001Good evening. The May 12th, 2026 regular meeting of the Mentor Exempted Village Board of Education is called to order. This meeting is being held in accordance with section 3313.15 of the Ohio Revised Code. Please place your mobile phones on silent mode for this meeting. Mr. Wade, please call the roll. Mr. Hayek. Here. Mr. Hurst. Here. Miss Iacobucci. >> Here. Miss Marchaza. Present. Miss Cook. Here. Thank you, and please join me in the pledge of allegiance if you're willing and able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Miss Cook, before we get started, I just wanted to motion to amend the agenda. I wanted to add something to unfinished business if that's
002okay. Certainly. Okay. I just wanted to motion to add budget reductions to the unfinished business. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? To add um budget reductions to unfinished business. I believe we have that um covered in Mr. Wade's report. He's planning on discussing that. Is that okay? Do you want me to have to speak on during that time or would you rather be under unfinished? Um cuz we were going to speak during that time. Okay. Okay, as long as you can talk about it, okay. Yep, that works. All right, thank you. Um I would like to welcome everyone to the May 12th, 2026 regular meeting of the Mentor Exempted Village Board of Education. Board members have received the agenda and supporting materials for review and consideration through the district's paperless Board of Education agenda system
003BoardDocs. The agenda is available for public viewing on the district's website beginning the Sunday prior to the meeting. Board members may contact the superintendent or chief financial officer for additional information regarding agenda items if needed. The board provides two opportunities for public comment. The first hearing of the public is limited to comments on agenda items. The second hearing of the public allows comments on any topic. Individuals wishing to participate must sign up prior to the start of the meeting either online through the district website or on site. Speakers will be called to the microphone, asked to state their name and address, and direct comments to the board president. Each speaker may speak once per segment with comments limited to 3 minutes. The hearing of the public serves as an opportunity for community members to provide
004input to the board. While responses may not be provided immediately, all comments are valued and will be considered thoughtfully with follow-up provided when appropriate. To ensure an orderly meeting and in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 2917.12 and board policy 0169.1, any individual who disrupts or interferes with the meeting may be warned and or removed. This meeting is being live streamed and recorded and may be viewed live or on demand via district's YouTube channel Cardinal TV Mentor, Ohio. Thank you. And at this time, we have our district highlights and recognitions. Mr. Heath. Good evening, Madam President, members of the board, and Mr. Wade. Tonight, we are recognizing several students and staff members for their outstanding achievements. The first group being recognized is our middle and high school Science Olympiad teams. I'd like to invite Mr. Lynch
005to the podium to begin the presentation. Good evening, Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Heath, and Mr. Wade. This evening, it is my great pleasure to recognize our high school and middle school Science Olympiad students and advisors. Let's begin with Memorial Middle School. I would like to call up coaches Brian Sweigert and Scott Schwickerath up to the front. The Memorial Science Olympiad team competed at the state tournament and they represented Memorial and the entire Mentor community with excellence. The team earned a sixth-place trophy overall, a tremendous achievement that reflects months of dedication, hard work, and preparation. Our students brought home medals across 13 individual events with the following placements: fifth place in circuit lab, sixth place in code busters, fourth place in crime busters, sixth place in disease detectives, sixth place in helicopter, fourth
006place in heredity, fifth place in machines, sixth place in metric mastery, fifth place in mission impossible, sixth place in potions and poisons, second place in scrambler, fifth place in water quality, and fourth place in write it do it. These students worked tirelessly, competed with heart, and made us all proud. I'd like to for you to join me in recognizing their accomplishments and the coaches and families who supported them along the way. I'm going to call the students up one at a time. Please receive your certificate. All of Memorial can stand up at this time. Memorial can stand up, come here. I'll call you in alphabetical order. Shake the board members' hands and then stay up here. We're going to do each team, Memorial, then Shore, and then the high school, but Memorial will get your
007picture. Mrs. Estes will get your picture and then we'll sit you down. So, first, Aditya Bajaj, John Brostol, Patrick If you want to hold your applause to the end of the team. Patrick Caldwell. George Cherian. Ethan Deitzel. Shaf Asan. Dylan Fedor. Leopold Giro. Nolan Hardy. Elise Hardy. Jack Hearn. Nolan Heron. Gavin Heron. Colin Howell. Lucas Kowaters. Ellie Knoblock. Francis Knoblock. Michael Winn. Adam Olver. Corbin Ott. Charlie Reynolds. Gino Ritz. Corey Sachs Nielsen. Casey Sachs Nielsen. Maria Schricterap. Ellie Schricterap. Justin She. Xavier Watson. Mason Willis. And Cody Wells. Let's give a round of applause to the Memorial Science Olympiad team. Oh, there you are. Look at Miss Estes out there. Let's get together. There's Miss Estes. Come on. Make sure you guys are on the stage. There you go. Up front and center. All right. There
008you go. That says it's a good picture. All right, one more round of applause for the Memorial. Shores Shores coming down. Shores coming down. Thank you. All right, I'm going to introduce Bob Beatty. Bob is the coach for the Shores students. This is from his family, so there you go, Bob. Don't forget that. Uh Bob, here are your certificates. There you go. >> Thank you. Congratulations to the Shores Science Olympiad team for placing a very respectable 17th place at the Ohio State Science Olympiad tournament. Top 10 finishes for the state competition include fifth place in Scrambler, eighth place in Helicopter, eighth place in Ooh, boom boom boom lever? boom lever? Boom lever. Boom lever. I was worried about pronouncing the kids' names right. I didn't think a boom lever was ninth place in Crime Busters,
00910th place in Metric Mastery, and 10th place in Mission Possible. In addition to these top 10 finishes, the entire team performed incredibly well across the events, deserving congratulations and worthy of tremendous pride and respect. So, congratulations to these students: Adrian Beatty, Charlotte Beatty, Cameron Berries, Kylie Burkhart, Ethan Chang, Matteo De Chaccio, Amelia Gordon Alex Lian- Lian- Lianpolis Uh sorry, Alex. Ben Lombardo Julia Morris Brooklyn Neracky Rayma Sahou Carolyn Scott Tyler Scott Trip Vizger Liam Wolfe Nicholas Yamamoto and Gavin Ziamba Congratulations to the Shore Middle School Science Olympiad team. All right, congratulations, Shore. And certainly last but not least, our wonderful Mentor High School Science Olympiad team advisors, Michelle Pugh and Carolyn Poland. If you can come up and help me with certificates. The Science Olympiad High School State Tournament was held on April 18th at
010the Ohio State University. The high school division had 40 competing teams. Mentor High School finished 17th overall. They had six top 10 finishing, winning medals in a bronze medalist in Hovercraft, fourth place in forensics, sixth place in electric vehicle, and sixth place in robot tour. We have These are our members of our Mentor High School team. We have captains Aisha Faruki, Mali Tehan, and senior advisor Ria Reina. Continuing with the members of the Mentor High School Science Olympiad team, Jacob Armstrong, Biagio Di Ciacio, Christian Edwardson, Gabriel Fuller, Nolan Gibson, Isabella Grabowski, Kaylee Hall, Parker Huested, Joey Marchaza, Samantha McGinnis, Nathan Meckler, Owen Medved, Brendan O'Connor, Kevin Pastory, Elizabeth Plumley, Jabecca Pons Terrado, Jacob Preiner, Calvin Rice, AJ Ritz, Benjamin Sherman, Alex She, Demetrios Stratigakos, Emily Sweiger, Alexandra Tamara, and Benjamin Yoke. Congratulations to all of
011these students who worked incredibly hard to prepare for the state competition and achieved excellent excellent results. They also want to thank their volunteer event coaches who are teachers, parents, community members, and prior Science Olympiad alumni who give up several hours of their time each week from August through April to prepare students for their events. These coaches are a huge factor in the success of the Science Olympiad teams. From all three teams, Memorial, Shore, and Mentor High School Science Olympiad teams, they want to give a huge thank you to the parents who support them throughout their season. And behalf on on behalf of all of the teams as well, they would like to thank the members of their board for their support. So, congratulations to all three teams. Let's get it You got to picture of
012the high school. And I turn it back over to you, Mr. Heath. Madam President, members of the board, and Mr. Wade, at this time I would like to recognize our retiring faculty and staff. We want to thank them for their many years of committed service and wish them happiness and good health in their retirements. I would like to call Mrs. Brunette to the podium to begin the presentation. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Heath, and Mr. Wade, soon we will celebrate the graduation of our high school seniors. Tonight we celebrate a different kind of graduate graduation, that of our 2025-2026 retirees. It is with mixed emotions that we recognize our retiring certified and classified staff. We thank them for their many years of of dedicated service and wish them good health and happiness in
013their retirement. As I call your name, please come forward. Darlene Adamson. Darlene started her career with Mentor Schools 30 years ago as a substitute classroom assistant and then transitioned to an elementary math teacher in 2007 and then a middle school math teacher. Most recently, Darlene has spent the last part of her career as a district-wide instructional coach and also the co-department coordinator. Congratulations, Darlene. Karen Baker. Karen has been with the district for 25 years and has been a classroom assistant at Sterling, Morton, Hopkins, Headlands, and Shore Middle School since 2005. Congratulations, Karen. Jennifer Burger. Jen has spent her time in Mentor as an elementary teacher at Rice Elementary and Fairfax Elementary and spent time as an in-school tutor at Shore Junior High. She has 26 years in education and the last 18 years in the
014district. Congratulations, Jen. Jeff Casella. Jeff began his career in education as a physical education and health teacher and has been in education for a total of 35 years. Jeff has been a true advocate for our student athletes as he has served as the Mentor High School Athletic Director since the '08 '09 school year. Congratulations, Jeff. Pete Dawson was unable to be with us this evening, but I'm still going to read a little blurb about him. Pete has spent 35 years in education and has spent his entire career at Shore Middle School as a social studies teacher. He has held numerous supplemental and leadership positions in the district. Congratulations to Pete. Desiree Dickinson Desiree has spent 34 years at Mentor Schools as an elementary teacher at Hedlands and Orchard Hollow. She will finish her career as
015a fourth-grade teacher at Orchard Hollow Elementary this year. Congratulations to Dez. Jacqueline Glasser Jacqueline has been a teacher for 32 years. Jackie has taught at the elementary level and most recently spent the last 9 years as a STEAM teacher at our elementary schools. Congratulations to Jackie. Alice Goodnight Marti Alice has been an employee of Mentor Schools for 33 years. She has been an elementary teacher and instructional coach and a Title 1 Coordinator for the district and will finish her career as a third-grade teacher at Lake Elementary. Congratulations to Alice. Tony Grandini Tony has been a part of Mentor Schools since 1991 when she was hired as an elementary teacher at Reynolds Elementary. She has been a part of many of our elementary buildings, but will will be remembered mostly as a kindergarten teacher at Hopkins
016Elementary for the past 22 years of her career. Congratulations to Tony. Piper Greenly. Piper has been a part of Mentor Schools for over 35 years and has been an intervention specialist and a department coordinator at Shore Middle School. You may have seen her coaching volleyball, basketball, or track over the course of her career. Congratulations to Piper. Christie Harper. Christie has been a part of Mentor Schools for over 30 years and has taught so many of our middle school students. She's been a social studies teacher and a department coordinator at Shore Middle School and we wish her the best next year. Congratulations to Christie. Jackie Hill. Jackie has been in education for over 30 years and spent the majority of her career in the classroom at Fairfax Elementary. Most recently, Jackie has been our STEAM teacher
017at Ridge Elementary since the 2022-2023 school year. Congratulations to Jackie. Michelle Cain. Michelle has been with Mentor Schools for over 30 years and has been an art educator and our department coordinator at Mentor Schools for many years. We wish her all the best in the next chapter of life. Congratulations to Michelle. Beth Karchesky Beth has been with Mentor Schools for 35 years and has taught music at the elementary, middle, middle, and high school levels while also spending many Friday nights with the Fighting Cardinal Marching Band. Most recently, she has been our elementary music teacher at Sterling Morton. Congratulations to Beth. Jill Kilpack Jill began her career in 1993 at Rice Elementary. She has been with Mentor Schools for over 30 years and most recently will retire as a fourth-grade teacher from Ridge Elementary. Congratulations to
018Jill. Glenn Kolma Glenn has spent his entire 34-year career as a music teacher with Mentor Public Schools. The majority of his career has been at our middle schools as the choir teacher, but also spent time as our secondary music department coordinator. Best of luck to Glenn. Lynn Lang Lynn has spent 38 years of her 44 years in education as an art teacher with Mentor Public Schools. She has been an integral part an integral part of the art department and has also served as our department coordinator at Memorial Middle School. Congratulations to Lynn. Kristi LaPaelia Kristi was hired as a teacher with Mentor Public Schools in 1997 and hired as an administrator with Mentor Public Schools in 2008. She was the first intervention specialist in the district to run our structured language unit classrooms. Chrissy's vision
019of working and serving students with autism led to the Cardinal Autism Resource Educational School CARES opening on October 3rd, 2011. She retires as the director of CARES. Congratulations to Chrissy. Chris Lowe Chris has been with Mentor Schools for over 30 years and has been an integral part of our math department at Mentor High School. She has enjoyed teaching just about every level of math and math course at Mentor High School. Congratulations to you, Chris. Juanita McGraths Juanita has enjoyed being a part of our world language department in the district, where she has taught taught Spanish for over 21 years. She has taught at Shore, Memorial, Ridge, and Mentor High School. Congratulations to you, Juanita. Shelly Matzko Shelly joined Mentor Schools as a classroom assistant at Reynolds Elementary. She spent time at Fairfax Elementary, Ridge Middle
020School, and since 2012 she has been at Hopkins Elementary. She has a total of 25 years of experience as a classroom assistant and will be missed. Congratulations to you, Shelly. Christina Miola Christina has taught music for over 30 years with Mentor Public Schools. She has spent time at Lake Elementary, Rice Elementary, Sterling Morton Elementary, and Orchard Hollow Elementary, but also has spent time in all of our middle schools. We wish her the best in her future. Congratulations to Christina. Mark Nemunaitis Mark has 24 years of experience with Mentor Public Schools. Most recently, he has been a school counselor at Mentor High School and has worked with thousands of our students. Congratulations to Mark. Julie Norman Julie has been part of our School Nutrition Services Department for over 20 years, and she has served served thousands
021of lunches to our students, and will end her career as a satellite server at Sterling Morton Elementary. Congratulations to you, Julie. Stephanie Nowak Stephanie was hired as a full-time teacher in 1995 and has taught at Lake Elementary, Rice Elementary, and Fairfax Elementary. In 2022, Stephanie was selected as a one of two teachers in Ohio to be the award recipient for the Presidential Award of Excellence in Mathematics and Teaching. Congratulations and best of luck to you, Stephanie. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Dave Passarello Dave has been safely transporting our students through every weather event that there might have been in Mentor, Ohio and navigating our streets in Mentor as a school bus operator since 2013. Best of luck to you, Dave. Jody Peromba Jody has been an elementary teacher in many of our elementary schools early
022on in her career. She spent time as an administrator and as an instructional technology supervisor, assistant principal, principal at Lake Elementary and most recently will retire as the principal from Ridge Elementary. Congratulations to Jody. Tina Rose Tina spent time as an elementary teacher at Brentmoor Elementary, Lake Elementary and Hopkins Elementary. She's been at Memorial Middle School since 2014 as one of our Project Lead the Way teachers. We wish you all the best, Tina, and thank you for all you've done. Kenneth Skilton Ken has been with Mentor Schools since the 1992-1993 school year and has spent his career as a math educator at Mentor High School. He has also been the department coordinator and has been the head coach for several sports at Mentor High School. Best of luck to you, Ken. Gail Styler Gail has
023worked as a classroom assistant for Mentor Schools since the 2001-2002 school year. She has worked at Rice Elementary, Headlands Elementary, Ridge, Shore, the board office, and most recently will retire as a classroom assistant from Mentor High School. Congratulations to you, Gail. Tom Tonkly Tom has been with Mentor Schools as a substitute and a coach since 1996. He has been a teacher at Headlands Elementary, Ridge Junior High, Ridge Middle School, and most recently will end his career as a social studies teacher at Memorial Middle School. Congratulations to you, Tom. Julie Bolentic Julie has been with Mentor Schools since the 1997-98 school year, where she was a teacher at Rice Elementary. She has spent time at Lake, Reynolds, Fairfax, Brentmoor, and most recently has been the itinerant preschool teacher at Garfield Elementary. Congratulations to you, Julie. Sue
024Vernon Sue has been with the district for 35 years as an elementary teacher. She has taught at Reynolds Elementary, and most recently will retire as a fourth-grade teacher from Bellflower Elementary. Congratulations to you, Sue. Robin Walker Robin has been with the district for 34 years and began her career as a sixth-grade teacher at Reynolds Elementary. She has been at Lake Elementary since the 2005-06 school year and will end her career as a Title 1 teacher for the district. Best of luck to Robin. Donna Wire. Donna has been with the district as a custodian for 14 years and has been at Memorial Middle School, Shore Middle School, and Orchard Hollow Elementary. We wish her the best. Susan Wolfe. Susan has spent 10 years with Mentor Public Schools at the elementary and middle school level. She will
025end her career in education as an intervention specialist at Memorial Middle School and we wish her all the best. Congratulations to you, Susan. And our last retiree this evening is Jen Yerse. Jen has been with Mentor Schools for over 30 years and has been an elementary and middle school teacher with Mentor Public Schools. Jen has been at has been at Memorial Middle School as a math educator since the '08-'09 school year. We wish you all the best and thank you for everything, Jen. That's a lot of years of experience on the stage here and we are going to miss all of you dearly. Um, thank you for everything that you've given to Mentor Schools over the years. Um, you'll be impossible to replace, but uh, just know once a card, always a card. Thank you
026all. >> Best wishes to you. Well earned. >> I will. Before we move on with our meeting, we're we're just going to pause if anyone wants to leave at this point. This would be a perfect time. Thank you for coming tonight. Science Olympiad, we're very proud of you and retiring staff, congratulations. You mean the Science Olympiad someone else? >> We're not going to have to hide. So, you ready? All right, next we have the approval of minutes. Do I have a motion? So moved. I will second. >> Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchant. >> Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Apple. >> Yes. Motion carries 5-0. We now have hearing of the public on agenda items only. Our first speaker is John Sanford. Good evening, Madam
027President and members of the board, Mr. Heath, Mr. Wade. I'm sure it's no news to you that the levy failed. The stated reasons we have heard from many of were objections to such relatively minor issues as administrator pay, number of administrators, and specialized support group programs, etc. These These issues, while certainly a concern to many of the electorate, are in fact disingenuous. Taken together, addressing these budget points is not sufficient to resolve the budget shortfall. These points are instead blatant short-term appeals to personal concerns rather than realistic approaches to managing the funding problems faced by the district. In short, the issues used to defeat the levy are similar in logic to shooting oneself in the foot. The real problem, I think, is that the voters are tired of having to pick up after the state
028legislature, and they don't even know why or how they are doing it. The legislature sits in Columbus and makes their decisions without regard to the needs of the populace. The voters are stuck with cleaning up after their messes in the same manner as if they were tasked with owning a dog that had not been housebroken. Based upon their votes, regardless of any protestations to the contrary or convoluted reasoning they may have used to justify themselves, members of the state government, including Senator Terhune and Representative Calendar, are clearly committed to the destruction of public schools. They are dismantling public schools right before our eyes, and we are blaming it on administrator salaries. They have been steadily reducing the funding of the public schools and increasing access to voucher programs. As a result, the schools are then
029left with with selling candy or holding bake sales, which are unhealthy, and making levy requests, which are the voters are tired of. The solution I would say I would politely suggest that the school district, as well as we the voters, need to take these anti-education politicians to task. The school district should join the vouchers lawsuit to get that program reversed. Vouchers are obviously designed to damage public education. Look at the effect, not the words, and should at a minimum be revised to allow public schools to have the same level of support per year per student given to voucher students. At best, the voucher program should be eliminated. And finally, we as voters must work to hold these politicians who have worked to the destruction of our schools, including Terhune and Calendar and their ilk, accountable
030for their actions. Thank you. Our next Our next speaker is Lynn Woznica. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, and Mr. Heath, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. Under new business, I see the board will be discussing the school voucher lawsuit. This is an important topic and should be studied. In Ohio, vouchers are hurting Mentor public school or public schools in general. Money allocated for schools and vouchers comes out of the same pot. Every dollar spent on vouchers is $1 less available to spend in public schools. Presently, Mentor public schools receives approximately $2,800 per year per student. While a private school voucher for a high school student is $8,000 a year per student. This is almost three times as much going into a voucher than the state gives the
031school. The Ohio legislature has underfunded public schools for too long. Additionally, they've passed legislation to allow county commissioners to take steal take 2 million over $2 million out of Mentor's public school funds. Also, private schools operate under different rules. There's no publicly elected board, no yearly audit, no sunshine law for board meetings, no public record requests, no state report card, no requirements that teachers be professionally uh certified, and no requirement to accept all children. If, after careful study, joining the voucher lawsuit would correct these problems, then you owe it to the citizens and the students in our community to be a party of this lawsuit. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Right now, too much of the burden burden of funding our public schools is falling on the local taxpayer, and we see
032what results that can have. And this is because the Ohio legislature is not properly funding the public schools, and this has got to change. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Salinger. Madam President, board, Mr. Wade, Mr. Heath, my name is Michael Salinger, and I'm here tonight to urge the board to join the lawsuit challenging Ohio's EdChoice voucher program. I supported the levy, and like many people in the community, I was disappointed when it failed. But that failure makes this moment even more important because we can no longer afford to ignore one of the root causes of the financial pressures facing public schools across Ohio. The state's voucher system is draining money from public districts while calling it school choice. In reality, most voucher recipients were never enrolled in public schools to begin with. What
033started as a limited program became become a publicly funded subsidy to private education, including for families already paying private tuition on their own. And the money has to come from somewhere. In Mentor's case, we're talking about millions of dollars over over time leaving our district while we're simultaneously being told to cut programs, reduce opportunities, and ask local taxpayers to make up the difference through levies. This is not sustainable and it is not fair to students, families, or the taxpayers. The cost of Mentor to join this lawsuit would reportedly be around the cost of two high school vouchers. Two. This is remarkably small investment to challenge a funding structure that is actively undermining public education across the state. Opponents to the lawsuit have circulated allegations and rumors of financial mismanagement involving organizations connected to the coalition
034bringing the suit. But allegations are not findings and no wrongdoing has been proven. Meanwhile, many of the same legislators aggressively expanding vouchers receive campaign support from private school interests for not-for-profit education groups and companies that benefit financially from the privatization of public education. Voters are right to be frustrated about money, but blaming local schools and imaginary financial mismanagement misses the real issue, a legislature that has diverted public dollars away from public schools while protecting the interests of those profiting from the system. Complaints about admin salary, um, just anecdotally I found that the uh CEO of Excel, the largest charter school uh admin in the state, he makes 5 million a year. How would you like that? The Ohio Constitution requires the state to provide a thorough and efficient system of common schools. The Ohio Supreme
035Court has already ruled multiple times that the Ohio's funding system was unconstitutional. Yet, instead of fully fixing public school funding, the legislature has expanded a voucher system that sends taxpayer dollars into institutions that are not governed by elected boards, are not held to the same transparency standards, and are not required to serve every student. Public schools, meanwhile, educate everyone who walks in the door. >> Salter. I'm sorry, you're out of time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dave Lyman. Board President Cook, board members, Mr. Heath, Mr. Wade, HB 671, currently in the House Finance Committee, proposes withholding state funding from school districts who joined the lawsuit against the state's voucher program, and releasing those funds only if a school district withdraws from the lawsuit. This is a travesty and represents a strong-arm effort, aptly described
036as nothing less than distortion, extortion. Jamie Callender, who introduced this legislation, and Senator Schiavoni, who supports it, our two local legislative representatives, I believe, are attempting through this legislation to pressure school boards throughout the state, including the Mentor School Board, from joining the lawsuit. Recent reports suggest Callender has changed the amount to be withheld, should the legislation pass, to $2 per student, the amount board pays to join the lawsuit. This amounts to approximately $14,000 or 1/100 of 1% of the board's annual budget. An insignificant amount considering the potential benefit to be gained. I urge the board to join the lawsuit. Joining the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit will protect public school budgets and Ohio's voucher system drains resources and creates a separate and unmonitored educational system that lacks accountability, transparency, and anti-discrimination standards. This lawsuit seeks
037to uphold the mandate in our state constitution to fund a thorough and efficient public education system prohibiting any part of the state school funds from going to religious or other sects. Besides the constitutional concerns and the fact that the public school and voucher funding share the same line item on the state budget, every dollar spent on vouchers is a dollar less for public schools. This can lead to budget cuts, teacher layoff, and increased reliance on local local tax levies. The governor's 2026-2027 budget does precisely that, decreasing public school funding while increasing voucher funding. This unprecedented effort to dismantle Ohio's public school system through the voucher system must be challenged by this board. Join the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit. Thank you. Our last speaker is Molly Magee Kiss. Good evening. I'm here also to speak on
038the vouchers. I spoke on this topic a couple of years ago and I am strongly in favor of the district joining this group. For nearly 30 years, the Republican majority in the state legislature has ignored the directive of the Ohio Supreme Court to fairly fund public schools, instead giving over $1 billion to private schools last year in funding that is not accountable or transparent to the taxpayers who are paying the money. In the past 4 years, public funds given to private schools in Lake County has increased from $2 million in 2022 to over $11 million last year, a 430% increase in a time when public education is struggling financially. These dollars are going primarily to families whose children were never enrolled in public schools and who are not low income. And what does this massive
039increase in taxpayer funding in in taxpayer funding getting us at these private schools? Well, it's not funding academic success for the most part. According to the assessment reports that are available on the Ohio Department of Education website, these were the percentage of students who tested at a proficient level in math last year at Lake County Catholic schools that take vouchers. St. Mary's, 28%. Lake Catholic, 39%. Mater Dei, 55%. All Saints, 58% and St. Gabriel, 63%. All of those scores are below Mentor's overall proficiency averages. Those schools didn't fare much better in reading proficiency either, with scores ranging from only 40% at St. Mary's to 65% at All Saints. Again, all far below Mentor's average proficiency scores. And that is with those schools being able to choose their students and not being required to serve every
040student as public schools are. It is grossly unfair that private schools receiving vouchers do not have the accountability to taxpayers for these low test scores, while public schools need to beg for every dime. Voucher funding has created not only a system of halves, the private schools, and have not, the public schools, but intentionally does not require the same accountability and transparency to taxpayers that people are demanding of public schools. This is a poor use of taxpayer dollars and certainly does not benefit the 85% of students in Ohio who attend public schools. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have our superintendent's report and recommendations. Good evening, everyone. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, I have the following recommendations listed under the consent agenda and recommend approval of item 7A1. So moved. Second. Any discussion?
041Please call the roll. Miss Ayala. Yes. Miss Cook. Yes. Mr. Ake. Yes. Mr. Arslanian. Yes. Miss Marchaza. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, I am recommending approval of the EdTech Leaders Alliance District Membership Service Agreement. So moved. Second. Second. Is there any discussion? Can you just talk about what this is, board? Yeah, I had a couple of questions. They changed their name and I think that's causing some of the confusion. This is actually the organization that we run our student data privacy agreements through. So, all of the electronic pieces that we use in the district with our students have to go through that student data privacy component. And this is the organization that that we work with in order to get those SDAs approved. And with with Mike well,
042I'll give one question for all six of these. We're we're making sure that there's no redundancy in any of these services and that these are all like mandatory and we have to that's not something we cut. Yes, absolutely. Is there any more discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchione. Yes. Mr. Haye. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Apple. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, I'm recommending approval of the contract services agreement with Leaf. So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? Yes, I have a question. Is there does the ESC provide the same services? Is that something that we could get in place of this for free? Not that I'm aware of at this point. This is a counselor that comes into the building on a regular basis
043and works with our students as they start the college application process and work through scholarships as well. Do we have data to show how many families take advantage of their their services? >> We can dig into that and get that data for you. Okay. >> I can I can give you first hand like experience with Leaf. They've helped my daughter find scholarships. They helped me navigate some financial aid cuz I'm sending my first kid to college. So, we had to utilize Leaf and I've had a couple seminars, more than a couple actually. And they're I find them very helpful. It's a resource that's definitely helping my family transition into the college, especially for, like I said, first-time college parents or parents that are sending their kids to college. Definitely came in handy, and I know
044that Jane goes and talks to her regularly. I found them very helpful as well, and that that was one of one of the questions that I had, um, was in regards to the number of hours that we had them contracted for. How busy were they? Could we, you know, reduce hours at all? And and I was told that they are in demand. They're very busy. We will get some of that data for, uh, the board update this week, though. Thanks. Um, please call the roll. Ms. Marchaza. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Ms. Apple. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, and Mr. Wade, I'm recommending approval of the contract with Handle With Care Behavior Management Systems. So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? So, with this one,
045just as an FYI for everyone, uh, we have been using CPI, which a lot of districts have used in the past as well, uh, for some of our de-escalation techniques and, uh, some of the restraint components, uh, especially when working with some of our students with disabilities. Um, as we've asked our directors to dig into their budgets and find cost savings, uh, this is one of those things that will be a cost savings for us. CPI is typically pretty expensive on an annual basis, uh, because of the required trainings, uh, and the workbooks that go along with those, uh, trainings, uh, and, uh, Mrs. Bowser has kind of dug into her, um, her network and found that, uh, Handle With Care is a cheaper option where we will be able to train our own trainers
046here in this first year so that they will be able to do all of the trainings here in the future. Kind of limits the amount of training that those trainers have to do on an annual basis then too and allows our all of our staff members to get the training that they need. Do we have any data on the effectiveness of this training compared to CPI? Not yet but once it passes we'll find out. This was something that I also asked Mr. Heath. I'm I'm a certified CPI person staff member and we we use CPI in the district that I work in and that's what we're we use here as well up until this point. So when we were looking at a different option it was something that I dug into a little bit. They
047do look pretty comparable. There there about three main programs that do the same kind of training that are that have that evidence-based approach with them and they use a lot of the same language with it. I'm I haven't gone through the Handle With Care training obviously but just looking through their things it does look very similar. That was a concern that I had was especially related to the de-escalation strategies and less on the physical restraints because obviously that's where we want our first And one of the things that we looked into as well as who else is using it and we didn't have to look very far because CARES has been using this for the last couple of years as well. Great. Thank you for for doing that extra research for us too though. Is
048there any more discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchiaza. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Haye. Yes. Ms. Ayala. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, I'm recommending approval of the Nike football agreement. So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchiaza. >> Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Haye. Yes. Ms. Ayala. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wade, I'm recommending approval of the Pearson Virtual Schools Virtual Learning Program Statement of Work. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? So this is the product that we actually use for a variety of different things in the district. Some of it is credit recovery at the high school level. Some of it is groups
049of credentialing courses that we use with our Cardinal paths students. And then we also use it for in the past it's been predominantly for some of our science electives because those have been fairly full. And there were some courses that we didn't offer here in the district that students had interest in. One of the conversations I've had with Mr. Coleman and Mrs. Nemeth is that we might be looking at pushing those students back into our in-person science electives because we now have some capacity in those courses where we didn't in the past. So that would reduce the amount that we would actually be spending with this. But with those three different services all of those things are still needed as far as the uh contract goes. But again this will be one that we think
050we can uh save some money in as we move forward as well. Wasn't the journalism course also one of these that we Yeah, so journalism was offered through there. Obviously, with us starting a journalism class, uh we've eliminated that from the Pearson group. Uh another example is the um uh criminal investigations. Uh we had quite a few students that were in that and uh when we got to a certain point, uh it just made more sense to create a program uh and we have a partnership with Lakeland Community College for criminal investigations now. So, it's probably a much better course. Mhm. It sounds like we had two options where it was nice for students to have the exploration and then it grew into a program. But, in this time where we're looking at cost savings,
051I think it's probably wise that we might need to eliminate that option um and just, you know, continue Pearson for things like credit recovery, students that are suspended, credentialing, things like things like that. Yeah, we'll definitely move forward with that. Thank you. Um please call the roll. Ms. Marchaza. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Ms. Ayaplo. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wait, I'm recommending approval of the Renaissance Learning Start Comprehensive Suite renewal. So moved. Second. Second. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchaza. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Ayaplo. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Madam President, members of the board, Mr. Wait, I'm recommending approval of agenda item C1 related to certified personnel and C2 through C5 are
052related to human resource matters. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marchant. >> Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Iacobello. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carried 5-0. I'm also recommending approval of agenda item D, a resolution related to reduction in force. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Wade, please call the roll. Ms. Marchant. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Ms. Iacobello. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carried 5-0. I am also recommending approval of agenda item E related to administrative staff recommendations. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Is there any discussion? Just have a question on the retire-rehire. Uh Mr. Wade, I think I recall or maybe it was you, Mr. Heath, I recall this represents
053an actual savings to the district, right? About 41,000. >> That's what I thought you said. Okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to make a comment. This is something that's I've been going back and forth on the feedback that we we have received and I'm sure many of you have received it as well um from other staff is that um there this is kind of doesn't sit well with a lot of other employees. They feel like this is kind of a two-tiered system um or that undermines the the leadership pipeline development. Um and and I definitely understand that. Um I do see that it is a slight um savings for us, but I don't think it creates creates a major long-term savings compared to hiring new and just based off of the levy failing
054and us having to make reductions. I just feel like it sends the wrong message to the rest of the staff. I just wanted to explain my vote. So I get I guess I haven't heard all of these things. So could you explain that a little further? Explain what the feedback is? Yes. You we got you didn't get something from to mail to your house? I I got that email Rose and the idea I think that the snail mail Yeah, I think the idea was that re-hiring a person stands in the way of some younger person getting that position. It's demotivating for people. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not that it's not a cost savings. Yeah. So the cost savings if we were to hire a new person would would come in at the same rate, but they
055would have steps. And this person would not have steps. Am I understanding that correctly? Nobody has steps moving forward right for the next year. Right. Well, for next year that is true, but steps exist in in contracts typically. I think bottom line it because it goes to whether or not we want to save $41,000 by re-hiring this person even though it doesn't sit well with the staff and I understand that we don't have I mean it does take away an open spot for someone to be promoted. But that person that's being promoted is going to be making more. Not necessarily. >> Because Well, I mean unless you hire really I mean they it's a important job. So they're probably going to be hiring a more tenured person for that job. So, they're not going to
056be hiring someone just out of college. So, you're going to save money or you're going to choose not to save money. And you won't have an open spot for the promotion, which that is the downside. But, we kind of have to make decisions. I think tightening our belts is important. Okay. I'm That helps me understand. Thank you. Um please call the roll. Ms. Marchaza. Yes. Mr. Hague. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Applegate. No. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 4-1. This concludes my portion of tonight's agenda. Thank you. Next, we have the Board of Education report and recommendations. And the first item under board business is the approval of a Mentor Public Library trustee. Do I have a motion? Yeah, I'll motion that. This would be to approve Katie Fink as our >> Thank you. Um
057any discussion? Did we Did I miss the information on this? Yeah, I can give you some background. We were Robert and I were uh tasked with sitting in with the library board to interview candidates for the trustee position. And we interviewed How many? Four? Four. Four candidates. Um and Katie Fink was very impressive. She's worked at a She has library experience. And there isn't a ton of library experience on the board right now, library board. So, we feel like she'd be a good asset for that. Plus, she works at a She as a librarian now. Raising funds for that library, talking to parents, and stuff like that. She works at a private school. So, She's a matter of resident with kids in the school. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you for for serving. Please call
058the roll. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Hay. Yes. Ms. Applegate. I'm going to abstain because I didn't have any background information put in advance. That was in my May 1st update. What What was? The information on the selection process and the candidate. Right. The information about the actual candidate that was being recommended wasn't other than her name. In the past, we've gotten like more information on it. It says, "Okay." It does, though. It has the name in there. Ms. Marchione. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Motion carries 4-0-1. Next, we have the second reading and approval of a Board of Education Neola policy. Um and we we have a we have a few policies here. Do we Can we do them all together or do we want to separate them? Um I mean, this is our second reading.
059Yes. Yeah. So, I'm comfortable doing it all together. I don't know how the rest of the board feels. Okay. I had one thing that I wanted to just talk about briefly. In in the one Ms. Cook, should we do that during discussion after we motion and second? >> Sure. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm completely out of order. Um do I have a motion? So moved. I will second. And I will open the discussion. All right. Thank you. I had um a question about the let's see. 5430 Thank you. It's policy 5430 which is how we are identifying the top 5% and the top 10% of our students in our class. And I was hoping to add the word weighted GPA to the GPA. It it's a practice that we already use. I just wanted to provide
060clarity um that when we're looking at the top percent of the class that one of the ways we delineate their on your transcript we have weighted GPA ranking and unweighted ranking and that we would look first at the weighted ranking. Um and then courses from that point if there was a tie. So I'm motioning to add the word weighted in. And just so everybody kind of knows where we're looking. Um right above the uh the green highlighted pieces where we're talking about the determination of top 5% and top 10% for the Governor's Merit Scholarship and Ohio Guaranteed Admissions Programs. There is a statement and then four uh bullet points. Um the the statement reads the superintendent shall develop procedures for the computation of grade point averages and the assignment of class rank to implement this
061policy which shall include a provision for students com uh completing graduation requirements before their class, a system for fairly averaging makeup courses, a the of the methods for such computation and assignment to be made available for those to whom a student's grade point average or rank in class is released. And then item D is kind of where this is covered, uh but it's not specific, so that's I I believe what Ms. Cook is referring to. It says recognition of the heavier burden of certain work classes, courses, etc. So, if you go back to the original statement um before the four bullet points, um I think the proposal is for it to now read "The superintendent shall develop procedures for the computation of weighted grade point averages and the assignment of class rank to implement this
062policy, which shall include" and then the four. Um and then that leads directly into the uh the new language, which was the purpose of the uh the board policy update um with the new Governor's Merit Scholarship and Ohio Guaranteed Admissions Programs language. Um so, this would help clarify that and uh make sure that uh we have that weighted grade point average clearly delineated in the policy. Thank you, Mr. Heath. That is That would be my desire to have that change made. So, I'm motioning to to add in the word weighted in that line and I'll second that. Thank you for bringing it up. And just to confirm cuz I was reading while you were talking, Mr. Heath, that we our policy already has the word weighted in it when we're determining rank. The So, the
063the policy says uh in letter D "Recognition of the heavier burden of certain work classes, courses, etc." So, it doesn't necessarily say the word weighted in there. So, we're just making sure that we have the word weighted before the words grade point average, so that uh it's very clear. Moving forward. And do you anticipate any opposition to this from students or parents? I I this is No, I I think this is the the fairest way we would do it. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Is there any more discussion? Okay, so I think the motion right now is just for this amendment. And then we will vote on the policies as as a whole. So, you could please call the roll. Ms. Cook. Yes. Ms. Marchaza. Yes. Mr. Hayek. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Ayala. Yes. Motion carries
064to add weighted into the policy as written 5-0. Okay. Now, can I We already have a motion for to look at the rest of the policies um and to approve them with with the one amendment. Do I have a I guess please call the roll. Ms. Marchaza. >> Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Mr. Hayek. Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Ms. Ayala. Yes. Motion carries 5-0 as amended. Thank you. Next, we have the legislative report from Mr. Hardesty. All right. Um not much to report inside the State House because we've been on a uh little bit of a recess for the primary elections. I will state that uh oral arguments happened today on the vouchers heard Ohio lawsuit. Seems like we have a theme going on in this meeting. Uh so, the state is appealing from a lower
065court's ruling that Ohio's voucher expansion is unconstitutional. Um, our arguments are about 30 minutes apiece, and then the court will, you know, gather and write their opinion and move forward. The one thing I know for sure is there will be an appeal no matter what the ruling is uh, after this, uh, no matter what the outcome. Um, and to give you some updates on I know Jamie Callender's bill was brought up uh, in public comment. That has not received a co-sponsor yet. It is in House Committee right now. Uh, so without a co-sponsor, uh, we I don't whether it's moving forward or not is a kind of in the air. Um, now HB 643 that will allow a capped income of $500,000 for vouchers has gone nowhere so far. Uh, it is sitting in the
066House as well. Um, so we'll see how that, you know, matriculate through the system. Mr. Hotze, that's the amendment that that they would allow that they would cap it at 500,000? No, there's actually a bill HB 640 three that would cap income at 500K to be eligible for a voucher. Right now, there is almost universal eligibility for vouchers. So, there's no income cap. So, someone making 600, 700, a million dollars can get a voucher. Thank you. So, that's moving forward as well. And I'm sure we'll talk more at the agenda. So that's the end of my I wanted to just add something as the alternate. We keep hearing that a lot of fingers are pointing at the legislature and I think five of five of our speakers tonight did that. Um And you can that's
067everyone's entitled to their opinion. But we have been received more funding every year from the legislature in an addition to the funding. We You're shaking your head but we do. I mean it's just it's fact. We've also gotten um performance supplements. That is new. That was added from the Senate. And you know, the blame is I think we what we have to do is read the room and we keep pointing the finger at our legislators and then the levy fails. I'm really proud of our voters that they did their homework and that they didn't believe the all the misinformation saying that we're not fully funded. We receive I think schools got a billion dollars more in this last budget. Um You know, they are not responsible for giving us a blank check. And so, you
068know, and and putting that burden on our taxpayers. They already they clear loud and clear told us no. So I think I think what we should be doing is being a little bit more appreciative that for to our legislators because if they didn't have the policy in place that the guarantee, we would be Mr. Heath, we would Mr. Wade, without the guarantee we would be making we would be losing funding, correct? >> Correct. Correct. So, I mean we're getting more money. There and you're still complaining and pointing fingers. So I just think that we need to read the room as we move forward. I think that be a little bit more appreciative and realize that you know, there's a reason that the it was ruled unconstitutional to make you know, the local property tax pay
069for schools and and that's saying that the state has to fully properly fund. They are properly funding. We're getting more money every year. So, until you want to come to us and say we're getting less money every year, you know, and our enrollment's down a thousand students, and we didn't see any any decrease in funding. So, let's be a little bit more appreciative and and and less tone-deaf on that front. Do we Do we want to have this discussion now or at at the time we actually have it on the agenda? >> This is just on the topic of the legislative update. Well, we're going to have a discussion on it later. We can definitely talk about it then. I'll hold my comments till then. I don't want to talk about the vouchers right now.
070I do agree that we should wait. I will only add that when you account for inflation, the state has decreased its overall share in funding public education. They have gone from about 44% since 1997 to about 32% in terms of their share. So, when you account for inflation, of course the money amounts, the dollars are going to rise every single year because of inflation. So, when you accurately factor in inflation, you will see that the state is funding public education at its lowest levels in since the 1990s. And that's all I want to say. Mr. Wade, the fair school funding plan never promised to adjust for inflation, correct? Uh I think it was implied in the fact that the the formula is set up for the base cost to be updated to the average cost
071at least every by any of That's right. My my information is it was there was never a commitment and despite them not having to do commit to that, they did still in the last budget, I believe, um they adjusted the maybe the 25 26 24 25. Anyway, they did they did it, but they were not obligated to do it. They did not adjust it. We're still working with 2022 inputs. >> It wasn't >> in this last one, but it was in the previous one. So, my point is that they didn't have to. It was not said that they were going to. So, planning should have been planned accordingly, but they did do it once. So, I will be just as appreciative to our legislators when they fully fund public education. That's a subjective thing. >>
072Again, I just want to say this is the legislative report. It's on the agenda for later on. I mean, if we want to move the agenda Actually, it's not on the agenda. Well, the We're not talking about vouchers. I was just talking about the state of, you know, That we can talk about later, but um um this has to do with our legislators. This is the perfect spot on the agenda to discuss it. Mr. Harnist, you please continue. I mean, I think they're intertwined. I mean, we're going to talk about all that when it comes up on the agenda. Let's move on. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you for your report. Um next we have the student achievement report from Mr. Haig. Okay, strike up the band. It's time for the student achievement report.
073So, if you've been to a Manor High School home football or basketball game, you've seen Sparkle Cheer Squad cheering away. The dedication of the coaches and most importantly the students is remarkable. Tiffany Neil, Gabby's mom, says, "I will never forget the feeling I had when I saw my daughter on the field cheering on the football team, watching her happy and laughing with her peers. It's an amazing sight to witness. And just when I thought the game was over, my heartstrings really tugged when the entire cheer squad joined together in front of the student body to lead the cheers." We had the military signing ceremony on April 30th. Um we had eight seniors from our graduating class made the commitment to put service before self and enlisted in our United States military after graduation. We wish
074them well in the coming months as they leave for basic training. National students National Honor Society inductions were held on May 4th. Manor High School held the ceremony and the newest members in the prestigious group. Members were selected based on their demonstrated commitment to leadership, scholarship, service, and character. Congratulations to all our latest inductees. Lake What happened? Am I out of order? Oh, no. I am. Okay. I'm going to fix it. Lake Elementary School, on April 8th, we were notified that Lake Elementary School has received the Department of Education Workforce Momentum Award. This award is for districts and buildings that have continued to to demonstrate outstanding improvement and achievement while continuing to show growth. The Momentum Award is for districts and buildings that have improved their performance index by three or more points from 2023-24
075report card to the 24-25 report card and received a value-added progress rating of four or more stars. Okay. Elementary career day events have been taking place. They're happening at each elementary school throughout the month of May. A resounding thank you to all of our community partners, parents, and family members who will be spending more time in our elementary buildings over the next 2 weeks sharing information about their businesses, their industry, and their career fields. They're sharing. Okay. On March 16th, Memorial and Shore Middle Schools' eighth graders participated in the annual Make a Difference Day. 500 students took buses to the Senior Center, Deepwater, and the Salvation Army to create murals, make blankets, and prepare meals. Make a Difference Day is more than a day of service. It's a reminder that our students are making an
076impact in the world around them. We're proud of the way they represent Manor schools through kindness, hard work, and a willingness to give back. Now, you're going to say "Aw" in a second. Do it. Aw. I know. Okay. I've skipped ahead again. Okay, there we go. So, if you were fiddling on the roof, good for you. Bella Wagner wrote this following article in Cardinal Nation. This year's musical has attracted much attention, collaboration, and participation from the students of Mentor High School. The performance of the musical today is an accurate replica and representation of the original Broadway show with the main theme of importance of traditions, the occurrence of small-town drama, which is well represented in the show. The play was fantastic Thursday night, and it's definitely worth attending. When I met with Ben after the
077performance, he was so in character, he couldn't force himself to stand up as Tevye often stands hunched, indicating the performers' absolute dedication to their roles. I was also amazed at the talent of our singers at the high school, including notably Andrew Gaydosh, Noni Arndt, and Reagan Simon. Even Ben got into singing quite a bit, which she was very good at. Please go and support the students, and I hope that you did that at a future performance of Mentor Theater. Quality Profile report is out. You may have received this at home. In fact, you should have received this at home, and you probably have it on your coffee table and refer to it nightly. So many student achievement moments are captured in one report. Our 2024-2025 pro annual profile quality report is live, jam-packed with stories,
078opportunities, and outcomes that make Mentor Schools such a special place to learn and grow. From academics and career pathways to student well-being and community partnership, this report offers just a snapshot of what happens every day, and you can check it out at mentorschools.net. The Mentor High School invited their athletes from 1979's team at the to the Mentor Relays, and this is a anniversary for 50 years of girls track at Mentor High School and 100 years of men's track at Mentor High School. So, student update wouldn't be anything without the district AI committee update. So, one of the things that we do in the AI committee is we read an article every month and we met on April 29th. The committee is composed of students, teachers, administrators, and one board member who will shall remain nameless
079is asked to read an article we're asked to read an article prior to each meeting. So, this month the article is from the Boston Globe, the online edition, and but here's what Boston is doing. They're rolling out a new artificial intelligence educational program this fall aimed at making it the first major US city where all public high school graduates are proficient in AI. According to Mayor Michelle Wu, the effort is designed to ensure students graduate with the skills to use AI in college and the workforce. It is a private-public partnership between the city government, higher education, industry, and the city schools. That sounds like a good idea. And there's your quote. Thank you very much. All right. At this time we have our chief financial officer's report and recommendations. Mr. Waites. Madam President, members of
080the board, Mr. Heath. Looking at our financials as we conclude April, we have basically two months left not basically we have two months left in the financial year. We're halfway through this second to last month. Our current year revenue is about $900,000 higher than anticipated back in February. Our current expenditures are outpacing what we forecasted by about $874,000. So, all in all we're about $23,000 to the better on our forecast versus actuals of where we're program forecasting out. Uh just as a reminder, it's a little bit different this year than in past years because that we don't give a May update, uh the forecast is given as an update in February. Um revenues are about $484,000 up from last year, and then we're higher than last year by about 25 uh $2.5 million. Uh again,
0811.6 of that's coming in the form of advance and about $500,000 in the form of state revenue. As I said, we're about $900,000 better than we were projecting uh in February with about $524,000 coming from investments coming in continuing to come in higher than we projected, and our revenue in lieu of taxes was about $300,000 higher. Expenses, again, fluctuate uh based on timing as we're cash basis as I've said uh for a number of times throughout my tenure here. Um our actual expenses for the month were up about $423,000 compared to last year. Um most of that coming in the form of purchased services, uh and our total spend is about $2.3 million um higher than last year with the majority of that coming in the form of salaries and benefits as was projected. Uh
082all in all, we're trending about $875,000 higher um in expenses than we were projecting back in our update in February, and this is another reason why doing an update in February doesn't really make sense to me because we still have quite a bit of time left, and um you know, we don't know exactly what's going to kind of play out, uh and we're making some assumptions uh sooner than we typically do. Um but again, we're trending uh about overall where we did net for the forecast. I was uh figured because of the levy failure, it would be prudent to update the board and the community on kind of where we stand. Um if you remember in October prior to the um some changes that occurred at the local and state level with uh the piggyback,
083uh we gave an update that showed that uh while we were deficit spending, our cash balance in 2030 was still looking to be positive by about 3. Uh 2 million dollars. Uh the piggyback came into play. We saw some changes in state law to protect uh taxpayers from some of the large increases that we were seeing um across the state uh that was impacting districts, particularly those on the floor um where you were seeing a percent increase for increase on valuation increase. Again, just to reiterate that never happened here in Mentor uh because our community was protected by House Bill 920. Uh the increase that we did see was on um the uh inside millage, and that too has been capped uh through House Bill 335. So, your inside millage can't increase can't exceed the
084cumulative impact inflation over that same time period. Uh so, when you kind of attribute all those changes in uh along with the piggyback, uh even though we were still working towards our 2 million dollars in reductions, we were still seeing a net uh cash balance in 2030 of about 9 and a half million dollars. Uh the voters uh in May uh turned down the uh board's request for an additional 4.9 mills, which would have given us about 13 and a half million dollars a year annually. Um so, one of the things that we had been working on was the if uh there was a failure, um we knew we had to make cuts. Um we communicated to the board and the community um, without hesitation that no matter what happened, we were going to be
085cutting $2 million a year uh, through 2030 um, because we've set that kind of goal to continue to slow the growth of the the budget uh, moving forward. Uh, and it was my recommendation that we would cut an additional $3.4 million from the budget going into the next fiscal year so that in the event if the board does decide to put a levy on in November and that levy too does fail and we lose a collection year or a half a year of collections in that fiscal year of about $6.8 million, we're not cutting $6.8 million um, all at one time and again we're not driving towards the proverbial cliff um, because we see it coming and we we we don't we would be doing our due diligence. Uh, Mr. Heath and I have met
086uh, he's met with his administrative team throughout this entire process. Um, and what we did is we kind of broke the cuts down into categories uh, where we have a dollar reduction and then I also added a reduction as a percent of that category. So for example on the screen uh, we have uh, approximately $500,000 in cuts uh, in changes to administrative salaries. Um, many of the ones uh, at the top we'd already talked about uh, previously. Um, we've included the retiree higher savings from the director of student services that was passed uh, tonight. Uh, elimination of a career tech personnel service contract for an administrator that we had hired um, to support career tech uh, prior to Mr. or excuse me, Dr. Glavin's retire or not retirement, he wishes he would retire. Uh, for
087his transition to Auburn Career Center as the superintendent. Um, we are recommending to the board that we eliminate the benefit of the professional stipend for $1,000 for each administrator as well as the medical reimbursement for $1,000. Uh, and if those recommendations were accepted, again, $500,000. And I'm not on the right side, so thank you, Mr. Heath. Actually, before you move forward, can I ask a question on this the previous slide? >> Real quick. Um so, you're saying what you're saying is what we have here the cuts that you're you're proposing are reflected in >> No. They're not. >> Not reflected. >> What about the the um piggyback credit? Like how are you >> Piggyback credit is in here. So, this is this is what we knew as of March. >> And we just expected that
088they were going to continue to implement that. >> Correct. Yes. So, now I will forward my slide to give reference um to what I was just referring to. So, on the right though, the percentage, cuz you have the normalized cuts because each section of a budget is a different dollar amount and is represented by a different number of uh peoples and dollar amounts. So, in this case, um if you reduce $500,000 from our administrative costs, it equates to for that category about 6 and 1/2% reduction of that category of the budget. Mr. Heath is recommending uh the reduction of 23 staff members, certified staff members. Um and I'll let him speak to what those are here in a second. I will just touch on the fact that that equates to about 3.16 million uh 3.16
089million dollars or about 4.67 or or 4.7% of a reduction in cost for certified salaries that we have. Um so that we don't forget because we talked about this, I'll just talk about one piece of the list on the left. Um there are retirement adjustments included in the savings um because we saw we had 29 people retiring here tonight. We're not replacing 23. Mr. Heath will speak to that, so we get savings because we're not replacing them in the form of salary and benefits, and we do see savings as well when we hire teachers who are coming to us out from college or even with a few or limited experience. We see savings in that, and that savings is included in this value here that you see in front of you. And then I will
090turn it over to Mr. Heath to kind of walk the board and the community through the 23 reductions. So, as you'll recall, we we had in that $2 million reduction plan a placeholder of a reduction of eight teachers. At that point, we were we had made the decision that we were going to eliminate middle school teaming at the sixth grade level similar to what we had done this year with the seventh grade level. So, those class sizes will inevitably increase. The we tried to do the teaming to make that transition to middle school a little bit better. Again, looking at data, there wasn't the huge student achievement increase that we were hoping for with that move. So, by reducing those six middle school teachers in that $2 million plan that that was something that was
091already decided prior as part of our $2 million reduction plan. We also had two district level positions that we were going to capture there as well. Again, the the big thing as we've been going through the operating levy season here, we're also going through our staffing season and looking closely at enrollments and um based on what we're looking at with those 29 retirements and where they're coming, Um, we looked very closely at what we needed to replace and what we didn't. Uh, couple of things I think that that kind of jump out at us as we're looking at that. Um, the the the additional 15 teachers, we're looking at six from the elementary school, at least six. Uh, two at the high school level. Uh, we have four related arts and then they're going to
092be three that are additional. Again, those are probably going to be um, a combination of uh, the elementary and the high school levels there as we work through all of those final, um, positions. Uh, but with couple of things that kind of played into that, you know, when we've got a graduating class of 550 that's leaving us this year. Uh, this year's kindergarten class was 402. Uh, so got a big difference there, about 150 students. Um, that difference from one graduating class to the kindergarten class joining us. The other thing that uh, kind of played into this, we have a kind of a bubble class right now at fifth grade. Um, and we we've heard about class sizes at fifth grade for a couple of years here now. Um, but that class is 527 that's
093moving on to the sixth grade building or the uh, sixth grade at our middle school buildings here for next year. And uh, again, still working through kindergarten enrollments right now, but again, if we're in that 400 to 450 range, we still have a a fairly big decrease in enrollment at across all of our elementary buildings. Uh, so that allows us this year to be able to reduce the number of sections across several of our elementary buildings. And we'll be hopefully finalizing that exact uh, reduction for you here, um, uh, hopefully at our next work session that hopefully will get scheduled here shortly. Um, I I one other thing that that really played into this, as we're reducing those elementary sections, uh, for the first time in several years, we've, uh, been able to take a
094look at the elementary related arts schedule and see what impact that would have then. Um, couple of things playing into that. One was, uh, as you'll recall, we we started to align our uh, our elementaries a little bit. We have three that now are starting, uh, and ending early. So, those three buildings are aligned. And then we have the other four that are all aligned now with a later start and end time. Uh, those in the past have been, you know, 5 to 10 15 minutes off, uh, across the entire district. So, uh, by doing that, it's allowing us to really streamline that related arts schedule. Um, that allowed us to reduce four positions then. One phys ed, one uh, STEAM, one music, and one art uh, across all of the elementaries. So, there's four
095additional, uh, positions that we were able to save this year. Uh, nice thing about that is we've had uh, two STEAM retirements, two music retirements, and two art retirements as well. Um, the the only reduction in force, which we voted on a little bit earlier, occurred in the phys ed world. Um, so, that's the only riff that we've had to make at that point in time. So, again, that that alignment and the enrollment numbers with the reduced sections at the elementary allowed us to save four additional positions that we had not originally anticipating. Uh, we always look very closely at our high school course, uh, selection sheets and determine the number of sections that we need across all of our departments and that obviously then dictates the number of teachers that we need. So we
096were able to save two at this point, potentially a third depending on what our final decisions are are made here in the next couple of weeks. So really that's kind of where the staffing came out from a certified standpoint. Again, we had originally committed to the eight but based on some of the reductions that we're seeing in enrollment and the reduction plans that we need to account for now with the failure of the levy, we've got the flexibility to make these adjustments now and these will compound over time which which helps the out years of the forecast too. Thank you, Mr. Heath. When we look at classified staff, we are going to be committed to reducing four positions and reducing classified overtime by limiting it really just to overtime situations that are emergency related or
097things that have to happen where maybe transportation and the like. By doing that, that's going to save us about $300,000 which is about 1.36% or 1.4% of that category of the budget. The other thing that we've done is we automatically again this year reduced all budgets by 5% as part of our you know initial cost savings plan, we're going to be reducing them by department budgets, excuse me, by another 5%. We're going to eliminate out of district professional development and travel and we're going to reduce our legal fees. Those total dollar reductions will equate to about $1.7 million or about 9.8% of discretionary spending. Some of the other areas that we're going to look that uh to generate some revenue to reduce cost to the district, uh we're going to increase the fees for sixth
098grade camp to eliminate the $50,000 a year that we subsidize the sixth grade camp fund. Um we're going to recommend the elimination of the cap to pay participate fees. Um we're going to increase preschool tuition to align to other preschools in the area for the market. Um and we're going to add a paper consumable fee for the paper that the district is consuming uh to support learning in the classroom. Those total revenues would equate to about $250,000. Um because the revenues are not really reductions, I didn't put a percentage there cuz it's doesn't really fit. Uh all in all, those reductions and additions in revenue total $5.9 million or total reduction of spending by about 5.1 5% or 5.2%. Mr. Richard, I think this is where um you were looking. Uh the next slide kind
099of shows now uh what does that do to our forecast now that we've reduced $5.9 million and I will uh say with certainty that that $5.9 million is captured here. Um we made sure to include everything that we had in the other slide in here uh for the work that Mr. Heath and his team did to to come up with that uh list. Um you see that that puts us at about $4.8 million in the black in 2030. Um so, you know, we're looking at a swing of about almost $14 million from prior to uh this being implemented uh or, you know, if the board accepts our recommendation, um where we have basically gotten to where we were back in October plus about a million and a half dollars better than we were. Uh but
100you can see that the deficit is continuing to grow. It's just all we've done is kick the can down the road. If you remember, uh we were um discussing this as we were going around and uh attempting to talk to people in the community about the finances of the district. Um I think it's important to to reiterate uh even prior to this, our projected annual growth over the next uh 5 years from 2025 through 2030, uh if you take out transfers and advances, was 2.46%. Um so that's below inflation. So we were projecting growth on our budget to be uh below inflation. Um and I think it's important to point out even more so now that we've reduced that to 1.8%. So, cash on hand, um our our updated budget policy has a cash reserve
101and a cash ceiling policy involved in it and it speaks to having uh the board needs to take action once we fall below 90 days, and then the board would also request action if our cash balance grew to 365 days. Um and in March or February, and then when we approved in March, we had 82 days. So, that point when we were going to fall below 90 days was in fiscal year 2028, and we would have had a negative cash balance, like I said, in 2030, which is not allowable. Um and as that would have been pushed up and over, right? We would have been on state watch and kind of going in that direction uh potentially. What we know now is that uh in 2028 we've exceeded our 90-day uh floor. We're at 103
102days and our 2030 cash balance now, cuz it is positive, it's 13 days. So, it's even better than October. Oops. The graph behind me um which is the red line, gray line, black line uh just to kind of reiterates to the board again, this is a graphic representation of our current state. Uh if the board accepts the $5.9 million in cuts um as a starting point, um again, we'd be the red line, which uh is better than the gray line from October and much better than the black line that we were uh just a few months ago prior to making any changes uh post the levy. I modified this for Ms. Marchaza. Uh she despises this chart, so I simplified it even further, but again, it's my way to show the board and the community
103that it's our our grade card um because we did commit to cutting uh $2 million in 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030. Um and we've met that goal through 2028 with the latest proposal of $5.9 million in cuts. Um we still have some additional work to do in 2029 and 2030. Um and again, those cuts are going to become harder and harder to do without impacting uh some of the more specifically student-facing things uh as we continue to look forward. So, um that's kind of where we're at. And I just wanted to remind the board that uh there is a clock that is ticking. Uh if the board is considering uh putting an additional levy on in November, um we have until August 5th to have both resolutions passed. And one obviously is the first one
104needs to be certified uh 10 days in advance uh of notice for the second one. Uh we have to take that first one to the auditor's office and we if you remember, we ran into some snap foods with that based on some legal changes in the Department of Taxation which delayed that. Um so, you know, we would want to do that well in advance to make sure that we don't have any timing issues uh this time because we were able to avoid them last time. Uh and then you would need to have uh a second resolution to the Board of Elections no later than August 5th. It is my recommendation that we schedule a work session to delve into uh the topic of additional cuts if if deemed necessary. Uh Happy to discuss any cuts
105now. Um but I would think we'd want to do a work session prior to the June meeting um because a tentative timeline conservative timeline would be if the board is considering a resolution to do that at the first reading at the first resolution in June, second resolution in July so we can hit our deadlines if that's what the board so desires. Happy to answer Happy to answer any questions. Can I ask a just quick question about this one? Thank you for redoing it for me. Um I saw of course and I'm sure several others saw that inflation jumped to jumped 3.8% today. I think that's what I saw. Um so, what you know, with the uncertainty we have right now in our economy, gas outrageously priced, you know, what impact does that uncertainty and and
106perhaps even, you know, inflation rising higher, how is that going to affect what we see here? It would make it worse. >> Worse. Make it worse, right? But I mean I mean are you anticipating that we're going to see further cuts needed beyond what you're what you're indicating here, just to just to get along. Yeah, I mean I think um if if our if my projections are projections, this is our forecast, but you know, my projections based on the finances at the time that we knew it, um if we if we start to see inflation increase higher than what was projected back in March even and it sustained, >> Mhm. we would have to make adjustments either to we'd be spending even more than we had projected, or you have to offset that with additional
107cuts to save that, right? Because and that's what I've kind of been saying this entire season is that you could freeze every salary, no steps, no increases ever again, and our costs are still going to go up because we have health care costs that make up a percentage of our our costs, we have utilities, we have consumables that we have to purchase, there's things that we have to do. Obviously, we would slow that down drastically because 85% of our budget is salary and benefits, but the reality is is if you know, we we have to keep up with that. And then inherently, that's the issue. If you want to boil this down to what the issue is, you can blame the state, you can blame the board, you can blame the administration, you can blame
108the taxpayers, but it's just an inherent fundamental issue. The way that we fund schools in Ohio does not keep up with the cost of just doing business. If you look over the last 20 year 20 years in this district, our revenue has gone up by 34%. So, it has gone up. It has gone up by 34%. We don't hide behind that. We I I talk about it every month what our revenue and expenses are. That's about 1.8% right? So if someone was to do the math I think if my if my my math is correct. Our expenses have went up 52% during that same time. So that's roughly a little bit over 2%. So I you know you could say that there's you know like people can agree and disagree on a lot of things,
109right? Everyone's got an opinion that's the beauty of our country. So Mr. Estes change that's that's my video tape to the city. The beauty of our country is that anybody can have an opinion. That's my sound clip. Got it? Send it to the city. But the reality is is I think we've like that that's the problem. You don't have a revenue that keeps up and you got to remember of that 34% two of those were voted levies in 2004 and 2016. I'm very appreciative of the state's modest increase. It's not enough to sustain us. It's just not and I get and I've said this before I get they have a limited budget too. But when you cut your revenue for income tax breaks that people don't see where you could give a break to senior
110citizens or people who have a lower socioeconomic status so that the burden doesn't fall more on them. That's an that's a choice. We all have choices that we have to make, right? And I think there's ways that we can work creatively together to to solve this. But when you have that fundamental issue with funding in the state of Ohio how we fund public schools particularly in a district like Mentor's. We can only do two things and I've said this from the beginning. You can either ask for additional revenue or you can cut and I think you've all heard me say, we're doing both. So, the only way to continue to like derail this is to continue to make cuts. Or we get additional revenue because the the modest growth that we've been receiving on inside
111millage isn't going to keep up with it. The modest growth from the state of Ohio isn't going to help us keep up with it. And you know, you saw cutting, you know, $500,000 administrative costs, $3.1 million certified costs, $300,000 classified costs isn't keeping up with it. It's delaying it. It's flattening the curve, but there's an inherent issue there. So, I mean, that that's where we're at. So, if things change economically, yeah, I mean, that we're all feeling it, right? Like, you know, it cost me $102 to fill up my truck the other day. And I have more than one. So, I mean, I I can appreciate where taxpayers are and I think it's why we we we strive to respond and say, "Hey, look, we're not waiting. We we came tonight. We worked very hard."
112Mr. Heath and his team, him and I having lots of discussions to say, "Here's $5.9 million worth of cuts to slow that down." But it doesn't solve the issue. Okay, I agree. Thank you for saying that. Um it does not solve the issue. I'm glad to see the cuts on the two um benefits, admin benefits that we talked about in our last executive session. Um is this okay for me to talk about now? This is what I wanted on the agenda. Am I good? Are you done? Yeah, yeah. No, no, yeah. I was just turning to Okay. Um Go ahead. Sorry. So, I'm glad to see that that uh $1,000 health care benefit and the $1,000 professional benefit was on there. And that is something I was going to motion to add for us to
113in advance of this work session. And I know we're going to come up with a date for us to get together and talk about it things in addition to this stack, which I think is is great. Um It's like you said, it's not enough. We have to I think big big cuts have to be made. Um so in um preparation for that work session, I would like to motion to direct our legal counsel to amend the administrative employee benefits memorandum to eliminate the STR S SCRS pickup fringe benefit set forth in article 6 the retirement employee share that would be a $700,000 a year savings. Um and I it should I'd like it to match the teachers retirement benefits model. So that's something you want to discuss at the work session. No, that's a motion
114to to have our legal counsel have that ready for our to vote at our work session. Oh. You vote at the work session. Yes. Is there a second? Do we want to discuss this or How does that work? No, we we do not. You have to There has to be a second to discuss it. It has to be a second motion in order to get to discussion. Oh. Nobody wants to second it. >> I mean, I would like to discuss it. You'd have to second it. Second. Thank you. Okay, now you can discuss. Discuss. Okay. Ah. This admin thing has been coming up over and over again throughout for like the last 4 months. It it seems to be like the thing that's killing the school and the thing that's going to save the school.
115If we get rid of it, the school will be saved. If we if we keep it, you know, it's the downfall of the school. Um I just want to kind of go through like the perception of it. It I mean it's been characterized as easy savings. Like I've seen it out there as this is just easy savings. Like let's just cut it. But like we don't manage robots here. Like we manage people. And when I add up these cuts, I have a we've already talked about 0% salary increase. Mind you, this is 42 employees. It's 42 administrators. So we're going to concentrate all our cuts on these 42 people. So we get the salary increase, we take away the raises. We take away the performance bonus, which we've already discussed. We've already planned to do
116that levy or no levy. We adjusted the cell phone statement for the market. Did that without the levy. We talked about the professional stipend for uh the $1,000 reimbursement. And I think we were all in agreement that that was going to be phased out. But it's probably going to be expediated now because of the levy failure. So and then we add the admin retirement and we come to an average of $25,000 per employee that you want to reduce. The south The this will be the outcome of reducing that. $25,000 per family. So I ask you if you could take a $25,000 compensation hit and be okay. And would you be excited to come to work the next day and do your job in a proficient manner? Maybe I mean I'm not I'm saying our administrators,
117our leadership team, our principals are all very professional. And I'm sure they would come here and do their best until they found another job. You know, or they would do just enough not to get fired until they found another job. Or they're going to rule against you while they're in the organization. Blow up the school. Like No, I'm saying reduce the quality of the school. I don't know how teachers could teach without leaders that have They kind of set up the infrastructure. They have payroll, the HR, the IT. Like you act like like out in the community it's like these teachers just teach and the admin are all super superfluous. Superfluous. Superfluous. Yeah, I got it. I mean who do you think does all the things that allows the teachers to teach? If you do
118this to the admins and you take away the 14% I mean basically you're just I mean you're you're sinking the ship. In my view, I've been I've I've I've been in business for 22 years. I would never do this in the private sector. I I don't have a lot of experience in the public sector but it's just not something you would You wouldn't cut your leaders pay by 25 grand and then have them come in the next day and lead your organization. It just wouldn't happen. It's bad business. I mean if you if some of the people that are making this recommendation had business experience or looked into it, I don't know if they would make this recommendation. I just don't understand it. I mean like I said, I'm not in the public sector, I'm
119in the private sector and I get laughed out of the building if I brought this idea. But in the public sector, I mean, would that work? Do you Is there downstream effects to that? You don't get a lot of benefits like this in the in the public sector. You don't get bonuses >> of their retirement is is paid by taxpayers or paid by Is that They pay zero to into their own retirement. >> Okay. I was administrator, um and I got the pickup. And I can remember, um moving from the classroom um to administrative position. And I can remember getting the pickup, and I got a nice raise, and I did a little dance. Um I also worked 6 more weeks, and then 8 more weeks. I also gave up my tenure, um and no
120administrator is protected from being fired the day they become an administrator. So, my tenure was gone. I was working more days and more weeks, but that isn't even the whole point. It's It's a different job. So, when I was an elementary principal, I was the only one in the building with that job. And I had to relate to teachers, and every one of them needed something different. And I wanted so much to provide what every single teacher needed. And then I had 600 students, and the same thing applies, and twice as many parents. And then you have these board office people that come over and give you all this trouble like our board office people are doing right now. It's not the same job. I went from teaching to administration, I went back to teaching.
121It's not the same job, and you need, I believe, you have to have really good administrators. But, here's the thing. A great administrator is evidenced by a really wonderfully happy, well-functioning school. If you can't tell what the principal is doing, they're probably really good. If you hear about him or her, probably something's going wrong. And that happens. And that's that's when you really earn your spurs. So, um I walked this. I appreciate what Dan is saying. I don't understand it. Um I I don't understand the villainization of administrators. Um That's all I have to say about that. I will just chime I'm not an administrator. I've never worked in public schools, but I have worked in the nonprofit sector my whole life. And I have gone through some pretty rough times, you know, when fundraising
122didn't hit our marks, we had to look at um you know, some defunding from the federal government. You know, so my salary was reduced by a lot. And guess what I did? I left. And so did a bunch of other people, too. And what we saw was a hollowing out of talent. And I know, too, that it costs a lot more to hire and replace those folks. And we'd be doing it in a less competitive way because other districts offer this around us. So, I would question how would we attract the same level of talent that we are able and fortunate enough to have today? How would we do that with less to offer them? I left, and that sticks with me. I I'm not interested in considering this because I don't feel that our
123administration is overpaid. I think that's rhetoric. I think if you look at what an administrator is required to do. Maintain the safety, budget, communicate, you know, be the be the lead communicator for their building, evaluate their staff, make sure that their staff are up-to-date in everything, and that you have all of the drills prepared. It's a lot, and our administrators have on average an average of 25 years of experience each. And an average of 15 years of experience within Manor schools, so within our institution. They have master's degrees. I'm looking at the average administrator here has a master's degree plus an additional 30 extra graduate credits on top of their master's degree. This is not only a lot of education, it's a lot of experience, and it's a lot of responsibility. And if you look
124at jobs that have an equal amount of work and responsibility, this this is just what people are paid. I want people to come here excited. I want people to come here, and I want to I want I want to be able to attract the best because I expect them to be the best. So, I want to pay them what they're worth, and I don't think that put bringing their salary down, it would be a compensation package for each person of of 14% reduction is a reasonable ask at all. We have taken the administrative staff, and they are taking cuts. A reduction of 6.47% is a significant reduction. They will not have a salary increase at all next year. They won't have a performance bonus. There will be no steps on their salary scale. Their cell
125phone their elimination of things that we did in a contract. I understand with a failed levy we need to make cuts and we are making cuts and I'm agreeing to these cuts. But that is an absolutely unreasonable ask and it is insulting. Okay. Um First of all, what's insulting is that you're accusing me of an This is not an indictment on the our administrators. They were We are in this position not of my doing. We're in this position and Mr. Wages said the cuts that we're making are great, but it's not enough. So we we we're in a position where where can we cut without I mean, I want to see this kind of passion when we talk about taking away somebody's extracurriculars for families cuz some families aren't going to be able to afford
126that. Where is the passion to save some of the teachers and then now we're going to have to talk You're going to have classrooms that are bigger than they already are now. So let Okay, so I'm spare me a little bit of the drama. Our administrators are paid better than everybody in Lake County and this is not adjusting their salary, it's adjusting their retirement benefit, okay? And we we it's good enough for our teachers, why is it not good enough for admin? We have to cut somewhere that doesn't negatively affect academics and this is an area to cut. You're taking it way too personally. Um you know, this is not an easy thing to do. >> You cannot say that administrators >> wasn't done. You can't say that administrators don't affect academics. >> I did
127it I did Okay, I'm not They don't directly, they're not in the classroom. So again, I It's not an indictment on how our administrators what benefit our schools. Of course they do, okay? I apologize for interrupting. >> It It's Of course they do, but we have to find the money somewhere. Where else are we going to find it? This is a $700,000 plus actually more because we pay taxes on that benefit, correct? Do you know what that what that would act add up to? The total cost of the district is actually the close to that figure um with that. It's pre-tax payment on it, but the I So that I think that answers your question. I was just making my comment. >> that's a lot of money. That's That's more than double what we already
128have on here under admin. And now listen, Mr. Wade had said that 87% of Ohio school districts are projected to be deficit spending by 2029. I don't think that we would be losing >> I don't think I said that actually. >> Well, I have it written down that you did, so You can You can fact-check me on that. Um we can't you know We like I said, we already have the highest salaries in the area, probably in the tri-county area, okay? And I think we have very loyal administrators, and I think that they understand that the situation and that you know, they're they're still making really good money, and I don't think that they would I think their loyalty I think would keep them here. And if not, then you know, this is These are
129the hard that we have to make. We have to listen. I really think that these um these bloated and and and I will call them bloated because you know, it's it's we pay we we these packages and the retirement packages are really good. I mean, I looked I researched around. They're very, very good even in the private sector. So um I think that's single-handedly what failed the levy. And Mr. Hague, you had said you were shocked that the levy failed. I don't know how you guys were. I've not checked at all, actually. Um I think if we don't come back I mean we're already talking about and I know we you have to give us these dates, but we're already talking about putting it back on in November. We cannot be tone-deaf. We have to
130make some kind of cuts and I understand that this is you know you it's easy to to point the finger at me and say that I don't appreciate our admin. It's not easy to sit here in front of many of them and and make this this recommendation, but we have to listen to the community. We have a job to do. So, I mean I I'm I'm putting it out. The motion's out there. You guys can fail it as you probably will, but you then you got to answer to the to the community. I I don't want to I mean I'm not going to insult you. I don't think that it's anything I think it's just the fact that you don't have the experience in a business environment. And I think that >> have experience in
131the business environment? Like have you had direct reports? Have you led an org Are you saying I am not qualified to to say that we can need to cut these? Is that what you're I'm saying that you don't know the downstream effects I don't know the downstream effects of of cutting someone's salary $25,000 and what's going to happen the next day. It's not their salary. Oh, it's a compensation. >> has the floor, right? It's their compensation. Right, but it's not their salary. Okay. It's their compensation. Yes. Okay. It's what they make. So, I'm not What do you think's going to happen when you cut their salary by $25,000? I think that many will it will be hard and I'm not going to pretend to be inside everybody's home and their their I don't know what
132their their financial situation is, but what are you going to think when we take have to tell cut teachers? If they cut your salary by $25,000 in your family, how would you react? >> I I've had that. My husband is on is on a the no salary. He gets a commission based. So yeah, there have been years where we we've had dramatic drops. So I I'm not I'm not sitting here thinking saying this isn't a difficult conversation and a difficult decision, but what's the alternative? Teachers? Mr. Wait, if if we were to do this, would this solve the problem? No. Okay. That seems like a conflict of interest that you're asking him that cuz you better First of all, I mean numbers. He can look at the I was asked the question. $700,000 a year
133is not going to help solve our problem? I can't say. >> asked if it would solve the problem, not help solve the problem. So what what are the other cuts that you're proposing? You came up with $700,000. What what next? Just to be clear, I I need to clarify something just for the board so that they're talking about something intelligently. It's it's not $700,000 because there are four administrators who cost the district absolutely nothing out of the general fund. There are four administrators who pay for themselves by the programs that they run. Food service pays for itself. So what is >> Miss LaPaglia makes her pay for herself. Uh it's probably closer to to low six hundred thousand dollars. That's still a good amount. I'm not dismissing that, but I'm just saying where if we're
134going to throw around numbers, we should be throwing around accurate numbers and we should have a full understanding. When people make public records requests, they don't ask for my own like explanation of the data that I'm giving them. I gave them the data that they request. So when you ask for administrative salaries and it a compensation package and a retirement is is a salary because when you take that 14%, it's not 28% because by law we have to give the first 10 or 14%. So it's untruthful to say it's 28% just to be clear. It is a 10% or 14% coverage. If this district stops paying that, then the employees pay that and that's a loss of salary, to be clear. And to say that I have a will not speak to something honestly, I
135take a little bit of offense to, just to be clear, because I think I was in agreement from the beginning of reducing some of the administrative perks, um, openly. So, I can I can wear a CFO hat and have integrity. So, I think the point being here is that compensation should be looked at, and it has been looked at. And I think the administration has given back and and done more. And it can't be done by on the back, I guess what I would have hoped that we would have got out of my initial soapbox and and the data that I showed, it's not going to be saved by anyone group. You can't You can't save this district on the back of 42 people. You could go even bigger, cut all administrators. I mean, really?
136But if you're I mean, but my point being >> suggesting this is solving the problem. This is is contributing to to solving the problem. It's one piece. Because here's what's going to happen, Bill. If you guys We don't want to touch this, that's you're going to put this levy on, it's going to fail. We're going to end up cutting actual administrative positions. That's going to be the end result. So, I'm trying to This is to me the best the best outcome. The best outcome is to cut $25,000 per principal, per IT person, per and then have them come to school the next day and work for you. I mean >> And just say, "Oh, they're loyal. They'll take it. We can step on them. Like, they'll they'll have the same amount of loyalty and the
137work product will be the same. Um, the school I mean, majority of school districts do do the pick up in Ohio, by the way. The what? >> And, you know, all the other schools kind of do it. Well, let's and then let's try to hire with that hit to our reputation or that hey, guess what? The board just uh you know, cut the pick up. The majority of schools have it, but Matter doesn't because uh they have some an angry faction of the community that doesn't like administrators. And that's not Who The community didn't say they don't like administrators. I saw that like I said, it's easy savings. >> Okay. Just cut those administrators. It's easy savings, like a blue light special at Kmart. I mean, it's that flippant. Talking about 42 peoples. Yeah. Okay.
138Let me then let's let's put let's on the table the teachers. Are we >> 35 kids in a classroom? What's next? I mean, we have to we have to reduce somewhere. >> I think I think we we discussed, you know, the retirements actually are going to take care of the teacher cuts, right? So, are we riffing a bunch of people? And he just said this is this alone is this is not enough. So, we there's going to be more. >> Yeah, we are going to have to keep cutting. I agree. And we have to decide where to cut. Why are you so fixated on this one item? I think cuz it's a >> There's a bunch of lines in the budget. This one item has come up up a hundred times. I mean, it's almost
139like you Have you brought up >> I mean, administrators are like the single focus. Like it's like I haven't heard Oh, instructional coaches. Instructional coaches. Yeah, that's another one. Thank you very much. >> got admins. What's the other ones? Admins and instructional Are there any other cuts that you have in mind? Oh, OSBA because they they have a lobbying arm. Okay, Dan, do you have any suggestions? Yes, I would love some suggestions. >> I'm open. What else can we cut that could bring us this kind of money? I think this is what we're going to be discussing at our work session, yes? I I I would like to move this discussion forward because it feels like we're we're nitpicking, we're not being very um productive here. We had We have a motion on the table.
140We have a second. So, I think we need to move on with that. And and then we we have Mr. Wade has recommended that we do a work session and he had had asked that prior to this meeting and gave us some dates and he asked us to bring that forward on what dates would be appropriate for us. I think it's also would be a great time for us to direct anything that we want them to gather for us for that work session. If we want to do that in emails or if we want to do that openly at the table, either way, but just so they have an idea of things that we want to see um for discussion at the work session. I would like an accurate number on the transportation, uh high
141school transportation, and actually just transportation in general because I have We have a a $90,000 number out there and I you know, and that's our fault for not questioning this sooner, but it was placed on the potential cuts if levy failed at 90k and I think those were only salaries for bus drivers and it didn't take into account like fuel costs. Mhm. Yeah, those are old numbers. >> slower depreciation on the vehicles for driving less miles. Yeah, they're outdated because now we're hearing $200,000. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. The maintenance costs. >> Mhm. Like So, I would like to get all that I mean, fuel's expensive as it is right now. So, I would like to get some updated costs on what that would actually be cuz it's not 90,000. Can we move forward? >>
142we can also get the benefits on the on not just the salaries, but the benefits. Just so we know what we're dealing with cuz I'd rather have like the actual numbers. >> Mr. Apple, I would like to vote on the motion that's on the table. >> Yes, we will get back to what questions, but if we can we do have a motion on the table. Mhm. So, please call the roll. Miss Iacono. Yes. Miss Caristi. No. Mr. Hay. No. Miss Marchione. No. Miss Cook. No. Motion fails 1 to 4. All right, so work session we had some dates. Um if we could lock down a date and then some ideas of um what we want it for information for for the work session and that doesn't have to be done right now at the table
143too. If you have other ideas of information that you would like to bring to the work session, um please email those. So, I I think we had three or four days. Yeah, the 21st, 26th, 27th, and 28th. Or the first week of June. Is anyone not available any of those four days? >> Say it again, the 21st, what else? 26th, 27th, 28th, and then the first week of June. The first week of June is bad for me. Okay. I can't do the 27th. Okay. 21 and 26 are good. First week of June, some days. Is there anyone that could not do the 21st or the 26th? Can I prefer the 26th? Yes, you can cuz I would prefer that. All right, May 26th. Will that be 6:00? I think that would be a good start
144time. 6:00 is Is that all right with everyone? All right, May 26th at 6:00 we'll be having a work session um to really discuss moving forward. I heard that we want some accurate counts on transportation. I think with that Can I just clarify the transportation thing real quick? Yes. I believe that Mr. Heath, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put you on the spot, but the $90,000 was due because we were just assuming that if there was a reduction, it would lead to two drivers, but after further analysis, we likely wouldn't do that. So, I looked I ran an analysis of we were to reduce transportation for high school because it was we saw that it was catching steam in the public. So, if you were to reduce high school routes, there's
145about an hour and hour and 15 minutes total, hour and a half maybe, per day, probably hour and a half per day per route. We have 24 routes. If you multiply that by the lowest bus driver hourly rate, and then you multiply that by the number of days in school, it comes out to be close to $200,000. It would be hard to quantify. I mean, it could be done. Costs on the bus because the buses are still on the road. You would have some cost savings in obviously fuel because they're driving less. And you could add that to that, but I mean I think at the point that what we're looking at and I don't want to speak for Mr. Heath, but what I've heard from the discussions going on is there's lots that goes
146into transportation, right? I mean, there's ways to to cut and be more efficient and have savings without kind of pulling the rug out from underneath that. So, I mean, we can get that number, but I think I don't want to get on Mr. Heath I don't want to speak for you, but you need a lot more time and data to be able to evaluate routes for next year before you would have make a suggestion of significant Yeah, and a couple of things with that. I consider several different levers you can pull with the transportation components. Um, obviously, eliminating high school bussing, that is not a state requirement, so that's one of the reasons that got traction. Um but you can also uh increase the walk zones. Currently, we're at about a half mile um for
147our walk zones. You can expand those to 2 miles. That's another lever you can pull. Uh and then the third lever you can play with would be um doing uh expanded bus stops. So, uh the state minimums, I believe, are you can walk up to a half mile to a bus stop. Um create those hub stops that would uh make the routes more efficient. Um essentially saving costs that way as well. So, there are three different pieces to that. It's going to be a challenge to to figure out how much each of those levers would save, um but I think what we can gather is maybe some of the overall transportation costs that we see in the district, um and and start to play with that a little bit during the board work session as
148well. Um just to try and figure out what what cost savings we might be able to uh experience by each of those levers. What I'm not hearing is that you wouldn't It doesn't sound like um eliminating bus drivers, especially in a driver shortage as we've been for years, would be something that would be necessary. Uh not necessarily, no. Um we'd have to to run the routes once we identify what lever we're pulling and figure out what that looks like. Um but we can uh maybe try and run some scenarios in the background and see if uh if there is some cost savings or some reductions that potentially would take place if we did that. Um but again, you know, we're trying to secure as many drivers as possible. >> Sure. Um you know, even the
149the driver that retired here tonight at as I handed him his thing, I said, "When are you coming back?" Um and he cuz again we need those substitute drivers as well. And and I think he's willing to come back and be a substitute for us. Um they're really good guy. Mr. Wade, how does the transportation state share benefit? I know that went up from 25% to 50%. How is that Doesn't that share some of these costs? It It should kind of keep us from prevent us from having to use um reduce our transportation Um I mean it definitely obviously helps, but it's still underfunded. I can get you the exact amount that we get in transportation in comparison to last year. I mean that's something I can pull from our state reports. I don't have
150it off the top of my head, though. Thank you. And I had a quick question about I mean I'm new to the board, so and I think the public maybe wants to know as well. So, the plan moving forward is to go into this work session, which is sunshine, correct? >> Mhm. And then we approve a package of cuts for Do we vote on it on at the work session or do we vote at the table next meeting? If we had come to agreement on a package of cuts that Theoretically, the board doesn't vote at all. Okay. Um what the board would approve is an appropriation a temporary appropriation at the June 30th or around you know, when we have our fiscal year end meeting. And then the board does an appropriation measure by September
15115th by law. Um and then the board proves forecast, right? So, from a from a budgeting standpoint, the board is giving direction to the administration on um the authority to spend and to give the kind of guidance on that. Um obviously, we want to work with the board and meet the expectations for the board on making those cuts and recommendations, but um we could have the board certify them in the sense of a formality process, but it's typically I mean outside of the the legal obligations to approve temporary appropriations and appropriations, there's no requirement per se. Unless there's a riff like there was tonight. Correct. Okay. Yeah. We don't I'm confused that we for instance, if I if that motion had had passed and that's something that we would have Eric prepared a resolution, we
152would have to vote on it. So that's the cut that we would have to vote in a contract. Yeah, a cut. Yeah. Okay. But like if we recommend to reduce spending by 5% or we were we're recommending not to fill those positions or to other recommendations that we made tonight for administration and classified or in you know the fee piece that you you you have to approve the school fees. So yeah, the consumable fee would have to be potentially approved. Uh it has to be a part of the fees that Mr. Heath brought forward and things like that. So um it's but it's not like we're going to go through them one by one and vote on each specific one. You you've hired Mr. Heath and myself to to make the decisions um that we're
153allowed to do that. Certain contractual changes and reductions, yes, would have to be approved. Mhm. I know that we have to consider if we are asking for additional revenue for if we're going back to the ballot or if we're not. And you know I'm hearing things from the community, you know, um that are you know, frankly, we don't we didn't want it now, why do we want it then? And or we just cannot afford it. It's it's not that we don't care, but we cannot afford it. So if If board were to decide that they were not going back for a levy, what I guess I'm I would be asking you to kind of can humor me humor me with this conversation. What would it look like? And not to answer this now, but at
154our at our work session, like what does it look like for our buildings? Are we looking at consolidations? What are we looking at in lines of like our safety budget, our obviously if you know, if you were closing buildings, you'd be you know, reducing staff and and travel and things like that. But what would it look like if we were to consider we're not putting another levy on. We want to cut as deep as we can. Is it Is it a certain number of I'm sure there's different offerings. Um you know, different paths we could go. What can we you know, what would our offerings look like? What would our career tech programs look like? What you know, it's it's kind of a fork in the road. What are you We're going this way or
155we're or we're going that way because we do need to decide quickly if we're going on again in November. And I think it's a big decision because we heard a lot from the community to make cuts. We We made a lot of cuts tonight. We made some really um significant cuts, big big amounts in response to the taxpayers voice. But if we don't go on again, we have to do that again. So, what does it look like? is is what my ask would be. So, and I I guess that would be a long-term thing, not just like it doesn't feel like we're not planning on going on for a little while. So, what would we have to prepare for? So, if you could kind of think through that, I know that's a big ask, but
156I think we need to know what we're dealing with here before we Well, I I think we need I think we need to discuss that because to prepare for that we need we need to know what you're looking for for that because you can't just say if we choose not to go into a levy, what does that look like because I can say it looks like us just driving towards a cliff. Yes. So, I mean we're you know, it's it means in 2031 that we're going to be deficit spending if we continue on the path that we're on. Um we'd have to know I would have to know what you what scenarios you want to run. Um you know what's going to happen if we don't do anything else. If we don't add any additional
157revenue and everything that I've projected, which Ms. Martinez has already poked holes in comes true we have $4 million left in 2030. And that assumes remember that it assumes 1.5% increases for staff teachers um and classified staff after the end of this current contract. So, I mean that's that's not like it's 3% continue out. Um that does include a few more reductions in staff uh in 2030 um based on the fact that we would assume that, you know, enrollment would still decline. Uh you know, I I agree. We heard a you know, we heard a lot from people that it it's it's tough right now. The economy's tough. So, we need you know, we could consider asking for less. It's how much less does the board want to go? What's what's the palpable is there
158a palpable number that the five of you or three of you have that you would consider putting it back on and putting in front of the the people? Um Well, I I think that's a great point. I'd be interested in seeing what you think we maybe some lower options lower levy options and and if you could kind of run some numbers on what that scenario would look like for us. I I don't know the numbers offhand, but Well, I can tell you we can definitely go lower based on the cuts that Mr. Heath and his team achieved in 5.9 million. If we continued with just some pretty significant cuts along the way. >> I I think we're glazing over 5.9 million is not insignificant. I mean, I I would like to reiterate to the group.
159I think again, this discussion about administration gets lost and it lost the fact that we had 5.9 million dollars worth of cuts that we worked very hard to present to the board this evening. And if there's additional cuts that the board wants to make to get to a number, we can we can present that. So, if there's a palpable number that you have in your head that you would feel comfortable taking back, I can tell you what you'd have to cut or how long you know, if you said, "I don't want to go above 2 mils." "Or I don't want to go above 3.9 mils." Or "I don't want to go above 4 mils." Or "I think we should ask for 4.5 mils instead of 4.9." I can show that to you based on what
160we have presented today and where that puts us. And I can show you if you had a more restrictive number, what you'd have to cut. Because they're all they're all in play is what I think that the you guys have to realize. It's it's not just a revenue or an expense problem. It It is truly both. Because you can't just like you we're deficit spending in '28 by 8.6 million dollars. Or you know, in '29 it goes up to 12.4 million. So, we just cut 5.9. So, to put it in perspective, you know, Could you >> And again, I wasn't trying to be facetious. I was just trying to put a to your question about I said you could cut all administrators. And I wasn't saying that you were implying that. My point being it's
161only about 7 million all in with benefits, health care. And it doesn't it doesn't solve the problem. Yeah. So I I just but but I think But I wasn't suggesting that. Yeah. I'm not implying that you were. I'm just saying as a point of fact when there's only 42 people of the 1,000 employees that we have no one group is going to solve this issue. No, but it certainly contributes. I I mean I I feel like I'm I'm being punked or something that you guys think that that any number is going to any levy would pass in November when you just glazed over um a 6 to 700,000 dollar reduction in expenses like that. So I mean I'm all for I'm all for um I I we're being tone deaf. I mean and I don't
162know I I I understand what you're saying Mr. Harper. >> Everything you're saying is it tells us that we have to make these major these tough decisions. And if you don't want to cut benefits then we have to cut positions which I don't think anybody wants to do. So I mean there you have there has to be a solution and and why are we so quick to say let's cut bussing when but we don't want to touch a retirement benefit. It doesn't make any sense and it doesn't >> it's true either. I suggested tonight that we cut bussing. I'm saying that's what was put out there. That was what our the levy committee put out there that it was we're going to cut bussing and it was like Well, I think we put out a
163list of potential cuts at the beginning because what we heard after the PI levy is that we didn't put out Mhm. specifics. Right. So I think you know as when we considered a list of when Mr. Heath and I created a list, we wanted to create a list of options with amounts of people could be it would be they could understand and it would be tangible things that they could touch. Mhm. So Mr. Wade, could you prepare maybe like a 3.9 scenario for us? And going just I want to loop back just to President Cook's point about sort of you know, we can map out these scenarios with numbers on them, but it is hard for folks to um quantify, to understand what that means, right? So, I think maybe that's what you were getting
164at, Mrs. Cook, was like, what does that look like? What does that really look like to parents, to the community? Does that look like Shore and Memorial being combined? Does that look So, do you see what I'm saying? Like, I I think the scenarios are going to be important, obviously, the 3.1 whether regardless of the numbers that we draw up, it's still going to be hard to absorb um what that actually means to the community. >> if if we are forced to make it work Right. >> it you know, in the absence of an approval of any amount we have to have options. We have to say, okay, well, this is what that would look like. If that's what you're choosing, then this is what would happen. This is this is what our community school
165would look like. A- And and that's fine, but then we're being we're informing. Right. Exactly. I I do agree. I understand I don't want to acknowledge how hard that would be to do, and I also want to acknowledge the work that you and your teams, your admin teams, put in this week. I know that a lot of difficult conversations were had, and I just thank you for putting in the effort and so quickly after the levy failed. So, I just want to acknowledge you both for that. So, thank you for that. And I think the question then goes to if it's we can show 3.9 mills, how that would go based on where we're at, or potential additional cuts to make it sustain as long as the 4.9 did at the the pre-levy failure uh
166forecast, um you know, I would suggest that at a minimum if the board's not going to consider a levy in November, that they cut another 3.4 million dollars going into the next fiscal year. Okay. Because that would almost balance 2027, uh we'd still about be about $800,000 in the red. Again, that's only going to kick the can down the road. But we would need another levy in 2028. That would only That would only be if we were considering it then in May or then in the following November. Or you're going to continue to cut to to continue to just to like we have that. I mean, we've been So. Yeah, I just want to I just want to like be very clear that if, you know, it's not like a one-time cut. It's It's Yes.
167Those things don't come back if the levy passes in in other words. Right. >> Yeah, I mean, if you Yeah, like for example, if you wanted to lower the the I think that's a that's at a point that should be reiterated is if we were to put a levy now that would sustain 6 to 7 years like we had planned the last one after $5.9 million in cuts, everything that we cut, we're agreeing that's never coming back. Right. And if you choose to cut another million or two million dollars to pass a 3.9 mil levy, whatever was included in that would be gone forever. Right. So, yeah, we're when I run the forecast out, I assume whatever the new normal is from that point going forward is is the new normal. Can you also for
168in anticipation of that meeting, can you come with some numbers on um I know Manor has done it in the past, but having a consultant come in and kind of assess what positions can maybe be eliminated. Um and then also numbers run some numbers if maybe instead of re-completely if you're against reducing 14% for that benefit, maybe if you look at seven and just see what that, um, what that would look like. I I honestly, I I don't know of a consultant that does that review. Who did it? Um, it was a few years ago. I remember Jenny saying that you guys brought one in. That I don't when I That predates me cuz I was I was gone. That was after I left. And when I looked into that, I couldn't get an answer
169on who that that company it was. We couldn't We couldn't truly We couldn't figure it out. So, um, I don't know if they're no longer in business or what. Um, But any consulting firm could come in and Yeah. >> for efficiency something that's, you know, that's not tied to Manor. Are you talking >> Impartial. From a teacher, classified, administrator, or all? Everything, yeah. And then any costs that would be associated with hiring said consultant, I guess. Yes. That's what you're asking for is what the costs would be to hire a consultant. Okay. I would I'd invest on that. Um, You said 7% too, right? Or just play around, get creative with different numbers, something. Well, I mean, the thing that no one's ever discussed, I don't think, that I remember is, you know, that's a
170benefit that could be phased out too with new hires. Mhm. It's like any benefit. No, I think I sent you an email the other day, I mean, about maybe talking about, um, grandfathering in the current administration and having new hires come in without the 14%. Yeah. I stand corrected. I do not remember that, Mr. Hardesty. I mean, yeah. I have I have suggested some cuts, and I do think that there is cuts available. I just think that the admin cut to your current staff is a bad business decision. As far as the other admin cuts, I think we've discussed those and we're already cutting. We're already making significant cuts in the admin benefit space. So. I think there's more agreement here than you think there is. Do we have lower millage options? Some sort of
171number I'm just going to assign 3.42 cuz it's the 6.8 is what the 4.9 would have collected cuz I mean, ultimately, you need me to cut $17 million if you want to have a balanced budget. So. Like No, please give us some options with And I will work with I'm going to have to have Mrs. Burnett reach out to her HR friends and I'll reach out to our OAS with CFO network to see if I can find a consultant that can do a review of of staffing. And then any additional questions um if we could send them send them along if you think of anything, but it's probably a quick cutoff point. Just to be able to get that >> 26th, um yeah, let me just look at a quick calendar here. That's Tuesday, the
17226th, correct? Yes. >> Yes. Yeah, I mean I would need those no later than Wednesday, the 20th. Okay, so I can >> any sort of semblance of being able to Any additional asked by Wednesday, the 20th. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wade, I have lost the where we are in Do we have motions? Do we have a >> Uh we have not even finished my section yet. >> Thank you. That concludes my financial report. Madam President, members of the board, uh I I ask that the action of items B through F in addendums be acted on in one motion. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Please call the roll. Ms. Marcucci-Chavez. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Mr. Hage. Yes. Mr. Hairston. Yes. >> Ms. Apple. >> Yes. Motion carries 5-0. All right, we do not have any unfinished
173business this evening. We will move on to new business. And under new business, we have a voucher lawsuit discussion. Um Mr. Hage has requested this, and I'm going to let him start off. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Cook. Um my belief is that the Ohio public schools are not in a financial crisis. My belief is that they are under attack. Each year, more and more public dollars are redirected to private institutions through expanding voucher programs, weakening the foundation of the system we, as board members, are charged to protect. You know, it's always easier to find reasons not to act, not to do things. Questions about process, uncertainty about outcomes. But leadership often means stepping forward even when the path isn't perfectly clear. And joining a lawsuit isn't simply about litigation. It's a statement that we stand
174for the constitutional principle of public education and the future of every student who depends on it. Um and the primary argument is about fiscal survival. Ohio's voucher uh voucher program Ohio's voucher program has ballooned into a 1.7 billion biennial expenditure that pulls from the same line item used to fund public schools. By joining the suit, a district argues that the state cannot legally under underfund a Cupp-Patterson formula while simultaneously overfunding private tuition. Districts contend that this drain forces them to pass the burden onto local homeowners through frequent property taxes, essentially making local taxpayers subsidize private education. And with that, I'm interested in comment. And again, I'd like comment to be related to why is this a good idea? So, when I was trying to do any kind of innovation at school, I always wanted to
175know why is this a good idea? And if you couldn't come up with really great reasons why it was a good idea, then it wasn't. But you can always come up with lots of reasons why it's not, is my viewpoint. So, we'll see what happens. So, Mr. Higa, I guess I I want to clarify your question. Are you looking for a discussion on are we interested in joining the lawsuit? Are we interested in discussing it further? Um learning more about it? What I'm interested in the will of the board as it relates to joining the lawsuit. I'm interested in joining the lawsuit. I'm open to the notion that people may need more information about that. I'm open to the idea of bringing in an expert if that's what we need to do. Is anyone opposed
176to that? Uh yes. Okay. I know Mr. Hague wants to hear reasons why, but you you can also talk about that. >> everybody else's since I'm probably the only dissenting vote on that. Okay. I I mean I've talked a lot tonight. I wanted to get people to talk. >> know you're ready and ready, so you can please. >> I'm open to learning more about the lawsuit. I am never against a discussion. So, I'm open to the discussion. I'm open to learning more about it. I'm not sure if the timing is right for us, but I I followed the lawsuit for a while, and I I think it's an important discussion to have, because it has been vouchers have been ruled unconstitutional. We have a legal ruling that vouchers are unconstitutional. And as a person who
177is elected to protect public school and to protect the tax dollars towards public school, it's it's a concern. It's enough of a concern that I I think we should have the discussion. Yeah, I mean I agree with having the discussion. I think that I mean we have uh the same line item money going to private schools that don't have the same reporting standards as we do and can choose their students. Um you know, last year alone uh over 118 the equivalent of 118 years worth of the levy that just failed last week. Was was of taxpayer money was allocated to private schools. So, that's 118 years worth of the levy that just failed. That just went out one year to private schools. Um so, there's not a like it's not a magical thing why there's
17865 levies on the ballot in Ohio. 70 levies. The same line item that goes to public education is having that much money siphoned from it to go to private schools. And my kids used to go to private schools. Like I have no problem with private schools. That's a choice. Like if you choose it, that's great. I have a lot of friends that go to private schools still. It's not something against private schools. I just want our school our public schools to be funded. To where we're not going to the people. And so, we can give some tax relief. I've For 4 months I've heard of tax relief for seniors and property owners and excise tax and all that. And meanwhile, the state has this money this bunch of money that they're sending to private schools
179that they could give to public school that they could allocate not give cuz it's a taxpayer money. That they could allocate to public schools and lessen the burden on the property owner. So, I agree with the premise of the lawsuit. Because I would like fair funding. I also acknowledge that it's a tax payer It does cost money. But and we're making cuts right now. Yeah. So, it causes me some consternation. And I am really wrestling with it. Cuz I think it's the right thing to do. Think it strengthens the lawsuit. But at the same time, I also want to do what's best for better schools. So. Yeah, I mean I I have reported on vouchers before at this table and I there are several issues at play for me here. Um some have already been
180mentioned here and some were even mentioned in public comment, you know, um we have seen Ohio, the state of Ohio, allocate about $2.4 billion to voucher programs while simultaneously reducing public school funding by about $2.75 billion through changes to the formula. Um and that is why, you know, you have to connect the dots. That is why we saw across our state an increase of 40.2 percentage points in new operating levies on the ballot in May, last week. That's when you compare it to last year, it jumped from 35.3% to 75.5% of the ballot the levies on the ballot were new operating money. The reason is because the state share is going down. And so as Dan pointed out, that burden is then shifted to our taxpayers, our local taxpayers. So there there are structural problems
181as Mr. Wade has pointed out as well. Um this is not helping, you know, the voucher program is not helping that situation. Um I also have issues with the lack of transparency as Mr. Hardesty pointed out. These institutions are not accountable in the same ways that we are. We are regulated like crazy, um and for good reason. We're accountable to the taxpayers. They are not. That is That is a big issue for me as well. I also have issues with the lack of income caps, you know, the universal quality that that anyone making any amount of money can can pick up a voucher. And so I have I have some just some principled problems with the voucher program itself. I am interested in learning more, but I agree Mr. Hardesty and I think President Cook
182said this as well. The timing is rough. We just failed a levy and it's going to cost us I think the estimate is like between 12 to 14,000 dollars annually to be a part of this lawsuit. I know there was a hearing this morning or an appeal hearing. So we don't we know it's been ruled unconstitutional once already. We're waiting on the results of of this hearing. But it is moving forward and it's it's folks are saying it's going to reach the Ohio Supreme Court. We don't know what's going to happen there. More than half of the schools in Ohio have jumped on to this lawsuit. That's saying something. That's saying something, but for me I want to be very deliberative in our discussions around this. It is a cost to us. And I don't
183know enough about how they are vouchers hurt Ohio is is using those funds. I want to make sure we're making a wise investment with with that that contribution. And that's going to take us time to explore. And in the meantime my top priority are the cuts we've just discussed tonight and moving forward and tending to our own district. I really mean that and I want us all to be very clear-eyed about what's next. So while I agree in principle, I want to learn more and I want to be very careful and very wise with how we proceed. Okay. Um, do we That was a good point. We don't know what uh vouchers for Ohio what they're using the money for. Only because I haven't asked them. It's not that it's like I I just don't
184know. No, I I'm just saying that you That's a point that to make that we don't know that we're going to be Again, I feel like this is just I agree, terrible timing. I almost didn't believe it when I saw that that was I was on the agenda. It wasn't in our draft, so I was pretty surprised when I saw that on there. Um, again, we're not reading the room. We've got um Well, first of all, let me just go back. The um the lower court ruling declared that it was unconstitutional, but there's an appeal, so as you said, so that's not There's nothing final. There's no final decision on if vouchers are unconstitutional. Um we had a lot our levy in 2016 passed by 200 votes. Is that correct? Something like that. Um, we
185have 964 students in the Manor district that attend private schools. 964. Okay, we had a levy only passed by 200 votes. Is this the right time to be after a failed levy to say, "Hey, we're going to We're going to go ahead and use some of your tax dollars to take away funds, you know, you We want you to continue to to to pay your property taxes and pay into public education, but you're not allowed to have any any money even a fraction of what you pay in property taxes to go to a school that you feel is a safe school or a better academic school or a school school that incorporates religion." So, I mean, again, tone deaf. We are being I'm almost feeling like I'm in a nightmare here. Um This is not
186if you want to talk about putting another levy on and you're talking about then spending 12 to 15,000 dollars of their own taxpayer dollars to go against them. I'm not sure I understand. If you it's almost like you're planning our demise. I'm really I'm really confused. Um We know that that House Bill 6671, I'm not sure where that's going to go, but that could that could take money more funds from us if we're going to if we're going to dump this money into a lawsuit. Um you know, Ms. Martens, you had when you did one of your an anti-levy presentation, I think it was last year. An anti-levy presentation? You had you had mentioned that you had made a point to say that the majority of vouchers were were taken used by families who already
187sent their kids to private school. >> Oh, my voucher presentation. Yes, not anti-levy. Um so what is the end game? So if let's say if we we we are we are saying that we think you think vouchers are unconstitutional and really want to eliminate them. What is your end game? What do you think? Do you think that those families are going to then all of a sudden enroll their kids in Bonner? What is what is help me understand what benefit you think we will get from vouchers being eliminated? Cuz it's not the same line at line item. We're not going to they're not going to state's not going to go, oh let's just dump more money into into public education. That's not going to happen. So what is your the end game you're hoping for
188by joining this lawsuit? No, my understanding is it is the same line item. The state is the >> but it's not the same line item. It's the same line item. It's not the same line item. Okay. It is. It is. Well, we can we can check that because >> It's the same budget. It's coming out of the same operating budget, but it's not the same line item. >> Yes, it is. No, it's not. Okay. Well, this is why we might need a work session or discussion with um somebody who has more information about this to settle the facts and so we again go into this clear-eyed and uh with a good grasp on the details. Can you answer my question though? Oh, sorry. Your question was >> what what what is the end result? What
189are you hoping for that this would that you're thinking more funds would just come over to Mentor. It's a public school education. >> that the state legislators would do what they're constitutionally obligated to do by properly funding public education and stop funneling our tax dollars to institutions that are not accountable to us the taxpayers. That's what the end goal is. >> Okay. That that is my hope as well that and and I know it is in an appeal right now, but it has been ruled unconstitutional at this moment. The highest ruling is that on three counts vouchers and choice vouchers are unconstitutional. That is just a fact. That isn't if I think they're unconstitutional, it's just a fact. It has been ruled. >> lower court though. It's not the Supreme Court. >> been ruled unconstitutional
190on three and and it will go up. There's appeals and and I don't know. Maybe it didn't even get the appeal today. I I have no idea. But my hope is that it brings to light that when you have a line item for education in your budget that that item that amount fully funds public schools. That's the constitution. That's what the Ohio constitution says. And I don't feel that they are holding up to that Ohio constitution. That's That's what I believe. And so I would hope that it would bring that to light and would bring school funding to a constitutional level. I keep hearing I will add if I may that as a sitting board member of a public school, it is our job to look out for the best interest of our district and
191our students and our budget and our funding. It it would be a derelict for us us to do otherwise. And I think that now I again, I'm not saying I will definitely vote to join, but I do want to learn more. But what I am saying is that if we are charged with looking out for the best interest of this district and its future and funding it properly, it seems to me that joining a lawsuit that would right the ship would allow us to do that. I just wanted to clarify. We keep hearing that they're not held accountable to the same standards, but they are held accountable to equivalent assessments. So they it's not like they just we get the state dishes out money and they don't have to show anything for it. So that's
192very disingenuous to say. They have to meet basic health and safety regulations and they have to comply with civil rights laws, non-discrimination rules. They administer standardized tests. They do do that. So and and really if you look at the outcomes, the outcomes of post, you know, in in post-secondary and just outcomes after graduation are are tracked and they're way better than public education. So That is not true. It's that is very I just heard commentary earlier tonight about that. >> she's she's that that is not in fact though. Okay, I I don't want to We're not arguing. I'm just saying I don't want to talk about schools being better than public schools. This is the discussion. So my point is they are not It's not fair to say that They're not held accountable. Okay. Listen.
193Riverside just voted voted 5-0 not to join. I think it would be a terrible mistake to to spend taxpayer dollars and and then tick off almost a thousand students. You know, probably I don't know, six six to 700 families at this point. I think this is it's silly. And you know, I'm all for I sit up here. I'm you know, I'm not because I think that vouchers are fair, doesn't mean I'm not looking out for public education. We have to have a choice. I had to face that difficult choice because this board and the and people and previous boards had made decisions that made families say, you know what? I got to I got to find another option and we need to have that. Okay, so I what I've been saying all along is we
194need to compete with public schools. I've been saying that since I've been up here and we need to compete with public schools and I think we can. I think we definitely can. It's not impossible. Um we just got to make better decisions and and again to join this to me would just be extremely tone deaf. So. I think um one one kind of similar we're talking about you know, tone deaf and I'm not saying this is tone deaf, but one thing that I heard a lot during the levy season was I don't want to solve. Why should I pass this levy? The state is who did this to us. The state under fund This is what I've heard. Mhm. The state under funded us. I need you to go fight the state. I need you
195to advocate for us. Because I don't want to solve. >> No, voters. >> Okay. They they want the school district to to advocate for fair school funding for to be fully funded at a constitutional level because they are tired of having the tax burden put on their backs where we're constantly going to them and asking them for levies. So, this is one way to advocate. I think that there's many more ways too and I think that not only should we explore the vouchers, but I think we should explore ways to engage with our legislators and to communicate with them. We I know we've tried, but I think we need to make a conscious effort of how we're going to paint the picture for them that they have not funded us Yeah. at a level that
196is help is very helpful. You have to wonder why why voucher what why vouchers hurt Ohio. Why not go after the if they if you really think that the legis- the slay- legislators not fully funding and it's unconstitutional, why not go after them? Because it can't it's proven that it is it is fully funded. >> happens? Does the legislature Well, that's what I'm saying we should do. But if the argument they're not doing it because we are being properly funded. It's not a it's not a blank check, but okay. I digress. Let's move on. So, uh I just want to echo I've heard that as well throughout the levy campaign, Mrs. Cook. Um, you know, you can feel a certain way about that sentiment, but it was don't make this my problem. You know, it
197was it was very bluntly put to me a several, you know, several times. Um, and I think, you know, the levy there are there are multiple reasons we could um look at when it comes to the failure of the levy. And as I was poll standing on and off the entire day at Hope Bridge, I looked across the street at gas that was $4.99 a gallon, and I thought that right there, that's not going to help the levy pass. But um but yeah, I heard that a lot. Um this don't make this my problem. Um and I I want to agree with you as well. I think there, you know, I am somebody who's gone down to the State House to testify for the fair school funding formula. I know Mr. Wade has as well
198for other um in similar cases, too. So, I think there's a lot we could do as a board and in our leadership um within the school to advocate for fair funding um for public schools. Some of it's being done, um but I think we could do more. I think that there's a lot and maybe that's something maybe we could do a work session that that is more broad than just vouchers. Maybe it's what are some other ways we could we could advocate for for public school funding. I do want to point out though. I think it's extremely important to say that private schools are simply not accountable in the same ways that public schools are. I really need to make that correction. That is absolutely untrue and you're looking at one of the most most
199clear ways we can be held accountable an elected board, right? That's the most obvious way this institution is held accountable an elected board not in private schools do not have elected boards and I can go on but that is absolutely one of the most obvious ways we're held accountable. I mean my bottom line I mean we can argue about a bunch of different things but my bottom line is I want a larger percentage of our budget to be from the state rather than local taxpayer. Right now the state has voucher money that they are allocating out to private schools. Right? And that's part of the education budget. And that's going to like I said private schools and then we have a smaller amount of that state money coming to us. So therefore the property owners
200in this community are paying a larger percentage of our budget. I want that percentage of property owners to go down and our school to be funded. I understand we just asked for a levy because that's the only thing we can do. We can't I can't I mean I can talk to legislation they're not going to listen you know necessarily listen to me. I can't be like, "Hey, you want you want to increase that percentage? It would really help us out." I mean, I could say it's all blue in the face, but I think there are some legislators that really love the idea of privatization of schooling. Like, they want school to be privatized. They would rather it be privatized. I don't think that's going to help us. If public private schools were held to the
201exact same standards, would you support vouchers? Perhaps. I mean, it really depends. And so far what we've seen from our legislature is they lawn darted basically any accountability measures. In the last General Assembly, there was a bill that went quite far. Mr. Wade, did you testify for that? I thought you did. Uh that was a bill that was shot down. Um Gail Manning, I think was the sponsor, and she put forth, uh you know, "Hey, let's regulate these vouchers in the same way so that they are accountable to taxpayers." And what happened to that one? Shh, went down. We have some other regulatory measures um in this General Assembly. One of them hasn't moved out of committee since February. It's just sitting there waiting. And and honestly, from what I have seen from this legislature,
202I don't have the faith that they're going to do that. So, why should I even get my hopes up? You explain to me. Well, I'd like to take a shot at that question. >> Thank you. Um would I support private schools if all things were equal? Well, if they had to take every student that knocked on the door, uh if they had to offer special education and other services to every student that knocked on the door, um if they had to have proficiency measures that students had to pass in order to earn high school diplomas, those are the kinds of things I would be interested in. Um and not rely on public schools for the extra things that they get like bussing and special ed services and a number of many a many things. Um
203and if the voucher amount was equal to what the public schools get, but it isn't. Um, right now we get about 2900 2800 dollars. Voucher is about 6500. So, if you take one voucher, you're no longer a property taxpayer. You're tax collector. And I just don't think that's reasonable. So, if if it were the amounts were the same, if all things remaining equal the same, then that's a conversation I'm willing to have. Um, but the deck is stacks stacked against that and I don't think that's reasonable. Now, a couple of other things and I'm sorry. This whole idea that the timing is bad, I disagree. I think the timing is excellent. I think the time is now. We just lost a levy. What are we going to do about it? We're going to make more
204cuts. But, Bill's sitting there. He said it's it's not just a it's not just a cost problem. It's not just expense problem. It's also a revenue problem. And how are we going to get revenues? And why do we always have to think short-term? We got to take care of this district over the long-term. We can't We don't want to teach kids to think small and we don't want to teach kids to think short-term. At least I don't. This idea of being tone-deaf. Okay, but there's all different kinds of tones and some people hear one and some some people hear another. I think ignoring the voucher issue is tone-deaf. Um, can't read the room? I think the room is that what's happening isn't fair to our public school students. I think that's the That's what the
205room tells me. But, it's possible that I am tone-deaf and I don't know anything. Um, and finally, in a situation like this, do you want to be a spectator? Over 300 school districts have signed on. Do you want to be a spectator and hope for the best, or do you want to be a participant? Well, you know, I raised two daughters. I want them to be participants. That's all I have. Thank you. Is there any more discussion on this? It sounds like we have four of us at least that would like to learn more and have more discussion. Mark, are you So, um setting up a work session for this area is probably our next step. I think So, we're going to spend more tax dollars to have another meeting to talk about spending tax
206dollars. I think that's a great point. Why um why don't we add it to our We can all independently >> research our May 26th. Yeah, or yeah, or add it to the regular >> So, then we're not adding taxpayer We're not adding an extra a meeting on an extra fund. We already have the May 26th meeting set up, so let's put that on our agenda that we will discuss it then. >> fine with donating my $125 salary for that day to uh I don't know if we can do that though. I think we I mean, I I can we can donate it back to the school or something like that. I know, but it's it's you know, we do have people here for our meeting. >> We have to pay them to run the meeting.
207Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I think just having it on the May 26th meeting is is uh fair. Okay. Um We do not um You have public comment. Yeah, we we don't have anything else on the agenda, so we just have hearing of the public on any topic. Mr. Wade. Is Alex Fish still here? Thought I saw him leave. Uh Ms. Mazika. >> I want to comment on a couple of things. Thank you for the opportunity this evening to do so. Okay, maybe the state legislatures have given us a little more money, but they still are paying more per student for vouchers than they're giving Manor per student. That money is not going to Manor schools. It is going to private schools. For whatever reason, it's the state legislature has decided that that's a swell
208idea, and it's not. Secondly, in Ohio, according to the to the League of Women Voters, I I looked this up while you were talking. In Ohio, funding for both private school vouchers and public schools comes out of the exact same line item in the biennial state budget. The other thing I wanted to comment on is stripping the benefits of our administrations like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Do you think administrators do nothing? Do you think administrators can afford to stay here if they can go somewhere else and get that bump? And do you think that they would be able to stay here with a $25,000 cut? Our administrators are what keeps our schools running to keep those to give those teachers the ability to teach. You take away the administrators, somebody's got
209to do the job, and guess what? It's the teachers. Thank you for your time. Thank you. John Sanford. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Um Dave was just telling Dave Lyman was just telling me he sent you a fact sheet. So all of you received a fact sheet somewhere in there that provides you some hard data on vouchers, but I want to talk briefly to them tonight a little bit following up on on some of what was said about the vouchers here. This is one of those rare times and make note of it in in the in the logs that I'm going to agree with Miss Iapalucci. Um she's right. The issue of the quote admin pay is part of what failed that levy. Because it's all about optics, it's not about rationality.
210It's not about facts. It's not about true information. It's about optics. You're right, Mr. Haigh. The school system is under attack. It's under attack because it's not just privatizing. It is destroying the public education system. That's what they're all about. That's what Mr. Cerrino's about. That's what everyone who voted for the existing budget and the reduction of public school funding in favor of vouchers they're about destroying public education. And you can dance around it all you want, but it's not going to do you any good. They're going to take it down unless we start saying no. We as a voter want public education because as Mr. Hague said they have to take everybody, they have to provide them equal services, and they're not religious. So as I said earlier don't look at all the protestations
211or contorted and convoluted reasoning used to justify what they're doing. Look at the facts. Think about it. We get like 30 some odd thousand dollars or 3,000 and some odd change per student less than what's going into vouchers. You multiply that out by vouchers and ask Mr. Wade what could we do if we got 25 extra million a year. What would that do to our need for a levy? We're under attack because it's about optics. Thank you. That's the ticket. Okay, thank you all. Um we do not have an executive session on the agenda this evening. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Mr. Wade, please call the roll. Ms. Marchant. >> Yes. Mr. Hardesty. Yes. Mr. Hague. Yes. Ms. Apple. Yes. Ms. Cook. Yes. Meeting is adjourned at 9:25 p.m. I
212thought it was