001Welcome. Good evening. This is a called meeting of the North Side Board of Trustees. Before we call our first agenda item, the board would like to just take a moment to briefly review our rules for conducting our meeting. The order of this business uh the order of business for this meeting is set on our agenda. There is no close session in this meeting. All agenda items will be discussed in open session. And the purpose of this meeting is to conduct board business. Uh and for that reason, it's held in public. It's not a port public form. However, we do provide the opportunity for the audience to participate. If you would like to address the board during an agenda item, please sign up prior to start of the meeting and indicate which agenda item you'd like
002to address. There are signup sheets at the entrance of the meeting room so that we do not overlook anyone that would like to speak to the board. This is a called meeting and there will not be a citizens to be heard portion. So, we're going to move on to our first agenda item to review and discuss board operating procedures. >> Good evening. Just real quickly, a point of clarification. There's no citizens to be heard or excuse me, anyone signed up for speaking to directly to the two agenda items. Okay. All right. Well, good evening uh members of the board. Uh this is like I say, thank you uh for meeting prior to the six o'clock meeting. [clears throat] We wanted to pick back up our uh operating procedures as well as our code of ethics.
003And so uh I believe you all have been provided a copy of both. Um I think you'll see that the last uh review of the operating procedures uh was uh about this time last year actually uh November 1st. And so uh this is like I say the not only annual review but uh if there are any modifications and changes. Again I'll just draw your attention to a couple of items uh under onee [snorts] uh with the operating procedures. It does require four or excuse me five of the seven trustees uh to agree to any changes. And so, uh, as, uh, we engage in the conversation, uh, this evening, uh, we'll take notes and, um, and then we can bring the item back, uh, for again further review with language cleanup or addition, uh, or deletion.
004Um, and then, uh, uh, it can be taken up for your consideration. Um, as you recall also, there were a few changes. Um we did add uh the piece with two trustees requesting an agenda item uh to be considered at a a regular or called meeting. Um there were uh several items that were added in uh regards to a uh a vacancy on the board. Um and so like I say, this is really an opportunity for you uh to review um your operating procedures. Uh, one item that I do need to discuss and I've also uh got it posted for the six o'clock uh regular meeting is how we conduct committee meetings. Uh, and I'll be glad to uh explain again the legislative changes uh or additions uh when we get to that point. Um,
005but like I said, we do need to we do need some some guidance as to how we want to conduct uh committee meetings um and going forward, particularly with the the new legislative changes. With that being said, we can go through line by line or um how however we want to proceed in regards to making suggestions, edits, additions, deletions, >> Mrs. Beman. >> Um this is just what I had done. I had made some notes as I went through the the board operating procedures. So, um, however you want to do it, I'm prepared to, um, make some suggestions for us to discuss. >> Just want to go sequentially. >> Um, I I was looking for Dr. Don, but we could Yeah, we could do the >> How would you like to >> Yes. Okay. All
006right. >> And you've got this also in your uh board docs uh online as well. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Um I I don't know how far you want to go. Like on the in my I [clears throat] made notes on the um I downloaded the the document and then made notes on the document. So my first page is not necessarily the same. But under number two um Roman numeral two on the on a we have what we said the board president vice president secretary or designignate will conduct a pre-election information meeting what we have done our [clears throat] practice has been to ensure that those that are running for reelection and our officers do not conduct that meeting um so that it doesn't become perhaps antagonistic. That's what we've done in the past. It's
007worked for us. This does not have um the wording here does not include um an option for the board president, VP or secretary if they're running to be excluded in that particular group. We also for reasons um wanted to ensure we did not have a a quorum of the board to conduct the meeting such that that meeting could be closed and it doesn't become a public event that gets broadcast um that we don't have to video record that. So, the suggestion I would have is to add and if anybody was running for office um that that another appointment be made to have someone else um in that particular meeting and then also include um not to have any more than three um sitting trustees at that meeting. >> I'm curious if you guys have done
008that. How come Kamo has never been listed before? like how many other operating procedures do we have like that? >> Um I don't know if this was a second rendition that because we we changed a little bit of this last time. I don't remember what what what it was before that. I don't I don't remember addressing this one uh before um but you may have. So would would um >> it's been a practice >> the um board officers uh or design not seeking reelection will conduct pre-election uh information meetings. Would that be appropriate? >> That's what we've done. Well, I don't well exception I have it's not I I think we we maybe had the board president but it wasn't board or design. I mean it was really any three >> but if officers didn't
009necessarily have priority >> okay so just >> wanted to administer the meeting. >> So no more than three board member designes not seeking reelection uh will conduct pre-election information meetings. [cough and clears throat] >> Is that acceptable? I'm just curious where are all of these why hadn't these done been done before? They're already been done without being written. >> It seems like we're make we're adding more stuff and then because we haven't been here the longest, it's it's been practiced but it's never been a rule. So this I'm just very conflicted by this because what else has been practiced that has not been addressed. You know what I'm saying? We literally could go down item for item. But okay, >> I think it's a recommendation. I don't I think we're just going to go through
010my assumption is go through the recommendations and then we decide after >> like what will be and what >> will stay the same. >> It has been a board practice. I can't answer your question, Carla. I I could go back and look at the history of some of our board operating procedures. I do not know how this >> was. [snorts and clears throat] >> No, I'm good. I respond. >> I think uh I agree with um Dr. Duron. Um, this is something that we've already have in here. It's something that we've been doing. Um, I don't see any need to change it. I and I was going to add um I don't I don't know the answer to your um question because all I remember is last time when we had new members it was
011which three um can go and support the new members at the meeting. So, I I don't even remember. Um, but I'm wondering if maybe another way to look at it is um what will keep us from um you know getting into trouble like having you know a quorum or some things like that. Maybe that's just another lens. So, um the the three seems like that needs to be mentioned so that we don't have four and it's perceived as a quorum. So, that was kind of my blanket thought. I would recommend two designates. Um three um there are um some potential conflicts in regards to the argument has been made historically that all it would take would be a conversation at a grocery store with one other trustee and not necessarily with board operating procedures, but
012I I would I would recommend two. Um like these are your operating procedures. >> Yeah. There there weren't any decisions that were made at the meeting or anything. It was just >> Right. Yeah. But but just as a general rule of practice, >> right? I understand. [clears throat] Okay. Shall we want to move on? >> Okay. So, um >> did you have something, Mr. Blunt? Is that an old patient? >> No. No, it's not old. It's just I don't know where we ended up, but um yeah, I'm going to say I really I'm going to agree to it really needs to be clarified and changed to what we actually practice because we've never done it that way. Uh we really have made sure that ones that are currently running were not involved with that meeting.
013And that's not only for a benefit from a it's a benefit to the other candidates. It's also a benefit to sure we maximize attendance because we found the likelihood of if somebody's running that meeting and a candidate is running and it's somebody running against their their likelihood of making that decision decreases and we want to make sure that all candidates uh were least informed. So I do encourage the board to look at that seriously u and consider making that change. >> Awkward Will there be consensus uh since this is not an action item, this is not a a requested vote, but will there be consensus that it it uh includes the language of not seeking reelection >> or no? I just don't agree that with the comment made about there's going to be I don't
014know that that negative word that was used like we should all be able to be unbiased but doesn't have to be the three board officers. I do agree that it can be any three and I agree that it can be two to your point. >> Yes. >> And this may there's not there obviously it's not a trustee election. Next one will be four women. >> Yes. >> Three. Next election. Four. >> Uh we've got a term that uh no three >> four. We have a two year >> 2027. Four. There we go. >> Yeah. I think we can delete the the roles like the the officer roles and make it two no more than two folks leading that meeting. It's a standard meeting. I mean there's no way to be whatever the negative word used
015about it because it's justformational. >> It's form filings, regulations, there's no no influence that can be had there. It's just the rules and then experience shared and people ask questions. It's interesting the questions that are asked, but like do you really live in the north side district was one of the questions I remember. I was like, "Yeah, that's the law." >> Mr. Sce. >> Okay. So, what do we want to do? >> Two board. Is everyone okay with the two recommended based on the law that has changed? Make a quorum. Not make a quorum. So, not officers, two designates, two >> two not running for reelection. >> Two board design not running. [clears throat] >> Okay, >> we'll we'll work on that drafting. >> Okay, I've got more. I don't know where you want to
016go. Very good. >> Um on C [clears throat] um it it just appears to be redundant. The superintendent will coordinate an initial meeting for new trustees with members of the superintendent senior staff. That's up above. Um we can leave it there, but it's redundant of B. >> Yeah. So remove it from B. >> I I think it I think it fits in B. And so Okay. My suggestion would be to just eliminate C just for simplicity. Is everyone in agreement? It is listed in B. Okay. Okay. D. Um board president will schedule a board superintendent team building retreat following an election. Um [clears throat] that's that's been in there that's been discussed. Um, one thing we have not addressed though is how we go about as a board contributing to like should my suggestion is
017that the board discusses what we do at the retreat. So in most cases we've had um board operating procedures goals um and we've not had a um a facilitator. I think if my suggestion is that last time we had a facilitator I think it worked out well. I I would like to have though each time a board discussion um at that time whether we should look for a facilitator whatever the board um the board should look at what its needs are um at for a retreat and then um perhaps have a facilitator to address those needs. So just a convers just a conversation that it comes that the board president leads puts it on the agenda or it's becomes a standard agenda item but that we all have a discussion as to what retreat looks
018like. >> I think it's fine. I think team building is very important for any team that has never been done in the past. So that was one of the changes that was requested by members of the board and I think everyone had an opportunity to to give um input but to have a meeting to talk about that was just not there was no time it was summer we had to make a decision we had to book the person um I just feel like excuse me I'm not antagonistic with what h what we did this summer I just think we build upon that and we have had team building before we do team building. >> We haven't had it since I've been on the board. So for me it was time to bring it back >>
019because team building to me is not going over operating procedures. >> Learning to build relationships with each other and how to get along and be kind to each other such as those things like how do we work with each other getting to know each other that has never happened since I've been on this board as a team. That was important for us to have in my personal opinion. Would anyone please >> Dr. Harl >> Oh, I wasn't gonna comment on that. I was moving >> um I also kind of think it's a misuse of the word retreat [laughter] because it's it's not a retreat and I'm wondering if that language because I know if if we use it in a school district and we're talking about professional learning and even if it includes team building,
020we don't say retreat because it's it's it is about team building. I'm just that's always been my thing. It's really not a retreat. I know what a retreat is. The other is I was glad to see E cuz um you know for threequarters of a year I didn't know I had a mentor and the mentor thought I knew. So I have to catch up on lost time. But that I think I don't know that we ever had that before that >> we modified it last year. >> Yeah. But before that it's it's this is new. So I was I was glad to see that. But um no, I'm fine. Um I >> if I may, I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. >> Well, if I may before we leave, D um we want to change
021retreat to meeting. >> Well, I just >> I think it's a Tasby word. I don't know. But it's Did you guys feel it was a retreat? Like I figal development. I needed a little massage on the left and no, >> but I mean I I was I was saying that more >> in a levity way, but um public perception might like, oh, they go to, >> you know, Cancun and build teams. I wish, but no, we stayed in here and we worked hard. >> Why not call it what it's legally called? What we're required to have and just don't have anything >> team building training or whatever it says. And >> if you guys don't mind, I mean, I just Okay. >> Team training as well team building just team training. >> I mean >>
022team building training. >> Yeah. Whatever the legal is whatever said required just use those. >> I I think legal um I I know I've heard of TASBY team building. >> It's team building. >> Yeah. >> It's under team building. So but there's no other word. It doesn't >> um I mean even 12 years ago I go this is not a retreat. This is hard work. >> Team building. Yeah, >> it's it's in your appendix. >> It's semantics, but it also >> so that doesn't confuse me because I think when you start changing all the things, we're looking at what are the compliance requirements, it should be identical to what the expectation is, right? >> Great. >> Do we want to add the language tailored to meet the needs of the board >> or too much
023description? >> Maybe just have a conversation. Just a conversation. Okay. Yes. >> Um, can we leave? Oh, sorry. >> Can we leave the verbiage of superintendent, senior staff instead of listing out all these? Can it be senior superintendent, senior staff or other department upon request to cut it down in length? Because >> I think I can >> B is long and C is shorter. So it's just lengthy >> in case those roles change. >> Yes. Like you never know. So senior superintendent, senior staff or other departments upon request instead of curriculum, finance, facilities, communicate like just is senior staff. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah, we added I added those last year because we th those are in essence the senior those are the senior staff members departments. But it but it's >> we can
024put it parentheses or we can just delete it all together. >> I kind of I agree with because you're not curriculum instruction for teaching and learning. >> Are you talking about our whole division? >> Yeah, our division is called curriculum and instruction but it it contains >> a whole child piece. It it contains whole child, continuous improvement. >> Okay. >> Elementary, middle, high, teaching and learning. Yes, ma'am. >> So, we're going to reduce it by eliminating the departments, >> staff members, and other departments upon request. Okay. Carla M. Uh >> I agree with uh Dr. Harl [clears throat] about the retreat. If we eliminated retreat and just left team building Yeah, on on 3E. So, it's been our pra our practice has been a little different. Um, it does say that in order for agenda
025items to be placed in a regular meeting workshop, request ma needs to be made in writing and two trustees must consent. Um, we've been doing it verbally as well. I perhaps is in writing. So, um, just to [clears throat] correct that to reflect practice. [snorts] [clears throat] So, made verbally or in writing. It's like I think if the two trustees are are present right there, then I think you're okay. We're in agreement. Okay. >> On number four, if I may continue, um, patrons addressing the board. It says regular meetings held on the fourth Tuesday of each month. We talked about this last time. I don't think we I know we didn't change it, but it's not the fourth. We November, December are always different. So um >> just a regular meeting rather than just eliminate
026the fourth Tuesday. Sure. >> Okay. >> I'm good. That was >> okay. >> That was my comment. >> So the same thing Um or C remove the parenthesized fourth Tuesday consistent specific >> on on C. Um it says at the very end this rule may be waved by the consent of the board. I I guess I'm confused as to what rule that the board could actually wave. What did we mean? >> I think that that refers to um >> late arrivals. >> Yeah, >> that's my understanding. >> The time >> they want just in time and they ask if they could still be on the agenda. >> Okay, I see. Okay, thank you. >> [snorts] >> And then E um trustees shall limit the use of private devices during board meetings. I think we need
027to um be extremely careful with having even phones on the dis. Um I am I confess I'm guilty of that and um but I think we need to be very careful. There's been some um PIA requests on anything from schoolboard trustees and devices and I know that sometimes we have our notes on our phones. I just think we have to be very careful with um having the phones on the dis and if we hit it then it can be misconstrued as us texting either each other or something else. And I would suggest >> members that have have care caretakers of old elderly parents and spouses and some of us still have children that are live with us. So that has been a reason why some folks have their um phones with them because they have
028to be responsive to their families. So I get that, but I also understand what's going on in those personal lives. So the like you said I think very well once perception is there there's always going to be that >> we we need to exercise um again um there there have been PIA requests and we all need to be aware of that situation >> Dr. Awesome. >> Um, I mean, we also needed to log on to >> Yeah. the system. >> Like I know I have it I was like I have it pretty regularly cuz either I'm like logging on to something, I'm logging on to my Google Drive, I'm trying to So, I mean, we need them as much as like Yeah. As much as we want to limit it, like we need them to
029be able to just log on to our portal. >> I think we're all aware of that rule, right? Do you have another comment, ma'am? >> I do. Um, and we've gone back and forth with under five 5C, groups of more than three people wishing to address the same item will be encouraged to appoint one person to represent the group's view to the board. Um I um perhaps include um instead of will may um just because we want to be careful about limiting um first amendment rights and getting into trouble with some of that >> may be encouraged >> or just I I just will to may or Dr. Harl, >> so I and I'm I'm just gonna disagree only because I think this is the the only opportunity for citizens to speak and um if
030you recall we've we've made exceptions to this because I know it was always hard as a president to you know there were 20 people to show up about boundaries. It's it's emotional and I I really felt like they needed to speak. I kind of think the choir folks needed to speak and we've we haven't followed this and so I just I I just want to this is their only time to speak to us. So I I could do without that one. And I also had one that we didn't have a policy for, but I'm wondering what it could be like because a citizen comes and speaks for three minutes and every once in a while we will say staff will follow up with you, but I'm wondering if there's a way every person who comes
031up there's some sort of followup. Um >> because it seems >> we are so Yeah. So So uh we've started a Google doc. >> Oh, good. after every after every citizen to be heard. >> Um we're we're following up in Friday letter with >> Oh, thank you. Here's an update. >> And that was with every citizen. I thought it was kind of >> pick and choose, but good. Thank you. Okay, that's my two cents. >> Uh Mr. Blunt. Yeah, I don't I think y'all almost said the same thing on C to be honest because you're trying to get a word of the will and you said give but I will say this that it is in our um >> local policy. So if you want to reference a local policy or whatever the language is
032make sure it matches that but this one is in our local policy. So whatever we do we take it out that's fine but whatever it states it's got to be believe it is it's got to be consistent with the wording in local policy. Well, and I think that the way it's worded, the presiding officer has that leadway to determine. I mean, there's there's some leadway to allow each patron or um uh citizen to be heard. Uh it's not a mandate. Um like I say, I there's some flexibility. I think >> Mr. Salo. >> Yeah, I just want to say I agree with Dr. Haro. We should just eliminate it. There's no way to enforce it anyway without violating somebody's rights. So that 5C RF 31 is is it on the form where the topic when
033they sign up to speak? >> I believe it is Monica the form that is uh >> when they sign up is it say the topic you're speaking about and is it >> it gives you the option on a regular meeting to agenda item or just as whatever >> but I'm saying when they sign up as a citizen they have a topic says what are you exactly you're speaking about what is your topic >> this is I sort of >> this is not a practice that I'm aware of that we've ever actually practiced >> oh no we have uh yeah maybe while ago but we have oh yeah we have but what I was going to say was you just stated that we may want to look because it used to be in there to inform
034them that hey if you have a large group this may happen etc I don't I'm not sure the latest, but I know it was there before, but I remember reading it. [cough] But I think the key point is it is in our local policy though. I think have no problem removing it. >> We have to like do a little more research then before making a decision. But also to I think the time, right? Because if we have however many three minutes we could be here for days. [laughter] >> Yeah, it's all in there though. Yeah. Got it to a minute. It's all in local, >> right? There's there's some things that we've done with changing the number like three minutes down to two where we've in the past during COVID we had 100 people speaking
035>> and you have that opportunity. >> We can do that. That's what some districts do. >> Okay. So, we we'll uh review local policy >> and then come back with a recommendation. Okay. >> Okay. M are there changes on D? Um under under four under communications um we added I believe it was last year electioneering. Can we review what we mean by electioneering? Trustees will not engage in electioneering while operating within their capacity as a trustee serving the district's needs. We all I think we all know what I mean that's illegal. Um is there something else that we were trying to define here? I mean because we don't >> Yeah. What I recall uh Karen is that's why the reference to that BBB policy >> it it really outlines >> electioneering uh in that policy.
036Now what we can do is we can take that policy and embed it into operating procedures but that's that's in essence the reference electioneering campaigning um a lot of times used synonymously. Okay. >> Obviously. >> Yeah. because we I mean we all know that that's illegal but yeah that >> people or just a reference would be >> that came up that's why they brought it up so they were like saying things like events so that we didn't want to put people in compromising situations and you're running for office there's time and place so not everyone remembered that but that's a great suggestion to put that in here so it's crystal clear also can we remove from 9B that no surprises exclamation I I think that's drama. It's like emotional. I don't know why it's there.
037How did that word get there? >> No surprises. Exclamation. >> Yeah, I that's I think probably a carryover, but if if everybody's in consensus [laughter] >> like that surprised me. Well, I truly I that was there for all of us so that the superintendent's not surprised by any if a a board member knows something before information before um we just need to have open communication amongst all of us. >> Agreed. Agreed. One thing that's come up in the past [clears throat] that I don't know that we define in here and and maybe we can bring back language is about how to handle emails. Um I'm not sure that it's defined in here. >> Yeah. As far as referring or forwarding to uh superintendent or appropriate contact. >> Right. There was a question not too very
038long ago about what to do and so maybe have a a something in here that pertains to that. >> Also, I think F um has been brought up a lot on 9F because at the um CASBY for example, they have so many events for everyone that's a member of that event. Then it seems it's an exclusive event for people attending TASBY. So that makes it almost like unclear. People are questioning whether they could go to TASBY event or not. And so we can just if we're are at a conference that we've invested in to network with other board members that are all invited. That was just very conflictive. So, >> what do we want to add to them to make it clear for those that had the question? >> No, don't go. >> No, it's
039a good it's a good point because it's not it's not defined. We put it in there because what we wanted to not happen is for specific vendors because what we've had is vendors. >> What? >> Yeah, I mean that's what it Yeah, that's I'm sorry to interrupt you. That's exactly what it says. sponsored by vendors and associated and hand also >> and associated with conferences >> but they're sponsored >> well with TASBY for example do we consider TASBY a vendor or a service provider to us >> both do >> pay them mean you're a vendor though you can be a service provider without being a vendor per se >> what about a law firm that sponsors it are they >> yeah they're vendors mind >> yeah I mean it's hung up on the definition of
040vendor >> I think what I think what we've meant was if we If everybody's invited, if it's an exclusive event to only individuals or people doing business with them, if it's opened up to everybody, then I think >> well then let's remove our other engagements sponsored by vendors associated with conferences because then that's not then participate in exclusive dinners. That makes sense because when we're at a conference, we're all invited to everything. So, if I may, um, this gets a little this gets a little bit tricky. >> Um, and I'll use a couple of examples. Um, there are vendors that provide services uh to the school district and then there are vendors that are aggressively wanting to provide services uh to the district. um particularly in the world of facilities and and architectural services, engineering
041services, construction services um and and also software etc. Okay. >> What what the conversation as I recall well >> those that we're currently doing business with today may not be those that we're doing business with say tomorrow. those that we're not doing business with today. Um, do we want to really put ourselves in that position of having a a nice dinner uh at a conference or associated with a conference particularly if it's more exclusive i.e. just the four or five or maybe seven trustees that are in attendance at that particular conference and the the I think that the consensus at that time was no we don't want to place ourselves in that position. Then the conversation also needs to include well for example uh in many cases um say a tax attorney firm may have
042more of a larger group with clients that it represents. Um I've actually had a legal review in that regard. Uh you can attend such an event. Uh ideally you will be in and around associated at a table, same table with that particular attorney that you work with, which has been my experience and and and always the case. But again, the consensus at the time was let's just try to clean this up, make it real simple. >> Uh dinners we just were not going to engage in. And that is exactly how Monica and I have handled every >> uh invitation that has come directly to us. The second piece to this conversation was what about receptions? Um and I think that that was where the board again at the time we had consensus. Receptions are come
043and go. Uh there's really not any form of significant monetary. It it just it's a it's really more of a piece or an association to the actual conference in many cases. So like there's a welcome reception provided by TASBY uh at the at the uh summer leadership uh andor tassatasby uh conference and and that was what we elected. It's up to the trustees but we were we were not going to in essence prohibit trustees from from attendance. That's that's what drove uh this particular that was the conversation at the time that drove this particular operating procedure. >> Mr. >> Yeah, just real quick. I was going to say yeah and again the wording is and that's why the wording was chosen and the discretion was allowed and again remember this isn't necessarily legal uh that
044we're trying to find following but it's not meant to illegal other districts may do that etc. We just decided as this board at that time, you know, we could change now, but this was a decision that that this board made for itself. I just wanted to bring that up too. >> So, does anyone else want to >> I have a question. Um, on the with the verbiage when it says uh when attending vendor, is that the same thing as contractor? >> Yes. Okay. So, for those that had that question on that one, did you all want to make any suggestions or are we going to keep it as is? >> I I will suggest this is a solid practice. Uh it's not the norm. Um, but it's a solid practice and it's actually one that
045I use uh with aspiring superintendent to really consider and look at um because um well there are a lot of there are a lot of invitations. >> I think leaving it as is okay. I just I just wanted to make I just wanted to make sure um if we leave it as is going back to what your point was. It says or other engagements that would also mean receptions. Um I'm trying to think of like lunches there. There's been some lunches hosted some things like that. So this would be everything. Uh other engagements could include um uh a top golf night, >> right? >> Um I I don't know. Six Flags. I I I [laughter] don't I don't know. I don't know right off the top of my head, but you'd be surprised. Uh they
046get creative. I think receptions is safe. Um and like I say, typically your reception is just a come and go, say hello, >> $25. That >> Absolutely. Yeah, >> it's fine. >> Okay, so we'll leave it as stated. Okay, >> good evening. >> I know. We're looking around the room. [laughter] >> They think they're late, but you're not late. >> This this this is a second part of team building. Yeah, >> you're just in time. We're doing some housekeeping, so bear with us, please. >> Karen, was anything else? >> I have a question about uh I thought we went over uh H individual trustees may contact staff members for general information with notice to the superintendent, but there was a longer version of that, right? that they couldn't add work that was >> like reports
047and all this other like we couldn't request like some very like from >> Megan for example um so >> that >> if we look at I >> right that was H and I >> I think we separated the two if I remember correctly >> so >> and what I was thinking is including how to handle emails or other forms of contact uh in regards to just the forwarding process and then uh and then following up by district administration in that section and it may be another another separate section but I think that would fit nicely. >> Okay. So we add that there. Okay. Okay. Last call. Any other items you'd like to go over? And then uh Madame President um members uh you also have the suggestions uh appendix uh A1 of two uh for
048onboarding new trustee and then you also have uh appendix B the uh new board member training. I do need to um like I say discuss committee meetings but for the sake of time I've got that posted on the regular meeting here starting at six o'clock. Um the other item that you have uh uh on this agenda uh is uh the north side ISD code of ethics which we uh modified revised I believe last year. Um we changed the order. Um it's still reflective of very much of the TASBY model. Um but if there are any changes, modifications, uh you'd like to discuss this is like I say the opportunity to do so as well. Mr. Blunt, I'm >> I'm sorry. Just on 29D, I just make sure I understand and Dr. I understand what you're
049talking about, but on the election hearing, what we're saying that does not include or doesn't include um an endorsement of a another government entity or individual running for election where they utilize and identify that individual as being associated with the board. Would that be within election hearing or that's outside of a election hearing? >> That's a great question. Um, >> can we get can we run a legal review question? That's that's a really good question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I hate to answer. >> Right. Right. >> I thought of it >> incorrectly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Right. I think that that just to go back to that it was electionary while on duty as a board member at a game asking coaches to vote for them or whatever like things like that
050that compromises the individual's uh role if you will because we don't know what's going to happen at elections. So it can put people in difficult situations. So I think that's what we need to be clear about because outside of the duties of the board that came up before If it's not on north side premises or happening on in the capacity of the trustee outside, that's what campaigns do. People endorse each other. >> I think Mr. Blunt's question though is if a trustee is within their capacity, >> right, >> operating as a trustee, is it allowed or is it considered electioneering if they are actively campaigning for another office, >> right? uh say a county commissioner or >> a city council member position. >> Oh, that's a good question. >> Got it. >> I'm not fine.
051>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. That happened. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> You're talking about the action. >> Okay. Let me let me That was >> I was like, I get it now. The endorsement. Yeah, like I say that the the only other item and this may be really simple. If um uh there are any suggested changes to the code of ethics um and we can bring this up at another meeting, a subsequent meeting, we have another opportunity on November 11th. >> Okay. >> We'll add it to November 11th agenda. >> I miss Freeman. Yeah, just one clarification on it's just the training and how it's um how it's worded here and to clarify especially if there's new board members if we have a new board member um regarding the cyber security. So, and Chris Tjo I
052think is here. Um, do we It says see the Texas Department of Information Resources and I don't know if that's where we actually go, but but regardless, Chris is the one that sends us that information and says it's now time and I need you to do that. >> So maybe refer to Chris or his position >> and and Chris is going to be working hand inand with Tedums. Uh >> yeah, >> as we already have >> just some new board me if we have any new board members so or a good reference as to where to go. >> I [snorts] getting bigger. >> All right. We will we will make uh like I say uh um a draft run and we'll have this ready to bring back uh to you for your uh review consideration
053at the November 11th board meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> So is there any objection to adjourning the meeting? It's 556. Thank you.