Policy and Equity Committee Meeting

001Welcome everybody to the uh June installment of the policy and equity committee for Cincinnati public schools. Uh glad everyone can join us here today. Uh we're going to start with a round of introductions. Um starting with my colleague Rob and then we'll go around the horseshoe. Please click the hand association of the district and we'll invite you to speak at the end andor at the direction of the chairman office >> Kevin Ashley director of financial reporting and transparency >> Carrie Armbster board member >> Ben Lindy board member >> Dr. Mafet, board member. >> Amy Randolph, assistant superintendent. >> Dan Ho, general counsel. >> Londa Thomas, district parent champion. >> Anybody that we missed? >> Okay. Um, >> welcome. We just did a round of introductions. Would you share your name? And we're glad to have

002you with us today. Lisa, my granddaughter goes to Cincinnati public schools and I know nothing about it, so I just wanted to learn. >> Well, welcome. Glad you're here. Um, all our committee meetings are open to the public either in person. Uh, they're also um available on Zoom in real time or in recording on our website. Uh, and excited to get started. We have uh a healthy agenda today um with some items in continued discussion from previous meetings. Um uh I think we we maybe don't have anything on the standing review for policy cycle for this month. Um Dan, is that right? Nothing we need in the three-year review. That's right. >> Okay. Um and then we have a couple of requests that have come in from board members. Uh and >> um we will

003do two things on hearing of the public. We will certainly have time at the end. Uh and if someone came to speak on a particular issue that falls earlier in the agenda, if you can just raise your hand and let me know either in the room or online, um we'll make sure we get you in uh when it makes sense. Uh and with that, we will turn it over to the administration for uh high schools of choice and intradist enrollment. >> Okay. Thank you. Um sort of two requests here. uh one is relates to the high schools of choice and the second is a different topic about open enrollment which uh Mr. Ashley I think has provided some information about as well. Do is there do you have a pre I don't think they're necessarily

004related topics. Is there a preference as to which you start we start with? >> I was just following the the the first one on there but if if if Mr. Ashley would like to go at the beginning >> um and then we can give you some time in your afternoon back >> that would be great. uh if that any concerns from board members. >> So we'll do both of those now and then we'll uh you're welcome to stay and if you need to head out that's fine. Appreciate that. >> Do do you want to introduce what you >> Yeah. So um the treasurer obviously had a conflict today and uh so he asked me to just provide some information uh regarding interd district open enrollment. Um, this handout that I included, uh, is some data

005that's gleaned from ODEW. It's kind of at different points in the year. So, you know, kind of have to keep that in mind. The open enrollment numbers kind of eb and flow a little throughout the year. and as and also ODW while they update all the student datas I'm not positive that how often that is updated but the bottom of the sheet shows what our most recent uh number is for open enrollment in which was 783.82 82. It's the way they calculated it. Um, in their scenario, they're showing in comparison to last year being about the same. Um, the data that we received from another source shows it being a little bit higher, not by much, but a little bit higher last year. And you can see that the open enrollment in runs between two

006and 3% of our total enrollment. Um, this also shows at least an estimate of what the open enrollment out is. Um and you can see that we do have a net positive open enrollment. So some of the things we kind of looked at as it related to that is um how does that impact our funding? Um currently open enrolled students are deemed as district educated students. Um so we get the same state level funding for those students as we do for resident students. Um, one of the caveats that is is a consideration is the um, as we've talked about before in other forums, um, the district is moving from being formulafunded, which is calculated based on the the number of students to a guaranteed level of funding. So in other words our formula funding has

007number is lower than our guaranteed funding. So that the change in students once we are on the guarantee next year state funding guarantee the number of students will not drive our funding very much uh during that time. Um the other thing I will say for open enrolled students if there are any categorical funding sources those come along with the student. So if they're designated as a gifted student, uh we would get that categorical funding. Also, special needs, if we have excess or catastrophic costs associated with those students, we can bill those back to the the resident district of the student. Uh, so there's a lot of layers to it, but I think the biggest thing that may drive some consideration here is the fact that the imbalances in the state funding, which again we've talked

008about the fair school funding plan. While the legislature updated our property values, our resident income values, making the district appear more wealthy, they did not update the cost effects. All the costs are based on FY22. So that imbalance in the state funding plan is resulting in over 400 districts going on the guarantee. So the formula is no longer working in calculating that funding. But again, it is part of this open enrollment conversation because it doesn't really impact a huge driver up or down in terms of funding. Um the other thing u in talking to some of our colleagues um about open enrollment, one of the considerations they said is if you were adding classrooms to accommodate open enrolled students, that would be one consideration, you know, obviously that would drive up your cost, but if

009you're adding students throughout the district, it may not result in additional classrooms. Uh so that just might be a a financial consideration, but basically we we feel like the financial impact is really tiny in terms based on the the way state funding is going for us. Um so it's really not much of a financial driver one way or the other. I think it is a a net positive for the district. Um but again it's a it's a layered layered effect. So if you have any questions or >> Thanks Kevin. Um Carrie Cream questions. >> I will have more questions. Um because I'm receiving the data because I think we talked about this at the last board meeting but I think that some of the things that you brought up are very very poignant. one being

010that if you have to accommodate your open enrollment by adding classrooms, that's significant. I would like to take a deeper dive into that because open enrollment is beneficial for certain schools. And so I I don't know. I think that we need to disagregate that >> um in in districts in district students versus out of district students. And that data is not really defined in what you showed. So I'm going to dig more into it. I think other board members probably need to dig more into it too. But just just so that I'm on the right page on this paper and I don't think it's on board docs, but you said 782.83. I don't see that number on here. >> So you're looking at >> at the very bottom I circled 783.82. >> Okay, >> that

011is what OD's funding sheet represents as of May 26th. So that was our June number one foundation payment from the state. >> Okay. >> And they identify a number of current year open enrolled in students. >> So can you share with me why that number is different on ours? Is it because of the estimate? We just estimated it >> timing estimate. Yeah. Because I looked um at last fiscal year and their number fluctuated from that 828 which was last year's number. One point it was 705. At one point it was 784. So I don't know if that's uh calculating like partial FTEES for students who may be enrolled in career tech or some other thing. It could even be those things. So I caution that these are kind of estimates. >> Gotcha. I I just

012really think that we need to disagregate that a little bit more because I I wonder if it's really a net positive for our in district students versus the ones that we're taking. I mean know that's the whole concept of open enrollment, but I just I just I think we need to dig a little deeper, but I appreciate you. >> Thank you, Kevin. >> Yeah, I I agree. Um, super interesting. I love that we have the information. Um, but it's just a lot to take in on a Friday afternoon. >> Sure. >> This is how we're going to reduce next steps from committee meetings. We're going to hold all of our committee meetings on Friday afternoon. Um, I Kevin, I really I really appreciate this. I think I have had an ongoing question about the impact

013financially when it comes to local revenue, not state revenue. Uh, and the way I've looked at this, um, in my head at least is for these 782 students that are coming in from out of district, we get the state revenue associated with those students. We get zero local revenue from those students. So if we look at our revenue per student as a function of open enrollment, it goes down. Um because we don't we bring in kids with only part of the revenue rather than all of the revenue. >> Sure. >> Um it's interesting to look at the out feature, you know, because then in theory it's working the other way. When our kids leave us, we don't send our local property taxes out there either, but it's still net. We take in more. How much

014what's the local revenue uh for last school year or this upcoming school year like ballpark? >> Um I actually have it on my sheet. Um I think it's about 30% as the state or a little under 30. >> We're just in in dollars like what how much money do we take in from local revenue in a year? >> Uh that's a good question. >> Exactly. And brain for >> around 400 million. I mean, if if we're spending 620, 630, >> is that high? >> That's a little high, I think. >> Let's see. >> Because our property taxes are around 300 and then with TIFF CRAAS, I mean, I guess you could get to 400. >> I'm just thinking if it's if it's 0.57% 57% of $400 million is still over $2 million. got, >> you

015know, and we're looking at these cuts this year, you know, and $2 million is non-trivial, you know, like as we're looking at various things that we're keeping or cutting. Um, and so I I still think that, you know, you're the financial expert, not me, but it's the local dollars that seem like the issue. Um and e even if we so long as we're net importing students um >> it seems like we're going to be we're going to be in theory stretching the same amount of revenue over a larger number of kids which has some kind of fun but I that I'm interested to hear you're an expert I'm not um how would how do you think about the local element? >> I mean I understand your what you're saying about the local the local revenue

016because it's not going to change. Um, I think as a strategy, and this is maybe off that a little bit, but at one of the conferences we were at, they talked about, oh, should we do away with open enrollment? Is that a great idea? And kind of the consensus was everyone kind of needs to see how state funding settles down, how property tax reform settles down. But again, that doesn't directly address your question uh about the local impact. I mean, I I I um one thing I did I do want to mention because Mike and I had some discussions about this and you know, we've recently done two bond rating calls uh with Moody's and uh Fitch. We actually just got an email that we're going to have standard and poorer coming up in the

017next couple weeks as well. But one of their key points was how does the district look in terms of open enrollment. So I think they do use that as a metrics of is the district desirable or not. Um, so just I just kind of wanted to throw that out there as a something that did come up in those conversations. >> Yeah, it's interesting. Like I I I'm having a hard time sizing if this is incredibly important for us to be talking about as a board or like a huge distraction when we have other stuff that we need to figure out. But like if somebody said, "Hey, I've got a revenue strategy that'll keep you from having to make $2 million in cuts." I think we'd be super interested in that, you know? Um but but

018but again I >> um I'm really interested in what other people think. >> I look at it in that manner because I think open enrollment I think we need to look at it in terms of costs that we're losing students that we're losing because we are and then costs that we could gain in the event that or that we are gaining but how do we increase what we're gaining? I don't know if we're capturing I think I think it will be very interesting as to where our open enrollment students are going. That's a super interesting conversation. And then if are we taking in money from them and and what that cost would be and how could we recoup that? So I think I think it's not a super super high priority conversation then but I

019think in time in terms of timing when we're really looking at revenue and really looking at expenses I think it's super significant. That's just me. And I also think we can have conversations that talk about how do we increase that and I think it's, you know, in in this time period we're in. So I'm very interested in that and and to your point, Kevin, around other districts talking about closing open enrollment. Th this is the space in my mind that we could what what are other districts what do they have a gap that we could potentially fill and gain some of their students because we're offering something that they're is desired but they're not able to accommodate and I think we look at it in terms of that as a potential partnership or as a

020potential revenue stream that we currently don't look at now. That's my thinking. That's one of the reasons why I brought up the super >> and unfortunately there was no easy way to get that disagregated data because we did look >> um but that is something we can we can dig into and work with ODW to get that information. >> I mean I I don't see a future in which I would shut down open enrollment. I think it's a healthy way for a district to grow. Um, I do understand the loss of revenue and the strategy of trying to find a way to recoup some of that lost revenue. Um, so open to to exploring what that looks like. But, um, yeah, I mean, to me, open enrollment is a way for our district to showcase

021what we can offer that others can't and try and bring in new families. Um, so that that to me is not a place where I foresee my vote going. >> I had a constituent describe this to me as like we are um if you have I'm I'm paraphrasing slightly, but I think it it helps to make the point that she was making. If you have a series of students who are going to walnut from out of district and we get the state revenue for those students, but we don't get the local property tax revenue for those students, what we are essentially doing is subsidizing a Walnut Hills education for students who are out of district. Um, and that that was a tough pill for me to swallow when I heard her describe it that way.

022Um, particularly when I looked at of the 782, most of those students are going to Walnut, you know, and Walnut's a great school. Um, I think my perspective is you should also pay property taxes if you would like your students to go to Walnut Mills. Um, so I don't know like I I I I see the argument like it it I I do think we have lots of other big fish to fry um at the moment. I think one request I would like to make uh if people are open to keeping this on an agenda for August is to see two things. One is could we see where the kids go like on the open and roll out that 599? Um and then um could is there some way of getting the treasur's office perspective

023on the local revenue side of all this? Um because I do I do I'm not an expert and like it might be that it just it it winds up for some reason not being as big a deal as I think it is. Um, but is there are there other things that either other board member would like to see and are people okay keeping this on the agenda for August? >> Yeah, you did say about the out >> which schools or districts the kids are going to that leave CBS. >> I'm also interested in Well, I don't know. Do we keep Let me ask the question. Do we keep data as to where our schools go to or our students go to >> perhaps in student accountability? Um it's just not something I have readily access

024to that data. >> Yeah. I'm just wondering because that that's not the end of the world. >> Sure. I think they either our district would have it or the >> the one where they're being educated now would show that they're a resident of >> Did you classify that they left or that they're open? >> Yeah, I think they would fall into that classification at least at the state level. They they're they're identifying it that or seeing it that way on their end. >> Sure. Um, anything else from the administration? >> Yeah, I just uh I know Kevin will work on the um financial piece, especially uh the impact on the local revenue. >> Um, just so I'm translating this well to I think Kathy Spelman in student accountability will probably have some of the data

025on where students are going. Um, one thing I wanted to bring up if we can I presume you'd like to see so you you mentioned um career tech and like let's say great oaks I I believe students enroll in another district and then >> so I don't know we can check but I don't know whether we'll have data like we may know that they've open enrolled into another district and know the that district we may not know whether or not they then used that district to get into the oaks but we and find out. >> And then do when you said disagregated data, do you also want disagregated data in terms of the students who are open enrolling in and what schools they're attending? >> I I think if we can if we can if

026that's >> that should be >> if that's not hard, let's do it. >> Yeah, that I think will be possible. >> And I think the piece is easy to that partner with them. So they go into or not. The likelihood of them getting a bishop that is partner is >> almost all of them that they'd be open and rolling in would have access to the oaks. I I don't know whether we'll know whether they are actually attending there. >> I wasn't looking for that. I was just looking for >> Well, we can find out. Yeah. The the other thing you asked about at last meeting which is a little bit different than Kevin's question is uh what kind of data we had on student uh employees kids attending. Um so that that data is not

027as accessible as I thought it would be for when when a student enrolls or a family enrolls in CPS. I think we have asked for a long time what the employ mother's employer is, what father's employer is. Um but in terms of pulling that data out of the system, not as easy as uh I expected. We've got uh focus apparently is now linking students to employee IDs. Um but the data was that there were about 70 students connected to a uh an employee in a district which is far less than we know we have. Uh that data will improve from year to year but um uh I wanted to let you know Kathy Spellelman uh wrote back to me she did some initial searching but it it doesn't seem like we have that data as

028well. Yeah. So, my question really wasn't around students that attend a CPS school, but parents that are employed. >> My question was more students, I'm sorry, staff that are employed and live within Cincinnat. >> Oh, >> because that's a different >> that they can vote on our levies and the likelihood is if they live in Mason, they're sending their kids to Mason. But, you know, that that's one way to look at that instead of it being CPS. If you live in a surrounding district, >> I'm I'm assuming you're probably paying taxes there and going to send a son about there. But I'm I'm very curious as to how many of our employees live >> within the Cincinnati public school district and and can vote on our on our levies. >> Um that'll be HR data

029and we can uh we can look at that. Um we we kind of a related conversation but it comes up once in a while is uh at various times the policy committee has explored whether we can require employees to live in the district. We we cannot uh that's a state law but uh there are there are some school districts that do that kind of thing. Not in Ohio but like Chicago I think is has always had those kind of rules surrounding police fire school district employees. I remember we had that conversation with former administration long time ago like superintendent Mr. >> the board can require the superintendent as a part of uh the superintendent's contract to reside within the city the school district and not not other employees. Yeah. >> It's just something that's come

030up from time to time. Well, it would still be interesting to get the data on people who are working for a levy that doesn't benefit them or >> have the ability to vote on a levy that would >> percentage of employees that live within Cincinnati public schools geographically. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We'll see what we can pull. >> Okay. Last call on this discussion. >> Kevin, thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Um, was there more uh Dan on 5113? >> There is. >> The second part of or the 5113.03 relates to our high schools of choice uh interd district enrollment um policy and and really it sets forth the priorities that we use particularly in the lottery system for assigning students to our high schools. Um and these were worked out in 2015

031or so. Uh the general rule is again um resident students have first priority. Um employees, kids out of district have second priority, out of district, non-emp employees have third priority. That's the general rule. We were asked specifically to look at the high school enrollment policy for Walnut Hills. And we have a recommendation uh for you that's been discussed with the Walnut administration. John Chambers was involved in this conversation. Assistant Superintendent Randolph. Um a couple of things that we'd recommend. The specific ask was how does the district the policy didn't address what priorities would be used in the event that >> we reached cap kind of capacity limits at Walnut Hills. um we suggest kind of two changes that the first relates to how students test in to Walnut Hills. So >> the current >> process

032or the process that Walnuts use based on the board policy for a significant amount of time is students take the entrance exam in the sixth grade and all CPS students would take some test that they're administered a test that would then be used to determine their eligibility of so they don't have to sign up. They don't have to go on a Saturday. They take tests and then they're they're uh that determines their eligibility to enroll in the seventh or into Walnut Hills and then nonCPS students, there are testing opportunities on Saturdays for students to come in and and test. What the change we're proposing is for a for a long time, Walnut has accepted that sixth grade entrance exam score, not just for seventh graders, but they can hold on to that sixth grade test

033score for eighth grade, nth grade, 10th grade, even 11th grade. And so even though they've taken this test in the sixth grade, um they may not use that score to say, "Hey, I'm still eligible to enroll in Walnut until deep into their high school career." What we're proposing is kind of a two two tests. So, sixth graders would still take the test. They are still taking the test. They would still be offered on Saturdays. That score would make them eligible to enroll in the seventh and eighth grades. To enroll in the high school in the ninth grade or later, we would ask that they retest presumably in their eighth grade year. That's consistent with what other >> private schools do. For example, they have offer testings generally in November, beginning of December at Ursula and

034Sax and and other private schools in the city. They're testing their students in the eighth grade for eligibility in the ninth grade. And so that that's the first recommendation in terms of changing and and we talked about whether this is something Walnut could do, you know, as a procedure, but really feel like it's It should be something we've talked to the board about and enshrined in board policy if you're comfortable moving forward in that direction. And then the second is kind of again answering this question of what would happen if we are at capacity limits. Um the the rule kind of at Walnut has been you take that test and pass you're eligible no matter what. And we've sort of ignored the question of if they got to capacity limits. What we've proposed here is

035CPS students who receive a qualifying score will be offered admission to Walnut Hills High School. So, not changing that >> we will sort of guarantee a spot for CPS students. NonCPS students who receive a qualifying score would would follow the exact same enrollment priorities that we have above um that relates to uh students applying to a school without a feeder school. So, again, district residents, students first, um, and going through the ex the exact same priorities. >> Um, so that's our proposal. >> Gary, >> this was um just what I was looking for uh as far as like actually explicitly talking about capacity. So, thank you. And I am fully in support of the eighth grade test change, eighth or up. Um, I think it makes total sense to not keep a sixth grade score

036all the way into high school. Um, so yeah, I I love this change. Um, and I appreciate the work you did. >> Yeah. >> So, I I understand it up until where we get to we crossed out. Um, I think it is extremely appropriate. Sixth grade scores should apply for seventh and eighth grade score. eighth grade score should apply for um >> well I think eighth grade score should apply for maybe nine or 10. My my question is 11 or 12 because um can you share with me and help me understand how we're counting it for the two years and that's very applicable and um eighth grade for you know coming in freshman year and I I'm a product of private school so I understand that you take the eighth grade test >> but there

037usually and you're a product too >> there is something like there there's something else if you're coming in after your 10th grade year there interview there. There could be something. I think that two years beyond that test to be considered makes me feel like that some there's there needs to be a look at that. Not just I'm looking back at your eighth grade year when you were however old and now you're a senior wanting to just graduate from Walnut. I think there needs to be something to quantify and qualify if you're coming in after your sophomore year. And so it doesn't say that here. It just says it says who's who students who receive a qualifying score when is that eighth grade >> will be offered admission to Warner Hills. That needs to be clarified.

038NonCPS students who receive a qualifying score when are we talking about the eighth grade then? Um based on space. So I just I think that last little line just needs I understand the the point of it. I just don't know and this is a you all question if do we have a large number of students that are trying to come in 11th and 12th grade year. I don't know if it's a large number. And if it's not a significant number, then I think we should give the building and the staff and the administration an opportunity to filter that rather than to say, well, look, I passed it in the eighth grade and I'm a I'm a junior. I'm going to my senior year. There needs to be something there. And the justification can be because

039we count two years from sixth grade and then we're counting two years from eighth grade any that those are usually like senior high. >> We need to know like what is it? Why do you want to come? Is it that you moved in? And then let the administration make that decision. But I think since we're changing that, we need to have teeth to allow the administration the ability to look at capacity, to look at factors, and then make a decision based off of score or qualifying, whatever. I just think two years feels good to me. It's justified in the first uh junior high, but it it did the administration did you all say anything about seniors, juniors? Is there is that a large number of people? >> Principal Chambers has shared that 1112 is their

040least entry point primarily because of the graduation requirements are different than the standard 20. So very few students try to enter 1112 because they wouldn't have the the capability to graduate from there because they wouldn't have the number of credits and all the required extra components that go with their graduation. They do. He did share that sometimes they'll have like a foreign exchange student that will come for only 11th or only 12th. Well, I actually think only I don't think he said he ever actually had any for 12th. Um but those would be circumstances. But he said um the main entry points obviously are seven, eight, nine. And he said even 10 is still a lot of students try to get in for 10 but very very small numbers at 11. I think mainly I

041don't even think they have accepted 12th graders unless it's a very like extenduating circumstance. So all I would suggest is that we cap that, you know, nine and 10 and then students desiring entry at grade 11. It's based off administrative. I just think that we need to give the staff the administration the ability to look at that and then make that decision based off of those two years. It's already rare, but at least it's since we're working on this, it's already written. That would be my only suggestion. >> Thanks. >> I have no other comments. I think that what's proposed looks great. >> I I feel compelled to add just in terms of h how consequential this change will be. Um the biggest impact I think is going to relate to nonCPS students attending K

042to8 Catholic and private schools. >> So I I think there are kids and families who get that sixth grade score >> with no intent of enrolling in seventh or eighth grade because they're enrol they're already enrolled in a school and and then hold on to that. So those are the families that I think will this will have the greatest impact on and um glad we're just I I just wanted to point that out. No. >> And they they would be still resident students. They may not be CPS families, obviously. >> Totally. And and they have that same opportunity to take that test in eighth grade. It it does not change their ability to attend Walnut. It just changes when they would take that test. >> That's That's right. I Yeah. >> It's not eliminating their

043opportunity to come to our school. We still would welcome them. >> Um Yes. And uh I just this was this was my story. So I went to Seven Hills through 8th grade. I took the test in sixth grade, used that sixth grade test to come to Walden Hills in nth grade. So this this would be exactly No, Dan, I'm so glad I'm so glad you I think I think to me it's there are two issues. One is does the policy make sense? The other is are we communicating it in a clear and proactive manner, you know, because I I don't think there's anything wrong with this. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think the risk that you're helping me re recognize is just people not knowing about it, you know, and people

044relying on past practice. um you know and that that may not be a policy question but it still I think matters quite a bit. Um so do you do are were were we in a place with what you were saying that we could recommend this forward today or you think it needs to come back again? >> I think just with what I added and and administration seems okay with that. I'm fine with recommending it. >> Yeah. I mean, I think um what I would like to do um as one board member, but and I'm happy to recommend it out of well, let me think about this. I think I'd like to hear from the administration about what the plan is to communicate this um so that families aren't caught off guard. Um like, and just

045I'm thinking also about um let's say there is a student I guess enrollment is done for next fall already, but in theory, if you've got an eighth grader in the upcoming school year who wants to go to Walnut in 9th grade, you got to get that student tested this next school year and they may not know about that. So, like what what is the what is the plan to address that from the communications perspective? >> Yeah. And if we need to grandfather the incoming eighth graders, I think we can talk about that. I that doesn't bother me, right? This doesn't leave room for grandfathering though, >> right? >> Yeah. Because I understand like having them now need to take a test in two months or 3 months from now, like that might add a little

046bit of pressure to their life that they didn't think they had. But either way, these kids passed the test in sixth grade. I I would think that the school that got them ready to pass the test in sixth grade would get them ready to pass the test in eighth grade had if they know that that's coming. I think if we can communicate to these schools that are typical schools and let them know that this change is coming, I I would have faith that those schools would be able to prepare the students for the eighth grade test the same way they prepared them for the sixth grade test. >> Yeah. >> A lot of the schools want their kids to stay. Yeah. >> They don't want their kids to leave and go to Walmart. >> Two

047points. One, I don't think anybody was contemplating disrupting the class that's been admitted for the 26 27 school year. No, no change at all. Those students have already gotten an admission letter at this point. >> Um I I think the question might be for the students who took the the test as sixth graders this year >> and are anticipating not enrolling next year. >> Yeah. >> Not enrolling as eighth graders. But that that are we going to require them to retest as eighth graders to enter in ninth grade? This policy would say yes absent some change. So that that >> So let me add if you're talking about grandfathering then I'm not good with that because I don't think that's the spirit of what we're talking about. I think that there are opportunities when they

048take the test in the sixth grade moving forward to let those parents know that register for that test. Yeah, this is and to um board member Lindy's point that is for administration to tell us the communications plane like maybe you add something in when the students do that um when they take that test that can be just as simple as that. But I don't want us to get into grandfathering because I remember around COVID, you know, people we I remember hearing I wasn't on the board with them, but there was just this huge conversation around certain the test being adjusted for certain schools because I don't I don't want us to do that. I don't want us to do that at all. If we need to let them know if they take the sixth grade

049test that there are changes coming and what those changes will be, this is applicable for two years. I think that's a sufficient amount of opportunity leeway. >> I do think maybe um do we offer a test in the eighth grade? Do we offer something or would they have to pay for a test for the eighth to as a eighth grader to take it for the ninth grade? What would what would a what would the process be if a person went to one of our schools, didn't got accepted in the sixth grade, now is in the eighth grade and wanting to retest, what would that process be? Can you walk me through that? Would they would they sign up to take the Warner Hills test again or would they just get another test and use those

050scores? What would that be? >> Go ahead. >> So, I think it would be like right right now if you want to enter and you've never taken the sixth grade test, then you would take the on my placement test. So I think we would have to do that. I hear what you're saying and that makes sense to me is that they would need to either take the test again. I also think we could like so right now since all of the students have access right now we use I ready in our district um for that for those scores for the sixth graders. So I do have on my notes here that we would definitely have to talk to Amanda to identify if there's a test that we would want students to take again. Um it's

051like because everyone or many people have access to that so we're able to use those test scores for other students outside of the district. Um so I do think we would need to look at what will the test be. Will it be the exact I mean I don't think it should be the exact same right because what you got in sixth grade is different than eighth but a similar process but yes we would need to make sure that there is a test in the eighth grade available for them to take. So if we have a student who let's say they student the student passed it in the sixth grade but they chose not to go and then they want to go in the eighth grade. I just want to understand I I already could qualify

052them to gain. Is that right? >> For our own students. Yes. Now is there something comparable that outside of the school district students take? We That's what you said you have to look into, right? >> Yeah. So, like right now, most of our eighth graders, except for a few schools, we do the MAP test, which used to be um what everybody was doing. So, >> Walnut Hills also does have a specific placement test. So, we would just have to decide, do they want to look at using MAP or do they want to create another placement test? >> Okay, I asked that question because in theory, the eighth grader wanting to go there for high school may not have to take any additional test. It could be that they have scores that are available that could

053qualify them to get it. our own students and outside students. So there wouldn't necessarily need to be any grandfathering because they already are taking things that could qualify them that they would have taken out. So that's what that's what I was asking for. >> Yeah, I I think it it there there are there are worlds where that could be true and worlds where it could not be true. Um but I I'm trying to track the issues that have come up here. I hear there are three sets of issues. Um I think one is um what we were just discussing is there a clear test identified for the hypothetical eighth grader seeking to enroll in nth grade and there's an A and a B within that A is like an NCPS student. a B. I think

054we have to assume a nonCPS student and assume that like the school doesn't give anything like like could they because it used to be you come I don't know like like yeah uh maybe that's not a fair assumption but like for for a student who does not go to CPS um and that family would like to get that student tested in eighth grade where do they go and what test do they take? >> Um so that's the that's the testing >> issue. the other ones about communications like with a way way to share this out. And then the third, I think there was some disagreement or or at least possible disagreement about whether the whether it makes sense to have a bridge period, you know, like >> I retract that. It's totally fine. I'm good.

055>> I'm I'm I'm not pushing. I was just good. I'm good. You can retract it fully. >> You had suggested that there should be or should not be >> should I had said I would be open to a bridge period, but I I do not feel strongly about that. So, I will retract that based on >> I'm I'm also open to it. I I just I think um >> No, I think it makes sense. What Kareem has shared makes sense to me. It's not going to impact the incoming kids. If we do a strong communication plan, everyone will have plenty of time. There might already have been test scores that we can use. I'm good. >> I can almost guarantee you that no matter how good the communication plan is, there is going to be

056a family or there's going to be a couple of families who don't know about it. Had made plans. the sixth grade test though like that happens all the time anyway no matter what there's always a miscommunication about want to help entrance like we get the emails like it happens >> what were you gonna say Dan >> nothing I was >> um so I think in a minimum what I'm hearing is we should talk about this in August with information from the administration about what those tests would be and what the communication plan is. Is that accurate? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think I think I would like to request that if we're going to have that conversation in August, can the administration come with a perspective on whether there should be some kind of or

057did you already consider did you already like on the grandfather idea like did you all think about that and decide it's not a good idea and that's why this is the way it is or is that just an issue that people didn't discuss yet? I think we thought about it. I I we're not we didn't propose it, but um yeah, I I think if we're if we're coming back in August, that's fine. I um and maybe John would want to be here as well. >> I I gather that the the policy committee at least is inclined to support this move and and happen relatively quickly, right? August and then the board takes a minute to pass it and soon we're in >> November when uh these tests are administered. So I'd like to report back

058to him. They're inclined to support it. We'd like to come back in August with a communication plan uh testing more more details about how testing will take place and if there's any inclination to request a transition to to make it at that point. Yeah, I I think something like on on a transition period, like a clear opinion. Yes, we think this is a good idea. Here's why. No, we don't think it's a good idea. Here's why. Um would would be helpful. >> Understood. Anything else on um 5113? All right, let's keep moving. Um, we're going to hit um policy 5820, which is uh schoolboard voice and student voice. >> Um, yeah, I the reattached the policy. I I didn't gather that there were any proposed amendments. Um, this was more about how to reintroduce uh

059at one time the board had had a student group that it met with regularly. Um it's not necessarily compelled by the policy, but uh that certainly was a part of I remember Hoffman was particularly uh >> yeah and I I I in preparing for this meeting I went back and listened to this part of the meeting because I wanted to refresh my memory of where we were on this and what what the superintendent said was that by the fall she was going to bring an update on um making sure that this policy is fully implemented. Um and so I think that's still relevant. I'm still looking forward to that presentation, but I think for today, I didn't have anything independent that I wanted to address on this. Did anybody else? >> So then Dan, our

060next step could just be to let the superintendent know we're excited to hear the update in the fall. >> Okay, great. >> Um Rob, has anybody been um asking to speak on hearing of the public online so far? No. Okay. Um Okay. So then let's let's keep moving. Um 7500. >> Yes. So 7500 also this uh this conversation uh included our conversation about 9140 which is later on the agenda but it involves our uh school relationships with parents, guardians and caregivers. So I' I'd direct your attention to the 9140 draft. Uh we did uh the request from the policy committee was and and this this is the policy that in bold uh states every school shall have at least one parent organization. Um the committee asked us to provide a definition of parent organization and

061also our parent champion sitting to my left um al also described kind of how they categorize uh parent organizations. Sorry, Rob. This is 9140, not 9142. I think you got 9142 up there. >> You're fine. >> Yep. Scrolling down. >> Yeah, there it is. So that we we included a draft or proposed definition of parent organization and then uh Laur shared with me uh the the sort of way that your department categorizes uh parent organizations as either active in progress or inactive and I'm very pleased to be joined by Miss Thomas next to me. So anything you wanted to say about this policy? >> Um no I think it's spot on with the definition that uh Dan helped to create. Um, and I think it also gives the board an understanding of our parent organizations

062and the processes that they're in depending on their school. Um, so again, just kind of reiterating active parent organization. I mean, there is someone that is tasked um to lead that parent space. At the school level, they are meeting monthly um either at the school or in the community or even virtually. Um, it's a blended space um in progress. Um, we're still trying to track down who will lead the space at the school level. So, I am attending those meetings that the principal and the resource coordinator set up to help to support them to getting someone active to actually take take the charge um with doing the meeting minutes, notes, things of that nature, setting up events that happen at the school level. And then when you look at inactive, that means just nothing is

063happening at that school um in this in the space of recruitment or having an active leader and parent meetings. So I put it that way to make it easier for everyone to understand what is happening at all 66 schools as far as my department and them supporting me doing the work. >> Thank you. Comments, questions? >> So I I think I had some questions around 9140, but I feel a little bit like we've kind of conflated the two two different things together. A parent organization for the purposes of being like a formalized parent group and then a parent organization for meeting for um kind of like social awareness um but not necessarily leadership and action. And so for me, I I guess I just want to understand What was the gist of the policy? Because

064I felt like the there was at one time a policy that was specifically to have parent organizations. It was not necessarily social, but it was to have formalized parent organizations at every single school with a leader. The district will pay for the PTO. Um the district will pay the annual PTA membership. U it's that is in here, but it was to have an active group much like an LSDMC like active and then I I felt like um when we got the report oh well we've got 55 schools represented so do we have 55 PTAs so the in regards to 55 parent organizations because the board because the board of policy 9140 just says parent organization it does not define that they have to be a PTO PTA or PTSA so there is a combination of

065all of those types of groups at the various schools. Um, currently we do have four schools that are registered PTAs that pay dues and we are we'll be supporting them the upcoming school year once we evaluate the transition of families and things of that nature because every year we we'll have to do a reset to see who's at the schools doing in what capacity that they will be serving. So based off of 9140 the policy just says pay organization. I was never given a directive that they have to be that parent PTA that is registered. It is based off on the needs um of the school itself because every school is different. >> I get it. I just I think it's it's just it's misrepresenting when we say we have schools represented that's or that

066attend your meetings. That sounds like we've got 55 organizations. And if that's the case, how are we moving them from active in progress or inactive to in progress to active? We only have four organizations formalized PTAs out of 66 that we're paying the dues for is the goal to form PTAs. I mean, I I guess I just I feel like we're kind of conflating parent organizations and allowing parent organizations to be the the goal when it should be. I thought it was supposed to be that they're formalized PTAs and we will help pay for them to be formalized PTAs. >> So, they have the option to be a PTA, but again, it goes back to the building level and what those parents choose to that group chooses if they if the group as a whole

067says we would love to be a PTA, then I'm on board with helping them with getting registered, find out what the dues are, and doing the paperwork for the state level. If they say right now we're just we're getting started and we don't really want to start the PTA yet but we do want to have our formalized groups where we are meeting at the school then it's a parent organization >> and how many parents or how we have 55 >> we have we have 55 parent organizations across the district and again that is that is compiled of PTAs PTSAs and just parent groups >> and that's also compiled of in progress and active 55 is what is active. We have uh let me see we have 10 that are in progress. We have one that

068is inactive. So we have 55 parent organization organizations where there's a president assigned because you I'm sorry. How many active did you say? >> 55. >> So we have 55 parent organizations where there is an assigned president and they have monthly meetings. Yes. >> But they do not they do not want to be a PTA. Some of them some of them I mean so again out of that number four of them are actually registered with the PTA out of the 55 four of them decided yes we want to register and do a PTA be we want to be that official title. Yes. Okay. I I I still I I still feel I felt like it. I feel like um that we're just we're just kind of conflating them together. And I wanted to make sure

069that we're empowering the parents like we do the LSDMC's because I think that was the spirit the original spirit and we're settling for parent organizations as we were defining it. But does it have teeth? Because technically parent organizations or some of our policies, the LSDC in particular, ILOT is another, they're supposed to be choosing from parent organizations for PTAs. And so that because all of those go around and around, but they don't have a formalized um leadership. They don't they're not formal. They're just more they may or may not be more social organizations. Are we really with integrity having the LSDMC's choose from parent organizations? Have the ILOT choose from and the inconsistency is part of the problem. So if it's in progress, do they not get to choose their IOT members from there? Do

070they not get to choose their LSTMC? And again, I just think it needs to be very clearly defined what that PTA or parent organization is and where the other policies are supposed to be drawing from a reg registered parent organization, it needs to be very clear and I feel like it's conflated. So that was the reason for this. If we have 55, which is different than the 66 we were told, if we have 55, then we should not have a school saying, "Hey, um, I can't choose for my my LSDMC can't choose from a from a parent organization. And that's what's happening. And so that's problematic to me that we've got LSDMC's that are saying, "Hey, we've just got parents that come, but they don't go to the PTO. They don't go to the parent

071organizations." That should be everything should be cyclical. And it's not. And so that's what I was looking for. >> I think you're definitely right on that second not not to jump in. I think you have a lot more I I think you're definitely right on that second point of making sure there's an identified group. >> I'm sorry, that second point about making sure there's a parent group so we know who's supposed to be selecting the LSDMC reps, the ILT reps, is is important and and relates to other policies. To your point, my my recollection of the policy committee meetings when we the last time we looked at this was not necessarily that the board insisted that every school have a PTA or a PTO. We have as I recall like some friends of organiza that

072are robust parent groups. >> Um >> the SCPA I think has like an arts related group. So they are robust groups that I think meet the definition of what a par the the parent organization is. But to your point of making sure we're identifying at each school which one that is so that we know. >> Yeah. And and see when we have this in blue I know you it's I think it's up there. You know, we're counting a parent organization as a booster organization. That could be athletics, it could be a foundation, it could be, you know, to me that's very broad, very it has the potential to be very ambiguous because >> they're not connecting but we're counting them. So the one of our monasteries that I that I interact with has a foundation

073that is completely separate from a parent group and so they would not even be considering joining the LSDMC. So this to me is not clear. This is a definition of what we're doing and it's great. I'm not saying that it's not good. It's absolutely good, but it needs to connect to all of the policies around um it I wouldn't even put foundation in there because those tend to be separate >> um members. They they have their own bylaws like they are completely different organizations. Um booster organizations tend to s go around athletics. Are they the same as uh parents that want to focus on IoT? Like like we're throwing the the whole gamut in there to say that we have that. And I think that does your work a disservice to say, "Hey, two people

074that get together, that's a parent organization." No, that that's that's probably not what the spirit of this is, but that doesn't devalue your work. It just means that it's just not the spirit of this. And so, um that's all I was saying. I just don't want us to conflate those two. Particularly because we have LSDMC's now that are forming in some of our schools that are brand new and we've got parents that meet. They come to your events actively, but they're not in in they're not active with LSDMC, which is where they should be active because it needs to connect. And so I think we're on the right track. I don't want to blavor the point. I think we're on the right track. I do think that this needs to have just a little bit

075more definition and just not be confused at all. And I think we've thrown the baby in with the bathwater in this section here. But I thought the first part was was original and was the spirit of what we were trying to do. And this was started back in what 1992. So I think it um it has evolved. We're making it what we're doing. But I don't want to mix up what the district champion is doing to make it fit this policy because I think they're separate. And that's I mean I just think your your work is different than this. It's being included in here, but it's not the same. So I would love for us to just be able to have a um I wanted to make sure I followed the whole conversation. Um so

076that the next steps that you're taking away or if they're unclear, you can tell us, but I just want to make sure I'm tracking kind of where we're going from here. >> I I think I I I certainly understand the concerns you've raised. I I think it's worth maybe bringing back. I I would like to talk to Miss Thomas and Sier and make sure um to see where we are on that, but uh yeah, >> I'm happy provide more detail. >> Yeah. No, I but I think you get what I'm trying to say. >> I definitely do. >> So, I do have a question though. So my question is, so am I is the board's goal to make sure that every school, all of our 66 schools has a registered PTA? >> Yeah, >> you

077get your own >> just for you. Um, is it the board's goal um that every school has a registered PTA that is paying dues? >> I don't think so. >> That okay. >> I I will say I did not interpret it that way, but I do think it is the it is the spirit of the policy that all those things align. So there is a formalized PTA that actually feeds into a formalized LSTMC that feeds into a formalized like that should be it doesn't have to I don't know if it has to be the same people but I think we're finding now where there are LSDMCs as we build new LSDMC's there are LSDMC's that are being formed that are separate from PTAs for or parent organizations that are separate and then ILTS are are

078separate people who don't even come to students like we need to the policy is very clear on having connectivity and supporting that connectivity. If they want to formalize to a PTA because there's a cost in involved then they can then we can support them in that way but that is a another means of communicating with parents formally by giving them access to buildings by giving them access to I don't want to say well staff and by giving them access to um being able to communicate with the building. So, it's an extension of what's already existing and and it can be social, but it needs to be kind of formal like, hey, who's going to take who's going to take charge of this? And it probably is very simple for you to do because you're already

079doing the work. But I think that what you're doing has been put into here to fulfill the policy, but I think it it's still different, if that makes any sense. And so, I don't I wouldn't say that the board wants you to formalize everybody into a PTA. There's a cost involved with that, but I do think um it's definitely bigger than what we're doing. >> Good. >> Yes. >> Everybody good. Moving on. Um I'm just recognizing something that is not on here that I had meant to put on here. And so I don't you know if we can't cover it today because people aren't prepared for it, that's okay, but we can at least mention it at some point. point. I wanted to circle back to the um uh council eval uh reporting pieces that

080were a hot topic some months ago um just so it doesn't fall off the radar, but let's let's do the stuff that's on here. Um and then if we have time, let's >> Great. We can talk about that today, too. So, we're and we're going to hard uh we're going to aspire to finish before, but we will end no later than four o'clock. Um and so off we go. Um okay. Next I think is student records 8330. Um on this uh I provided I there there's no changes to the uh policy that uh the redline policy that I gave to you. This has been under discussion the last several meetings. There was a request uh that we come up with a uh uh pros and cons list which should be loaded on board docs although

081I I'm seeing that maybe only the front page of the uh is in front of in the board's packets that's in front of you today I think unless you have both do you have both sides >> yeah so it's online apologies uh the pro so this is a pros and cons list of whether or not the board ex uh restricts the directory information policy. >> Yeah. >> Again, directory information is information that the board has designated as uh student information that uh it will consider public unless a family opts out. And the way they opt out is there is a form sent in the back to school packet to families that says these are all the categories that the board considers directory information. If you want us to keep this information private, please opt out

082and return this form to us. Otherwise, we will consider parent name, address, phone number, email address to be public and then available upon request. Um, I'll bring up my list because I got it also. Uh, in terms of pros or cons, I I mean it's relatively straightforward. There you go. That's perfect, Rob. Um, and and just a little bit more background. The board prior to 2017 had identified only three categories of information as directory information. student name, awards received and recognition or participation in officially recognized sports and activities. Um this protected uh families in terms of that that information other information, student information, parent name, email, etc. was not public. Um I I gather the primary motivation of the board at that time was we were in a lot of competition with charter schools and

083a lot of that related to not wanting our students families information available to charter schools. Charter schools regularly request that from us. Uh 2017 I think a couple of things changed. One is uh there was a Supreme Court case that went up. More importantly, we had a we had a big levy in 2017 and you know, it was no secret we wanted that levy organization, which is not CPS, to have access to reach out to families uh to request or solicit their support for the levy. And so that that's a big reason that the board changed its policy in 2017 to make sure that information was available to an outside organization that was going to support. I thought the levy was 16. >> Wasn't it the same year as the presidential? >> About the same

084time, but it was it was I mean it we whenever the policy passed it was slightly before the levy or >> before the levy. Okay. Yeah. I I don't Yeah. And the timing it was certainly relevant. Um, more recently, there's been um a request by the board to consider at least restricting that directory information policy again perhaps back to only a few categories like student name, awards received, recognition and officially u or participation in officially recognized sports and activities. Um, the cons are that uh at least some schools found it administratively advantageous just easier to do PTO directories, do um class directories and things like that. Um a and certainly partner organizations also benefited from being able to access family and student contact information without having families opt in, which can sometimes be a challenge

085for our schools. when we ask families to opt in, the response rate is is always less than if we are uh asking whether families want to opt out. So, those are the pros and cons. Uh there's not much more to it. I think it's it's that that that's the landscape that the board uh is in in terms of making this decision. >> Thanks, Dan. Um Carrie Green, questions, thoughts? It is. >> I have some questions, but you feel free to start. >> Well, I mean, we got into this because we were talking about the incident with the kind of rogue sheriff from out of town, right? Um, a rogue former sheriff, I'm not sure of her current employment status. um uh if I'm and I I think the idea of wanting to provide maximal privacy

086protections given our current environment resonates for me like I I'm sympathetic to that perspective if I'm reading this though like the kids names will still be on there >> it was in 2017 the the board doesn't have to include any directory information >> okay yeah um >> mo most of the charter schools uh still have names. It It does us very little good to try to recruit charter students know knowing only their names. >> Yeah. >> And they're not giving it to us. >> They gave us names. They gave us a list of names >> and they could choose even not to do that. Correct. >> Even not to do that. Correct. And the board could choose even not to do that. >> Yeah. Like I think I I I agree that I see pros

087and cons on both sides. you know, like I I I I have a hard time weighing the benefit from It seems like if we were really going to if we really thought that the needs on privacy were maximally high, we should offer zero directory information. Um, but I'm not hearing anybody make that argument, you know, like nobody from the administration has said we think we should do that, you know, like I don't want to substitute my judgment for you all's. You're much closer to this than I am. Um, but I'm interesting what what my colleagues have to say. >> I think part of my confliction, and I'll just be very honest and transparent, is that we have a levy, you know, we've got levy discussions coming up, and I think we need to have access

088to the information. So, I'm conflicted. I absolutely want to protect our families and our students. Absolutely. >> But I also want them to get information, too, that's relevant from us. >> So, I don't know. totally understand that. Um, I think there's also a way to identify families that live in the district that have children, which is a way to do this. Um, I think we need 50,000 people to vote for a levy. I think our families probably represent 5% of that at like I don't know, 10% of that, whatever it is. Um, I think we can communicate with our families in ways that don't put our kids at risk. Um, I I it's not an easy I I just feel like the environment right now overall, one of the reasons I joined the board was

089because of the overall environment being so terrifying for our students. So I think it would be for me personally a a weird decision to not try and protect them in this way. Um totally recognizing the importance of this levy and communication being key. But we've all been part of campaigns before. There are a million ways to connect with people that don't require our schools giving out information. Can you tell, And it's not just a levy. I want us to have access, our families to have access to each other as well, but can you tell me, we're not the only district going through this in the in Ohio. We're not even the largest one. What do they do? Do are they restricting information? >> In my experience, most do not. Most have a more expansive definition

090of directory information more similar to what we currently have. >> Okay. >> Um now charter schools are not the same. >> Sure. Sure. But I'm just wondering about the like the Columbuses, the Cleveland, the um Akran, the the big eight. >> If they're not seeing that there's a need to restrict it and they have some of the same challenges, maybe more on some some other levels than we do, then um I'm just wondering I I get the information from the charter schools and so I hate that, but I also think we could maybe we could do differently more >> easy for us to survey. I I mean I have not done a formal survey of it. That's just my impression. Um also responding to what board member said, I I don't think this is going

091to restrict our ability to communicate with our families. >> Okay. >> We we will communicate with our families, >> but not on the levy. That the the board is prohibited from communicating support for the levy through these channels. And that's why it has been important to some to make sure that an organization supporting Yeah, that's right. >> What's the what's the timeliness on this? Like like what um I'm trying to go historically how it got on here in the first place. Like was and what was the was there a >> So it was part of the review. >> It just came up in the review. >> Coincidentally came up around the same time as the uh Gratus Police Department. I think we had one meeting where we talked about it and made some recommendations. The

092kind of >> more generic Yes. And then this became a more timely or a more >> so I just one one offer for a way forward like given how it came up um I do not infer a um like a a burning deadline for us to make a decision on this if that is the case. One thing that I would appreciate is maybe hearing from a school leader who's closer to some of the immigration issues than I am. You know because I I think we're just trying to trade off things that I don't have a lot of proximity to. Um and so maybe we to hear from a hey the board could go in a direction where we don't make anything available helpful not helpful like >> yeah that the only time sensitivity issue is

093in terms of the back to school packet um >> oh that is a big issue >> however like there there would be nothing preventing the board making a change in October November December from sending out a new we have changed our directory information policy and >> it's a pain >> it's it's it is what it is it would be important enough that we would want to communicate it to families and give them the opportunity to >> but I mean to get stuff in the back of school packet I mean people are gone in July they probably need that. >> Yeah. And again you're you're contemplating becoming more restrictive about the policy not more expansive. So if we were becoming more expansive we'd have to communicate a new >> um yeah restricting is is can be

094done even after the back to school packet and I think it's probably too late to choose. >> It's It's getting close. >> The survey is certainly something I can bring back to say here's what other school districts how they define. >> I I would like to know what other big ones are thinking and your colleagues across uh Ohio because we're all challenged with some of the same issues and if they're not, what are they doing to combat that? I I think if we're I would appreciate the chance to hear from maybe the Roberts principal or you could pick a different school if you think there's a better one. Um I I I I >> Yeah, >> there's so many things we talk about in these meetings. I'm trying to make sure I keep it all

095straight. Like the um in my head at least there are three versions of what this policy could look like. There's the current version which is most expansive. there's revert to what we used to do which is only the things that are in the pros and cons list. There is then a third one which is we share zero right >> there is I nobody's nobody if nobody's advocating for that I don't want to be the only >> I think mostly because I I we have experience with having I know what that looks like I I remember the time when our policy said name awards received and recognition I I I've never experienced a one where we say names even is directory information uh is not directory Um, so I I didn't want to think about that.

096>> Yeah. >> Like I I I'm nervous about pushing something that nobody else thinks is a good idea. Like I don't want to do that. Um if I don't I don't want to create a solution that without a problem to solve, you know, like um so we'll go with what Kareem was requesting. >> It's graduation, you know. >> Yeah. >> Anonymous. Anonymous. You know what I mean? I mean, >> you with the brown hair. Good job. >> I mean, no one. >> No one interprets FURPA like that. Yeah. What's ironic, my wife is in healthcare and HIPPA is written in almost exactly the same language as FURPA. And what they do in the hospital setting to protect in patient information is >> levels different than what schools are doing. Even though the law is written

097exactly the same, they they have departments of people who are protecting >> and and so it's it's interesting how how these laws with identical language have just evolved kind of in this >> in different in different ways. Yeah. >> All right. I I feel I feel badly team if we're not if we're not moving to some kind of closure because like we can just continue to accumulate continued discussions forever. So, um, >> assignments for >> like Yeah, but we should we should we should can we commit to like let's make a decision on this in our next meeting. >> Yeah. I'm even comfortable if if you're wanting to kind of narrow that down to just having the discussion on the floor and just voting on it because that will be a broader once you bring

098something back. I guess that would be a broader perspective. >> Yeah. I mean, it's my it's my strong preference that we send things out of committee with a recommendation from the committee. You know, I feel like like on rare occasions, maybe we don't do that, but I feel like it's our job to like look at that's why we have committees um to to to get close to the information and come back with a with a with a recommendation. >> I just feel like this needs >> I don't want to I I'm nervous about making a recommendation, one recommendation to the full board because I don't know if we can get there. We're all kind of in a different space. I definitely don't want to do no because that's like they wouldn't even be honored on

099the little governor's thing, you know, that commercial that goes around. I definitely don't want to do no, but we're down to two. And I think if you come back with more information from what other districts are doing, I still think we'll be down to two. You know, I I think it will be and I I would much I would feel much better much much better making that decision with >> the board's opinion, board members opinions having weighed in, but you know, than just one. Someone can still take it out of consent, but >> what Sorry, what are we saying we're down to? I'm confused. >> There a couple different issues. I I think the um we we we're down to two, but we also only started with two. So, we have done I don't think

100any >> That's why I'm confused. I'm like I'm just looking at these two things, right? Like so I'm like when I'm saying like >> what I would support it's like the restricting student information only name participation like that's what I was looking at when I was saying like that's >> and that's what you'd like to do. >> Correct. That's what like me one board member wants to do. >> Yeah. >> I only brought up three because Ben said we could >> make it nothing like I think theoretically that is true but nobody is arguing for that. So, I'm happy to withdraw that one. I think the other thing to what you were saying, Kareem, I think um >> we can I I have no problem or no no p push back to us uh putting

101something on a board agenda that's not in consent that we want to talk about with them. My my what I want to advocate for is that we have that conversation in the context of a recommendation coming from the committee. >> Okay. >> Um so that they're reacting to our the re the result of our deliberation. Um and I think if um I think my the the the motivation Carrie to restrict to the top option would be in light of the gratus stuff. Is that correct? >> I mean that's one example of it. But >> we talked about like literally anyone has access to this information. It's not just immigration students that are at risk. There's I don't want to go through it because this is a public meeting, but there are a lot of other

102ways students are at it could be concerning. Correct. Yeah. So, I I think um >> what's on the other side of the scale is the levy concern that Dan was articulating here. >> Um >> if you don't have >> Yeah. Um, and you so let's I I think we should come back in August with the information that Kareem requested. Um, I would love to hear from a princ even if the principal can't be here if they could share in an email or some that that could be really helpful. And then let's make a decision on what our recommendation is in August and then we'll we'll bring this to close. >> Okay. >> For what it's worth, Cleveland includes all the categories that we do plus students weight and height. That's >> Oh my goodness. That's

103crazy. >> So if you're participating in an athletic team, >> you're recruiting for a college basketball team. You can look at the size of your >> That doesn't feel good. >> Yeah. >> You never know. Okay, let's keep moving. So we got we got a we don't have closure, but we have a plan to get to closure on this one. >> Um next is uh LSDMC. Yes. >> Thank you. That's 9142. >> Yep. >> Um, so this is coming back again. Uh, as as with the red line reflects all the changes to the current policy. Uh, the yellow highlights are the only changes that were made from last meeting. So, putting a cross reference into the policy we just discussed, Cabo policy 9140, that's the parent organization policy. and then adding the line the LCNC

104shall document its request to the community council and that the community council has determined not to appoint a number where that's true. So those were the two changes that were um requested at the last meeting. I'm glad to answer any further questions on >> Looks good to me. >> Are we good to recommend this out? Mhm. >> Okay. Hearing no uh objections and hearing ascent, um we're going to vote this out with our recommendation. Um it's had a lot of back and forth, so I feel like it should not go in the consent agenda and we should talk about it for a second. Do people feel differently? >> Great. >> And then Kareem, I think I might ask that when we get to that part of the board meeting, since you've been so involved in

105this one, could you with Dan highlight what some of those key changes have been? >> Yeah, we can tag him. >> Sure. Great. Okay. Next. 9212. >> 9212 at the last meeting was uh approved to move. >> Phyis, did you did you need something from us on that one? >> No, it's June 22nd >> if that's okay. >> Monday. >> That sounds great. Thank you. Um actually 9212 in the last policy committee meeting was approved to move forward for the non-consent agenda. Um it was not on the last meeting's agenda I don't think but it is ready to move forward for >> June 22nd. >> So do you need anything from us on this today at all? >> Do not unless there's any changes since our last discussion. anything from either board member. >> Great.

106Let's keep going. Uh we discussed 9140. Uh the next policy is 5320 immunization. >> Ah yeah, it was mine. >> Yeah. And I believe Angie Maddox is joining us electronically or uh virtually. Also, Angie Maddox uh oversees our school health department. >> Hi Angie, are you with us today? while while Angie is joining I I will just share a little context for why I wanted to put this on here. Um uh there was an article in the paper uh I'm really surprised we had didn't I didn't get a single email about this in my inbox from a parent or a constituent. Did you all get anything on this? >> I thought we were going to get inundated. Um, but there was a a a article in the um paper that um the the the I

107guess the data from CPS um was not as strong as other school districts. Um but then there was also some questions about what does the data represent? What's in it? And I I'm I'm coming into this with no priors on what should or should not be true, but I wanted to give some air time to this to talk about what the article said uh and then discuss whether we needed to do anything from the policy committee. Um that was the context. >> Yeah. And and while Angie's loading up, she may have some comments on the article as well. There there's a few at least a couple of uh things I'd like to correct from the article. Um, one is that the article highlighted that the the state uh introduced a new dashboard to show the

108percentage of students that are vaccinated basically all the way to a school level. You can look at it by county. Um, I don't think there's an option for school district, but all the way down to school level. So, you can look up your your school and it will show the the percentage of students um that are vaccinated. At the time they were developing this, we were also transitioning to focus and we were also transitioning from um our relationship with the uh Cincinnati Health Department uh contracting with them for our nursing staff to uh CPS staff. Uh we now employ our own nurses and also our school health aids. So on October 15th, which was the deadline that the state needed this data, our our this year's data was not up to date. Um uh and

109so we uploaded the information that we had available at the time. It shows that our schools are obviously not not correct. I mean, there are schools that are showing in the 10 and 15% uh immunization rate, which we know not to be true. And we know that not to be true because we do have vaccination uh information uploaded into our focus system. At the time we were not necessarily checking the box that says, you know, we have immunized or or non-immunized, but the information is largely uploaded in our system. We expect that next year's report will be much more reflective of the state of students being immunized in Cincinnati public. Um the second piece that I think is just not true is uh that there's no board policy on immunization. There is a board policy

110looking at it. >> Yeah, that's right. So there is a board policy on immunization. It's uh consistent with state law in terms of the vaccinations that are required to enroll your students at the time of enrollment in Cincinnati public schools as well as the exceptions that apply for families who have students who vaccination is counter is not there could be a health reason that they don't get vaccinated, a religious reason that they do not get vaccinated. Uh we are supposed to and do have for each student an immunization, a record of their immunization or a record of their exception or excusal. Um and and and in in numbers that are not reflected in the state's dashboard currently, but we hope to um hope will significantly improve in October. Um the only other thing I'll say

111and I'll certainly let Angie jump in that there is one point of the state law that's noted in the article and and it is true that it said the state law says that on the 15th day after a student enrolls if we do not have your immunization record or a valid excuse the student is to remain home until that immunization record is received. The article, I think, does correctly note that um health officials, not CPS officials, health officials say no agency actively enforces that rule, leaving compliance largely up to school districts. And so it I I want to be kind of fully transparent that I I at least in my experience, we have not necessarily been sending students home on the 15th day. >> Yeah, I >> that that's the full kind of background. So,

112welcome. That's incredibly helpful. Um, and I I I would love to hear Let's hear from from if we have Angie. >> Angie, are you on too? >> I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Um, yeah. I appreciate everything Dan said, he is correct. Um, because of all of the moving parts of last year, we had what data we had, we submitted to the state on October 15th, knowing that it was not going to be uh perfectly reflective of what we know to be true. I believe a lot more of our students are vaccinated. Similar to what Dan said, we have schools that are showing 10 and 15% which is just not accurate. Um, we have been um, actively working on getting that data up to date and I have been working very closely with the

113state level. There is a state database of um, immunizations that we can import those into our focus system and we are working on that over the summer. Um, we're also doing another push through marketing and communications through all of next year for a lot of health things including doing immunization um, education and pushing for even our students who are not compliant with immunizations to get them caught up. And I fully anticipate that our numbers are going to be more reflective of even what Hamilton County expects them to be. Um, I have spoken to the health department. They have a department within their organization who kind of oversees the immunization for all of Hamilton County, not just Cincinnati public schools. And just comparatively, even she said, I spoke to her last week, um the lady that's

114in charge of that department, even she said they know that Cincinnati public schools data is better than what it showed in what was submitted. We all fully anticipate that that the numbers that get submitted on October 15th this year are going to be much more reflective of what's true of our district. >> Thank you uh Angie. Really appreciate it. Any comments from other board members? >> I appreciate you bringing this to us and the explanation because it was very odd to see that data. So, it's helpful to have that context. Thank you. I I I kind of briefly looked at the article and I was like, boy, we didn't get any emails about that. So, I was very pleasantly surprised. You think about none of you were on the board during CO. I guess I'm

115the only board member who survived. That would have been a different story, you know, like this would have been like a different story >> for sure. But I also want to thank our team. >> Can you hear? >> Okay. I want to thank our team because we are doing really good work. we we can't help because we switched systems. And so, um, I'm glad that it's going to be reflected accurately soon because that's the only way that we can refute it is to just say, you know what, but I'm I'm glad we're getting in front of it, too, because we often sometimes we don't get in front of the narrative to define it. So, I'm glad we didn't get any emails, but I'm also glad that we're talking about this and that this has been

116documented and monument monu memorialized in a meeting. So, thank you guys. And now were you was there somebody who wanted to jump in from >> a comment? Let's hear it. Yeah. >> This is from as a CPS parent. Our school nurse sent letters home saying that the majority of children were not up to date. Our school employee nurses have access to this children immunization record. For my family personally, this letter didn't hold truth, but the records of CPS wasn't asked to update either notified that my student was >> Thank you, Rob. I mean, I I think um I had an idea for where we might go next, and I think this will address what the parent was writing about, but I I want to uh hear if if that's not correct. But it sounds like

117um we have every reason to expect um uh more representative data come the fall. And so if we're looking at a picture uh in that in those data that says we've got a great vaccination rate, we should feel really good about this, then I think there's there's nothing to see here. You know, like if we have another year where it looks weird or we do see some schools where the rates are really low, I'm certainly open to revisiting as a policy committee whether there should be an enforcement policy. Um to your point about there's nobody currently enforcing this. Um but I again I don't want to fix it. I don't want to create a solution to a problem we don't have. And so I think it's worth waiting to see what the data say in

118the fall. And I think to the parents concern if um it sounds like that there was a there was a um difference between what the letter was saying about the child's immunization status and what the parent was saying about the child's immunization status. And so I think when we see the data in the fall, we'll be able to see um uh whether we should be particularly concerned about that or not. >> That's right. And so I think here's the thing though, like the the article came out in May. So there's there's a big lag between when we submit the data and when we see the data in the dashboard. So I think a request I would have is can we see the data when you send it in? Um uh and that could be October,

119November, but sometime before this calendar year, could we look at it? Um we don't have a health and safety committee anymore. Um but I think we could certainly look at it here. We could look at it in a committee the whole I think board meetings tend to be pretty packed. Um but I think that could be a nice thing to look at. And any objections? Nope. Okie dokie. Um, anything else? Did we hit the whole thing? >> Uh, general counsel policy. >> Yeah, general counsel and uh hearing of the public. Great. We'll And then um did you have anything that you'd like to share or ask about today? Thank you so much for coming. >> No, I'm just I went to all Cath school so I know nothing about and I'm not from Ohio. >>

120That's great. Well, welcome. Come anytime. Um, we're here every month. >> Um, so let's do general counsel and then maybe we'll get people home early. >> No, we got 23 minutes. We're going to do it. >> Oh, hey. Thank you. >> Um, >> does Rob have a copy of this? >> I will make sure he does while you >> just for everybody who's looking at home. >> All right. Um, 10 seconds. Um so this comes after several conversations during the policy committee of uh a proposed general counsel policy. Um we used as reference the uh uh discussion that the board had as well as the uh draft policy that um board members provided. Um I I hope it's reflective of kind of what some of the conversations uh have been about the policy. Um did

121not uh take all the guidance of the proposed policy in terms of identifying separate council for the board that is attending every board meeting reviewing every contract or things like that. uh but did include um that there would be some decisions that the general counsel would be sort of separated from and that the board would uh retain its own counsel. Um so the last two paragraphs for example uh the board may retain legal services from an independent council in circumstances involving the employment of the superintendent including the negotiation of the superintendent's employment contract and other situations where the the interests of board members or the board and the superintendent are or may reasonably appear to be adverse. Uh the general counsel may also recommend that the board retain independent councils in circumstances that may involve

122a conflict of interest. uh a majority of the board shall be required for the board to retain independent counsel. In such cases, the board may retain any attorney or fir firm agreeable to a majority of the board members. And upon request, the general counsel shall provide the names of at least three attorneys or firms with relevant subject subject matter expertise for the board's consideration. Nothing herein shall limit the board's authority to select a council of its choosing. that that kind of comes from the uh policy that was uh the sample policy that was provided, but um I thought reflective of kind of some of the conversations that have that have that have happened in this committee. >> Sorry, Rob. I'll get you this. I have a couple questions, but I'm happy to follow um other

123board members. >> Not mine. Um I know that we and I just shared this with um another board member who because we put this on the table a couple of months ago obviously April and um I've shared before we didn't have an opportunity to meet but I I believe that there should be a dotted line. I think that um functionally and and administratively the role is to report to the superintendent and I'm glad to see that there is some language in here that does say with input from the board um and it infers that there's a dotted line relationship there. >> Um I just I don't know I don't know if that's what the some of the other board members intended. Um, it's it's there, but I do think that that I just am a

124little torn because there needs to be clear delineation that the the general counsel is not the input is also from the board. It's it's to protect the district, not necessarily the superintendent. And I just don't know if that's clear. And that's based off of just a historical perspective. it needs to be very clearly defined and there shouldn't be any as a board member or as a board we shouldn't feel that there's an over um reliance and protectiveness to towards the superintendent and so that I just don't know if that says that what we were thinking but that's what I'm thinking when I uh wanted to work on that but I'm open to suggestion >> I think I was going to address a different part of the model or the proposal. Could you just say your

125piece one more time? >> So, my desire is that there be a clear dotted line that the board has input on the general counsel's evaluation um with respect to how the general counsel has informed and I want to say defended but protected the board or the district um with the board side of it. And I understand that the majority of evaluation with respect to functionality and administratively should come from the superintendent because that is where the majority of that work is. But I do want to ensure that we have a clear separate line whereby the board feels that the information coming from the general counsel's office is represented somewhat independently in protection of the district and the board's interest in in the district and not simply the superintendent's protection. I know that there this this

126is not the the general counsel for the superintendent and I know that this is not the general counsel for the board, but the role of the general counsel should be to protect the district, not one side or the other. And oftentimes I think when we have reporting especially for an evaluation that is heavily weighted towards one side there's going to be um there's just an inferred bias that is going to come there because that's the side that's evaluating you. So I don't know I don't think it should be 50/50. I don't know how to solve for that but I'm just putting the the problem out there and this touches it. I don't know if it's this touches all of what the other board members that specifically wanted to talk about this policy what they're adhering.

127That's just me. I never want to put general counsel in a position where they are having to to choose a side and I have felt that that has happened before and so I don't know how to protect it other than this small inference that's here. I mean, I I think that um this is a tricky issue. Uh and I think that the my strong preference uh is that the general counsel report to the superintendent, superintendent established goals, superintendent does eval. Um I think the I think my rationale for that is um it's really hard to have a evaluation that has inputs from multiple people because those people may disagree. Um and so you can wind up in an evaluation with lots of conflicting feedback. I think the way we try to handle that with the

128superintendent and the treasurer is we have to vote on all those goals in public um and vote on the scoring system in public. So that um the there may be disagreement, but it's going to be really clear what the majority position is. Um and that's just a different kind of setup than than for the council. I think I could certainly support um all of this, by the way, is my attempt to respond to what you were sharing, Kareem, and then I have a separate thing I want to bring up. uh that was on my mind, but I I would certainly support a sentence that said something like the superintendent will solicit feedback from board members in preparing for the annual evaluation of general counsel. Um because that that would make it clear that like and

129I think it's true part of what general counsel does is support board members on all kinds of and and that every year the superintendent will gather information as part of the process the superintendent follows, but it still like leaves the goal setting with the superintendent. superintendent's conducting the evaluation. Um, but GA gathering input feels healthy and appropriate. Uh, and I'm I'm certainly good to support that. I think that the the separate thing I wanted to throw in here too is I'm going back to this model of policy that we looked at with schoolboard partners and there were a series of of bullets around um board counsel versus uh district council and you know the the first two of them on there were about um uh having a separate council to do the superintendent's employment contract

130and having separate council to do the superintendent's evaluation. Um there's, you know, there's there's language in here in this, I guess, next to last paragraph, um that says the board may retain legal services from an independent council in circumstances like negotiating service contract. Um I guess I wanted to hear more from the drafters about May versus SHA and also um I think on the I think it addresses employment contract explicitly does not address an annual evaluation explicitly. There may be good reasons for that. I just wanted to hear kind of what the thinking was. I I draft drafted it and um I welcome your changes and and if the board decides it will always always have outside counsel for the superintendent's contract, I think that's fine. I I I don't have a problem with that.

131I I then would respond if asked to do anything related to the superintendent contract that that that I cannot do that because I would not want to. So that that I think is there there are some contracts that have had been contentious and negotiated. There have others that have been almost a >> uh pro-forma kind of thing and I I I just want to be clear that that that is what that will mean to me is that I should be out of that alto together. >> Yeah. Can I say one more thing on this point because like I I I think that the way that it's written is nice actually and I think I think I could get on board with it. Um, you know, it says really clearly in the next paragraph, a majority

132of the board shall be required for the board to retain independent counsel. You know, like I I'm, you know, if I'm imagining a situation where three board members want an independent council, but four board members don't. Well, then like that's a majority of the board that doesn't want to like that. the board does have an opinion and the board like there's like I'm I'm trying to if it seems like the situation you'd be really worried about is one where a majority of the board wants something different to be happening and if that's the case a majority of the board can get there to be an independent council you know and like that's what this that's what this policy >> allows for um to me it's then just a question of making sure board members know

133about that. Um, but what were you gonna say? >> Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I like that there's flexibility because if we're looking uh tight budgets, saving the $500 for the hour review or I'm sure it's more than that of a contract that we all agree on seems like a no-brainer if it's an easy contract and it's just a matter of someone reviewing it, right? So, um, I like the May. I like that we have the option um if it's a uncontentious very simple review just do it in house be done with it. Um so I would be in support of keeping this language. Um and going back to um Dr. Muffett's point. I like the compromise that Ben suggested with saying with solicited feedback because I agree. I think having

134one person doing the evaluation is the simplest way to go about it and I think getting feedback from us on our opinion of the performance since we are a part of setting those goals makes complete sense but that should be directly between the board and the superintendent and then superintendent can communicate that back um as the direct supervisor of that employee. So, um I think that's a great compromise between the two things and I think that's all I had to say. So, I I do like what you all have shared and and I'm again I'm I'm only one board member, but I've lived through what I've what I what I'm trying to prevent. So, um I you know I tell my students rules exist because something happened and I think policies exist because something happened

135and or you don't want them to happen. And so I do not I I I like the inference of and and let me just say this. I think that the superintendent should set goals for general counsel. Um, but I I also don't want to put the general counsel's office in a precarious situation where things have been suggested to them andor things have been requested and the the boss has not taken that advice and there's no um other recourse. but it adversely impacts the board and or the district because really the general counsel works for the district, not the superintendent or the board. And so I think I was trying and I am trying to give the general counsel's office a way to leverage if you're telling your your boss in essence, the person running your

136evaluation information that they they may not either understand or follow, what recourse is there for the other entity that they are dotted line to protect in the best interest of the district. So that's what I'm trying to put in here. I don't want to get into setting goals. I think that is absolutely the superintendent's responsibility. But I do know that the if the role is to report to protect the district and there's two entities to that district, the administration side and the and the board side, what are we putting in place to ensure that the general counsel is protecting the totality of the institution and not just one side when one side is completely responsible for their evaluation. And I'm open to I'm open to um suggestions, but we live through that. So I'm not

137speaking in theory. I'm speaking of protecting that office to be able to give us accurate information timely >> and not have retaliatory circumstances because the goal is to protect the district. >> I remember what I was going to say before. I definitely understand lived experience influencing the policy and it makes complete sense because these positions are held by specific people today and that could change at any given point in the next day to 15 years, right? So, um, absolutely fair and important feedback. My comment to that would be what the situation you're describing to me is an issue with the superintendent, not the general counsel. So, if that's the situation that's happening, then the board needs to take action with the superintendent and it isn't to do with this policy and there isn't an it

138there is not a problem with the policy as written. There is a problem with the leadership style of a specific person. And so I don't want to change the policy because there was a person that did not implement it in the appropriate way. Um I think the policy is written is appropriate. I think the execution can be done improperly and that is specific people not policy problem. I understand but the policy is about evaluation. So I was just trying to this is this this is about the evaluation I thought of the general counsel. So I wanted the board who is the other stakeholder to have input in that evaluation. And that's the vein that I was looking at this from is the board's ability to influence. And I like that you said hey let's um

139let's give some feedback to the superintendent. I think that that's that's definitely sufficient um for me. But the the spirit of the policy is around evaluation and not necessarily duties but evaluation of the general counsel. And if the evaluation is to include his performance and protection of the district, the other entity should have some say so in that. But I agree for the most part. Yeah, I think um uh I really agree with what you said um Carrie about in the hypo that was being described that the difficulty is between the superintendent and the board and that that's where that needs to get resolved. And what gets particularly tricky is when board members disagree. Um uh because then there isn't isn't a uniform position on whether there's a problem or how big the problem is

140or what to do about it. Um, what I like about what's written is it's really clear where the board can solicit outside council and there's a clear process by which that happens or doesn't happen. Um, which is it's a function of whether there's a majority of board members that feel like that's helpful. >> So, I think what I would like to offer is I'm into I'm trying to watch two things. One is the time and the other is are we on average moving more things off of our agenda or on average keeping more things on our agenda and I'd like to be majority pushing things off of our agenda uh to get work done. Um so I would be happy to recommend out or support recommending out the policy is written with the additional sentence

141that I read which is in this paragraph about uh goals and performance evaluation. it would add the superintendent will solicit feedback from board members in preparation for an annual evaluation. I do want to stick by like my hope is we only recommend things out of here that everybody supports and so if we can't do that today I'm happy to keep this on the agenda for next time but I wanted to see where you all were. >> I definitely think we should just you know push it forward. I do think there were other board members since we started this that um would would have not seen this updated policy. So I asked Dan to send it to everybody just so that we could they could see it because at least two of them have requested hey

142what are we going to talk about that again and we just met today I think very very briefly that was all my fault. So I wanted to make sure that others had seen this because they've asked about it. I think we are in a general consensus around for the majority what's here and we can have the discussion if we need to on the floor. >> So let's let's do this then u because we're going to we're going to end by four and we're going to get more stuff off our agenda. So on on at the next available board meeting and I would defer to President Craig as to when that is. That could be the 22nd, could be July um to put this on the um uh non-consent agenda. And what we'll do is we

143can share the background. We can share we are coming w with a recommendation. We're not asking for a vote on this tonight because nobody's seen it, but here's what it is. Here's the committee's recommendation and we want to get feedback from the rest of the board. Yeah. >> Does that sound appropriate? Sorry. Non- voting. >> Well, I think we could vote on it. I asked Dan to send it out so that he he could >> Well, I I think I think we hear like what would what we would come to the board with is say, "Hey, here's what here's what the committee came up with. It has the support of all three committee members. We can vote on it tonight if people would like to. And if people have a bunch of feedback or want

144to take more time with it, that's also fine. But we've done our job." Um, is the thing I want to be able to show them that we've done. >> Got it. We don't want it anymore. >> No, I I'm, you know, like I I uh uh Yes. Um >> Okay. So, I'll send it to all board members with this change and then we'll get it on the agenda for the next available non-consent. >> Perfect. You got it. >> Along with the LSC, right? >> Do we have anybody who wants to speak? >> We do not. >> Okay. Um anything we have not considered that we need to everybody have a great weekend. We will see you in