001policy committee meeting. It's now 4:00 p.m. on the dot and we will get started with this. We've got a hefty agenda today, 34 items to review. Many of these items are simple just verbage and law changes. Some of them have some requested changes. Some of them just a word or two here and there and some of them have absolutely nothing. But we still have to review if anybody has anything and the way we will proceed with this is basically I'm going to announce what agenda item and policy number that we're on then I'm going to kind of turn the floor to the Mr. Hargrove, the director here to throw a little quick synopsis. As soon as he's completed with that, well then I'll open the floor for a motion then we'll get discussion if we
002get a second with it and we'll go from there or we'll move right into voting. That sounds good to everybody. So, right off the bat, agenda item number one, 5.108, supervision. The only recommendation we had is changing from must to shall on line eight. That would put us in line with PSDA's policy. Do I have a motion? I so move. Are we accepting it with the changes or what are we doing? >> Okay. Accepting the motion with changes. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Parsley seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will now proceed to vote. Mr. Parsley. I Mr. Anderson. I I I I I All right. It's seven. Seven and nothing passed. Okay, agenda item number two, 5.109, evaluation. Yes, sir. We're wanting to add what TSBA has in
003their policy as far as adding the non-licensed personnel. Next year, we will begin evaluating all our non-licensed personnel in our school buildings and school support, and we would like to add uh lines 13 through 21 from the TSBA policy as well as their legal references. Okay, do I have a motion to accept policy 5.109 as changed or not changed? Um as changed. Motion's been made. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Motion's been made and seconded. Questions, uh do we have any type of evaluation currently in any policy for non-licensed personnel? I do not believe so. No, sir, we don't. That's not been our practice, but we're adding that for the 2026-2027 school year. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, Mr. >> I do have one question, and I won't hold us
004up too much. Um under the current certified eval model, um staff members are not required to sign off on the paperwork for their observations. You know, it's not You're not indicating, you know, that you agree, they still don't have to sign. I noticed this does say um they shall sign. Um and I guess you know, I'm not questioning that. I just want to make sure. So, so they will be required to sign. >> They need to sign it, or you're going to put refuse to sign. Okay. Okay. Any further? Mr. Parsley. Uh Mr. Anderson. I I I Chair votes I. Seven to nothing. All right. Number three, 5.1101 differentiated pay plan. You're looking at the subtraction of a legal reference only. Only. All right. Do I have a motion to approve 5.1101 with amendments or
005without? I'd say we accept it with amendments. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Parsley. I I I I I Chair votes I. Seven to zero. Passed. Number four. >> Um, can I ask a question? Is it too late? Yes. Well, we voted on it today. >> Yeah, I know. Down here it was with we were getting taking out the legal references, but this has the legal reference. Well, it does, but it's not the full with the TRRMS0520-01-02. Okay. So, that's the difference. Yeah. Am I good? Uh number four, 5.111, utilization of career level educators. We haven't uh there are only a handful of us legacy left, and TSBA doesn't even carry the policy, and we're phasing we don't require our career level two educators. We're not doing anything in
006this policy, and haven't for years. In fact, the career level uh program is phased out. So, we're just wanting to omit the policy altogether. Okay. So, this would require a motion to omit policy current policy 5.111. Or not. I'd like to get a motion to do that. I'll make a motion to omit policy 5.111. I'll second that. Any discussion? So, I do have a question. So, on our teacher contracts, they say career ladder ladder one or whatever, that will continue to say >> That will continue until they retire, but as far as those requirements in these we we haven't done that in years, and TSBA stopped carrying the policy. Got you. And we need to respect the people that have that bond because they're older. They're legacy, so I said legacy. What's that >> What's
007that word? Legacy. >> Yeah. Any more discussion? Mr. Parks. Uh I. I. I. I. I. It's 7-0, pass. Number five. 5.114 personnel records. All right, this may take some discussion. Um on lines Uh TASB has removed those lines from their policy. Um and it's just a question of uh whether we want to keep those in ours or not. Members of the public may not obtain home telephone number, personal cell phone number, bank account information, social security number, that type of stuff. Is what this is referring to because I want to take a few minutes and read down through there. I'll be I think that might be the So, the motion uh The motion would be to uh omit Number section six. Yes. >> And go with the TASB model policy. >> Yes, sir. It It
008appears it's a re-wording for the most part. Yeah. But, our current policy don't yet does, too. That's seven and eight. Okay, good deal. But, they just re-worded it. It's re-wording. One's a list, the other's a part of our own. So, if I could entertain a motion to accept the recommendation. I so move. Second. All those it. Any [clears throat] further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Parsley. I. I. I. I. I. Mr. Burke. I. Your votes are 7-0, pass. Okay, number six would be 5.117, teacher tenure. You look at the very back page. There's been some addition to Tennessee Code Annotated to the policy. You also see some removal of those. That's what we're talking about, just making those corrections on our policy as well. Okay. So, the motion on 5.117 would be, once again, just straightening
009out the the legal references. Can I have a motion? I so move. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Parsley. I. I. I. I. I. And your votes are Item Item six passes 7-0. Accepted. Number seven, 5.200, separation practices for tenured teachers. I believe on the second copy, you're going to see quite a bit in red. And I believe that's on page two, from lines 12 through 29. Those That wording is not part of TSBA's model policy. What is your recommend- recommendation? Uh to remove it and our policy to mimic TSBA's. Okay, can we get a motion to accept or not accept with changes policy 5.200? And then we'll get into discussion. Um I'll let somebody else do their questions. I really wish we could do that. I'll
010make a motion that we accept 5.200 as amended. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All right. Now, question. Okay. Um we had had this discussion in a previous policy meeting where the teachers could actually be employed. So, does this eliminate that ability of them? No, ma'am. We can still have a 120-day employees that are retired. Okay. So, why are they taking it out? I mean, if this is something that's done, what is the point of removing it? I think the guidance is my belief. The last thing I read about it was the guidance on it is they're shifting qualifications or expectations of the 120-day employee. And my assumption is there'll be more policy to follow after this. Okay. So, are we You're your ability to do that though? No, ma'am. Okay. I kind
011of I kind of see where you're going. Uh we can leave the leave that in the policy and see where the bird lands. >> until we can consider it reviewed today so that we can get through our process that we're supposed to. Right. So, I understand what you're saying there about waiting until something does come down about it, then we'll attack this and address this. I think something could come out of that. Yes, ma'am. >> [clears throat] >> So, I'll accept if you want to amend your motion or So, I I I think amending the motion to uh leave policy 5.00 as is. As is till until we get further notification or information. >> Yes. Yes. My concern is there may be teachers who are presently in the 120-day plan that this might muddy some
012of the waters. waters So, I think I think that's fair enough. I don't see I don't think it will cause any kind of issue. Um the person that seconded I'll second it. You're good. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? And now, Mr. Parsley. I I I I Your vote The motion passes 7-0 to leave policy 5.200 as is. Number eight, 5.201 separation practices for non-tenured teachers. If you look to the very back of both policies, the model policy as well as ours, you see where GSBA has redacted um one of the legal references, and the other has been is will stay the Tennessee Code Annotated 49-5-409 {parentheses} B {parentheses} 2 will remain with the public. Act of 2022 chapter number 678 will be removed. So, once again, this is just a motion to straighten out
013legal references on policy 5.200. I can get a motion. I move. I so move. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? And Mr. Parsley. Uh I. I. I. I. Did y'all vote? I. Your vote's I. Motion passes [snorts] 7-0. Number nine. 5.202 Separation Practices for Non-Certified Employees. Kate. Robert, what did we do with Did I totally miss it? 5.200 Separation Practice for Tenured Teachers. There's only the one in here. That one is as uh We left that as is. We left that as is. >> Okay. Yeah, we left it as is. Okay. Yeah, we didn't do the No, that's what he did. He amended his original motion. Yeah. Okay. >> To fall in line to leave it alone until we get something Okay. I see. further. All right. Miss Beth, do you
014feel like you're on the Cuz it gets confusing. Yeah, it does. Are you on the right? I'm looking at it thinking 202 >> sometimes there's three three separate pages. Sometimes there's Mhm. Okay. I think I'm caught up. All right. So, 5.202 and you were just starting to It's what? I think. Try again. Are we ready for 5.202? Yes, sir. Okay. Floor is yours. We'll get the quick part out of the way. In the back, they're eliminating a legal reference. And the other will remain the Tennessee Code Annotated 49-2- will remain. But on the front part, what what [clears throat] what we have um if you find the page it says the director of schools {slash} designate may be may suspend an employee at any time when deemed necessary. Um my recommendation is we take out
015lines three and four and add what is written in red on the TSBA model. It starts out with allegation requiring temporary removal from duty. It outlines that more clearly and concisely in my judgment. So, we would be adding uh, we would be removing some lines three and four from our policy and adding in one through 10 from the TSBA TSBA, okay. Does everybody have both of those in front of you? The other parts are on line 10 and it's um, adding the word lawful at the end of that sentence lawful reason and then on line 12 we're adding at least two weeks. Taking out taking that out cuz it says 10 working days. That's the equivalent of that. All right. Um if I could get a motion uh, for five point policy 5.202 to either
016accept with the amendments or not. Uh, I make the motion we accept with amendments. Okay, motion's made, second? I'll second that. Any further discussion? Mr. Bartley. Uh I I I I I Your vote's I, that's seven to zero, pass. All right, number 10, 5.203, recommendations and file transfers. >> [clears throat] >> If you notice um there's one that has red writing on, that's what we're recommending ours goes to and we're adding and state law, adding to mirror the TSBA and also under the legal reference. You see where it's being taken out. So, lines 21 and 22, the director school should develop administrative procedures to enforce this policy comply with federal and state law. We're adding the and state. Plus the legal reference at the bottom of the page. I make a motion that we accept
0175.203 as amended. I second that. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Parsley. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And your vote is 7-0, passed. Number 11, 5.300, short-term leaves of absence. It's removing the legal reference. At the bottom. >> I see that. Okay. Uh if I could get a motion to accept 5.300. I so move. I'll second it. Motion made seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Parsley. >> Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your vote is 7-0, passed. Number 12, emergency and legal leave. You'll notice on >> [clears throat] >> on our policy is um Tamira, if an appearance is required on an involuntary basis, appropriate leave shall be granted. That's removed so it mirrors the TSBA policy. And also if you look at number four under the legal references we're adding
018Tennessee Code Annotated 24-2-109 >> [clears throat] >> at the bottom. >> [clears throat] >> All right. Can I get a motion to either accept 5.301 with changes or without? I make a motion we accept it with changes. Is there a second? I second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussions, questions? Ms. Parsley. Uh I I I I I I Good vote. Passes 7-0. Number 13 5.306 military leave. >> [clears throat] >> You look at the bottom of the TSBA, they've added three legal references we would like to mimic that on ours. Okay. So if I could get a motion to accept 5.306 [snorts] with the addition of legal references mimicking TSBA. I so move. I second. And seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Ms. Parsley. I I I I I I I. That's a 7-0. Number 14,
0195.309 legislatively. Yes, sir. If you notice at the bottom, uh, TSBA on the cross-reference, is added personal professional leave 5.303. We would add that to the end of our policy as well. Okay, so once again, just a minor cross- reference addition to our policy. Uh, but can I get a motion to accept 5.309 as amended or not? Uh, I move. Which one? As amended or not? >> As amended. As amended. Okay. Can I get a second? I second. Any discussion? Any no, Mr. Parsley? Uh, I. I. I. I. I. I. The vote is tied. Motion passes 7-0. Item number 14 is number 15. 5.403 drug and alcohol testing for employees. Um, spent some time uh, speaking with legal counsel about this. Um, both our system um, counselor as well as TSBA are said our policy
020looked good except for lines 12 through 19, which uh, deal with random drug testing. Uh, their belief and um, search under search and seizure under the fourth amendment, um, it would heighten suspension and basically that wouldn't hold up in court and we don't do that do it anyway, so the process is cost prohibited, and it wouldn't hold up in court. Random drug test. Oh. They They recommended keeping the rest of the policy, just removing the random drug test testing set section. Removing that section. Lines, yes, sir. Lines 12 through 19 on page one. So, we would need a motion to remove or not remove random drug testing section from policy 5.403. I got a question. So, so, you know, there's a note here about heightened suspicion on a random drug test, and just trying to
021reason this out in my head, so um if someone receives a random test, I guess the assumption would be that if if people notice that, again, it it draws attention to the possibility there could be an issue. That's The heightened suspicion is kind of the what the lawyer pointed out is the wording that Yeah. creates some of that hurdle in implementing this. Uh We'll wait till we get a motion. And then I'll open it up for discussion. I got questions. If anyone wants to make a motion to leave it alone or I mean Um I'm I'm going to I'm going to step out on a limb here, and I'm going to break the rules a little bit, because this is kind of unorthodox, because I think everybody's got some questions, but I hate to get
022to a motion that we waste a lot of time swapping some stuff back and forth just to get something on the floor when we're talking about these policies and reviewing them. So, send me a bill. But, I do you know, there's there's a difference in the interpretation of random and what you just said falls in kind of under your reasonable suspicion. Somebody reported another employee and you're going to drug test them and you should be clear. You should be fine if you do that. Cuz we obviously have a drug use policy. in our system, so you still have to have that open doorway for reporting and the ability to say, "No, you're going to" an administrator tells an employee, "You're going to come here. You're going to take a drug test." That's not a random.
023No, it's not. A random is you stir their names up in the air and whoever you pick up, you just tell them to go get tested. So, >> name comes up six times in a row. I'm lucky. There you go. >> [laughter] >> Well, I guess my problem We're keeping the reasonable suspicion part >> Yes. in our drug policy, just the random drug testing. I don't think you can really can do random in a non-DOT setting. Cuz the only thing I've ever run into with randoms was DOT. When it come into your your drivers and your CDL drivers and stuff like that. >> [clears throat] >> So, that uh that's kind of where I'm at on that. So, I don't see the hurt in myself, personal self. I don't see the hurt with removing that
024section because I know the reasonable reasonable suspicion still gives you the ability or administrator the ability to it's not a random. You had suspicion >> to do it. So, I have a question. Where did the pre-employment drug screening section go? It stays >> on the new version. It stays in our because that's what we do here. I understand. I just don't see it on the new >> [clears throat] >> I may be I'm sure I'm just overlooking it, but I don't I don't either. One of them has it and one of them doesn't. Ours has it. Uh-huh. And this is the other >> ours. Yeah. So, we're just saying >> removing this. >> Okay. This stays. This stays. So, this is So, this isn't Okay. So, it would it would be a motion to take
025our current 5.403, remove the section of random drug drug testing, but add the section of pre-employment drug screening. Uh actually, the pre-employment is already on our policy current policy. Okay. So, the one on the right Okay, the one on the right. The first one was just a model. It was a model policy. Okay, I got you now. Okay. The one that we're removing it from And then the other is GSBA. Well, I'll make I'll make a motion then for policy 5.403, we remove lines 12 through 19. Being the random drug testing section. Yes. Yes. I'll second that. Motion. Any further discussion? Mr. Parson. Uh I. I. I. I. I. And chair votes I. Motion passes 7-0. And that was 15. We're now ready for 16. Can Can we table 16 till the end? Uh yeah.
026It will fit into the I'll put it as 35. But All right. So, we're going to skip that and we're going to go to agenda item 17. Uh 5.601 conflict of interest. All right. If you just notice on one of the pages you have, there are I think three words that are changed and all they're doing is changing the word school system to district. Pretty simple. And I believe there is uh two changes in the cross-referencing on the back. We're adding gifts. And bequest 2.401 and staff gifts and solicitations 5.605. It's on the back of both of mine. I got you. Well, one of them should be in red. That's Yeah. That's the one in red would be the additions to ours. Well, it's still on both of them. Gifts and bequests 2.401 are on
027both. One's in red, one's in black. The one in black's TSBA's model. Okay. And we would be mimicking that. >> We would be adding that to ours. Okay. And changing the word system to district. >> and forth on it. The last time the other one was ours. >> [laughter] >> We didn't make a whole lot of it. She apologizes for her first time she has That's I'm so far, yes. I mean, great job. Thank you. All right, so this will be quick and easy here. Motion to accept 5.601 with the changes from system to district in a few places and notations cross references. I make that motion. Can I get a second? I will second. Any discussion? Any nays, Mr. Parks? Uh I I I I I Your votes I, passes 7-0. Number 17. And
028now we're ready for number 18. 5.602 staff time schedules. No changes are mirrors of TASB A policy as it currently So this is just a review? Just a review. All right, so we would just be looking for a motion to accept policy 5.602 as reviewed. I so move. I second. Any discussion? Mr. Parks? Uh I I I I I Your votes I, passes 7-0. Number 19. as well. Ditto. It ours mirrors that and no changes needed. 5.603 staff meetings. No changes, but I could get a motion to just consider policy 5.603 as reviewed. I make that motion. I second. Any discussion? Mr. Parks? Uh I I I I I Chair votes I, passes 7-0. Number 20, 5.605, staff gifts and solicitations. If you'll um view in the lower right hand under cross references recommendation that
029RS mirrors TSBA's All right, so we're looking for a motion here to just add cross references to policy 5.605. I'll second the motion. Second. Any discussion? Mr. Barstow. Uh I I I I I Thank you. And chair votes I, so motion passes 7-0. Number 21 5.607, non-school employment. All right. If you notice the one and has the red down around line 17, you can see where it's recommended to um remove line 17 18 and a portion of 19 and you're going to replace it with what follows it. When certain evening days or vacation periods or duty free, the employee may use such off-duty time for the purposes of uh compensation provided by the follow uh provided the following conditions are met and then it lists it. The other change in that is the word district
030for removing from system to district. On line on line 21 and on line 24. So, with that would square ours up with TSBA's policy. Okay. So, basically the basically the motion would be to accept TSBA's version of policy 5.607. Yes, sir. And so, moved. I'll second it. Any discussion? Mr. Parson I. I. I. I. I. I. Seven votes I, motion passes 7-0. Number 22, 5.608, tutoring for pay. You're looking at um the addition uh under cross-reference non-school employment 5.607 to our policy. And you're also looking at the removal uh of PEA code of ethics and education profession as well as TCA 49-2-203. All right, and you're replacing that with Tennessee Code Annotated 49 or 49-5- 1003. So, the changes are in the cross-reference and the legal references. Meaning the one in black is the TSBA
031policy we are trying to move towards. Yes, sir. Okay, so the motion would be to accept 5.608 in TSBA's version that we've been provided here is just changing out legal references. I'll so move. I'll second. I'll second. It's made second. Any further discussion? Questions? I'm just noticing on the top that they both still have their old dates and description codes, so those will have to be changed too. Normally one of them is left out. You know, we're working with the new one. But they both have it, so. Well, they'll trigger They'll trigger anyway once we turn in to you. >> Once we turn that in. Okay, uh I didn't go any further. We were in discussion, Mr. Parsley. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your votes uh motion passes 7-0. Item 23. 5.609 Consultants. Um
032TSBA actually does not have a policy on this, but take a few seconds and read it. I recommend we keep it in. Just gives us kind of some rails to operate within. Agreed. So, this would be a motion to retain and consider reviewed current policy 5.609. It's all right. I'll make that motion. I'll second. Any further discussion? Mr. Parsley. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your votes uh motion passes 7-0. Number 24. 5.610 staff-student relations. You notice at the bottom the legal references have changed. And I recommend our legal references match that of TSBA's. Okay. Uh motion to accept the provided TSBA 5.610 with the proper legal references. I I so move. I'll second. Any discussion? Mr. Sparks. Uh I. I. I. I. I. And chair votes aye. Motion passes, seven to zero. Number 25.
0335.611 ethics. Just for us to review and accept as it's currently written. All right. No changes, no requests. Uh motion to accept 5.611 as reviewed. I so move. I second it. All right. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Question? Just a curiosity up here, it says the 5.611 GBS. What's the GBS? Because it rescinds this one. I can I can message her and see what it means. I'm just curious. Yeah, but I think I think well, I think that's some of that's some of TSBA's because did you just say TSBA sent you these? >> Yes, sir. Okay. If you go to our website and look at 5.611, the ones on our site don't have that. Don't have the GPS. Yeah, they don't have the GPS, but I think I think they sent her what we
034needed to review. And there's probably has that on there as some kind of reference for them. >> Okay. I'm I'm assuming. Uh It's just odd that they put it under recensions because it's it's this thing. Well, I and I and I've seen that just about Well, I've seen it four or five times so far, yeah. And then we seen some in the last go around. Last watch, okay. marathon session we did. Oh, yeah. Uh So Any further discussion? Mr. Parson? All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Your votes all right, motion passes 7 to 0. Number 26, 5.700 interim employees. Um at the bottom, if you'll notice the legal references Our school mayor TSBA's and if you look at TSBA's um one written in in red there uh they recommend
035taking vacancies of line one and line two out. But they're also we're also looking at adding lines three, four, and five. And lines 9, 10, 11, and 12, it's just rearranging the wording. And you compare that what we currently have. Okay, so the motion would be to remove line 22 of the red struck out, but add three, four, and five in place of that. Add Well, three, four, and five would would stay in intact. Yes, sir. Okay. So they both say pretty much the same thing. Yes, sir. I'll make a motion that we accept 5.700 as amended. Motion made. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Again, just a curiosity. So, [clears throat] if you have a vacancy after the school year begins, then the only people
036you can replace them with are temporary employees. Is that what it says? >> that question again, Ms. Beth. I don't know [clears throat] what you're asking about the policy. It says vacancies occurring What we're taking out is on an interim contract. So, does that mean the only thing you can hire a teacher on if there's a vacancy after the first of the year is or or after we start is is an interim? Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah, you can go ahead and hire a full-time. Well, that interim is that full-time. Uh say you're you're signed up to teach um welding next year at the high school. You're a welding instructor and two weeks in, you leave for whatever reason, that you'll be replaced with an interim and that interim knows at the end of the year
037uh they can apply for the job. Yeah, lines three, and five days. There's no guarantee of that. Yes. Okay. Okay. And once you get to a certain amount of days out or absent, just, you know, say you have a child or surgery or whatever, we try to put certified personnel in those positions. Okay. Are there questions? Mr. Parson? I. I. I. I. I. I. The votes are motion passes 7 to 0. 27. I'll move that. 5.702 student teacher All right. Um, if you notice >> [clears throat] >> one of the policy has uh, lines two through five at near the top of the page that are removed. The [clears throat] TSBA policy is the one on the right. And this one uh makes for some little bit of a discussion. Um student if if if
038we eliminate two through five, ours would look just like TSBA's. Looks like a re-wording to me. It sure is. Because in the lines four through six, you get that, you know. So, if we align ours, it's just re-wording. And matching with TSBA's policy. All right. >> I make a motion. Okay. I move that we accept policy 5.702 with the amendments. Mering DSBA policy. Yes, yes. Mering DSBA policy. I have a second. I'll second it. Motion made, seconded. Any further discussion or questions? Mr. Bartlett. Uh I. I. I. Uh I. Chair votes I, motion passes 7 to 0. Number 28, 5.703, substitute workers. TSBA doesn't have this policy. We need to decide if we want to keep it. States all substitute workers must be approved by the director of schools prior to being placed in a
039position. The principal or his or her his or her designee may secure the necessary substitute and make the necessary reports. Substitute workers shall be paid from funds from the same account as a regular employee. And that's kind of our practice. This is a Coffee County special. We do align with what we have in our policy, but TSBA doesn't have one. But we can just review this. So, motion would be to accept policy 5.703 as reviewed. I make that motion. I'll second. Motion made, motion seconded. Any questions? Discussion. None. Mr. Bartlett. Uh I. I. I. Uh I. And chair votes I, motion passes 7 to 0. Uh number 29, director of schools. >> Director of schools, if you look at policy 5.800, 5.802, and 5.803, those are the next three and I'm sorry I spouted those
040off so quickly, but they all deal with the director of schools qualify qualifications of the duties of director of schools and the evaluation of the director of schools. We My recommendation is we review these policies in the next few minutes and if everybody's okay with that, we'll take a short break after that if once those get if those are accepted and get voted through. Is there anything in Does anybody have a problem with considering all three since they're all dealing with the same legacy and >> And and they met and they mimic TS >> [laughter] >> Hey, they all mimic TSBA's policy. And there's no requested changes or anything else to be done there? >> They're still the same and I think we spent a year and a half on those already. So, what all
041three of these mimic Yes, sir. Ours are exactly or exactly like theirs. So, it's agenda item 29, 30, and 31 are all three considered as one review. Correct? Oh, I see. Yes, that's that's what I recommended. My knee still hurt, I'm sorry. And that would be that would be considering a review of policy 5.800, 5.802, 5.803 without any changes. Just considered as reviewed. Yes, sir. Yes, I'll make the motion to leave them alone. I will second that. Any discussion? You're not, Mr. Parks. I I I I I Chair votes I. Those three agenda items are took care of with one motion as reviewed. Passed 7-0. Uh we'll take a uh 10-minute break or so. Is that good? Give me 12. I'll get my knee back in place. Well, we're we're 5 minutes before 5. It
042won't take us long to finish the rest up. We'll take We'll take a good 10 12 minutes. >> Mhm. >> All right, everybody. Welcome back. We're going to pick up right where we left off. That's going to be agenda item number 32. Policy 1.404 appeals to and appearances before the board. Before I turn it over, I do know that we just went through a law change state law change that we've all heard about, seen on the news, and everything else about allowing appearances before board and stuff like that. So, I'm going to turn it over to the director. And you just kind of took the words right out of my mouth. We are recommending I mean, it can be any anybody that comes to the board. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> So, removing 23 through
043through lines 23 through 26, which identify who stakeholders are, because the law doesn't My belief, the law does not read that way. And on page two, line three, you'll see it says remarks will be limited to 5 minutes. It's the way our our our policy is currently uh addresses it 5 minutes. If our board wants to lengthen that time or shorten that time, that will be a discussion you all will have to have. And then, I think the references The references on on on that same page on page two. And I think that kind of speaks to the law change that we're doing. Okay. So, I guess I'm recommending removing lines 23 through 26 and the addition of adding the time on page three. Remarks will be limited to 5 minutes unless it is extended
044by the board. All right. I don't hardly I've kind of looked into this pretty hot and heavy and the only thing that I have found different is tying that person to an item on the agenda. That's the only change there is. So, making sure they are a stakeholder or a citizen of this county and stuff of that nature, I think that should probably stay because I don't want other school, you know, don't get me wrong. Make a motion for whatever we make a motion for here in just a minute, but I just wanted to clarify that the only absolute only thing I've been able to dig up, period, whatsoever, was doesn't have to be tied to an agenda item on that night's agenda. Right. They can come in and sign up for public comment, talk
045about anything. So, do we need to add >> as long as it stays within the realms of So, if we keep lines 23 through 26 and just make the additional or legal references match and add the limited will be limited to 5 minutes. >> You could do that. Or we could do 5 minutes, or we could cut it down to 2 and 1/2 minutes with more being discretion of the board. I think that would, you know, that's that's something that I've thought about on this, but, you know, I'll take motion however we get it here. we can go to amending it, amending the motion, whatever, retracting the motion, moving this and that. But, my understanding, the only thing is, once again, you can't restrict somebody to speaking in public comment to the one any any
046agenda item on it. They can obviously speak to one, but they can also come in and speak for whatever, long as they stay within some realm of decency and things of that nature. And then I've always had a problem with the 5-minute. Just me personally, the 5-minute limit. I think it ought to be two or two and a half minutes, and then if you need more, request it. That's just me. So, before we get spending a whole lot of time making motions, amending motions, and everything else, take a moment. I I don't care to have a little discussion beforehand, but this is kind of unorthodox to get a motion, then have discussion, when this is more of an open table concept deal we're doing here anyways, to get some of this stuff worked out, so
047that we can hopefully shorten time on board meetings. Mr. Parkinson, do you want to say something? Well, you know, I just a comment you made, you know, feeling that maybe it would be appropriate for there to be a limit of less than the 5 minutes, you know, and I I guess in thinking about that, I mean, I would think two or three minutes would be enough time for someone to voice whatever their concern might be. Um and knowing that the board has the opportunity to ask questions, there may very well end up being quite a bit more stated if the board wants to hear that at that time. I like that idea myself. >> mean, I've in 6 years, 7 years >> [snorts] >> being here, [clears throat] when the public comments are starting to
048push that 5 minutes over half of it or close to half of it is just ends up being rhetoric badgering instead of their point. They get to their point, they say what they want to say, they say what they need to say and then it goes into just reiterating the same thing every time and it's usually just badgering, badgering, badgering. You know, obviously I would like to it would require what I'm talking about would require also unless time is extended by the board so no it's still in there. So if they requested more than 2 and 1/2 minutes, that would be something that we would take a quick vote on and the chairman would just have to be willing to you know pick right up on that in public comment. I want to clarify one
049other thing and make sure I understood this correctly. Did I understand [clears throat] that it's not uh part of TSBA model policy for comments to be limited to topics that are on the agenda. It's not model policy, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Well, now with since the law changed Okay. Right. Since the before it was, before we were right in line with model policy. Well, since the law changed the law was you can't restrict the person coming in public comment just to talk about that because they you know there might be something they're trying to enlighten the board to that they don't know about right now and that's the only way nobody else is listening to them and this is an opportunity to get it get it out. Uh I think they still everything I
050found they're still required to be a stakeholder of that system, that district LEA. But so that's why I I kind of didn't like the idea of taking that out. They need to be in the school system, part of the school system Or at least in our community. Yeah. So, I kind of like how our policy is other than we're going to have to remove So, that'll that will require taking out being on the agenda item. I do We don't apparently right now have a set time how long we will let this go on. I would like one of those. The total public comment period shall be no more than I'd really like to put a time limit in there. I would also suggest 3 minutes. But, what's the time limit overall for number of speakers?
051We need a time limit for We'll only accept public comment for 20, 30 minutes, whatever. We do need a limit. Get in the Get in there to our whole our entire agenda portion can only be to that because we do have If you go go in there starting at lines 18 on our current policy and skip over Well, you start at 17 reading in the public comment period. The first sentence could probably stay. The next sentence is where we we cross that out and correct our policy if an individual wishes to address the board on agenda item. We kind of cross that out and go all the way down to Delegations must select only one individual to speak on their behalf unless otherwise determined by the board. Only individuals who are stakeholders in the school
052system will be recognized to speak before the board. So, would it be up to the chair to determine whether let's say there are three or four individuals that are wanting to speak, it would it be up to the chair to decide whether these individual people made up a delegation or not. In other words, we're speaking on the same topic. >> Yeah. Pick Pick one to speak. I think that's where we is because when you get down to sit 27, the chair may recognize individuals not on the agenda but and overrule decision of the chair. So, you still have a clause in there where the board can override the chair and still hear more and from different people from outside of it and this and that, but we take that out about being on the agenda
053item. Uh and then we'll have to back back up. We really just need to start at the very top of this because when you go back up the lines That's where an appearance. So, that's where appearing if they're going to appear before the board instead of public comment period they do need to be on the agenda item. They I don't I don't think we turn it loose to just anybody to aggravate the chair who speaks. Chair needs to make sure the executive committee needs to make sure that it's actual agenda item if they're going to let them speak in that manner. Otherwise, the public comment period is where we're That's where we're at. That's that's the issue with the law change. If you look at TSBA's model We don't have that uh Is that this
054page? Put the red. Okay. And I believe our appeals to the board our first eight lines mirror TSBA's first seven lines. Um we have a paragraph shift there. They don't have that in there. I believe it's on the board. And then appearing before the board, which we share that same category as TSBA. That's where the wording Okay. Uh as far as those those wordings cuz that are germane to the school board. Yeah. I think So And then the public Yeah, the public comment period in ours vary a little bit and we would need that insert the amount of time if if we decided to mirror there. >> Insert amount of time. But we don't require five working days for the meeting. We do if you're going to be an agenda item. If you're not going
055to be an agenda item, then you sign up at the start of the meeting. The one thing they do not have in here is And Ms. Beth, that is addressed in lines 23 through 28. Individuals who desire to appear before the board submit written requests with descriptive materials. This is about getting it added to the agenda, and this is optional. >> I see that. But that needs to be 5 days [clears throat] anyways cuz we have to have our agenda out. That needs to be 5 days filled in right there before So, on this TSBA, is this not with the new law because it still has on there comments shall be limited topics listed on the agenda. So, this has this not been That's under public comment period. Line 16 towards the end. It's still
056in this one. Yeah, it's still in the TSBA. That's what she sent me the other day. >> But that was the whole big thing behind it was getting the it don't have to be attached to an agenda item. I can check with her tomorrow and see if I got an updated We might need some more time on this, too, because I mean, it says here in that in lines 15 through 20 we can limit the total amount of time or the period of comments. Yeah, that's >> And and I think there should be a line in here like Ms. Beth said about our entire public comment period limited to 30 minutes. Let max. >> Let us do some more work on this. Is everybody okay with that with taking policy 1.404 and kicking the can
057down the road? Yep. Yes. We'll have some more definitive I don't think we have to have a motion to kick it down the road. We never made a motion. All right, so 32 kick down the road. Okay. Policy 33 5.303 personal, professional, and bereavement leave. We're just requesting changing some of the wording. If you clip it to the back of the page, our word our current wording can be misconstrued. Uh and we're we're wanting to add full-time employees she'll be eligible and this is the addition for no more than back to our script five working days of bereavement paid per leave per school year. Because the way it currently reads, some people may view that as uh if I have a my spouse passes away, I have five days. If my grandmother passes away. Now,
058with saying that, please hear us say this. This is a people business and if someone has that that tragedy in their life, what they do lose I mean, we're going to you you have personal days and some other days you can marry in a way, but this defines it as five bereavement days per school year. Period. It's not five per incident. And I think that was the intent of it, but our language needs to be a little cleaner. So, our recommendation is adding no more than prior to the five working days on line six. And on line seven, leave per adding school year after that. All right. So >> I so move we accept the changes that Mr. Hargrove has recommended. Motion carried. Motion seconded. Any more discussion? Comment? All right. Agenda item number 33.
059Uh Mr. Parsley. Uh I. Sorry. I. I. I. I. I. And your vote's I. Item number 33 passes 7-0. All right. Number 34. 5.503 new policy. Uh requested reporting misconduct and dis disciplinary action. And this was brought to us and proposed by another um one of our board uh members and um I started trying to mash this 5.503 um under the understanding not that the numbers matter, but there are only two or three systems that have anything that are uh connected with this. So, I made a phone call to TSBA and and my initial thoughts were when you're looking at disciplinary action my mind goes to well, you have several of our own policy. We have a complaint and grievance policy 5.501. We have discrimination, harassment of employees that's sexual, racial, ethnic, and religion. Uh
060religious, which is 5.500. How much overlap, how consistent are we in the language? Well, um I left a message for one of the lawyers there at at um TSBA. Um They remarked that they seen policy that have similar language in the first portion, which is reporting misconduct, which we also have that in our current policy. We have a process for reporting. Uh But everything else was really new to them. Um and they were curious where the language came from. The one thing that they cautioned against was provisions like the discipline matrix that you see, uh lines 22 and 30. They cautioned that cautioned that because that's that's the purview of the director in existing policy and state laws on those topics. So, it's almost as if we have to break the policy that was proposed
061down and then uh believe there are portions of two policies in four sections. And they need to job and I'm not >> it out about 80. I got you. Well, there's this policy 5.501, lines 1 through 13, which deal with employment-related uh complaints and grievances. That's what we currently have. Uh and then on second page of that policy how to file a complaint, how to do the investigation, also decisions and appeals, and that's lines 14 through 30. Um, and that also addresses the appointing the complaint managers that are receiving it. And I tried to mesh it back with the policy that was proposed. Well, if you look at their line at the policy 5.503 that was proposed, lines 23 or 22 through 31 can also be found in policy 5.501 lines 1 through 12. So,
062I mashed those together, and there are some similarities, but there are some some subtleties too that make them different. On the second page, burden of proof and retaliation presumption, uh, false reports and appeals, which are lines 1 through 15, mesh with our 5.501 on page two, decision and appeal lines 13 through 30. Um, there's some overlap, but there's some subtle differences, and I can give you the other two if if we need be. But, my recommendation is we take time to mesh and look a little bit more, and I like to get another point of view on how our policies, cuz the one thing we don't want is where our policies are conflicting. And right now, the proposed policy is paired up with two of our existing policies, and there's some overlap with those and
063others, but the Our friends at TSBA uh recommended if we do adopt the new policy not including lines uh the disciplinary matrix with that. Which would be lines 5 through 15. Or 5 through 11, excuse me. So, I don't know if that's public or uh for discussion or Well, this Just so there's no uh We we need to probably have a motion to approve or not approve this to get it to discussion. Because once again, Mr. Hargrove Yes, sir. he said this very very uh politely and eloquently. Mhm. You know, this is this is and and I'd rather get discussion before I say my piece about this. Uh As the chair, you know, we somebody wants to make a motion to uh consider this to get it on the floor. And I'll make that motion
064to consider but not approve or disapprove. Uh I think our job here is to approve or not approve. If if we after discussion and we go to vote and nobody wants to do it, then you vote no. So, I make the motion that we approve this policy as written. I'll second. All right. I need a second. No one forward. However, I'm going to break the rules. Go [clears throat] ahead, Robert. This and and it's almost everybody watched the board meeting and it almost got out of control. Just a little bit because you know, we're all here for the same good, the greater good. Uh for employees, for students. That's what we're here for. We're here for nothing else. Uh you know, I presented roughly eight policies that pieces and portions of this was I guess
065put together after your research with TSBA. It was put together and presented. Uh I didn't go into it that night, but the number one thing that is a no-no is board or policy dictating the director's job when it comes to discipline measures because every we all know we all know every circumstance is going to require different consideration and different things and that's his job. That's what we hired him for. And that was my biggest kickback that night. Uh Creating another policy to say the same thing as eight other policies that didn't really bother me to say for that. It's I guess I don't know if you know, it's really easy to search our policies online. Just think of a word that even has something close to do with what you're looking for and you can
066search it and it'll bring you up any policy that it kind of aligns with. Uh all of our staff, I mean, you know, even through our grievance procedures and our investigating procedures, uh you know, that that stuff works. It's in line. Uh We'll We'll have some coming through there here shortly and people will actually understand how the grievance process around here works and ethics committees and policies aligned with policy and procedure. So, I just You You know, Mr. Mr. Hargrove, you you mentioned that there are some I think you might have used the term subtle differences. Um but but you know, with there being the rep the the amount of repetition between the new policy that we're looking at and the policies that we already have in effect, um it makes sense to me that
067if we were going to accept this, we would need to delete some other policies which will take some work to to sort through. >> Yes, sir. And then you brought up a great point, Mr. Parsey. You're exactly right. And And the other aspect of that, there are some areas where the um the recommended the the the policy that was recommended that we vote in or talk about tonight, you're also we're not addressing some other areas in that those other policy. There are some subtle differences, but there are some also some areas in our current policy that are that I mean, do we are those stand-alone without that area of grievance and complaint? Um and I mean, some of the harassment discriminations that aren't addressed in the the the new policy are addressed in our policy.
068So, it's it's complex. And we went through this in collaborative conferencing last year about grievances and and there's some very specific steps that were listed and that we make sure that, you know, those stay in the MOU. >> correct. In the MOU, yeah. That's it. And some just don't They don't know that. Right. And how that MOU process works. But if we combine, we need to make sure that those steps do stay. And they can't contradict one another. Exactly. Yeah, so it's it's There's a lot more to it than just presenting a policy and then we're we're a great bunch of professional people here that we're we're we're not going to circumvent or gut just because of on things of this nature. There's a lot more to being a school board member than the school
069board than both of those things, I think. So. If we had specific days that they had to report it and then then specific amount of days to take it to the director. And Yeah, it's going This is going to have to be this and you know, I once again, I don't care. Anything can come before the policy committee as long as I'm here, but we can get here. That's fine. But there is so much more behind this than just presenting it one night in the main board meeting and trying to do a first and final on something that's not emergency, but requires so much consideration of different groups, comparison to the MOU, comparison to eight other policies, decision made if you want to you're start gutting eight other policies to have pieces and portions and
070one and this and that. So. Motion's on the floor right now to approve this this document. Except as per presented. That was just put there so we could talk about Yeah, yeah. No, no, that's fine. Now's when we do what we do. So, there's no more discussion. What? It is part of the motion. It will be on the next board agenda. So, just be aware this this policy is being voted on at the next board agenda. So, however however this vote turns out next is how it is presented at the next board meeting. Basically, what you're doing right now is is coming up with a recommendation to the board. Yeah. And that's really all this whole committee does. Yeah. to the board. If it If it passes here, it goes with a recommendation. It's passed.
071If it doesn't pass here, it goes to the board with a recommendation to not pass. Right? I think we need to look at the other policies and make sure nothing contradicts each other and make sure we don't leave out things that we discussed in MOU last year. I concur. That's Yeah. It's much more complex than great things in here and some of this stuff is things that we talked about and it isn't a policy. So, Yeah. I just don't want us to vote this in and then leave something out that we should that we went through collective bargaining. So, the motion The motion on the floor is to accept and send this to the board with a recommendation. A yes would be to do that. A no would be to not. Did you get a
072second on that motion? No. No. Oh, yeah, that's right. Good lord, I tried to keep it so straight that I We done took care of that business. We didn't get one. Well, what what would be need to be done if we wanted to lay out all those policies that he was talking about and make sure nothing contradicts it before we That if if it's that heartfelt I mean we can bring this committee together to spend another meeting just to talk about that or We have another Excuse me, we have another meeting We have another meeting next month. I'm going to suggest that you're all having a good dialogue. There there's something that you feel like needs to happen. Yeah. And I put I my opinion would be good for some recommendation from this committee to
073go to the board, be presented to the board at board meeting. That that could be several different ways. I don't want to put anything in anybody's mind, but it would be good for you to have a recommendation. If it's what Leah said it might be a good motion to go that direction. Uh but but if you had some recommendation it might be good to take that to the board. Right now you don't have You have a motion and it's going to die because there's no second. Can there be another motion made? Absolutely. It could be a change in the motion. But right now you have nothing to take to the board to put in the letter of what I said. And and we really we really need something. We don't need to just let it
074die at a failed motion. We either need to We either need to We either need to >> I recommend that we table this for another board meeting, bring up back up in front of the full board, and potentially re-discuss this at next month's policy committee meeting. That's your recommendation. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm I'm Let me get my words right. >> [snorts] >> I think I think I'm looking for a motion to approve or not approve this document. Example, if to not approve pending further consideration and investigation and whatever. My recommendation is not to approve the document pending the board board discussion in committee. I think because I think we either need it We need a part in there to either approve or not approve. So, that something can go to this board meeting from this
075policy committee. Obviously, the full board come May 11th, I believe, the full board can bring this up. They're going to hear the recommendation that come from the policy committee to not, if that's what the motion we get and we vote in just a minute, uh still have the ability to pass it. And do whatever with it, which is hopefully they gain a little bit more consideration and composure about other things we have to consider for liability purposes and yes, but that's just my personal opinion. That's how it is, but whatever. So, we can still We didn't get a second on passing it. We can still get something here to send to them. We still need to send something to the main board for May 11th because we won't ever get to the point of the
076next policy meeting for us to really dissect and compare the different things. Uh I don't think we'll have time to get cross-checked with the MOU and talk with representatives and get that kind of stuff worked out. There's kind of questions and then I'm sure there's going to be a handful of more questions pop up during that process that needs to be looked at before we get to that point. Like I say, one of my biggest things behind it, all these are great points. My biggest thing is when you start getting into the dictating the discipline levels and exactly what those punishments are and this and that. It's like, okay. Whatever. Is there a work session coming up soon that the board will be a work session that this might be a good time to I
077think [clears throat] this what Mr. Harper was kind of alluding to and I might be saying it wrong. The people I don't think the board is not the work session that might not recommend that you go into a work session to have a discussion with the entire board. I don't know if that's that's just a thought. And that's that's also an opportunity that we can have some of this that we can present to them even before the May 11th meeting. Sure. Where they might pull that off the agenda if they're waiting to hear some more back from other things, stuff of that nature. It's not necessarily for the policy committee's purview anyway. When you start getting into that. So. I think I'm Do Do we need another formal recommend recommendation or we Is that what
078Yeah, we need we need to send something as a committee here. We need to send something back to the full board. Obviously, we're going to proceed forward. Directors going to proceed forward with comparing the policies accurately, looking at the MOU, things of that nature, possibly building towards either work session or the next policy meeting. And let's try to really get into that. Really get into looking at that. So, you know, yeah, we need we need to send a yes or a no recommendation. I think if it was a no, it would go with the rec you know, part of the motion would be to further June 16th is a scheduled work session for the board. Which is really good timing because a lot of this wouldn't even come into place until next week. So, it
079gives us time to do more research. research. I'd like to recommend that this policy not be passed and that corresponding policies within the Coffee County Board of Education policies be reconsidered as they correlate to this uh to determine whether this policy should be passed at a later date or whether we might need to keep the policies that we have in effect in place. And that was why. Yeah. >> [snorts] >> Second. >> repeating. I second. >> [laughter] >> We can play the tape back. >> Yeah, we may have to play the tape back on it. Uh I think that would Motion's been made. Is there a second? I second. All right. Now now, let's discuss again. Uh I think that would definitely I think that would definitely uh uh kind of cover all the I's
080and T's here and So that motion would give us the opportunity to take this compared to the ones that we have look at the MOU and make sure Yes. That that >> And dissect how it affects and ties in with our other two >> And and that's I think that's the way we're all sitting here proceeding forward with this document. But once again, keep in mind May 11th the full board don't have to take our recommendation. They don't have to consider that we're trying to do due diligence here to protect the system. Remove or step, they can still by majority vote, they can just move right along right on along with But during the discussion time we can give all the reasons that we come up with. >> [clears throat] >> And if they still
081want to vote for it by majority then so be it, but I really wish they would just take the time to read our policies and research our current policies. And it's like you were saying, there's a lot of things in here that are in current policies. So it's not that this policy is poorly written. No, it's not. It's just that we want to make sure that it's And that one word not in there that puts us in a bind Yeah. somewhere else. Huh. Make sure everything's steps on the right path. >> diligence. I don't think there's anything wrong with slow walking it. I think it's a wise thing to do and make sure everything's Like I say, I've I've went through it pretty pretty hefty even before the last board meeting. Uh the biggest thing
082to me is that second page. Second page is a total overstep, overreach. Ridiculous measure. I have to agree on that one. I think it's >> [clears throat] >> it's tying Mr. Hargrove's hands to an extent that doesn't allow what we're hiring him Um it's trying to get the board in there in areas that aren't ours. You're You're getting in, you know, the the document as presented gets into gets into board control of employment that even by law is not there. We don't have that control of employment. That type. And you know, we've learned that instance over the last couple of weeks where intervention into matters that literally somebody else's paid duty and law-given right, rhyme, or reason to deal with. Until the proper appeal, you know, obviously there's an appeal process that makes it to
083the board. Which our appeal process is still in place. So if there are problems with decisions that Mr. Hargrove makes, we've got the appeal process that that person can go through. And just because you might not want to talk to somebody at the school level or you might not want to talk to the director of schools, that's not the proper appeals process that it comes to the board and board members. File your appeal if you don't want to talk to me. Let it get to us and that'll be part of our consideration once it does come to the board. So did you talk to the principal? No, I refuse to talk to him. You got to, you know, did you talk to the director of schools? No, I refuse to talk to him. So according
084to our policy, they can't talk to us. Well, and and they misconstrued that. >> [clears throat] >> That's to me that's tactic. You know, I talk to citizens and people at ball games and kid lines and everything all the time. Yeah, but you >> And we might mention we might talk about school things, but there's a difference between school things and them knowing how I'm going to vote on a topic or knowing how I feel about a topic. That's not anything that's going to make a difference. We're taught from day one as board members you don't want people or even your other board members to really know your feelings and how you're going to vote on measures and things of that nature. You're told to stay away from that. It's actually against the law. But
085talking to somebody in the barber shop or whatever and just mentioning school things and how everything's going and this and that and stuff like that, there's nothing wrong with that. We can't use that excuse as well, that's why I want them to talk to me and tell me about their problems and I told them to do this and I told them to do that. That's the first thing right there. I told them. Well, if you tell them, you tell them should be your first step in what they should do anyways, which is go talk to your principal. You know. Well, I've been talked to the principal and he's done all this. Well, all the call up central office, schedule you a time. I'm sure Mr. Hargrove would speak to you. I just I don't I
086get so but anyways. So. I'm done discussion. Anybody else? Any more discussion or comments or I guess a a question I have just something maybe for for future consideration regarding the the policy that we've been looking at. Um lines 10 and 11 mention that an employee shall be required to No employee shall be required to obtain prior approval before making a report or follow the chain of command when doing so would be ineffective. It goes on but but that phrase would be ineffective. Um I guess I wonder who who determines whether it would be ineffective or not. I guess it seems to me that But when you go to the grievance policy and you read the grievance policy you're basically you're you're correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's the fourth amendment the
087first first or fourth. You're as a public employee you're protected against retaliation and everything else. Any anyways, that's your whistleblower statutes. And they're in the grievance policy, it's posted in the grievance policy. I mean why would you even put that in That's that's more than con- contradicting language. language that I I feel like the line 10 and 11 I I I I I Who who on earth would even if required when you have in the griev- grievance three two two other policies anyways? I think that's a federal offense to require somebody to have prior approval anyways for making a report or grievance. Or discrimination [laughter] aspect, I think that's a federal offense anyways. If you required that. So, it's kind of just like But I I I don't think it's that. I don't think the
088whole purpose behind this document is issue issues like that. I think the whole purpose behind this document was to get this second page of control. A board and policy control. Somewhere that I don't think they need to be. But I gave a second a while ago. My gut tells me I shouldn't have done that. Somebody else needs a second is I did. Jimmy did. Thank you. Thank you. And before we wrap up, we need to talk about [snorts] a a May date. Let's vote. After we vote. Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> And then the motion is Repeat the motion. Can you repeat that? No. He couldn't do it in a hundred years. That was so eloquently played. I hear you. >> [cough] >> It was a vote no. It was basically a vote no so
089that there can be further investigation on what are the policies this policy affects. There's your summary. Any more further discussion or comments? Mr. Parson. Uh I I I I And chair votes I. Seven to zero not accept at this time until further investigation. All right. We got one more left here. It was was 16, it's now our 35th thing we're talking about. 5.502 complaints about school personnel. I think it's super easy. That ties in with the what we just talked about. Yep. And my [clears throat] recommendation is Read that number again, Mr. Gill, if you don't mind. >> 5.502 Um that's found uh TSBA does not have a policy on it. But we we can keep it. Um but it kind of ties in with what has the last policy that was which is the
090third policy that ties in with the one we just referenced. So, my recommendation is we keep the policy as written and consider as reviewed. Yes. We have that motion. I make the motion that we keep policy as written. I'll second. >> I'll second. All right, motion's made and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Parsley Uh I I I I I I Everybody say motion passes 7-0. Okay, that completes the agenda. However, uh Mr. Hargrove has something he wants to explain here about our upcoming schedule. If you look at the the schedule for completing our policies. um Uh in May >> [clears throat] >> On May 7th, our central office will be meeting and we'll be talking about section 6 which deals with students. Policy committee meeting for section 6 May, we need you need Please take a
091look at your calendar. Um and if there is a a date that doesn't work for you in May like [cough] May 22nd, Paul. Mhm. That might not be good. >> be good. That might not be good. Uh graduation If there's a date that doesn't work, just just let Ms. Shannon know via text or email and then that way we can we keep it rolling. We just need to have that next policy committee by June 8th because those policies in section 6 dealing with students will go through that June 8th board meeting. And then I guess we'll we'll figure out what we're doing in our committee meeting in June. Hopefully some things that we we put in place will move and I can chop one of these off and we can start combining some of the
092sections. Folks, thank you. That was 35 agenda items. 35 policies, that was good. It took me a half hour longer than I expected it, but uh need a motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. I'll [laughter] second.