001All right, let's um please stand as trustee Laos Apata lead in the invocation and pledges of allegiance. Almighty, Almighty and merciful God, we ask your guidance and blessings upon this board, students, parents, patrons, teachers, and administrators as we assembled here this evening in the common pursuit of this great nation's wealth, our children. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the flag. I aliance to the Texas. One state under God. One and indivisible. It is now 6:01 and the meeting will now be officially called to order. Good evening and welcome to this called meeting of the North Side Board of Trustees. Before we call the first item on the agenda, the board would
002like to take just a moment to briefly review some of the rules for conducting our meeting. The order of business for this meeting is set out in the agenda. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct board business and for that reason it is held in public. It is not a public forum. However, we do provide the opportunity for audience participation. If there is anyone who would like to address the board during an agenda item, we ask that you please complete a sign up prior to the start of the meeting and indicate which agenda item you would like to address. Signup sheets will be provided at the entrance of the boardroom. This is so we do not overlook anyone who would like to speak to the board. Due to this being a called meeting, we
003will not have the citizens to be heard portion and we will review the rules for addressing the board later in the meeting. Is there anyone here who would like to sign up for an agenda item that has not already done so? None. Okay. All right. So, all right. We're going to go ahead and move on to our item number one, our consent agenda. Yes, Madam President. Um, members of the board, uh, good evening and welcome. Uh, this first agenda item that you have before you is actually a second reading of board policy CFB local. Um, this has been reviewed with our policy committee as well as first reading. And uh this really uh pertains to uh the capitalization of assets and really the aggregate uh changing I believe from 5,000 to 10,000. Uh so if
004you have any questions like I say this is like again uh second reading for this policy. I believe our intent with the board's uh election to go ahead and put this on a consent agenda um at our next board meeting. Um pending any questions? All right. Uh, Mr. Bont, you have a question? Yeah. I'll move approval of the consent. Okay. Is there a second? Second. All right. Miss Freeman seconded that. So, we've now approved um for us to take action on this at the next and add this to our consent agenda for our next meeting. Thank you. All right, we are now moving on to item number two for business and finance. Yes, Madam President, members of the board, we thought we'd start uh encompassing um not only a a on the I'm sorry, the
005item was on the consent agenda for tonight. So, you can take action tonight if you want to. I apologize. Was your motion to actually approve? Okay, if you'll recall item one, I apologize. Okay, we'd like to item number one and Could you please restate? So, so, so this this agenda item is for action if uh the board would so uh like to elect to adopt this like I say change to CFB uh local policy. I apologize uh that was my mistake was second reading. So, I was going to approve uh I made a motion to approve approve the item as presented. Okay, Suz have a second. Miss Freeman, that stands as well. So um all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion is passed and we have approved now um the adoption of
006board policy CFP accounting inventories. Thank you. All right. So now we're going to move on now for real to business and finance item number two. Yes. Back to uh the business finance report. We thought we would spend a few minutes uh just going over uh what transpired in the 89th legislative session, particularly to uh uh legislation uh that obviously passed both chambers, but then also uh have either been signed by the governor or on their way uh to be to being signed uh pending any any veto efforts. Again, just as a reminder, uh the governor has the ability to sign the bill, veto the bill, or really take no action, and then I believe it's after 30 days, uh the bill effectively becomes law, uh without any any uh action on the governor's part. So
007um a few items and some uh that we'll quickly discuss um may have an indirect impact uh as to how they the laws will affect um uh future policy as well as administrative regulations uh going forward. So I'll just jump right in. Uh, one of the hot ones right now is the um outlawing of THC uh/medical marijuana. This is outlined in Senate Bill 3. uh as you're well aware the impact uh to schools um which uh this one has not been signed into law but uh if you recall when we look at uh school discipline and school discipline reporting the vast majority of our DAP andor uh first offender programs are usually a result in fact I think we're at about 90% of those placements usually are a result of some type of THC uh
008contained vape ape. Um, and so, uh, this legislation would in essence effectively, uh, outlaw, um, prohibit the use of THC, the sale of THC related, uh, uh, marijuana as well as any type of vape. So, um, it's kind of interesting. There's there's a lot of push back right now and call for the u calls for the governor to veto uh, this particular legislation. uh because you as you can imagine uh this has become a very very uh large um profit uh here in the state of Texas. Um there's about 8,000 uh distributors um and you don't have to drive very far to see uh these shops uh across the state of Texas that currently uh sell and solicit THC infused product. Um so more to come on that front. Um, another one that's not necessarily
009directly related to anything that you'll see in the Texas Education Code, but it does pertain to the Texas Lottery, um, and Texas Lottery Commission. Um, as you're probably aware, uh, the Texas Lottery, uh, generates about $ 8.5 billion in in revenue. It's a it's also talking about big industry. A big portion of that uh just a little bit less than 8 billion actually goes to support the the uh permanent school fund PSF as we refer to it. Um so it is a funding source uh for public education. Um there's a lot of uh regulation and oversight through Senate Bill 370 um that may have an impact on uh how much money is generated uh through the purchase of lottery tickets. So it's just something to kind of keep uh an eye on. Um, in essence,
010Senate Bill 3070 uh is going to uh require review of a sunset committee of the uh advisory commission uh that is going to be put in place uh by 2029. Um, so it's it's like I say, it's kind of just an interesting uh bill uh legislation. And there were um a lot of calls for review of the lottery commission um and you probably have read and seen uh some some of the reported wrongdoings and so um it's just one to kind of put on your radars. Um another bill that is potentially going to have an an indirect uh impact are the is this new law that is really targeting transgender identification. So, so as a result of the of the legislation, uh the state of Texas uh will only recognize uh the sex at at
011birth, so on a birth certificate. Um, in other words, if even if it's a a court-ordered um uh legal document uh that has requested the change of identification, uh whether it be like I say a birth certificate andor a driver's license, which we do have students that have driver's license, um that's going to be undone. And the and the reason I bring this up is is because you probably recall the last session uh there was a pretty good dust up over the bathroom bill legislation. And so it's anticipated that uh this particular bill uh is going to lead into a whole another round of uh the bathroom discussion. Um, and the reason that that's important is because, um, well, for obvious reasons, whether it be bathrooms in governmental buildings, public education space, locker rooms, I
012anticipate that that's going to be uh, a pretty hotly debated uh, topic um, as a result of uh, this new legislation uh, forthcoming. Another one uh that again is is somewhat related um in regards to vaccinations andor immunizations. Um uh conscientious exemptions are going to be much easier to file. Um and so um like I say, we're going to be working with our uh school nurses um and of course health department with House Bill uh 1586. It um really allows parents to uh download the form from the uh Texas Department State Health Services website and fill out the form and makes it makes it much easier uh to uh file the exemption um for vaccination purposes. Um now I'll jump into uh obviously uh really more pertinent uh bills. Uh we're going to jump into
013House Bill Two now that it's been signed by the governor as of last week. Uh which is again the the big school funding bill. Um but before we get there, uh just as a reminder, House Bill 2 is a pretty large pretty large piece of school finance. Uh it does include Senate Bill 568, uh which is an infusion also to support special education uh funding. Um, I know that one of the questions that has been asked is there's a a piece that um requires or uh provides funding for additional uh testing uh and identification of special education students which uh through the child find process. We are required legally uh through childfind to test students whether they're in attendance or will be attending uh north side schools uh in the future. So that doesn't really
014uh change a whole lot. And Megan, before I forget, do you remember the amount of funds that we will receive as a result of the uh additional special ed for the evaluation is $1,000 peration per student and we do about 400 a year. And so that's but that's incorporated into House Bill 2, which we can dive into a little bit more uh detail here momentarily. Uh in regards to assessments and accountabilities, House Bill 4 uh which we felt like had uh tremendous promise uh died and it died in in conference committee. Uh this was the accountability slashstar um reform legislation. Uh the idea was to move more towards a um a nationally assessment system uh like that that we already use with NWA MAP. Um, like I say, the bill I won't uh belabor, but
015the bill went to conference committee and then it didn't make it out of out of conference committee. So, no accountability, no uh testing reform. We will be continuing to navigate the star assessment system and the accountability system that is in desperately need of repair. So, uh, at least for the next two years, unless, uh, it's, um, deemed to call a the governor's, uh, deemed to call a special session, uh, at which this could be an item that would be called, uh, for the legislators to address. I don't sense that at this point. I don't I'm not hearing that there's going to be a call for a special session. Um, so, House Bill 4 uh did not make it. um uh vouchers. Uh this was Senate Bill 2. Uh obviously it did pass. Uh it will
016go into effect uh for the 2627 school year. It allocates 1 billion uh uh for the next uh or upcoming not this school year but the following school year. So the second school year of the bianium. Uh it's actually projected by legislators themselves uh by 2030 to cost about $4 billion uh to implement fully implement. Um so not too distant into the future you can see how this particular program is anticipated uh to to grow. Uh property taxes. Uh this is an important one because it is related to House Bill 2, particularly as we were looking at model runs. uh it increased the homestead exemption from 100,000 to 140,000. It also increased uh for those 65 or older or with disabilities from 110,000 to 200 uh,000. The reason that this is important is obviously as
017we look at property tax collections and we look at sustainability. In fact, I was just having a conversation with our tax attorneys this morning about this particular piece of legislation. um you know, how how do we sustain this even though it's part of the base budget uh that was obviously approved and passed by the legislators in the 89th legislative session. What does the sustainability look like going forward? Um election reform. I know we've talked a little bit about uh the idea of moving everything schoolboard elections as well as vaders uh to a uniform November election uh date. that did not pass. Um so uh no movement in regards to bond vader elections or uh TR a tax ratification election andor um a uniform board election uh movement. House Bill six refers to uh really a
018student discipline school discipline uh overhaul. One of the things that it did provide is it allows now for uh an extended uh inschool suspension as well as a virtual DAP. Um so uh as we're looking at uh the future of programming just put this on your radar that that is an option to move to a virtual DAP um to to serve students that like I say are put in into a discipline alternative education environment. Um, I'll jump down to um House Bill 20. That's a revamp of CTE programming. Um, it's really designed to focus on rural areas to provide students technical opportunities uh through higher education institutions, which you can imagine are kind of scarce. Um but um there are going to be some additional programs such as applied science pathways uh some additional dual
019credit uh pathways that um particularly in the in the industries of high demand to include plumbing, electrical, welding, construction management, robotics, automation. So, these are going to be programs, like I say, that we're also going to keep a close watchful eye on because we've got such a robust working relationship with Alamo Colleges that I think, like I say, we might also be able to take advantage uh of this piece of legislation. Um, this one's going to be interesting. Senate Bill 1191. Um, this is going to require the Commissioner of Education uh to develop a uniform formula for determining a high school students grade point average. um this did pass. So how this is going to be phased in is going to be really important to to watch. I anticipate that they will they will have
020to uh formulate a plan to phase it in with an incoming seventh then eighth grade class um that would then metriculate uh each year through high school. Um, and the reason I I say this is because a lot of it's going to be in the rule making uh process. Um, we have, as you well know, high school students that are taking accelerated classes, i.e. math courses in their seventh grade year uh that count towards the high school uh GPA. So, so that did pass uh Senate Bill 1191. Uh we will be moving towards like I say a a uniform GPA uh calculation across the across the state. Um, Senate Bill uh, excuse me, House Bill 121. Uh, this pertains to student safety. Um, uh, and House Bill 260. Uh, it raises the allotment from $10
021to $20 per student. Um, and campuses will now receive uh, $33,540 per campus. So, it was an increase um, like I say to the school safety uh, aotment, which I know is one that we were closely tracking and watching. Um it's kind of um uh interesting. It it's really embedded in House Bill 2 as well. So again, when we talk about a $10 to $20 student a lotment, I don't I don't want to again overpromise. I mean, it it's helpful, but it's still not going to cover our school safety uh cost that we allocate. Uh and you'll see in the budget. Um um let's see. the Senate Bill 25 uh no longer uh can the restriction of PE andor recess for disciplinary purposes be applied. So um no more suspending students from recess or participation
022in in PE. Um I'm sitting here I shouldn't disclose this but I'm thinking about my first and second grade years and this this I could have written this legislation. I think um House Bill 401, this is one uh definitely need to put on uh the radar. So, House Bill 401 now requires school boards to formally uh opt out uh of allowing homeschool students uh to participate in extracurricular activities. So, if you recall, we we we're going the opposite direction now. uh it was school boards would opt in, now it's opt out. Uh and there will have to be policy uh considered and approved by September 1 of 2025. So, as you can see, the uh clock is ticking. Ry, I know, was already in the works of uh looking at this from a like say
023a policy and then of course a first and second reading. But um it's kind of shifted the the burden on again from opting in to opting out uh as a result of board action. Um and again that's that's House Bill 401 401. Um Senate Bill 12 uh eliminates uh DI. Um, and uh, there's a lot, like I say, in this bill, but basically it prohibits uh, diversity, equity, inclusion efforts in public schools, prohibits schools and employees from uh, helping a student. Um, especially one that is uh, described as socially transitioning. It prohibits districts from and employees, contractors, or volunteers from engaging in DIIE or assigning DEI uh duties. Um and so again, that's um a big that was a pretty hot one as well uh with Senate Bill 12. Uh along that same lines, Senate
024Bill 13 uh gives school boards, and this is a library uh book bill. It gives school boards the final say over what materials are allowed in libraries. Um it creates a framework uh for these books that are deemed to be removed to do so. Um and then it uh really can allow school boards to delegate responsibility of approving the banning of books uh to a local school advisory council. And so, uh, if 50 parents, um, or 10% of the district, whichever is less, sign a petition, uh, to, um, request that that, uh, local advisory council be established. Uh, that's what the that's what the bill, uh, provides. Um, Ten Commandments. Uh this is one that also I anticipate uh as has been in other states uh the posting of the Ten Commandments under Senate Bill
02510 uh requires uh at least a 16x 20 in poster uh again for uh every classroom for the Ten Commandments uh to be posted. Uh I anticipate this will be legally challenged. Um and our print shop has already been contacted. uh we have the ability to print these posters, but I've asked Megan to just let's slow down on on the printing of these posters. One, it's an unfunded mandate. Um but two, like I say, I anticipate that there will be uh some significant uh legal challenges similar to what Louisiana just um um had struck down in federal court. Um, Senate Bill 11. Uh, this also, uh, requires that school boards take a record vote by March 1 of 2026 on whether or not to adopt a policy requiring every campus or school, uh, to provide
026uh, students and employees opportunity uh, to participate in a period of prayer andor reading the Bible or their religious uh, text each school day. Um, so that's again uh a policy uh matter that will need to be addressed by March 1 of of 26. Um, so a little bit less than a year. Um, other one what I really want to just mention is the school district liability with House Bill 4623. Uh as far as governmental immunity, uh if it is deemed that there is a uh grossly negligent, reckless situation uh involving uh intentional misconduct and or deliberate indifference by an adult uh andor adults, uh the district can be held liable. Whereas, like I say, there was uh governmental immunity, Texas TOR Claims Act, etc. Well, this law kind of really changes that to some
027degree. It will obviously have to be demonstrated uh that it was reckless and deliberately indifferent um by the district's uh action or lack thereof. But um but that one, like I say, uh House Bill 4623 uh does create, like I say, a litmus test or to some degree some exposure um that we'll continue to obviously be diligent protecting students uh regardless. But um like I say um just to put on your radar. Uh there there are others. Um but uh that's those are the big ones. Okay. I think I have a we have Miss Apata and then question. Oh, okay. Miss Freeman back to the bill. I'm sorry. governmental immunity. So, the board itself has some immunity because there's instances where people will sue the district and then sue each board member individually. Will that
028affect any of that? Yeah, that's a good question. And and again, this is the past legislation. So, once we see it put into the education code and then of course the application, um more to come. Um, and no, I'm sorry. This is for sexual misconduct related uh activity. Yeah, very specifically sexual misconduct. But even if even if there was an allegation in the in the district, sometimes again the suing the district and then individual board members and in the past we had immunity for that. Yeah. So this again if it's deemed to be reckless and andor uh through the uh administration of the investigation and then um actions uh that that either were taken or not taken probably more not taken the district can be liable in essence. So, um, that's everything outside of or
029a lot what's outside of House Bill Two. House Bill Two was the, uh, highly anticipated school finance bill that, um, how do I describe House Bill Two? Um, I guess you I think that there were initially good intentions. Um, and then we have what we have in House Bill 2. And that's about the best way I can describe it. Um, it does provide for a much needed and again I will say applauded teacher pay raise. It does very little uh outside of that. Um, and so now that this is like I say been engrossed uh we are prepared and and uh from the previous meeting as you recall it hadn't quite been hashed out. In fact, there were still some questions in regards to the special program aotments and the funding associated that we were
030uh working to answer a lot of questions ourselves. But actually to Megan and her team's credit, I mean what they had run and modeled was really very very close to being spot-on. Uh even though we didn't have a lot of the details um other than just the the bill language itself at that time. So um so again for North Side ISD teachers and we'll operationally define teachers because that's become obvious also very very clear. Uh three and four years of experience a $2,500 pay raise. Uh five years or greater a $5,000 pay increase. And then beyond that um the additional compensation uh for classification of employees outside of in essence um the classified teachers or operationally defined classified teachers uh it's going to generate or equates to about a 1.28% general pay increase. And that's
031that's what's in House Bill 2. Um now, uh there are program aotments and there's uh some real specific direction as to how you will spend uh the remainder of these um allotments that we'll uh speak more in detail uh to especially those that were already spending more than the required spending allocation or or aotment. Um, but a teacher pay raise, very minimal uh support uh uh classified employee pay raise. Um, that's about it. So, Megan, thank you, sir. So, I think he's covered the majority of my presentation, but we'll go through it anyway. Uh so uh these are the items on the screen are the big items that are part of school finance under House Bill 2. House Bill 2, I've got this presentation in front of me. There is a lot more to House
032Bill 2 than school finance. Uh there are things that touch on school finance that we're not going to talk about tonight, but there are teacher prep programs. There are a lot of a lot of different things going on within House Bill 2 that we'll get to as we talk uh and uncover more of what is being passed through the legislative session. Tonight, we're going to totally focus on the school finance pieces within the bill. So, you've probably heard that the basic aotment does increase under House Bill 2 by $55, but that $55 increase is taken out of our tier 2 funding. So, our net funding doesn't increase based on that basic aotment. Uh what it does do is to add a little bit more money in some of the special allocations like special ed, bilingual,
033things like that because it's tied to the basic aotment, but it takes it out on that tier 2 side, which is the additional tax um revenue side of the formula. So, it's a trade-off. Uh it's not new money as I put on this slide. We have compensation increases that are uh covered within this calculation for everyone other than non-administrators as an option. We'll talk through that in detail. We do have a new allotment. So, our real new money is in this aotment for basic cost and they call it the ABC all aotment and a lotment for basic cost. And that's $106 per student enrolled, which equates to $10 million for us. So, that is a significant new money. That is the new money that we get from this. Unfortunately, we will need it to pay
034for some of the cost of the pay increases, and we'll go through that here in a moment. And it also repeals the spending requirement. For those of you that are not new board members, you remember a couple of months ago we talked about the spending requirements for the different allocations. State comped is one of those where you had to spend 55% of that allocation directly of students that are at risk. They've repealed that 55% requirement. So it's zero. So it's actually uh in the law it takes away any spending requirement specifically for at risk students which allows us f flexibility and in theory would free up some money to be spend in other ways other than we still need to serve the students uh that need those additional interventions with that that are were provided
035with that money. Um so we'll be working to see if that actually frees money or not. It does sound good, but we I don't know that it actually allows us to spend less money on that. So, we'll be working on that over the next few months as we work through that. So, those are the big changes and then we'll go through some details. So, to remind you, the the top part of this slide are our existing aotments that we have had for many years now uh that are continuing forward under House Bill 2. And on the bottom are our new a lotments. So, we'll talk about those. There is a new a lotment, as Dr. craft said for special education evaluations that is $1,000 per evaluation. This is new, so we don't know how we
036find how TA determines how many evaluations we're doing. So, I'm assuming there will be a database where we submit and we get reimbursed that $1,000, but that is remains to be seen, but that is new. And we do spend between about $200 to about $1,100 per evaluation currently. So depending on the the complexity of that evaluation. So that is good news and and will help us offset some of those costs. The early literacy intervention aotment we currently if you look at the top we have an early education aotment on that left-hand side right above college career military readiness. They're taking the early education aotment, scaling it down tremendously, pulling back the remaining funding from that aotment, and then reallocating it to districts under this early literacy aotment. So again, the early education aotment, we were
037already meeting the spending requirements, which were 100% of that funds. So, we're already spending money there to do good things for students in the classroom that now we will either need to change, repeal what we're spending it on to meet the new requirements that would be the early literacy aotment um or use some of this ABC money to to cover those requirements under that. So, again, it's not new money. It's taking money out of a a previous aotment which takes away flexibility because we were already spending that. So, more to come on that. Yes, ma'am. So, those existing a lotments, they're staying. They're staying, but maybe at a different amount. Okay. So, for example, the early education, I believe, um, let me see if I brought the run with me. May look at Tiffany and
038and Jake and Julie. Um, early education, I think in the past, I do have it with me. So, if you'll hold for just a moment. I think the early education we were receiving in the previous um, models that we were running about 10.8 8 million. It is um actually it's going to stay it looks like it's going to stay a little pretty flat right now. So that may be okay as we get those calculations through us and then the early literacy will only give us about $600,000 more. So but so depending on where our numbers come out it may actually be okay but it's it's not significant money. 600,000 for the early literacy is not doing a lot for us. Uh the support staff a lotment we're going to spend. Oh yes ma'am. We have
039a question Mrs. Freeman. So back to that some of some of that um money we can actually use as a supplant to the existing is that did if you we're going to cover that in just a moment. Yes ma'am. Yes, great question though. Um support staff a lotment we're going to spend some time on here in a moment and the teacher retention aotment we're going to spend time on too. So I'm going to go pretty quick. And then that allotment for basic costs that I've been talking about. So here's your supplanning information. So I wanted to cover real quickly how can this help our budget deficit. So that's a focus of ours. So we have new funding in the salary increases that we'll talk about in detail. That aotment for basis costs which is about
040$10 million for us. And then there are some additional funding for previously um provided unfunded mandates. For example, the school safety aotment that Dr. Craft talked about. So that additional amount that we're going to receive per student and per ADA, we are already spending much more than even the new amount by providing the officers at schools, um the SPAT alarms, the silent panic alert alert technology, things like that. So we will be able to supplant this new funding and that will free up money to be able to cover some of our deficit. So Jake and Julie and Tiffany were all working together to try to figure out what that supplanting will be and we hope to have u more information for you at the 24th board meeting. Uh it is a lot of detail and
041a lot of unanswered questions right now and we don't want to give you bad information. So and I'll go through some of those unanswered question items as we go through here too. So there will be some of that and I did a basic definition of supplanting. Um, typically when you think of supplanting, you think of federal money where you say you are supplementing funds and you can't supplant. So when you receive federal funds, you're doing things on top of what we have done at the local level. So it's federal money that would give you the ability to provide more in-depth items. So planning is where you would take that additional funding that you just have and replace some funding you otherwise had and therefore freeing up money. Think of it as a shell game. You're
042taking it out of one hand, putting in the other one. So now you've got it freed up in the other hand. So we are working on that of how much are we supplanting, there will be some. Uh we just aren't comfortable enough to bring you to a dollar amount yet. So when we talk about new money, um while we don't get a tremendous amount of new money, we're hoping that we can free up some through that suppl. We want to cover the budget assumptions that we're going to be using for this year's budget as we come to you. And we've worked with our different teams on this um these assumptions. So as you look across uh from the left to the right you have our 232 24 school year final numbers that were reported through
043PS and have been released through various entities the taper report for example the 2425 which we are finalizing now and will be submitted with our summer PE submission here very soon in about 10 days and so we will be getting that final numbers but these are what we're estimating them at right now for 2425 and then based on that and our projection that we've seen so far what we are currently ly using and we'll expect to use through our budget planning process as estimates for the upcoming school year. So you can see the trend of the refined ADA uh which is what we normally call ADA. So when you hear us say ADA refined is usually what we're talking about. So refined average daily attendance. That's using a roughly a 93 94% um attendance off
044of our um membership. So the second line is membership and you can see the attendance percentage below that. The district had a huge push from the 2023 24 school year to increase that attendance rate and you can see it actually worked. It went from 32 point 93.2% to 93.5%. While that doesn't that point three doesn't look significant, it is when it's talking about our funding in a large district. So that's an important percentage that gets multiplied by the membership to get to that refined ADA. And then our regular program ADA is a calculation that TEA uses on many of our aotments that takes out the special ed ADA and takes out the CTE ADA. And that will be important in a moment. So I wanted to make sure I showed that to you. So you
045can see that we are using 91,000 as our ADA when we do our calculations and a membership of 973 and showing the trend line so you understand how we re got there. Do you have any questions on those calculations? You will see these a lot, these numbers a lot as we start bringing the detailed budget information. So I wanted you to have those now. Okay, now we're going to get back into the legislative update. Uh so House Bill 2, the aotment for basic cost. This is $106 per enrollment. So if you go back to that previous slide, that is the um roughly the membership number 97,300. So that's how we get to the 10 million um dollar amount is those calculations. The aotment for basic cost in the law can be used for the items
046that are listed here. The one we're going to focus on tonight is the third one providing health insurance and employee benefits for paying of um for paying payroll taxes. And that becomes important based on these a lotments that we have here in a moment. It can also be used to supplant uh costs that we've already been paying. Transportation, for example, we get paid reimbured a dollar amount per mile for transportation. and it does not come close to covering our costs for transportation. Similar for utilities and property and casualty insurance, we do not receive any funding directly for those. So now this can be used for that. So this would be a big supplanting piece for us. Any questions on that? And get into the teacher um retention aotment item. So, under the law, uh the
047we will be providing pay increases for teachers with three or more years of experience depending on the size of the district. Because we are a large district, more than 5,000 students is how that's defined under this bill. The teachers will receive a $2,500 pay increase if they are a teacher with a years of experience of three to four years and 5,000 if it's more than five years of experience. The definition of a classroom teacher under this bill is an educator who teaches in an instructional setting not less than an average of four hours per day. So what does that mean for us? Um in the past we have had or currently I should say we have teachers who are certified as a classroom teacher that are now an instructional coach. This does not apply to
048those individuals. That's a big difference. Yes, ma'am. Mr. B. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, two quick questions. Um, do you remember or recall what percentage of our new teachers are less than three years? That's a great question. Okay. And one of the one of the things that we have not had clarification yet that's not defined in the bill. So, we're going to have to have rule making or the commissioner come out is does this apply to teachers who transfer from district to district? Does it apply to teachers that come from out of state? Does it apply for teachers that came from a private school? We do not have those answers yet. So, unfortunately, I'm not able I'm not able to answer percentage. I can get you that, but I can answer. Yeah. Let's let us come
049back. For some reason, I wanted and please don't quote me on this, but I want to say it was it was between 40 and 45% being zero to three years of experience, right? That number has increasingly uh gone up over the last uh several years. Again, I know that just based on numbers that we were looking at earlier uh today, we're we're trending right along the same glide path that we were with retirements, resignations last year and even in 2023. So, I anticipate that we'll probably be hiring somewhere between 700 to 800 new teachers again. Um, like I say, just looking at trend lines. And I say that it may not be quite that many just depending on again vacancies and particularly as we're working to to balance and um uh allocate u uh FTEEs
050based upon our new staffing uh guidelines, but it'll be close and and so I let us bring you back a percent. I think it's about 40 to 45% of volume. Okay, good. Thank you. And and then just one more. I do apologize to our president and to our board members. I do have to leave a little bit early, but I do want to uh leave one comment or concern when I see everything. Um is this emphasis of non-administration know I understand why etc. But I I think at least from our district standpoint despite what the state's doing, we have to sort of be careful because we do value and know the importance of what administration does and the challenges etc. So that's my only concern because if you talk to the other group, we're all
051going to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." But when you look at the state, you know, that's a that's a very big concern. So hopefully we don't we're careful in our messaging on that particular part. Okay, good. And thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. So, and it will not answer the question specifically, but we have currently about 650 teachers that are in the 3 to fouryear range of teaching. So 650 of the 5,800 that will qualify for this and we'll show that here in a moment. Okay. So that's the the details of the teacher retention a lotment. We'll go through a calculation here in a few moments after we go through the others. So the support staff aotment is a salary increase for the non-administrative um staff. And you can see at the top here who
052who would be in this group. I want to back off and um explain how this is calculated. It's $45 um per adjusted average attendance of student. So that is what we've talked about earlier where you take out the special ed students, you take out the CTE students, that remaining number of students, you multiply that by $45, it's roughly $3.6 million for us is that calculation that would be used for support staff. The law does not require us to use this for any specific staff. It cannot be used for administrators though. So we could go in and say we're going to give all of this to fund the remaining um year one and two teachers that were not covered under the previous teacher retention a lotment. Uh in previous bills, House Bill three, the payraises for
053teachers also covered librarians, nurses, and counselors. The teacher retention does not. So we could choose to use that for that group of employees because it is not covered under that the previously looked at bill. So what I've covered here at the top are the areas that I would recommend that we cover. This is basically all other employees other than administrators. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Freeman. Thank you. Um, so where do people like in our high schools we have academic deans who are part of our administrative staff that doesn't they're they're in that bottom category they would be considered an assistant principal principal. So they're in the bottom that is not covered. Yes. And all of those other people that we have at the Yeah. And again I think it's I think it's really important uh to
054Mr. Blunt's point, this is what the legislature has designed. Not even designed, prescribed. So again when I'm not again over the moon this is what was prescribed very specifically and the teachers with three and four years of experience uh five years of experience uh that delineation and then I remember very clearly as it was proposed just a few weeks ago it was $500 million uh for the entire state of Texas uh for this additional compensation that districts can use to oh by the way pick up the TRS and benefits uh that are going to be required uh which we'll jump into here in just a minute but but so so it's really we're going to prescribe a pay raise but then you're going to figure out how to pay the TRS and benefits that are
055associated with with this carve out. Um and again this this is what is very clearly outlined in House Bill 2. This is not a district design compensation plan nor uh budgetary planning. Is that $45 for how? For the year for the month pay period. It's for the for the one year for the fiscal year. Whole year. Yes. $45. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Oh, M. Mrs. Breeman, thank you. One more question. So, when it says, so the $45 adjusted average does not include CTE. So, how do you define? So, I know what CTE classes are, but how do you find a student that is CTE? How they're weighted. So uh at the secondary level uh if they're uh say in an a mechanic class uh for that particular there's a there is a coding associated with that
056particular class and that particular student that generates whatever the CTE weight associated with that class is that then goes into the formula funding. So all of their classes together make some sort of that's correct. But in this particular case, the we're saying is the CTE, this uh special ed, which is an additional weight, won't be factored into the calculation. Does that make sense? Well, what I guess what it sounds like is they don't value our CTE kids aren't as valued as our other students by this particular formula with this particular carveout. That that's a that's a very fair assumption. why they did that. Affordability. Many of the things that we looked at in the bills that were proposed and passed is they the legislature had a pot of money and they were figuring out how
057to spend that pot of money. So, how do you back into that calculation? Similar to how we're backing into the GPI that I'll show you in a moment. Uh I want to show you on this this slide that regular program ADA which is defined um down actually we did not define that we work on defining that one too at the bottom but that 81,397 is what you multiply by the $45. So on the right hand side the very bottom they could have they could have just as easily said any kid in fine arts or I mean I I just it's just odd that you select CTE the CTE weight for example. Do you have do you know right off the top of your head? Jake probably has it. Jake, this will kind of give you
058at least an idea. I want I want to say it's like 1.16 contact hours too. I believe the um the CP. So while he's looking that up, I do want to point out on the very bottom line here the employee and a centralized supervisory role. That is one we don't have a definition for. And so when you read that employee in a centralized supervisory role, that could be a it could be a whole host of people. It could be um I'm big on Jake. It could be Jake. It could be which we're counting him as one here um because he's the supervisor of the budgetary services department. It could be a school nutrition lead supervisor that's over say five schools. Um what what is a supervisor in a centralized role? We don't know how to
059define that. The law does not define that yet. So, that's a concern of ours is we don't want to go too far on this um without knowing that because we don't want to miscalculate the GPI that we're backing into without knowing that number for sure. So, I want to make sure you're aware of that that we're waiting for clarification under the rule making on how do you define that bottom line item from us because they specifically list assistant principal in the law. That tells me they are wanting to go several steps into the supervisory role rather than just a a what I would consider a administrator under a previous law. Yeah. And I think that it's also important to note that as a result of this being very specifically prescribed, we're going to start wrestling
060with uh classification uh compression in our salary schedule uh really quickly. And what I mean by that is is that when you start looking at um uh test appraisers and supervisory responsibilities, but then um other classifications and I'm just again I'll use the assistant principal and an experienced teacher that's going to now receive this compensation which again absolutely warranted but then you layer in a TIA payment, you're going to start to see some significant either compression and or um um this order. Um so so that's also a piece of this that we're going to have to work through um uh as the compensation that like I say is being outlined uh will be implemented. Jake, do you have the weight for the CT? CTE ranges from 1.1 to about 1 depending on that for special
0611.15. So it's a 1.1 to a 1.5 off of a a student that's not in any of those special programs is a 1.0 weight. So 10% to 50% more. So it's a it's a multiplier. But in this particular aotment allocation, the multiplier is nullified. It's an affordability. It's a budgetary mechanic. Any other questions on what is a classification allowed and unallowed. So now we're going to look at the actual calculations. So you can see how we're doing that as the estimate. So this is the calculation for the teacher retention aotment. Uh again this is a flow through. So determining um the numbers is not as critical for the allocation because we will somehow turn in who qualifies for this and who doesn't uh that would be audited. But my bigger concern of figuring out who
062is in this pot of money compared to the other pot is the second pot making sure we get that closer to right because we're going to back into that GBI for that amount. So, we've worked very hard at that and we have um been we have um determined that there are roughly 650 teachers that are with us that are three to four years of experience that would be moving into three to four years of experience that would qualify for the $2,500 which is 1.5 million. And then of the five years plus that is 5,150 teachers uh for a total of 25.9. So the total teacher retent retention aotment estimate is 27.4 million. Again, we talked about that the benefits cost related to that increase is not covered in the teacher retention aotment, but can come
063out of the a lotment for basic cost. That is another $3 million. Those are things for like the above state minimum that we pay for teachers. Uh that's why this is such a large dollar amount for that. So that $3 million that would be required for the district to fund is not covered under this aotment. Then we'll look at the support staff calculation. Again, what we did here is we looked at the $45 per adjusted ADA times the estimate of the adjusted DA of the 81,397 that we talked a moment ago. That is $3.66 million is the calculation. So, we took that $3.66 million, looked at the different positions to come up with a GPI percentage general pay increase across the board. what would that cover for all employees? So, in that calculation, uh that
064would be 1,900 employees that would qualify under the um professional support salary schedules. Like basically, these are employees that were at one point on a teacher salary schedule. And so that's why they're on a salary schedule. So those are the coaches and the nurses, librarians, counselors that were previously under that teacher schedule. That would be 1.4 million. And then for all other employees on a midpoint schedule which includes all of our auxiliary um employees and central office professional employees and auxiliary employees our 4,800 employees that's 2.3 million coming to the total that is roughly the same as that aotment the 3.7 million. So 3.66 rounds up to the 3.7 million. The benefits cost on that is 300,000. It's lower because we don't have the above state men piece of the TRS, but we do have
065the other TRS pieces, but still 300,000 out of that that would not be covered. Um, and still roughly 10% just like the the other pay raise um that you saw on the previous slide. So then we're going to look from that calculation and look at the items that were not covered under the two aotments. And so if the board chose to apply that same general pay increase of the 1.28% to 8% um off the midpoint for the administrators that we estimated at 500. Uh so the cost there adding in the 3 million and 3000,000 for the benefits cost from the other two a lotments that can't be paid for through the aotments and adding all of that together if if the board chooses that 3.97 million could come out of that aotment for basic cost
066that I told you estimated about $10 million. So then we'd have about six million remaining to help with our deficit. And that is our presentation for this. Sorry, say that again. Six million. Six million. So roughly 10 million is the aotment for the aotment for basic cost and that's four million. So So that's what we got left, right? Yes, ma'am. Before we start doing supplanting, we still need to work through the supplanting piece. And that is our presentation for this evening for discussion. So when asked House Bill two um what is the impact um you know to North Side and to other uh public education K12 uh districts it's scale obviously um but that's the impact um and when this was like I say uh presented a couple weeks ago it it was about what
067we had anticipated. Um I know that other districts, one in particular, um in the central Texas region, uh Leander approved and I believe they're a fiscal year, uh July 1. So, uh those that are on a July fiscal year are having to move and work pretty pretty quickly right now. Um a 1% general pay increase, which was basically what was prescribed in additional funding. There are It's kind of interesting. Uh there are um 10 districts and I think I may have mentioned this at our last meeting. There are actually 10 districts that as a result of House Bill two through the model runs um are actually it's actually costing the districts to implement um and not as a result of a loss of enrollment but really as a function of how the formulas and uh
068calculation and for in fact one uh that's very close to us uh is um at a loss of a little over a million dollars as a result of modeling House Bill 2 as legislated. It's kind of interesting. Now the question there becomes well does through rulemaking does the commissioner have the ability to keep the districts that are uh losing uh outside of a loss of student enrollment whole in essence or or even um and to be determined. So that's your $ 8.5 billion investment in public education. dropped the mic. So, more to come. Uh we'll need to bring forward compensation uh at the next uh to the next meeting. Um at this point, I mean, I I don't think that there's really any need to um disguise it. I mean, we're going to work to
069um provide a general pay increase that is in relation to what was just presented tonight. We'll have to uh scrub a little bit more. I think one of the questions is again uh the classification of employees that fall outside of the uh basic cost aotment, ABC allotment. um you know, do we want to try to um find the $4 million to implement it along with the 1.28% general pay increase uh for other employees? The teacher uh compensation piece is, like I say, it's it's it's very scripted. I mean, it's $2,500 for three and four and um $5,000 for five years and up. So we'll have that uh ready to uh present propose. Um and then it just it boils down to affordability. So and then we'll uh be on our way to uh putting some
070of the final touches on the budget. Like I say, there's still a lot to uh unravel with uh the special program aotments. Um again, what are our required spending um uh thresholds and so uh we will uh work here in the next couple of weeks to uh 24th to be able to bring that uh to you so that you can also see a larger picture as to how are we coming with a more um u closely uh balanced uh budget proposal. uh because this is one aspect and now that you know again we have these variables more clearly defined and and really what's prescribed outlined in house bill 2 once we have the compensation piece of course we have our budget assumptions in and around ADA uh we'll have uh preliminary taxable values that we'll
071be uh factoring in um and then like I say what funds are able to be supplanted and then you'll start to see where are we in the red I anticipate will will still be in the red. Um, a lot of work has been put in and a lot of effort and but the House Bill Two is not fixing our financial uh situation nor any other school district that I've had the opportunity to visit with. Not not by a long shot. So, more to come. I do have one question, Mrs. Freeman. Thank you. So, how did they get around when they started talking about these salary increases um for teachers? How are they going to commit subsequent legislatures to continue this? How do how does that work? Because they I don't remember that they've done that
072in the past. Well, they had Yeah, that's a great great great question. Um and Megan and I were just discussing it. I want to say it was 2019. And uh it allowed the flexibility for districts. Uh there were some there were some some guard rails. There were some thresholds that had to be met, but it allowed districts to uh basically create a salary schedule uh for teachers and it was a percent that had to go towards compensation as I recall, but not to the level that this is being uh defined. The short answer to the question is that once it's embedded and built into a salary schedule. So, uh, our starting teacher, well, it won't be our starting, it'll be years three and four and then five and greater. Once that is built, um, it
073becomes now an assumption in perpetuity going going forward. I think that what what is concerning about it is from a sustainability standpoint is if we experience what we experienced again in the 2011 2012 uh time frame where uh 4.5 billion dollars are being cut from public education as a result of uh oil and gas production slowing down andor uh uh sales tax revenue. it's going to hurt uh because it is no longer sustainable at that point. So, so the short answer is as as long as the state uh can provide uh sustainable funding within the next 90th legislative session and the state of Texas uh economically continues to do continues to perform. I mean the intent will be to sustain the level of funding where uh it is in this proposed budget but if that
074financial forecast situation changes then to your point it is no longer sustainable. Will districts still be committed and on the hook of implementing what was just passed in House Bill 2? The answer short answer is yes. Now how that that's again we don't have to look very far back in history. That's exactly what transpired in 2011. Um, and and again, it's just a matter of prioritization and programming and personnel. I mean, that that's really that's what every school district was wrestling with and is wrestling with even right now for the most part. So, it's hard to um it's hard to make this promise that we we trust and they're going to they're going to be able to deliver on the required payraises for years and years to come. really all depends on how economically this
075the financially this the state is doing and some other variables, property values, growth, whether or not there's going to be additional homestead exemptions, um increases, I mean there there's other variables, but a lot of it is contingent upon oil and gas and sales tax. Thank you. And I want to make sure the board knows also uh our board had asked us to start putting our presentations on the district website. You can find all of those now on the district financial transparency website. We'll load this one uh tomorrow. So each time as we give a presentation the next day, we will load it so that you can see those. But the last three are loaded there now. All right. So, now we're moving on to u agenda item number three and that's for the superintendent. Yes,
076ma'am. U so uh we're looking at the team of eight training. Uh I had the opportunity uh actually to visit this morning with an individual former superintendent uh uh regional service uh executive director, field service agent uh that is a TASBY certified um uh trainer uh for team of eight. A few things that just wanted to mention uh that were some items that we had previously discussed in trying to accomplish with this particular team of eight training is we need to look at goals and our goal setting process. Um I know that facility naming was also one that we had discussed in regards to looking at our policy but uh probably as important procedurally how we want to take nominations uh if we want to formulate a committee we just what that whole process entails
077and looking at naming of of facilities. Uh this is also an opportunity opportunity or can be an opportunity to review our board operating procedures. uh and in association with that is the uh board code of ethics. So we wanted to have this conversation as we're looking to prepare that agenda and Monica I believe we've got the date uh July 30th July 30th. Thank you. Um we we try to prepare like I say an agenda for it's it's a required three-hour um C credit training but um if there are other topics uh like I say this is really an opportunity uh for the board to discuss and we'll work to put together the agenda and have supporting information prepared. So something that I hadn't seen in since we were on boarded myself and David was maybe
078really like team building. So I don't know we can do just a little bit of that just to kind of build some rapport within the board. Um because that's usually the norm whenever you join a new team at any level is to kind of build that commodity with each other. So I'm hoping for something like that. Even if it's just 30 minutes it's the start. Yep. Because most of these are driven by like tasks, right? So I want to build our relationships with each other and we work very closely together. So those are important. Something we can embed. I think we absolutely can. Mrs. Freeman. Yeah. Um so have we decided to use a facilitator because in the past we haven't. We haven't. Yeah. I I I think this would be a great opportunity and
079um it's Dr. Tom Norris. Um, like I say, he's done a lot of team building. Um, he can definitely incorporate, like I say, a 30 minute uh team building exercise, consensus building. Um, and then we can jump into, like I say, the other items. Um, and I say it's a three-hour training. It it can be longer. Um, and it may need to be a continuation, particularly into a policy meeting, uh, with facility naming, etc. But um it's it's really up to the board. Um I I I know Dr. Norris well and he's he's done great. I mean he's very very effective uh at this this particular type of training and and I'll also say this the process absolutely right. Basically a meal and probably some mileage. Does anyone else have any comments on that? Any
080ideas? If it's free, a meal, I'll buy the meal. Chick-fil-A Davidson. What? One other topic. And I don't know where this goes. I guess it perhaps it depends on where we put our Eiso training at. Oh, thank you. Where we are with um goal setting. Yep. board superintendent goals in the past. It's really difficult to get through even board operating procedures and code of ethics and and one but um uh our our marketing plan since we have um we've talked about additional marketing with how we've talked about open enrollment and our marketing presentation that we had a couple I don't know maybe it's a couple months ago I can't remember but where we you know updates as to where we are with that and maybe that fits into board superintendent goals, I don't know if
081it that I don't know if it fits there or if it fits in the the team of eight presentation, but since we're talking about more of a robust marketing plan that we've had. Yeah, I think it could fit into both actually. Um, and that reminds me, that's a great point with the ISO training. We have the ability Karen Aderman uh is also a certified ISO trainer. We could look to try to schedule the ISO training prior to the training with the team of eight on the 30th, which might be beneficial assuming that we've even got preliminary data, which I think we should. We um that that actually might be beneficial prior to going into the team of training. Uh if we can, like I say, and it and it'll be a requirement as well. So
082um so we can knock try to knock both out. It'd just be a matter of finding that date that uh we can all schedule three hours, right? It's a three-hour uh it's a three-hour training and it's a deep data dive. It's like a dayto day. Yeah. Data days and it doesn't necessarily have to be in that order, but I think it might be beneficial going into goal development to have that review, that ISO training in in that order. Okay. We'll have to find a time with each other. Let us start working. Monica, if you'll make a note, we'll start working on trying to find a a date that everybody can make it. Okay. So, uh marketing plan update uh particularly with the open enrollment. Um made that note. Yeah. I would like also like to
083see u our contracts with different uh third parties like um just and flash photography. Um is that a contract that renews every year? I mean who's in charge of that? Yeah, so uh Steve Daniel manages most of the contracts associated with graduation particularly the Alamo Dome. Uh, as far as flash photography, I I don't I think that's through probably the Alamo Dome. Is that okay? Okay. So, flash photography and just so they're three years. Do we know when the next term is or I guess we can get that data. They have two more years. So jobs have one more year contract for bid next. Yeah. And and that will go through building. Um no no that would we can it can go through finance. Uh if if you're in agreement I I guess my question
084though is when we look at contract renewal I mean the these are these are service contracts. So these companies flash and nor does we don't charge the district anything. It's the products that they provide to students and to families with uh graduate uh portraits. So there's no there's not a there's not a cost to the school district per se. It's a service rendered. So we don't make we don't make any money off off of that. Uh is there a is there any type of that we get back to the campuses, but nothing. Yeah, because I noticed they said they had made new medals for our parents to buy at extra cost. So, I'm just saying I mean, yeah, they're making a lot of money off of our kids. Oh, I Yeah, class rings, graduation regalia.
085Yeah, I mean, we can bring in the service contracts uh for review. I don't Are we talking about for team of eight training? I guess whenever we can discuss it, I mean Okay. Well, we can we can actually add this to a future agenda item if we need to. Okay. I don't know how it works in the team of eight training. Question mention they have metals from school. Yeah, I heard I heard snippets of the conversation. Miss Freeman. Yeah. So, I guess I wonder do is the does is it the will of the board to look at each individual contract that we have with our vendors because we don't get we normally don't get that specific. And so maybe the conversation goes to how interested is this board in reviewing all contracts such as that.
086Maybe we start, it would be my suggestion to start there rather than looking at individuals because what you're asking may be just a report and not it's ju it's just we've not been involved in that um at that level. Do you want to know like procedural you want to just understand the process for those other contracts? Okay. Or Mr. Salceto individually you you as the trustee as a trustee have access to any and all information. This is actually public information. So we we could just schedule time for you to come in and review them or or just a report. Yeah. Okay. Um then again on the 24th um agenda items that we have in the worst of course there'll be obviously another budget update. Um um we do have several items that will be discussed
087at the upcoming academic uh committee meeting tomorrow to include the staff development waiver, the professional learning uh plan. We'll have more uh school district teaching permits uh for your consideration under consent. Um, we anticipate that we'll have the interior colors for the uh baseball softball complex. Uh, there may be some change orders. Uh, we do need to also look at the optional flexible school day for the Chavez Excel Academy for next year, which I think is also going to be discussed at academics uh, tomorrow night, tomorrow evening. Um uh if we need a uh legislative update, particularly a Senate Bill 401 uh rule making is underway. This again is the one that would uh require the board to establish specific policy in regards to homeschool um uh participation in opting out. So, I will say
088this that I think it's pretty pretty safe to say just based on the correspondence that I've seen from UIL, Texas High School Coaches Association, uh there's going to be a strong recommendation for districts to go ahead and opt out of allowing homeschool uh athlete participation. There's a variety of reasons which I know we can bring in and discuss. There will be concerns in and around um uh one discipline matters um and and what that looks like uh particularly if the student is not enrolled in attending classes within the school during the school day. So like I say, we can have that conversation, but this might the 24th might be a good opportunity to um start that engagement. Um and then I anticipate um that we will be uh bringing forward numerous uh higher recommendations uh
089as we really get ready to prepare to start the school year. So one ends and next begins. [Music] That's the future agenda items. Um unless there's any other request. Okay. So, the board will now at this point convene into close session. Yes. Uh, in accordance with the Texas Government Code section 551.071 through 551.084, no action will be taken in close session and any decisions will be made when the board reconvenes into the open session. So, it is now 7:22 and we're going to be going into close session. So, let's start about 7:30. So the time is now 7:40 and we will convene in the open meeting uh open session. No action was taken in close session and regarding the agenda items discussed in close session. Is there a motion to come before the board? Dr.
090Duron. Um I move to approve the administrative appointments as discussed in executive session and Mr. Salceto's seconding that. Um all in favor say I. I. Any opposed. Okay. Um motion is passed and so the meeting it's now 7:41. And we have a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Okay. Dr. Mr. Salceto seconding that. And so that concludes our boarding motion has passed. So, our board meeting is now ending at 7:41 on June 10th.