001Okay, good morning everybody. Uh, welcome to the May um, meeting of the uh, policy committee for Cincinnati Public Schools. Um, we'll go around and do a quick round of introductions. Maybe starting with uh, Rob. Rob Wilson, technician. Michael Gustin, assistant treasurer. Mary Weinberg, board member on policy. Uh, Ben, board member. Kendra Matt, board member. Dian Ho, general counsel. Stephanie Scott, assistant general counsel. We have our We have our student guest. Just say your name. Just say your name. Zion. Welcome, Mai. Welcome, Zion. Glad you're here. Happy summer vacation. Um, that's great. Um, welcome. So, I think for for our agenda today, um, we have kind of a mix of things. Um, we have some continued discussion, some new items, um, some work that's coming over from the finance committee. Um for area number five, I
002think we should chat through these and make a plan for them today. Um what we did at the beginning of the year was invite any board member to submit any topic they'd like the policy committee to take up during the first six months of joint 25. We're almost through that first six months period and we got through the first list. So this is um not a let's solve all these issues today, but let's make a plan for how we want to work through them over the next six months. Um uh and then um we'll have some hearing of the public at the end and some times for other business. Um wonderful. So uh I think with that, uh we'll turn it over to council's office for item two. Morning. Um, so item two, the first
003item is uh a new law that was signed into law shortly after the new year uh called Ohio uh House Bill 8, the parents Bill of Rights Bill. It it requires all school districts in Ohio to put in place uh policy that has very specific parameters, very specific requirements, and it requires that that policy be in place by July 1. Um we've drafted a a policy that is almost verbatim kind of what is required by the statute. Nothing more, nothing less. Um we've done a little bit of training uh with uh social workers, counselors, school social workers um about what's coming on this bill. Yeah. Psychologist. School psychologists. That's great. Um and so welcome your questions. Um I I will say and that that the the proposed policy is again re really similar or verbatim
004kind of what's what's required or needed according to the statute. Um we welcome your questions about it. Thanks Dan. Uh Stephanie, did you have more you wanted to add there? No. Um board members questions. I appreciated the conversation we had about this last time. Um would you would you um we don't need to go like or sorry um Kendra did you have anything that you wanted to ask about? Um just wanted to inquire. So you said almost verbatim. Is there any area that we would need to call out that maybe isn't um that wasn't the same as kind of the um other drafts that was shared. you know, it's it's all very very, you know, kind of taking the statute and just organizing it in a way that makes a little more sense for a
005policy. Okay. I I'm happy to do like a kind of one minute just summary of the sections if you want to. Um I I don't know if um that will be helpful. I I feel like you did a nice job of that last time. I do think it will be helpful at the board meeting where we present this. Uh, and I'm happy to to to um uh be supportive on that front where I can be, but I think you all are so much closer to the content that the the walk through from you would be great. Yeah, I'm um fine with it. I just wanted to make sure um when you said almost verbat just wanted to inquire, but um I'm pretty familiar with it. We've had lengthy discussion about it, so I am okay
006um with what you're presenting today. Thanks. Just noting the kind of two flash points about the again with the sexuality content in in terms of how the district uh educates students on sexed. I don't think this is any change. We we already inform parents ahead of time this lesson is coming etc. and and already give parents an opportunity to opt out of that those lessons. However, I think the flash point could be how the legis how the state ultimately defines what sexuality content includes um and and they may take a broader view of this his you know than than just sex ed sex education. The the second piece that's the flash point I think again most of this is is just common practice will be the requirement to notify parents if a student um uh
007has has a requ there's a request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student's biological sex. That's that's the one bullet point of this statute that is getting the most attention I think. And so again, that's verbatim from the statute, but that those are the two pieces of the statute that I think are getting the most attention. Is that fair? And yeah, go ahead. Just so I'm clear too, like on that on the piece about um notification of substantial changes to students and on uh D, yep. any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student's biological sex. The statute doesn't require us to say we will refuse to do that. What the statute does require us to say is that
008you can't hide that from parents. Is that right? Can you ask that again? Definitely. Well, like um let's say that there is a student and parent who um support uh a trans students uh identification with an alternative gender. There's nothing in the statute or in the policy that would prohibit CPS from doing what the parents are asking the school district to do. Not not in this statute. that the the the other statute that was passed at the same time of this was the transgender bathroom or the bathroom bill. And so that that has some effect on how we accommodate students who are transgender. This statute is just a notification. It's a notification piece. Okay. Uh thank you. Other questions, comments? So the recommendation from you all is then we need to put this through, right?
009Um there's probably a date by which we need to do that. Well, we we have made it as an effective date of July 1. So, so it could be uh either of the next two board meetings, right, is fine. That's right. Yeah. Um could Phyllis, would you just get with um uh cream on where where this ought to go. Um and um I think this one definitely gets listed on its own. Um not not part of the consent agenda. uh and we will we'll work through it. Uh anything else on first bullet under section two? Let's go to the second bullet. Great. Uh second glad to be joined this morning by our uh treasurer Mike Gustin as well. Uh this comes from the finance committee and I'm glad to present it or you can't straight
010from the finance committee. Yeah. So this is the um student fees, fines and charges policy. So the big the big change I think is um for the current school year or the just ended school year I guess. Uh the district we did not charge base student fees. So those are assessed for every kid based on their grade level. I think it's 28 to $40 depending where you're at. Decision was made not to do that last time. Um but it was a one-year exemption. And so coming back to the policy committee to either make that exemption permanent which is how which is how the proposed policy is written. This would not preclude schools from charging fees for other things like some schools have class fees you know minus schools do interessions. Um there are like lost
011item fines and fees that get us. So none of those things apply. These are just the base kind of every student gets a school fee. And so yeah the proposal is to make that permanent. Um, I just would like to add that I know, um, I was part of the policy committee when we initially, you know, brought that in and I would like to keep it still the same. Um, I would like to make that permanent. I'm not sure what my other board members feel like, but I would like to keep it as is. So, yes, I am in favor of keeping it as is as well. I am just curious with these base fees. Um, I guess what was this this fee contributing to? Was it like a part of the general fund or
012I'm just wanting to get an idea of where these fees were uh being applied. Yeah. So, so all of that money goes into a special fund. It's fund nine which is called uniform school supplies and it is each school has an account in there and so then that schools could use that to buy basically they would get the revenue and then they would use that to buy supplies for schools. Okay, as you can imagine quite a difference in in revenue between schools. You know some schools bring in quite a bit, some schools bring in almost nothing. So but but that money's out there. it's spent. Um, yeah, some schools do it. The other thing is in that fund, like schools can do like a bookstore, um, and that sort of thing. And so that's kind
013of a separate pot of money that goes in there as well. So ultimately, the schools would then find a I guess an additional means of revenue to support their specific schools. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And again, like a lot of the work on this is just waving fees. I mean, we spend schools and our department spend a ton of time just just waving fees for students who who have a financial hardship. Okay. I have a couple questions. Um um and I think at the end of the day would would would want to support I think whatever the recommendation is from the treasur's office, but just from from my own understanding um how much money total comes in in a normal year where we do collect school fees. We looked at this I think for We looked
014at this for finance. The numbers are around I think $350,000 across the entire district. $350,000. Okay. Um fully loaded average FTE with the last board presentation was something like 72,000 73,000. So how many if you my math is not that great. It's going to be four or five, right? four probably four or five FTEs probably for 350 divided by 72. Where's our math? Is it um yeah about it's about five FDs. About five FTEs. Okay. I think and I'm again I'm not saying therefore one thing or therefore another. But we are in a context where we're looking at a riff. This is revenue we're choosing not to collect. Just just to be clear, you couldn't use this revenue for FTEEs. I understand. But the schools are still going to need supplies and so we're going
015to pull that money from a general fund and the general fund money could be used for FDES. True. And I will say part part of the budgeting process is every school gets an allocation from general fund because again the the collections for any individual school aren't you know a lot of schools collect virtually nothing. And so in order to have some level of equity every school gets a per pupil general fund supply amount. Yeah. That's just part and this is kind of like on top of that. So yeah. Um and it strikes me too. I think there's something that um feels deeply reasonable to me about the idea of not charging families who can't afford it, right? I think that just makes good sense um for moral reasons and for financial ones. But some families
016can. I mean, you can imagine an alternative policy that doesn't wave them everywhere, but waves them in schools that have a certain poverty threshold or have a certain Did the I'm I'm I'm kind of curious. Did we look at that like whether we we we it's like a like need-based or something? It would it would be at the student level. So, you could so so you could certainly have schools where a few school where a few students would would pay the fee and you could have schools where only a few students would not pay the fee. uh we did not look at that. I think it's kind I mean I mean that's sort of how the current policy works. The problem in implementation is the waiver process like people people tend to only do it
017when it matters. So what happens is you have a lot of a lot of families who carry these fees for 13 years get to graduation and we go hey you owe us x hundreds of dollars and then we retroactively go back and assess you know whether they would qualify for the waiver and so we end up waving just a huge amount of money. Could you give an an estimate of what that amount of money is that's being waved? So if we said on average 350,000 is what would be collected in a year was typically waved. I that's a good I don't have that number. I can tell I can but I can tell you like when we did the conversion you know we you know we we found like four plus million dollars of money
018that we waved because the students are gone. It's just uncollectible debt and a lot of this honestly becomes uncollectible debt. So great. Yeah. Thank you. And I just wanted to add, yeah, we did discuss that in terms of trying to figure out um should we charge, should we wave, and I think we just decided just to wave as a just across the board just to be, you know, have it all be the same. So yeah, one final question with this. So I know that there was um I think in the year that it was uh established uh to wave the fees, there was a donor, right? that there was only one donor who donated to one specific school. Oh, okay. Okay. Yes. Well, again, is this something that the foundation could support? That could be
019a possibility and there will be other fees. So, I So, I think that's a great suggestion. There there are other fees that are programmatic. Some of our like some of our art classes are that are material intensive still charge those fees. Um so so there would definitely be opportunities you know for the foundation to support some of those things as well. Um this is this is helpful and I I I stand by what I said at the beginning that that I I would like to support whatever the recommendation is from the treasures department because you all have looked more closely at this than I have. Um, I think it's just worth paying attention um where we as a board like where we choose to really get into the weeds and where we don't, you know,
020and this this there could be a version of a need-based waiver or something, but that that might, you know, be non-trivial. Um, but I think you all have looked at this more carefully than I have. Um, so then recommendation from policy would be that this go through the board. Yes. Yes. Um, do people have a I go either way whether we try to put it in the consent agenda or listed separately. I think it should be listed separately just given the fact that we've had some this conversation. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. Way because I know we've discussed it before, but it's fine. Whatever. So we'll we'll list it we'll list it separately and Phyllis you can get this to Kareem on which which uh which meeting does it matter to you Mike which meeting this
021goes through. So I mean we just like obviously before August like right before so either either there aren't that many meetings before August only three. Uh so so yeah. So yeah. Yeah I got it. Okay. All right. That's good. So I think we're done with item two. Anything else there? Great. Okay. [Music] Um, House Bill 208. So, this is uh uh want to give you some context on on this bill. This is also a statute that was recently passed by the Ohio General Assembly um but may require more discussion than our earlier one. This is not a required policy for the board to adopt. Um we have drafted it again sort of verbatim according to the statute. Uh we discussed this a few times in policy committee already. Uh this is the new statute that
022enables school districts to adopt a new uh policy that would allow for the expulsion uh of students uh for actions that pose an imminent or severe danger to the health and safety of other students or school employees. Um, we've, uh, Assistant General Counsel Scott and I have, uh, brought this to the discipline committee and spoken with them about it several times and, and I'd say there's some mixed, uh, feelings from the discipline committee about whether they would recommend the board adopt this policy or not. Um ju just to walk you through it very quickly again. It it allows for successive 180day expulsions or or first a 180day and then successive 90day uh removals from school for students who pose this imminent and severe endangerment in the view of the superintendent. That's specifically defined as only
023these four categories. So it is limited. It's bringing a firearm or knife, committing an act that is a criminal offense when committed outside and results in serious physical harm or serious uh property damage. Making a bomb threat. And then this last one, four, is important. Making an articulated or verbalized threat, including a hit list, threatening manifesto, or other social media posts that would reasonably lead a person to uh include conclude that the student poses a serious threat. Um so so it's important because that's not really part of the current statute uh allowing expulsions of students. Um there are three points of the policy that I think uh draw draw the most kind of uh discussion. Uh, one is, uh, there's a new requirement that that this isn't a part of the current law relating to
024student expulsions, requiring the superintendent to communicate the conditions of return for the student, not only to the student and parents, but right to the board of education, which is fine. We don't have a process for that right now. You don't get a notice from us when, you know, of the conditions that that a student would be allowed to return to school, but we we could work through that. Uh second and this is really a concern that was raised most by our school psychologists. One of the conditions is an assessment by the student by a professional psychiatrist psych psychologist or school psychologist um as to whether or not the student poses a continuing danger to the pupil's self or other students or school employees. And the concern raised by the school psychologists is that's that's to
025paraphrase that's not really a thing. You know, they they assess students and they can um I I I'd be better it'd be better if a school psychologist was explaining this to you, but they can't tell you for sure whe whether or not a student poses a continuing risk to other students or themselves. And I think it feels to them as though this is sort of setting up a professional, a psychologist, a school psychologist, that if should should something happen in the future with this student that we could all look back at them as having made the mistake of making the wrong assessment there. What's the liability insurance look like on uh Yeah, it it that's right. So that feels um wrong to them and they they sort of Yeah, they have a problem with that.
026Um third is a concern from the discipline committee generally um about this no limit on the expo that that these could potentially be a 180day removal followed by a 90-day continuing 90-day removal where the student theoretically is never educated by the or is is not um brought back to school ever. Um and our discipline committee consists of teachers, administrators, outside um constituents like legal aid. Um and feels like this has never been a statute before. So I I think it's too early to tell what other school districts are going to do. Uh we haven't we haven't seen removals. Uh I think there are some boards that have adopted this policy, but we're not getting a lot of information about how it's being used yet. Uh there there are limits. Again, this is only specific situations.
027This isn't uh completely open-ended, but that sort of summarizes, I think, where the the conversations we've had about this proposed policy so far. Thank you. Um questions? I have a couple, but I'm happy to go last. Um so, just procedurally, the the ask today is let's just have a discussion about this and give you all feedback. The ask requirement on this at all. Okay. So the board can act as soon or as it wants or not at all. And this is those masters. Just to make sure I heard you correctly, this is elective. So we could choose to do zero. You could. Okay. Is there an is but what's here is what the administration's current recommend like they it's but I I think we wrote it out so that you could see what the statute
028offers. Uh, and then I included some red line to make sure that we were informing the board of of some of the concerns that have been discussed so far. That's that's I don't I don't know that I mean who's Yeah. Who wants this? This is just it it's it's a new policy. I I don't think there is an ask of the board yet. It's open for discussion at this point. Get some feedback. We're glad to take that back if you want some feedback from other experts. My my take is there's there's plenty going on. Um if there's somebody who feels this is really important, I'm very happy to listen to it. But if there's nobody who's saying this is really really important, we got other fish to fry. Uh but I I don't What do
029you all think? No, I the uh highlights that you all identify, those were my actual concerns. Um I wholeheartedly agree that's a huge liability, right? Um yeah, for the school psychologist. And I also think that this can be rooted in a lot of bias and further inequities. And so as it reads, I'm not in favor for it. I mean, I think we all would say yes, there should be consequences for these level of offenses, right? But we still want to make sure that we're honoring the restorative lens that we have. And so, um, to Ben's point, I don't think that this is something at at the top of our priority list. If it comes back at a later time for discussion, that's okay. But again, it's elective and I'm not quite in favor of what
030I'm seeing at the moment. And I would agree, we can come back to this at a later date. That's fine. I we we wanted to make sure it's a new law. It's been talked about a little bit. We wanted to make sure that we put something in front of you so that the board if Yeah. get some get some feedback. So that's fine. And if Yeah. And that's Sorry, I I cut you off. Keep going. No, that's it. That's that's kind of our purpose for bringing this forward. We had there were several staff members who were aware of this and had brought it to, you know, basically were asking for kind of guidance on if the school district was one before. Yeah. Like it was more of a district position as opposed to us just
031detoning it. Yeah. And I I I first of all, thank you. This is great. And I really I didn't mean to like the to have not said anything would have been to run the risk that some board member comes back later and says, "Well, why didn't you tell us about something?" Like, sure, I get it. Thank you. And if if there if it if there is a time where somebody really wants us to do like, "Let's talk about it." Yeah, absolutely. Um, okay, moving on. We got uh 9142. So, I we're gonna um I'll lose Kendra here in a minute. Is there anything you want to make sure we talk about today on the agenda? Um, I do know that the um the next discussion, so policy 9142 u was a point of discussion for
032me. Um, and I may not be able to weigh in fully, but at least wanted us to be able to bring it up. Yeah. On on this one, council can tell me if I'm or so, sorry, this was this was Mrs. W. I'm going to go ahead and just introduce it really quick if you don't mind. So, we actually got a couple of different complaints. I had turned this in as a topic. We received a couple of emails from community members in the community and just wanted to really go over this particular policy 9142 and um making sure that it's being carried out. Uh wanted to possibly discuss as a whole um as board members and then provide any necessary steps to ensure that the policy is being followed per the LSDMC. So, as I'm
033looking here at this particular policy, I highlighted a couple of points and I just had this paper in front of me and then okay, here it is. So, obviously we all know what the LSDMC does, but I thought what was really good to kind of take note is um the LSDMC shall approve and this is at the bottom of the first page um any locally initiated change in the school program or focus. They may also make recommendations to the principal regarding other school issues. So when you look at the composition and the selection of members, this is key because the complaint is coming from two particular um community individuals regarding two different schools. And um if you look at number five, it says that three community representatives who are not employed by the district should
034be chosen for your LSDMC. One to be selected by the neighborhood community council and the other two to be selected by the LSDMC. And in this particular case of the two individuals at the two different schools, they are stating that they weren't given an opportunity at all. And so wanted to bring that to the policy committee to further discuss and I'm not sure board member Matt had anything else to add to that. I I appreciate that. Mrs. Wenberger, I wanted to just um I have a perspective on this, but we're about to lose Kendra. Is there anything you want to say first? Um no I think that you summarized um this topic well based off the emails that we have received. So thank you. I think something to share is um two things at least
035two things feel important here to me. I think in the past um the purview of the policy committee at least in the in the almost six years that I've been here the purview of the policy committee has been to review existing policies and recommend potential changes or additions to the full board. Um what it hasn't been is a space to check to see in a specific instance whether or not a given policy has been followed if someone's concerned that it's not being followed. I do think is the second thing is true. I do think it's really important that there be a place to do that. Like the the policies are not optional. Policies are directives the board has given the administration. Uh and I think any any concern that they're not being followed I take
036real seriously and I think we should take real seriously. I do think that's a concern for the whole board. Uh and my my where we've done this in the past is in an executive session with the superintendent uh around employment of a public official. Um, and so my my I think if if there's good discussion to have today about what is in this policy, do we want to make changes to it, I'm all in. Um, I think if if it's like was there a breach that needs to get addressed, I absolutely think we should talk about that. I just want to do it on Monday with a full board and do it in executive session. And I agree with you and kind of slightly disagree in terms of policy. It is our responsibility obviously to
037come up with the policy and it's also our responsibility to make sure that it's being upheld correctly um in terms of whether it's the wording or just the action. Um I do agree with you in terms of it being a full board discussion but originally it was suggested to bring to policy since it was a policy issue and I am okay with them taking this and discussing it with our colleagues as well. Grammy I think um sorry Kender were you? So in looking at the policy, I think the policy is clearly outlined. Um I don't think that there needs to be any changes um or amendments to how the policy reads. So you know, per your suggest suggestion of discussing it in executive session um to make sure that it is being upheld and carried
038out the correct way. I'm totally in favor of that. But I think one of the things that maybe board member Weineberg was wanting to ensure too was that we were interpreting the policy all in the same manner. Is that correct? Yeah, that is correct. And just going over the exact wording and making sure that if it states that this is what is supposed to be done that it is being done and not someone else or other individuals or groups organizations interpreting in a totally different way. If it says this in the policy then it should be follow what's stated in the policy. Okay. So we can discuss as a full board if you would like. I was going to say just as a as a concrete next step, Phyllis, can I ask you to share
039with Kareem our request that we get this on exec for Monday. Um I have no idea how full or not full that queue is, but I'm going to make the request because there I think all of all I personally would like to make sure we talk about it. Um and um it seems like my colleagues do also. Um, anything else on 9142? No, I think that was it really. That was the huge concern. So, okay. Okay. Um, Mai and Zion, thanks for coming. Enjoy your summer. We'll see you all next time. Um, and we'll go on to we have two that came from finance in section 4. It's addressed uh 6152. we talked about already. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yep. Bye. Bye, friend. See you guys. And I'll turn it over again to our
040assistant treasurer to talk about uh the proposed policy 6215. Well, thank you, Dan. Um so just looking at this um so where this comes from obviously is is there is some discussion about cash balances at school districts right now at the state budget but we've been working on this policy for probably a year. So our kind of professional organization of Asbo came out and said you know school districts really need to have a cash balance policy. And so I think I think even when Ben was in finance, we we started this, you know, earlier last year um just to put something put something in place and talk about what are best practices. So best practices a district has a significant cash reserve, you know, and and our goal really is 60 days. Our goal is
041to have a 60-day cash reserve that gives us flexibility when unicipated things arise. It allows us to kind of manage the eb and flow of our f of our funding. you know, we get a if we get a lot of money when tax settlements happen and not a lot of money in the other months. And so it also helps us, you know, maintain that. That is kind of that's kind of the base of the policy is we look at, you know, we would look at the five-year forecast, see how many days of cash we have. If it's less than 60, you know, then we create a plan um to address that. So obvious obviously we're not there, you know, we did we're at about 35 36 days. So part of it is a phase in.
042Um and so the idea of the phase in is we would start with at least half a million dollars this year and then the board would agree on a number of years to phase in and then we would work through subsequent budgets to get to that 60-day mark. There are a couple of things that I don't know. I think I think I know what I did. So I had some changes that I left in suggest and so I think when we pulled this you guys pulled what was current. So, I don't I don't have the don't have the most recent version. So, I'm like I'm trying to figure out how to get around how to deal with that. Do we just push it for another month or do you um do you have a version
043we could look at together here? Yeah. We'll just save a month. I do. Yep. You want to send it to Rob and Rob will get it up on the screen for us. And just I can share it with you guys as well. The nice thing about Rob having it up is um it'll be on the video for anybody who wants to watch it later. Yeah. All right, I'll just share it out real quick and I'll kind and I'll kind of talk through the differences. There's only two. One of them comes directly from from the state budget conversation. So So the initial policy, you know, we have a thing if it's under 60 days, what do we do? We had a we had a lower limit, but we decided to put in a higher limit. So
044So the idea is that if we got above 180 days cash balance, which would be a wonderful thing, or a lower limit established by law, um then treasur and superintendent would prepare a plan to the board to reduce the cash balance and it provides most benefit to students while ensuring continued fiscal responsibility maintaining. Nothing nothing really controversial there. just just the idea of putting in an upper limit. So that can you um just say again part that's new. Part that's new is the the bottom paragraph before phase in during 25.6 fiscal. No go up Rob. There's two parts. They're new. Yeah. If they're projected. Yeah. If they're projected above phase in Rob. Sorry. Sorry friend. Yes. If the projected unencumbered balance is greater than 180 days or a lower limit established by law, the treasur
045and superintendent will prepare and present a plan to the board to reduce the cash balance in a manner that provides the most benefit for students while ensuring continued fiscal stability. Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for when we get to that one. Um I would say it would be very unlikely that would ever be used. Good to know. Yes. And then and then the phase in paragraph which is something that finance committees talked to the second paragraph in phase in 25 26 yes which is something we've talked about in in budget finance and growth multiple times. Thank you questions. I I have a a a couple um uh fully support this and would like us to do it. It's just a question of like what's the best way to write the policy for it. Um
046and um is there in that so this this is very specific to this fiscal year which we're about to like etch in stone into our board policies. Um, like would there be value in a version of that paragraph that says um, you know, like up until a time at which the district has a reserve of blank by blank date each school year, the board needs to pass a resolution in a public meeting committing to the amount that they will contribute in that fiscal year. My thought is just like that it it could live on. Um, I think this problem is going to exist longer than just this school year. So, we're going to have to do this again in a year anyway. Um, and I like the idea of policies that require public votes by
047dates certain because it it forces us to be public about these things. Um, but I don't know like you all have thought more about this than I have. Yeah. Like I don't think I don't think the finance committee was was quite there to put it put a date certain and I do think I do think it is a conversation once we get through this budget. It is a board conversation and especially as we're looking at, you know, new money for future years, as we're looking at at to add into what what does that time frame look like? Like if we say we want to get there in five years, that's that's x amount of dollars. If we say we want to get there in seven years, that's x amount of dollars. We say we want
048to get there in two years, that's a lot more dollars. But it really it really ties into the conversation about future levies, future growth, um, and those sort of things. So that's that's kind of where I think where the where our office and where the finance committee envisioned it as part of the conversation about what do we do for new money and new levies going forward. [Music] I mean, if this is what you all want, I'm going to vote for it because it's like pushing us in a good direction and um good is better than zero. It it seems to me like requiring us on an annual basis to ratify a plan for how we're building our reserve and thinking beyond just this next fiscal year would be better. But if it's not what you
049all want, like you're the expert and I I'm happy to vote for this. I I think I I think like this is the next step. So like it's like do this step and we can always come back and revisit, right? But it's it's hard enough I think to talk about reserves in our current budget conversation. So like this is a big step forward because generally the first thing that goes away and when you have a budget when you have budget difficulties or any sort of reserves, right? And and so this at least puts and I think that was the conversation. This puts a stake in the ground. This says we're putting a stake in the ground for this year and we're committing to vision forward. That's great. Thank you. I have no questions. Only comment
050is I think it's fine. So I think um this certainly gets listed on its own. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Phyllis, is that good? Make sense? Any questions? Good. Okay. Uh, moving along. Um, so topics submitted by board members. Um, I think uh, Phyllis, I might ask for your help with some of these because I think you colle you I really appreciate you collecting these from folks. Is the immigration policies request new? Because we did talk about that in the fall. Yeah, I feel like we talked about that one before, but but she sent it subsequent to the prompt last week and I'm not quite sure. Okay. Um, I do have one question, please. Um, I know you said that we could either get to these a little later. The only one that I feel like would
051have an importance as of right now, and I do recall Vice President Bolson bringing this up because we have our middle schools coming up. So, the review of the building naming or renaming process and policy and I would be open to discussing that one and then tableabling the others if there's not a need to immediately talk about it today. Okay. Um, so I think what we'll do then is um no policy committee meeting in July because of the uh summer. Um but we've got June, August, September, October, November, December. We got six meetings left this year. Uh so um we we have an open calendar friends if anybody wants to suggest any other policies for us to look at. But um Phyllis, could you could you maybe for our next meeting create a schedule that
052just takes up um I think the like maybe um the first of um the first Mafet one and then you're saying Mrs. Weinberg we do the first Bolton one today. Yes. Yes. because that would be required. And then let's just do the the the two Moffett ones in June and then the last Bolton one. Well, that's so timely though. Let's just let's just put the two Moffett ones in June so that we I can learn more about what specifically she wanted us to to chat about unless council knows. Okay. Um so rather than guess, we'll ask. Um, but then I think we should we should do the last two bullets today. Um, uh, and then we can ask everybody again when we come back from summer and see what else talks about. Um, so and
053then, um, Dan and Stephanie, are are you in a spot where you could talk about building naming or renaming today? Um, and without putting you on the spot, glad to talk about it. We don't have any suggested changes, but I'm glad to discuss kind of the policy. Did you have some questions you wanted to leave? I just wanted to add that I actually brought this up as well. Um I know when we brought in discussion of middle school names or the schools that we are currently changing. I just wanted to make sure that we were following the policy and that we actually come up with the name as the um board of education. So I know the superintendent turned in some names to us and then obviously we will have to discuss those. But I
054wanted to make sure that the policy would be followed as well. If you see in section C, request for naming school facilities shall include obviously recommendations from the LSDMC, the community and public private partnerships, etc. But I do know um it does not say anything in there currently of a school that is already established but just slightly changing their programming. So I do still think that this still does apply for that as well. So So I I don't know if you want a response from from us. The I didn't I didn't need a response. I think board member Bolton, I'm not exactly sure exactly what she wanted with this. I'm just saying that I know moving forward we have a list of names. I just want to make sure that we're following the policy as
055a full board at our next board meeting when that does come up as a discussion whether we're voting on those names, etc. Just making sure the policy is being followed. Um, thank you. Uh I I can certainly think it's it's actually it's very helpful to read this here because I can remember in past years there's I don't know where this idea that like the policy committee has to like look at names for bill there's nothing in here right about the policy committee playing a role no in any of this sometimes been assigned to the policy committee you know like and I'm guilty like I think I was on policy committee when we looked at that it's just because it's policy and then we then take it bring it back to the full board but I
056think it should just go through the full board. Yeah. There's no there's nothing in here that says we should make recommendations. Nothing in here that says we should screen or whatever. Does it? Yeah. And and the the the the buildings that need to be named at the moment. This is Bramble or is there the middle schools? So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The middle schools that we're currently going to be starting in August. I'll just say from our position like it has always been the the absolute perview of the board to name schools. So e even when requests like that come to us, we we kind of say we we direct them almost to the board office to say that's that's really outside of our purview. Yeah. Go ahead. I was just going to say like
057we're getting we're getting requests like at least in the context of Bramble. Some folks from Madisonville have reached out to Eve and to me. I directed them back to Kareem. Um uh uh and you know like I um I feel very similarly to how I felt about the LSDMC thing. Like I just want it to be clear what the process is and that we follow it. And so I think it I think it's like we send this to Kareem which is like hey you know absolutely anything that's going to be renamed needs to get on a full board agenda the agenda and then we all discuss it we talk about it and I agree. Great. Any other problems to solve here? Nope. Okay. Um, so then, [Music] um, I have a feeling that the reason
058that, uh, Eve put the reduction of staff for financial reasons here is just because it's timely and I think that there's we saw at the board last full board meeting that, um, the we're going to just adjust our volume for a second. Thanks, Dan. um you know, absent some um unknown new source of revenue, uh it seems like the only way to get to a balanced budget, unless I'm missing something based on the last presentation from the um administration would involve some number to be determined, but like some number of uh reduced positions. And so this was I think I don't know why Eve wanted us to talk about this but um Dan in case so that we can go back and say that we did um do you want to go through like what
059the process is? Sure. and and this this hard thing to talk about but but um timely. Um the the only board policy that directly relates to riffs or reductions in force is 1540 and that's because uh the law permits the board to develop a policy that governs um administrative that would be mostly Cass non-renewals of employees. uh excuse me, not non-renewals, uh uh suspensions of contracts, which is another way of saying an administrative reduction in force. Um now more than 10 years ago uh the administration worked with Cass to come up with this policy um to to which uh defines for the board the reasons for which a riff may be taken of administrators including the financial conditions of the district and then sets out a few um uh parameters or protections for employees including
060that they would receive notice 15 days before the board acts and that they'd be paid out um at least I believe it's 30 days after the board acts. So um that this policy also calls for a uh recall rights. In other words, if the district then reopens the position from which an administrator was rifted, uh they have the right to return to that uh same position within two years. So a reduction in force is not about misconduct. It's not about performance. It's about these kind of reasons where there's a need to reduce the number of positions when the district undertakes that kind of a process. The first is to determine what positions are eliminated and then determine if there are more people currently working in those positions than we'll have positions next year to go
061through a process including seniority. uh but also for administrators including what the needs of the district are uh to determine who are actually the people who are going to be let go and if once those people are identified then there's those protections kick in. They get noticed 15 days ahead of time the board acts and they get paid out 30 days afterwards. Uh that's for administrators. Uh the collective bargaining agreement uh governs for most of our other uh bargaining units. So CTF has a whole section in its collective bargaining agreement. It's a similar process uh sort of further defines the order in which uh individuals would be selected for a riff. So uh part-time uh teachers are selected first. Substitute teachers are selected first. um you know and it goes through an order that includes
062you know kind of reemployed retirees part-time uh you know all the way to a full-time contract teacher. Um for the other bargaining units it's a combination of their collective bargaining agreement, their contract and civil service law that determines the order within which folks are rifted. So there's no board policies for the other groups because either their CBA or civil service law defines and and governs in those cases. That was kind of a scattered presentation. I'm glad to answer any questions. There's not from our standpoint a need for any sort of revisions to board policy, but wanted to make sure you were aware what was out there. Get in questions. Um, I have one. Uh, it strikes me as interesting that the, uh, RIFF process for teachers is in the CBA and the RIFF process for
063administrators is in policy. Uh, is there a reason that they're in different places? Uh, the Ohio uh, Revised Code uh, gives the board uh, the ability to put in place an administrative uh, excuse me, a policy for the suspension of administrative contracts. Is it also in their contract? It's there's no there's no reference to it. It's it's governed the law gives it the board that authority for administrators. I got it. The board gives the Yeah, I got it. It's almost like it it's not a subject that can be bargained under state law. That's right. I got it. I got it. Uh okay. Um thank you for reviewing that policy. Um I think we are on to item six, which is our standing policy review cycle. Yeah. And so we looked at we we want to
064make sure we're starting to get through um our three-year kind of review of policies again. And unless the board disagrees, I think the policies that have [Music] uh been reviewed least recently, the um the the policies that haven't been reviewed in the longest period of time are the 5,000 series, which relate to students. Uh so there's lots of lots of good policies to review within um this chapter of policies and the first uh set relate to really our enrollment policies. Um we put those up first uh four different policies that relate to how students are enrolled in school. Uh, I think the last time there was serious review of these policies, former board member Hoffman was very involved in trying to really nail down ho how what priorities we were going to set for how
065how students are enrolled. Obviously preferring resident students over non-resident students, but also sibling priority. and she did a lot of work on uh kind of organizing the board around how we were going to uh prioritize student enrollment particularly when we had first implemented a lottery enrollment for our magnet schools. So th those things kind of came came around the same time. Um, we actually got some after putting these up on uh board docs, we got some additional recommendations from the superintendent and office of uh customer care uh about a few changes that they are recommending. And so, you know, I I can just give you a general overview of those, but we'd like to bring these back with a red line with some of their recommended changes if if the board agrees to that or
066committee to that. I was say I didn't see any recommended changes to any of them. So like the the um yeah that that's that's good. So just quickly kind of summarizing what they had um some some of the options that are described including like PIDEA are no longer being offered in the district. Um the superintendent shared with me that rather than referring to our process as a lottery process uh that we prefer to refer to it as a school selection process. Uh we certainly still want these priorities to be included and there's not no recommendation to change the priorities unless the board gives us feedback that they want to change. Uh but where a family is has a you know a need or a strong request to get into a school, we do our best
067to try to accommodate that. And as our neighborhood schools have become, you know, more robust, I think, and and more popular, we've been able to do that a lot more with families um than, you know, just a straight kind of lottery. We don't like referring it uh as a lottery process. So, priorities we would uh recommend remaining the same, but uh changing the language of the policy to talk about a selection process rather than a lottery process. Um there's a a number of other kind of just um uh items she asked us to look at, but uh those are those are kind of the major changes you can expect to see in a red line next month. I'd be really interested in that lottery conversation. Okay. You know, like I I just So I did
068you want to go first, Mrs. Weber? No, I would just be interested to hear the further um additions and I can wait until next month for those. Yeah. And I'd love for her to be there to talk more 100%. Like I think and I can I can I'm open to ideas. Um and there there there's something um that I think was important about calling it a lottery when it happened because it used to be like a first come first-s serve campout. Um that's how it that's how we switched to. That's Yeah. And so I just it'd be interesting good conversation. Yeah. I I think she'd welcome it. I it's really about trying to make sure the district is welcoming to families and and um she you know not trying to get around the priorities but
069Yeah. Yeah. Uh we often have have room for families and and can make room for families where Yeah. Yeah. I also um I I'm really interested in the conversation about interd district enrollment. Um uh were you going there next? I glad to. We're just I'm I mean I'm glad actually that Mike is here. Um I I think interd district enrollment is really bad financially because we don't get any of the property taxes from the district that those kids come from. So like it pulls our revenue per kid down every time we enroll a student from out of district because we get their state money but we don't get their local property tax money. Um, and so I think that I think the idea I I'd love to just have a conversation about um if if
070people think this is better jurisdictionally in a finance committee discussion rather than ours. Um I'm I would respect that, but just that there's um you know this is this is I've always kind of scratched my head about why we do this um and would would welcome a conversation about that. Yeah. I would just like to add um I actually don't mind that we open our schools up. Um and I know according to the state law there's a state something that states that we are required to by a certain mileage or something. Is it something I I don't remember the exact we look at it for next but it used to be it was the board's option. You could either be a completely closed district and we Yes. So being open, but yes, that was the
071word I was looking for, being an open open enrolled district. And I think I think there were two options for open enrollment, too. There's there's open to tuition payers. Mhm. And then if they're outside, but I I would be okay with that, but also um just also having that as a group, a whole uh discussion. And and I think um there are plenty of districts where we accept their students and they do not accept ours. And I think that's bonkers. They've changed. Some of them have changed. They're now all open. Most of them are open. Do all of them take CPS kids? Most of them are open that I know of recently. Yeah. I I just this but I want us to talk talk about it like because if if I live in Carthage, can
072I enroll in Wyoming? My hunch is no. Um but maybe maybe I'm wrong. But if you're if you're in Wyoming district um Yeah. Like I think I think I think it it um feels open enrollment has open enrollment. There's others. Oh yeah. Yeah. We can do a list actually. And could you put the uh economically disadvantaged numbers next to the school districts or like who who accepts CPS kids and who does not? Um I'm I'm testing my hypothesis and I might be wrong. Um but but um anyway, like I would be good open enrollment now. So yeah, okay. Um but but I think for from a process standpoint, like I don't I don't want committee creep, you know, like I think my my a lot a lot a big part of my um concern about
073this is financial. Um and do people have a perspective on whether this is a better fit for this committee versus the finance one? They can go to finance. Finance has a lot they're doing like a pretty full queue. Well, no, no, it's it's a question like I keep looking at mic like do do you have a perspective on this? I I don't I don't know. I mean I mean you're right. I mean I mean for every student we get the incremental amount of the state of state share. We get all of the costs associated with that student and part of the revenue associated with the student. We do we get the state revenue. I mean I I mean our tax our property tax revenue is going to be the same regardless of the number of
074students we enroll. I mean I mean depending depending on what the student does. you know there are there you know you the state state share might be a little higher you know we get a little more for students disabilities we get a little more for some of the career tech stuff I I doubt it's as much as what the their local Absolutely the there is no scenario where the state share makes state share makes up for what it costs for us to educate a student yeah now I mean but but then but then you get into you know capacity and diminishing returns and you know if you if you have a you know if you have a first grade class with 17 kids, that 18th kid isn't really adding a lot to your cost, right?
075Yeah. Now, now when you hit the magic kid where you have to have a new teacher, you know, Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of mathematical models to that. Yeah. Well, what what if like there's there's enough big stuff going on right now that like this does not need to be like what what if we said we have kind of a light list of topics that have come in from other board members. What if we said at our August policy committee meeting or Mike, if you'd rather do it in September, we could and we we could figure out like some data to share something. I'm trying to find a time this count this calendar year when it would be minimally disruptive for you in everything going on in the treasur's office to look at some of
076this together. Is there a time of year that would be better for you? September, October, October, November. That's like Let's do it in October. Seriously, like there's no there's not like I I don't Let's do it. Well, there's no I don't think I don't think we're in a rush on any of this stuff, are we? So, we we'll say October. Okay, great. Um, anything else on this? Sorry, Phil. Good policy. With a presentation from our um incoming treasurer, part of that conversation also relates to our own employees who um because who live out of district that that's a part of Yeah. And I should say too like that that um it's a little bit of a different kind of totally but I can see a different reason why we'd want to do that um and
077given the size of that group and the board is allowed to take a different position with respect to its own employees as well. But yeah an important part of the conversation for the records watching this video later I support that I'm not I'm not I'm not advocating that that end uh uh and um you know it may not matter but I'm going to say it out loud anyway. Um, anything on this one? This isn't on there, but I have this paper. Do we need this? Use of district facilities. Like I don't Do you have this paper? I'm like, I don't see it on here. Were we supposed to talk about this? Yeah. Was there a reason um Danner Stephanie 7510? We have a hard copy of that. Is that something that was in the queue
078for today? I believe it still relates to the um Oh, did that get taken off the agenda? It was it was on I think an earlier version of the agenda based on the discussion about the alcohol waiver. Oh, I think we already discussed that as a full board, didn't we? I don't have anything on that topic on that topic. Withdrawn. Okay. Yeah, we already talked about that. Great. I'm open. I'm open. Confused. Um, oh the only thing the only addition on that policy I forgot also is it still says that alcohol waiverss go to the oh that's what it was um policy on policy we wanted to discuss that in terms of can that just come to the full board since it's a full board decision you know how they call in and ask us
079for it and then it goes to the it says it goes to the partnership and public engagement I think it goes to policy and so it does go straight to policy and then we bring it to the full board that's But I think we had a discussion. Yeah, this feels like a really good use of committee space like whether it be policy committee or some other committee but just that people can make their presentation ask any questions. Our meetings are too long in our full board meetings and I don't want to add anything else. No, I don't either. No, that's fine for it to still come here, but then we have to then obviously put it onto the agenda to say, hey, this needs to be voted off. But yeah. Okay. So, no no recommended
080changes there. Is that Oh, yeah. It it's simply says that it goes to the partnership and public engagement, but it just needs to be changed to update it to say policy and equity committee. That red line you see. Have we been doing this wrong for years? Ever since I've been on the board, that's how we've done it. I thought it was updated. I'm surprised we should fix that. Yeah. You want to just put it through like a no concerns there, right? Okay. Yeah. Got it. All right. Um, so we've got a nice set of things queued up to bring back to the board in the coming months. Um, Rob, would you like to give hearing of the public instructions? Thank you. If you'd like to speak during the hearing in public session, please click the
081hand icon. We'll ask you your name and school association and we'll invite you to speak for two minutes at the end of the meeting. Thank you. So maybe we'll go to hit uh any other business here. Um before we uh see if anybody signed up to hearing public. Um Mrs. Weinberg, anything you have under other business? I don't have anything under other business. I think we discussed everything that I had a concern with. And did we find out? Do we have anybody online for calls? Do we have any? Not asked yet. Um, I do have one item of new business that I wanted to um just tee up for a future conversation. Um, I I would like to explore with this committee in the coming months. Again, none of this is is time-sensitive. Um, what
082it would look like to have a designated spot at hearing of the public for a parent representative who has unlimited time. Uh, I understand we have this tradition of giving the head of the teachers union um unlimited time at the mic. I understand that's also a little different from what the contract says, but it's it's a it's a tradition that has evolved over time. Uh, I'm not arguing that we stop doing that. Um, but I think if if um one group is going to have unlimited time at hearing of the public, uh, I would really love to see parents. Uh, and I understand how you can't do that for every single parent in the district, but could there be a delegate from the heads of the PTO's or like each LSDMC has a parent rep?
083Could there be like a rotation whereby there's always a spot for somebody who's a parent rep on an LSDMC who can speak at the mic for as long as they want? Um I I don't I really am open to how we would do it, but I would like to advocate that we um we reflect in the time spend that we give to Hearing of the Public as a stakeholder group for the school board. And um I think we could we could talk about this I think you know not urgent like we could do this in June, we could do this in August, we could do this whenever. Um, part of the reason I wanted to bring it up was I did want to ask um, Stephanie and Dan if um, could be an intern project
084or however you wanted to do it, but just to just to figure out like are there districts out there who have anything like this, you know, who have like a a regular way for um, a family representative to have um, uh, you know, equal share uh, in um, the hearing of the public time and board meetings. um or other creative ways of of kind of honoring the same value. Yeah. So, this is where it gets a little tricky because I know what are you titling it? Say it again. You said parent what? Oh, I have no title. You said something, but what did you just say? Parent what? I don't remember. Okay. Well, whatever you said. Voice representative, parent speaker. Most of the time at our hearing a public, we have a combination of whether
085it's community, parents, students, etc. And I mean, I'm unaware of any other district allowing uh a particular parent group to have more time. It's typical of, you know, the two or the three minutes. Um I feel like it would get a little tricky unless you were very specific to say it's a school's LSDMC or it's a school PTO and then it has to state within somewhere because then other parents may say, well, I'm I'm still a parent. I'm still important. Why don't I get more time as well? So, I think it's going to get a little tricky there unless we're very specific to those particular groups. I think it's a legit challenge, you know, and I'm I'm coming to this I have no draft. I have no like proposal for like how to do it.
086I just there's something that has felt not quite right to me that um there isn't also unlimited time for somebody who wants to speak on behalf of parents. Uh and I think that uh that's a challenge. I can't speak for anybody else, but for for while I'm here, I'd like to try to figure out a way to address that. Uh I'm not also, just in case people are watching this now or later, I'm not trying to limit anybody else's time. Uh I'm not trying to end the tradition we have of the CTF president having unlimited time. What I'm trying to do is say in addition, um at least, you know, I can't think of a more important stakeholder group than we have than the parents and families of the kids who go to school here.
087Um, and so the the the the asymmetry there has been wearing on me for a while. Um, and I'd like I'd like us uh I personally would like to try to figure out is there anything good in the world we could do there. Um, so, so that was, um, the reason I was bringing this up under other business is I wanted to ask if there's any research in the coming weeks, months that council's office could do about whether anybody has figured out a neat way to address this or if I'm saying something that, you know, is a non-starter for some reason or there's a reason we shouldn't try, I'm also open to that. Uh, any other new business? Rob, do we have any uh speakers tonight? Um, this this person is going to be Nahan
088Israel. Um, Nahani, you can go ahead. You have two minutes. Good morning, Rob. Good to talk to you today. Um, good morning, my friend. I have a question. Um, and I've been trying to find out the answer to this question to no end. um students that are currently in grade 7 were were in grade 7 the 2425 school year um that are going to be transferred to the neighborhood and I'll call them for lack of a better word popup schools um just as they weren't designed for the population that they're going to be serving in a few weeks. Um, how do parents know what school their child was assigned to and what their alternatives or what their rights are? Um, if they don't want their child to go to the neighborhood school, if they, you
089know, what what is the policy or what is what is in place now for this transition? I think it's called the growth year. And that was my question. I don't know if that was a full two minutes. Okay. Anything else you'd like to share during your two minutes? We we'll make sure that a member of the administration we give your contact information. Well, I will say that I am working with Cincinnati Children's and we are working on a grant to help young people that have autism specific IEPs, help them transition through high school and beyond as successfully as possible. Um, so that transition happens at the 8th grade year, which means my population is going to be in a different place next year than it was last year. Um, so you know, it any help
090that we can get from the board level to identify and get those children the support that they deserve cuz you can think how traumatic it is for a neuron normal child to change schools in the seventh grade year. But if a child is neurode divergent, that shift could actually derail their education. I think if it's not done in a supportive way. So we want to support that. So but I would love to know kind of the decision. Is that zip code? Is that specialties? Is that career focus? I know South Aendale is in our catchment area and they could not tell me as of last week what their career focus areas were going to be. Um, and that that's a little scary to me. Uh, thank you. Uh, that with the two-minute warning. Uh, I
091just want to say thank you for your question. I think it is a very reasonable and, uh, important one. Uh, do we have your do we have her contact information and so we'll make sure that somebody will who's going to get back to her? No, can you share that in the chat and then I will share it with the um, administration? Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Uh we have concluded uh items 1 through eight. Any other last call for anything for the good of the order? Just to make sure that we have the uh right direction on these three policies. Uh the parents bill of rights is to move forward not on the consent agenda. The student fees is to move forward not on the consent agenda. And then the cash b balance policy
092is to move forward and I didn't get if that was consent or not. Not not consent. Um, I don't think there's a reason to have these on Monday's agendas I unless the the committee disagrees. So, we could get these on the second meeting in June. Is that all right? Does it work for you, Mike? Great. Thanks everybody. Have a lovely weekend.