001My head's attached. I get it. I had it. And now these I don't even know what happened. I have no idea. End of this. You can unplug that one though. Unplug it. on. Yeah, I don't know where I can't find my um good or is that [Music] it's Oh, I got something here. This is what's going on. I got all that paperwork. I started looking at today. Yeah. And there's a lot of things I don't really know. Yeah. It's new. So, should I just fill it up best I can? And then Okay. I'm [Music] like, you know, and did a little back pressure. I started looking at today and I was so busy. Sorry to push that off. That's what I'm kind of thinking. We got a pretty heavy address. All right, we have got
002We have got 6:30. Craig is walking back in. So, uh, he should be good. I'd like to call the meeting to order. I will start by saying the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to turn it over to you for real talk today. Okay. Charity Chandler, Mike Higgins here, Diana Johnson here, Sam Owen Neil here, Dan Boltner here, Craig Wartman here, David Shreder, Lorie Holland here. All right, so um the the agenda is we're going to be talking some Title Six discussions. I think I could probably turn it over to Jared if you're ready. Yes, I'm ready. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, but my audio is not Okay, try it now. Jared, can you hear me? Are we good? Okay. Yeah. Uh so um this meeting uh
003we did call uh over the weekend uh and uh wanted to update the board uh at on happenings around the title six federal request uh for asurances. Uh and those asurances u are basically for us to make sure that we are following uh title six provisions uh as outlined uh and uh according to um the federal law and the interpretation most recently uh through uh the Supreme Court and um the Harvard cases. Now I will tell you that uh that that has caused some disruption uh between uh state and federal governments. Uh the state is uh saying that uh those asurances that they're asking for are are duplicative meaning we've already uh as a state assured uh that school districts are following those uh title six asurances. Um and also uh that uh the new
004uh uh discussion about uh what they're asking for and how uh those asurances are going to be enforced by OCR are unclear. Uh and and those are are really discussions more between the state level and the federal level. My concern uh that I have is that uh if um if there's going to be a hangup between the state and the federal government, uh we also have a local duty under local control uh to make sure that we um follow both state and federal law. Uh and this is a federal law that the federal government is asking us to sign for. Um and and I will tell you that um they are new. Uh they lack uh real good clarity uh both on what they're asking for and uh enforcement. Um that being said, uh I
005know that um you know the the federal government is asking us uh to comply uh with federal law and therefore I think we we should sign these asurances. Uh and we should also in accordance with the asurances really do a deep dive into all of our programming uh as suggested by our attorney. uh look at uh where we are out of compliance possibly and make steps to uh get in to compliance uh because that's actually what the federal government's asking uh in this um this request. Um I know that's uh different than what our DPI is is looking for. Um and I know that the DPI is trying to seek clarity for our schools, right? and they also are are talking about the difference between uh states rights and and federal government. Um and that's
006that's again a position for them uh that they need to work through. I need to work through what we need to do to satisfy the federal government's requests for us following their mandates as well as what that might mean for funding in our schools. Any questions to this point? Jared, I see no questions or any online. Okay. Um today uh we did get another update from the department of education, the state department of education uh and they got an update from the federal uh department of education basically uh stating that um if local educational agencies uh felt the need to uh sign the asurances document on their own uh without the state's help uh that we were allowed to do that and they gave us a uh address in order to send those in. Uh
007I do think that you know uh we we've always in in Watertown have complied with both state and federal statutes. Uh we sign many asurances every year. Um I know that if we're out of compliance with those asurances um the OCR has worked with school districts to try to get people within compliance. Um and it has uh been a pathway where as long as you're engaging that in that discussion uh they haven't withheld funding in the past. Now I I can't make any claims to understand or know how the new enforcement might be. Uh but I can say I don't think it's good for us as a school district uh to be out of statute uh compliance with either the state or federal government. So, I guess uh you know, if there's if there's any
008more discussion, uh we can certainly have more questions. Uh if you're in agreement, board, I'd like to uh have that noted in a motion uh and uh and uh you know, acted upon. So that way tomorrow I can sign those assurances and send them off to uh the department, the federal department of education through the channels that they provided today. Do we have any questions or concerns, Sam? Yeah, if that's I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't cutting in in the middle of anything that you had to say, Jared. Um, but yeah, so I I want to say I really appreciate the uh the resource that uh our lawyers gave us uh from Bulo Veter. Uh that's a really helpful kind of breakdown of all of the different areas that we could potentially
009be looking at doing a deep dive into. And I know that's something that I care about a lot. I know that the community cares about these things being addressed in a pretty clear manner. And so I think that on page two uh yeah two of the bulo veter resource it gets into some interesting questions because I think some of the certification it seems is more about college admissions and it's about things like affirmative action and um how how admissions are processed. But there's another question that I thought was pertinent and it seems like it's uh it seems like it's pertinent to this discussion and that's about programs or even uh educational policies or curriculums that we're using in the schools and whether or not those policies curriculums programs would be in violation as they talk
010about here on page two. Uh in question eight, question eight and answer eight, they talk about DEI initiatives. They talk about culturally responsive or social emotional learning and how those programs can oftentimes appear to be neutral on their face uh but actually do contain violations of uh title six. Um, and I know we're talking about it now and it's uh in a certain way it's in the early stages, but do you have any thoughts immediately, Jared, about how to go about distinguishing in our district those policies and whether or not they are in that in in that zone of violation. Yeah. Uh thank you Sam. Uh so I I do want to share uh your your same concerns. It is early days, right? And certainly there isn't uh by any stretch of the imagination clarity
011coming from the federal government. Um I I think though that there are some points of clarity right uh that we do have uh and I have already uh begun some work on that deep dive uh with our attorney um you know understanding more um asking our admin team to start identifying areas that we may have to make some changes talking about the level of change we might have to make um to to get in compliance with that. But again, we we really do need a little bit more clarity too from the federal government. Um not only on what the implementation looks like and and I know we'll get that uh government just moves slow, right? Uh but um also what enforcement might look like. Uh and so you know what we should do again is
012you know sign these identify areas where we think a deep dive might have to look at right not necessarily rush into those changes but try to get more clarity and when we get more clarity we will be really positioned well and and quickly to make whatever changes we we need. Um I do know uh you know that that that is I think the best route to help us try to secure funding. I'm not going to promise in any way, shape or form that funding will come into our state or when it does uh that it will be distributed only to the schools who have signed. I don't know what those plans are and those are are decisions well past us. But I can say, you know, what I think we need to do, and my
013answer is always going to be to the best of our abilities, follow state and federal uh laws and what they're asking us to do. Uh and so uh we are being asked this by our federal government. Uh I do know that there is a a discrepancy and that the DPI is really trying to stand up for us as schools to try to get clarity. Um and uh that's where they are. But I also do know that the federal federal government has asked both the state as well as local education agencies, ourselves included, uh to uh sign these assurances. So um you guys have my recommendation. Um I I do know that there may be a chance that this would be uh through the court system injuncted and at that time it'll be some more stuff
014for us to talk about, but this is just an interim step. uh and I think we should take the interim step and then uh really try to be prepared to answer responsibly to um the authority of the federal government if needed. You got a question. Yeah, my question Jared is regarding the timing of of this particular meeting. Um, how come how come it comes to us now day before the deadline and how come we we couldn't have had a discussion about this sooner? Is there particular rationale behind that? Uh, yeah. Um, we were waiting for uh the superintendents were waiting for an update from uh the DPI. The DPI has been waiting for answers to questions that they've had from the federal government and still haven't gotten. Uh and on uh fri uh was it
015Thursday or Friday of last week? Uh just before it was Friday, Good Friday. Um you know, we basically got an update from the state that said uh we haven't gotten any answers. Uh we've told the the federal government that we're not going to be collecting these uh asurances from our local eleas um and that we're still looking for clarity. Um and in that message it was also you know u you know basically shared out to us like we know you'll have your own decisions to make but we hope you stand with uh the state department uh in this request and um you know we have to look at that heavily at a local level. Um so uh that's that's why we're here tonight. Um, also I notice that the document that's being requested to be
016signed is is not included in the on the agenda tonight. Um, why is that? It should be I got it. It's attached. It should be attached. Uh, I can look on my end to see if it's there to under public content. Uh, the view and better resource. I I see the Oh, I see. It's It's a link within the No, there was also a link to the document. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Up above that. Yep. Yep. Your colleague Okay. questions. Yeah. So, um, and I touched on this earlier, but do we have a timeline? Can we set kind of another touch point for updates on how we're going to go about analyzing what we're doing and how that responds to some of the uh some of the information that we've gotten from the DOE? Yeah. So,
017I I I I think that's that's a a good uh question, Sam. Uh and I think what we should do is uh you know, next Monday we reorganize. uh I can uh sit with uh board leadership uh have a discussion about uh what committee they they would like to have that put under and then put it on a regular schedule uh because there are going to be a lot of um back and forth between the state government, federal government, court systems, uh and us as a local control agency to try to figure out where this is going to go uh and how we need to respond to that. So, we're going to have to keep a close eye on and have u you know more meetings as as we come together. So, um as you
018guys know, you know, federal government's moving really fast right now and making a lot of changes. So, uh it would just behoove us to, you know, try to keep it in in and up with those uh as we can. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I would just uh I would like to see a proactive attitude about this. Not only because it's coming from the federal government, but more so I think because uh clearly the majority of the people in the district care about this as a particular subject in the district and I think that even before this was put out by the federal government, this is the sort of change that people wanted to see made in Watertown. So, sounds good to me. So, without further questions, uh, that I I haven't seen anybody else raising
019their hand. Uh, I guess Jared's looking for a motion, uh, to sign the document. Oh, Greg, you got another question? No, I was going to I was going to make the motion. Make the motion. Second and a second. Uh, all in favor? Opposed? We need a roll call vote. I was wondering about that. Uh, do you want to do roll call just in case? I mean, nobody objected, but Right. Yeah. I mean, it it's fuzzy. It does does deal with the possibility of money, but it's not necessarily spending money. Uh, but I feel more comfortable with a roll call vote than not. Fair enough. Okay. Uh, Mike Higgins, yes. Diana Johnson, yes. Sam Owen, yes. Dan Boltner, yes. Craig Wartman, yes. Lorie Holland, yes. All right. Well, thank you, Jared, for bringing that up. Uh,
020anything else you needed to discuss tonight? Nope. It's all was on the agenda. All right. I move to uh there is a motion to and a second. Uh, we are adjourned at 6:47. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Have a good evening. as well. I just That's my