001We good? Good evening. This is the committee meeting of the policy committee Akron public schools policy committee. I am Reverend Harrison, the chair. With me is vice chair Carmela Kelly and member Dr. Renee Molnar. Um we will begin our meeting with the approval of the previous meeting minutes. So moved. Second. We have a motion for approval and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The meeting minutes have been approved. If do we have anyone here for a public comment or discussion? No one here for public comment or discussion. We will go into our discussion topics, I item three on the agenda. Our first item is item three .01 public complaints policy 9130 Do we have an update for 9130? Dr. Chapman. I don't know why she didn't come up. Yes, please. Good evening, chair
002Reverend Harrison and members of the board. We do have an update on public complaints policy 9130. We have been in working mode on all of the comments made in our draft policy and as of today there is a version that we would like for you and committee to consider. These are copies of the updates made as recent as this morning. I apologize for not getting them done sooner. I was out last week due to a family death. So we in reviewing this policy have added some definitions for your consideration. I want to refer with your permission to attorney Sapusek on the last sentence of the section under legal compliance. What page? Complaint. First page, page one. Under definitions, third bullet. Complaints alleging violations of IDEA, section 504, title nine discrimination, harassment, or other statutory requirements
003are handled under the district's specialized grievance or complaint procedures. That was added by attorney Sapusek. Attorney Sapusek. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in addition to obviously this new complaint policy or this updated complaint policy, the district has other avenues for complaints to be examined and this notates the other avenues [snorts] and policies and guidelines that complaints may be filed within the district as well. Okay. So um in in in looking at the policy and understanding that there are other policies in which we can address complaints. The goal would be to be as user-friendly as possible and not to send people to different policies but to have a policy and we can reference other policies, but the language can be consistent in this policy. So when you mention the legal compliance, what policies are you specifically
004referring to in these items to be handled? So again, IDEA and section 504 and then title nine policy, discrimination harassment policies 4362, 3362, and other requirements. If you are thinking you would want some specific references to those. Okay. So because this is a public complaint policy we need to if if we're referring someone to a different policy, then we need to outline that. You know, if we have um a title nine complaint then we need to specifically let people know how to file a title nine. And the goal of a public complaint policy is not to supersede or >> [snorts] >> do away with any other. If if it's best handled with this policy, we need to give them a road map to that policy. So we'll look at this and we'll work on this,
005but um we always need to be mindful that everyone is not navigating policies like we do. We may not be navigating as efficiently as as as we should, but the general public um need to have a we need to create policies where they know exactly where to go. So we'll we'll take a look at that and and any other questions from committee members? Dr. Molnar. Thank you, uh chair Harrison. I I was to elaborate and to agree with everything that member Harrison is saying about this. I'm concerned about the the language, the district specialized grievance or complaint procedures. As from from a parent perspective, someone who does not, you know, for someone doesn't deal with policy very off often, that's very vague and difficult to find or to navigate. Um and so as you were
006speaking, you said, well, those uh specialized grievance and complaint procedures are found in 3362. So I tried to open um the administrative guidelines of 3362 of the formal complaint procedure and it starts with if a complaint is not resolved through the informal complaint process. And so I I find that even more confusing that you have to go to a specialized grievance procedure and then you have to informally specialized grievance and then formally specialized grievance. I think we can make this a lot more user-friendly and clean this up for our families because that's who this is for is our students and our families. Sure, absolutely. Um I just want to acknowledge all of us that are in the room today and just greet everyone. Um I I said this at our last meeting. This this requires
007a lot of work, a lot of thoughtfulness, some research, [snorts] lots of conversation. But our very first meeting with the subcommittee, we all expressed the same um desire to to view this policy while we're drafting it through the lens of a parent or a community member. Um we we have I when I look at the languages, we've slightly lost um we've slightly have drifted away from that a little bit. The the policy itself is so significant not only to us as a committee, but to our district and our families. So I'm as we continue to meet and work through this policy, if we can just keep that in mind. Um The desire that we have for this to be a success for our families when a problem does happen, but the goal is to make
008sure that we don't have to move past level one. That the matter is handled in an appropriate time, efficiently and effectively and that the right people involved feel like the matter is being taken care of to the best of its ability. Um I think if we just continue to work through it and bounce ideas off each other, even if it's referencing other policies, that this policy will be I'm hoping prepared at least the final draft will be taken a look taken we can look at the final draft and figure out what we want to take away what if there's anything else we want to have so that this policy can be completed [snorts] and we can bring it we can bring it forward to the rules committee and take our vote on it so that
009is it is available. Thank you member Kelly. One final thing and I I know that we have been in this document for the last couple of days making um changes and comments and to member Kelly's point I think the policy has gotten a little too technical for our families and so we want to really keep it in a plain language and the one thing I do want to mention is um we will not reference administrative guidelines. If it's in administrative guidelines it should be in the policy. So you know we we will write policies with the ideal that we may or may not have administrative guidelines. And so when we mention there's a way to address complaints if it's in the administrative guidelines it should be in the policy. Member Malone. Thank you. I appreciate
010that comment so much because the reason we have these discussions the reason we work on this throughout the month instead of just while we're sitting here during committee is because we expect you the administration to bring us the information the knowledge the background the details that we don't have as board members. We can write a policy based on what we feel the community needs but what we need from administration is what we are capable of as a district. We need the solutions to how this can be actionable because when I go into the for instance the anti-harassment administrative guidelines so much of this well so much of the policy relies on our anti-harassment complaint coordinators. So much of this relies on that. And when I go into our administrative guidelines it names who our anti-harassment
011complaint coordinators are. It's Kathy McVay and Todd Wallace. That's who our current anti-harassment complaint coordinators are. So I'm sure if what we need in policy is solutions and not um tangents. Thank you. So if we have nothing else for this then we'll continue to work on this throughout the month and along with that the instructional policy committee will take up policy 2240 to make sure that both policies are consistent and but they're not canceling each other out in the language. So along with 9130 the academic side of this will be looked at together. Yes. So that is our public complaints. Thank you Dr. Chapman. We will move to policy item 3.02 policy 7540.02 our digital content and accessibility. And we have Mr. Ruyan. Good evening honorable board members. Once again we're here for a brief
012presentation about an update for our digital content and accessibility policy. As we've discussed we need to revise this policy due to a new civil rights rule which requires all public facing digital content to be WCAG 2.1 level 2A compliant. This rule is very similar to the same rule that why we have to have a wheelchair ramp or an elevator in our in our building here. One major important update is that the deadline to comply was April 24th 2026 and the Department of Justice has issued a delay and the new deadline is April 26th 2027. So we do have another year to be fully WCAG compliant. So in regards to our Akron Public Schools website the communications department has partnered with two vendors full spectrum marketing and final site to help audit and ensure our site
013is WCAG 2.1 compliant. The next phase is to begin auditing the school websites and bringing them up to up to code. And and also you know move forward with correction corrective action once we determine it's needed. We are also working on a plan to provide professional development based on a person's individual role. So new staff will receive a brief training on what digital um accessibility is and and how they need to comply but that will vary by role. Another important update is that BoardDocs the platform where you currently use to host our board meetings is being discontinued at the end of the 26-27 school year. We have been working with diligent community they purchased BoardDocs and we do have the ability to migrate from BoardDocs to diligent community either June 1 or July 1. Um
014ultimately it will take about 90 days for the transition to be completed. The total cost per year is a little over $1,000. And if the board would like to move forward on June 1 it would need to be approved at the May 26th regular board meeting. Thank you Mr. Ruyan. Can you go back that to to the previous slide? So we had initially received a um a cost of compliance for $176,000. That was a different company that specialized in audio descriptions and transcribing live video. So the live stream people are watching now. Um ultimately it it was about $100,000 in equipment that would replace camera systems as well as the encoder and decoder in the back room. Um and it would include you know the the board management system. So you really have two parts.
015You have the management like BoardDocs and then you have the management of the live stream. And so the previous company we reached out to to begin the discussion said it was going to be about $180,000 to to to move forward with that. So this is significantly cheaper. Um diligent community does appear to be the dominant company in in this world. So and I do mean world like they're big all over the entire planet. So So so the $31,447.50 that represents the same services that we were going to potentially get for $180,000. Yes. Okay. So this this cost will will bring us to compliance. That is absolutely my understanding. Well you're the IT guy that that has to be. The the the new I guess diligent community uses a product called BoxCast and BoxCast is what
016manages the live stream during while it's live. Okay. Then we will download that live stream and then upload it to the YouTube channel. Okay. >> And according to both vendors we've spoken with they said it is WCAG compliant. Okay. So I I guess before I I would want to move this to the rules committee we need to make sure that that is going to bring us to compliance. Um for what we need and I know we have a year to come to compliance but we want to be up and running before the deadline. And if you can go back one more slide please. The district website the third-party support does that represent a new contract with the full spectrum or the final is? It does not. It's my understanding they already had a contract in
017place and the communications team was aware that we needed to start to make changes. So, it was a part of a contract that was approved for the FY25 fiscal year. Okay. Thank you. Any other committee members? Dr. Molnar. Thank you, Chair. Um two questions. One, um I noticed at the bottom of goodness, 1 2 3 4 page five. There aren't page numbers on it, sorry. Page five, it says, "This policy and responsibilities associated with the specified staff members' roles related to implementation of this policy and ensuring the digitals digital content is appropriate and accessible." Um is the plan to actually have the associated staff member roles listed in the administrative guidelines, or um please help me understand this sentence. Yes. So, ultimately, the policy states that the director of technology services, as well as the
018district 504 and IEP coordinator, will help champion the policy. The policy impacts so much of our work that we are going to have to have a team of people support it district-wide. Um So, is is the team of people listed going to be listed in the policy? I don't see. It's a lot in here. We can certainly do so. Um right now, I have worked with um a staff member from the office of special education, Mrs. Rylinda Nott, and um she is the district support person on that side, and then myself. Yeah, I've just curious who is who is responsible for executing the policy? And then the last question I have, there's something in here about audits. Um and you mentioned here that you're doing audits. >> Correct. Um so, I didn't know um will
019we need um additional software besides the diligent board docs for what we are doing here? Will we need to purchase additional software to do audits? Um or how will we measure or identify uh accessible curriculum in Google Classroom, for instance? So, there is a high probability we will need third-party support. Um there are many companies that are reaching out to us who are wanting to get into this line of work, and it will require auditing as much public-facing content as possible. Um so, what most districts are doing for Google Classrooms, because we have thousands and thousands and thousands, they're doing sample sizes and pulling, you know, which what what is the average content that needs to be corrected? So, for example, is it PDFs? Um is it videos? And then we will kind of, you
020know, extrapolate from that sample. And that And that extrapolation will help determine what professional development needs to be held. And as the policy indicates, we will be doing regular audits of the public-facing content. So, if our sample is compliant, then we are compliant? I I guess I would leave that up to our legal counsel. Um it's complicated to audit the volume of Google Classrooms we support. I I am unaware, and I have looked into it, of any system that will do that. Now, I do know, though, that this is it's so new, but there are a lot of companies getting involved in this. And so, I'm hoping we can seek support. So So so um and this is you may have the answer or or or not. The And I would think that there is
021a good faith um there's some grace that that we are monitoring, we are auditing. We may not get it 100%, but if we have necessary steps in place, and and and maybe that the issue is to audit the steps to make sure that we have the necessary steps in place, but if if you can speak to that. Uh Mr. Chair, I can do more research on the guidelines as as they continue to finalize and develop, uh but uh that's generally I agree with your assessment. There's usually a a little bit of grace and leeway uh as far as 100% compliance, uh but we will drill down on the language regarding the sample size uh that Mr. Runyan mentioned, and and get back to the committee. So So, Mr. Runyan, do you have an ask today?
022What What is your ask today, if you have one? The ask would be as to whether or not the board would like to move forward with the board docs migration, and if so, would you prefer if that occur on June 1 or July 1? Yeah. I'm going to um actually say that that if we're not dealing with the policy, if we're doing dealing with the contractual part of this, that probably would be better served in a legal contract. And since we have time, um I I will refer that to um contracts. And if you can um I'll talk with the chair, but if you can get the information over to the legal contracts. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We will move to um item 3.03, purchasing and bidding. This is a um policy
023that we brought back. Um we did not send this to the rules committee. It was a done policy, but at the last meeting, there were some questions asked to the changes that were made to the policy. And I'm not sure that we've had discussions on it. We have reached out and gotten some additional recommendations on this policy. Um and I'm not sure if you were prepared to speak on it or not. You are? Okay. Um Director Foote. Good afternoon, Chair Harrison, uh Dr. Molnar, and Ms. Kelly, along with Superintendent and legal counsel. We have uh since we met last time, uh I was working with Dr. Molnar. We have taken some of those comments to the finance uh committee. Um not the committee itself, but to our treasurer. And as we went through it, we
024felt that this also needed to be reviewed on the finance side of the house. So, I understand there is some uh questions that would come up regarding the then and now certificate that we feel should be done. The only ask is that we be allowed to move that to working with Mr. Bowers and the finance committee to go through the comments. Okay, thank you. Um I I I I have a couple of questions, and and I'm not sure that you're the right person, because I'm on the finance committee, and I did not know that we had questions that consider that concern this policy in finance. So, I would ask that um we will review this policy again next month, and I would ask that any questions or concerns be directed to the policy committee. Mhm.
025Um and again, with the reminder that the policy um that are that lives in the policy committee, the communication should be with the policy committee. Absolutely. Thank you, Director Foote. So, we'll bring this back um next month. Um item 3.04, um this is a policy that was voted out of committee, um went to the rules committee, and it was uh remanded back to the policy committee, because there were some questions. Um and so, um 3.04, administrative leave policy. Um I will allow Attorney Sapuppo to um update us on the questions, the concerns of this policy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, at the committee's request, uh this policy has been uh separated into three distinct policies. Mhm. So, you have uh projected number 1139, uh for administrative leave policy regarding the superintendent and the treasurer.
026Mhm. And then you have 3139, which is the administrative leave policy, and the scope is in section two. Uh there is a list there of who that policy applies to, teachers, counselors, administrators, licensed specialists, temporary staff, and at-will contract employees. Uh and then the third policy in the set is number 4139. And the scope again is in section two, and this is secretaries, parapros, custodians, transportation staff, food service staff, at-will employees, and temporary staff. So, those are the the three separate policies now uh that are uh before the committee. Policy 1139. Uh again, this is a policy that was presented by the committee to the administration. So, I'm not sure who drafted the original Mhm. uh policy on behalf of the committee or the board, but there will probably be a couple of questions for
027the for that individual or the committee as we as we touch on these. Okay, thank you. The The policy was introduced as a policy by the committee, so it was drafted by the committee. Okay. Okay. And so, as we move forward, I specifically want to address the concerns that were brought up at the rules committee, uh but I also want to say that this policy was voted out of this committee. And if there are some concerns of on any policy, then we should address those concerns before the policy is voted out of the committee. And um I I I just want to make sure that we are utilizing the committees to the best of our abilities. So, we should not send anything to the rules committee unless we have adequately addressed all concerns with the
028policies before we voted out of committee. So, if we can just address the concerns with the policy, Mhm. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, as you know, the uh board has uh two direct employees, Mhm. the treasurer and the superintendent. Mhm. Uh and again, 1139 applies to those two individuals as direct [clears throat] reports to the board of education. Uh so, as you can see, uh when it was shared, there are no uh adjustments uh on on the issue that we were talking about on the other two. Um there was a language uh on page one, section three for 1139, um regarding the addition of language uh clarifying that administrative leave does not constitute a determination regarding misconduct or anyone's employment status. It's non-disciplinary. So, that language was included. Uh then at the bottom of
029page one, section five, uh s- there was just a phrase mandatory reporting, so we added clarity to that reference to mandatory reporting. So, it's situations involving mandatory reporting uh obligations under applicable law. And that could be uh criminal activity that's required to be reported, uh child endangerment, different uh requirements that can be reported. And then for this one, the page three, it's section nine, the last bullet point. So, if someone is on leave, they'll not have access to district property, systems, records without approval, except as necessary to exercise any legal or contractual rights that they may have. Uh and again, that could be being required to sign something as a part of their their role uh and to continue the operations of the district. And those were the uh suggested edits to the 1139. And
030then section 16 for all three, if we go to the very last page, the very last section, um that is a a draft reference, and the recommendation is that that section be deleted before final adoption, uh unless the committee has any, you know, particular thoughts on that section or they want to modify that. I'm sorry, can you can you explain that again? Yeah, section 16, policy review board action. >> Mhm. This policy is presented as a draft for discussion. Uh the recommendation would be to delete Mhm. uh before final approval. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so as I review the edits that you are are suggesting, and um I don't see any major structural um changes to what you have proposed, but that was not what was presented um that that was not the actual what was
031presented at the rules committee. So, yeah, we're moving on to 3139. Mhm. And so, we have similar language changes that were just reviewed in 1139 on page one, section three. That is the same. And then we get into uh section four, which page two, C, section four C, and you'll note uh it's noted conflicting provision with section seven, which we will work our way to. Um section five, you see same language uh in the final bullet point around mandatory reporting, expanding that. And then we get to section seven D. So, now we can can go back and talk through. Section four C is a board oversight section, and section seven D is also a board oversight section. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> And so, uh the question is uh you know, what direction the the
032policy committee may want to go because the language in section four C is a more standard governance reporting format, specifically. And then the section seven D is actual uh board action oversight. Okay, and um and I'll allow the committee members to weigh in on this, but we we um you you did send that to us on April 6th. And um along with the other changes, we we decided to keep this as is because I uh I could not see where they they conflicted. Um they say two distinct things for two distinct purposes, but I'll open up to the committee members, but I just want to be noted as saying we did discuss this. We did discuss the recommendations that you had presented at the time. We accepted one of the recommendations, and this is one
033that we had discussed and we did not accept. So, um I'll open up to the other committee members. Thank you, Chair. I also believed that I do see that, you know, both sections say board oversight, but I thought um you know, in in one section, the superintendent has the authority to place someone on leave and keep the board informed, and then the duration is keeping the person on leave to be informed. Um what I don't remember receiving is the recommendation for a potential solution. So, we could see how that is is different. So, for instance, on on this one, what you gave us today is the solution, which we, you know, for some of them, for instance, on this one, mandatory reporting was changed to situations involving mandatory reporting obligations under applicable law. Okay. Um
034so, did did we have a potential solution here? The The solution had been previously shared with the committee. I received the copy of the clean copy of this policy on the same day as our last committee meeting. Uh so, as soon as I received that, I turned it around that afternoon and shared um recommendations with the chair. Uh and Mr. Chair, I believe you would receive that and indicated, as you said earlier, that you had discussed that with the committee. Um so, uh like I said, the question is for the committee who prepared the policy, uh just confirming the intention behind the two different sections that are labeled board oversight. And I wondered if there's anything that you wanted to elaborate on uh that would uh harmonize those or align align those uh with how
035you want to see those function. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, to to clarify, on this policy, there was solutions. On this policy, you just have clarifications, you're not bringing any potential solutions this afternoon? I have already sent those to the committee, uh which I think you've looked at uh in our discussions. So, again, I don't know what the intention of the committee is. I can't put myself in the shoes of the committee to to kind of harmonize what what you want to accomplish, but certainly open for discussion on that to get a good understanding. And so, again, my understanding is 4C is a reporting for the superintendent. Is that Is that correct? Am I correct in my understanding? Yes. Okay. And then, 7D has a board action point in in 7D, any leave beyond the
036next regularly scheduled board meeting shall require board approval. And that's where I was unclear as to what the how the board how the board sees that. >> Okay. And And so, this this really reads beyond 30 days. Okay. And so, that looks at the investigation of the policy. When we're looking at what is the prescribed investigation time by policy. Okay. And that's 30 days. Okay. So, if we go beyond 30 days, if we go beyond an investigative timeline, then it needs to come back to the board. But I will ask the superintendent on this policy if we can set a meeting and that we can uh sit down and and really work through this because I I think it's it's difficult to work through this now with the changes that are different um than what
037we presented to the rules. And I think that this is worth getting right. Um but the intent is to codify administrative leave to make it where we know who's on leave, when they're on leave, how long they're on leave. If they're on leave too long, then we know why they're on leave too long. So, the the purpose is not to undermine or to um do overreaching, but we just want to make that administrative leave is consistent among all of the bargaining units, among all of our employees. So, that's the intent. Yes, no, I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chair. >> And so, I I would ask the superintendent if you can set a meeting, uh myself and um Vice Chair Carmela Kelly will attend the meeting, and if we can get that meeting scheduled in
038the next 7 days. Yes, I will, Chair. Dr. Monar. Thank you. And when I this comes back to committee, one more thing I do want to bring up is the policy numbers seem to have changed, and I don't know when um the decision was made or the rationale for the change in policy numbers. I do know that the original policy numbers were um to be right after uh section uh 20 in in each one. So, under 20, it would have been under employment. Uh having it under 39 has it directly under suspension during pending criminal actions. And so, while administrative leave is meant to be and we put forth great effort that it does not imply misconduct or disciplinary intent, nor does it constitute a finding of misconduct or determination regarding employment status, um I
039didn't know if at this junction or when it was brought back the rationale for moving it closer to suspension than employment. Um if we could find out who decided to to do that and why because I don't believe it was a committee decision. We were asked uh to explore assigning policy numbers. So, these are the proposed policy numbers. And also, I believe the one that the committee had proposed in the 1,000 section, there wasn't a section that aligned with that proposed number, original number. So, we're happy to Well, we didn't assign any number. I thought it was with the understanding we This was a new policy. And so, we wanted to have the policy consistent in numbers where it would follow an administrative section. So, the committee actually left the numbering up to where it
040would best fit in with our policy manual. So, we we just want to make sure that we're consistent in the policy manual with this policy. Sure. And in the numbers. Okay. Do we have anything else on that particular policy? So, we will bring that policy back in front of the the policy committee for the June meeting. Um and um So, um our next policy Under old business, we have um four policies. Um and again, those those policies are in um in line. Um I will ask Mr. Runyan about the artificial intelligence policy. If you can just give us a quick update. >> [laughter] >> I do have a slide. Oh, okay. Um good evening. Um this is an exciting new policy. Uh so, 7540.09 artificial intelligence. Um the state of Ohio is the first state
041in the nation to require all school districts to adopt an AI policy by June 30th, 2026. Um this new policy outlines our district's approach for integrating AI into education and operations. It focuses on being people-centered where technology enhances our productivity rather than replacing human decision-making. Uh the policy does mandate AI literacy by integrating AI into relevant curriculum. Um the policy creates guardrails, not gates. Um all AI-driven decisions require human review. For example, thank you. Um if a staff member uses AI to generate a lesson, they must review and verify the accuracy before using it. Um acceptable use will vary depending on the context. A teacher may allow AI for brainstorming or receiving feedback, but prohibit it for the final writing of an essay. Uh the policy also requires um the creation of an AI work
042group, which will include a diverse group of stakeholders. Uh the AI work group will establish a formal vetting process for AI tools that will be district supported. Um and this is my colleague Mrs. Karen Steppic, who is the digital content supervisor for Akron Public Schools. Good evening. Thank you. Um so, um this policy also reaffirms our commitments to data privacy and security. Um and to protecting superbs protecting student information. It does comply with all federal and state laws. Um it will only support the use of closed AI tools. Let add some context to what a closed AI tool is is that is an AI tool that does not share out that information back outside of Akron Public Schools. So, for example, your retail AI chatbots are not closed. They are open because they share that
043information to marketers, to their own training databases. So, we are only going to be using closed AI systems. So, all that information will stay within the realm of Akron Public Schools. We're also committing committing to public transparency via an AI tool inventory that will be available to internal and external, so the staff and community and students. And we're also um this also this policy also mandates staff professional development. It's also a commitment to academic integrity. Students may only use AI for academic purposes with their teacher approval. The use of AI must be properly cited. And we don't want students to use AI to undermine their authentic learning. And it also will not be a substitute for student effort. As I'm sure you've seen the debates in the news, we don't want to shortcut learning because
044there is a process, there is that struggle that you have to go through to really learn something. And if AI just produces the answer for you, well, just because you know the answer doesn't mean that you actually learned something. With that. So, in terms of our roadmap, once the policy is adopted, we will be expanding the AI work group. We will be evaluating a variety of AI tools and ensuring the data security. Once again, always focusing on professional learning learning and AI literacy and integrating it into the classroom to support learning standards. And we will always focus on stakeholder engagement and constantly reviewing this policy because AI is such an ever-changing technology. So, what is the timeline for this policy? The policy must be adopted by the Board of Education by June 30, 2026. So,
045in conjunction working with Mr. Sapusik, we're hoping that we could have a first reading at the next policy committee and then to rules and then the regular board meeting, the last one in June. I believe it's the 22nd of June. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I remember a discussion of this in our April committee meeting and what I asked for in April was an explanation of what compliance would be with the requirements of House Bill 96. So, that way what the committee could do when we review this policy or our existing policy, we could determine what would put us into compliance or put us into non-compliance because good policies do take time and while there are elements we might need to add, it's important for us to know the boundaries of what where our compliance lies
046since this starts with the state. So, if someone could please share with the board what those are. That's going to be for the the tech experts and then we will review and then I believe Mr. Yururion had sent an initial reference to the committee regarding the different existing policies and supporting the need for a standalone AI policy. So, we will get that to the committee once we review the technical aspects and then merge that with the legal analysis shortly. Mhm. Okay, go ahead. Yes, my understanding from that is there's a difference between need and want. Right? What do we need to do by July 1 and what do we want to do eventually? And that's what I mean by compliance and that's driven by House Bill 96, I believe. Thank you. And I just want
047to add when when we're looking at these policies and this is for any anyone that's dealing with a policy. We we have one policy meeting a month. And it gets voted out of the policy meeting to the rules committee. So, in June we have the policy meeting. If your policy is ready to go, then we vote it out. We vote it to the rules committee. So, if you are on a timeline, it behooves you to get it through the rules I mean, get it through the policy committee as early as you can because we don't determine when it goes on the regular agenda. And so, if we have to have this done by June 29th, you haven't left yourself a lot of time. So, I would ask that we not hold policies or just kind
048of make sure if if they have a timeline, if you can just say, "Hey, you know, Chair Harrison, we got a timeline on this and when you bring it to us, we would like to get this through and then we can prioritize it to make sure that we're not running up against time constraints. Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Um Oh, one more thing. Um uh Member Kelly. Thank you both for the presentation. You know, this AI is just it's a hot topic and people want to know what we're how are we implementing it, what are we, you know, okay with using, how far we're willing to use it. Also, there's questions about what classrooms will it be used in and how often. I have a question Well, I do want to confirm that you
049you're right, that last board meeting is June 22nd. And we said that the deadline for this is June 30. Is it June 29th or June 30th? It would be the last day in June. Okay. Um I want to go back to your presentation. You said there would there would likely be trainings that's required. Is that something we would administer or is that a third an outsource, a third party? How what what does that look like? We typically leverage a train-the-trainer model. So, we have a select group of core staff that attend the training and then roll that training out district-wide. So, that right now is the mission is we would do a train-the-trainer. Um Will we have Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you so much. Um if we have nothing else, I
050just want to check with Attorney Sapusik. We have two We have two policies that's at the rules committee. We have the public records policy, policy 8310, and we have a federal procurement policy. I just want to make sure that there was no questions on those policies. No, sir. Okay, thank you. Do we have anything else for the committee? I will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded for adjournment. The time is 6:30 and we stand adjourned. >> Hey.