001Good evening everyone and welcome to uh legal contracts and policies board meeting for Akran public schools this evening on Monday May 19th 2025. Um first order of business is the minutes from last meeting. Do we have any questions, comments, concerns for the meetings of last last meeting? No questions, no comments. No questions, no comments. Okay, we'll move on. Next, we have public participation. Is anyone in the audience who wish to participate uh today? Anyone in the audience willing to wishing to participate today? We have none. So, we will move on to our our number order number three is a discussion on topics of the uh parents bill of rights. Uh, Miss Carter. So, we had this up for discussion at the last meeting. Today, we're having it on here as a first read. And so,
002Dr. Oh, go ahead. Haley. Oh, sorry, Miss Carter. So, um I just wanted to um point out the diff the uh change that was made. Um on the second page um you'll see the language that's crossed out. Something that came up in our last meeting the last time this was discussed um was this andor contracted services portion. Um how would the district monitor this? Are we really required to do this by law? The answer is no. So why included that in the first place? Um I'm I'm not sure. Maybe as a as a catchall, but the district isn't required to monitor what its contracted services are per that statute. So, uh, we went ahead and took that out. Okay, good. Okay, thank you, Haley. Next is electronic equipment. Oh, wait a minute. I'm back. Back
003up. Any questions? I'm sorry. Questions for on this policy parent bill of rights. I'm sorry. That's my fault. Dr. Molar. Thank you. Uh, Miss Mr. Chair Alexander. Sorry for a second from this angle of the new table. I thought it was still my name in there. is like we don't have this um in this section with contracted services exactly where you were on this page. I know that um when this was first brought to this committee, we talked about um the relationship between um another policy that I actually did not write down. Um but there is another policy that deals with um student um bullying and harassment and things like that and we decided not to reference it but in that policy it talks about an investigation and so I wonder if in here instead
004of like andor contracted services if there is an investigation that the student is involved in that the parents would be notified that is my uh first comment actually my first comment also the board and or school personnel. And if it feels like that's a lot, can we does it matter that it's the board and or school personnel or can we just say the parents will be notified? Because we aren't clarifying here who is notifying them anyway. And if you read the rest of the policy, it just says that they'll be notified by the school. It's, you know, down school students building administration. So I don't I I'm curious about that. That's my second. And then the third I would appreciate here um as we mentioned before also to have a real time frame in here.
005They will be notified but when will they be notified? Okay. Go ahead. Thank you Mr. Alexander. Um so Dr. Molner. Um we um yes. So with regard to your second point that's definitely a change I can make and that'll make the language a little bit cleaner. Um with regard to um the point about timelines, this is something that we discussed with um Dr. Lash um and she suggested maybe putting this in an administrative guideline. Um and I don't know Dr. Lash if you um wanted to speak to anything further with regard to why we would put um something like a a timeline for an investigation in an AG as opposed to um in the policy itself. Um, but I think that the intention is to um give the the district the opportunity to figure out
006how exactly this is going to play out. Um, Nola should be giving us an administrative guideline with regard to like forms and procedures with regard to how the parents bill of rights should actually be implemented. We haven't received that quite yet. Um, but I think that that's something we can continue to explore. Dr. Lash, do you have anything to add? Um, not necessarily. Attorney uh Kepchar, good evening. um everyone uh it does if if I'm not mistaken um use the word promptly and in the um policy Dr. Monar that you referred to it for the investigative part that um relates specifically to alleged reports of bullying. It does use the the word promptly, but I agree. Yes, administrative guidelines which governs how we carry out the policy um would would be a great place to
007include that time frame. I might have follow ahead. I just wanted to address that administrative guideline and and push back on the use of administrative guidelines when we have a definite time for something. Administrative guidelines is how we internally will do something, right? The policy is for people to know how we should do something. And so promptly, you know, if I'm a parent and nothing's going on, I would think promptly would mean as soon as I can. But if I'm a parent and something is going on, I want to know when I should have been notified. And so the use of administrative guidelines, while it is good for internal standard operating procedures across the district, um I think when we're doing policies and we're trying to inform parents on what should and should not happen
008and and I'm for for the other members, what I'm thinking in my mind is some of these executive sessions we are having things were have been unclear and the administrative guidelines may not have made it clear. A policy makes it clear. And so if we're doing something with a definite time, I I I would really like to see that in the policy because that doesn't change and it takes a change of the policy, not the guideline. Anyone else? Dr. Molar. Thank you. Uh member Alexander. Yes. to uh follow up on what uh member Harrison said, promptly, your version of promptly and my version of promptly might not be the same thing. Um, and but I also understand that sometimes you don't know when something is going to end or how long something's going to take,
009but also as a parent to not know that something is happening and that an investigation is occurring and that your your child, your student is involved in investigation and you have no idea until it's over, that also could have um consequences. So I would like to offer some language ideas that I think might be a compromise. Um so we can say that the students parent or guard guardian will be notified within 24 to 48 hours whatever that timeline is of of the notification of it starting and then just to let them know something has started something has begun. The school is aware. we want you to be aware that we are aware and and we're doing something right. And then the the follow-up language would be upon completion of the investigation or review, the school
010will provide the parent or guardian with a written summary of the findings and any resolution or any actions taken. So that way it's two parts. So we'll, you know, we might not know everything that's happened right away. We'll let you know what we know and then follow up with you. Okay. Any any other questions on that? I I do have a comment if we if we don't. Um I like the idea Dr. Molnar kind of putting that in there, but I don't want to box us in either. So with the say 24 hours, we may not be able to get it done with 24 hours. So we probably need to say if we're going to give a time frame, make it long enough that if maybe because it h may have happened on a Friday
011and then we can some starting to work on a Monday that we give enough time for uh staff to be able to do that that work. Okay. Um so maybe maybe we could maybe put something there like that. I mean Dr. Molar had a good idea. I think I like the second part of her piece but the first part I think we need to make sure we have enough time so that we can get the work done. Okay. and make sure the parents notified be notified. Noted. I'm sorry. Any other questions on that? No more questions. Okay. All right. Thank you. Next is electronic equipment. And I'll let uh attorney Keepar, she did make the noted change in this and I'll let her talk about that. Thank you, Miss Carter. So um per uh some
012of our discussions with regard to referencing a policy within a policy um we went ahead and dropped a footnote at the end of the first paragraph which explains the exception that we're referencing. So, um, that's that's the bold, um, footnote that you'll see at the bottom there, which states, "Students are prohibited from using personal communication devices or other electronic equipment during the school day, including while off campus on a field trip, except as authorized by a teacher, administrator, or IEP team." Okay. Any questions on this uh, policy or anything that attorney just mentioned to us? No questions. Okay, let's continue. Okay, so then we would be ready to move that to um this a second read. I'll have Mrs. Folk come up for purchasing and bidding. I'm sorry. Hold on. You got another question. Pastor
013Yeah, you got to slow down so we can get the Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah. So, so when we're talking about the first and second reading, are we moving this to the agenda for first and second reading? Well, actually one of the a reading could be now this will be a reading. Okay. And we go to board meeting next. That could be another meeting reading and then we can go to following board meeting could be another reading. It it could be three readings, you know, within a committee meeting or within a regular board meeting. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Continue on. All right. Miss Folk. Afternoon to chairman Alexander, co-chairs and members of the board. Um, at this time this is an update from Niola regarding purchasing and bidding. It's not called p just purchasing
014anymore. So please, as we go down, the big change in this policy, if you will go down to competitive bidding is the area in green that now says the amount to be determined and published by the Ohio Director of Commerce. This is a note to enlarge or improve. And this went into effect in October of 2024 under a state statute that is now instead of $50,000, it has been raised to $75,000. And this allows an automatic increase of 3% each year thereafter. So this would allow us to when we are building, repairing, enlarging, improving or demolishing, demolishing, demolishing a school building, the cost would be allowed to if it was under the 75,000. It does not have to be competitively bid. Once you hit the 75,000, it is to be competitively bid and automatically then
015increases 3% each year afterwards. So the next time it would go out for the next time period that 3% might be say $76,000 or $77,000. And that is the state statute update. Any questions? Yeah, Pastor Harrison. So So the state statute, yeah, I'm aware that went up in 2024, but we have a board policy, correct? Yes. Your board policy currently says 50,000, but it is always uh relevant to be in line with the state because many of the state contracts and other things are bidded by state cooperative groups and they will follow the competitive bidding statute is under the revised code. I thought the I thought the district had a threshold. It currently, as you can see, it's crossed out there at uh 50,000. That was the states I would say. I thought the that
016we the state and the district matched at the time period. Now the state has changed theirs. You still have the requirement at the top of this particular item. You will solicit at least three bids when it's more than $10,000 and anything being approved by the board at $25,000 or more need your approval. This is just a change to the competitive bid statute. Any other questions? Dr. Monar, thank you. I don't um own a company. So, can you please help me to understand the difference between the $10,000 threshold as we have it currently and the $50,000 threshold as we have it currently? Because it looks like at $10,000 we still need to do three bids but it's not a competitive bid. You can actually go out for a two-week bid to ask or call three companies
017that would be allowed to give you that kind of service or equipment and get them to give you a quote. It doesn't require the competitive bid statute. And follow up if I may. So then at $50,000, which is our competitive bid currently, um even though the state moved theirs up to 75, would we be penalized if we stayed at 50 even though the state allowed up to 75, but we continued to have competitive bids? I would let that go to legal. So I think um Dr. Dr. Mullen, if I understand your question correctly, you're you're asking if if we were to keep the bidding threshold at $50,000, we'd be penalized. I off the top of my head, I can't answer that question, but I don't think that there would be any penalty for leaving it
018at $50,000, but I think that the district um administration um it sounds like it would be helpful to follow the state statute of the 75,000. But to answer your question, no, I don't believe off the top of my head that we would be penalized, but we would we would have to look into that and I I don't think we would find anything that we would. Anything else? Follow Okay, Dr. Re, I think that's an example of where the administrative guidelines come in. So, when we're looking at the administrative guidelines, and that's what I was looking for, the 10,000 that that we the threshold that we have, but whatever we set the con the the competitive bidding threshold as as member Molar stated, I think that's where our con our administrative that's where the administrative guidelines
019become useful um in establishing our own district, the way we do business. Um, so I just wanted to use that for an example as opposed to the policy administrative guidelines. That's where the administrative guidelines come in. I can advise, um, if you go back to the top, um, the original $10,000 listed here in paragraph 1 originally was $3,000. This is a number of years ago. The board revised it at a time to $6,000. The last time it was revised was at 10. So that was, you know, keeping up with the economy. The $25,000 for board approval has been an established uh period for a long time and we have always as uh alluded to here under competitive bidding we've tried to keep it in line with the state's uh requirements. So that's why when we
020saw this come out from Neiola. The other thing that's very important to this is that automatic increase by 3% each year because that allows a movement in the market. So therefore, if we could go, as an example, to 75,000 and put it out for bid, but the next time we want to do something, it the 3% now becomes 77,000, then we could still do your three quotes, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a competitive bid. And this is only 6320. This does not get you into the other one yet, which is the next one you get to see, which is the federal statutes, and they're different than this is. Thank you. Any other questions? Dr. Mulla. Thank you. Um, so can you help me to understand or or anyone who's watching to understand if
021since it sounds like this would benefit the administration to raise the threshold in which um so right now if someone's $55,000 we would need a competitive bid. If we pass this policy $55,000 we would not need a competitive bid. Can you help us to understand how that would help the district? All right. So, therefore, a competitive bid has some statutes to it as to how long it has to be out. It's a minimum of 30 days. When you are looking for three quotes or three responses to what you need, they can come in within a couple of days, a couple of, you know, weeks in order. And sometimes you, and you have seen this in the past, we've had to do urgent necessity replacements. Just think of a boiler. And therefore when we had to
022do that we had to write it in such a way to actually eliminate the process of competitive bidding under another statute. So if the boiler is was previously $60,000 we would have had to competitively bid it under an urgent necessity. In this case, going to 75,000, we can get the appropriate quotes, the appropriate installation, and get it done in a timely manner for the board's approval without having to do the urgent necessity statute. Any other questions? Okay. So, doc, uh, Miss Folk, so uh, this is basically so that if if like you're saying if we had something was an emergency that you would not have to use the three bids. you can go out, get it done, and then we would still look for three quotes. We wouldn't have to do a 30-day minimum bids
023time statute, right? Because if you need something right away and you got to wait, then you can't get it until you go through the process. Right. Okay. I just want to make sure so it was clear to everybody, including myself. Okay. Any other questions on that? Okay. Next, I'm sorry before we can we make sure that to check too to make sure we don't get in any trouble if we were go below that with uh with what stay at 50 with the 75 meaning getting trouble with what with the uh was it not Neiola but with the state uh who was that the OC the OC? Yeah, OC I'm sorry. I think Haley answered that question. Yes, but I I can I can look into this and make sure that the statute doesn't say anything
024like that. I don't anticipate it will, but yes, we'll make sure. Yeah. I just want to make sure it'll be clear to everybody here and even the people out there who are listening, it'll be clear. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Not sure. All right. Next um is vendor relations and we did have our discussion regarding adding in a line here as it relates to if a vendor has a complaint as well as the ICO and service provider policy as well. And uh we've started actually looking at the checklist on providing a way for people to submit their complaints. And so that is currently in draft form and we just sent that to legal for them to look over as well because again we want to make sure that the process that
025we have in place that it is uh we want to make sure we're not treating contractors as employees. And so we are having legal look that over as relates to what we've come up with. And so we would need to decide where in the v vendor relations con uh policy we want to add that line. And then also when we're looking at the ICO one as well. We need to decide I have an idea of where we could put it for the ICO one. And then we can discuss where we would put that as relates to submitting a complaint in the vendor relations one. We did discuss the changes in here unless there was anything different added to this. Any questions? Reverend Harrison. Yeah, I think um thank you um Mr. Chair. I I think
026it was more than a line to be inserted. I I think what you know I I had asked to to kind of see a u clear um path to for benders to resolve any type of dispute. So uh more so than a line but a guide for them to follow before we are again here at a meeting trying to determine the merits of was something fair or not. If the vendors have a prescribed procedure that they can follow, um then I think that that would serve the district and and the vendors, all vendors. Okay. So then once we get that feedback back, then we'll insert the process into here and then we can play with that once we insert those uh that information. Anyone have any other questions? Madam chair. Yes. Just very quickly. So
027I know I talked about this regarding teachers intellectual property for this first paragraph. And I think the part where I still have I'm concerned about were not created during their employment because I believe that teachers can um should still be able to have ownership of their intellectual property. I think the wording that I was going for in the last time is that it was not under the hours cuz I did look into it as far as how you can't get paid for work that you create while you're on the clock. And so the question was as uh Miss Faulk explained that this was fun or maybe it wasn't Faulk, someone explained that these are funds received from their a grant. They're able to get the materials and then they execute whatever during their work hours.
028And so what I would like to posit is um as a educator for 20 years, there are times where there are certain things you can do outside of your contractual hours. the same way um we have these supplemental contracts where a teacher can be a coach or something outside of their direct instructional hours. So, I'm just wondering just very quickly that wording. I don't if we can reward not that they're employed but for the district but during their contractual hours. Yes, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, um so this is something that we uh we touched on um briefly in our discussions with administration. Um and in general materials that are created by employees within the scope of their employment are considered works for hire. There is a way I think that we might be able to
029carve something out here. Um with the caveat that this is a pretty complicated legal question. Um so it would we would need to um have another attorney perform um like an intellectual property analysis. um it's they have a completely different uh like we we have certain intellectual property attorneys and they have a different bar exam and everything. So that's something that might take a little bit more time for us to get fully fleshed out. But what we could do is maybe um add a footnote that um perhaps like if a if a teacher had um a specific inquiry that they that they could bring to us and then that way we could look at it as a case by case um analysis. Would that be something that might make sense here? I Yeah, I'm in
030complete agreement that as long as the teach as long as the individual could have some say so and they're not boxed into because they work here, they've developed this over their summertime hours or weekend, you know what I mean? I just didn't want it to be where they were boxed into that they cannot have ownership of what they intellectually created spent hours and in a very innovative on their own outside of their contractual hours. So I think if they're able to ask the question in this way before they enter into it or you know inquire that will protect them in some way. I'm just worried about the protection of the teachers intellectual property that's outside of the domain of their higher job without costing the district right now more money for billable hours. I don't
031that's what I I don't want to get us into that. Okay. Yes. Reverend Harrison, I'm just wondering if it would be um instead of doing case by case if if we could maybe possibly look at having a shared users agreement um and then the teacher administrator, you know, I know I'm going to create this and so I go and say, hey, I'm going to create this. Can we just agree upfront that this is a shared users? you know, I retain um the ability to present it at conferences or as well as the district retain. Would that be beneficial maybe to have something upfront so that we don't have to look at every situation like an agreed? Does that make sense, Madam President? I hear you. I'm not in agreement with it though because if it's
032the teachers proprietary information, right? I'm talking about they want because you have some excellent teachers going to go far beyond the what the grant provides or what they do and like some really good instructional whatever it is right that they create. The reason I have an issue with the shared use because now the teacher doesn't have um the district possibly can still capitalize off of that intellectual property and the teacher does not have the control when we're looking at how was being rolled out aan like if with having a platform that they have if they do their own PDS with it from other teachers. Um, so that's my only thing and not to belabor the point. I'm going to uh yield my time and then I that's the only issue that I have. If it's
033a way for the because all teachers may not have the same what I have, but then there are teachers that's just like me that know what they put in and know it's their b their brainchild and so they want to own the ownership of it to some degree what they bring to it. So yeah. So that so so that's I I guess in in that same would would it not be beneficial to have something in place where if it if it's not proprietary or if the teacher wanted this I'm creating this and so we just in in advance have an agreement I I guess I'm looking at not doing every single case but maybe I come to you in the beginning and say hey I'm about to create this I want to retain any ownership
034of this. Um, do you agree? And the district says yes or no. You answer that. Go ahead. Sure. I can't I cannot answer that question. Um, at this time I I'm not sure if um that would be something that would be would be permissible off the top of my head. I'm not an expert in intellectual property by any means, but um if if the committees agrees that that's something that we should look into doing, then it certainly is something superintendent's call. I think I think that's a superintendent's call. If if if you know you if you want to grant someone their stuff, I I mean I think you know I'm not talking about legally because you know I mean motile they gonna give you your stuff or they not. I mean, but but I I
035I just think that we could maybe look at that a release. So, we're not looking at every in every every single case. Maybe I I come and I say, "Hey, I want to create this and I'm doing this, but I want to retain um proprietary rights to it." And the district can say yes or no. And if no, then you go, we're accessing legal for a lot of stuff. I think that we can agree to. Okay. Uh yeah. Well, well, let let me say this here. Um why don't we look into what's going to be the best case scenario for APS in doing this type of stuff and then come back and talk about again because we don't want to go too fast and there something where I I mean I I'm one that working
036with attorneys all the time. I'm always looking for legal help. So, I'm going to lean towards legal as well when it comes to that. But why don't we allow that to happen if we're okay if we're okay with it? I mean, yes, Madam President. Mr. Chair, I just want to be very clear um cuz this is my own this I don't know that this is a whole board concern. So, I would not want to use any funds or any billable hours to dig where this takes days worth of work and we are getting build towards it. I just thought I I would posit that there. I don't want you in the legal to spend like hours or research or getting experts and we get a bill. I think I just put it in this platform
037so teachers, you know, teachers were smart. So if they do have that to your point and they have a certain position, then they can look at maybe what their standing is and what they how far they want to go with it. I just don't want to be the board because I'm individually this was my questioning and the board I don't know that it's a board concern. It's a teacher Carla principal concern personally just from because we create things. So I don't want to I just want to go on the record. I'm not asking for her to do anything additional than what she's brought. I just was I thought she would be able to respond here. I just don't want to see on the back because I'm still waiting on the itemized bill for legal right
038things. So I I'm curious to answer that. Okay. Thank you. Because uh maybe that should come maybe from superintendent her designate to bring that and and if they think that we need to move forward on then they can move forward that or if it needs to go to legal at that time let them do that versus us having to do that now. Is that okay everybody? Okay. I do have one more comment too before we move on. I'm not I'm talking more than I ever talk. um what is their vendor piece and we're talking about the a if a vendor has a complaint why not do a form possibly you know a form form they have a complaint they fill out this form they get it to and then we discuss it that's just a
039thought to throw on the table with us okay all right any other questions on this piece here if not let's move forward next is the ICO service provider policy and we're proposing proposing for it to go under 6460.01 which would be like a sub policy under the vendor relations policy and then the additional the addition will also include the process to submit a complaint under this too. And then I'm thinking that we could put that under section six of the policy. We we'll work on that and then we'll we'll add what we have in here. what once we hear back um from legal and then any questions because nothing has changed since our last meeting. Dr. Molinar. Yes. Thanks. Yes, I have a series of questions. Um but first, when we talked about forms, um
040I know the last time that I was involved in this conversation, we talked about the independent contractor determination form being an administrative listed or outlined in administrative guidelines. Um, is there a copy of that form available to us before we move forward with this policy so we can see um what, you know, if we're removing something from the policy and and putting it into administrative guidelines, what that would be before, you know, if we're going to change the policy, we should change it now, right? Um, so do we have that independent contractor determination form available for the board to see what that would look like? No, I don't know what you mean by the determination form. So, when we first started talking about independent contractors, I'm going to say October um of 24 um I
041provided everyone with um draft language and ideas for the independent contractor policy. And then in maybe February of this year um is when we started talking about this policy and I said why you know what happened with everything that I brought to uh administration in October and then the conversation was it was determined that everything that I brought in October was going to be used as an administrative guideline and that's why it wasn't going to be in the policy. So then I was wondering if those administrative guidelines would be available to us so I could see how that would complement the policy and all of the pieces that are missing. So the idea of it being administrative guidelines was a walk like that was discussed here and it was decided that no it's going to
042be a policy. And so we actually went through the information that you had and we actually updated this based off of some of the information from the first draft that you had brought to the table. And so some items have been inserted from what you had into this and plus some additional things were added as well like the um Ohio Public Record Act. Some of that stuff down in um section six, the violations of this policy may result in termination of contracts and potential legal and then the revised code that was an addition. Um, but it was determined that this would be a policy and not administrative guidelines. Cuz at first we were thinking that because we had the vendor relations policy that we would just do it administrative guidelines, but the committee chairs um
043said that they wanted to be policy. So we kept it as a policy not administrative guideline. So followup um just for people who are um catching up. So definitions when they said some of the items were kept and some of the items were not kept. Definitions in the policy that's available here there are two items I had five eligibil eligibility and requirements there are four items here I had 16. Um but to start with um for this conversation my recommendation was to actually start the policy not in in the purpose not just saying the purpose of the policy is to establish guidelines but also to state um and I'll just read what I what it started with. So, an individual who is paid to provide services to Akran public schools must be hired as an
044employee unless human capital has an independent contractor determination form on file that determines that an employer employee relationship does not exist for the scope of work based on criteria established by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services or a higher ranking government authority. So that is just one sentence that um I thought was really critical especially given the yearlong situation we've been having with van drivers turning into vendors and and that process continuing to unfold. So I'm wondering if someone could help maybe unpack why we don't have an independent contractor determination form or why we don't have a statement about why they must be hired as an employee. Um, and yes. Okay. I have a question. Are they hired? Are they hired as employees? I thought independent contractor independent employees. Okay. Okay. Could you
045say employees? That's what Yes. So unless So basically, so the default is they must be an employee and then the specialty is unless they check all the boxes of independent contractor. And if they check all the boxes of independent contractor, then they can be an independent contractor. So the default is employee, but then they don't have to be hired as an employee if they can if they're eligible to be an independent contractor, right? Um I'm just thinking an independent contractor will not be an employee of the school. So they won't we won't have to have anything to say that if they're not a employee because this is independently and not employee. So we take the employee piece away and we just do the independent contractor piece. That's what I'm thinking. You guys help me out
046if I'm wrong. The form explains why though. Yeah. Okay. So I'm sorry, Madam President. Go ahead. I don't want to get um I think that the for the clarity part is on the form the identification of the form not employer because with employees then you're thinking about benefits and other things that have to come and for the independent because this is for contractor service providers that they should be independent but I believe if I'm understanding what uh member Molar is positing is that cuz I was unclear too at the time of that discussion Does a form exist that identifies these are independent contractors? There's no gray area outside not the I'm saying we don't need I'm in agreement with you uh Vice President Alexander. The employee them being an employee is not either or period
047because we're talking about independent contractor service providers. That's individualized that they're not on our benefits. They don't they're independent. They do a 1099 or whatever. But there as I understood and um member can clear this up but that it there was no form like we said that they were or were they what I'm sorry to be I didn't mean to be so animated that it was not an actual where we can pull and go to a file and see all they clearly know they're not employees of the district they're independent contractors they filled out this as independent contractors so I'm just I'm sorry that's what I just wanted to from my understanding when those conversations were happening earlier that it was gray area and they had been operating almost as if they were dual employees
048of the district and I say dual meaning they we were functioning like employees but they were believing they're in ICOs right you see and so to make that that was my this is just how I'm unpacking it I may not be on par this may not be what member is positive or it may be but that that is clear right that what they are re Harrison go ahead then go back to you so um there is a a federal form that identifies independent contractors uh but the the and I'll use the van drivers as an example because that was when they were told what they could wear what they couldn't wear okay they were independent contractors but we were directing their service which we can't do as independent contractors. And so that's where it started
049to create a gray area. What can we say? What can we do? What can we not do to independent contractors? I want to uh go back to member Molnar's question about the the policy that or the language of the policy and you know you know I love member Molnar to pieces and I'm not saying you had to use all 16 pages of her stuff and she she that's probably she had cut it down to 16 pages um um but um you know this committee did not pair that down to this one page age. So when you're when you're talking about an internal committee and when you're talking about a board committee, we're talking two different committees. Okay? And so when the board is dealing with a policy, I would like the board to deal with
050the policy and not get what's left over from the internal committee. And and I think that's where we're starting to lose information. When I came to the to to this committee at the beginning of the year, this page is was was presented and it was said this is what we decided on. Not the committee whatever internal committee there was. This is what we decided on. So I just want to be clear that the this committee did not pair this down and the 16 pages um member Mau I think it was 16 pages you said something. Okay. just send that to me. Let me take a look at that. Uh we might cut that down to eight pages. Baby, you have another comment. So, yes, I I definitely when I presented this to this committee first,
051I did not expect us to use it verbatim. Um there are so many things even reviewing it today I would change. But I didn't also want it to be perfect because I wanted to leave it open for us to collaborate and to move on and build together. And member Harrison is right that it is from the US Department of Labor, those definitions. But I wanted to reiterate some of those items in our policy because we had so many gray areas that we have been experiencing at the time. And so some of those items in like item three here because this is what's up on the screen. There are four items here. I had 16. Maybe we don't need all 16, but some of them that I think um might be uh worth this committee to
052discuss. Uh for instance, is that work is not essential. So the success or continuity of a program should not depend on the services of outside independent contractors. That was an item that I had listed that is not here. And the reason I listed it is because that comes directly from the US Department of Labor's definition of an independent contractor. The work cannot be essential and it cannot be ongoing. And so, um, those are just some of the conversations that I wanted to bring to this committee when it comes to this policy. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Molar. Let me back up too, just so I'm clear. This is an addendum to this another current policy we already have. Is that correct? Is this part of another policy? This is um Go ahead. Go ahead. This would
053be a separate policy from the vendor relations policy. So, right now there are two. They're split into two. So, there's the vendor relations policy as uh we discussed previously and this is a Neola based policy. This policy has been drafted um internally and Dr. Mr. Mullen, I apologize, but like that we we did look at that line by line and I think that the intention was to bring um the line by line review of that forward and it just didn't happen and that's something that got lost in translation. So I apologize for that. Um but in with regard to this this is yeah this is entirely APS created. This isn't a policy that exists anywhere else. Okay. So this is a new policy and this will be something that we can work on if we
054need to. Right. Okay. So, um maybe let's continue to do some work on this here and then we can keep we we don't are we on a deadline for this here one this policy? No, this is something that we're bringing. Okay. So, there's no deadline. Perfect. So, let's let's go back to the drawing board and continue to work with this here. It's not saying it's it's bad, but just look at it and see what we need to do if we need to tweak whatever and and and do that. And it sounds like to me too that we might need a it sound like it's a a form that says we need to go with this. So Dr. Moore, you're saying check. So if the a policy wouldn't be a form wouldn't be part of the
055policy, but the policy would be go to this form and complete such and such form. They fill it out and then they would do it. So maybe let's take a little bit more time on this if everybody agrees. Madam President, yes. Um I think to to see the language and see do we have to have the exact definitions as the federal government as a if we're going to work through it as a um the committee then it needs to come before the committee because I don't know if it went directly to Heidi to look at and the committee didn't really get to digest it. So to your point it wasn't that anyone did it it if the chair at the time gave it to legal then that's why it went then to the internal committee.
056Um but what I would like to say also is um whatever the original like if the board the board has the resp I'm sorry this committee had a responsibility to look over what is provided to them if it is the original notes of member Molar I do not want because I don't want an additional bill from you your firm Heidi is what I'm saying about something that Molinar gave back in whenever she gave it um because it was a missed in communic I don't know what it was missed in or how it was missed I want to be charged for it though. We don't want to be charged for you to revisit it again for a couple of months. It wouldn't be Sorry, I don't mean to speak out of turn, but no, it wouldn't
057be revisited. It's it's something that we still have access to and we could just forward that on to to her and um to the Yeah, to the board. Sure. Yes, just forward it to us and Yeah, no problem. And then we'll look over and then as we need to advise if once we chop it up and do whatever we need to do they'll have le we'll send it to our le who who we want to look over it to make sure it's in line. I just want to make sure we're not getting build again. Right. Okay. And the policy should come from the district come to the committee and we look at it and we discuss it and then maybe goes out to board members so board members can look at it. they have any
058questions or comments and concerns, get back to us on that. And that that's the way the the actual work should go. Comes from the district from the district to the committee. Committee looks at it, talks about it, discuss it, goes to the board members. Board members get it, look at it, make their comments or concerns and so forth. Get back that comes back to the policy committee again. We look at it again, insert if we need to insert anything. If we don't need to insert, if we won't insert, and then we till we get to a actual policy, then we go on to the reading of the policy. So, you had a question, Miss Carter? No, I was just saying that there was um the document that was being referenced. I never had that, but
059Dr. Molinar just clarified that it was shared with someone, but it that person is not with us anymore. So, she's going to share this 16page document that she's been referencing so that we'll we'll have Right. We'll get that get that cleared up because it was 16 page. I probably didn't read it. I'm being honest until I had time to sit back and read. Okay. Any other questions or comments on this policy here? M. Yes, Madam President. Just I think it should start with the committee because this is the board's committee. If we're getting 16 pages, we should not be sending it directly to administration to get through 16 pages. And again, it's a board it's the board's pleasure, right? The majority to say, "Okay, yeah, this makes sense." And then before we move it on
060because that's extra work for them. like we can do the basis of the work and then we send it forward because again it's our policies to like kind of chop through they can look at as far as their dayto-day the the internal work but I think something like this we wouldn't even like once we look over it and make the comparison and we red line it ourselves um and then give it to legal it's a reference point then for them this almost seemed like this specific policy is something we can make the majority property determinations um and then edit it or whatever, get it reviewed by legal and then they can view what we've created and only make suggestions to us about our policy based off of their working knowledge with what they have to
061do in their positions is my thought. Just I just wanted to clarify that we not just giving them 16 and then they're going to edit something. They have to do work and give it to No, we should look over it. We should make the edits based off the work member Monar has done. convene when we talk as this um committee and then like you said move it forward that way not the reverse right and that's only if we come up with the policy if it's a policy comes from the district the district has to from Neiola and so forth it comes to them then to the committee okay so we need to make sure we if we're doing a policy let's say for example um when when when uh we did the racial equity policy
062that was a policy was developed by board members and then it went we've developed it worked on it then it went there but all the other policies basically came from the district because those are what they have to have to deal with far as uh legal as far as state far as the federal government and so forth. So it goes both ways. So okay, anybody else? Yes, Miss Carter. So Dr. Muller did draft an a policy an ICO policy and we did go through that policy line by line and we did make some notes as it relates to things that we could use and things that we couldn't use and so we can bring that and project it so you can see some of the red lines that the committee um went through. So we
063worked with uh Mr. Leonard, we worked with Mrs. fault as it relates to independent contractors and service providers in coming up with the act the policy. So, we did utilize Dr. Molinar's draft, but I'm hearing that Dr. Jackson is saying to send this to you first. Is that what I'm hearing? Um, go ahead, Pastor. Um, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. policy rest with the board. And so Dr. Molnard does her I'm going to call her hers a 16page draft and and we know it's not going to look like 16 pages, but that's Dr. Molnar's 16page draft. It it it's it's not for the district to redline and send us back one page. the the the the responsibility for policy rests with the board policy and finances. And so with Miss Folk, Mr. Leonard, it it's
064okay if they have suggestions and and and maybe it does come back to us and and maybe those suggestions are they're far more knowledgeable in certain areas than we are and they tell us why it doesn't work, but they don't redline it and send it back to us. Okay? Hey, they don't just take it out because we all need to be able to see it. And again, I I think that's where we're getting I I think tripping ourselves up. Policy rests with the board. Yeah. and and pastor Harrison I I I agree to a certain but I'm going to disagree because only policy that deals with the board and I think this is where uh the um um I want to say it on boarding with with new board members and everyone period not just
065Akran uh should be understand because of what we hear all the time and I've talked to people in the state and they say board members are policy people yeah we are to a certain extent if we draft a policy now we're talking about Dr. Monar, she did draft that. Okay. Yeah, that should have come to us and then we can look at it and we can go back or we go bring bring it to the committee and all of us here work on it at that point. Then we can go back and make uh corrections and so forth. But there are still those no no state and federal government policies did not come from us. Those come from from them and they bring it to us. M Mr. Chair, I'm not talking about those. Okay.
066I was trying to make a distinguish between what Dr. Molar brought. That would be one that's coming from the board. Okay. So, that is one that we would she would have she would get it to us and we would work on it. Okay. And then we go back. Now, the others that would come from from the board or the the the district and we would work on it. But in a case like this, that's why I'm using Dr. Monar as an example since she brought something. Yeah, maybe it should have come to us. Okay. We did worked on it and then, you know, went back and forth with it. But since it came from her, yes, that's a policy that's coming from her. So it is a board policy, but we don't do the other
067policies as far as state, federal, and all that. We don't do all those policies. You know, they come to us and we work on them, but that's not really our job to to to put those together. If I'm wrong, we we matter of fact, we'll find the the right information, right? And then we and then we'll go. All right. Yeah. Because And then we'll we'll make sure we have it right. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else on this? We said we're going to bring this one back and we're going to work on it and then we'll come back on this one. Okay. All right. Yes, Miss Carter. Right. We Well, we got a little bit more. We We're not quite to an hour yet. We got a couple more minutes. I'm watching that clock. So,
068uh three. Yes. Madam Chair, Madame President, just to reiterate, so when if a when a board member drafts a policy, the board members should share it with the committee and the board first. I think what happened is um member Monar shared it with administration um and then admin oh I'm sorry I shouldn't have said that like that it went somewhere and then it it wasn't reiterated or disseminated amongst the the because the work if the work if the member drafts a policy and everyone most of us are here for that then the work if the if the body decides and is looking through it and it it didn't go through the body then that's the that's a disconnect that's for any board member because before it goes further, it should be in agreement with the
069committee and the policy that yes, we the we've redlined it. So I just keep I know I've already said that but I feel like when we're talking it gets missed like the board member introduces this is my policy what I want like the wonderful um the resolution for instance it's clearly it's agreement we're just send it through legal this is perfect like whatever we have to work out let's work it out it'll be the same with the policy as I'm understanding when a board member drafts that policy that then it says this is the policy I've created is shared with the committee members then the board if they don't make any feedback or anything like that then whoever uh the president or will the member will send it through and then that should go to
070legal so that we can have one streamline of how it's going to legal and we're not getting uncertainties or lack of followrough. That's all I want. That's that's correct. So there are two different ways of policy. Yes, Dr. Monar. Sorry. Thanks. If I can clarify just uh what what happened was it was brought to this committee. This committee did have it. administration asked if they could take some time with it and that they were going to bring it back after they took some time with it. So that's the the the process of what happened. So the committee had it and then the committee transitioned and so then it it fell off. So I think what it sounds like the appropriate next step since it was here at the committee and it stayed on with this
071committee would be to start with where we left off. And so now that administration has had time to digest it, they can then discuss based on what we started with which for clarification the whole document was 11 pages. The actual policy was only two. It was only two. Okay. I I think we we're clear. If we're not, we'll we'll get it right. Um All right. How much I think we have time for about uh maybe 10 more minutes, then we we're done. Am I right? Oh, like Oh, shoot. I missed something there. What a procure. What about this procurement? I have the procurement. I'm sorry. No, that I I just No. Yeah, we are not doing the 5.01 today, but the 5.02 put these on. Thank you. I'm sorry. All right. Should have been prepared.
072That's what I have to do. We used to do I don't know enlarge it a little bit that we used to do. Yeah. We had it and we couldn't get it to all the board members out front. Yeah. Okay. Good evening again. Uh this is actually a sister to policy 6320. 6325 is your procurement when you are using federal grants or funds. So the changes made to this policy are actually from Niola and this is an update to meet the new federal standards regarding any items that we receive that are related to federal grants and funds. So they've updated as you can see in paragraph one uh including the type of businesses they've now uh talked about small businesses they've still left womenowned business and enterprise veteran zones and labor surplus area firms. Yes, sir.
073I'm sorry. What What is a labor surplus firm? Uh, those are local companies within your area that may not be employed as much as you would like to in a local area. All righty. And then they've off I'm sorry, I'm on cold medicine. Please excuse me. Uh, this is a update to this particular paragraph. They've taken consideration just redone some of this grammatically and then when appropriate they've now made it its own statement. An analysis shall be made between leasing and purchasing property or equipment to determine the most economical approach which we have always done under competitive competition. You're now into their CFR part 200. They've changed some of the wording. Instead of encourage, it now says provide instead of practice. This is just their standards to make them equal to what they want in
074the federal statutes. Now, they've gone ahead and given you examples of situations that may restrict competitive competition include but are not limited to. So, it gives you the ideas of when it is maybe not usable. Yes, sir. Is this a typo on on the competitive bill where it says after 200 good administrative practice then has practice scratched off again? Yes, they moved there used to be a comma between administrative and practice and they took out the comma and took out the second practice. Got it. Thank you. Good administrative practice, and sound business judgment is the way it should read. Okay, now we just have to go through the next section of changes. Some of these are still here. They just aligned them to specific paragraph. So they deleted the paragraph that starts further. The district
075does not use statutoily administrative and post state local. It is not here. It is lower in the or later in the actual policy. So this is just to bring this to your attention to start going through the changes that has gone through this at the federal level and to the extent consistent with established practices and legal requirements applicable to recent or subsequent you have to read every one of these sub parts because it's part of the CFR out of the federal government. So please take time to look this over. Now we're looking at solicitation language. They have updated that so that you're looking at property, equipment, and service being procured. They've narrowed it down to property and equipment. When necessary, the description must set forth the minimum essential characteristic or standards of that property, equipment,
076or service. when it is impractical or uneconomical to clearly and accurately describe is an update to that sentence. And then they gave you a change of you cannot use a brand name or equivalent. They want a brand name or equivalent of the feature to provide the procurement requirements may be used. So as an example, you can't put something out to say I only want a model number X oven. You have to have an brand equivalent or description so that other people may not have say a Hobart 440, but they may have an equivalent that can be used as in the bid specifications that they're putting a bid in for. Now, what's important here is the procurement methods that you are required to use with your federal grants. The first one is informal procurement methods. And
077you read the first sentence. It tells you exactly these are small purchases that expedite the completion of a transaction and minimize administrative burdens. They actually have definitions for each one of these. This is a micro purchase. Please understand the aggregate amount of which does not exceed $10,000. So these are items actually at $9,999 or less. Now, as you go through this, you maintain these documents to support the conclusion of what you're purchasing. There is a drafting note here. Please be very careful. This one notes a drafting note at the bottom. The federal regulation allows for up to $50,000 threshold. While this authority is allowed for an entity qualified as a low-risk ai audit, Niola does not suggest its use due to the complexity and subjectivity of the mechanism. It is really hard to do that
078and what you would do is you do not check the box that's noted in this policy. And then we're back to what is the federal acquisition regulation. and it's now called FAR. So they updated that section on small purchases under sealed bids and we have now under B two or more responsible biders have been identified as willing and able to compete effectively for the business. And under the procurement is the procurement lends itself to a firm fixedpric contract and the selection of a successful bidder can be made principally based on price. Now, this is where you get into sealed bids and the requirements. The bids shall be solicited from at least three qualified suppliers. They've changed the definition in section B. The invitation for bids must define the items or services with specific information, including
079any required specification for the bidder to properly respond. And they've updated D. A firm fixedpric contract is awarded in writing to the lowest responsive bid and the responsible bidder. When specified in the invitation for bids, factors such as discounts, transportation, life cycle, etc. still are listed which in determining the bids which is lowest and payment discounts must not may only be used to determine the low bid when the district determines they are a valid factor to be based on prior experience. Under E, the board reserves the right to reject any and all bids that has always been there but must document and provide justification for the rejection. it it took out just for sound document reasons. You now have to put a document and provide justification for rejecting all the bids that were provided in
080response to an RFP for sealed bid. And then the proposals was updated and this is a drafting note. The federal law does not require a competitive proposal unless the procurement is for over $250,000. That is an update. It used to be 150,000, but you can set a lower bid if you so choose to. Excuse me, Miss Quest. Um, go back. No, when you went past, is is transportation a federal bid? Is that a federal grant? Transportation. No, it is not. It's paid out of general fund. These are uh transportation unless uh we use something from sped funds are all general fund. They are not federal funds that are given for transportation. Okay, thank you. And then this just goes through the requirements for the public notice which we have done for years. To the maximum
081extent practical, any proposal submitted in response to a public notice must be considered which we have always done. Um and then proposals shall be solicited from three sources. The district must have written procedures for conducting technical evaluations and for making the selections and this is a gone from a shell to a must and an offer. So this is just updating to meet the federal statutes. Please read it. Now you have non-competitive procurement and yeah federal grants are just so fun. Um now you have updated this. The aggreate amount of the federal procurement transaction does not exceed the micro purchase threshold. Please remember that is 10,000. The procurement transaction can only be fulfilled by a single source. And sometimes you will see that in our recommendations that is a single source. Think of items that are
082related to a specific already approved adoption of uh curriculum. A public extingency or emergency for requirement shall not permit a delay in resulting for providing a public notice. and the district does request in writing the use of non-competitive procurement methods and the federal agency or pass through entity provides with written approval. After soliciting several sources, competition is determined to be inadequate. Then you go into non-competitive purchase agreements and this is where you can use the ESC and you've heard us do that. Authorized ESC to make purchases for supplies and materials. We have secured some of our ESC services using this standard. So, we're almost done. Procurement of recovered materials is a new section that was added and this has to do with section 602 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amend amended by the
083Recovery Act of 1976. And you keep going through the sections time and material contracts that have been updated mostly for grammar. They have deleted the last part of this. This is also here where you also see for contracts over 25,000 the district shall confirm that the vendor is not debarred. That is a federal debarment statement goes out in every RFP that we put out. And by providing that information in a bid, you are saying you're not debarred and we do check that. And this is the section on bid protest. Um, we have to follow these standards. So they updated that slightly. And then the new section here is the retention of records and all federal records must be held for at least three years from the date of submission for financial reporting processes. This is
084a massive change to this one. It was not updated until recently. We bring this forth for your review. Okay. Um I know there's a lot of questions, Dr. Mullar, because this is a lot, you know. So, um we can try to get through some of this if we want or we can come back with our questions at the next meeting if we want. Dr. Monar, I'll let you Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to recommend since this is new business to bring this for discussion at the next meeting was going to be my recommendation. I also had a qu a question in preparation for the next discussion because this is for federal grants and funds. Yes. But the policy that we looked at earlier tonight, I know it seems so long ago. Um was
085for the purchasing and bidding 6320. Would you consider 6320 as a companion to this for the non-federal and perhaps um the committee would consider looking at these together because these two might be complimentary for each other. And then the last recommendation I would make for that discussion um based on conversations we've been having as a board lately, it feels like um the rubrics that are being used. I keep hearing um questions about Akran centric or Akran focused or was this taken into consideration and so here's an opportunity of while it might not be the federal requirement to consider your city it might be the will of the board to put something like that in the policy not the administrative guideline so I wanted to put all of those out there uh for future consideration to
086the chair I'm gonna ask you to make sure I get that so I forward it and we're going to have discussion on that when we the next meeting because this is a lot. This is a whole lot and it and I do agree with you Dr. Monar. It almost touches on the other policy. When I was reading it, I was like this sound like this same thing. So, we need to compare and contrast these two policies as well madam madam president and you got just folks started it was saying this was a sister policy to 6320. So like that they are that's what she's and when when she started off she said that they are so however like with the recommendations member Molar but she did state like that they were just in fact that
087so I'm in agreement it's a lot and I do have questions but this is a whole another meeting we'll be here till midnight right so what we can we if it's okay with everybody if we bring all our questions back the next meeting and and and madam miss Carter can we start on this one the our first policy Maybe since it's so much or you guys have other policies that need to get put in before this one. No, I know that we had talked about doing the special policy meeting on June 2nd. Oh, that's right. At 5:30 to discuss um the handbook for CLC's and I know we don't like long meetings, so maybe just putting one item on that special board meeting. So I don't know it was your pleasure as it relates to
088what would go on that agenda. Do we think that we know we're bringing that to the to the committee the the the one and the special meeting and the uh the well we have we're going to have we're going to have a special meeting for the policy committee so we can get something that needs to be done before a certain time. So we're going to have a additional meeting. Yeah. I'm sorry. We we we had talked about that. Miss Carter just mentioned it to me this week. So we're we're talking about having a additional uh policy meeting. You had a you had a question, pastor. No, it was it was something to Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So the next meeting you said that the next one will be the special meeting. And so
089the next special meeting, we want to bring the booklet, the handbook for CLC's. Yeah. I'm trying to think, do we want to put anything else on the agenda? And I know this here was going to take some time. If if we don't call it a special meeting, it's a call meeting and then they can. Oh yeah, just a policy meeting. I mean, yeah. Okay. So, we'll have the special meeting. We'll touch base, you and I touch base on uh the book and if we need to put something else on the agenda and then we'll get it out, make sure we get out to everyone because when we when we do this here, I want to make sure that everybody has this and have their questions when we come back because this is a lot a
090lot of information. Please make I hope you're here next meeting so you can bring bring out these questions. She gonna send you stuff, right? Okay. Uh Miss Alri, thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I don't know where this goes. I think I sent you a copy of uh Cleveland Metropolitan School District's policy on honorary diplomas and so doesn't need to be at the special meeting, but hoping we can get that on a future agenda as well. We'll get that on the agenda for sure. So, does that fall under coming from a board member or because there's an existing policy we can build on? it it does come from a board member because we're bringing it to our board even if it's part of a uh another district's board policy and we're bringing it to us.
091So then we're gonna because we're going to probably look at it possibly tweak it and then develop our own policy. So that would be something that come from uh board member to the board and then we can bring it up to discussion. Thank you. The board at the committee meeting. Any any other questions? Yes. Just one last thing from me. Um July 1st uh we're required to have the parents bill of rights policy on the books. But I just wanted to make sure that we're all aware of that deadline. Okay. You said July 1st. Okay. So, we have a we have a little time, but we need to make sure we have it on there. Bill of Rights. Okay. Anything else for the good order? Am I missing anything? Anybody? No. If uh nothing else,
092we will adjourn this meeting. Thanks everyone for tuning in. Thank you all board members for being here.