001of the Akron Public Schools. President is with us here today. It is Vice Chair Carmela Kelly, member Dr. Renee Molnar, President Barbara Sykes, attorney David Sepusick, and Superintendent Mary Outley was here and she will return, but we have a situation at one of the schools, so she had to tend to that being the superintendent. That is what happens when we have a special meeting. Not everything is predictable. So, we will she will join us after she cares for this incident. We have this meeting called because we are a couple of different we're one or two collective decisions away from finishing up a number of policies and we just want to collectively come together and see if we can wrap up some policies and get some clear understanding. So, our first policy that we will cover
002is purchasing and bidding. Purchasing and bidding and that policy number is 6320. and I will ask Director Debra Folk and our purchasing director Mr. Jim Leonard if they will come and join us here. Because this is This particular policy Director Folk and Dr. Renee Molnar has taken the lead in directing and guiding this policy and revising this policy. There are some questions that remain on the dollar amount. The dollar amount of our purchases. And, um, I just want to lay some foundation and, um, hear from Director Folk, hear from Mr. Leonard who actually, um, is day-to-day hands-on with the purchasing. Um, how do we proceed forward? Um, currently, well, I'll let Dr. Renee Molnar, Dr. Molnar. >> Um, yes, and I will turn it over quickly back to you, Chair, and or Director Folk, but,
003um, my understanding we got through most of the policy. There was just a little bit of confusion on where it says $10,000 and where it says $25,000 and what is needed for our district to be able to, um, maintain its operations and our efficiencies and our transparency. So, um, there there were sections that were added. Uh, large purchases in board review, contract modifications and change orders. Those of you with notes, those also bid protest procedure. Those, uh, items are in yellow, but I think, uh, where we needed to pause before moving forward were not necessarily those sections, but, um, in some places it says 10 and in some places it's 25 and we need to know where it needs to say what. >> Okay, can you explain the the 10,000 and 25? >> Um, so
004it is my understanding that we have a combination of current practice, uh, Ohio Revised Code limits and ULA recommendations. And so, between those three limits, we need to find the sweet spot for our district. >> Thank you, Dr. Molnar. So, I will refer this and ask for um, some input and guidance from Director Folk and ask that Mr. Leonard would give us his expertise and finally I will ask to Treasurer Bowers and then we should be able to come to a collective and the goal here is continuity of business and what's practical but also what can we maintain with all oversight. >> Thank you and good morning Reverend Harrison, Ms. Kelly, Dr. Molnar, President Sykes, and Mr. Sapusek. Would you please move the item up to 10,000 at the first paragraph please because this is
005where it starts at the top of the document if that's possible. The first 10,000 is actually listed in your first paragraph and this is when we start looking at prices and quotations. So, 10,000 is anything the costing more than 10,000 our current policy says that we need to lay obtain at least three quotes and we have done that historically for a number of years. That has been slowly raised and it isn't that we and currently if you look at it carefully it's highlighted in blue. It may be a time and Dr. Molnar and I kind of talked about this that it's time for this to be elevated as well but that is just a sidebar to that but that's why it was also in blue but that gives you the beginning of the 10,000. If
006you now go down to the then and now certificate please. This is where we spent most of our discussion. Currently the then and now certificate is listed at 25,000 dollars and there was a suggestion that it should be lowered to $10,000. What a then and now certificate basically says is the treasurer upon completion of this is certifying that the funds are available at the beginning, which is then and are now and then at the end. So, we did not feel as we were talking with Dr. Molnar and myself and also with Jim and he can chime in in a minute that that should be lowered. The 25,000 is definitely where we should start and this is the items that you definitely have to bring to board for further approval, which you have seen as we've
007done our business, especially with all the quotes and items. So, we would like it to remain at the 25,000 at least to start. If you then go down through the rest of the document and you start to get into the federal level under competitive bidding, this is the other statement and it says for purchases exceeding 250,000 that have a direct impact on students and curriculum, the district shall solicit input from the appropriate stakeholders or groups prior to the award. There have been some changes as you are aware in the state statute, especially with regards to when you are required to do an RFP and we have started going through that process under the 6325 and that has been raised now to certain items can be 75,000. So, we are trying to make ourselves truly available
008to be as Reverend Harrison says, successfully mitigating and doing this process successfully in all of these areas. So, with that 75,000 under the revised code, It also has a 3% increase. So, as an example, when it was adopted, it was 75,000. It's now that an RFP RFQ should go out for now 77,208 because that 3%. So, this was something that Dr. Molnari and I worked on and we don't want to, as you referred to Reverend Harrison, to stop the operational business or then triple the back work that would need to be done by lowering some of these amounts. So, I'd like to get that started with that point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Director Falcon. Uh Uh Mr. Jim Leonard is our purchasing manager. Um and and I'd like to say that we all have
009an opinion, um but Mr. Leonard um deals with this on a daily basis. So, we certainly want input from him as far as continuity of business and what he would see would be reasonable, rational, and manageable. >> Good morning, all. Thank you for the opportunity. So, I have some numbers uh to show the number of purchase orders issued in fiscal 2025 that were 10,000 and above and then 25,000 and above. And this is just going to show uh an example of of the additional processing time that this will take. So, we had 295 purchase orders in fiscal 25 that were $25,000 or more. So, they require Currently, they require the special processing that we're we're talking about doing some additional steps, some additional record keeping. To put that in perspective, for POs over 10,000 or
01010,000 above, 663. So, um I went to Norton, so my math isn't great, but um that you know that what's that double maybe more than double of the processing time that would take. So, my concern there is that it would affect the efficiency and timeliness of these purchases. And in hopes that we could keep that at 25, at least 25 or above now, mainly because 25 and above now already have most of the additional processing that's being requested in this policy. So, it really wouldn't add any additional work at this point. Uh so, that's the main reason I think again from efficiency standpoint and processing time, the 25 and above at this time is is is working okay with processing. I just hate to see that uh double or double plus and and slow down
011everything in the process, the issuing of the POs, the receiving of the goods, etc. >> So, so your recommendation is 25,000. >> Yes, sir. It at least I mean if we want to talk about the Ola and and the additional higher um thresholds, that's fine. I mean but yes, I would ask that not be reduced from 25. >> Okay, but since we're revising a policy, I know there is a um ceiling to this. What is the ceiling? Um the dollar amount for the ceiling. You you said at least 25. Operationally and functionally, where would you like us to be? Um and I'll ask that the treasurer will um the treasurer Bowers will also um if he's in agreement. >> for the minimum for the minimum, you mean? >> Yes. >> Well, it'd be far-reaching to
012say 75. Again, that is what the uh various departments and various agencies are recommending. I think that would be tremendous. I could get you the number of POs that we have that are 75 and above, but um yeah, I guess I would say that would be my request, my my humble request. >> Okay. And and I will ask Mr. Bowers, Treasurer Bowers, to um And again, we're we're having this discussion because we want to be efficient, but we also want to make sure that we have the proper safeguards in place. >> Good morning. Uh thank you for taking my comments. Um Phil and I talked about this. He suggested 50,000 possibly. >> I don't I I don't want to I want your uh um uh for an accountability for as Treasurer. I I guess that's
013what I'm looking for. >> So, 50,000 would move it up and reduce the number of the amount of work required that's being done already in this area. Um could I just speak about this policy in general for a second? >> This was not brought to me directly. Um I had a chance to go through for about an hour this morning and review some of the language in here. Uh there's an appropriations requirement. Uh it says that the appropriations shall be any change to a line item amount shall be communicated in a Treasurer's report or in the in the Treasurer's report to the board. Um we made 3,280 line item appropriation changes last year. Um so, we I am I would like an opportunity to go over the intent uh behind the changes uh so that
014we can arrive at what you're trying to accomplish in this policy. Um, and I would also request that any 6000 series policies be sent to the finance and capital management committee so that we can go through these. I'm a very cautious person in changing a lot of language without me having a chance and my team having a chance to vet what it means and I know that we've involved Jim and Deb here, but uh, I would just like to have the the processors and uh, Todd Adkins, the assistant treasurer that handles our budget to go through these with us. Um, and so I would request that this be moved to the finance and capital management committee. >> Okay, and I'm not going to grant that request because you certainly we've been working on this policy
015since last year. And the policy is in the policy committee. We do have the expertise and that's the purpose of everyone coming together. Um, the policy in and of itself you certainly can weigh in on it. You certainly we certainly value your expertise, but we can do all of that in one committee. If we send it to finance or we send it to another committee and come back and we we're we're trying to find a common ground now. So, um, [clears throat] you do have the policy. The administration has had this policy as we have had it. Um, so uh, I certainly will I hear what you're saying and we will table this policy so that all eyes can have a a look at it and everyone can come together. That's sort of the the
016purpose of this meeting is to find out where do we need to go from here. So, what what I hear [clears throat] you saying is that you would like the treasurer's office to weigh in significantly on the policy and make sure that we're not um, convoluting where we're clearing up one area and convoluting another area. >> Yeah, I I just want to make sure that we're not doubling up efforts and it's as efficient as possible. >> Okay. So, for policy 6320 we will continue to work on this policy. We will make sure that every department has a opportunity to weigh in. Is there any other we have purchasing, we have business affairs, we have the treasurer's office. Is there any other department that needs to weigh in on this policy? >> OSI I I think
017the four of us between Deb Jim, Todd, and I we could we can we have the expertise and we know what all the other departments purchasing processes are, so we >> Okay. So, we will revisit this policy in our August meeting our August policy meeting. >> Perfect. That That works for me. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Do we have any questions from the committee members? Any questions from President Sykes? >> [clears throat] >> Okay. So, we will revisit the 6320 in our August meeting. We will now move to our administrative leave policy and I will ask that Mr. Canfield would come and we also have attorney Sapusik. As with this policy, it is we are a couple items a couple discussions away and it's very difficult to have these in email when
018there's multiple people involved. So, um I will ask that we will look at this policy and um I will ask Mr. Canfield to weigh in and then Attorney Sapusik to weigh in on where we um uh where our attentions need to be focused. We've hashed out this policy and I think there's just a couple of items that we need further discussion on. >> Good morning. Um yeah, my understanding is that the items that we have seemingly arrived at some sort of impasse is the conflicting provisions between section four, authority to place employee on administrative leave, board oversight and approval, and section seven of the proposed policy 3139 proposed policy of 4149. Section seven is the duration and review of administrative leave. >> So, we have the um the two sections, uh section four, authority to
019place an employee on administrative leave, >> Section seven, duration and review of administrative leave. >> That's correct. >> Okay, so can you tell me or tell everyone um where we are with this? As far as your position. >> As far as my position, um I've not been exactly privy to ongoing conversations uh between the uh legal memorandum sent and the discussion of you as chair um outside of what we've seen in in meetings. So, I don't know where we stand right now. >> Well, that's pretty much the discussion. The discussion that we've had in meetings is the discussion. So, would you like Attorney Sapusik? >> I would. Yeah. >> Okay, thank you. Attorney Sapusik. >> Thank you, Chair Harrison. Um and I know that uh although Superintendent is been taken like you said to other
020matters at the moment. I believe she also has perspective to share as well. So I wanted to at least mark the record for that. So if you recall I'd sent some recommendations. To the group. The administrators committee members. Regarding the sections that Mr. Canfield has highlighted. And again the the general. Oversight is you have two sections labeled board oversight. In section 4 and section 7. That have different processes. One in 4C is a more general standard approach a reporting updating approach in 4C. And section 7D is a reporting plus I guess is the best way to say that that includes a board action. Step as well. So. Generally those are. Conflicting ambiguous and the recommendation if you recall was for the committee for the team to consider. One section. Going to one section as opposed
021to having two. Of the same section but yet having different processes. >> So my question would be. What is the conflict? Where do they conflict? >> Right. So you have board like I said 4C is board getting updates. From the superintendent. And the process and then 7D you have again reporting and. Anything beyond a certain date the board then it's going to be taking action. >> And what action? >> Well 7D is D1. If you want to take a look at that. >> If you can read it cuz I'm I'm I'm >> Your glasses are >> Yeah, I'm trying to I'm trying to follow what your I'm trying to follow exactly what the sticking point is. >> Right. So again, in D1 you've got the language of administrative leave extending shall require board approval. That
022section does not exist in 4C labeled board oversight. And then the next step is an update similar to 4C. And then again in D3 board actions referenced again. >> Okay, I'm not sure that I have the numbers that you have. Okay. >> Uh P >> We are We are working from policy 3139. >> Yes. >> Correct. So there's three separate policy numbers um based on a classifications. But it's in a sense the same policy. It just applies to different classifications. >> Yeah, so uh Yeah, you're on you're heading in the right direction for sure. Uh 1139 is is unique because it references the superintendent and the treasurer, which are the only two direct employees of the Board of Education. So it's a little bit different. >> Okay, yeah, I just wanted to make sure for
023uh the public that we're we're all working from the same draft. Um So D has board oversight. Um and you're saying it has conflicting provisions with um, section four. >> 4C. >> It just adds, like I said, it adds a layer of board action. >> May I? >> Uh, um, member Kelly. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Harrison. For the sake of any confusion, I I do want to repeat that we are working, literally working through three separate policies that fall under administrative guidelines or administrative leave, excuse me. So, for those that are wanting to follow the exact policy we're currently working on, we are currently discussing policy number 3139, correct? >> Yes. >> Because if you're looking at 3139 and 1139, the order is very similar, so it might be slightly confusing to those that
024are looking at the policy. So, I just want to make sure that, while we're discussing these policies, if we could announce the policy number as well while we're working through the bullet points. I think that would be helpful. >> Okay. >> Thank you, member Kelly. And and for clarification, we're we're today, we're only going to work on 3139 because that is the base policy. And that base policy will dictate the language for the next two policies, correct? >> It So, I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Canfield. >> If I may, 4139 and 3139 differentiates between the administration's employees. Those That's the same language we're talking about in each of those two policies. Policy uh, um uh 1139 is only for superintendent teachers, so that's not what we're discussing right now. >> Correct. Thank you
025for that clarification. Uh Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you. Uh my first question is I don't know who is controlling the clickshare. Um and whoever is doing that, can they catch up to where we are talking about because it can be easier for us to all be on the same page if we're all seeing the same thing on the screen. >> Yes, Heidi's out, so I'm doing a bad impression of Heidi today trying to navigate, so give me [snorts] yeah, give me 1 second. >> Um and so from what I was hearing was that we were on page three of policy 3139. And so my ques- what what I heard was the word approval appeared to be the sticking point and would replacing approval with a written board notification fix that sticking point? >> Okay, let's
026see. Give me a second. I'm going to cross- cross-reference between the two sections. And I guess the other the other uh point was you know, considering making one one section that has language that is a you know, that >> Dr. Molnar. >> Right. So, I see Do you mean sec- Are you referring to section C? >> Correct. >> So, if section C was notification and section D was oversight >> It it could be or again they could be merged and and seven could be merged into section four. Which again, that's if we're going down the road of reporting and and updating and notification I think was the word you just mentioned Dr. Molnar. >> So before we look at this merging, the the intent is that we do not have someone on administrative leave without
027making sure that we are being responsible responsive and we're we're we don't have a situation where um something falls through the cracks and we're not we're not taking any action. So that's the intent. Um so I think while we try to work through that, how do we accomplish that? Um Ultimately, it's the board's responsibility to make sure that we're being responsible with taxpayer dollars with um oversight and and but we we also want to be uh want to have a workable policy. So um in this regard, what are we doing now? What what processes are in place now? Um and I know we have a new HR director and you've put quite a few processes in place. >> So the the process we're currently working under um when placed when placing someone on administrative leave
028is a review with [snorts] uh superintendent, legal counsel, and myself um to discuss the situation um and whether that warrants the level of uh concern to place someone on administrative leave to preserve the integrity of the investigation, the integrity of the employees' actions, um and to uh keep due process in place. Um when that happens, when we place when we decide that to place an person on administrative leave, the superintendent issues a letter on the same day that superintendent issues a notice to the board members informing them of that case. As they're placed on administrative leave, at this point we're working under the the idea that one requested an executive session, we'll give updates to any people on administrative leave and status of that. >> So, how do How do we track the the length
029of time uh and I know some of this requires investigations and >> Yes. >> um that sometimes become is is out of the control of the district itself. Um so, the How do we maintain the oversight and make sure that we are um being responsible enough to um We we don't want to leave people on administrative leave cuz it's unfair to the district and it's unfair to them. >> Yes. >> Um so, the the the intent is to to make sure that we have oversight um and and so, as we move into looking at the merging of these two, the possible merging of these two, possibly additional language, um Mr. Kim, >> If I may, I think keeping the board informed is important. Um I think when that information comes to the board and if
030there is any delay and concern for that, then that should go to the superintendent to hold her team accountable. Any questions? Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director. So, based on what you said in practice should occur, do you think this policy, as it's written or as the recommended changes would be to provide C notification and D oversight, would that accomplish that or would different language be required to accomplish that? >> I think the merging um language will accomplish that because it's keeping the board informed. I think the what we by shall, you know, in the language it says um the word shall receive status updates in executive session will present at this time a standing agenda item for executive session. Um we can keep the board informed in different formats through
031our Friday notes or anytime the board requests it. Um so, I'd suggest that the shall is removed and may request to review at any given time would be appropriate. >> Attorney Sapoukhian. >> Um >> No. >> Did Yes. Mr. Canfield's recommendation um I I again and >> Go go ahead. >> Yeah, just being respectful of the superintendent's absence uh for her ability to consider that as well. >> A- And and I appreciate that um the input. I appreciate the recommendation. Um I I'm hesitant to say that that is as far as the policy should go to keep the superintendent informed. Um there still needs to be a level of accountability. Um and after accountability after the fact sometimes is not the best approach. So I'm looking for a um the language that we can accomplish
032both. And it doesn't seem um we we have time. We don't have to rush this through today, but we know where we are. And as we can see it's kind of difficult to continue all of this through emails. Um so we know where we are. Um and I would say that um between now Monday and August 1st uh I think what is our meeting in August? Is it reasonable to have this um August 1st is it that is that a reasonable time? August 3rd? So August 3rd is our um policy meeting in August. Is it reasonable to have this um language um a mutually agreeable language. Um Yes, Attorney Saposnik. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, I you know, since we're we've narrowed it down to these areas. Um what I'm hearing is suggestion
033or recommended potential language around maybe either merging or uh the other section adjusting some of that language as we started to touch on a little bit today. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, that was the major sticking point. Is there anything in this policy that's missing? Uh um member Kelly? >> Thank you, Chair Harrison. Um again, we're referencing section seven of this policy where we we mentioned the Ohio Revised Code requirements and due process standards for what's that? Section 7B. But, there's no code listed. Section [snorts] seven D, we list a Ohio Revised Code, which is just saying that we're publicly announcing a meeting. So, if there in addition to the add-ons or the recommendations that we agree should be added to this, could do we see purpose to adding the Ohio Revised Code to
034section seven line B? >> Uh this current version came from the committee. So, I would ask if the committee has any specific thoughts on that. I don't To this point, uh administration, haven't heard any other comments or recommendations around that question. Um >> So, if if if I can uh try to understand you're saying you've reviewed the policy and the the issues that you brought forward are the sticking points or is where we are and the the language of the ORC in that other section does not become an issue for a legal issue. >> Yeah, correct. We've we've got it down to these recommendations in response to the committee submission of this draft policy. >> Okay. And I'll say to member Kelly um we do have time. So we we can review that and then
035we will certainly any any changes that we make outside of what we're discussing here will take the legal review with Mr. Canfield, the superintendent, and attorney Sapusing. Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, generally I would say to the question is if you try to capture every single section of code, you always run the risk of missing one. So that could be part of the thought process as we as we look at that. >> Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Canfield. >> If I may, as a matter of consistency with other policies going through unless we plan to continue the use of section 16 policy review and board action, I find that to be unnecessary in policy. >> I'm sorry. >> We've noted that, Mr. Canfield, previously. Sorry to interrupt. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Is
036there anything missing? Have we missed anything in this policy that should be reflected in this policy? >> I don't believe so. >> Mr. Attorney Sapusing. >> I do legal review as far as substantive I haven't seen anything in my review that has stood out that's an omission at this point. I again don't know if the committee has any additional thoughts but as far as a review I haven't found any sections to be you know missing. >> For lack of a better word. So so I will ask a different way I'm not always I don't always ask the actual question I'm trying it's it's in my head but not in my lips. So is there anything that we are doing once someone is put on administrative leave that is not reflected in this policy? >> I
037don't believe so. Committee members? Member Kelly. >> Thank you Chair Harrison. I'm I'm sorry I have to go back to section seven. Are we saying that if we list an Ohio revised code or we mention the R the ORC it says ORC requirements and due process standards that we don't have to listen and not listen but list that code that we're referencing the code number? >> It depends what you're talking about. It's I as a general matter all I can tell you at this point member Kelly is if sometimes if you reference and try to catch every code section one by one you're you're on the risk of missing a code section. So sometimes people when when drop policies will make a reference to Ohio Revised Code requirements, which then if asked, you can then
038go ahead and cite, depending on the situation, the appropriate code section. That's just the general concept of that. Uh and we can again discuss further as member Harris, Chair Harris, and Dr. Molnar, we can discuss further as we move forward into that August deadline what those specific sections can be and if we run any risks. So, we will have to do an assessment. >> But in in this current document that we have here now, it's what we're saying is that the status of an administrative leave shall be reviewed at least every 30 calendar days by Human Resources with legal counsel consistent with ORC requirements and due process. >> And again, this is a committee-drafted policy, so I'm not sure if the committee has any specific sections that they would like to maybe be included. >>
039So, if if I can weigh in a little bit on this. So, the way it reads now, ORC requirements, if in fact we have an administrative change to ORC, this gives us the flexibility of adjusting that change without going back into the policy to cite the exact This is saying we will comply with the Ohio Revised Code, but not necessarily we're listing every section of every part of the code. Yes, Attorney Spisak. >> Yeah, exactly what what I was touching on was you you don't want to run the risk of missing a code section or to your point, if the code is amended, having to go back into the policy every time an amendment is made to a section of the code. >> So okay. >> Touching on your point. >> Then we probably should
040revisit the the language in this and how we do it. >> on. I would hold on. Um member Kelly uh your question I mean your response is >> We should revisit how we format this because we have to list it. It has to be listed. >> What is the basis for that perspective? >> So so I'm going to say that that this particular meeting was called because we were hung up on some sections. And if we need to have explanations of why we're doing what, I would say that that is a direct conversation. And I would ask that that particular subject um be addressed um with um Attorney Sapulski and member Kelly, and then we will bring that back to the general meeting. In this particular meeting, I want to come to where we are
041hung up on the policy. Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you, chair. Um I have a question on 3139. >> I also have a question on 1139 before we move on, but I know we're sticking on 3139. Um I would like to float a potential compromise for that section. It Some some and I don't know if this would work for member uh Kelly and Attorney Sapulski's concerns and perspectives, but you know, applicable state and federal law might be a general functional term. Um so then my question is if we are intending to have a draft of this that we are moving on April 3rd, when and how will the committee receive a draft that would include potentially that edit or potentially the merged language because I know that the process of somebody makes a change, who do
042we change, who do we share the changes with, how do we communicate desired changes is exactly why we are sitting here on a Thursday at 11:48, right? So when and how will we um seeing and receive that draft? Thank you. >> Well, I would defer to the chairs' discussion on that. >> I'll pull up a calendar. Um we have a um policy meeting June 1st. Okay, so that's our next policy meeting. Um so let's say Um June 18th, we will all be working from one draft. What everyone will have um any proposed changes or consolidations. So that's June 18th. >> To clarify, Chair Harrison, >> Yes, sir. >> you would like our proposed changes to you by June 18th. I would like us >> I would like us to work towards June 18th. I will
043send out what Attorney Sapoznik sends me. Okay? Attorney Sapoznik will send me, so we will when we leave this meeting, if anyone has any um what whatever your ideals are or whatever it is that we believe should happen in this policy, um we will say, "Please forward them to me through email. Copy everyone on the email." As we have been working through this policy, we'll continue to work through this policy on June 18th, everyone should have the same policy with the changes. And let's start from there. Attorney Sapoznik. >> Um >> Go ahead. If that time doesn't work for you, just let me know. >> Yeah, time uh my time belongs to APS. Um so, uh at this point, uh my thought as I'm you know, processing, just coming up with um suggestion, >> Yes.
044>> possibly to uh connect with uh Mr. Canfield, Superintendent O'Malley, uh share a a version containing their thoughts on on what that might look like to you and the committee by by the 18th. Is that okay? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. I'll I'll work >> And I would ask member Kelly to um include her comments. Dr. Molnar to include her comments. And so, what we will have June 18th is a proposed policy that we will come back to the policy committee on August 3rd and discuss as a completed policy that June 18th will give us a an additional um 2 weeks to make sure that we have um conquered any obstacles. Um and I appreciate the work that's being done in the policy committee. It's very hard to uh commit to changing policies,
045revising policies, implementing policies, writing policies through email. And I think sometimes we we focus on one area and we don't focus on another area as member Kelly uh is bringing up that particular area. So, um to help move us forward with this by June 18th all comments will be in. The administration, Attorney Sapulski, Mr. Canfield, Superintendent Outlaw will have what back to us um the proposed policy and then we have 2 weeks to work on it. If it's not uh what we all agree on. Is that workable? >> Yes. >> Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you. And so, for clarification will it be all three policies and with that policy review and board act like clean copies with that part taken off? Or is it >> It should be all policies. Do we have any other
046sticking points on the other two? Attorney Sapulski. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um 3139 and 4139 are pretty much in in parallel, you know, for following along the same track >> Yes. >> as I as I work and see these where they are. So, um they will be kind of synced together. Uh 1139 because it's the the the two board employees is a little different. Um so, there may be a little variation >> Okay. >> at this point. >> But but where the variation comes in because of the different classification and a different supervision and reporting structures. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, no fundamental, just um accommodating the different positional and a different supervisors. >> Yeah, just being mindful of of the reporting chain. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anything to discuss further on
047this? >> No. >> Committee members? >> Um >> Thank you. I thank you, Mr. Campfield. Thank you, um Attorney Sapusik. Um we will now move towards our um AI policy. And we will have Mr. um Nate Runyan, our I'm sorry, Mr. Nate Rulyan. I'm get I'm getting it right. Who is our um director of IT. Um Good evening, Mr. Good afternoon, Mr. Rulyan. >> Good afternoon, honorable board members. I apologize in advance. I am a bit under the weather, so please excuse my my hoarse voice. >> Okay. Uh well, you you you stay stay back there. Um so, this the the policy we have is a um artificial intelligence AI policy. Um we do have um with House Bill 96, we do have um some requirements by Ohio law that we have to meet. We
048do have a policy that speaks to AI and the question becomes um where are we and where do we need to be from a legal point and I will let Dr. Molnar um I will turn this over to you. >> Thank you, Chair. Yes, in 2023, I think we um did approve a policy that uh referenced our AI use. Um since then, in the last 3 years, AI has done exactly what everyone anticipated it would, which is shift and change and and grow and shape. Um and while I definitely uh do not disagree that a more robust and comprehensive and thoughtful uh consideration of our staff and student use of AI and privacy connected to that and investment additionally um in what programs we will um recommend and teach our students to use so that
049they are prepared to graduate and and you know, into college and careers. Um I I do also see that in our agenda even for today, there are a number of policies in line. Our public complaints was on the agenda for today, uh temporary reemployment of retired administrators, vendor relations, independent contractor operators. We do have a line of um of of priorities that we need to get through. So, I do know that um we had ORC, so section 3301.24, um so that said that um by July 1st, 2026, each school district um shall adopt a policy on the use of artificial intelligence, and this was brought to the board's attention in January. So, since January, we have been asking, "Do we have a policy on the use of artificial intelligence?" I do believe that I I
050was under the impression we did have a policy on artificial intelligence from 2023. So, I guess my question to the attorney is um does our policy um does does our current policy comply with the regulations from 3301.24b? >> So, that's a blended question. Um attorneys are given too much credit sometimes for having a breadth of knowledge. Uh so, uh the statute, as you mentioned, says what it says. Uh this is a And as you said, this is a fastly developing, growing area by by the day, it feels like, even maybe by the hour sometimes with AI. Um so, this is an area of the of the law and and with the the state's mandate coming through the statute, uh that districts create policies, and it says shall adopt a the policy, uh and then it
051also advised the Department of Education to create a model AI policy the districts can adopt. They have that option as well in the statute. Um, so it does not say stand-alone policy uh, in the statute. Uh, so there can be a stand-alone or it can be embedded in other policies. And then Dr. Molnar, as you mentioned, uh, there's currently, I think it's .03 and .04 that have some references to AI usage, if I'm correct, and that's student and staff. Um, and so again yes the state is is requiring districts to adopt. Uh, as far as the the robust and the technical piece, that's that's Mr. Ryon and his team who have been exploring the language in the existing policies. Uh, I'm a layperson when it comes to IT and AI, uh, but and again, because
052this is a a new mandate coming from the state, there isn't a lot of established law, if you will, on an AI policy compliance with regards to this new language from House Bill 96. So that'll develop itself as we move forward. Uh, but at this time, I certainly defer to Mr. Ryon and his team and and the and the efforts that they have made in exploring uh, our current language. Uh, from the layman's perspective again, not the not the technical IT AI person, um, the language appears that it was drafted with a student and staff usage in mind. It does not appear to have the robust uh, language that the model policy, for example, and again, Mr. Ryon can speak much better on on that uh, assessment. >> Okay, if I may. The I think
053the question uh, Well, let me first say AI is rapidly growing and within the last week our honorable Pope has weighed in on the use of AI. And so we know that it has reached a place where we all have to be mindful and look at AI. I think the question here for the committee is we we we have to we all agree that the current policy does not have all of the things that we would like it to have. And we want to take time with this policy to make sure I check my emails this morning and a survey went out to all teachers and staff about what they would like to see and the challenges of AI and what they would like the district to address. And and when I seen that I
054said well we we really want to make sure that we are inclusive of you know the the the challenges. We want to make sure that we are we hear our educators before we create a robust policy. We want all stakeholders to be and and to some of this we we want to hear from the public so we give them an opportunity to weigh in. I think the question becomes the policy that we have right now does it meet the legal requirement? And I'm not speaking to the point of a policy but the policy that we have right now does it meet the legal requirement of the ORC? >> And again, this is new. This mandate is new. The state didn't provide any guidance. Okay. So that's why we defer to our content expert regarding what's
055in the current versus what has been shared in their discussions with the state. >> Okay. Uh Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you, Chair. So, once again, the requirement in 3301.24 is to have a policy on the use of artificial intelligence by July 1, 2026. Do we have a policy on the use of artificial intelligence or if if today was June 29th, >> Right. >> are we in compliance or what would need to change by July 1, 2026 in order to meet the minimum requirements of having a policy? Do we have a policy, Attorney Sapusek? >> And that is a question for Mr. Runyon. >> I'm I'm going to refer to Mr. Runyon. Um and we had some discussion yesterday. You reached out to a couple of agencies. What was the response? >> Sure. Um so, to
056answer your question, Dr. Molnar, we do have two policies, 7540.03 and 7540.04 that currently reference the AI usage uh for both staff and students. Um so, to answer your question, Reverend Harrison, is it yes. I did reach out to NEOLA and I posed the same question to NEOLA and to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce because it's my understanding ODOE is the body that will be enforcing compliance with ORC 3301.24. Um so, NEOLA did respond back and I did share our existing policies with both both emails. Um and NEOLA indicated that it is fantastic that we have AI policies already in place Um our policies that reference AI but they felt that it did not meet the threshold of O D U's model policy. For example, the model policy references AI literacy for all
057students. It does you know focus on the importance of human centered implementation. It defines AI generative AI AI tools and it does reference digital safety regarding non-consensual intimate imagery NCII and Braden's Law regarding sexual extortion. So there there is just language in the model policy that is not represented in 7540.03 and 7540.04. And so that was really what They they indicated. Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you. So are they saying that if we do not include Braden's Law, is that the piece of it that we are out of compliance because Braden's Law is not in our policy? >> What I can attest to is that they recommended that we either move forward with adopting O D U's model policy or adopting NEOLA's policy 7540.09 which is what our AI workgroup committee has recommended. >> Okay, so
058you didn't give us O D U's response but can you can you give us O D U's >> Unfortunately, O D U did not respond. >> Right. Can you I mean can you tell for the public what O D U stands for? >> Sure. It's the Ohio Department of Education Workforce. >> Okay, so we have not heard back from them for a clarification. >> That's correct. >> So, it would be my recommendation that we get a clarification. We do have a policy that references AI, specifically AI. Um we do not have all of the information to revise a policy. Um I would not want to revise a policy and then revise a policy again. Um we do have a questionnaire out to our staff. Um and um I I think that the policy will we
059would be well served to make sure that we have a robust policy. The question becomes is what we have, and we don't seem to have a definitive answer on that. Is what we have now, does it meet the requirement? And I would think that we should work to get that answer. Um I appreciate NEOLA, but they sent us their their their recommendations. Um but it seems like the law did not give us the the mandate that was in House Bill 96, did not give us clear instructions or understanding of what needs to go in the policy, and I would like to be clear as to what we need in the policy, and also be um uh uh also let the uh the the stakeholders weigh in on this policy. Any questions from >> Yeah, I
060I will just reiterate. I agree that we need to have a robust policy. I agree a lot of those elements should be in our robust policy. I just would like to know what the requirement by July 1 is, or if we can continue to build our policy maybe through August. >> President Sykes >> Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I think the requirement is by July 1 is that we follow the law. So, House Bill 96 will is the law. And that's what uh this board is required to do. So, if we're hearing from our staff that the it does not meet our legislation our policies are not meeting the threshold. So, I'm hearing that you're saying that it is not meeting the threshold of the law, which is House Bill 96.
061>> That is correct. That is what >> you heard from NEOLA. >> Correct. >> And we have not heard anything from the Department of Education, but NEOLA is the For the public, would you explain NEOLA's role? >> Sure. NEOLA represents >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. May I ask a question? >> Uh NEOLA represents over 600 school districts in the state and provides what you could say are draft model policies to help save districts like ours in a tremendous amount of time from having to build policies from scratch. >> So, it Mr. Chair Uh so, it interprets the legislation on behalf of the school districts. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um what's that? >> Thank you, Chair. So, NEOLA said because we don't have because we didn't use their policy that the state law requires
062us to use their policy. >> They are interpreting the baseline threshold for ORC 3301.24 to be OD's model policy. That was their interpretation. Because they're saying you have to adopt OD's model policy or you can adopt your own policy. However, I believe their thought is is that if you adopted your own, it would meet the threshold of OD's model policy. So, I do believe Dr. Molnar, your your thoughts that 03 and 04 are already in place are very rational and realistic. It it is make perfect sense. And as Mr. Sapusek mentioned, we're in uncharted territory where we simply do not know um as to whether or not we will be compliant with 3301.24 with our existing policies. I I'm not sure anyone is able to answer that. Um >> Follow up. >> It's also important
063to note, I apologize, that there has not been any enforcement of this policy yet. Or this law. So, >> I I'll I'll let Dr. Molnar go, but I will say that we never want to come to a place of enforcement. >> [laughter] >> Dr. Molnar. >> So, in 3301.24B, the sentence that says the district or school may adopt the department's model policy, we are interpreting that that the district or school must adopt a minimum threshold developed by the model policy. Not may. >> But I I I believe the word was in in the legislation is shall. And that's what shall means. We must. Yes. >> Dr. Miller. >> It actually in I'm I'm for if you want to put it on the screen, I don't know, but it does say the district or school may
064adopt the department's model policy. It says may. >> That was the second half of that. >> Right. >> The first part was as President Sykes says, district shall adopt a policy and then it gives the district the option. May adopt the model policy. So both of them are in that that sentence. >> Yes. Yes. It does It does It does say the district shall adopt a policy. The district may adopt the model policy. >> Yes. Remember Kelly. >> So this policy will be the first policy that we address Monday. And I would ask that we would all familiarize ourselves with the policy, familiarize ourselves with Neola's recommendation. Mr. Rulon, you have sent us quite a bit of information. And if anyone does not have the information that Mr. Rulon has sent, if anyone does not
065have the Neola recommendations, I would ask that you would familiarize yourself with those and we will convey on this Monday during Monday's policy meeting. This will be the first policy that we address. And it That's understood. Okay. So um What What the purpose of this meeting was to make sure that we understood where we were caught up at. Um and it's again, it's hard to with three members of the committee, with an administrative staff, um and different um policies covering different, it's very hard to Well, I'm going to say it's hard for me to always keep up with the changes, the proposed changes, the recommendations, working drafts. This meeting was called so that we are one or two items away from these policies, and um we want to make sure that we all are understanding
066where we're caught up at, and so that we can move forward. Um so I appreciate the time that we've taken today. Um I think that those three policies um Do we have any other urgent policies? Um I know I had accessibility on here, but we have time on that because that deadline has been extended. So um is there anything else that we need to address in this particular meeting that is pressing, or that we that needs to be brought to our attention from a policy standpoint? I'm seeing um no questions. Um Superintendent Outlaw, we appreciate um you troubleshooting and then coming back to us. Um and um so I will make sure that with the purchasing, Mr. Leonard and Director Folk, that we are um clear. Yes, Attorney I mean Treasurer Bowers, um who is
067always somewhere counting numbers, he's there. We we have our marching orders there. Um Attorney Sapulski, are we okay? And uh Superintendent Outlaw, so I think we have accomplished a lot. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your middle of your day. Um we want to wish all of our children on this day, the last day of school, a happy and a safe summer. Um this is a work of labor, but it's a work of love for our children. So, thank you all, and the time is 12:16. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. >> I motion Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? We're adjourned.