001e good evening this is the call to the order of the Wednesday November the 6 policy committee meeting at 5:30 M Mrs sh could I get a roll call order pleas a roll call please yes Tom henkins here Amy Levy here Brian Nichols here all members of the committee are present thank you could I get an approval of the agenda so MO mov D is there a second I'll second discussion board member leevy thank you so much so I have a few items I just wanted to follow up on um my first question is is there a reason we're not reviewing policy in number sets um yes I thought I thought I just we just discussed that at the last meeting um I don't I don't see that that's always that always is necessary so
002um here we are okay awesome next question um at the October 2nd policy meeting is reflected in the minutes uh chair Knuckles you stated that the decision to leave policy 6721 purchasing bidding requirements on the agenda um and then move the rest of that set forward to the November me meeting um which was against the directive of the board but that's neither here nor there so I'm just wondering why those policies don't appear on this evening's agenda because that motion was um unanimously approved thank you um yes those will be on the December um meeting so I'm so so we're excuse me so this is the agenda so we're not going to get into a long discussion about what's not on the agenda this is it and the other items will be on future agendas
003well here's the thing I I have the right to ask questions about the agenda that's what the discussion on the agenda is for so my more specific question is it was a a motion that was unanimously approved by this committee you even voted for it so I'm unclear why you unilaterally decided that it wouldn't appear on the November um agend agenda as we all agreed to but you've decided to move it to December so if you could give me kind of the thought process behind that I'd appreciate it I felt better moving it to December okay so I just want to express my concern that the committee took a position unanimously and that was overruled um my final question is also at the October meeting I made the motion to postpone the review of policy
0043 45.6 graduation requirements and rules 1 through3 to the November 6 meeting um and then that also was voted on it was passed unanimously and that also does not appear on this agenda so I'm wondering is it the same thing you just decided to overrule the will of the committee no I have I have uh forward I've forwarded that to um to the uh tle committee for for discussion there before coming back so actually that would be a yes because again the motion was to postpone the review until the November 6 committee which you even voted for so I just wanted to be clear and have that recognized in the minutes that you made the decision to overrule the will of the committee thank you board member leevy you're welcome any other discussion hearing none
005all those in favor say I I I any Nays nay motion passes two to one could I get approval of the minutes item D it approval of the minutes for October the 2nd so moved is there a second Al second any discussion board member leaving thank you so much um Miss shop if we could go to item four on that second paragraph which starts with move to request Administration send policy 445 to legal for vetting um I think it would be more clear if we adjusted that to say send policy 445 to legal for vetting um and include student rights students rights with respect to searches and then go on to then bring the policy back to the policy committee did you need me to repeat anything said that was number four it's the second
006paragraph after number four so that what I am recommending is that entire sentence would read move to request Administration to send policy 445 IL legal for vetting and include students rights with respect to searches and then pick back up with then bring the policy back okay so unless anyone objects since there's already a motion and a second I would like to move to amend the minutes from the the policy minutes from October 2nd um as we just discussed are you going to call for a second uh is there a second hearing none uh the amendment failed so um all those in all those in favor we need discussion on the main motion discussion on the main motion member leevy thank you so much um just a question to my colleagues this was a motion that
007I made and so I just wanted the language to ref to accurately reflect what I requested and I'm just wondering why the there is opposition to make sure our minutes are accurate Mrs Shope did you um you took the notes so you put the you put you typed the notes based on the information you were given is that correct yes um however for me it it's just a language cleanup based on what I typed versus I mean it's just a few words to change around to make it flow a little better I I don't have any objection to the revision in terms of what I typed versus what she's asking to be changed because it's not really changing the intent of what I typed if that makes sense so if I may the the question
008that I'm posing to my colleagues on the board is I'm I'm not I'm unclear why there's an objection to making sure that our minutes accurately reflect the intention of what we discussed um and and what I mean by that specifically is why the motion did not receive a second so if I could get feedback from my colleagues that would be really helpful thank you for hins do you have a yeah and uh Mrs ly you've been very um um efficient in telling us before when you've had a problem with the language of the misinterpretation of the board meeting minutes when when you presented this item I was thinking you were trying to change the flavor or the intent of the language and I was kind of lost uh but having said that um I I
009I personally would prefer that when you bring this these types of um notices or objection not objections but amendments to it I enjoy when you do say because of the language doesn't reflect what should be in the minutes to me it brings a whole different perspective as to I'm looking for what's the difference between what you said and what is on the paper and I know we're not looking at Mrs Shope for uh any discernation but uh I just would appreciate when any board member brings these things forward that we do say we're just cleaning up the language in in the the uh the minutes that are represented thank you thank you for that feedback I I I assumed that was obvious but that thank you for the feedback okay any F any further discussion
010all those in favor say I I I any n name motion pass 2:1 item 1e approval of minutes October the 14th is is there a motion to approve so moved is there a second I'll second any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I any Nays motion carries two to zero you need to ask for abstentions extensions in the voting policy only occur when there's a conflict of interest um I can I can abstain because I didn't participate in the meeting therefore it would be nonsensical for me to approve the minutes so I'm abstaining thank you you're welcome okay moving on to policies review um 2A is 445 student interviews um is there a motion to approve um before before there's a motion are you opposed according to Robert's Rules we can
011believe Ley I did not acknowledge you oh please forgive me let me put my hand up on the screen board member leaving thank you so much for turning your mic on so I could hear you um according to Robert's Rules we are a small board which is under 12 so it's perfectly reasonable for us to have discussion before we arrive at a motion and I think that could streamline the meeting because then if there is a change then we don't have to go back and offer an amendment and then vote on that and then go back to the main motion so I would appreciate if we would consider having discussion on the policy and then arriving at a motion thank you so again is there a motion to approve 445 student interviews I would just
012like to see this wheel turn a little bit and if Mrs Levy wants to have a little discussion beforehand I don't see the the gist in in doing that prior to the motion okay unless we do it I know we're going to have discussion either way but if uh board member leavey see something that she wants to address prior to the motion I'm okay with that okay that's the will of the committee board member Levy thank you so much and and thank you board member henin for that generous concession to allow us to have discussion before the motion is made um I just have a quick question on the second page the first paragraph in green it starts with the building principal or designate may be present during a student interview and I'm just wondering
013is there a reason that that's not shall be present if the administration could provide Insight on that that would be helpful sure thank you sorry uh M Ley is it okay par go ahead Mr Nichols yes go ahead Dr carison no problem um so yes Mrs Ley it's not necessarily a reason why we Chang it from sh to May um we would typically have a administrator present in some of these situations unless you know law enforcement or something like that is is requesting um different um opportunities in that situ in the specific situation but that that could be changed to sh to May that's not a problem with the administration yes thank you so much um so I I don't want us to paint ourselves into a corner because if we do say shall um
014and we could put language in there unless there is objection by law enforcement or Child Protective Services I can't imagine why that would be the case but but you can't think of every possibility or would you be more comfortable with every effort will be made um that just seems uh like the intention is to have an administrator um who hopefully is familiar with our students is is present in the room if a parent or Guardian cannot be present yeah I'm fine with that as well I mean that's always our hopes is to have that type of U relationship with the situation okay so what I would recommend that be edited to is every effort will be made to have a building principle or present during the student interview um and then if we could add
015language and I'll repeat this mop unless um law enforcement or Child Protective Services has a reason to object so unless my colleagues are not comfortable with that language could you say that again repeat that please absolutely every effort will be made to have a building princip ible or designate present during a student interview unless law enforcement or Child Protective Services has an objection and just wanted to note finally um I appreciate I'm assuming that language at the bottom um is a result of my request of having that vett it by legal and to include language about students rights rights um so I really appreciate that addition at the bottom so thank you to the administration no problem may I ask a point of clarification yes are we also keeping the language um unless the student
016or their parent or Guardian requests otherwise as well in that sentence yeah I was just asking to add not excluding thank you so much for clarifying okay thank you board member ly any other Dr garon thank you any other discussion M Mr henkins board member henkins oh yeah going back to the the said sentence that we're talking about the building principal or design may may shall will to me they all leave a little wiggle room for something not happening I'm not sure if Mrs Levy and this is I'm just asking is the intent I know the intent is we will do everything possible to do it but it does leave wiggle room and I'm not sure if that's uh that maybe will be um still leaves wiggle room that um may be present or maybe
017not be present so I don't know if if that's a reason to tighten it up or are we looking to just leave it open in case something for a variable that we're not thinking of is it okay if I respond yes that's what I'm asking you well I was just asking the chair absolutely y absolutely thank you so much I got called out for not having my hand raised so I just wanted to make sure I was good before I responded so and again we can't account for every possibility but I think it is reasonable if there is an emergency in law enforcement or Child Protective Services needs to access one of our students and let's say there's an issue or a concern in the building where the building principle is tied up and not
018able to to select a design to go do that then that halts the process if policy is being followed so that's why I put every effort will be made and I trust the Judgment of the leadership in the buildings that they'll follow through on that so that that was why I suggested that wording and I agree with that thank you I agree too I think that's good good change in wording that'll that'll cover us a little closer I think um m m sh did you get that did you get that change I did okay but I it it feels clunky sorry um in the fact that we're going to be saying unless law enforcement or Child Protective Services requests otherwise unless the student parent or Guardian requests otherwise so I just didn't know if we
019could somehow put that together a little bit is does that make sense is it okay if I respond yes thank you so much um I would be fine with combining those so unless law enforcement Child Protective Services a parent or a parent or Guardian request otherwise if everyone else is okay with that to just kind of yep I think that sounds good okay thank you m m schopman thank you board member Levy so um okay any further discussion um yes just one one one quick Point Mr um Nicholls typically the board has given us um the authority to you know make small changes so that things read clear like you know sometimes and is needed or if then is needed type of thing and so I just want to make sure that you know the
020board knows that Michelle and I of course we look at how things are written and then if there's a need to you know clean up the language without changing the Integrity of what was stated in the board meeting we we have done that before and so I just want to make sure we're all aware of that moving forward thank you thank you Dr Garrison um so in your in your um are you are you comfortable with this moving this forward with that with those changes to the language absolutely thank you no problem okay so so could I get a motion to approve 445 student interviews with the amended wording that board member Levy has uh given and Mrs Shope has a record of I move approval of policy 445 to the full board for a
021first reading is there a second second any more discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i i i motion carried 3 to one 3 to zero okay moving forward um item 2B Point policy 662 point2 Community program and services fund 80 so um I will open up that for discussion board member Levy thank you I just wanted to get clarification on two points um the first is the the third paragraph so right under those three bullet points um when it speaks to the timing and I just wanted to to make sure Mr chady um is the spirit of that that if something is assigned to fund 80 that unless there's a change the understanding is that is where it will continue to remain um and then if any what I took from it
022is if it it's something that needs to be changed after the board has adopted um the budget then that would come back to the B to to the board if it's something that's new after the budget has been adopted I would say that's kind of how I read it um speaking to the third paragraph there um I might actually suggest that a portion of a sentence be removed there because I don't think it's necessary but I'm equally as okay with it staying to be honest Mr chady which which portion are you are you suggesting um in the highlighted section after the transfer to funded and I'll just quote through the inclusion of the program in the annual budget adop adoption or at such other times permitted under state law I I think that's just unnecessary
023verbage because that's the guidance that's the regulations that's what we have to follow from the state anyway so oftentimes I think in policy we refer to State statutes or to Administrative Code that already exists um and I'm not sure that it's then necessary to codify it into our policies a a great example would be you know we've got employees that drive District vehicles but I don't know that we have anything in policy that says they can't go over 25 miles an hour so I mean it's kind of underwritten right follow the speed limit true but if they get caught they'll get a ticket that we will pay right right but you know again um we seem to be putting more and more into policy and as a former School Board member in a different district
024and I understand the differences I was always taught less is more not more is more but as you said earlier otherwise but you also wouldn't have a problem if it stayed correct I I would not because again it's okay it's what we have to follow anyway okay but if we're going to do that then there's a lot of other things that we can build into the policy too that are required in state statutes or an administrative code okay thank you any other disc Mr henkins do you have any discussion um just for example the part I'm looking at is uh shall be reviewed by The District's auditing firm so let's just say we put something to fund 80 that maybe we shouldn't have or it's not supposed to be there uh does this kind of
025protect us from uh doing anything out of order I'm not sure when that happens so the review of any fund 80 expenditures is a DPI requirement of Auditors to review annually with every school district that has a fund a0 so it's an annual review and it's a requirement right right let's just say we did something that wasn't supposed to be in there what would be the the uh the you know once the Auditors found it then what let's say just example we would either be asked to make a change to the finan Cal statements to remove it out of fund 80 or we could leave it there and then the DPI would review it as part of the audit findings and if they determin the expense to be ineligible then we would have a penalty
026in our Revenue limit in the following year okay thank you you're welcome board member Levy thank you I just had a question in the now fourth paragraph that number two um so for those who hopefully are playing along at home I'll read the header says the school board may not expend monies on eligible cost for Community programs and services the following are ineligible costs and then number two cost for any program or service um whose schedule presents a significant barrier for age appropriate School District residents to participate in the program or service like in Lay terms what does that mean is that a question to myself yes please okay sure uh so essentially it means that you can't provide programming or charge programming to fund 80 that would be restrictive to the point where certain
027District residents would not be able to participate because of the time or the location Etc so it's got to be offered in an in open uh the programming has to be offered and available to all interested people throughout the district okay and that's just respect respective of the timing in which it is offered uh timing and perhaps location and you know just to continue the conversation about that entire paragraph um that's all Quote uh cut and pasted from dpi's administrative code 80.0 to speaks to ineligible costs okay y thank you Dr Garrison yeah Ian I think in that second point to Mrs ly uh the district has to do everything it possibly can to keep everything as neutral as possible in these types of programming and that was my only statements Mr tat answered everything
028uh correctly this is in statute thank you Dr Garrison discuss can I offer a couple of other quick recommendations absolutely thank you uh just to point out in the first paragraph there's a number of um grammar or uh other Corrections that I can work with uh Miss schope to to connect on punctuation issues at at uh let's see must be paragraph five the the top of page two there it directs the Executive Director of Business Services to do a function um I might suggest that that be changed to the district superintendent uh or design and I'm certainly very much aware that the design may end up being me in some cases or my role but at the same token I don't know that it's the Executive Director of Business Services responsibility to fulfill the rest
029of that paragraph for things that are administered in other departments okay so give me give me your your uh your wording again the district's the district superintendent or design shall have the primary administrative responsibility should I have the prime okay Dr Garrison are you okay with that would you be okay with that modification absolutely okay I think the following paragraph speaking to the executive director director of Business Services ensuring that the district periodically conducts uh those things as fine and appropriate uh the last item uh in the middle of the legal uh section 12.07 sub6 no longer exists in state statut so we should remove that as well I'm sorry 12.07 sub6 sub6 yeah the third one down okay yeah okay Mr shop did you get those CH all okay very good is there any
030further discussion remember Hankins yes so Mr chady during our budget we talked about moving funds not excuse me putting some funds into fund 80 so we're obviously in line with what we are changing this to meet I mean it meets all the qualifications of the expenditures out of fund 0 yeah for what the board has previously approved we're fine um and again I'm fine with these changes these changes honestly these wording changes in the policy don't require us to change any of our administrative processes at all because we have to follow this anyway because it's part of state code um or state statutes to begin with so thank you yep any other discussion could I get a motion to approve 6 62.2 with the amend amendments that uh Mr chady just offered I move approval
031of policy 662 point2 as amended to the full board for first reading call second okay there first and a second is there any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I I motion Carri policy 8881 it items 2C policy 8813 relations with organizations of Faith um we'll open it up for discussion Mr Mr henkins yes I'm um reviewing this policy was that edmin driven and what was the motivation behind it and I'm not waiting in on whether it's right or wrong I'm just saying I understand it's being tightened up and I agree with Mr chady that we need to less rub is better I'm just wondering what the the motivation is to or the difference between what is there and what is not there anymore and why I again I'm just
032acting just asking why the need for the change well I I think I actually think the wording um pretty well speaks for itself um you know that the uh churches and religious religious organizations are important to any community and including bloy and um we actually have um several uh faith-based organizations that are actually doing some work with some of the elementary schools uh and giving help to um families and students um so um this I think this this clarifies that a little better and uh so that's it okay thank you board member Levy thank you so much a couple questions um Mr henkins thank you for bringing up that point um the the question I don't believe has been answered yet is who authored these edits to the policy yours truly thank you so much
033um so what I would actually recommend is that we keep the policy as it is with the following minor change and then I'll explain why so that second sentence where it says the school system will make efforts to be flexible in allowing individuals to observe religious holidays when those holidays conflict with the school calendar um I think the more appropriate language would be when those holidays are not included on the school calendar I don't you know that just the connotation of conflict when we're speaking about people's religious beliefs I just think that that would more appropriately reflect um the new portion that you are proposing to add um which begins with the Board of Education recognizes that churches and religious organizations are an integral part of a healthy diverse Community while I believe that personally
034for certain religious organizations I mean it would depend on the work of the organization I am not comfortable with making that statement for our district because there are could be people that don't practice a religion or or believe that that is accurate for them and we represent everyone included in our district um and I just wanted to point out another reason why I think the current language with that minor edit that I um recommended remains appropriate um while the phrase separation of church and state does not explicitly appear in the US Constitution the concept is enshrined in the First Amendment um in that first Clause of the First Amendment for anyone who doesn't have that memorized um Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof so I
035think what currently exists is very much in line with the Constitution including that first amendment and for those that don't have it in front of them it's super brief so I'll just read the first two sentences please note that the second sentence will include my proposed edit the Board of Education recognizes the principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state the school system will make every and I'm fine with change that to the school district will make every effort to be flexible and allowing individuals to observe religious holidays not included on on the school calendar um so I'm perfectly fine with keeping the language as is with that minor addition um and I would love to hear feedback from my colleagues po member hus um I understand the whole whole I think
036think I do I'm just trying to say ask was there something where was there something that happened that we're trying to dodge a bullet from or are we just housekeeping on this was there something that happened over the last couple years that we need to tidy up on I'm not I'm I I see the differences that being proposed but um I'm just wondering the reasons what do we want to what do we what does okay board chairman Nichols what would you like this to say is what is you what that you put forward what in the last language so the stuff all the stuff that was taken off um I'm just I'm being really naive here I just don't see I guess I'm talking in circles um well what would be the ultimate goal of
037if you could say what you want to say about religion in the schools and I know we do have uh to me it goes back even more basic what is religion so I don't want to go way back to that point but uh I'm I'm trying to go along with what's going on I'm just don't understand a lot of the differences between what Mrs Ley is talking about and what is being proposed and what was on the books before although I do understand where Mrs Levy is coming with what she's saying uh I don't want to get away from the Flavor of what this policy is supposed to say I guess that's my question what is the flavor what is the intent of the policy the the intent of the policy um and board member
038Le board me believe you quoted the First Amendment but I'll I'll read it again um Congress shall make no law respecting and establishing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech of the press or of the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances so um I I I differ in in my my opinion of you know I I can I can quote literally probably thousands of people if I knew all of them but who have who continue to say you know there's the term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and it is not um the establishment of religion uh respecting an establishment of religion goes back back quite frankly back to you know this
039country was started by the by the English and they had a they had a a church um a national church and that is why that that's that is added to the Constitution so that we would not have and we allow the free exercise thereof so um I believe in in that Spirit of that of the first amendment that this is this is more conducive to what the amendment says board member leing oh i y I appreciate you acknowledging me I'm not sure if you saw board member Miller from the audience that would like to be acknowledged sure actually as a as a board member you need to come to you need to yeah so so the thank you hey there so thanks for acknowledging me I appreciate it so okay M I love that we
040are adhering to the Constitution it also talks about um our freedom to practice and freedom from and it's somebody who is an active member of my faith community which does not go to church but rather attends synagogue I'm just wondering if we could use broader terms because Faith Community regardless of like how we Define religion is still protected by the First Amendment right it's freedom to practice and freedom from so if somebody felt like for example like the faith community included something that they didn't feel like comfortable with cuz I think you've expressed this before um concern about like well what constitutes religion and I just heard board member henin bring that up as well it actually like doesn't matter what we Define as religion it matters like what our constitution says that we're you
041know the rights that we're entitled to so I will say that um again I think I we had a similar discussion about this a policy like this before um if I'm out of sick days and because I've got like three kids for example and I would like to take time off in the spring to um to observe Passover with my synagogue um and I you know ask for to take unpaid time or or whatever the situation is right if I don't go to a church the way that this policy is written and like just or like if if you know we participate for example in um like the Hands of Faith like the Fe you know the homeless um you know participation like if all of these different Community connections are really limited by the
042use of the word church and I don't believe that it's your intention to be exclusionary and I also want to respect respect we're coming from I I don't know though that the faith community as as vocabulary is exclusionary or or or introducing any kind of um adverse unintended impact I I feel like by putting Church in there that I would read that and as a a parent in the district with and and I'm not the only parent or of of children in the district that are of a different fith that don't go to a place called Church who are people of faith I find that extremely offensive and I would ask that you please consider like you know maybe broadening that language to be inclusive and reflective of everybody in our community thanks thank you
043board member uh Miller any other discussion my hand oh okay board member Ley thank you so much um so I just wanted to clarify because I wouldn't want you to feel the pressure of quoting a thousand people the way I started off was the phrase separation of church and state does not explicitly appear in the United States Constitution you're absolutely correct but the concept is enshrined in that first amendment um and just to repeat the first Clause Congress shall Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof um and so that's why I think the current language it needs a little tweaking um thank you for those important comments and that input board member Miller um so if I am understanding your position correctly the first sentence says
044the Board of Education recognizes the principles of freedom of religion and separation of it currently says church and state would you be more comfortable with um religious practice and state or do you have another suggestion for the language uh the Board of Education recognizes the principle of freedom of religion that's what the state that's what the Constitution says I was asking board member Miller a question no no no that's okay so the first sentence this is what it currently says the Board of Education recognizes the principles of freedom of religion and separation and against the principles not the exact verbiage um the principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state religious practice in state oh yeah um hey there yeah I mean I just think like I don't know why we're naming
045out I mean church and state is like that's like a legal term that makes like total sense to me I guess like what I'm seeing is as people like are you know coming to the community or whatever or those of us who exist in the community we went from I'm looking at all the crossed off language and the only crossed off language that included a specific mention of a holiday or or or an institution of practice that aligns directly with a specific religion is just that one term and then we're changing it to adding it's like churches and others feels offensive it feels like it's prioritizing so I have zero issue with the original language where it says the Board of Education recognizes the principles of freedom of religion and separation of churches State that's
046like a common term that's like embedded in like our our you know American legal historical practice here I think like I think the hierarchy of like churches and others feels um yucky to me um particularly as um like instances of like anti-semitic and islamophobic um in you know I don't have like facts on me right I was like really here for the meet and greet so I wasn't fully prepared for this but um that's a huge issue right now um and it's one that is like absolutely affecting me and other people of not not just of my own faith and I think that it's just it it's not Landing well um I feel like we're not reading the room well um with what's going on right now in the world and the climate um and
047and contention and it it it doesn't feel welcoming it feels very uh exclusionary thank you for that clarification so it sounds like your concerns are in the proposed new language and not in the current language of the policy all right so to bring this home um I don't want to make assumptions but I think you were kind of leaning board member Hankins to why do why is a change needed and even though you didn't specifically ask that question I'm going to go ahead and answer it for myself I don't think A change is needed to this policy um I would just like to tweak the language so that um we're not talking about holidays being in conflict with the school calendar but just simply not included on the school calendar um but other than that
048I am fine with the current language in the policy hins henkins do you have any other comments well I'd like to get your take on it number one but number two you've eloquently told us that there is no division of church and state in the Constitution and yes it's in article one uh do we is that an assumption or does are we trying to get to to say that we want a division between church and state although it's a given yes the term separation of church and state has been an assumption that has been here probably since the Constitution was written but it is not in the Constitution so we're talking you we're talking a different a different thing so there is there is no church and then um but we're covering religious organizations freedom
049of religion is freedom of religion period And so um and church and I'm sorry I'm sorry you know I'm sorry that mean but but Church going back to what Mrs Miller said doesn't mean physically Church it just means a religion church and state doesn't mean physical building yeah is that correct correct that's how I assume it correct and that's Mrs Miller I think was kind of going to that direction right that I don't know if I'm allow to talk I can just come with you guys if you want to that's fine um okay so like the the term was coined in like the 19th Cent the late 18th century right so that's why that that's where the term comes from so like today in 2024 on the subsequent lines where it talks about like churches
050and other organizations that's I guess where I'm taking issue you're PRI like there's like we're going to name I mean why name one we just had like the whole logic behind the pronoun policy right is like why name all the things let's call it they that's what's the accepted practice why not apply the same logic like why risk at all like messaging something and I'm telling you as a person who is like member of a community who is impacted by this whose children attend the disc District that this is um not Landing well and I don't believe that there's any bad intention and I love that we are taking time to make sure that we are being respectful and inclusive this is and I'm just telling you as an affected person this is not it
051this does not feel good to have like one and then we're just going to like lump the rest together that feels like we're prioritizing a faith and that that is different from a term that's been around for more than 100 years which absolutely has logic assigned that term right so I guess like that's where I'm struggling it's not like with the term separation of church and state which we can argue about if we really want to is being freedom to practice and freedom from which is how um my best understanding as a person that's what the legal implication of that is um that's really not an issue because like that's beyond us to to rule on right um we're a publicly funded institution with an obligation to serve all of the families in our community
052the school district of booy is the only School institution here that is constitutionally obligated by article 10 Section 3 of the Wisconsin state constitution to serve every child which includes children of all faiths children of families that are not of Faith so like why even like mess with the the Optics right of like of prioritizing one or the other or like creating any kind of like possibility for division right so I guess I guess that's where I'm coming from certainly I'm not going to argue with like an agal like legal term like it is what it is right but like we have a choice right now about how we write the rest of that policy so I mean you don't need to listen to me but I'm just telling you as a person who's like
053not a Christian who is a person of faith that doesn't feel good and I know like my kids and it's other people's kids have um you know we've it it always comes up right like there's always like you know for I'd say for the most part A District's done a great job but you know I know parents that have have talked to like hey could we include this type of music too I mean not recently but you know many years ago and my oldest one was younger you know that's a thing you know um we're all work in progress like we all grow right with our communities and and that's a really beautiful and good thing and so like let's not set that backwards thank you board member Miller Garrison Dr Garrison thank you uh
054one of the things that I wanted to just bring mention to in this in this policy is that in the section where it says religious recruitment on school properties no persons will be allowed to recruit students for religious purposes or organizations on school Properties or or at school sponsored activities you know that's a protection thing that we've always had in in this in this that I've read in many policies and that's kind of again it's more of a protection space um we don't want to get into violating any students rights um and that that piece being um stried through is something that I would think we would want to keep in the policy as well as some of the thoughts that has been shared um from from the from the committee I think the the
055the green section that's added there's portions of this in the policy already you know one could argue that I think if if the if the will of the board is to just hear this thought where in the green section where it says the Board of Education recognizes that churches and religious organizations are an integral part of a healthy Community um and again going back up to the Board of Education recognizes the principles of freedom of religion of separation of churches and state of church and state again those two things seem very um similar there our incal part we recogn that and that and the school is flexible and trying to make accommodations in the second paragraph I I just think that we are yes the green section is something completely different but it is also
056still felt in this policy that we currently have and so the administration's recommendation is that we not make necessarily any changes to what we currently have and if we did take this green green section and just put it at the top of the top of the um top of the paragraph and keep everything else because again it's still saying all of the same things I do understand Mrs Miller's thought about the specifics around in the green section churches um but again from a open-ended perspective again this is kind of felt throughout the policy um and so with my my final recommendation would be that we would no matter what keep that religious recruitment PES that piece there if we're to if we can't have any compromises the second part would be take this green section
057and just put it at the top of the top of the um at the top of the paragraph and everything pretty much remains Remains the Same keeping everything that you've added keeping everything that we have in place as well I do agree with Mrs Levy though where we can use better language especially from where it says the school system will make every effort to be flexible in allowing individuals to observe religious holidays um when there are holidays where they were conflict I agree with you we don't have to have the word conflict there um where it's not on our calendar we don't have to say the word conflict so I just didn't like I said you know Administration did have some time to review the the the put once this was sent to us we
058didn't have time to review it however I know this is going to be a much broader discussion and that is the administrator's position again I will repeat we I would like to keep the recruitment of religious on school properties in the in the in this period um secondly um if the board is willing we can move this green section to the top paragraph and keep everything after that with the changes made to the the holidays being a conflict as Mrs Ley stated that'll be the administration's recommendation thank you Dr Garrison any other discussion okay um I do I do have a question Dr Garrison for you um and anybody else who has experience in this uh in this this area how many times have you had uh an organization try to um try to recruit
059on on on school premises board member Levy thank you for that very specific question I actually ran into it last year at the homecoming parade um there were people with panetsos and I said ye yes I do but this is not an appropriate discussion to have at this children's homecoming parade I am uncomfortable and you are not allowed to proze and the response was I'm on a city street yes I can even though the police department had blocked off this area for the specific use of this school district to allow children's staff and Community to enjoy the homecoming parade so I think that is I don't think the policy needs to be changed except to remove the word conflict because I don't want anyone's religious I don't want anyone to believe that their religious holiday
060is in conflict with the the school district's calendar so yes that's my personal experience okay so so your your example so this was on a city street it was right outside of that window actually at a school event that had been sectioned off for the school district specific specific use MH okay just curious what so what was the outcome of that interchange um the woman walked away from me but continued into the crowd which included students staff members and community members and continued the proing efforts thank you for that Dr G also sir thank you you um I've also had the experiences mostly in the city um necessarily on school property at dismissal um um especially in the high school you sometimes see religious organizations various different religious organizations trying to pass out um information
061and know it's not on school property sometimes it's off off off of school property but it does present that that that conversation in which we sometimes have to ask people to move across the street and that type of thing and so I haven't experienced it in booy I have experienced it in in the city okay so the policy as it was written before did not keep this from happening it's what you're telling me is that a question to that's a that's a question for both well policies first oh well thank you so much that was very kind of you policies are not superheroes that jump down in front of you and prevent thing from happening but Poli policies explain your position so when things happen you can look to policy to say no don't do
062that and this is why this is our position on this action okay so but again the policy did not keep that from happening correct that's that's just a yes or no no the policy is in place and I just describe what happened but but but I have a question for you is it your belief that policies prevent things from happening that are not in alignment with policy no trying to clarify because this says religious recruitment on school property and they weren't on school property they were on a city street which doesn't is not part of this policy and secondly Dr Garrison in your situation that you re you mentioned was it on city streets also and not on property I'm sorry some sure some of the situations will start on property and then of course
063we would ask them to move across the street and they would okay that's that's the that's the process and which they would come out and have that happen so that's answer a question okay thank you do you have anything else board member hins I'm just wondering if there's a compromise where we could meld the two thoughts together and maybe bring it back next time uh I think everyone has excellent input into this I just I don't want to throw a monkey in the wrench but a monkey wrench into it uh I think a compromise I'm not going to suggest one because I don't have one but the uh first I think Dr Garrison's idea of of putting the the green paragraph on top just makes it more wordy and confusing I just think there's a
064better way to to stay what we're the flavor of what we're trying to the spirit of what we're trying to get say here so I'm just wondering if we could kick it back and uh rewrite it maybe with if it's Brian and somebody from adadmin you know to get the general Spirit of what we're trying to say here and make everybody all inclusive and resp everyone's religious beliefs thank you thank you board member H well let me assure everybody that this is not about excluding anybody that is definitely not it I believe I believe in all I you know B board board member I know you're in the audience but I'm going to board member Miller I I Shar okay we're good enjoy okay all right okay we will uh we will table for further
065further discussion somewhere down the road I I've heard the board I've heard the committee thank you okay um the next meeting is Wednesday December the 4th at 5:30 p.m. and do I have a motion to adjourn so move second all those in favor say I I I I thank you Dr Garrison thank you all for your time e e for