001Um, why are you making a new message? >> No, I just >> Okay, there you go. >> Oh, just uh I click away from the box. >> Oh, I see. So, anybody know anybody affected by what happened in Milwaukee over the weekend? >> Most of my co-workers have terrible >> co-orkers. >> Yeah. Or a good portion of them. Yeah. >> Pretty pretty bad. >> Yeah. Um I know a couple of people who live out in like West Dallas and stuff and they got some pretty bad flooding. I don't know if anyone had like I don't know if anyone had feet of water in their basement or anything like that except for one person I know but I don't know what the background is on >> know somebody in West Dallas area and they three four
002feet and their car is totally >> terrible. I used to I grew up in the West Dallas area and like when they were showing pictures of the cars floating down the streets I'm like that's bad. >> Mhm. How's your dog doing? >> He's doing pretty good. >> Nothing since the last incident, so that's good. >> What's wrong with your pooch? >> Um, occasionally he has seizures. Oh, that's thanks to him breeding. >> Uh, but it's not for when he first started having them, we put we put him on medication. >> Where'd you get the pup from? >> Uh, he was a rescue. >> He came from Tennessee. >> That says it all. Um, and but he was so lethargic on the meds that we took him off and now he has and they said, you
003know, the meds won't cure it. It will just lessen the them happening. So, >> hey Jared, how's it going? >> We took him off and he maybe has seizures once or twice a year now, but there's not much we can do. >> Go right ahead. >> Yeah. we just like say by him and tell him it's okay. It's going to be okay. And then >> you know he gets a little stiff in his hind legs after the seizure for a day or two, but I'm assuming that's cuz his entire body is just tensing up. >> I have a um I have a dog that's too long. >> She's got it's a genetic mess. And uh she goes to a chiropractor. >> Oh, okay. >> And that adjustment just it it works wonders. You go to
004Brad the chiropractor. >> No, it's a special doggy chiropractor >> because I know that the um Brad Wellness chiropractic he does do veterary chiropractic like I think he >> so sorry to interrupt you guys but it is 5:30 and since we have uh all current members of the policy board here as well as an up andcoming one in the form of David um I'm going to call this meeting to order. Um, all right. Uh, first thing on the agenda is public comment. Uh, we have 10 minutes and if there's anyone who's interested in speaking, uh, you can take, uh, your turn at the stand now. We ask that you'd fill out a card if you are interested in speaking. No. Okay. All right. Then we'll move on to our first item on the agenda, which
005is the student and parents rights policy discussion. That's uh policy 5780. Uh we talked about this Oh, hi Craig. We talked about this uh some last month and the direction that we gave to Jared and administration was to kind of uh deinlace the student elements from the parent elements so it's a little bit clearer. Uh so we have an updated version of that. Is uh anyone have any immediate thoughts? Lauren Tammy. >> No, I read through it. I was happy with it. But it this says students and parents, right? So, it does look like it has a section clarifying parents, >> but this is the students. There's not going to be a separate one, right? We're just dividing it like this, right? >> So, it has the student rights statement and then it has the
006parental rights statement >> on there. Look at you, Lori. >> Okay. Well, uh Jared, do you have any uh any thoughts or anything anything further to bring with policy 5780, parents and students rights? >> Um no, I just wanted to make sure that uh you guys were all comfortable with the language that we put in there u with the latest Supreme Court ruling. I think that was the biggest kind of >> uh discussion point um from that. And um I do know that we have Renee here should you guys have any other questions. But um the best thing that I thought that came that comes from this >> Mhm. >> is you know for a long time our policies have enumerated a number of parent rights right >> this just aligns them in one spot
007where we're because what what we did is we tried to >> for as many of those uh >> parental rights that we named >> we wanted to list the policy that they also show up in. And so we did that within >> I do see that >> you know within that um because you know it's not necessarily that it's new. It's it's just you know trying to outline it in >> it's centralized >> a centralized feel. I think that's great. Uh I think it does its job. I think uh it's a little bit clearer like we talked about last time is really great and uh it's nice to see the updated stuff from the Mid Baylor case. All right. Uh if we don't have any further comments on policy 5780, we can move on to
008policy 2240. Um which we had some updates on last month. Do we have any new updates on that, Jared? >> No, nothing new on that one. >> Okay, gotcha. Um were you able to connect with Renee about the language in uh about uh teacher expression of personal opinion in controversial issues? >> Yeah. So um Renee, is she on? Renee, are you there? >> I'm here. >> Can you Can you hear me? >> Can you hear us, Rene? >> I can. Yeah. Can you hear me? >> Okay. >> Jared, can you hear me? >> Maybe not. There we go. >> Not quite sure how to get her to be able >> That's okay. >> Uh yeah. Well, I will if she can hear me and I know we're moving to different new systems. So, um you
009know, I will try to resonate uh the best I can for the connection. Um but um just like uh in in our parental right policy where uh we we put the uh Muhammad versus Taylor in there. Uh we also made a connection to this policy. Um basically sharing with our parents like the first and foremost thing that you need to understand is that we have this policy of controversial issues in the classroom, right? We're going to be outlining uh again a little bit more for our staff what what what does that mean, right? What what does that look like? And those are the the places where we're going to try to get out as much information uh to parents on the curriculum side and that parental right policy so that they can make informed decisions
010on whether or not they want to opt out or not. the same thing we're trying to do around just having um uh not only uh that from the instructional standpoint, but having things up and around the room that may be controversial uh and those kind of things. Making sure that that is not coming from a standpoint of like any uh personal belief that it's connected to the curriculum. um and that if there are those things there that we make people aware of that and the reason for and the connectedness to the curriculum. So I I think those two new policies are really kind of interrelated on on that one line item. Right. >> Sure. >> And th those are the things that we wanted to make sure that we tried to communicate out. >> Definitely.
011And I can I can certainly appreciate that. uh in talking with members of the community since the last meeting, I did hear a lot of resonance with some of the concerns that I brought up last time uh regarding the kind of inherent power balance between a student and a teacher. And so I wanted to do some research to see about the viability of having, you know, staying away from talking about personal opinions when it comes to controversial issues and specifically to controversial issues. Uh and I did find that there's a variety of different approaches to that in the surrounding areas. Um the two that I would point to specifically uh in the policy samples that I've have attached here would be the Maguano and the Merin policies. uh in the Maguano policy it states in
012the discussion of any controversial issue in the classroom or in the course of professional duties a teacher may not express his her personal opinion and then in the Merin policy sample very similarly it says in the discussion of any controversial in the classroom or in the course of professional duties a teacher may not express a personal opinion so there is some at least uh precedent for that in the surrounding areas I was wondering if the committee would be interested in amending the language of 2240 on that second page uh instead of the language about specifying that it's a personal opinion or a personal belief um amending it to refraining similar to the language that we have here in the Merin and Mcuano >> I would policies >> yeah I've heard the same kind of things
013from from people in the community >> so that supports the decision to change it. >> Okay, thank you. Tammy, you have any opinions on that? >> Uh, yeah, I would be comfortable with changing that. >> Okay, gotcha. Um, so then could we make that an action item to replace the uh I guess green and red text in that paragraph, the paragraph that begins in the discussion of any controversial issue in the classroom. Replace that with uh I think the Merton one lines up a little bit closer. >> I do have a question. if we went over the AG for controversial issues already or if there's not one created just because I did look at the um Okana was it Okana >> the AG sample and I thought that that was >> yes and that's what
014I was going to bring up next um and we've already had some discussion with Renee about uh about some other supplemental materials like the request for opt out that is coming out of the Muhammad or Mhammed v. Taylor case. >> I think that goes nicely. So I I'm not saying that we should necessarily adopt the one that we're that we've got here from Okanamok wholesale. At the very least, you would want to change the header, but um you know just just like some of the other policies that you're going to be doing work on. For instance, um Niola, how they set up like our nursing uh you know uh protocols. um they have the policy lined up as a policy that says we will have an administrative guideline for nursing protocols and then a a
015space under AGs to do nursing protocols. Our old policy had it all as one thing, >> right? So I I agree with you that we we are going to have some administrative guidelines that are going to come after some of these policies that we're putting in place. My biggest thrust right now is to like let's get the policy in place and then some of those other pieces uh like you said about you know Okconok and how they address it with staff and everything else. those have to come next. But at least we have a good strong policy that we can start with, right? That we didn't necessarily have or or we had one but it didn't speak to uh some of the recent >> um >> educational reforms uh that are are taking place across
016the nation and we want to make sure that we take those and current law and everything else make sure we have a solid policy and then start putting in those other those guidelines. >> Okay. >> So I agree with you Tammy. The question is for that statement, do we want that statement to show up in an administrative guideline or uh to to to strengthen the policy or do we want it to be in the policy and um maybe reiterated? >> This is not pertaining to any statement. It was just to pertaining to the attachment that was provided. >> You just saw it, right? And said and said I like that. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. No specific statement. Just that the the guideline was attached. >> Yep. I thought it was useful. that's why I
017attached it. In the process of my other research, I was like, "Oh, yeah. This is a this is a great example." So, that's definitely something to pull there. And then really quick, Lynn, the specific language for that action item, the change to 2240, it's uh the second, I guess, proper paragraph of the second page of 2240. Um, in the discussion of any controversial issue, um, it would read, "In the discussion of any controversial issue in the classroom or in the course of professional duties, a teacher may not express a personal opinion. And any further thoughts on 2240 or is it looking good? >> As good as it. >> Yeah, that's good. >> Awesome. >> Answered my question because I was that was the old kind of one myself. >> Yeah, it's good to it's good
018to get a look down the line and I figure throw it in there. That way you can refer back to it. It's way easier than me trying to look for it later on. You know, sometimes you lose things. Um, all right. So with that being done, we're moving on to item C, which is NEOLA policies 8,000, group four. We have four policies here. They are epidemics and pandemics, reporting accidents, personal protective equipment during pandemic, epidemic events, and pediculosis, headlights. Any thoughts from anyone right off the bat? >> Oh, yeah. Um, so masking um has harms related to it for children and no evidence-based benefits. Um, I looked up a more recent study since we now have data for masking children. And >> I'm sorry, Lori, what policy? >> 8540. Um, yeah, PPE the PP, >>
019right? Um >> so in in a June 2025 study published in the pediatric respiratory review on masking children their conclusion is there's a lack of robust evidence of benefit for masking children to reduce transmission of SARS KB2 and other respiratory v viruses. In this review, we have however identified multiple studies, both randomized and observational, which report that masking may lead to a variety of harms in children of all ages. Recommended recommendations for masking children therefore fail the most basic harm benefit analysis. The current evidence does not support recommendation for masks for children. So that's that's um >> I'm with Lori. I'm not comfortable with anybody but the parent having authority to mask their children. Jared, >> I it just that's a super incorporate. That's >> okay. Okay. Oh, I will tell you that I would
020I would be working with our uh our medical team, right? Um we we have a physician here in town that we uh contract with, right, for medical advice. Uh and we also have our nursing services staff. I would be looking to them. I'm not a medical expert. I don't know what's important to to do with masking, not masking, whatever. Um >> I mean, yeah, but historically the medical profession didn't didn't follow the data that was coming out during CO showing that it was harmful to children to keep them in the same mask all day. >> No offense to any of your medical professionals, but I'm assuming it wasn't coming from up top down to them so they could make the appropriate changes. >> Yeah, they They didn't even I mean I was I was there
021during 2021 when they were masking our children. I was at the schoolboard meetings and explaining I have asthma. My grandchildren have asthma. I was explaining the harms of airway remodeling because the masks were causing panic attacks which trigger asthma attacks and uh cause long t longterm airway remodeling in in in children with asthma. They didn't care. They didn't listen. Even the the the uh uh the nurse practitioner that called in, she she had no interest in in any of those facts. And those facts came from um uh the Canadian government is was my source for for the airway remodeling because they're they're much more detailed on that. Um uh so I'm I have very little trust for the local experts on this topic. It's way too politicized. Um, and so I I fall heavily on
022the side of don't force our kids to wear masks. >> And so what would your recommendation be for an alteration to policy 8450? >> My minimum recommendation would be that the parents get to decide whether or not we mask our children. That's the minimum recommendation. >> Okay. >> Let you guys decide the rest. And then so well and then help me hash this out then because I totally hear where you're coming from and I think we're still seeing some of the repercussions of uh more on like a psychological education side. I think we're seeing the repercussions of young children wearing masks >> words. Yeah. Not seeing uh teachers forming words. It really does have an impact on student learning. >> Um but if we are going to change the policy we'll have to come up
023with um a realistic alternative for that. So we can have a parent decide what how their child uh you know how their child responds to these things but that becomes more complicated when you have parents with differing views which I think was part of what was going on in 2020 and 2021. It was a pretty tense time for everyone. >> It's more of uh and and there's no right answer to this. It's the right answer is you are the elected officials right and you are in charge of making the call. Um but uh basically how I shared that with our board at the time that we were going through that because I was a superintendent in the school district who went through similar things, right? Is I I said this, do we want to take
024a public health standpoint within our public schools um on a macro view or on the micro view? And I said, let's take it away from COVID because that everybody's like up in arms about right now. Let's put it to something we can have a logical discussion around and then tell me how you feel. Uh let's let's pick head lice. Okay. Uh do you want me to have policy that says that if your child has headlight and is untreated that it doesn't make a difference? They can come here with head lice anyway because you as the parent decides the health of your child. I think that's a different scenario actually infected and the scenario in a pandemic it is uh >> prophylactic spread essentially >> it could be a prophylactic or not we don't know right
025>> the the the conversation still had to become more of a macro or micro level and what I'm saying is do we want to enact policies that are for the good of all or the good of the one and then we have to have the all uh have to react to that >> because I could say on on the micro level, listen, uh your child has head lice and if you don't want to medicate them, that's fine and it's up to you, but I can't have them come here until they don't have active head lice. Right? So, I could put it on that part of the discussion actively infected. So, so, so, so if that's the scenario, but what I'm saying is there were parents who said like, I don't care if my child is
026sick and I'm not, I don't even care if they have CO or not. I'm going to send them to school. >> Right? But we also ran into the scenario after the students were back at school is the district allowed students that were vaccinated to come to school the day after they went home sick. But students that were not vaccinated had to stay out. >> I know a whole bunch of crazy stuff happened. I don't want to relitigate what happened before. I just want to know what what what angle or where you guys >> Yeah. Let me let me point out the specific language here that I think is >> where the contention is. >> Was holding >> Oh, you were Oh, go ahead. >> I just want to know who the doctor is. That's you
027that you're referring to. >> Dr. Michael Sullivan is who we continue. >> Very good. >> Okay. I I didn't even know exactly which one it was from. That's why this is under Sarah's ball of wax. So, >> so um so the starting section the the the place where I would pull this out initially is in the second paragraph it says the superintendent I mean but you know I mean that's that's on you I suppose but it it may be required you may inquire incorporate requirements for the use of personal protective equipment which may include requirements that all staff volunteers and visitors including vendors wear appropriate PPE So it's it's not that those who are those who are sick wear it, but that all people no matter what wear it. And I think that's where that
028that's where the issue comes in when it's saying whether or not you're sick, you have to wear this thing all the time, >> right? And so with with the headlice thing because and I mean everyone is different like you're saying, everyone's got different opinions, but I think that the headlice position that you're putting out there is a lot more uh I guess uh I think that's much more the majority view. If you are sick, you don't go to school. That's where most people fall. >> Right. But what what I'm saying is like, you know, we we could say to them, you know, if you have headlight and you're not treating it, right? Um you can't come to school until you don't have headlight, >> right? And or or you have to wear this hair, you
029know, the cover, right? To cover it so that you're not having lice spread out. That's like that's what a mask is is. So other >> well we're talking about healthy children not sick children. >> The issue was that healthy children and healthy people in general were being >> if if my child goes to the nurse and they have a fever or other triggers. It doesn't matter if I want my child in school or not. The nurse is going to say you need to pick your child up. They are too ill for school. >> Yeah. It's not. Or or we can put them in a face covering so their sickness doesn't spread. That's not a viable option right now. >> I'm just saying that for a long time, right, schools have enacted um medical care for
030the masses, right? even though it may have been against the will of an individual as a as a public precautionary, how much you want to lean into that is up to you as a governing board. >> Right? And and this is an instance of that byproduct, which is to say, do we want to tell people, I'm sorry, whether you agree with it or not, we're going to have you mask because of this or not. Right? And and that's really what it comes down to. And there's no right or wrong answer. It's you as a governing board have to decide where's that line of the difference between the individual and the masses and what what you want to ask us to do on your behalf. Craig, >> I would propose um the following sentence in that
031uh second paragraph to state something to the effect of uh before the super the board will approve um such use of PPE prior to the superintendent incorporating those requirements or something of that nature. I'm not sure what the proper wording should be, but >> well, I think we you're putting the gloves, gowns, shoe coverings, all that in the same category, which have no arms attached to them at all. So, we need to split that off with the face. I mean even if you wear a face shield there's no arms associated known associated harms with a face shield just with the masks. >> So you need to split that off. >> The issue is we had one such pandemic recently that's in the in everybody's forefront of mind where uh the masks that form of PPE
032uh is debated that that was effective or not. Um, who's to say the next round of uh of pandemic that we do face um it it could be or could not be. We don't know. We we don't know what um situation we're going to be faced with, but I I think stating something to the effect upon approval of the board um might make us be able to have get together as a board and have uh a further discussion about that about the merits of of uh PPE in that particular case. It would be on a case-bycase basis. Craig, what what I think I'm hearing you say is you would rather just have language in there that says before we uh before administration goes on whatever journey, >> we're not going to approve language that says
033only this or only this, we're approving language that says when it comes to this, you're going to check in with the board on that issue, right? If it's a if it's a macro issue. >> Yes. Yeah, I see wisdom in that because just like you said, you don't know what pandemic may be coming down the road and maybe totally different in aspect and and I think your point is a really valid one, but I think we need to leave it open so that we can make a decision when it happens based on now that we have maybe more knowledge than we have now about something. Well, I mean, if we're talking about the cloth masks or anything you get from an Ace Hardware, those are not N95 masks. Those do not protect appropriately. >> Okay?
034So, they're really just to make people feel good. They used face coverings during the Spanish flu. All the reports coming back show that that was a hindrance to people getting over the Spanish flu. Uh the same is true for COVID. Now that they're going over the research, people that heavily wore masks, especially driving alone in their car or anytime they were not at home, it actually hindered their ability to recuperate from being ill. It didn't really help it. And I guess I I agree with the board getting involved, but why do we need a valid medical excuse? That's >> what do you mean validation? >> It says individuals with a valid medical reason >> will do not have to wear a mask. And then what do you do with those students in the school building
035that are not wearing a mask? Are they among the general population then or are they isolated and excluded from the rest of their peers because they have a medical exemption? >> And and and the other thing is that we're we're not preventing a parent from sending their children to school in masks. That's a that's a parental decision as far as I'm concerned. >> It's about the mandating of something over over parental rights, >> you know, and it it does go on. I think what you said is a really great start. First of all, this should be something that is a collaboration with the board um because that's where a decision like this belongs anyways. Um but it goes on to talk about some other issues. At the end of page one, you have a paragraph
036that talks about how if there is no exception that is applicable and a student is not wearing PPE, they'll be subject to disciplinary action. I would say that uh and again, we're kind of throwing those out there. I will get these condensed for you, Lynn. Don't worry. Um I I'll reiterate them. I would say that instead of it saying uh students shall be subject to disciplinary actions um I would say uh students shall uh shall be sent home or not be allowed in the >> processary action possibly. >> Yeah. I mean but disciplinary action also includes suspension or detention or other forms of discipline that I think might not be appropriate for that sort of situation. >> So we we can use something like removal, right? um which is a disciplinary action. And instead of
037being generic and saying a disciplinary action, yeah, >> what we're really talking about there is you're going to be subject to removal, which is a disciplinary action. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Instead, you can say maybe subject to removal. >> Uh in accordance with student code of conduct, you know, that kind of stuff. >> Um because their refusal is is leading to a possible removal. >> Yeah. I mean, and I think it's a complicated thing. It was such an interesting time. Um, such an interesting time. Uh, I think it's complicated because I think that, you know, in any situation where there's u social unrest, you have people who are approaching it from many different directions. But I think that we should be very cautious to, you know, to uh tell students that they are being
038reprimanded for their beliefs or things like that. And that's where that's where the difficulty comes in with a disciplinary action at a time such as that. And again, if this was >> a reprimand, it's more of a a consequence, which is >> a reprimand. >> A consequence is worse than a reprimand. A reprimand is a verbal uh is a is a verbal statement. >> A consequences. >> Just keep in mind, you know, we go through another pandemic another hundred years or so from now. If it happens within next hundred years, this particular policy is going to be revised probably multiple times like it was years ago like recently in the past. >> It's, you know, this is a starting point. Um, it's not >> it's likely not going to be the final determinant during a
039pandemic. >> It won't. >> What about what about an opt out for a parent? Is there an opt- out option for a parent that that believes that this is causing harm? Because this is this argument is not going away. There are multiple studies coming out of the harms mentally and physically that have been caused by masking our children. >> Yeah. >> And and and so and and of course you'll have the the dueling studies coming out, right? It's not going away. It's not going to change. Parents need the option to protect their children how they see fit, whether it's covering their face with a mask or making sure their faces are not covered with a mask. So what if we put an op out in there for parents? So, I would say, you know, I
040again I agree with what Craig said around trying to make sure that the the policy continues to guide and keep you in involved because no matter what we have for a policy, and we all found this out, um there are going to be uh community members uh when it gets to that level of threat and andor engagement uh public threat uh medical threat um social threat, all that. You will have people in droves uh from our community and other places coming together to talk about this issue. The first thing we're going to do is we're going to pull out the policy, right? Second thing that administration is going to do is get the board leadership and the board on board and say, "Hey, we just want you to know this is what we're hearing. These
041are the things that are coming out currently. We have this. Is this the way you want us to proceed?" We just did this with controversial issues policy and it it meets all of the the criteria that you just listed and we didn't kick that can down the road. So now we're shying away from from making a policy because it's too controversial. >> no, I don't think that's what he's saying. >> I'm not I'm not saying kick it down the road. I'm saying like make sure that uh you ensure right that there's some kind of mechanism that says before the administration acts on a global level like that that we're incorporating the board in that discussion point was I think very good of what Craig was saying. >> I I'd be comfortable with that as long
042as we face coverings line >> and if the board wants to put one back in >> back down the road that's fine. >> Yeah. Ju just know I I don't have a personal stake in having the discussion on masking or unmasking. Right. >> Right. I I believe that this board can we will do whatever this board wants in regard to that. >> I will say uh Lori by striking the word face coverings. The statement still reads PPE you know and then it gives a suggestion of disposable gloves, gowns, coverings or other PPE. It um other PPE appropriate. Um, it doesn't it it still doesn't eliminate the possibility that face coverings couldn't be used. >> We need to we need to be very clear about that guidance if that's what we decide. It's like it's like
043if they told everyone that they had to carry around a voodoo doll is what Lori is this perspective that Lori has here is that you shouldn't have face covering included there because the kinds of face coverings during the 2020 situation were not effective at least some of them. I remember when they said that you can't wear them for smoke because the smoke particles are too small and they'll just fit through the mask. Uh, you know, I mean, >> well, it's the harms caused by the face covering. Oh, yeah. The the speech the speech problems, the >> everything listed in in this and many other studies. We know this. We're still dealing with this. Just look at the grades. >> Um, it's it's not just that we need a better mask. They do have better masks,
044but the problem is that it's not just about the breathing. It's it's about the the harms caused to children by making them wear face coverings that people can't see through. >> Yeah. >> I I I don't necessarily disagree with with the points that you're trying to make, Lori. I'm just trying to get us to a point where we can move forward with with a policy that that the board is comfortable with. Uh and I know understand that you have an aversion to face coverings. Would you prefer that it specifically says something of no, you know, call out face coverings as something that we would exclude as PPE or is it something that that you just you would um uh strike through and and move forward, be comfortable moving forward with allowing uh PPE uh as
045indicated there and and allow owe it to be a further discussion in the future, >> right? Or you can say allow PPE, which there's many reasons to allow PPE. I mean, we we want our our medical staff gloving for a lot of reasons, right? I mean like like I get what you're saying, >> but but is the question still around more uh what um you know what we were talking around around >> like the parental choice on masking, >> right? >> This policy is specific for PPE as it pertains to pandemic or epidemics, right? >> Sure. Yeah. 8420 is generally about epidemics and pandemics. 8 8450 >> 8450 is specifically about PPE. 8420 is about generally epidemics and pandemics and then you have reporting accidents and headlights which are kind of uh in a separate
046category because they're not epidemic pandemic events. So I would say it sounds like there's a lot more that people would like to do as far as altering 8450 is concerned. So really quick, let's look at uh the 8000 policy group. 8442 is reporting accidents. I just want to move these because it might be a little bit easier if we uh if we pair down what we have here. Does anyone have any comments on reporting accidents or does that look good? >> Looks good. >> It looks good to me, too. >> Anyone have any comments on 8451, the headlight discussion? >> No, >> because that one looks fine to me as well. >> Okay. Um, then let's look really quick at 8420. Then we'll do 8450 and then we'll kind of we'll zero in on it
047and we'll see where we get there. At least that way we're out of the way. Um, so 8420 is very broadly about epidemics and pandemics and it reads, uh, partway down that first paragraph, to address epidemics and pandemics, the superintendent shall develop an epidemic pandemic plan in coordination with local government and law enforcement officials. The epidemic pandemic plan may be developed in accordance with the plan developed pursuant to policy 8405, environmental health and safety program. And this is where I agree with Craig. That should not just stop with the superintendent. >> It should say the board shall develop and then the superintendent shall implement. or >> the board and the super >> the the superintendent shall develop and have the board's approval of because I don't know that you guys are going to do the
048work to I mean >> matter of fact in the best world it would say the superintendent or their designate right because I most likely be looking to Sarah and our medical team hey develop a plan let's bring it to the board for approval that's what I would like it to say is something that gives us the ability to make a plan, bring it to your approval before implementation. That's I think is the key part because I think what happened in many many school districts is like even some local um uh public health official decided they were going to take over the school district's portion of the medical stuff and they started creating policies, right? uh and they they just they inserted themselves into schools at some point. I'm not saying that happened here or or
049anywhere else necessarily specifically. I'm saying there there were places where that happened. >> Health department here released all of the vaccine information to the district >> for children that were vaccinated. >> Okay. I again I wasn't here but um what I want to understand is that I want you to understand is that I' I'd like us to create something just like we do for anything else. Bring it to you and say here's here's the problem. Here's the plan that we're putting together. Here's the resources that we we took into effect. Here's the research. Here's everything that we did. Will you approve of this? It gives you some time to go through and look at that. Right? and then put an answer back out. >> Great. Great. Procedurally, the board can weigh in on that particular
050policy at that time as well. Procedurally, the board's going to look at that plan as well. As long as long as the language is in there. >> Yeah. >> This is this is kind of the the rough guidance that we're going to go off of. >> Yeah. >> This is a policy. So what we would want to do then is we would want to on again we're looking at the broader policy than the narrower policy on policy 8420 we would want to add to the end of the first paragraph um all uh all epidemic pandemic plans shall be subject to final board approval. >> All right and we should add superintendent or >> Yeah. Mhm. And the same under where it's the green there where it says the superintendent shall create administrative guidelines. The superintendent
051or their design shall create administrative guidelines in accordance. >> Yeah. >> What do you think, Lori? >> Is that all right? >> 8420 is fine. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Now, now let's go into 8450 because that lays a little bit more of the groundwork. And now we can dig into 8450, which is going to take a little bit more of a Yeah, it's going to take a little bit more time. I figure we'll get those out of the way so we know this is the last thing we got on the docket. Um, and now we can look over this uh paragraph by paragraph as needed. Um, so yeah, I would say anywhere where it says superintendent, we should add or their designate right off the bat. um may incorporate requirements for the use of personal
052protective equipment which may include requirements that I would take the word all out that school staff, volunteers and visitors wear appropriate PPE and I mean we can take out the parenthetical there and just leave it at PPE if you would like to. >> If if you're not excluding face coverings, I'm not okay with it. this is not going to change. >> So I think I don't know exactly how we would go about that. I don't know that it's the best approach to specify the face covering stipulation in policy. I guess because this is a personal protective equipment policy, we could put something in there. How would you like to incorporate that into this policy? I would I would strike face coverings at the front and put excluding face coverings at the back end of that
053sentence >> or face masks. >> Yeah, >> trans transparent shields >> don't cause any harm. >> I don't think anyone argues with that. Uh but um face masks cause harm. So excluding So excluding opaque face coverings, >> excluding masks, >> anything that's tightly around those. It covers your whole face. It keeps you from breathing >> fully. >> Okay. >> Um, you know, a a shield, face shields were widely used during the pandemic, >> even though they were banned from being used in in this and uh other schools uh with with no no problems at all. Right. But um that's transparent. It doesn't come with any of the harms that face masks come with. >> Tammy, would you be comfortable with that? >> Um I I agree with Lori. Everything's Lori saying, I am totally on
054board with you. I was wondering if we could maybe I think that there needs to be an adjustment in the last second sentence of the second paragraph for individuals with valid medical. You should add developmental here so that it mirrors because on 8420 it says medical or developmental. >> I agree. >> Yeah. And it even says it later on in the policy as well. So yeah, I think that would be good. Um, >> I'm sorry. Where is this? Uh, the last sentence in the second paragraph where it says a valid medical >> uh if it could be medical or developmental as it states in 8420. Yeah. So, um >> it's the fifth line down and this sentence starts with individuals with valid medical. And you >> if I could um rob a little bit of
055something from um our parental rights policy. >> And uh let me see if I can scroll down to the exact language. Um, I'm looking for the um the language and it actually comes out of Muhammad B. Taylor. Where will we use that? Where is it? Here. Um, it says the W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W USD, I'll say what it says in case you guys aren't there. Uh WD may refrain from any activities that threaten or undermine religious beliefs parents uh which instill the children uh from imposing children set of values beliefs hostile to the parent religious beliefs. And it
056says uh let's see here they might not be in here. Boy, I wanna I'm trying to get the exact wording, but and and Renee might be able to help me with this if she's on and it's available. She's not. Um, it it's it's basically the point at which um I'm trying to get to that personal uh uh uh objection of a parent to put it into that same section on the maskearing because then it delineates that piece out of like um you know there's three exemptions I think that you're you're I'm hearing from you as a one that's medical, one that's developmental, and one that's based on the parents beliefs. >> Personal convictions. That's the words I was looking for. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> P uh uh parental personal convictions, not student, you know,
057I still think it should be an adult that's deciding whether the mask should be worn or not. Like not the kid, right? That the parent should decide for their kid, whatever. But um some adult should have that. And if it's against the personal conviction of the adult, there may be an exemption to the face covering. Otherwise, we we're telling you you have you have to do this. >> So, I think that would actually be the language that we have in the request for opt out, right? The second >> it would be what you were looking for for an opt out. Anyway, >> it's also in line seven of that document. >> Yeah, I was I was trying to find where it was, >> but Oh, yeah. Is that is that where I think we all
058all of us as a board can say we think that these are the three issues that we would maybe consider like rationale for people to say I don't want to do this because >> yeah that'd be valid for me >> you know yes but um you know we we are supposed to be student student centered Um, and we know that this has caused severe developmental issues with our kids, the shutdowns and the masks and and and set our kids way back. Um, do we really want to go there with with not taking the masks out of the list of things that we're going to force our kids to do in a pandemic? >> So, here's where I'm coming at it from a as a standpoint, right? I'm coming at it from from these angles. One,
059I want to strike a balance between the public good and the good of the individual, right? Um, two, I want to look at it as to a policy is only as good as how you can react from what has happened and progress for the future. We don't know uh like David said, we don't know what mass technology might look like two years from now or three years from now. We know what mass technology and what happened happened, but I don't even know what the I'm not a medical provider. I I don't work in masks. I I don't know what changes they've made masking even now for another virus that may show up tomorrow, right? And I don't want to take away a tool that might be useful if the current research and everything else as
060it is and is good and we're developing a plan based on what might have happened in in the past or even during the time of the Spanish flu. Like I I want to make sure that we allow ourselves to have and that wasn't a jab at what you said. I'm just saying >> No, you're just that's all the conversation Floyd. I didn't take it. >> Thank you. I appreciate that because I just don't want people to think I'm taking personal jabs because I'm not. I'm just saying like I want us to try to balance the good of all with the good of the individual, right? Allowing individual freedoms, but also protecting everybody to the fullest extent that we can. And I want us to have a policy that allows us to take in the most
061current information at the time, not based it off of things that happened, you know, five years ago, 10 years ago, or even a hundred years ago, right? I just I that that's what I'm trying to strike a balance in as we write this policy so that um we can act with as as much effort as we can at that point in time. And I think if we put that in that balance between the the right for the good and the right for the individual seems to need more in balance then right we're not saying you're you're doing it no matter what. We we're we're opting three things out that are very important things. Your health, your developmental stages, and just your own personal convictions, right? Those are opt outs that you can have. Otherwise, we're
062asking everybody else to mask, right? Or whatever else it is we're doing for PPE reasons, right? Um that that we may have. But we're also leaving it open with having a plan go to the board for the board to consider any current information at that time that we have to implement that as that. I think that makes a good solid approach and I think covers most of all your concerns I'm hearing so far. >> I do think that covers most of our concerns. I completely hear what you're saying, Lori, about um uh I guess you could call it the appeal to authority issue that we saw in 2020 and 2021. Um not with anyone in particular, I'll say to keep it general, I definitely hear where you're coming from there and I think that you
063are correct in your concerns. I don't the the hesitation that I have is I can see a circumstance not where making kids wear masks for eight hours a day for two and a half years is um beneficial ultimately especially with all of the things that we've talked about. But I can see circumstances where wearing masks might be a legitimate use of personal protective equipment. not necessarily the cloth ones that let everything through, but N95s and things like that. So, I know that there are circumstances where it may be legitimate to do so. So, what I'm saying is while I agree with you very strongly, um, and I'm concerned about personal conviction issues and I'm concerned about health health issues and psychological development issues, I want to find a way that we can craft this policy
064so that it also reflects the legitimacy of having to respond to such events. If if that makes sense. So, I'd be happy what you're saying, but Okay. So I >> can you um propose something more specific? >> Yeah. So what I'm thinking um along with the other changes that we've discussed um >> in in uh >> in 8450 >> 8450. Okay. >> Along with the other changes we've discussed specifying that it is the board that approves and ultimately decides these things. um that there is a parental rights element um with personal conviction and that there's a developmental and a health related element to exemptions. Um that we also have the removal of the specificity of the PPE because there could be a time in the future like we were talking about earlier where it's not
065a face mask issue but it's something else and it's a similar situation. It just doesn't happen to be face masks, but it happens to be something else. I would think that the next time something like that happens, if it happens again, which things tend to go around and around in circles, the next time something like that happens, it's probably not going to be face masks. It's probably going to be something else that people end up utilizing that there are going to be problems with. There was a point in time when people were, you know, really, really into drinking morphine so that they could cure their cough. Um there's always going to be people trying to respond to health conditions and responding with let's be kind and say suboptimal solutions. >> So So when you changing
066a policy versus approving say uh a plan put together by the superintendent mechanically. What does that look like timelinewise? Can you approve the plan in just one meeting rather than when you change a policy you have to go >> matter of fact that's why many of your policies say here's the policy and we're going to direct the administration to write guidelines on that that follow that policy right that we then can approve of because it makes it a a place for us to act quicker and you can change administr administrative guidelines easier than you can a policy. >> Can we strengthen the um somehow strengthen the language around masking our children so that um it's clear that until the board chooses to change their minds on this that masking is um is only is only
067a an option that the board would ever have to approve. >> So I would say we should do that for all PPE. I don't think it should be something that just at the drop of a hat can be decided >> and and not just PPE the the whole plan in general which will come with >> things like PPE and other procedural things compliance issues that you would like us to to to deal with because you you want to make sure that again you have the broadest authority be available to you, right? We we can go down every I I guess that's what I'm trying to say is like don't don't look at me as I'm speaking against what you're asking for. What I'm saying is I hear what you're saying, but I want to also
068try to give you the broadest ability to tackle any issue within your authority. I don't want you to curtail your own authority on this one topic. Okay. So, can we strike face coverings from the such as list? >> I would say strike the whole such as list. I >> I would say strike the parenthetical. Right. We just talk about PPE as PPE. >> Sure. >> Right. >> Sure. And then add in um the line that we added in on the the previous policy that subject to approval of the board >> and and uh well and the one that says that you may be exempt, right? Individuals with a valid reason for not wearing PPE, >> yes, >> may be exempted from this requirement as determined by the superintendent with final approval of the school board.
069>> Yes. For instance, I'm not going to make you wear latex gloves if you have a latex glove allergy. Right. >> Right. Like like I think having it prudent in there that says we're going to exempt you from PPE. Why just have masking? I guess is what I'm getting at. >> And then and then If you have a medical reason, a developmental reason or a person personal bi uh you know conviction. Yeah. I don't want to use the word bias. I want to use the word conviction. >> So adding in the parent opt out as well. >> Yes. Well, yes. That I mean the parental personal conviction is is the opt out basically. >> Well, I think it needs to be said in the policy that the parents can opt out of this. >> That's
070what it says. It says that based on parental personal conviction. >> Oh, that you're putting it in. >> That's the wording we're going to use. That means opt out. Yeah. Right. >> So, what you've done is give yourself flexibility. >> Yeah. That's why and that's what I like to do with policies. I like to uh I've learned a lot from our attorney where where we can give ourselves the greatest amount of flexibility. Right. And again, this this strikes a a pose between the the macro view of uh public health for everyone and the micro view of how that anticipates me, right? Uh and and how um I what rights I have as an individual versus the, you know, rights of everybody that you're going to maybe put this place in. And it gives us the
071flexibility for f future plan development to to make sure that the board has that in there. The one other thing that I would add to the plan development piece is that you know states the obvious but we always do this in policy which is no plan uh or any such plan will um be subject to any like law or jurisdiction whatever whatever and I can work with our attorney to make sure that that wording from other policies is put into this one but we certainly don't want to have a plan or a policy that doesn't conform to law Right. And so we want to make sure that any plan we have reports to law or those who have legal authority and we're a school district. Yeah, I think that would be I think that would
072be the best route with this policy with what it's talking about in that sense. And again, so this is a first read option. So it's not like it goes to the board in a couple of weeks. We vote on it and that's it. >> I can't select the wording. >> Yeah. So, we will have we will have some updates uh we would have some updates and revisions on this when it goes to the board um at the end of this month. >> Yeah, to reiterate what I heard and then Jared jump in. I heard add in the parental rights option, a personal conviction, specify that the board shall determine the use of PPE and have final approval on exemptions from the use of PPE. >> No, the the I wouldn't say the use of PPE.
073You're gonna you're going to have the approval of a plan. Yeah. >> Right. that plan will include PPE usage or not usage, but uh you like I don't want to give you maximum authority. If you say it that you're going to do PPE, that just tells me you're not going to approve the rest of the plan. You only care about >> Sure. I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. >> Yeah. Okay. board shall determine a plan and then the board shall have a final approval on exemptions under policy 8450 and then um adjusting the language of disciplinary action uh to sent home or something of that nature. Um, so if you guys can add that in and then we'll have that come to the board for first read, not for final approval,
074but for first read in August. We'll be able to take a look at that. Um, and then we can always talk about it next month at this meeting if we would like to um after those updates are made. Uh, all right. Any other thoughts on the 8,000 group? Hearing nothing. All right, we're going to move on to new major revisions. None. Moving on to future agenda planning. Uh any future agenda items that anyone would like to see? So, uh we will um have a future agenda item I believe in September uh when our next meeting is. Uh we're going to have um uh Niola come and just talk about and work through with us the first goound of updates. Okay, we we've got our plan book done. Niola will send us by annually twice a
075year updates that they've made, right? Those will come with here's the policies we've touched and in these policies are highlighted sections. That's the wording that we are suggesting you put in or are giving you choice on wording to put in. You have to go through those, read the highlights and say does do we care about adding this or not adding this or subtracting this or not subtracting this. Um and they give us uh choose your own adventure if there are choices that they are understanding as popular choices that conform. Right? Since our development process started till our end, there have been three to four. I say three to four because there's actually been four updates, but one he pushed through in enough time for us to react to in real time, right? So, there's about
076three updates that we have to go through. So, the first one's going to be pretty heavy and then after that it'll get, you know, more of a manageable workload, but that one I think we should schedule for September. >> Okay. uh is is to do that because then even our updated book is the most updated it can be because we've gone through all of their updates, right? Uh and work through that. Um we will still continue to work on administrative guidelines, right, for uh some of the major ones um that we we need to have. We know that we need to have some administrative guidelines more around um the uh controversial issues in the classroom, right? uh as as a piece. Um what were the other ones that we had? Uh um I know curriculum
077is going through an ad a couple administrative guidelines. Just can't think of them off the top of my head, >> but but we have a list we have a list of like um more of your hot topic or ones that need to be administrative guidelines quicker than some other ones. >> Sure. >> Uh we'll start working on those. I just don't have a list in my head and right in front of me. So >> yeah, that sounds good. Um, but those are the what I know to be future agenda items. >> Okay, cool. Uh, get them out for future or for uh for early viewing when you do have them. But yeah, that sounds great. Thanks. Um, anything else uh anyone would like to see in September. >> If you don't have anything, uh, you
078can always email me and Jared and I'm happy to put Oh, yeah. >> Um, I have made a contact with that prior board member. Um, they, uh, sent me some dates. I haven't responded yet to when they're available, but it looks like they're going to be available end of the month to start talking about grading >> uh and some of what they wanted to because they were going to sponsor the grading policy. I just want to have like headlines as to like what are those, right? Um Craig is actually going to go through his uh prior emails too as chair of the committee. I'm going to try to go back to my prior emails um because then even if that meeting falls through, we at least know where to start >> um and look for
079it. But >> okay, grading policy notes. >> I just shared like what what were the things that you wanted to see within that and um I said we can either meet or you can send them to me. Um she sent me some meeting dates so I'm assuming that she's looking to to meet. >> Sure. Um, so when when I have that, I will bring that to uh the chair and say here's the things that uh we're uh wanting to talk about. What which of those do you want to address? Uh and we'll move forward. >> Okay, good. Well, that leads us into past action items. That's one past action item we have an update on. Uh we have policies 2131 and 2132 as well as I'm sorry that are referenced in 1110. Um, is that
080also included in the conversation that you had with the former board member? >> I have to get that in front of my eyes. >> It's the first bullet point. >> Yeah, let me get there. I was on a whole different page. >> Okay. So uh uh policy 231 outcome goals expectations uh and uh 2132 educational process goals. Um we uh it says Dr. Burke to reach out to former board member. Yep. So that that's the one that I reached out to uh former board member. Yeah. >> Um and uh you know we'll we'll bring those forward to you. So that's that's that one. >> Yep. >> The next one um Dr. Burke reached out to the former board member. same. I mean that it just it >> those those two mean the same thing to
081me. Those first two bullet points. >> Yeah, those are the collection policies that you were working on previously. >> Yep. Uh uh the next bullet point, pull policy 2522, library and media centers out to have more discussion. Um uh pull a subcommittee meeting. that one. Um I believe um you know Jason uh once our library media specialists get back is going to pull and work on and and work through. So um as teachers come back including our library media center uh teachers uh they will pull that out uh and have more discussion. Um and then uh the director of curriculum instruction, Jenny Boris, uh to work on formatting changes to the draft course template. Um that's ongoing. She will um once she gets to a point of working through that with your committee, right, I
082believe your committee uh ad services will have an update for policy. Is that right? >> That's correct. We talked about it Tuesday. >> Okay. Uh and then um uh 5780 Stewart parental price. Uh uh we we did we brought that back. Uh we went through the information and we discussed it more thoroughly now because it was like such a There were a lot of changes to try to to even say we're going to go first read on this. So bringing it back to the committee was the smart move >> and now we're through with that. So that along with 2240 and the uh 8000 group are going to be going for first read with the revisions that we talked about earlier. >> So I think off of this past list that we can take off
083>> is the 5780, >> right? Mhm. >> Um I think uh we can um amend this uh last bullet point, director of curriculum instruction, right, to say um that uh we're expecting an update from ED services on uh draft course change templates, >> right? >> Uh and then um 50 or 252 we can leave on there, >> right? And uh the first two we can consolidate it to one or the other u because they both mean the same thing. I'm just going to work uh with um that um the prior board member who is um sponsoring possible changes to grading and assessment practices. Um and once I get that information, I will share it with the chair. >> Okay, sounds great. Um any other action items then that we have there? >> Glenn, but we
084just want to make sure we add David to the uh uh policy review committee members. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Moving forward, does that happen after the first general board meeting that he attends or does it happen before the first general board meeting he attends? >> Well, it actually happens after he's taken the opport. So, >> okay. So, so you would technically be a member now. >> He just took the L. >> He's he's he's desk. >> Okay, there you go. Okay. Yeah. Well, your name will be on there in the future and uh possibly even a name tag. >> Good. I wasn't going to show up otherwise. >> Well, I'm glad you did. >> Thanks for setting up. >> Um All right. Um any other action items that we have there? Um I don't know
085if we want to go through >> this is not an action item, but didn't you mention bullying in our Tuesday meeting? >> Yes. services though. >> Yes. So, I will uh I will get that to you. Um I I'll send you a link to that. So, that was second read. So, that was finalized, correct? The bullying with second read. Yeah. So, that's in the That's actually in the policy manual now, but I'll send you a link to it. >> Yeah. >> Um but yeah, if you want to look it over, uh like I said, um >> it's generally been the practice of the board to not go back and like rework policies once they've been done. But if you're new on the board and you're like, "Oh, this is something I care about. I want
086to take a look at it." Um, unless you're telling us, "Hey, throw the whole thing out and write write it from scratch." I mean, feel free to look at stuff and say, "Hey, I have these points that I'd like to discuss at policy. Can we bring that forward?" I'm always happy to bring something up, especially now that the policy meetings are >> this level of workload. It's a lot nicer. >> They're getting back down to manageable again >> or or closer to manageable. Yeah. Like I said, September is going to be a little bit more of a lengthy meeting because we'll have all of those reiterations to go through, but after that it will get to a very manageable schedule. Um, the other thing that I I want to talk about is I'm assuming that
087now that we're done with the major project where we're meeting monthly, we'll go back to the regular bimonthly meeting schedule. And if we do, I'd like to change the agenda to uh have like at the beginning of that meeting um have it be a review of the action steps first because if we don't refresh ourselves where we were, the danger in policy work is that everybody starts over from scratch every other month. And we don't want to get into that because we will be in that place where and I've said this always like we've got really great policies. Don't make a wonderful policy the enemy of a really great policy, right? Because that's that's why we have like a a good updated policy book that has reviews that happen by annually from an outside organization
088plus the stuff that we do. Otherwise, we will never get anything else done. And I will have uh three um up to three meetings in one month uh every month uh to do policy work because there were I think a couple of months where we had close to three or at least within a six week period there was three meetings, you know, to to get the get the really hard work that we did done. I think we're getting to a point where we can put that on the shelf and say we did a really great job, right? and get back to a bimonthly. But in that bimonthly, making sure that we also do a review of the what we talked about two months ago so that we don't get ourselves back into a habit of
089well these are the policies. I'm going to reread the whole thing and start from scratch again. I think we start from here's what we are here to address on that on that not the whole thing again. Do we also bring forward uh for consideration procedurally the past way uh that we tried to operate with the uh sponsorship? >> Yeah, I I think when it when it gets to like having ones that aren't on our our review process because what what's going to happen is we're going to have a bianual review process where they're going to say here's the suggested changes, right? Those will come along with also anything that is like new hot topic from our legal that says, "Hey, you may want to look at this one because Niola may not have looked at
090that yet, but we need to react to it quicker than the people we have who help us, right?" So, you're going to have those things. You're going to have a review of what they've done or a review of the legal suggestions and those are going to take you two or three meetings to finalize and then you're going to get another batch six months from that one and those are going to take if there's something else that hs up in between there as like something that we really want to change that should come from a sponsorship level Craig like we used to do before where a board member would say hey I was looking at policies or um What caused me to look at the policy is I had this complaint from a parent or a
091concern from, you know, a community member or whatever and I brought the policy forward. >> I think we need to look at this again in more detail. >> Like I I think from our board standpoint, we should look at this closer. I'd like to sponsor this. Then we put that on the agenda as well. >> Yes. >> So not not only do we have our legal team, the people we pay, but then you guys have a way of saying this is important work, right? And then we put that on there >> and any board member can I would say yeah as far as far as being the chair at least I'd be happy to hear from any board member whether or not they're on the committee with any policy that they're interested in updating or
092revising when that happens. We've even had non board members. Um I don't know if we have here, but my last school district, we had even just a concerned citizen who said, "Hey, uh I I'm I'm wor really worried about a policy you have. This is it. You know, are you interested in looking at that with me? I'd be happy to sponsor it." You know, so it doesn't even necessarily have to be a board member. Uh it could be a a citizen or a teacher or a parent. Um if you if the committee thinks, yeah, that's something we'd be interested in, go forth, do the work with the administration, come together, uh and and bring that forward to us. Uh as thoughts, uh we'd be happy to hear that. So, I wouldn't just limit it to
093board members necessarily. That's up to you guys. You can say board members if you want, but I've had plenty of uh success doing it with anybody who >> who wants to bring a question of our policies forward, right, to sponsor it. >> Yeah, >> I I'll be I'll bring forward uh some of the past verbage I we utilize in that process that we we try to explain process. But in a nutshell, I think uh it came before the committee the next meeting if somebody was interested in sponsoring and then they would kind of lay out the case why the committee might want to take on further revisions on the policy >> and then the committee would decide whether or not they would like to move forward with with any work future work on any particular
094policy. Um, and I think that that was a that worked out pretty well because if um if it wasn't if it didn't strike the uh will of the the committee to move forward with it, then it just, you know, you're just one person that has an issue at this point in time. you know, uh, we wouldn't want to let that hinder further work of the committee. >> The potential issue being that you could have 30 people come forward with different policies all at the same time, right? Say, I want to I want to sponsor this, I want to sponsor. >> Yeah. I mean, it would be it would be like anything else. The policy would be put on the agenda as an item to be considered along with um either the guest speaker or the
095board member or whoever is interested. they would be able to speak on it and then then the committee would say let's move this forward for further discussion at the next meeting or let's not do that. So yeah, for sure. Um that sounds fine to me. I mean and that's kind of how we have operated as as far as I've observed it. Um and that'll be a lot easier again with the not insanely high workload of policies that we've been going through for the last two years. Um yeah, that's that. Um, Lynn, do you have uh I don't think it was too many changes. Um, do you have a list of those as action items or do you just want to say let's move these forward? >> Moving forward. >> Move them forward. Move them forward
096with the requested changes. >> Um, >> I do have a question. Um, since September is not a normal month on, are we uh should we set a date or do you want me to send out >> Oh, I meant October. Did I say September? Our next meeting. I I meant October. >> So, we are not meeting in September, >> right? Our next meeting would be October for the calendar, >> right? >> And I and I'm assuming that we can get back to a regular meeting schedule. >> Um, so the only reason that I would hesitate on that is because last month we had a meeting where technically none of the content went to the board for first read. So, I would say let's still get a September meeting on the books because we're going to
097have a number of policies at the August board meeting which are there for first read if those are policies that people want to have further discussion about. It'll be good for us to have a standing meeting uh appointment and then we can always say, "Hey, uh we're actually going to postpone this meeting until a later date if we don't need to." Does that make sense? >> You're the chair. >> Yeah. You hear what you hear? Well, thank you. You see what I'm saying with that? Okay. Yeah. So, I would say let's still set up a let's still set up September meetings. Um, and then moving forward, we'll start to scale it back. Um, all right. If there's no further thoughts, uh, we'll adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m. >> We're there. >> You know me,
098I'm I'm a blogiator. How does a work thing with you guys? I this is my first time here, but I it was really encouraging to see the respectful the level of respect how you guys communicate with one another and I felt you were really clear and really honoring to one another and the conversation was intelligent and it's clear you guys all are here because you care a lot. So, thank you for serving our children in our community. I appreciate >> you. I I don't believe I know you. I'm Lori Hoffman. Nice to meet you. >> Nice to meet you, too. >> And I I I'm a big I'm all about research. So, thank you for sharing that. You guys I I like