. >> Yeah. >> Um, and we are going into a contract with to help us update all of our policies. So, um, I think we can maybe push this one for a month >> and we may even just it's a it's an almost a new policy. I don't know what other policies we have that might speak to 2151, but 2100 doesn't seem to capture it. So 2100. So I was reading 2100. We don't have a two. We don't have a 215 one. And this is the closest. >> I mean there's the 2151 just may be new. >> That's right. That's >> right. So this one this one may stay and this one may need to be
049added. >> Yep. But we'll just talk to Jod about how to accomplish the board authority. >> There was discussion I think that's how this came about. There was discussion a while back pre- Maria and I around policy 2151 and 2100 I believe and at that time >> we got rid of 2151. >> The board had >> we combined All right. So, we'll do some historical digging and push this one to the next month to see what's best, how we can best accomplish this, whether we adopt it or or adopt it and amend have an amendment made. >> We learned a lot a lot of things in the one that we currently have. >> Yeah. I never had a or chart as but haven't gotten one. I just did get one from them recently though. They
050drafted one. So we do have one that's coming to me. >> Okay. So with that and it's 658. Um, I'd like to make a motion to move review and household action on policy, sorry, on discussion to leave model policy 5114 to the next policy committee to meet committee meeting. That's my motion pass. >> Uh, I second that motion. >> Uh, any discussion, questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? I motion passes and that brings us to adjournment. Have a motion. >> So moved. >> Second meeting. Good night.