04/09/2025 Policy Committee Meeting

001Well, there they are. Looks good. big picture. I know. Like like anybody needs to see that. Oh my god. like double and you had this look of this cond. This meeting is being recorded. Very good, sir. Very good. Yeah, right. I guess right there. I'm not telling you. Oh, no. I volume. We're good. All right. I feel like I have 27 on this. 528 on this spot. Oh, hello. I am so sorry. You're so messy. Sitting present like the wrong. I tried doing but I was the first one. So, I'm doing it like I'm the first one here. So, then I'm like, oh, oh, wait a second. It's reversal. Scribble like that was me. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Honestly, no. She's so perfect. It was perfect. Thank you. Don't like turning in messy

002things to the teacher. I turn join the meeting. Everything else for test So quiet last summer actually was very very one of my favorite spots. It's like the uh feel like it's center of the rocky you can just give some cool spot hiking from there. I'm not active enough to really like smil six years ago. Um yes. All right, it's 5:30 um April 9th and I call this meeting of the policy review committee to order and the first order of business happens to be Neil policy 2240. the summer or interm session school which had been discussed fairly at length at our ed services committee yesterday and this is uh I don't know if this is a recommendation from the committee this is certainly recommendation from administration um to uh make these particular changes to this

003this policy that wasn't quite, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't even there before. Did anybody have any concerns or questions with the language on this particular policy so far? committee just seeking to understand is it said the W the student resident students of the WSD and other students as the board may admit the is summer school open to parochial school students who want to take enrichment classes. Yes. Thank you. I know I had some concerns that I brought up at the ED services committee about um that first bullet point where it says the district will strongly encourage but not require students who are not achieving at grade level to participate in academic summer school programs in addition to enrichment courses they may choose to pursue. I felt that it would be more advantageous and perhaps a

004little more flexible to strike the words but not required. Um that would leave the option for strongly encouraged. Yet um with a with a connotation that we really need you to do this if you're struggling with your reading program. Um but yet let the uh let the law more or less speak for itself, right? you know to say you know what if it's not required it's not required right I mean and and the point is taken which is like we don't have to tell them it's not required right yes we can't require you right but we can say we're strongly encouraging you and just leave the statement lie right right I have no problem with that edit okay always go first I no problem with that I know that you had your questions about this

005particular policy too know my question on this one is Um, like I brought up with unified strength which still lies under that umbrella be and then is it an administrative thing right now because there are some coaches that are requiring that it specifically states in here cannot require you know but not required. So I don't know if that needs that little oomph or if that's enough of an administrative thing that we can handle that administratively. I don't have a preference one way or the other. I just figured I'd throw it out there for discussion. Well, personally, the fact that the law can't require it, our administration should be following the law. So, I think that would be more of an administration. I think what we want the idea I'm just assuming is for those students

006that are academically needing summer school. I don't think we you know but yeah having a discussion around uh coaches uh which doesn't really relate to summer school coaches requirement for making sure students you know are of good condition to play right um you certainly can have some discussion with um coaches in AD and talking about you know what is conditioned to play versus not conditioned to play, right? Um, and what they would require for condition to play doesn't always have to be necessarily strength and speed, right? And that's your point. That's my point. Your point isn't like we don't want them to be not being able to require them to be in a position to play play, right? It's But they can't just say this is the only way you can do that. Right. And

007that's a discussion point we can have with our our ad and our coaches. Right. So I'm okay with striking that if we you know Yeah. And I think the point was brought up also where you still have a choice you know if you choose not to participate. Well then there's potentially other consequences you know and it's still choice. Yeah. Exactly. And honestly, um the the idea that not just idea, but the law giving parents the strength in that discussion to say like you you can you can talk about conditioning but you can't force them to go to summer school, right? Uh and um you know that is the law, right? You can't force them to go to summer school. Um and so for our coaches to say that the only way you can meet that

008indicator would be false. And that's where I can talk with our athletic director and say, "Listen, um, we've got some reports that in the past this is the only avenue that was allowed. Um, we're going to have to look at allowing different avenues because by law, we can't force them to do summer school, right?" And so that gets at the discussion points that the board is talking about around that topic. Yep. And it's Yeah. Just perfect. Does anybody on the committee have an objection to striking those three words and the commas associated with that with that but not required? So we will strike but not require. Any other questions on that policy? I just had a question about clarification about whether or not the law was saying you're not allowed to in general require it

009or you're not allowed to require it under any circumstances. But that's fine. You're not allowed to require it under these circumstances that I can believe. You're only allowed to um hold people accountable to uh the calendar year uh and the number of years requirements in the calendar year. But it's still not able to require. You can strongly suggest to parents you can create other intervention opportunities, but you can't offer it as an alternative to change the outcome. You can offer an alternative, but you can't say you have to, right? Like you have to take this or you're going to fail. Okay. You can't say that. All right. I have two grammaticals. Is it for the same one for this policy? Okay. Yeah. If everybody else has done Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. In the first section,

010um Craig was on the first bullet. I'm going down to the third bullet where it's done and enhancing all summer school. Typically, we don't start a bullet item with and so if we can just strip the word and and then second paragraph where summer and interm sessions that section ABCD E in letter C, you have an open parenthesis. We need to close that at the end. Oh yeah, it's great. The teacher and he comes up. That's perfect. Thank you. That's why we're here. And there's another piece in there in letter C um to make up a field course to offer opportunities for students to earn credits to graduate on time. So, because it's talking in the parenthesis about graduating on time, that makes that whole statement that implies that that's for high school only. So,

011if you have a seventh grader that fails a course, um that then wouldn't fall for them because it's not making up credits to graduate. So, correct. They don't necessarily need to make that up. Because they don't need to make up the failed course. That's why they're moving on. They're moving on. Okay. I just want to make sure cuz I read it. It says C deals with high school and the possibility or probability of becoming credit deficient. All right. Any other questions or concerns with with that and those changes? We I think it makes sense to move forward with those. Do we have to add the Watertown Unified School District in the year to the bottom of all of these policies? Yeah. Um, where would that were you referring to? Just because like on some of

012them we have NEA 2016 and WSD in a particular year. I didn't know if that was just standardized across the board. I can answer that. That's a copyright. Um, so not all of them. So if if um if we're taking just the Neola uh policy straight, we just leave the Neola copyright, but because we're actually adding to this, we should probably put the Watertown copyright on. Thank you. And if we pull in a policy verbiage from our current policies, we would also put the copyright in. So thank you for pointing it out. I want to follow up to that just because I'm not a member of policy, so I don't know. In pre in our current policy handbook, it has the year that it's been revised. Will that happen with this too? I mean, obviously,

013they're all going in right now, but then in subsequent Yes. have revisions in subsequent years, but I mean, the dates will be on there. The dates are in subsequent years, right? That brings us to V. um surrounding uh NEO policy 5411, the third grade promotion and retention for at risk students. The um and I I know that Lori had some concerns specific to this particular policy. Would you care to share those? Um well can maybe we'll just hit bullet at time just reading um when I had written down when I asked the question about the um when we were speaking of the intensive summer reading program. This was more a curiosity. It probably would have fit in yesterday but something that came to my brain this morning. My question was that will that be a

014specific class or will this just be incorporated in our typical summer school programs that are already offered? Right? Like I know there's been changes done to our summer school classes. But a good question. Um it's funny because I actually went and looked at the FAQ on DPI to see if there wasn't updated and I uploaded the FAQ on like March 30th and they uh updated the FAQ on April 1st. So the FAQ went from 24 questions to 49 questions. So they've clearly gotten some additional questions about all of those. Initially, I would tell you that I would like it to be a summer school course during our summer school offering time and that I have some um very initial thoughts about what I would how I would like to set it up and what I'd

015like it to look like. the additional 25 FAQ answered questions help sort of talk about you know inlaw intensive summer programming isn't defined but what you might do to support that like I could see and don't hold me to this because I've had no conversations with anyone I could see us offering a course where we like pre-register students qualify into it where we have a highly qualified teacher it's very clear that you need to have a licensed teacher and they need to teach third at least third grade. And I would love to see us do something like a very like specific intervention program for like what their textive skill is. Like right now we have um summer reading for kids who are below grade level, but it is not quite that precise. Um and so

016I could see us doing work to like pre-register students who would be qualified for that. Um and so it's just hardwired right into their co right into their program. Um, that's my kind of initial thought to that, Lori. Yeah. Um, and the more we can do to really look at what their desolate skill is and really intensify the instruction there and have the right materials for those kids looking obviously whether or not that will be better for them. So, that would be my initial answer to that question, but we would like some kind of plan that perfect. Yeah, perfect. We don't need to get off I don't want to get off of policy. I I know we've been talking about it. It's a lot happening right now. So, I just wanted to kind of point

017that out. Um my other question, I'm just going to kind of go I'm not going to go word for word. I'm just because I want to look at the policy. Um let me get on the right spot. when you look at the question um that I had regarding the paragraph uh where is it? Thank you. Um the WSD blah blah blah I don't need to read through it. My question was when reading proficiency obviously that is what we're looking at. I don't question that. I was wondering what the social and emotional development has to do. I know that plays in, but I just didn't know if it was very clear and how that because you don't really see that as a determining factor. So, I don't know if this is all of those together, the

018reading proficiency, social emotional development. Obviously, if they don't have reading proficiency, where would a social and emotional development change that need? Yeah, it's a super question and um something that comes up often when we're like making these retention decisions and I thought it would be best to illustrate it with sort of like an example. So if if I have two students, student A and student B and student A is in third grade and you know has a slight deficiency in reading um and has great friends in that classroom and his birth date is in October. um so was already one of the older students in the classroom. Um what would the social emotional impact on holding that child back so that that child would see that his or her friends were all in fourth grade

019the following year and they were still in third grade. What would be the social emotional like impact of that on that child versus child B who maybe um just moved to the district and has a lot of really great friends who happen to be in second grade because they're in the neighborhood and birthday of August 31st. So, it's already the youngest student in their classroom and we know from their educational history that they missed a year of school because they had they were out because they had cancer treatment. That would have a very different social emotional impact on that child by having that child like repeat third grade. And so that when they say like take a holistic picture um and what would be in the best students best interest, I think like all of

020those factors kind of play a role in there um when we're trying to make those sorts of decisions. And so that's the kind of what they're trying to get at with that. Okay. I guess and part of this is I don't need to know all the ins and outs but I guess I'm where I'm confused is I'm act 20 the idea is that we want to intervene right so I know there's interventions that will be ideal get those interventions in get that student but what I don't want to see happen is us continue to allow these kids to advance and I'm I'm assuming there's going to be minimal if ever retention. Um, and jump in anybody because I'm I'm not for necessarily retaining the student in third grade. I can appreciate like all that, but

021if for instance their friends are moving up and you don't and you do move them up, how are we going to be sure that they're going to get to grade level? Like what is that going to look like? Just do you see what I'm saying? Like so I'm wondering and I I I wonder if that's really where's that gauge of that? You know what I mean? And are you allowed to make those gauges? My understanding is there's very clear like from what I've been reading very clear reasons why I mean if they are really low in score on that low on that test and they're really behind. Would would their friends be a reason to push them ahead? Do you feel I'm trying to I'm not trying to be the devil advocate, but I'm like

022trying to Yeah. And you're right, you know, I'm clear. I I guess I would for it, right? I would piggy back off of that though, too, in the sense that um we talk about the social emotional um impact among their peers if that child were to have to repeat. However, what's the social emotional impact with a child that is illiterate by the time they're a freshman in high school or or can't even, you know, we just keep passing them along through. We're not helping them in that process. To me, to me there's, you know, we're so eager to look at the immediate ramifications of a social emotional impact that we're we're overlooking the long-term ramifications of the social emotional impact. Um, just like I absolutely appreciate that and I think preact 20 I almost called

023it Jared off on me. after 20 we put many many many things in place so that we were trying to intervene on those areas that they're below grade level in. Um we would rely on what the educational research says about the impacts of retention. Um and there are certainly situations and cases where that makes sense. Um to your point, if we have a student who is essentially illiterate as a freshman, they would likely have an IEP at that point. Um and have indivi an individualized um education plan as a result of that. Um a lot of times retention in some cases looks very favorable at first and it's the long-term implications that um research will show is more challenging like especially when they're young. If we have a student who say we want to say

024repeat peak kindergarten or something like that, initially a student would likely look very successful in the next year. It's the long-term ramifications actually that research will tell you that is the more challenging piece to that. So I appreciate your point. These are big decisions. They're not anything that we would want to enter into lightly. And there's a lot of factors that we can't control. I walk to wish I had a crystal ball. Right. Yeah. You know, don't make I I don't mean to sound dismissive, but um AC the academic studies seem to be stacked against some of the things that you're mentioning in the sense that um we have 30% of our students that are below uh proficiency, you know, and below basic. So, if we really have things figured out academically, I I don't

025know if they trust that that those those sources that you're you're talking about. I mean, we're so far behind the eight-ball. Um, if we keep doing the same things, we're not going to we're not going to uh see any improvements in my opinion. I'm skeptical of that. So uh Sam uh yeah so this was one of the things that I was curious about along with another uh word that's in this paragraph but um I mean I I clearly understand sometimes and it says kind of around the phrase social emotional development available supports and I think that obviously in a lot of cases it's very reasonable to say well the child is doing very well in all of these other areas let's provide that child with additional support when they move on to fourth grade. I

026think that totally makes sense. However, I think that at its core, the problem here is that social emotional learning, social emotional development is a nebulous term that can mean a lot of different things. And unfortunately, it's developed tons of baggage over the last four or five years. I would almost say that, you know, you're better off striking that clause there and, you know, maybe changing available to available supports to the phrase um um reasonable availability of supports or something like that. Um I think that there's more going on there. At the end of the day, yeah, a child's ability to read is an expression of something that is already gone a miss in the situation. So, it's not that the child is unable to read and that's fine and then making a decision is going

027to cause social and emotional impact. Social and emot and emotional impact is already taking place there. Um, and then quickly and I'll get this other one out of the way. Um, the other word that I had is that on that in that first line, a thorough and equitable process. Again, it's a similar thing. Equitable is uh kind of a murky term and I think that people use it in a lot of different ways. I think that maybe changing that phrase there uh to a fair and thorough process instead of a thorough and equitable process would be good because sometimes equitable means you have different standards for different people in ways that aren't entirely fair. So, yeah, I have two spots there. I I I like the second part that you said about uh you know

028a thorough and fair process uh that considers individual students. I think I understand what that means right um uh to to us what that fair process looks like. Um and then um where I would maybe make a change uh you know people are hung up on the idea of social emotional development you know and and I know that that term with some people really causes a lot of baggage uh to say something along this line um the determination process will consider relevant factors such as reading proficiency the child's development and available supports um talks more about the the child's development in in a lot of areas, not just saying social and emotional development because I I think we would look at a lot more things than just social and emotional development of a child. Yeah.

029Um and I think it's it gives us a brighter a broader view of all the supports needed for that child. Maybe long-term development if you want or or long-term development. Yeah, long-term development. uh a and uh it doesn't have some uh terms in it that maybe uh some people might take offense to. Well, and I'm not offended by social and emotional. I just think it's very feelings and what I may think is a social emotional development. This person over here may think they're oh they're just they're just a cry baby. You know what I'm saying? Like so I think that it's very it can be very easy to feelings attached to it which we have to have feelings I know you have feelings don't get me wrong functioning abs absolutely absolutely but you know yeah

030I think my my question is is there some kind of rubric that folks look at when it comes to this are there anything any parts of these that are are weighted um you know in that decision making process and who is making it? Is it a a curriculum in you know instruction person? Is it a teacher? Is it a district administrator? That kind of helps me understand you know who who's a subject matter expert. Yeah, we have in the past typically use something called a life retention scale and it's just like a questionnaire if you will and it has reflected in it some of the more longitudinal surveys like um about the child and then it gives you like this is a great idea, this is terrible idea and so we don't go solely on

031what that says and it's usually a team of people involved. Um, in my previous job when I was director of elementary student learning, I was always involved. The classroom teacher, the principal, if there were a special education teacher, I will tell you generally speaking on the life retention scale, if the student had your P, it's generally considered not a good idea to retain a child. Um, but that gives us sort of a kind of a place to start to have a discussion with it. Um, and so these are definitely and the parent too. I should be super clear. would always include the parent in that discussion as well. So they're always a team. So primarily objective with some Jack pron. Okay. Thank you. Have a school site there. Absolutely. Yeah. So we had a couple

032of uh revisions put on the table. How do we feel about those? I support those revisions. Okay. Charity. Okay. So, um, if I can reiterate, um, we said a thorough and fair process, uh, instead of a thorough and equitable process. Uh, and, uh, in the last sentence that's bolded, uh, in that paragraph, we're going to talk about the determination process. will consider the relevant factors such as reading proficiency and the long-term student de uh students long-term development and available supports. I think that's what we said, right? Anything else to contribute to that to I think um we should uh strike the word equitable from a where it says equitable process and just say process three. One more question to us. Right. Is there a frequency of progress because it it specifically mentions, you know, continued

033progress updates? Is is that a quarterly? Is that a monthly depending on the child? Where are you at with that one? Is that like in fourth grade? It it was I would do a quick reading, see exactly where, but then it started when a student has a reading plan and we do weekly progress monitoring. Perfect. Okay. It was in subsection B. on page two near the top it just says all relevant and available data demonstrating students response or progress. So just to know the frequency of what that look like. So it's not going to be a gotcha as it gets closer to the end. No, no, no, no. We do weekly progress monitoring recruiting students. So yeah, agreed. Jared, where did you say that that active process was? You said I have Yeah, it's Yeah,

034we're Well, we're changing equitable to fair in that one, right? Uh I thought there was another one down below here that mentioned the the process again. Um can't see if I can find it, but I just I just meant to say if there if it was in the document again because I thought it was lower control F equable to it's only showing once. Okay. I just thought there was one lower and maybe I just was scrolling. But anyway, ju just the idea is if if we're going to replace it, we need to replace it throughout the whole document. And I I don't think we should just necessarily sit here and reread the whole document again. I just thought there was going a lower lower down. Yeah. I'm not seeing it. Okay. So, um All right.

035Any additional questions regarding policy 5411 hearing? None. Moving on to Neola policies 2000 group 4. We have four four policies up for discussion. child care programs, uh, district sponsored trips, CTE program, and individual education evaluation of this group. Did anybody have any questions or concerns? Nothing. I had one question on 2340, which was the sponsored field trips. I didn't see anything mentioned in there about having an emergency contact. I'm guessing that's probably on any kind of form that parents are required to fill out, but do we need to specifically call out that there's an emergency contact on file? It doesn't I mean, it doesn't hurt either way. I mean, I I I guess being newer to the policy, that might be something that they all have at the beginning of the year. We assume it

036stays consistent throughout the year and it's and as long as they have approval to go that that we're good. But that was my only question about that. And that's how we do that. You just do it on I believe you signed some on Skyward and you've given your child to go on field trips all year. You don't Sometimes I don't even know they're going No, I'm just kidding. Say that's a that's a problem. Happened in high school once. I had no idea he was going on a field trip. So, okay. I will I will say that um it's a problem. I will say that this references administrative guidelines as well. So I'd imagine that there would be accompanying doc company acco companying document that would also reference. Yeah. Um there will be when we get

037through all the administrative guidelines which we will have between July and December. Uh we will do that work. But um I do know that there was a question from the field about uh independent educational evaluations and you know how does this happen and what do we do and Sarah will you just kind of go over what that is and so once a comprehensive evaluation is done um it is done with a team and it is again very comprehensive we ask for a variety of things that might be uh needing some support for students um from OT's to PT to speech to cognitive delays. Sykes are on board. Um when we do that comprehensive evaluation, if a student um qualifies, then they would receive an IEP for that would meet their needs. If they do not

038qualify um through that comprehensive evaluation, of course, they still are monitored by the regular education staff and if they need interventions at some point down the line, of course, that is still occurring. Anie E is a request by a parent or a guardian if they do not agree with the evaluation outcome. And while I have been here, we have not had any requests for an IE. Um what I will say is that there has been a little bit of talk um from parochial school parents when a child does not qualify for um special education services uh through that comprehensive evaluation. There have only been two where they have mentioned well maybe I'll ask for an IE um and after they have talked with uh their parochial school they have not gone that route. Okay. Thank

039you. I did have um couple on um policy 2421 care for your detected. Um second set of bullets there. Um it says a board shall provide a career and teched education or teched program which shall include and when I see the word shall I I u think that's kind of synonymous with the word must. So when when I'm just trying to understand what that statement is trying to say um that we're offering a program that must include marketing management and entrepreneurship education in which case uh one thought crosses my mind that you know in this situation where we may be faced with some budget cuts in the future Perhaps maybe the word me instead of shall would be uh more appropriate because um this kind of limits our ability to say well maybe maybe we

040have to part with the marketing course this time around you know um that sort of thing. Is there only one marketing course? Mhm. I'm just the reason I'm asking is like I was going to say for agriculture for any of those there's multiple within there. So these are kind of domains. Sure. So I don't know if it's wise to eliminate an entire domain of it. And that's why I was okay with Shell where you might eliminate if there's three offerings, it might be down to one offering, but still giving a little bit of something because I don't I don't want to see any of these full domains eliminated because then you're you're eliminating um I I I'm not going to argue with with wanting to have to eliminate a domain, but if there's a need

041to eliminate a domain because of a core subject, that we have to maintain. Um I feel like the word may allows the administration to have the most uh flexibility there. If we do that, would we then take the the subsection of the three points below because it says it may also include and condense those two sections into one and be modified from shall perhaps. Yeah, we do it either way. How would that read charity? Well, it just says I mean in the first part it's saying it it which shall include the second part says may also include. So, if we're going with May in the first subsection of bullet points, we would essentially take those A, B, and C integration with early college credit, those three bullet points, and just move them up and make

042them sub bullets G, H, and I because we're saying May for all of them at that point. See what I'm saying, Diana? I mean, I do. Um I also again I wouldn't want to eliminate a full pathway. I'll call it a pathway. Yeah. Whereas um in I'll just make up some numbers. In egg if there's eight classes those might be reduced to six. In um family and consumer sciences there might be five that might be reduced to three. Um marketing management whatever might have four that might be reduced to one. So there's limitations but I would like to see it say must we must still include each of the pathways that yes through reductions but then that holds true that different students have strengths in different areas and not allow a particular pathway to be

043eliminated. You could you could condense it but not fully eliminated. That's just where I'm coming up. Sure. Where I'm where I'm more in support with uh the the thoughts and ideas that Mr. Orman has is we may be in a position uh where not even by our choice we can't hire in a domain right and and if you're saying I have to ship right then you're telling me whatever it costs go to CISA or or ship students somewhere our policy says we will right and I rather have us as open to the best interpretation as possible Um, and certainly I think most of the intent in the room here would be to, you know, continue offering as many pathways as possible, right? I mean, but we we we have students in in multiple pathways that

044are apprentices and everything else. Um, but the real reality is, um, sometimes it's hard to even hire these and I hadn't thought about it from the hiring perspective. So, I think I think you know for a couple of different reasons, changing the shell to May uh sounds to me like a better choice right now. I I agree. I don't think that is necessarily saying they will or that it will be cut. It's just giving you a little bit more wiggle room. Yeah. Yeah, I was also going to ask, so what happens if uh say there's 10 egg classes and zero students sign up for all 10 egg classes? Does that mean that you're required to at least keep one of those positions open in spite of the fact that there's no Yeah, no enrollment. Even

045if there's no enrollment for five years, I mean, at a certain point, yeah, it just seems like you need to have you need to have availability. And I mean I I I rate technical education for uh classes very very highly as far as what we should be providing. has to comment on and and the last um last point I mean sorry before I move on people on the committee is committee I think you know uh if I can reiterate what I think our our consensus was on that topic is we're going to make the board say the board will or excuse me um may provide Okay. And we are going to take that section below and just uh have those be G H whatever right. Yeah, that sounds good to me. One other point about

046this and you guys can move on. But we do have in the very last paragraph. Yeah, I was actually going to bring that up. Um Oh, there you go. Yeah, that was a it's a clerical um uh update, I guess I should say. Uh there's still title old title n I meanit old new title n language. Yeah. And we want to make sure that that's consistent with everything else. Mhm. So it should stop at sex. Correct. Uh and then go to or physical, mental, emotional, and learning disability class. Is that what you're referring to? Y the in parentheses should be changed out. Does it include sexual orientation? Yeah. Yes. sexual orientations there. It's just the parenthesis that should be removed. All right. And um All right. Moving along to Neola Policies 3000 group 8. Uh

047we have we have two policies about weapons or professional staff weapons prohibited I should say for for professional staff as well as reduction in staff policies. Um I know Diana had some concerns about questions about this. Did anybody else have any other comments or questions on this group so far? Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Diane. Um, so I just wanted clarification in the bullet point, uh, in the first paragraph. This pro prohibition does not apply to unloaded firearms in a locked vehicle or locked firearms case, blah blah blah blah. So, I just want to make sure that as long as they're locked, because it said lock case, they have a locking mechanism as well. So, it's not a case. So, firearm, does it have to be in a locked case and in a locked vehicle or

048empty firearm locked in a vehicle is okay? Not okay. Okay. And the rationale behind that is because um for um purposes of our law enforcement, they would like to see that that's in a locked case, right? just had a locking mechanism on say the trigger and the uncased. So the way the locking meth there's a cable. Yeah. So that's where I'm just wondering is that feasible because the as a concealed car owner it's open. There's no um ammunition in the chamber. It's actually wide open and the case goes through a lock. It has to be a case. So I just want to make sure lock case vehicle lock case and lock vehicle. case on a vehicle. Well, is is is what I would prefer. I mean, yes, you guys could do something else. Um, and

049then I would have to communicate that to our our police department and everything else, but it's u what is preferred as a locked case lock. I hear what Diana is saying, though. I mean, because you could, it depends on the case in which it's locked, too. I mean technically you could have a case that's locked but really accessible to open. Well and and typically with the mechanism I'm talking about the cable it's in the ammunition has to be stored separately. I mean that's all part of the conceal and carry law. So it's totally separate in there. I just want to make sure that there's clarification there because there are many that store theirs in that way and a vehicle on um within what is it a thousand feet of school premises that's illegal although many

050people carry it that way that then is illegal with that. So I don't want if we're talking about technicalities right um all school premises illegal right right unless we provide for it. And asking people if they're going to be on to have it in a locked case in their locked vehicle um really uh is what is preferred. If you guys don't want to do that, it's fine. We can we can do all sorts of stuff. No, no, but I I'm following what Diana is trying to say is that perhaps maybe and maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps maybe a trigger lock and or a chamber lock makes more more sense to to secure that weapon in a vehicle. And as as long as it's in a case and it's in a locked vehicle, it's inoperable, you

051know. Uh whereas so what you're saying is cased with a trigger lock or case cased with a trigger lock or chamber lock. Yeah. Right. You're saying case regardless. Yeah. I'm not saying she's saying she's saying uncased but trigger locked in a lock or or or some other locking mechanism that makes the gun, you know, inoperable. The other piece of this is that it says that it has to be covered with a blanket or somehow shielded in the kitchen, right? So, I don't know if if that's the case, like if you had it cable, you know, cable locked or chamber locked, is it is it still hidden in such a way in the vehicle that people wouldn't see it? Most people when they have it have it in their console or in their glove box. That's

052typically that's when you go through the trainings, that's where they recommend that that is stored. So, you're looking for preference. I've shared our preference. You tell me if you want something different. Honestly, if if that's if that's the preference of the district, I'm I am in part I am I'm neutral on that. Sorry. I mean, as a a gun owner and a user. Yeah. I I really don't care either way. Yeah. I just want to know how I can do it. Sure. Right. Um and really it's up to you guys to tell me how you want to do it. I know that in discussions with not only other educators but also police and enforcement um doing whatever we can to make sure that um it doesn't seem like a because if you have a gun,

053you know, sitting there, even if it's covered with a blanket, right, and you're driving and the blanket moves, right, um people aren't going to necessarily know that there's a trigger lock on But they see the barrel, right? And that's going to cause undue, unnecessary discussions, pulling kids from a class by looking at their license plate, having the police have to talk to the owner about getting in the vehicle, searching the vehicle, all those things. When if it was in a case and covered and the case was showing, it's a whole different discussion point. Okay? Right. Um, and I just want us to be careful about like how how does that happen from a managerial standpoint, not necessarily a permission standpoint about what you can do to secure your uh and and be safe and still

054allow it to be on. Okay. So th those are the the small things that I think about when it comes to that and undo harm that the child may have to go through when they're wondering why is this officer here talking about my gun in the back. Right. So um just want us to think about those things this right this is staff but even a staff member you're right there's not a reason for the uh students unless uh they're in shooting sports. Well, I mean, you're not alone. Well, and they're parked on the school property, so if it gets out that someone has a gun in the car, right? That's what I'm saying. Say that and that's going to cause panic. Exactly. So, we're trying to not cause panic, but allow staff members in this

055instance a way to be responsible. Be responsible with their gun ownership. State law said that you're not allowed to have a loaded gun on the property, not a loaded gun, right? Yes. Period. Right. These are unloaded cased locked case in a locked vehicle is what we're asking if you're going to do it as a staff member. Does the glove box in a locked position count as a secondary casing if the car is locked and the glove box is locked? Very yes. That would count as a locked case. Serious if the glove box is locked. All right. Um, so we we've heard discussion about that. Where does the committee stand on any changes to that um statement? And I can withdraw. I mean, given the explanations and things, um, I just brought it up as a

056discussion point. Sure. And um my followup was going to be making sure that we communicate that that's you know somehow with the community just it had that locked box situation just so that there isn't the um misunderstanding that then gets blown but I understand the whole blanket if it adjust you know I I totally understand and agree with all of that. I just wanted that point of clarification. I would I would say Would it would it be more of an accurate statement to say that um in a locked vehicle? I mean is this or a locked fire firearms case but also say in a locked vehicle locked firearms case and in a well actually I'll always say this now locked vehicle in a separately locked compartment or locked firearm Again, I can I can go

057either way because if if the if the compartment is locked, I would consider that a locked case. And then you say a locked firearms case or compartment within a locked vehicle. Yeah, that's if that's what it is. That's fine. because it both because right now it does read right if it's this and and that's the expectation then that hopefully clarifies uh glove box um Wisconsin state law required a hand being placed in a transportation case and not stashed in the glove box. So, I mean, I would I would have to read more, right? But we're talking about how we're storing it here on on purpose, but you're right. So, yeah, for sure. So, do we need to look at the last sentence in the second paragraph? Um, particularly the in the parenthesis, i.e. the cases

058in the vehicle or trunk or if not possible covered with a blanket or in some fashion shield for vision. So this is suggesting that you cover it with a blanket. So if we're saying, you know, that's where I'm I would I mean probably what would be more accurate would be something to the effect of out of eyesight, you know. Well, right now if we're saying it has to be in a case, then it's not, you know, then we have to get rid of the word or. We have to get rid of covered by a blanket. We have to get rid of shielded from vision. It has to be in a case. If that's what we're saying, then we need to be consistent with our language in it. Cuz right now it's not. Right now it's

059consistent with the or it could be in a locked vehicle or a locked case. And if it's in a locked vehicle, then shielding with a blanket and out of sight is okay. Do you see why I brought up the discussion point? All right. So, what's the suggestion? The committee say that they wanted a case. So, then the first sentence of that this prohibition does not apply to unloaded firearms in a locked vehicle um with locked fire with in a locked firearms kit. It has to be both locked vehicle and lock case. Um, so vehicle and locked firearm case. Well, again, we're just going to have to change all this because the way it is, if you have your unloaded weapon and your ammunition separate, in the eyes of conceal and carry, that's safe, right? And

060so what we're saying is that's not good enough here. And so why are we even speaking about separately stored ammunition? So let me go back to the root again. The root is um the the report of a gun in a vehicle, right? What what the police department are going to do is uh they're going to come and check it out. And if they can't make a determination of whether that gun is in a safe place, there's going to be a disruption to the school, removing a staff member, talking through those things, having to go into the vehicle, um, and and all that stuff, which is going to cause commotion and disruption in the wearing environment. So, what we want to do is we want to make sure that if there is a a gun owner,

061right, uh who has their gun uh um that it's in a a locked case, I would go with or compartment, right, in a locked vehicle. And the reason it is is for um this that that safety of, you know, reducing any reports of a a gun. Um you know, If you're walking past a vehicle and you see the barrel of a gun, right, handgun, rifle, whatever it is, I don't care. Um, people get disturbed about that and they want to call police, especially when it's on school property, right, for student safety. Trying to diminish that, but still allow for people to have that um in a safe way. Now, we can get into all sorts of ifs, ands, or buts about, you know, did they unload it and secure it before they even got on

062property? Because you're not supposed to have a loaded gun on property, and that's a whole different law. And and but what I'm trying to diminish with this policy is when they are on site, having them have it in a place that's safe and um undiscoverable u by a passer by to lead to commotion. So then what I'm hearing for this, however that happens, I'm okay with it. But that's what I want to get to for sure. Yeah. So this prohibition does not apply to unloaded firearms in and so here a locked case or compartment in a locked vehicle. Okay, that's what Jared had just said. The rest of this then um or separately stored ammunition that is on a part you know that's gone that is on any part of school grounds used as a

063parking facility provided however that the firearm case or rack is not visible. So the whole last firearm rack being visible to passers by blanket blah blah blah the last two lines line and a half is gone. My question becomes after we say locked case or compartment in a locked vehicle, do we want that is on any part of school grounds used as a parking facility? Yes. Because you might not necessarily be in a parking lot if we're having you park down here on the field because we've got a whole bunch of events going on or whatever else and people say, "Well, I'm not in the parking lot." That bullet then would read, "This prohibition does not apply to unloaded firearms in a locked case or compartment in a locked vehicle that is on any part

064of school grounds used as a parking facility." That's just from what was stated here. What did I miss? But do you still want it not visible or are you okay with a gun case visible? I I would I would start, you know, a long gun case is going to be something that people would probably recognize. Maybe not. I see what you're saying. It says, "Sorry, my I believe here." However, that the firearm case is not Yeah, got it. Is not visible by the passer by. So, you would need the last I saw I missed. I don't think we don't want that. My apologies. Perfect. So, we would need the last Yeah. two lines. I missed the word case. Okay. Here's what we'll do. We'll do our best to clean that up. I think we're all

065on the same page. Yep. Lyn and I will work to clean it up. If there's other questions that come up at first read, uh we can either take care of it at the board level or we can commit back to committee and finalize it. I I have one more on this one. Okay. It's uh under definition of a weapon. Exceptions to this policy include and it's under E uh as it reads it says items approved by the dis by the superintendent or designate as part of a class or individual presentation under adult supervision including but not limited to hunter education courses if used for the purposes of and in the manner approved working firearms except those protected at all times by a cable or trigger lock and live au ammunition shall never be approved. Uh

066my my edit suggested EV edit would say that we should put a period after trigger lock and then a new sentence live ammunition shall never be approved because what how it sounds like how it sounds working firearms except those pro protected at all times by a cable or tri trigger and live ammunition. Um, so if if we're um we we really don't want live ammunition on site at all. I think that's the the gist of of this. When it comes to the purposes of a class, when you're when you're showing like hunter education, you're going to use dummy rounds for loading and unloading um that weapon. You're never going to want live ammunition anywhere near that uh that weapon. And in this particular case, it seems to suggest that um live ammunition may be okay

067with a cable or trigger lock. I don't know. I just didn't like the way that it was it was phrased. Do you have any on-site shooting sports or offer any hunter safety? We do have shooting sports. um uh sometimes hunter safety too, but um he's he's right in relation to the hunter safety, but um shooting sports, we certainly have live ammunition. That's what they're supposed to be using, right? Uh, and so that's where I'm, you know, I'm thinking about what you're saying, Craig, because we do have to, um, and that's where this items approved by superintendent or their design, you know, making sure that our our system that allows for shooting sports allows for things like live ammunition if need be. Does that become a separate point then? Because it's not necessarily a class or

068individual presentation. We talk about other safety there, but because it's an extracurricular, do we do an exception for shooting sport extracurricular and use different language around live ammunition than we do in sub bullet? Is hunter safety a class? Boer safety is a class. Snowmobile safety is a class. Is hunter safety does it fall under that? I don't know. I believe you can do hunter safety through our FFA courses at the middle school um and at the high school as part you would get credit for it. I don't think hunter they do snowmobile I think they do I think you do it through the club not through a class. Yeah, that I'm not sure of. Club shooting classes or sharp shooting club. No. So, is it like trap heat? Okay. So, here's what we're going to

069do. Sounds like there's enough enough u pondering on this particular one to maybe bring it back. Yeah. Yeah, I'll have to look at that in in conjunction with our shooting sports, but Okay. All right. So, that leads us to policy 3131, reduction of staff. Um, I would say this one's probably not ready to go to the board for first year. I just want to double check what we want to do with shooting sports and maybe ask attorney what they've given for other school districts with shooting sports. Okay. I mean, that's probably the easiest way across the Yeah, because I don't, this is a sidebar, I mean, I when my son did hunter safety, he shot him rounds. So, it does go into the safety and actually shoot, but maybe there's maybe it's not a requirement.

070So, maybe that's why I'm asking if it's a class that's different than if it's a clone, you know? So then getting harder and harder to find a class because DNR wants to through their web web class, right? But if it is a class then it does need live ammunition. It does need a working, you know, and even if you do do the online I think you still need to do on hand. But I don't think they do it the the part where you do the live rounds. Yeah. They wouldn't do on site. Okay. That would then be at less conservation. Conservation club. So then we could be okay with that, right? I I will remind you it's still considered it's an extension of the classroom. Yeah, it's still our teacher. That would be okay. Okay.

071So I think we we've done enough where I can just ask that question around that uh for our shooting skills. But otherwise, anything else you guys have for this one? I don't I don't I action on this one has been just to consult with our attorney on shooting sports. All right. Uh, so 3131 reductions and stamp. Did anybody have any questions about that one? Sam. Yeah. So, in the second paragraph way at the top, it states uh that the board reserves the right to abolish positions, reduce staff, and then it gives a list of reasons. budgetary constraints, decreased enrollment, uh return to duty of regular staff, suspension of schools or territorial changes, other warranted circumstances. So my question is pretty broad. I'm not certain about this. This is definitely not my area of expertise, but

072if Wisconsin is an at will employment state, what impact does that make on the decisions that are made by the board and the district to maintain or produce staff and things like that? Because um students who hold uh a certification like administration and uh teachers, they're not at employees, they're contract employees. So you can always opt for a non-renewal of a contract, but you can't immediately remove that position from existence. Right. Gotcha. Okay. And then you have provisions for non-renewal due process of that non-renewal. But absolutely. Thanks for the question. Yeah. Yeah. Um I had a question but I don't remember where it applied. Uh so does this particular I guess my my question was somewhat similar to Sam's in the sense that does this give the administration broad enough authority to make um make

073a that's I would say yes and that's why we used our existing language you and see that that's that language that's highlighted there. Sure. That's our existing uh language. Um and it's one of the more broad languages um that you that a school district in Wisconsin really has and and that language is was in place before I got here. Um but um utilizing the Neola constructed responses A through D and so on um would limit our authority. uh our authority is is very broad as you can see through if you read through that area. Okay. Any other questions on 3131? Hearing none, we'll move on to the 4,000 uh group policies uh group six policies staff communications. And you'll notice that there's u another uh weapons for prohibited for support staff reduction for staff also.

074Yeah, we'll make the same changes in that one. Yeah. Uh we also have controlled substances and alcohol for employees that transport children. the uh the staff. Did anybody have any questions on those group? That group? I do, but I'll wait until again. Sure. You go ahead. Okay. Um let's start with four 112 board staff communications. Um, I found where it says forget I don't have one for that one. 4162. 4162. We got the control. Yeah. Yeah. So for this one, substances, controlled substances and alcohol policy for employees transporting students. Correct. So page two, letter E. So in this one it says the term driver means all CDL drivers and holders and regular and substitute bus drivers blah blah blah blah blah. Um we removed that at the beginning. It was a strike um on page

075one under covered employees. So that would be the second big ball. So just for consistency sake we should strike and regular No, we should unstrike. We we missed it. We missed it above. Sorry. um when when we started talking through this uh we were we had it struck at first and then um was where we're talking with Margaret um a little bit more about uh these definitions down here and are we okay with those things and does she have anything from HR or uh and then we were reading down below and I'm like wait a minute um you know the the idea was we don't have any bus drivers because we contract and I was like whoa no wait a that we do have a bus driver. It's our FFA teacher who has a CDL

076who drives the bus sometimes. And I'm like, we that that means if we have one, we better have it in the policy, right? And so good catch. But really, we don't need to do the strike through. We need to undo the strike through and make sure it's in there. So, so then another followup to that is it's transporting student. We have the multi-passenger vans now. Mhm. That does not require a CDL. That's correct. But that's still transporting students, right? So then it would be more encompassing of just the FFA teacher because now you have no that part of it. Right. Right. But but the this is for all when transporting students. Got it. Right. The other question I don't know if this applies here. It just came up as I was reviewing these the other

077day is so we're transporting students. We're thinking by bus or by car. What about those that go by flight? We're talking about where our control. Okay. I just wanted to make sure when when we're in control of the vehicle. So, um, you know, I would say in flight if we had a a reason for our students to go in an aviation program with our teachers who are thinking about our athletic teams that travel. I'm thinking about our field trips that travel if this was covered with these are with people who are in control of vehicles that we employ. Okay. But but we don't have an aviation program or anything like that. I'm good. If we did, I would say yes. That's a good idea. There is one other thing that I noticed in here, and

078I might just be reading it wrong. Uh, but it looks like under definitions under item A, the second sentence, it defines alcohol. And then the second sentence doesn't actually seem to be about the definition of alcohol. It seems to be about the definition of like blood alcohol content or something like that. This term is a volume breath expressed in grams of alcohol per 210 meters of breath as indicated by an evidential breath test as described here. And that doesn't seem unless I'm missing something. So my understanding of this is um we're defining alcohol as an intoxicating agent. You can have alcohol on your breath as a non intoxicating agent. For instance, if I just took a swig of mouthwash, rinsed out my mouth, right? And sometimes when you're dealing with an alcoholic, they'll say, "Well,

079no, I just have mouthwash." And some of them may have only been drinking mouthwash, but it is for the alcohol reason. That's good. So, so therefore we talk about this term being in there to express you know what means intoxicating or not intoxicating because you may have alcohol in your breath but not in an intoxicating way. Sure. So maybe for clarification just because it confused me for clarity for people who are reading in the future instead of this term you could have the term intoxicating or the term intoxicate refers to a volume breath expressed in terms maybe specify the term uh alcohol um as an intoxicating agent. Yeah. or because we're we're talk we're trying to talk about the term alcohol and what we mean by alcohol, right? Um and we're not going to even

080though alcohol is in the agent of the mouthwash, we're not going to say alcohol is on your breath unless it's 210 liters. So, it is still talking about the term alcohol and what we mean by alcohol. Yeah, we mean alcohol as an intoxicating agent, maybe influence of alcohol. Yeah. I'm just I'm I'm thinking about how it might be made a little bit easier to understand for someone approaching it. Maybe that's just me and I'm really tired right now. Yeah, I'm not sure. I totally understand. I'm okay for asking maybe our attorneys to say, "How can we clarify the language a little bit more if it's confusing?" Um because I I I also don't want to um have us words smmith something and then all of a sudden it means something different that we should have

081had in there, right? And again these are these are all vetted through attorneys, right? And everything else and I want to make sure that um there are places where I think I'm okay with that and in this one I don't I don't know exactly what I want to make sure. No, I totally You guys want You guys want me to approach the attorney and clear if we can avoid it? I mean I I understand if there's necessity that we have to I mean unless we avoid what you want to avoid. What if we turn for a one word question? Yeah. Well, I mean I I would rather um I would rather take it as is and have our attorney help us defend that if somebody questions it, paid money there. Yeah. And to pay it

082here and still have somebody say, "I'm still challenging that." Right. But are you able to are we able to ask Niola about that as well? I can ask Nola about it. They have free legal advice on their policies and that's their wording. So it's on the DOT site as well. Um the Department of Transportation DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 section 40.3 for alcohol concentration. And so they talk they talk about using that exact language, the alcohol in a volume of breath. And so perhaps we could dig a little bit into the DOT definition and see if if that's maybe where they pulled that definition that's a feeling it has a legality behind it. So more than understanding the definition of alcohol is the first half. The definition of alcohol concentration is the second half

083which is the 210 L um of breath as indicated by a breath test. So perhaps we just need to add alcohol concentration to the second sentence. to your point Sam just to clarify that that's what it is. So instead of this term it would be alcohol concentration. Yeah. Is a volume breath expressed in terms of grams of alcohol blah blah blah. I'm okay with that change. I think it seems okay. It seems benign enough. I mean I think it's a good catch. And Craig, I'll send that to you in case you want to share with the entire committee the link so that people can explore it on their own if they'd like. So, uh, the suggested change you guys are going to make is instead of this term, you're going to take out the words

084this term, you're going to say alcohol concentration is a volume breath express balloon. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Any any further further discussion about um policy 4162? Hearing none. Any other questions on 4,000 group? Um Sam? Yeah. Uh board staff communications. I think that this is not the first policy that we've touched on that discusses these things. Yep. Um and maybe this is a bigger discussion that comes down the line, but does item A prevent staff from communicating with the board directly under any circumstances? Because I know sometimes that uh in a similar way that you know just a member of community might prefer to come to a board member for various reasons. That might be the case. And no shade on you specifically. I'm just thinking in general um that might be the case as well

085with staff um that for one reason or another they prefer to communicate information to a board member in in one instance or another. Um and then kind of the other way around with item B with board communicating with staff what exactly constitutes official communications. So I guess I'm not getting that sense from reading this. It it says related to the performance of their job duties or responsibilities. Correct. So if um if a board member were to tell a staff member, you need to do this, that would be different. Or if a staff member were to say to to um to the board member, if they start ering grievances about their job duties, responsibilities that Yep. We would want that to go through their proper channels of their supervisor. Gotcha. No, if they if they're imparting

086some uh helpful suggestions, I don't see that. I mean, or even wanting to share information about my performance to you. Totally acceptable. I mean, I would imagine that that would have to be that would have to be an exception. Right. Exactly. Okay. Sure. Sure. Yeah. I was just I was just curious about it. That answers my question. Right. So, this is where I said I had a question on this. It was kind of along those lines reading it. um where it says will be commun will be submitted through the superintendent. So with that I understand job duties things that goes to the superintendent not necessarily to the board but is this stating in some way that the superintendent should be carbon copied in those communications if they are consulting or or they are communicating with

087a board member. There is a policy where um in the I don't remember which one I tried looking where it's commun board members communication to the public should be CCD through can I can I share the the rationale behind the the why why not I'm hoping why not I just so so the reason they should be sub submitted through me and not just CC me is because um when we talk about things like performance or or those kind of things or maybe it's even a disciplinary discussion, right? You are the ultimate um judge in that decision, right? And they have a complaint process by which they put those complaints through, right? They go through their supervisor, HR, me, then to you. Um, and if you are basically giving and hearing facts from their standpoint prior

088to that chain of command going through those steps, it can really put you in a place where um, you know, they they or somebody else may say you were biased in that discussion point, which is why we have uh these kinds of processes in place, right? Because it's about due process. That's the only thing we certainly don't want to and I don't want to uh give any idea that staff can't talk to you right uh we don't want to give that but we do want to make sure that they understand that in certain instances especially in relation to their performance u there are due processes steps and and things that they have to go through and that's why we're directing them through this policy to do that it's the only thing I wanted to share

089with Thank you. So, um, really quick in response to that, that's an interestingly kind of specific thing you brought up because I have, let me see if I can find it really quick. I was going to I was also interested in the answer to this question. The uh, yeah, here it is. in the Wisconsin law, it it's and this is only talking about um uh hiring and non-renewal and things like that, but it does say that uh due process does not require that the board be an impartial decision maker according to uh bill education association versus Hortonville joint school district. So is that but this there might be some clarification. There might be some details. Is that is that a requirement that the board not have that information? Is that like a legitimate thing or

090do do you know off the top of your head? I know that's super specific. Right. And and we get this question all the time and and probably a better uh person to answer the nuances is is for you to have, you know, either one of the attorneys from WSB or one of our attorneys or whatever answer that because I also don't want to give you the impression that you can't be informed because there are sometimes where there is something that happens and I inform you, right? I I want you to know this happened. Um, but informing you doesn't necessarily bias you. It depends on that the level of information that's been given and how it's characterized as it's been given to you as to whether it may bias you or not. Simply being informed is

091different than um, you know, precluding you to a certain answer or not in the way the material is. And I I don't say it well because I'm not an attorney, right? Um because it doesn't mean you have to be uninformed about an issue or or a discussion point. Um but influence is different. Sure. Sure. Well, and then and I don't know how to say it better than that because I'm not an attorney and I'm I mean I'm not totally clear on that and again I mean I really am asking because I'm trying to understand some of the ins and outs there. But like, you know, if there's a scenario where something comes to the board, I suppose you'll end up getting you'll end up hearing that uh potentially biased story coming from one individual at

092that point anyways, won't you? Yes, you will. But it will be um a as the uh due process is unraveled, right? And and put through and forth to you. Uh and and so again, I'm not I think if we want to delve deeper into the discussion points of that, we should really just have the attorney come and talk about like those specific questions because I'm not the person to uh eloquently talk about the difference between informed versus um sway or whatever else you want to call it um information. I can only talk to you about why these kinds of policies are offered and and put in place, right? Uh to protect the rights of our employees. U and um you know I know that uh if there's any question about um whether or not information

093is flowing up and down and or uh throughout our our um our system and whether or not people feel free to be able to have speech, right? Um, I I want to make sure that like if there's ever any discussion that that's not happening that that comes immediately to me and my administrative team because we certainly don't want that viewpoint. Um, and I know you guys don't want that either. And so when and where appropriate, we should make sure that those conversations are being had and that we do have a flow of information that's appropriate. My question to that would be uh what if we are going to have some sort of a workshop on that at some point legally or or whatnot or development uh opportunity. I would ask for specific definition of what

094um that statement related to the performance of their job duties or responsibilities means. Okay? because uh I I I would want to be on the same page with administration on that particular topic because um you know I find value as a board member uh to be present in a building and if if someone's sharing uh sharing a pain point I'd like to know that. Yeah. So if it's a value I think that that is maybe an action item we can uh refer to or ask of planning. Yeah. Right. Because planning takes care of the professional development needs of our our board. Uh and so um maybe having professional development around um communication and trusted communication, communication flow as well as uh due process uh or whatever other things that we could think of. Uh it

095would be good for planning to have some discussion around that as a professional development piece. Sure. So, so I don't know if you want to as chair you want to take care of that or if you want me to work with Lind, you know, just put a reminder out or how do you want to capture that thought? Um, it's a good question. I don't know. Do we do we want to make that as a suggestion to the planning committee then as a action item, you know, for for future board development opportunity? recommendation I guess. So I have asked planning committee to have professional development around communication trusted communication flow as well as due process. Sure. And then uh write down the policy number so that we have a reference point as to the new Neola

096policy 41. Right. Was there any other questions or concerns about the language that this particular policy has at the moment? May I just make a suggestion really quick related to the action that you'd be taking on that policy? I think um some of you have been on HR committee and we did have at one point Craig um the attorney from BUO come in and do like an inservice session for our board HR committee that talked about like the role of board members in the ver in the due process and in the contracting um process and I I think most people found it pretty helpful. So that could potentially be something. I mean, it's completely up to you, but it could be referred to the HR committee if you wanted. I could certainly follow up and

097and try to arrange that like as an part of the committee, the HR committee's work. Just a suggestion, current planning chair, and I don't think it's going to happen in the next month. Um, I was sitting here thinking, okay, what does that look like? out of that. So, I'm glad Margaret spoke up because yeah, I was part of the HR committee very valuable. Um, so that's some pieces, not exactly this, but it would really dovetail and piggyback. Yeah. So, to me that sounds like a better home. Okay. Then at planning. That's just all right. Does that seem about seems appropriate. All right. I guess we'll change that one. Okay. We're going to ask the HR committee to have professional, but is that something you just that you want the whole board to have or just

098the committee? Because then I could see where planning would plan it for the entire board, you know, like we we've had full board presentations. I didn't know. That's a good question. And I'm I'm not part of it, so I'm just make it. It's obviously going to be open to the full board, right? Uh, and as long as we're recording it as we do and then it should be easily accessible to the full board. There can always be a report that's reported out to the full full board on on that topic and a little bit. But I mean that that's what that's a topic that boy just about every board that I've ever worked with and especially when boards turn over that question comes up that set that set of questions um to to talk about

099how do we have communication and trust that communication moving forward and all that stuff. So, um, all of those questions are are spot on for how do we move forward? So, an added thought and it should go nowhere and it's again just a thought. Um, as the person trying to schedule the board development pieces, it has been challenging to find dates where everybody is available. So we have resorted in the last four to six months with piggybacking them to those nights or including them in those nights. Um we did that with superintendent check-ins, you know, piggybacking nights. So that would be a suggestion that if it's not going to be part of HR, then it would be piggybacked right after HR. So it's on the same night or part of the other thing we looked

100at is being a part of the full board meeting. You know depending upon what's there then everybody's there. So that would address the concerns or the thoughts that came up as well. Sounds good. Any other discussion on the forson group? All right. Hearing none. We're on to the 6,000 group four. There's only one policy under that particular topic and I think the only question I had is there were three different dollar amounts and perhaps it's because I haven't been on fiscal and and don't have the awareness. We're talking about the expenditures in the amount of 40,000 or less the superintendent or design can approve and then board policy that the district administrator I don't know if you want to make that superintendent also seek at least three price quotations on more than 10,000 for a

101single item and then a couple bullets below. It says 250,000 or more. And so I'm just not sure which dollar amount is for which and that's my own mouth function but if anybody has clarification very helpful. Yeah. So um this was a a policy that uh went through fiscal um and Sarah was asking to change our authority from where it was to these numbers um for for reasons of inflation and other things. Um and uh again um we're looking at three price quotations on purchases of more than $10,000 for a single item, right? Uh and then when the purchase of a contract for a single item of material, supplies or equipment is reasonably anticipated to reach the amount of 250,000 or more. Um we need competitive bids. So quotes versus full bids, right? quotes versus

102full bits. Thank you. Okay. Okay, that answers that question. Any other discussion on that one? Did policy see this too? Yeah. Yeah, this this is this was this is really it's gone through a number of different channels and it's kind of the final polish and so we're just you know uh double checking things and and I know that you know Charity you weren't here for some of that discussion but y right now um this is a different project the current though is not yes it is it was it was 20 yep and And here's the thing that here's here's a couple of concerns that I have is because this is a this is deviating from uh policy precedent. Uh when we're trying to uh go forward with the Neola alignment, we're trying to stick with

103current policy, not necessarily changing policy. And in a way, um, I I would have appreciated a little bit more of a heads up on $40,000 change. Well, Craig, that this isn't the first time you've seen this. You know, this has gone through fiscal has gone through policy uh once before. This isn't this is a new topic. Okay. Uh, and that's why I'm saying like I know that it is changed, but you also discussed that last time it came forward, which is, and I agreed with you at that point in time. I said, you're right. What we're trying to do with Miola is we're trying to take our existing policy and put it in. And the other thing that we're we're looking for is when we have um policy that didn't exist that Neil is suggesting

104we should put it in there. Uh that's the other thing we're looking at um when we do this transition. We we have very few policies about 20 that are departure changes. Right? We have one about when middle schoolers are attending a high school game, right? We're departuring from what was which was they didn't need um to have a adult accounting for them to now they do. Right. So there's a few of them that we have made an exception for. This one came through fiscal as a recommendation to make the departure. Fair enough. Um, I'll share my reservations that I had then and I still have um that that I don't think that $40,000 uh and given the current state of our community is an appropriate ask. Um, if anything, I feel that we should become

105a little bit more tighter on our fiscal controls than um less. I mean, I if anything, I I I feel like it deserves more oversight than less oversight. So, you want to go from 20,000 to 10,000? 15 would be my suggestion. Um, and I was thinking present for that policy meeting. You I don't know. I think you might have been because because I feel like the uh if we're we're asking the supports to if we're we're removing supports from the classroom and having our um staff or trying to hold our staff to um work harder with less. Um, in a way I do feel like it we should be um I don't see a reason why we would hold our uh business administration to the same standard to try to um to to work through

106those um those those same types of situations. I know that it's a challenge. I know that it's not easy to do that, but um I think our community is pretty adamant about it. I mean, I feel like uh and this is coming from somebody that uh was fervently for the referendum and uh put my reputation out there and the the strong possibility that I wouldn't win re-election uh as a as a result of my position on that. So the community community community has spoken that they want to see tighter controls on our finances right now and and that's where I'm I just feel like that's where we need to be. Can I ask a follow-up question to that? Sure. I hear and I understand what you're saying. $20,000 doesn't go as far as it used

107to. Sure. Even 2, three, four years ago. So, is it a problem or an issue to leave it at 20,000 where we had kind of a I think Fred was the one that suggested um like the threshold when it gets to 15 or 18, whatever it was to consider bringing that to the board, but hardcore 20. Um so, instead of 40, just leave it at the 20 where it was. I'm just a little torn on that. I I think that rather see I'd rather see it be a lower amount at this point. Um I'm just trying to think our role as a board is governance. Our administrative role is management. They know that they're cutting 1.5 million over the next few years. They know that with a referendum failing, there's about a four to5 million

108cut each year for a couple years. So they already know. Um, so I guess I'm saying we should be trusting our administration that we've hired to do that and and governance with that. And my suggestion would be leaving it at I hear what you're saying. I understand. They already know and they've heard the community and that's what they need to do. But we're going to have enough things to do, too. I don't I guess I don't want to be having to micromanage that piece when they know hey I think everybody's heard about the community side. I I heard a lot of comments there about micromanagement and uh stuff of that nature. I don't think so. I think that's exactly what we need to be doing. it is as a board oversight and um I sat

109through three years of fiscal and the last two where we get out within half an hour 45 minutes. those conversations definitely need to to be a little bit more in depth and um it it seems this seems a little bit more appropriate to have a better understanding of what's going on in in those circles. Um and if we can't have a conversation or discussion about whether or not those particular purchases are appropriate, then um I I don't agree. I'm just saying we can't. I'm just saying what's the threshold of them? Yeah. You know, we're still at a government. We had them before. We should have been having Well, and and I look at 40,000 for instance, as you did, you know that um most households in Water Well, the average household income in Watertown is

11045,000. Yeah. I mean, that's Craig. We're not running a household. No, no, we're not. But, but it it's and I understand what you're saying. those dollars matter to our community. Yeah. I mean, I I understand what you're saying and I am trying to balance our our ability to um continue to do the work of the school district with your ability to help us manage that, right? And I would never um say to the board, listen, you don't have the right to give us guidance and or manage uh help us manage authority like that. Mhm. But it does take time and meetings to stack up when we're talking about purchasing lots of paper or whatever else, right? And our ability to do that is a lot less now than it used to be because of inflation

111and and and other things like that. Um, and we're just trying to ask for authority that makes sense for us to continue to do business as we've been doing it to make sure that we're keeping things going, right? um if we're going to get uh stacked up on purchases because uh the threshold is here uh andor goes even lower um because of uh communities uh you know wanting us to to be tighter on our controls, right? um believe you believe me when I say like I trust that like I trust um not only my my administrative team but myself to say okay we do have to be mindful here of how we're spending u and when I shared with you my goal uh to cut $500,000 and I brought you uh from the administrative team

112uh near $750,000 worth cuts for next year. I'm hoping that sends a message to the community that you can trust us to make these kinds of decisions, right? Not decisions over monthly purchases that um need to keep us moving forward. And so, however you guys want to do it, we will manage it. But it does uh have impacts on how we monthly run things. Just want you to be aware of that. And and if you're okay with that, I'm not I'm not disagreeing with you, Jared. What I'm what I'm trying to say is I feel like those those impacts are necessary at this time. I think it's for the benefit of the district. If the board feels that way, then that's what the way that's the way the board feels. Um and and I may

113have to say then like how can we uh put other things in place then to to manage your management decision of that because that's going to take extra inventory practices and other things that we didn't have in place to make sure that the flow continues to go where it needs to go. Yeah. And to say I'm okay. Yeah. Okay. So what you're saying is we're okay having another position to help us manage that. um because we don't have enough trust that uh that the administration's managing the flow of goods and services in in an appropriate manner. I don't know that I would say it in that particular so that's what it's sounding like you're saying. I'm trying to get clarification. So may I just just for a moment is is there a way that we

114could take a look at or would it be helpful to look at data to say 15% of our purchases fall under 15,000 25% fall under 40,000. So that way we're taking a look at how many financial decision impacts we've had historically over the past year because if we're you know it's different if we're looking at 3% of purchases versus looking at 50% of purchases because to your point at 50% the the maximum impact I think would would stretch a lot further and that would tell a different story. I think without knowing how many of each of these purchases there are, I mean, is every purchase we do over over 15k? You know, I I don't know that currently. And and maybe is that something that Sarah could help us understand? And would that then, you

115know, set us up for better success to determine what that threshold is? Is it is it 40? Is it 20? Is it 15 by looking at the data? Sam, did you have anything? Uh, no. I I I very much fall in in line with uh with your thought there. I don't think that it's a huge difference between 20 and 15 as far as the number of individual purchases that are being made in that way. Um I agree that I think that you know I think it would be good faith towards the community to have that additional thing there. Um the reason I raised my hand earlier was when you mentioned having an additional position to help manage that. Is there a specific position that is keeping track of the $20,000 purchases currently? Yeah, we we

116have a whole bunch of people doing those kinds of inventory things and getting things out to buildings and so on. What tends to happen, okay? And I'm not saying that this is a conscious choice to uh get around authority, right? But what will tend to happen is in order to stay on top of things and not have to clog things up by going to a meeting and whatever else, what's going to happen is instead of ordering $40,000 worth of toilet paper in one order, right? What's going to happen? They're going to do three orders over three months, right? And but previous policy avoid it did it specifically prevented that from happening because that's that's 15 that would be over $20,000 anchor kit you know so that would have had come to the board for approval

117the in aggregate is um uh through one purchase order or one set. No, that was an aggregate because uh we don't we don't always do that with purchases. Well, then that's I mean if we look at how we order paper and I don't know how many um months we order paper, but that but usually paper is a specific contract for the paper purchase and that that that's been approved differently. And again, I mean, it's better to have uh Sarah and and you guys through fiscal or the whole board have this conversation. Uh she wasn't here tonight because we were assuming that we were just doing final polishing over something that had had a number of conversations. And again, if the conversation you guys feel needs to change, it can change. I'm just worried about what

118the impacts are on the daily operations of the business office because, you know, I don't deal with that. Sure. I don't deal with purchasing uh unless it gets to a very large approval uh that I need to or a certain time of year approval like this time of year I'm starting to be on approvals because we're coming towards the end of the budget cycle, right? Um but that's I I don't I deal with the purchases the board makes or my office which our budgets are very small comparatively, right? Yours and and mine. So, I think she should be here for that conversation and we should kick it to a a bigger conversation. Should we want to move away from I think that conversation could be had at the board meeting. And I would recommend that

119this moves forward with a $15,000 threshold for those amounts minus the other amounts that are uh indicated here. What does the committee feel about that? I think you better I mean it goes before the full board for discussion but with the recommendation of the amounts of $15,000 for the threshold versus the 40. What do you think? I'm just trying to look back through to see if I can find the prior policy that there was actually several of them under this school. Um 3310, 3311, 3312 looks like. I would really like to hear from Sarah. Like I said, just just data points on how many we currently have. So what would that do from a time perspective? So Jared to your point if we have you know 20,000 transactions every year that are north of 20,000

120and that's going to make it 60,000 then what is the time delta for going through that again just to ensure that we have the bandwidth with our current team without having to consider another p position or would we have to that I mean it would just be for me because again I I don't know that and I I don't know all of the discussion points that fiscal had um when they uh talked about uh this during their time either. So you were on fiscal I don't I don't I don't I don't discussion points you had I don't remember I I mean I I I hear that yeah there's there's a desire to increase it and u because of inflation. I I understand that there's a desire to increase it. Unfortunately we're all going to have

121to work a little bit harder. We just are. And I think that this is this is, you know, one of those things that we have to do to weather through that storm. Is this going to be a first rate or a second rate item? This would be a first rate because I wasn't able to find it when I I just went through like the last year of fiscal and policy and I I couldn't find another instance of it. So, I mean, if it goes as a if it goes as a consent agenda item Yeah. and it's just a first read, um I mean, I see what you're saying. Put it in there. put in the proposal about 15 about the adjustment to 15,000 to open up the discussion that can get pulled up. We can

122talk about it. Um I would imagine that we can have a member of administration there to discuss it and then you know then we can kind of think about it. It goes back for a second read anyways to so right that seems reasonable to me. I don't I don't see what the harm is in doing it that way. That seems like it creates the greatest opportunity to kind of feel that out. Absolutely. D I'm gonna echo Charity's point and Jar's point. Let's have data to talk about. So we have a data based decision, not an emotional based decision because there's a lot of emotions that are running through especially from the financial piece. So we what we don't want is we don't want to lower the threshold and then have more work and more time

123spent because that also equates to money, you know. So we just want to make sure that we're saving a cost benefit analysis uh share again their rationale and what things they were they thought about or were talking about um moving it forward would be good we still have we still have fiscal meeting yet this month right I'm saying but but yeah I'm I'm in support of moving it forward of the 15,000 and then we can have that discussion with full before we that's what it'll take to move it forward but I I I do have hesitations without looking at any data think for a minute yeah I would want to see the data before making final decision yeah I mean data is we're in a budget crunch that's the way I look at it then

124a budget crunch it is Yep. So, so then at the board meeting, can we please have the data for that? Can we please have a summary from fiscal because not every board member sitting at the board's table this next month will have had that information. So, to give all of the backstories from there would just give a full picture. Um, I haven't been to any of those meetings. We have two new board members coming into the seat. Charity hasn't been. So there's half the board that didn't have all of the the um decision making points going forward. So that would just be sure. Thank you. Is is that feasible for us to have that to have some of that information there at the board meeting? I don't I who would be the best person I

125don't know. I mean I mean here's the thing. I can tell them to stop doing whatever and say have the information ready. you know um and if if there's specific interests especially in um Sarah uh and this obviously is in her purview right it's important she's going to have the information there right sure and so um that tells you the level of importance of it if she drops everything she has to know to bring the information I'm more interested I'm more interested in the conversation of how we can make something happen than how we cannot make something happen that's just personally the way I look at something and Even if the data is not there at the board meeting, it's still going to go back for another policy read anyhow. So it's not Yeah, it's

126still on for a second reading. Yeah. But either way, the data would need to come to the full board because the full board needs we can put it we could put it on as a strategic discussion. Right. What I'm saying is whether it come at first or second read at some point all of the information then should say all enough information to make a value decision. Yep. It'd be beneficial. Okay. Something will happen. Sure did. What you want to happen? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know either. I just I just prefer to have if we're going to have a discussion about it, we'll have a discussion about it. But um yeah, I I that's I think that's the recommendation of the committee at this point in time. That's what I'm hearing. So,

127all right. the uh 7,000. Moving on to the 7,000 group. Um group four, we have technology uh technology privacy district issued staff email account, district issued well, looks like the district issued staff email accounts or student email accounts. Got it. All right. Any questions of uh of those particular policies? In 7540, just plain clarification, third paragraph, we changed district technology procedure to WUSD technology procedure, but there are still two instances of DDP instead of UDP. So just minor administrative. What's that? Um, paragraph three. Yeah. Yeah, it was kind of Yeah. So, just change those two DDPs um to WTPS just for consistency. That makes sense to me. I do you see where she's mentioning that when um it's like literally in the third paragraph. It all starts with the superintendent child develop recommended for board.

128Oh, there it is. Yeah, got it. I have a question on this policy if everyone else is none. Uh yeah, go ahead. Do we allow students to utilize their own computers at school? I mean technically this is a computer. It's allowed during passing time. It's allowed for educational purposes with teacher permission. But do we allow students to bring their own computer? And if so, well, because it's under with technology, it doesn't state anything about, you know, do we need anything in there? If a student has their own, there's nothing about if a student brings their own device. Do we need anything? Do we allow it? If not, it's not a big deal. Uh, no, we don't generally allow that to happen. Um, most instances we try to make a provision for what they need to

129have happen. Um, for instance, we've had like a a student who wanted in their IEP to the use of their own cell phone. We got down to the crux of the issue. It was like what kind of apps are calming apps and whatever else. when we say, "Okay, well, we're going to we're going to understand that and we're going to make sure that you have those apps available to you, but it's going to be on a device that we can control." Yeah. So, right. And and so, wherever possible, we try to make sure that we uh as a school district are in control of the device and what's on the device for So, should there be a sentence in here that states we do not allow personnel? I don't I don't I don't think we

130may have to because um the the fact that we follow COPA and obviously the internet safety act and all those things like I don't think we have to state that we do we do we do have a electronic use policy electronic acceptable use policy states about bringing their own personal device that's why I was like trying not to say we, you know, we state that somewhere, but um and I wasn't sure what it's definitely we address it with students whether it's in policy or in handbook or wherever, but it's not I guess what I'm saying is I don't think that that's an issue that we have to worry about in this policy. Correct. I guess one more question just because we all have these devices, it doesn't specifically state board, it just says students and

131staff. Is the board held accountable, I'm guessing, to the same policies? Um, for the most part, I think because the board is tech the board is in a sense technically staff because there's like that comes through. So the email account at least would classify the board as staff. Okay. Just Yeah, just want to know for better. Um, but that's also an issue of discussion that often times happens with our attorneys talking about use of personal devices and stuff like that as training for board. Um, because the truth of the matter is you're an elected official, right? Um, and you're only held accountable to um, your constituents. the board tries to hold each other accountable through certain things like code of ethics and other things, but the real reality is you're an elected official. Um, and

132so we just have attorneys talk to you about best practices and and most of the time people are like, "Yeah, I'm going to do that." But I, as your employee, I'm not going to tell you you're an error. Yeah, I'm going to remind you that we do have policies in place and that we should follow them. But really the only punishment that happens is if an employee myself or blow doesn't follow them. There can be a punishment if you guys don't follow them. You hold each other accountable or the attorney general holds you accountable, but that's it. Thank you. Well, the attorney general is a pretty big one to the to the point that the attorney general is gonna get themselves inserted into a local um you know, school board official, you know, is probably

133it it have to be really It happens. I know, but it would have to be really a bend of your duties, right? Uh and and what you're doing. So, um I don't think they're going to do it over a personal uh electronic item that you're using. All right. Since you're flagrantly not using old records, is there another particular um any other discussion on that particular policy or any of the other 7,000 group policies? I think the only one that I had was in the seven was it 7540.06 to district staff email account. It it does say something specifically in there about going through the staff and board members shall satisfactory satisfactorially complete training annually. Is that something that happens as part of planning? Is that something that happens you know just first off at onboarding?

134Is it something that is I know we've been getting a lot of emails about two-factor authentication and things like that but as it relates to formal training if we are held accountable to to training on the email system annually just wondering where that takes place. Good question. And do we feel it's required or can we modify the board member to onboarding, you know, new board member onboarding and say if you if you know what you're doing when you get started, one could logically say that you'll continue to know what you're doing unless something comes up or two factor and then it's an as needed basis. Not to complicate it. I know this is probably lower priority of of the policies we discussed, but just seem to understand. Well, I'm glad you brought it up because

135I didn't catch that in. So, we're going to say that uh new member onboarding is adequate for training on that per for that purpose. I think it I think it could be. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing. If it's not, we we'll retrain you, right? I mean, Gotcha. I mean, right. Why like if you need help, we'll give you help. Always, right? like I mean many times we've had like you know a member of the team show up here because you're having issues with your Chromebook or whatever else like you know so I think it's adequate to say we will touch base on that with the new new board members but then after that we're help people and is it the same for staff where we say during staff and new board member onboarding and

136as needed just for clarification. Sure. You know I'm okay with that. you you do bring up an interesting point. Yeah. Uh when when we rolled out like new technology in the classroom recently with the while we replaced the smartboards with the um touch screens touchcreens and stuff like that. A lot of the staff had some uh challenges when it come came to utilizing that right off the bat and it was unclear whether or not they were going to receive training or have you know additional and maybe a maybe a policy for something like that makes sense. Um but you know, uh you wouldn't want to like you won't want people to feel overwhelmed either and says satisfactory. So it's to the satisfaction of the person receiving the training and the satisfaction of the person training.

137So if anyone feels like it is not satisfactory, they can request more training. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's more important than if everybody had to sit for a training that they may not That's fair enough. Yeah. Or they may seem. All right. So, are we okay with the way that it's written? Well, this says we're doing it in shoes. That's brilliant. Yeah. I mean it and it's fine. Obviously I had great onboarding process. I know what I'm doing on Gmail. I'm not concerned about I just didn't know. Would it be would it be more a more of an accurate statement to say upon request? As needed. I was saying as needed. As needed. As needed. Yeah. My thought was furthermore the WSD would will provide um this may not be a request. It may be

138we think you need it. Right. So as needed as needed gives a sure to make that same kind. All right. So I guess uh I'm hearing that that would be the action item to change change it to as needed. Where are we changing that at the on the last sentence? Are we removing annually to as needed? Correct. Any other questions um of the 7,000 series? No. Hearing none. Um then I guess we move on to the Neola development process. So um we have created uh uh an addition to the timeline uh the timeline ended in in May. Uh so you can see uh where we've kind of added the April committee agenda. That's what we worked on today. Uh May committee uh when we have that um we'll put it in here. Uh but then

139hopefully at the uh May uh board meeting um the board will uh approve all finished mola policies um and um at June we'll be able to um basically approve the book. Now, if you go back to the agenda, um, and you look at where we are, I'm going to share when I say approve the book, I mean approve the book with all of the hundreds of policies that were completed. What won't be in that book, uh, most likely is at least the I think it's a little less than 20 policies that we put in a parking lot. And you're going to see those uh as uh Neola policies move to parking lot that list. Okay? Because those are the ones that um we said we need to have further in-depth conversation about, right? And we

140will continue to have that all the way through, you know, December. And and um as we're moving forward, we're going to start getting uh Neola updates for us to continue to look at twice a year. Uh so those are those will be the ones that won't be in the whole finalized book. What we will do is we will make sure that we have those uh policies that inform those policies that we have on our books, our old ones stay in so that we are still covered by policy and we will work on these and once we finish these we'll just replace them. Okay. Um the WSD policies uh without a match, right? I think that next month we can go through pretty quickly because here's the thing. This board had those in place for a

141reason. Niola has been moot on those and we just have to say do we still want that policy or not? Do we still want that policy or not? Because there was no match. Okay, I will tell you that some of those policies are still going to come off because there's still some policies in the incomplete neiola work, right? So don't just think that there's hund and some policies that we had that Neola never touched. Some of those are still going to be in the last little bits and pieces of the ones that we have left, right? And so uh our goal administratively is going to try to uh between now and our May meeting just get through all of those. Okay. I'm I'm hoping that this and this is still a pretty aggressive timeline. If

142not, if we don't get um that approved, um certainly by July, we will. I I think we're going to be done enough with the book to say, let's move over to these new ones. Uh because certainly the bulk of our work is done. Uh and I think just moving that forward, we'll be good. And then we'll basically be on cleanup procedures with anything left over. But we're, you guys can see we're we're really close. We're getting pretty close here. So, um, my question would be, uh, because because we haven't we haven't gotten to the administrative guideline discussion yet, um, is it, am I hearing you say that you'd be comfortable being able to move forward and communicate out to the staff um, all but this remaining work including the administrative guidelines. So, so here's the

143thing. For a number of the ones that had administrative guidelines and or forms, we did do the the merry piece together, there are a couple that reference a administrative guideline, right, that um we can go back in and do uh and once we have those finalized, we'll bring them to you. But I don't think it'll stop our day-to-day processes because really the important thing is the policy. Um administrative guidelines do clarify how we're going to enact that policy. And then there's going to be some administrative guidelines that um we uh maybe had as process and procedure that we want to uh move forward and put into uh administrative guidelines ourselves that Miola didn't even address. We will continue to have those, but by December, we'll have all of that in place. But again, they usually

144just clarify a process that's set in policy, right? And I think that we can move forward with the policy and then clear up the process documents that we need to look at between now and December. I I just don't want us to keep going under the old book. We we've done too much work and we're trying to communicate all of that and have been communicating that. And matter of fact, we've been departing from some of those old policies a little bit just in practice and knowing that we're going to catch up because the policy will be in place, right? And so it it's going to be a transition period. So to that I want to be able to for sure tell people what thing is is the rule that we're going by the policy, right?

145So I think um because I don't know I don't know my position whether I'm going to continue as a policy chair or not or who the next policy chair is going to be. Um but uh I feel it would be advantageous to identify some of those uh parking loted uh policies uh that are of particular interest to the board. Uh so that that would be communicated uh I mean discussed at the next uh policy meeting and potentially communicated with that that book. That's a good idea. Why don't you and I sit down and like prioritize Yes, we think uh should I mean should be a prioritized list of those because certainly some are more important to get on first than others. Right. Right. And then some might be like, oh well we put it here

146but it's really an easier fix than we thought and we go but why don't you and I sit down and prioritize that list sure for whoever the next chair is of that uh you know committee. Um you know uh Diana and I have been doing some similar things around planning like you know what what's the bulk of the work that's sitting here should she not be uh chair of planning and and so on. Sure. I think Sarah's doing the similar work with uh fiscal and I don't know um Margaret if you're doing that work with um the chair of um HR or not but I know that we have our lists open inter chair of HR anyway so that was kind of a different yeah he was intermar chair we we all have our our

147list but sure this one specifically we need to really prioritize like those um and you know the other thing I will say is we're always going to have policy work, right? There's never going to be a finished, but there is let's be finished with this process of this the move over and then we can always improve our policies as we keep going. You know, bringing in resources and other documents and other things that we're thinking about um and and like you said, as time changes, policies have to change. So, you know, those are things we need to think about. Lori, did you have something? No, sorry. I'm just playing with my hair. Um, sorry, I'm linear sequential. I need a little little more clarification. So, in May, it's any policy left in unfinished. So, that

148would be left in the parking lot, right? Is that correct? Anyway, there's policies that need to be finished, right? That would be May, go to the May board meeting, summer, parking lot, summer, summer. Correct. So, unfinished May. We typically have a first read and a second read as required. So, that would put those in July. How can we approve the policy book in June if they need to go through two reads? Oh, May and June. So, second read it could be approved at the end of June. Got it. Thank you. I just sometimes need to talk it out. And if they're not done, they don't need to go in there, right? That's right. They just won't be missing anything. What we have finished in like if there's if there's one of these policies, right, that

149we're working on that needs carryover. Again, let's not hold the whole policy book up of hundreds of policies because of a few stragglers, right? My brain wasn't move, you know, book and approved and then we do it right after. So, that was my error. Yeah. And honestly, the reason I'm I'm saying that and hoping that we can commit to that is our administration's really wondering like where are we sitting on this? And they have to get work started on their their handbooks for next year, right? That's not something you can do in August. We do that work now. Prepare them, right? Uh dumb question. A dumb question for me to ask, but um how how what does Scott Brown say about a partial approval of a book? I mean, l I mean, did does that

150does it have to be all or nothing? Can I tell you what he says about? Yeah. He says, "Don't let great in the way of being good." Okay. So he would say, "Get it done." Yes. Because, you know, and we're meeting with him coming up here, but he knows we're at that point of like, "Let's just get over because um the sooner we say we've made the switch over, right, the quicker we can start getting to our by annual updates, right?" And he knows how that process flows. right now. We've been kind of um squeaking them in here and there on the updates. Uh and it's been basically I don't know a better word that you know making our process janky. It's, you know, I just don't know another word for like, yes, that's not

151stopping our process, but disjointed it is not Yeah. disjointing it or whatever, you know, disrupting. It's been disrupted to our process. And and really what we want to do is say, yes, we've got the bulk of that work done. We're here. Um, and we're now on a process of byanual renewal. As we're on that process, we're going to finish up the the, you know, the crumbs. Sure. Sure. Sounds good. Oh, any further discussion about the timeline? Does that answer all your questions about timeline? Danny, I know you and I figured like the discussion was coming in. Well, and the reason I put those out there and I do this with any committee is that way whomever is presenting know kind of where the gaps in my thinking are. So, and Jared did a nice job

152and and typically you have those, but I wasn't sure if I'd be here or not. so that I can just go back, watch the video and and nine times out of 10 all those questions are answered and then you don't have to worry about asking them again at the full board meeting. So by Jared already knowing those he answered 95% of it. Sure. Which I anticipate probably would any other questions. All right. Um, as I completely exited my agenda, sorry about that. Um, if do we have any I mean obviously there's uh we have future planning discussion. We kind of covered that with the development process. We have a number of uh past action items. Uh under number five, uh I will work with the individuals that are mentioned here to clean up some of

153those loose ends. I didn't know what the outcome of the election was and how that was going to impact some of this stuff. So, um that's kind of where I I left it at that point. So on the past action items there is a bullet point that say that says Freddy out and Jason Whitaker along with administration. So we would need to figure out yeah it's just that one was completed the day more or less. Yeah months. Yeah good good point. And uh but yeah, I'll we'll sit down with Jar to discuss some of those other ones and uh Jenny Bors potentially or the other draft policies that we were discussing before. Uh action items can Okay, I'm going to do my best here. Yeah, so I have um I'm going to remove the verbiage

154but not require from the first bullet of policy 2440 for this uh summer interim session school and then update two other grammatical errors and add the water copyright and that'll go to first read after the adjustments are made. Uh there's some verbiage changes in policy 5411 uh third grade promotion and retention and then that can go to first read replace um I'm going to be replacing the word shall with the word may in policy 2421 uh career and tech uh education program and then move bullets uh bullet points A through C up to be included in A throughF creating bullet point G, H, and I. I also have to remove verbiage in parentheses in the last paragraph, right? That can go to first read then. And then I'm moving the 2000 group four to first

155read. Jared and I will work on um updating verbiage in paragraph 2 of the 327 weapons um prohibited for professional staff. We're also going to bring it back to policy after consulting with the attorney um regarding shooting sports. and then 33 3131 reduction in staff can go to first read. I'm going to unstrike uh and regular and substitute bus drivers um under the under the cover employees heading under the 4162 controlled substance and alcohol policy. Um and I'm also going to replace this term with alcohol concentration in line A under definitions. We're going to talk to the HR committee to have professional development around communication, trusted communication flow, as well as due process and reference to policy 4112 board staff communications and possibly possibly bring in an attorney for training for that. Um, moving the

1564,000 group six to first read. Uh I'm a little bit confused on this one with the um purchasing um policy 6320 is going to first read. Are we uh changing 40 to 15? Yep. Okay. And then so I'm going to add that change 40. Change 40. And then um there's and then are we going to be requesting a cost benefit rationale or do pull data if the district of the administration finds ad that advantageous to have that discussion. Okay. And if they're able to by the time Yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna ask uh uh Sarah to come down the fiscal agenda just for because I I mean I think if if we're going to make some changes to that reevaluating the rationale and discussion points as to where we are. Um I think it just

157needs to come back. We're going to have new board members on that haven't seen this at all. They're going to wonder what's going on. I just think it's important that we um share that information forward. Okay. So, we're actually going to bring it back to policy and not move to first person. No, no. I we're going to have fiscal add some information. Oh, okay. To the I mean like it's going to come up for discussion. I want them to make sure that they're prepare prepared to say why they made the suggestion they did. Okay. Right. You know. Okay. just want to make sure that there's uh they're the ones who weighed in on it and did the ask right and and had everything up to this point. I would we're we're we're changing that with

158our rationale, right? They need to be able to be prepared to share the rationale. I would, you know, if um I can make a suggestion for the full board agenda that this should be a strategic discussion at the full board meeting. Then that's that's the way I think probably I mean instead of just uh you know having a person pull it, maybe just putting it out there for a discussion point is probably better. Yeah. Right. Having a strategic discussion around it because that's what we do. uh and then whatever I mean that might be even they might even kick it back again to policy or to fiscal or whatever I don't know what they're going to do right but to have it there uh first and then you know later on um you know if

159there's changes that need to be made then the person can say you know I approve uh consent uh minus this one that was pulled off right because it may be pulled off Okay. Or a change may be made in a strategic discussion, right? That then we would have to pull it then to make the change and then uh it would be first read with changes amended. Right. Those kinds of things. So I we just need to make sure procedurally we're okay with whatever the change may be. Right. Right. So I mean I don't mind it going for first read but I think strategic discussion is probably better to I mean both can happen in the same meeting is what I'm saying but okay but um but having the strategic discussion around first might be better

160right and and I mean I'm not even opposed to having it already outside from the consent agenda as just its own resolution you know that's you know what I mean it's easier Yeah, if it's easier to have that discussion that might be a good suggestion that we have two board members instead of I'd like to you know a motion to make it you know I'll talk I'll talk with uh you know uh board president or vice president who's ever going to approve the agenda um as to where they want to have that piece but I think it's I think it's a good suggest question. So, sorry, didn't mean to. It's okay. Totally separate question to be asked right now. It's fine. Okay. And then policy um 7540.06. The last word of the policy I'm going

161to change from annually to as needed. uh this then that can go to first read and the 7,000 uh group four will go to first read. Then I have Craig and Jared to prioritize uh get together to prioriti prioritize policies uh to work on first for whoever the next chair of the policy committee is. Sounds good. All right, sounds great. Thanks. Yeah, any anything else? I have one thing not on that. It goes to the time of our next meeting. Yes, the next meeting date is May 5th as stated on there. The time remember that is the date that we had set aside for meeting of the chairs at 5:30. Um, and the ask was can we push the meeting of the chairs to 4:30 so that way policy can meet after and we said

162that we would wait until the new board and the new chairs and just to see in that. So my question becomes logistically how do we want to put that? How do we want to communicate that time? Um how's that related to policy? Because policy meeting if meeting of the chairs can't happen at 4:30 then the policy meeting then meeting of the chairs would be at 5:30 and policy would be at 6:30. So the start time is what's dependent on it. Yeah. So shouldn't shouldn't really since there's going to be at least some level of change and shakeup, shouldn't we maybe like put the meeting of the chair specific date and time on hold entirely for now because well what we had had with that the rationale behind having it sooner as opposed to later is

163you could have many new chairs. So putting it on hold and so we that was one of the only dates that we knew that we had before we got into the summer craziness of things. So that's why it was put there to start with to give everybody a good clean start as they get up and running. Otherwise, if you wait a month or two months, you've got people that are potentially chairs. It just it's good background to have. Uh question for you though, um scheduling wise. um May 5th if if that's our next committee meeting. Uh isn't there potentially another meeting before this like uh ED services uh HR does HR come before this too? No, it's just because May because this is an add-on policy date. It's not a regularly scheduled meeting, right? When

164you guys chose that May 5th, they we already chose the meeting of the chair. So, I was trying to find a date that worked. Okay. And Monday was the only date that was really available. So, that's why I just as we go to time, it was decided at the last board meeting. So I'm just bringing it up is because the question the answer to that is going to have to come once we have the board and uh we at least have a a leadership discussion and then from there you know we have to decide but even then um the president and we're going to have a new one because the old one is not on the board anymore is going to have the ability to go through and decide chairs. They probably aren't going to

165do it like that. Yeah, that's that's only a week apart. We almost need to put the that meeting on on hold and then but at the at the board meeting discuss should anybody be chairs? What's let's let's put this date on all of our calendars. Should anybody be a chair? Um and just hold it as as a sacred date. So you could really just move it back like a week or two weeks or something like that potentially. Is that a discussion we can have with the full board? Yeah, I think we have to have that as a as a timeline discussion. just put it on the agenda as a you know when we talk about future agendas or future items just talking and given given that there is I suppose there would be the possibility

166that somebody somebody new to being a chair could be a chair after um a and potentially have to lead a meeting before they even have that meeting of the chairs. Right. But then I would be sitting with the the board president and just talking a little bit about how we run those things with that person. You know, just say, "Hey, you know, we know this is your first one. You haven't had any real formal training or discussion is how we do these as chairs, but here's some information about how we generally run them." And the administrator paired up with them will also help walk them through, right? It happens every just about every year. So, so somebody who doesn't who's never before, but in that in that respect, I'm wondering if Diana's correct and in

167perhaps maybe keeping that as a date that's open tentatively and say, well, um, you know, given the fact that there might be some new people, like is that is it feasible? I mean, I don't know. I'm not the new president and I can't uh you know think about what piece one of you might think about as your uh president thinking about chairmanships. Yeah, I only brought it up because the question has come up as we put things out to Lynn. What time? What this? What that? So that already as we did agenda planning for planning that was a piece there. If we want to put it off, fine. Because yes, we do have um an administrator that's tagging with it, but then we would need to be able I would like to then have the

168discussion. I don't know if I'm going to be in that seat anyway as a planning chair, but to hand something clean off that the discussion would happen at the full board meeting to find a date on the calendar. Um so then I only brought it up here. so that we can put policy at 5:30 regardless. What what makes me happy is that we're having this conversation because I will tell you uh when I came here there wasn't really any rules uh of the chair or whatever people ran meetings how are they felt right and to try to have some uh you know uh communal ideas of how we're going to run meetings is really a good idea. Committees get shifted in April's meeting. Yeah, committees will get shifted, right? Not at that meeting. Not at

169that meeting. Not at that meeting. It's a function at the June meeting usually. Okay. Uh people will be uh shared which committees and right that you'll be on. Uh so no May they'll be the new new committees. New committees in May but but not at that meeting. Excuse me. Yes. At the April meeting, new committee assignments will well the the president will assign new committees. Yes. So there'll be a short turnaround. He'll have a or she'll have a short turn around to create the new committees. So given the short turnaround, like you're saying, as I'm thinking on this, typically when I have put things out for board development or whatever, it's usually at least 10 days, 8 to 10 days before you get all of the communication back. So given the date for the meet,

170you know, I just I understand where you're saying that it's tight. We just keep it open as an open meeting and then whoever shows up shows up. Sure. I mean, well, it sounds like it sounds like we're on the right track that we're going to have a discussion at the board meeting. Uh, anything else for discuss further discussion? Did you have something, Jenny? Oh gosh, my arm isn't active technically up, but I'm working through ED service. I literally will have to have an agenda out on the Thursday after the board meeting. Yes. And I will not have an ED services chairperson and I know in my head what I know needs to go on if there are other additions or changes. So I was just like contemplating that back. Sure. Great idea. Okay. So when

171you go like this, you're really doing without any further discussion. We are adjourned. So we agenda. So who's going to approve the agenda this morning? I guess it would be Mike.