GBAPSD Board of Education Special Meeting and Work Session: June 12, 2023

001♪♪ Laura: All right. We're going to get going. All right. Welcome to our special board meeting, where -- We've returned from closed session, so now we're going to move on to some action items. Under "A," employment of staff, could someone please read that motion? Bryan: I'll go ahead. "I move that the employment of staff as presented be approved." Laura W.: Second. Luara: Discussion? Questions? Kinsey? Kinsey: Online voting is now open. Lynn, are you able to vote? Do you want to just answer with a voice vote? Lynn: Yes. Kinsey: All votes have been entered, and the motion is carried with all board members voting in favor. Laura: Okay. Next is "B," resignation of staff. Could someone read the motion, please? Bryan: I move that the resignation of staff as presented be approved. Laura W.: Second. Laura:

002Discussion or questions? Kinsey? Kinsey: Online voting is now open. Gerlach? Lynn: Yes. Kinsey: All votes have been entered and the motion is carried with all board members voting in favor. Laura: Thank you. Next is transfer of staff. Could someone read the motion, please? Bryan: I move that the transfer of staff as presented be approved. Laura W.: Second. Laura: Discussion? Questions? Kinsey? Kinsey: Online voting is now open. Gerlach? Lynn: Yes. Kinsey: All votes have been entered, and the motion is carried with all board members voting in favor. Laura: Thank you. So, with that last vote, we did two very important changes in our district. First is our new principal at Southwest High School. Mr. Whistler, can you come join us at the table? Have a seat. If you want to hit the little face button that

003looks like someone's talking. Just want to welcome you in your new position and if you have anything to say, now would be the time. Whistler: Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll keep this short and sweet. I really appreciate the opportunity. In October, I came to Green Bay and the board put their faith in me as an interim associate principal at Preble High School. And I look forward to moving on to the head principal over at Southwest. So, I'm really looking forward to this, and I'm very, very excited for what's to come for Southwest. So, thank you very much. Laura: Thank you. And the other transfer that we just voted is for Mr. Dan Slowey to become our new Director of Elementary and Secondary Education with a secondary emphasis. Come on up, Dan. You've been

004at our table before. But, again, if there's anything you would like to say. Congratulations. Dan: Well, thank you. I just would like to say just a heartfelt thank-you to Edison Middle School. It was an honor to serve them the past 10 years. An amazing staff with an amazing student body and families. And I look forward to this next endeavor of leading in this district and supporting all of our students, families and community members and staff members. So, thank you. Laura: All right. Thanks, Dan. All right, and finally, in this part of our meeting is the vote on the Southwest baseball/softball construction services. Josh? I don't know if anyone has any questions. First of all, how about if we have someone read the motion? Bryan: I move that IEI General Contractors Inc. be awarded the bid

005for the Southwest baseball/softball construction services in the amount of $4,245,852.50, as presented, be approved. Laura W.: Second. Laura: Okay. Any discussion or questions for Josh? Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: With these -- With this construction of this, with the baseball and softball fields, these are going to be similar to the asphalt at Edison and the park at Edison and other areas, where it will be open to community use in various fashions, I assume. Correct? Josh: Well, it's a little bit different. The property you're discussing at Edison is city property. This is district property. So the same rules exactly will not apply. But, yeah, those facilities would be available through our facilities-rental process, to be used. Laura: Okay. Are there any other questions, anything that you need -- you'd like to know? Andrew, do you have anything?

006Andrew: No. No questions. Laura: Okay. All right. Thanks, Josh. Um, with that, I think we can take a vote. Go ahead, Kinsey. Kinsey: Online voting is now open. All votes have been entered, and the motion is carried, with all board members voting in favor. Okay, with that, we can adjourn this part of our meeting. Um, I would entertain a motion. James: So moved. Laura W.: Second. Laura: All in favor? All: Aye. Laura: Opposed? Okay, we're adjourned. All right. I'm going to call this meeting. This is our June 12, 2023, work session. And I see here... Thank you. Um, first we're going to do the roll call. Kinsey: Nancy? Milz? Bryan: Here. Kinsey: Gerlach? Lynn: Here. Kinsey: Becker? Andrew: Here. Kinsey: McCoy? Laura: Here. Kinsey: Laitenen-Warren? Laura W.: Here. Kinsey: Welch? Nancy: Here. Laura: Okay. Thank

007you. Um, next is our open forum. Um, let's see here. I have received three different people who want to speak. If there's more, let -- -[Inaudible]. -I'm sorry. What? Oh, I'm sorry. There is four. There are four, as she said. Um, okay, so we're going to get that started. The first person is Leah Weakley. If you would, please come up. You have five minutes. State your name and address. Not... Make sure the microphone is working. Leah: Well, no. Laura: Is there a switch? Oh, thank you. Laura W.: Probably on mute. Leah: Hello? Laura: There you go. Leah Weakley. And you say address, too? Laura: Yes. Name and address. You have five minutes. Leah: 3467 Yorkshire Road, Green Bay. As the Wequiock community, we have come to you repeatedly to express why the location of Wequiock

008is unique, how you'll be affecting an entire community, how important the programing is, and why it can't be fully duplicated at Red Smith, yet no one is listening. Did you know that by closing Wequiock, you could be wiping out one of the oldest Scout communities in Green Bay,. who chartered with us, has nowhere else to go, and has been around for over 60 years. Do you understand the impacts on the town of Scott? Do you know how many families will leave the district because of this decision? No, because you haven't looked into any of the impacts before voting on starting to make recommendations to close. We've given solution after solution, but no one is hearing us. You say you want to make this change to better the future of our district, but you are not

009hearing us. Why have I, one unpaid parent and community member, done more analysis, made more fliers, social media posts and videos promoting Wequiock and its environmental programing than anything the district has done since the origination of its environmental program in 2018? I understand you're in a crunch and scrambling to make decisions, but you pause to understand the impacts on other schools. I'm asking you to do this for Wequiock. Understand its impacts and understand your data. And if you still won't listen to the impacts on our community, then at least listen to these numbers. By closing Wequiock, you are losing money for the district. That's not the goal. I sent out a survey to Wequiock and prospective Wequiock families. 47 families replied. Of these families, 72% will leave the district in some way, whether that be

010to L.C., Holy Cross, or other outside school. 18 of these families who responded also had multiple children currently at Wequiock. With only half of these children's parents from Wequiock responding, the cost to the district would range anywhere from $340,000 to $530,000 lost. And this only covers half the kids. What about the other half? At the last meeting, you said you would like to see Wequiock with at least 160 kids to make it worthwhile to remain open. Enrollment at Wequiock was 162 to 172, between 2016 and 2019. The program was created in 2018. COVID hit hard, and now we are just starting to rebuild. Let us. Think about the future, not just the now. There is room for growth inside the building. We don't need an addition to grow enrollment. With proper planning and marketing, this

011school can be at capacity you want to see it at. After review of the staff salaries requested, I want to know why the district positions are growing when schools and enrollment are shrinking, calculating all the positions in the district office, at the lowest tier on the salary schedule, put the number at over $4.6 million. Cut your staff by 15%, less than six positions, and you could save over $700,000 or more per year. I counted multiple duplicate positions, with many having 2 to 3 identical positions. Yet in all of these positions, not one person studied what's best for our kids' learning during the task force process. It doesn't make sense why cutting district staff wasn't one of the first options looked at to cut costs. It displaces far less families than closing our school. My last

012frustration stems from the fact that I'm getting messages from parents who are wait-listed to school choice into Wequiock next year when the classes aren't full. Many of the families are from the Oak Learning Center. It would make sense to bring these families to Wequiock to continue the pathway. This would make kindergarten classes full, moving forward. We've been asked to increase enrollment, but yet these families are being turned away, directly from the district, not the school. It doesn't make sense, and frankly, it's frustrating to hear. In addition to wait-listing, I've had other concerned families message me that there are not options in the district, upon closing the smaller schools, for kids who need the smaller environments to learn. Why are we taking this away from families? We are peanuts, compared to other decisions you need to

013make. Why rush to displace all of our children and families when you can be saving bigger costs elsewhere, instead of losing the district's families and money by pushing students out? You could eliminate less than six positions from your office to make the money you would save by closing Wequiock. I'm asking you to please think about the impact on our families in the community before moving forward. Laura: Next is Lisa Kardish. Please state your name and address, and you have five minutes. Lisa: My name is Lisa Kardish. My address is 2592 Remington Court in Green Bay, Wisconsin. I would like to speak to you tonight about two items. The first item I would like to address relates to Leonardo da Vinci. James Lyerly brought forth a motion, which was approved, to develop a process to evaluate

014the impact of adding K through 8s and shifting boundaries. I would like to thank James and the board for recognizing there is much work to be done and there is basic data that is needed before a decision can be made on these proposals. However, Leonardo da Vinci does not belong in this motion, and I am confused why the board has not chosen to make a decision on this matter. None of the activities required as a result of this motion affect da Vinci. This motion is looking at boundary revisions, educational pathways, diverse integration of student populations, and transportation services. None of these items relate to da Vinci. As the board, you have stated that you have the ability to remove any of the proposed items in Schema 12.1 from consideration. It has clearly been proven and

015verified by multiple sources that the relocation of Leonardo da Vinci from its current location is financially irresponsible and is not in the best interest of students, staff, or the city. Why would we ask a new task force to waste time and money studying these items for da Vinci? Is this really the plan? I will respectfully ask you again to remove da Vinci from this motion. The second item I would like to address is the serious crisis of trust that exists between the local community and the district. I am confident that the district does not understand the damage that has been done as it relates to trust and community support. I applaud the board for not approving Schema 12.1. However, there has to be some acknowledgment and ownership at the district and board level of the

016mistakes that have been made, the misinformation that was shared, and the complete lack of effort and interest to engage with community members and families at the start of this process. There was zero effort to share the data and proposals with affected populations and schools in a way that was understandable. 61% of our district is diverse, and for the majority of this process, there was no effort to engage with those families, educate them on the purpose of this study and the potential impact on them, or even to translate materials for them. The district recently launched curriculum to teach our children to be culturally responsive learners. Why is the district not modeling that same commitment at our most senior levels? We have essentially wasted close to $200,000 spent with ATSR and are starting over because we failed

017to understand that considering equity and disparate impact was important. How do we rebuild trust and ensure that the new task force will be inclusive and effective? There needs to be a healthy, constructive tension between the board and district leadership. The board needs to hold the district accountable for the data they are providing, the decisions they are making, and the money they are spending. This is the role of any company board. Instead, there is a general perception that the board and district are working hand in hand. The board continually praises the district for how hard they are working. Not all work is good work or productive work. Community trust will only be restored if a sense of checks and balances is also restored. There is a general feeling that the district had a plan all along

018and worked the data to fit their preferred plan, which is now called Schema 12.1. This feeling exists because there has been very little transparency. The amount of effort required by community members to obtain any information from the district is monumental. And then, once the data is obtained, it is another major undertaking to decipher and understand the data. Community members have been forced to file Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain data that should have been shared all along. This is a sad statement about the relationship between the district and the community. I know I, as well as many other community members, have been pushing back for months. We said more information needs to be shared; the data is not right; we should wait for our new superintendent, Dr. Tiller, to start. We were consistently told

019that was not an option and that June 5th was the end date. However, days before the June 5th meeting, Miss Bayer informed us that now January 2024 is the actual must-decide-by date. And now the board is asking for a new task force with no set date to study the impact of many of these closures. Ms. Bayer also shared on June 5th that the district is spending more money on a new consultant who was selected and hired by district leadership to evaluate their own staffing levels. I think it is time for Ms. Bayer to step away from this process and allow Dr. Tiller to evaluate what the next step should be before we continue to spend more money, when there has been zero information shared about the parameters of this study, the scope of work, how

020staffing levels are being evaluated, who is involved in collecting the data, who will receive the results of the study, and who will be the final decision-maker. As the community, we are confused. We are scared and we are begging for transparency and honesty. I would like to ask the board to hold the district accountable, require them to work closely with the community, require them to be transparent with their data, and require them to consider all key constituents when creating the new vision for our district. Thank you for your time. Laura: Next we have Paul Kardish. Paul: Good evening. My name is Paul Kardish. Remington Court, Green Bay. For the last several months, I've observed, listened, and witnessed actions and words that have been incredibly disappointing. From the 11th-hour unveiling and recommendations related to the facilities master

021plan, to ignoring the Board's guiding principles and ignoring principles of equity, to expensive undertakings to gain equal access to information, to Miss Bayer's un-credible guarantee that every student, teacher, and staff member will be better off than they were before the facilities master plan was proposed, and the artificial deadlines created to scare the community into submission, this district, and consequently this board, aren't getting the most important element that is missing from this exercise. There is one thing that is common to every individual relationship, team, family organization, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world. That one thing, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, successful businesses, thriving economies, leadership, friendship, and even voting initiatives put before a community. On the other hand, if it's developed and leveraged, the one thing has the potential to create unparalleled

022success and prosperity in every dimension of life. That one thing is trust. Simply put, trust means confidence. The opposite of trust, or distrust, is suspicion. And this is where I believe the community is today with the district. Trust always affects two outcomes -- and we're seeing that play out in real life -- speed and cost. When trust goes down, speed goes down, cost goes up. We have seen this play out with the process and path taken by the district with its proposed facilities master plan. Trust is hard. It is real. It's quantifiable. It measures both speed and cost. Trust is a function of both character and competence. Trust can be created, and it can be destroyed. Though difficult in most cases, it can be destroyed. That is the hope we have as a community. Relationship

023trust is all about behavior. It's consistent behavior. There are a few characteristics that I believe are important, that are missing from this exercise. These are characteristics that this community expects from its elected officials and its publicly paid employees. Some of these characteristics include talking straight; communicate clearly so that you're not misunderstood; preface your discussions by declaring an intent so you leave no doubt what you're thinking; call things what they are; don't manipulate people, distort facts, or leave false impressions; demonstrate respect. This behavior is based on principles of respect, fairness, kindness, love, and civility. The opposite is commonly experienced as disrespect, which is a huge issue, especially in this community. Create transparency, be real and genuine, and tell the truth in a way that people can verify. What we have done at this point is verify

024the district information is not accurate. Right wrongs. Make things right instead of just apologizing. The opposite is to deny or justify or take a different path, and use the facts convenient to you at that time. Deliver results. This is a way to convert cynics and establish trust in a relationship. Because it is often difficult to measure results, it might take time for those results up front. By establishing a track record, you can slowly build trust back up again. Confront reality. Take the tough issues head on. This affects speed and cost by facilitating open interaction and discussion. Clarify expectations. Create a shared vision and agreement up front with the community. You will get a lot farther this way. Practice accountability. This is something the community should demand from each of its elected officials and publicly paid

025employees. Hold yourself and others accountable. Leaders who generate trust do both. Listen first. Genuinely understand another person's perspective, especially those of different ethnicities and cultures. The opposite is to speak first and listen last, and pretend to listen while creating your own thoughts or pushing forth your own agenda. Keep commitments and guarantees. It is the quickest way to build trust in any relationship. The opposite is to break those commitments and make unreliable guarantees. Brand is also important to organizational entities, including school districts and corporations. What is the brand of this school district? What is the brand of this board? And how is this reputation going to affect moving into the next level for the district when it depends on tax revenues? It's also going to dictate whether a school referendum is successful or not. If that

026trust has been broken, it's an opportunity to get together and do things differently, to improve character and competence, to behave in ways that inspire trust. I hope the district and the board take the time and the steps necessary to repair what is broken in this community. I hope the district and board consider these important concepts and leverage the community that truly wants to regain trust and rely on its district and board as it moves forward with this plan. Thank you. Laura: Next. And this is the last one I have. So if you want to speak, now would be the time to submit something to Kinsey. So, it's Jessica Medina. Please state your name and your address, and you have five minutes. Jessica: All right. Well, my speech is not as good as his, so we'll

027just go. Yeah. Jessica Medina, 3891 Scotchman Circle. This is Jack. He goes to Wequiock. You have heard by now how great Wequiock Elementary is, how great the test scores are, how high the school's ranking is, and about how wonderful the environmental program is, but still voted yes to move on potentially closing the school down. So, obviously, it's not about the money -- and it's obviously about the money and not what's best for the students. It is my recollection that the $92 million referendum was placed on a ballot and approved in November of 2022. In March of 2023, the Green Bay Public Schools Task Force announced the recommendations to close a number of the schools, including Wequiock Elementary. It causes myself and community members alike great pause when considering $92 million, most of which is being

028spent on football field renovation -- I have a stepson that goes to Preble, so I know they're redoing the field -- which was fulfilled while facilities were anticipating to be shut down due to budget deficits. At best, this was a gross misuse of referendum dollars, and at worst, this was an act of deceit. What about the state budget? Governor Tony Evers' proposed 2023 to 2025 state budget would provide a $2.6 billion funding increase to K through 12 schools. The $2.6 billion in additional funds would represent a roughly 17% increase in state spending on K through 12 schools. The district is getting an extra $350-per-student increase each, for the next two years, and on top of a $92 million referendum that was passed, you're still talking about closing down one of the top-performing schools. At the

029last board meeting, it was asked by Mr. Becker how much the district would save in total if Wequiock would close. After several minutes, Josh finally came up with a number of $700,000 per year. We learned from the district a few days later that this was just an estimated number. The board wants to close down one of the best schools in the district at an estimated number? Don't you think we need all the facts straight before making such a huge decision? Also, at the last meeting, it was decided that the schools listed in a task force recommendation should have community input on how it will affect the communities if their neighborhood school were to close. How come Wequiock does not have that option? If you close Wequiock down, it will hurt the chances of town of

030Scott becoming a village. I would say that's a huge impact. The district preaches equality for everyone. So why is Wequiock not entitled to this, as well? Also, it was discussed last week about keeping JDAL open because kids learn better in smaller environments. So, what about Wequiock? Wequiock is a small school where the kids are thriving. Again, how is it showing equality? I have heard from several parents, as we have stated, that their children are wait-listed to get into Wequiock this upcoming year. Why is that? Why are we turning kids away from this school when we are trying to increase enrollment? It feels like a lot of games are being played behind the scenes. It may not be important to you, but to some of us, this is a huge decision that will affect the lives

031of these kids that go to this school. We need equality and the same opportunities as every other school. If you want to move the program to Red Smith, you need to study it before voting. Just having Red Smith Park around isn't going to be enough for the environmental program. It took the staff at Wequiock five years to implement the program we have now. If you close Wequiock, our community will be going to Luxemburg and you will lose the tax dollars that go along with these students. Thank you. Laura: Okay. Thank you. All right. Next, under operations, we are going to discuss the preliminary 2023-24 budget. And welcome to the table, Angie and Sara. Before we get started, could you all introduce yourselves and let people know who you are and what you do? Thank you.

032Sara: Good evening. I'm Sara Noah, the executive director of finance. Angela: And I'm Angela Roble, chief financial officer for the Green Bay School District. Laura: Thank you. Go ahead. Angela: I think we're ready. Okay. Good evening. So, Sara and I are here to present to you the '23-'24 preliminary budget. Um, a heavy emphasis on preliminary, because, as we all know, things are changing quickly in Madison. We didn't hear a whole lot for months. And now, all of a sudden, as we all know, Governor Evers has proposed a budget to be debated now for the next couple weeks. So we'll talk about some of those changes in some slides to come. But then we'll also talk about, because, of course, we were prepared with -- before Evers announced. So we'll talk about what's in the preliminary

033budget, what you're seeing there, and then we'll also talk about potentially what it will mean for the district on some of the things that are in that proposed budget. Angela: Okay. And use the clicker. Sara: Here we go. So, many people might find it unusual that we start our fiscal year on July 1st without a finalized budget. But that's not unique to our school district, as this is the case for all school districts in Wisconsin. Tonight, we'll address the challenges and assumptions that were made during the preliminary budget process. We'll also review revenues and expenditures for the district's largest funds -- Fund 10, which is our operational fund, and Fund 27, which is special education. Throughout the year, we've been sharing with you the financial challenges that the district is facing. To recap, the Joint

034Finance Committee is still working on the state biennium budget for '23-'25 and is expected to vote within the next few days. Until the budget is actually passed, we can only speculate on what funding the district will have for the next two years. The past two years of inflation has negatively impacted the school district. While last year's 4.7% salary increase was necessary to keep Green Bay competitive in a tight labor market, it does have an impact on future budgets. In addition, the district also feels the impact of rising fuel costs, transportation, prices on goods and services, and more. At a time when the district received a $0-per-pupil increase for the past two school years, the significant increase in costs due to inflation would have been impossible for the district to manage, had we not had ESSER

035funding. Angela: So we've been talking about declining enrollment for the past couple of years now. So, with that, that really drives the funding that we receive from the state. So as we decline in enrollment, those revenues do go down. And what we receive for the state on a revenue-limit side of things. So the graphs that you see up on the screen, we've seen these before and we're bringing those to you now just to kind of show you, the blue bars are the declining enrollment, but the graph on the right-hand side is more -- I guess, is more recent, ran as of January 1 of 2023. So the blue bars are showing that decrease and decline in enrollment and membership. And then the red line is our staffing, or our full-time equivalents. And what we wanted

036to show is that through attrition, we are right-sizing and aligning that FTE with our student enrollment decline. So during the pandemic, we had increased staffing to address those student needs, and we were aware of that. And now we are just starting to align -- starting to align with that staffing, with the staffing costs and the declining enrollment. Yes? Laura: Angie, I like the direction that that red line is going in. Angela: Yes. Laura: But is it possible, even at all, to project what the next few years will be, as far as will that line continue to go down? Angela: That would be the assumption, just because of the declining enrollment, yes. Laura: Okay. Angela: All right. Laura: At some point, ideally, that blue bar and that red line meet? Angela: Yes. Laura: Okay. Thank you.

037Angela: Mm-hmm. So, building the budget. So the assumptions that we have in the preliminary budget book, we are predicting the 4% base wage increase. So that's what you're going to see in your budget book. That does not -- That is not a recommendation outside of negotiating and bargaining. That is simply a placeholder so we could put something in the budget book. And it falls between that 0% and the 8% CPI that was settled last year, or finalized. So it's right in the middle. That's why we used 4%. We also used a $350-per-pupil increase for the next two years. So if you recall, when we've come before you, like, in the spring or in the fall of last year, we were using and being conservative with that $100 per pupil. So we now have increased that

038to $350 in our projections. We are predicting flat staffing levels for right now until we see what those numbers actually come in at, in September. The $2 million decrease in health insurance costs is due to the changes that we made to our plans this past year for the upcoming year. And that is reflected in the projections, as well. And then, of course, the slight decrease in membership which we've talked about. We are presenting a balanced budget for '23-'24 and that is because of our ESSER funding that we are going to be seeing gone next year. We'll talk a little bit about that in future slides, as well. So, the goal of the district, in '23, for '23-'24 is to come before you in October. And we certify that budget for '23-'24. Our focus has been

039on the year '24-'25 because that is where the deficit shows up because ESSER funding is depleted at that point. So it gets a little confusing when we're talking about all these different years. But our decisions in '23-'24 significantly affect what that structural deficit looks like in '24-'25. So we are going to talk a little bit about that. So, how did we get from $36 million, which I'm sure that rings a bell, about a year and a half ago, to $21 million. Well, here's how. Here are some of the bullet points of how we got there. So, the revenue estimate from the state, per pupil, as I just mentioned before, we talked about that $350 increase. That accumulated about $10 million more for the district by increasing that per pupil on the revenue-limit side of things.

040The health insurance savings contributes to that decrease from 36 to 21. Our investment interest is significantly increasing from what we have seen in the past couple of years. So we're expecting an additional $1.3 million in Fund 10 from our interest on our cash. And then also the 105 FTE Reduction that we've talked about several times through attrition for '22-'23 was a savings of about $4 million, which again is an accumulate-- you know, is a cumulative savings as we move forward into the future years. Bryan? Bryan: So, just to clarify, we've been looking at this, knowing that this is coming down, and we've reduced 105 full-time equivalent positions throughout this last school year. Angela: That is correct. Okay, so, you have handouts, just because I knew that this probably would be a little bit harder to

041see. So, this first one, this is our Baird model projection. This is the software that we use to project the future years and what it looks like for our financial position in the district. So, some things to note here. We are showing that 0% base wage increase to 8% base wage increase. Again, because it's a range, I feel it's important just to show the impact of what an 8% looks like to that structural deficit and then what 0% looks like. This projection is based on our original. So before Evers came before and did the press release late last week. We'll go through that slide next. So, originally, all of the assumptions that we just talked about. So the focus here is on that '24-'25 column where that $6.2 million deficit is, with a 0%, all

042the way up to $21 million, and then future years. Just switch to the next slide, please. So this is the one that everybody wants to hear about, right? So, yeah. So a lot of activity, a lot of unknowns. So I think that that's the focus right now is because there are a lot of things out there. We're just not quite sure how they're going to implement them. For example, when we looked at the low revenue ceiling, so we are a low-spending district. We receive $10,000 per pupil for our September FTE count on the revenue limit. With this increase, we will receive an additional $1,000 per pupil, which is significant and which is good news for the district. However, we are unsure, and it is unknown, how they are going to implement that. So in this

043state budget proposal, we have put that low revenue ceiling increase in the following year for '24-'25. We've left the $325-per-pupil increase in '23-'24. So really what this equates to, in this proposal, is an additional $7.5 million. So what the unknown is, is they could lift -- they could lift us from $10,000 to $11,000 in '23-'24, or we could get it in chunks like $500 this, you know, '23-'24; $500 in '24-'25. Or we could do it -- Or we could get it like this. So this is a little bit more conservative. But, of course, once we know the details, we'll be able to project that out a little bit more accurately. Another thing that is included in here, and what was a big deal about the proposal, and talked about a lot, was the voucher amounts

044have increased significantly, as well. So in our preliminary budget book, we have set aside $8.8 million in voucher payments. With this proposal, that amount increases to about $10.7 million in '23-'24. So that's a significant increase, almost $2 million. And one more thing to note, for Evers' proposal, that is worth mentioning tonight at the table, is the increase in the special education aidable reimbursement. So, currently we receive about 29% for special education aidable expenditures. That is proposed to increase to around 33%, which means about a million and a half for the district. So that equates to $1.5 million less being transferred into the special education fund, or Fund 27, which allows $1.5 million to be left in the operational budget to pay for operational expenditures. So, again, I think the key takeaway is we're expecting and

045anticipating a little bit more than what we had thought, which is positive. There's a lot of details to be, you know, shaken out. And then once we get those details, we'll share that with the board, you know, sometime this summer, once they finalize and once they vote. A couple things to note within this is the non-recurring referendum. So it's towards the bottom of each of those projections. We still have a $16.5 million operational referendum that we passed in '16-'17, and that remains for the next several -- you know, for the next four years, but drops off in '27-'28. So that's why that deficit increases dramatically. Another thing to note is, regardless of the funding that we're receiving from the state, we still have a structural deficit in place. As you can see, it steps up.

046It's smaller than what it was before, because we receive -- because in this proposal, we're receiving more revenue than anticipated, but it still is there. And so we still need to continue to do the work to make sustainable changes so we can work to reduce that deficit to zero in the future. Any questions? Lynn? Lynn: So, I just want to make sure I understand about -- So, we are expecting a small increase in reimbursement for special education. But I believe you said -- and I know this is the third time I'm seeing this -- it's going to sink in pretty soon -- you said that because the state does not reimburse us at the rate we have to spend for special education, we take that money out of the operating budget. Right? And don't we

047have about 16% of our students getting special education? Is that about right? 18%? Okay. Angela: And that is correct, Lynn. So about $33 million is transferred on an annual basis from Fund 10 to Fund 27, or special education, to fund special education. So with that increase of 33%, that would be decreased by about a million and a half. Bryan: So, looking at the numbers, which I've done a lot with these meetings, taking the $30 million, and these being estimates, and decreasing that amount that we're transferring from the general fund to Fund 27, that still leaves us about $28.5 million. That's going for special education costs that is not reimbursed by the state, which is close to what our deficit has been. Angela: That's correct, Bryan. Any other questions before we move on? Bryan: Could you

048explain the increase in voucher payments and how that impacts the school district budget -- our budget on there -- under Governor Evers' proposed budget? Angela: Sure. So the increase in the voucher payments. So it's, I guess, by category, so K through 8, 9 through 12, I believe is -- I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. Vicki might have that. But what it does do is, the $8.8 million is expended, or is an expenditure in our budget. We also levy for those dollar -- for those dollars. So on the revenue limit, with that increase, that just means that we would levy for $10.7 million and we would expense $10.7 million. But it definitely affects the tax rate or the mill rate, because it's added money onto the revenue limit. So when you

049add money, right, that revenue limit increases. And if you don't have an offset like equalized aid, then your mill rate will go up. Vicki: I'll give you the specifics. It's going to increase by $1,000 for the K through 8 students who attend private schools. So up to $9,000 per student. And then, for the high schoolers, it will be a $3,000 increase going to higher -- than what we would get -- $12,000 for private school students, compared to $11,000 for us. Bryan: So just for clarification, for the high school students, the state's actually funding at a higher number for voucher students than for our public school students throughout here, and that's been expanded with that? Vicki: Angie? Angela: Yeah, that's correct. That's the proposal. Laura: I don't know if you can answer this. What's the rationale?

050I don't understand that. Sara: Let Bryan have a crack? Bryan: Well, as an elected official, not as our budget person, my guess is that they need to make a deal. And that was the tradeoff for it. And if we need to adequately fund public schools, we need to make sure we advocate for that. So... Laura: Oh, Andrew, please go ahead. Andrew: I guess I would just add, I think I know what the answer is, but in this arrangement with increased voucher dollars, is there anything attached to that? For example, where voucher companies can't take the public money and then kick a kid out after the third Friday, send them back to the public schools, and keep that semester's money? Any changes like that, or is that going to all be the same, and they can

051keep the money when they kick a kid out of the voucher? Laura: Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: I'm going to rephrase what I think Andrew is looking at. If we have a student that attended a voucher program and is for some reason readmitted to our schools after the third Friday count, do we have any way of capturing those funds? Angela: Not that I'm aware of. And I don't know if there's anything in the proposal that's going to change that. Andrew: Up until -- Unless there is a change in the proposal, which I would be surprised, but it would be a welcome surprise, not only would that apply if a student chose to leave the voucher program and come back to us, but a for-profit voucher school can and has kicked kids out of their school and

052kept the money for the rest of the semester as long as they did it after the third Friday count. So that's one thing where I think that perhaps friends on both sides of the political aisle would find something wrong with that one. Some people being concerned about the fairness issue of it and others concerned about the waste of -- the waste of money if it happens. So just wondering if that was included as part of the -- part of the deal, and it probably isn't, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is. Thank you. Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I just want another clarification, please. Just tell me if have been understanding this correctly. And maybe it's part of what you just talked about, and maybe it's something separate. So you said that our reimbursement

053for special education students is probably going to go up from 29% to 33% of what we spend. And did I read correctly that if a private school accepts a student with special education needs, their reimbursement is 90%? Is that correct? Angela: Yes, that is correct. Laura: Bryan? Bryan: And following that same train of thought, after the third Friday counts, even if that student receives -- I'm sorry -- that school receives that increase to special education, I believe they're calling it a scholarship -- after the third Friday count, if that student returns to any public school in the state, I assume that money also does not follow them to the district that would be providing services after that. Angela: I believe that's correct, Bryan, But I can look into that if you'd like me to. Bryan:

054I believe it's correct, too. Laura: Keep going. Sara: So, regarding our ESSER money, we have about $37 million budgeted to be spent in '23-'24, including in that $37 million our curriculum adoptions that will be coming forward to you for approval. Um, software costs also will be coming to you for approval, and then ongoing costs, which is comprised totally of wages and benefits. And you can see up there, summer school, our online academy, and other funding, other expenses that we have that are wages and benefits. With the remaining ESSER funds that the district must spend by September 30th of '24, the district will be able to manage our operational costs for the next school year, as you're aware. In this preliminary budget, remaining ESSER funds, after what we're aware need to be budgeted for, are being

055shown as a transfer to our capital improvement fund, or Fund 46. Um, this is to address facilities needs and maximize aidable expenditures in the form of shared costs for equalized aid revenue. This is a holding spot until the end of the '23-'24 fiscal year, when actual expenditures are known and we know where we end up. Now, on pages 10 to 12 of your budget books is the revenue and expenditures for Fund 10. An important item to note for Fund 10 revenues is that we are aided at approximately 57% by the state, and local property taxes pick up only 15% of total revenue. The revenue limit formula, just as a reminder, is state aid plus property taxes equals total allowable revenue. The revenue limit, as you know, is driven by our student enrollment. Um, the blue

056pie pieces on the expenditure graph comprise the total wages and benefits that are budgeted. Included in those blue pieces, which total approximately 72% of the budget, is the operating transfer to Fund 27 of which the majority is used for salaries and benefits and special education. Some items included in the contracted services pie piece are open enrollment out, transportation, and software costs. And the bright red pie piece, on the right under expenditures, represents vouchers, which we just discussed, and are currently budgeted at $8.8 million. Pages 14 and 15 are Fund 27 revenue and expenditures. As I mentioned in the previous slide, you can see that the operating transfer from Fund 10 of approximately $33 million is included in the revenue for Fund 27. Currently, we're aided by the state, as we discussed, at about 30% of

057our total education expenditures of 29%. The majority of Fund 27 expenditures are represented by the blue pie pieces. Again, as you can see, wages and benefits total approximately 92% of expenditures for special education. Any questions? Laura: Before we start, I just want to thank you. That is very stark. And we've been looking at this and seeing this coming -- right? -- for months and months and months, and trying to, you know, act accordingly and make good decisions that will help us address this. And I just want to thank you for giving us a dose of reality. So, James. James: Oh, thank you, Angie. Just looking at the models again, on both the 0% base, 8% base, you only apply that increase for the budgeted year, right? And then you say in your notes, with steps.

058Can you just describe what step you're using? Sara: Yes. [Inaudible] for a second. Angela: So you're doing the proposal one, right, James? Sorry. Or are you on the original? James: Either. So in the notes, you say the assumption is a 0% wage increase with steps, or an 8% with steps. What your definition of step? Angela: So, the steps are for the administrative and the teacher scales for the master scale. So every year, we automatically will step up. So that includes the steps. So, as of July 1, the administrators that are on and the teachers that are on those scales that will step up one year, that's automatically -- those will automatically step up. So this includes those steps, even with a 0% CPI increase. James: Okay, so, the model is not intended to demonstrate any

059kind of accumulation of expenses based on a continued CPI increase per year. Right? You just -- You don't leave it. You only apply that one year, and then you're just back down to zero? Is that... Angela: Can you rephrase that, please? James: So I would expect an exponential increase in expenses for salaries if the 8% wage increase on the bottom model was applied across the model. So it looks like you applied it to year one and then you removed it, and from everyone else -- every other year, it's back down to zero because we don't know what that would be. Is that a correct statement? Angela: Percent. I think we put 2% in there as a placeholder, James. So there is a 2% moving forward. James: On both? Angela: On both, yes. So that's the

060same assumption on both. It was just 0% and 8% for the '23-'24 year. James: Okay. And my next question is, in the budgeted year '23-'24, in Fund 10 revenues, you list $320 million and then you drop it back down to 295 across the rest of the years. I don't understand the decrease. Angela: That's got a lot to do with our ESSER funds, because our ESSER funds are inflating that number for revenues. And when we lose those funds, that will drop that back down. James: Okay. I was wondering where you were applying the ESSER funds. Now, you just built it into that revenue number. Thank you. Laura: Bryan, then Lynn. Bryan: Just want to add something relating to -- while it ties into our budget, just the big picture of looking at school funding. Obviously the

061majority of our decisions are made by the governor and the Senate and the Assembly through DPI funds, but also the impact that Department of Justice funds have, for example, on schools and how they're run. It's my understanding, under the budget proposal, that there's a cut for the Office of School Safety, which funds the 24/7 -- it's a staffed line for the Speak Up, Speak Out line, which had over 3,800 contacts on it. So when we're looking at these funding and how they impact our ability as a board, that's another resource that we have that's being not adequately funded, and directly impacts our students. With over 3,800 calls made per year, I can guarantee that some were made to Green Bay students, or from Green Bay students, to make sure that we have safe schools, as

062well as other districts in the area. So when we're looking at the picture and we're looking at funding for our schools and how we do our jobs, part of that funding is coming from other areas, and it's important to advocate for that in other areas, as well, to make sure that we're providing a safe environment for our students. Laura: I think that the Office of School Safety was eliminated. Like, not yet? Bryan: It's a proposal. Laura: It's still a proposal. Bryan: It's drastically cut. Laura: Yeah. Okay. Okay, Lynn, I think you're next. Lynn: I just wanted to ask you, just in case there are people who are listening to this meeting and haven't been listening, you know, to budget talk all along, and make sure everyone understands what ESSER funds are and how they've been

063used, what they were for, why they're ending, that sort of thing. Because, you know, it doesn't have the word COVID in there. So a lot of people don't know what ESSER means. Angela: Sure. The ESSER funds were federal -- I guess, federal relief funds that we've received over the past couple of years. We got them in a couple different, let's say, pots. So ESSER one, two, and three that we've been spending down. So, summer school, we opened up the KJ Academy, or the online school. Our interventionists are being covered under there. There were certain things for students, like labs, learning labs, additional time for pairs during the pandemic, additional time for noon-hour monitors, those types of things. We have curriculum adoptions that were included in there. Um, software like Canvas, Connect, which the board approved

064a couple months ago for our online platform for the school. So those are some of the things. Technology in the beginning, right? A couple years ago, I got to go back. So, in a list of all of those expenditures are on the website, as well, under, under ESSER. So you can kind of see what different categories those funds were spent on, as well. Laura: Go ahead, Andrew. Andrew: I just wanted to be clear here, well, that this should not be taken as assuming a 0% or an 8% increase would be proposed. I certainly couldn't see myself offering anything that would be a 0% increase, causing people to lose money like that in an 8% inflation year. But just to clarify, these are just for -- basically these are two round numbers that make sense to

065provide the range. Correct? Angela: That is correct, Andrew. Andrew: Thank you. Laura: Go ahead. Nancy: So, when we had our little Wednesday meeting and I asked about that 105 positions that were cut, then a lot of those positions, are they the ones that were added on during COVID? Angela: I mean, some. I don't know the breakdown of that, though, Nancy. Laura: Anybody? Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I'm just going to ask for one more clarification. Not from you, but I'm going to ask if Bryan might do this, because you mentioned the Speak Out, Speak Up. Or maybe I have that backward. But it was just today that I also read about the cuts. And again, for people who are listening to the meeting, I would like them to know what that is that's being dramatically cut.

066Bryan: Speak Out -- The Speak Up, Speak Out program is a 24/7 monitored call line, and they have electronic resources. So, if a student is feeling bullied, if they're feeling threatened at school, if they're talking about violence, if they're suicidal, it deals with the mental health of students. And it's an anonymous number that they can contact. And I believe -- and I'm not sure who I'm going to ask over there -- but threats are forwarded on to the school so they can be acknowledged and get the services that students need to be safe and to make sure all of our students are safe, as well as if that student needs some mental health help at that point. I'm going to guess that school counselors are informed and our student services are informed on it. But

067it's a statewide program. So, while we're a large district -- I'm sure we've had a significant number of calls in there -- that's something that benefits every school district in the state. And if you're in a rural area, you may not have the resources available to monitor it as much. So it's just helping with school safety, which, you know, is obviously one of our main concerns and should be the concerns of the state Assembly and the state Senate, too. Just -- I'm sorry -- to add one other part of that. That was a program that was passed in 2018 under Governor Walker. So, hopefully, they can fund it. Laura: Okay. Is there any other questions? Andrew, do you have anything else you'd like to say? Andrew: I don't have any other questions or comments. Thank

068you. Laura: Okay. Angie and Sara, do you have anything else you'd like to say? Angela: No. Just like I said, once, you know, in the next couple of weeks, hopefully, we can get a, um, you know, some solid answers and then we can plug those in and really look like what it's going to look like in the future. And we'll bring that to you in October, but we'll keep you updated over the summer. Layra: So when are we likely to next hear from you as far as, like -- as far as being at the table? Are we going to see you again in October, as far as a presentation? Angela: Yeah. So, in October, that's when we'll be bringing the '23-'24 budget to be certified and adopted for the board. So we'll be bringing that

069forward in October, but you'll most likely see and hear from us before then. Laura: Okay. And in the fall, my recollection is, is that there'll be three budget hearings in a row, right? Angela: Yep. We'll do, I believe it's two. So we'll present the budget. But then that usually happens before that October 15th date where we get our certified numbers for our third Friday count, our equalized aid, property values. So once those come in, then we bring the changes that have occurred because of those certified numbers. And then you'll vote on the budget. Laura: Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. Angela: Yeah. Sara: Thank you. Angela: Thank you. Laura: Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: Also when we're looking at the budget and different proposals that are coming out, we want to make sure that we're

070keeping an eye on any unfunded mandates that are coming through. There's a literacy bill that's coming through that I've heard concerns that there'll be an increase in training for staff, but there won't be an increase in funding to do that. So another piece that looks into this, the budget puzzle, of what's coming down the road with it, as well. So, obviously, our presentation was strong, but, you know, there's other things tied in with that budget. So... Laura: Okay. All right. Moving on. We're going to now, under Operations B, is review and approval of meal price recommendations for the 2023-2024 school year. And we are joined by Lynette. Hello. Would you please introduce yourself and tell everybody? Lynette: Of course. Yes. Good evening. My name is Lynette Kiehnau, and I'm the director of the food service

071operation here in Green Bay. Laura: Go ahead. Lynette: Thank you for having me tonight. I am very pleased to be in front of you. Last time, I believe, I was virtual. So this is good. Laura: It's been a while. Lynette: It has. So what I want to bring forth is, you know, managing finances for the school food service operation. And we've talked a lot about finances tonight. We've heard a lot of money, dollars, dollars and even cents discussed. So with the food service, operation, Fund 50 is an operating fund that is a self-funded fund. All revenue that is brought in to the Fund 50 is by participation of our students and adults. We do get federally reimbursed and state reimbursed, for all of our participation of the students, by the Department of Public Instruction. Also

072with that being said, the Department of Public Instruction, they set up guidelines that we need to follow when we manage our food service operations. And I did touch base with that in the memo that I brought forward to all of you with the paid lunch equity. And they give us these guidelines that we need to follow with that. And coming forward, I'm asking for that 10-cent increase. And now I'm going to talk The reason why is, schools are charging less for school meals than what they actually cost. Federal funds are intended for free and reduced price lunches, and they are not subsidized by the paid student meals. Schools have funding available to support serving nutritious meals to all of the students. The annual PLE requirement is based on the difference between the reimbursement rate for

073the free meal and for -- with the paid meal. The USDA lunch PLE that they set forward for this school year, for the '23-'24, is $3.56. So, as you can see on the graph below, I did not put any reimbursements in there because at this time, I do not know what those reimbursements are. But what I can tell you is that the paid lunch equity is $3.56 USDA is saying that we need to follow. So, with that being said, the 10-cent increase that I would like to do still puts Green Bay School District below what other school districts were charging last school year. Every year, I partake in a group of food service directors that we look at what are the costs across the board. We will still be lower for the '23-'24 school year

074than districts where our students were paying '22-'23 in other districts. So, as we know, our costs are higher. With our cost being higher, that's food, that's labor, and also other supplies. We know that there's been an increase in staffing for FTE. I've added more staffing that have higher FTE. But with that being said, I have also lowered our number of staffing with the food service department. Lynn, you have a question? Laura: Yeah. Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: It doesn't make sense to me. Say that again, please. Laura: Yeah, I'm confused. Lynette: Absolutely. I can explain that to you. So, we had employees that were working four hours a day. But to have a thriving workforce, they are looking for full-time hours. So what we did is we created those hours, the full-time hours, and we

075have now eliminated more part-time employees. And with that being said, then our FTE goes up, which is funded by Fund 50, because we are self-funded. And we are, as I've said a little earlier, as we are a thriving workforce within our department. I know that the food service staff are very pleased where we have moved forward with this, within our department, but then we know there's also some added costs onto that, too. Laura: Does that mean people stay with you longer? Lynette: Yes. Laura: I can imagine. Lynette: Yes. Laura: Which is good. Lynette: Yes, it is. Laura: All right. Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: I imagine that those happier employees, and gain those full-time hours, have a direct impact on our students, especially when these are some of our front-line workers that are seeing

076the students. And it may be one of the trusted adults that they have a connection with, and keeping that consistency there, especially in the food service area, is going to obviously benefit our students to have another trusted adult that's there on a consistent basis, that they can talk to while they're going through. And this has been an ongoing thing, I would assume. Lynette: Correct. You are absolutely correct. At the end of the year -- and we get pictures from our staff all across the district of wonderful pictures and books that the students make for them -- we had some retirees that have left our food service operation. And the praise that the staff received on the last day of school, in the books and the pictures and just how the food service staff, how they

077partake within the schools, they just don't serve our students. They partake in after-school activities and they're volunteering their time, too. So we have a true community within our district, with our food-service employees. And even within our administration, within our schools, our food service staff are not just looked at as food service staff. They are looked at -- They're part of the school community, which is so important. And we really thrived with that, to have food service be part of that community within our schools and with the students. They see them every day, that they're the face. So thank you for that. Laura: Lynn? Lynn: So I think what you're asking us to do is to approve a 10% raise in the meals that the students who pay for their own meals will pay. And if

078that's correct or not, I also would like to know when is the last time you asked for a raise in the price? Lynette: Thank you. I'm asking for a 10-cent increase for the paid meals. And the last time that I did ask for an increase was last year, and it was a 10-cent increase. And I'm going to give you the why behind that. The why is, the USDA paid lunch equity price is $3.56. I don't want to not do an increase, and then we wait and wait, and all of a sudden, we're way behind. I don't want to do that to our parents, our community. And also with the increases, I would rather just stay steady with that. Laura: So you're saying instead of having a large, abrupt increase, having a more gradual increase is

079preferable? Lynette: That is correct. Laura: Okay. Lynette: Mm-hmm. Laura: Bryan? Bryan: Are we seeing -- I know there are supply issues with a lot of food that was coming through the school lunch programs. Are we seeing that kind of level off a bit, or are we still experiencing that? Lynette: We do. Yes, we do still see some of those. But what we have done is we just don't have one prime vendor that we go through. We have other opportunities out there that we work with. And for instance, we are having an issue with one of our beverages that we could not purchase. So we went locally. And we did purchase that so we could serve it to our students. Laura: Okay. Andrew, did you have any questions? Andrew: No questions. Laura: Okay. Andrew: Thank you.

080Laura: Anybody else? I think that's it. Thank you, Lynette. Lynette: All right. Laura: Thanks. Lynette: Perfect. Thank you. Laura: We'll move that forward for our next meeting. All right. Next on our agenda is facilities and referendum updates. And we're going to look at a potential RFP. And Josh is going to help us with that. Josh: Yeah. So this is in response to the fourth resolution in the list. Although I don't remember the order in which they were voted on. It was the first one you guys voted on. James: The second. Josh: The second? That requires an assessment of boundaries and the equity involved in boundary changes related to the task force recommendations for K-8s within the district. After the board meeting on Monday, we met with our procurement office and our director of procurement, Jake

081Alverson. He had been collecting other similar RFPs, kind of. James did a really nice job, in the resolution, of laying out the expectations. So Jake worked on creating some RFP language here. I thought, given the gravity of the decision, it would be useful to have this presented publicly to the board and approved by the board before we move forward into this very important work. If all goes well here, the idea would be to bring this to a vote at the next regular board meeting, which is in two weeks, on the 26th. We would post the RFP on the 27th and close it on -- I think we're leaving it up a month. So then we would be bringing vendors in, in August, to present to the board. It would make the final selection of the

082vendors for this work. I know you haven't had this very long, because we were working on it right up until today, but we really wanted to get this posted and get you chewing on it. So we were able to get this RFP posted at the end of June here. Laura: Thank you. There is an urgency here, as everyone knows. Okay, Bryan? Bryan: I just wanted to thank you for the efficiency of getting this to us so quickly. Off the top of your head, how many groups are there that do this work, that you're familiar with? Josh: I'm familiar with probably 4 or 5 of them. It will be interesting to see the proposals. Jake's done a really nice job here of laying out a scoring criteria, and some requirements for the bid itself, that should

083really allow whoever responds to differentiate themselves in terms of the value they provide these services and their philosophies behind it. Laura: Every time we hire an outside entity like this, where usually people want to know why we can't do this work in-house -- can you just kind of talk a little bit about why it's important to have an outside disinterested party do this kind of work? Josh: Well, first of all, it's very complicated work. It requires loading hundreds of thousands of data points into a GIS software and then artfully drawing boundaries. Even if equity weren't at the center of the boundary-drawing activity, it's still an immensely technical process. And frankly, we have not changed boundaries in the last 20 years. So we don't have boundary experts that work here at the district. And then, when

084you add up -- add in the layer of ensuring equity across the district with these changes and ensuring that there's not disparate impact with these boundary changes, I think it is -- I think it behooves the board to bring in someone who does this all the time. Laura: Okay. Did you want to say something? Okay. It just -- I know that this will be asked. I know people have concerns. I know that we don't have a staff that has the time that can devote to this process. And to me personally, it is important that we have someone outside our community do this that is not already influenced, that they're, like I said, disinterested third party who can just do the work and not be swayed by board members or, you know, staff or anybody. So

085I just wanted to make that point. So thank you. Josh: And can I clarify, too? It's not -- To me, it's not about the time involved. It is about the expertise required to do it correctly. Laura: Absolutely. But even if we had, you know, like, it would be this -- I anticipate that this is going to be a very time-consuming process, and we just don't have the staff that could take it on. So, anybody else? Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I just want to be clear about the basic kind of foundational idea here. In the overview, it says that the task force recommended the transition to four K to 8 schools at Langlade, McAuliffe, and Franklin. These transitions would result in the following school closures and school modifications. And then there are eight schools listed. Is

086it -- Do I understand correctly that the information we are about to gain now might influence that list of schools? It's not that we are trying -- that we have said -- It's my understanding we did not say at the last meeting, "Close these five schools and modify these three." We said, "Look into it." And this is part of the looking into it. Am I right? Josh: Yes. And I know that, again, you've not spent much time with this document to this point. And we have two weeks to go. Go through this. But if I could direct you down to page 6, that top list of bullets. The last one within the scope of the analysis would be to potentially propose alternative locations for four K-8 facility investment. So I know -- I think it

087might have been you, Lynn, to think about Webster or Washington as a potential alternative site for a K-8, contrary to the -- Oh, it was Bryan? Contrary to the task force's recommendation. Laura: Go ahead, James, then to Laura. James: Oh, sorry. I think that's actually very important because it needs to be seen as a analysis to test the plan, not validate the plan. Right? And those are, you know, nuanced positions. But when we look at it, we're really making sure that, you know, as to the equity question, if through the analysis, all of the moves, and they work with, and come up with the report, that it's not delivered in such a way that leads us to the, "Yes, this is an okay set of changes," but make sure that we understand the impacts of

088the changes. Does that make sense? Because when I looked at it, actually drawing the boundaries, all of that would be associated with this set of changes could be interpreted as, you know, directive versus just representative of what would it take. Right? And so I just want to make sure that it is clear, as we assemble the task force that per the resolution, they have data at their disposal that they can use to evolve on the plan where necessary. So I agree with Lynn. It's a major component of the analysis request. Laura: Laura? Laura W.: My question is about, on Page 6, talking about the facilitate community engagement. And having reviewed this document, it seems like two very sort of different sets of data we're looking at. I mean, we're looking at the community piece and

089then also looking at a lot of the other data that doesn't involve people directly. Do we have a way in the process to gauge the possible vendors in that their skill set related to those two kind of different soft skills versus -- qualitative versus quantitative, I guess? I just want to be certain that that's covered. Or is there a local community group that could do the second part of the community engagement portion? I think of, like, there's a few places I know of that do facilitation for community input sessions. Josh: Yeah, it's in the stated scope of services. So, to be eligible for an award, they'd either have to provide those services and provide evidence of having successfully done so in the past, or partner with someone who provides those services, who we would then

090also, you know, reference-check. Laura: Go ahead, James. James: Given the community interest in this analysis, the RFP establishes that there, after the rubric for evaluation, that there will be a committee formed to grade the RFPs. Is it -- and to the board -- within the interest of the board to have representation on that committee for vendor selection? And is there a means to facilitate that? Laura: Well, they're going to be coming -- You said the candidates will be coming to the board to do presentations, right? But you want the -- You want the step before that. Is that what you're saying? James: Usually the district runs the RFP, selects the vendor, and then we get an analysis and a summarization of that process. And that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for representation on

091the committee that would receive or participate in the finalist presentations so that they can have firsthand knowledge of the discussions and the evaluation and how it's applied. Josh: So, it might be just because I have a cold here, but I'm not understanding what you're saying, so... James: [Inaudible] Josh: Typically, like, we just saw one tonight, right? Major, major RFP at Southwest. Millions of dollars going into those softball fields. There was an independent review of the bid. There happened to be just one bid in that case. But if there were multiple bidders, you would see a scoring matrix. All of the scoring would be done with, you know, by district administration and their trusted partners, recommendation of the board. You basically affirm the recommendation or not. There are other situations, such as the superintendent search, the

092original facilities master plan, where the evaluation is actually made by the Board of Education. Am I to understand that you want a citizen, a group of citizens to help? I'm not understanding the difference here. Vicki: Yeah, we'll have 1 or 2 members of the board serve on the group with us, Josh, to do the evaluation of the RFPs. Okay. Josh: So this is important. So the evaluation of the RFPs will be done by administration, along with members, non-quorum, of the board versus... Vicki: Yep. Josh: Okay. James: So I want to make sure that the board is comfortable with the approach. But yet the way it's written, it says that you'll -- the district will form a committee, and usually that means that it will be a committee of administrative representatives. So either how we selected

093the superintendent, where it's all board, which I don't know that we need to go there, or that there's representation of the board, right? So I'm just not interested in hearing a summary of what happened. I think it should be participatory. Laura: Okay. Andrew: I think that's reasonable. There's -- You know, this is -- And I think it's also perfectly reasonable that things that are much more straightforward brick-and-mortar that we maybe don't have board members on those. But there is a lot of subtlety, there's a lot of subjective, as well as objective, qualities we're looking at here. I would always support a fellow board member if they thought a board presence was needed on a particular committee. Anyways, and I think here it does make sense, so that when we come to the table, there's 1

094or 2 board members who are participating that can speak to the process for something that's going to be weighing in on such a heavy decision. I also agree with what Laura L-W said earlier about the importance of good quality facilitation. If a group is going to be -- if a piece of this is going to be community facilitation, it's very important that there be respectful facilitation, facilitators treating adult community members like, you know, respectfully and so forth, is important. So thank you. Laura: Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: If we were to do this, would we have some sort of calendar with some expectations as to when we'd be able to meet. So when we'd -- when you'd look into, I would imagine this would be a decision of the president, the availability of all board members,

095and interest level is considered. Laura: I was wondering the same thing. Like, what would be the time commitment? Of course, it would be happening during the day. I'm assuming that, you know, this kind of analysis of these potential vendors. So I don't know if it's too early to talk about when this would be happening. Are we talking about August? We talking about July still? Josh: Typically, we'll begin evaluating responses to RFPs immediately upon closing the RFP. So we're talking that last week in July. Depending on the makeup of the committee, I'm confident we could work around board members' schedules on that. Laura: Okay. All right. Josh: We could also do a hybrid, to where, you know, it depends how many bids we get. If we've got 20 bids coming in, you may want us, as

096administration, to screen, as well, at least to make sure that they all meet the minimum requirements so you're not wasting time. Some of these bids can get quite lengthy. Laura: Okay. And sometimes they just don't even line up at all. Or maybe they obviously don't line up. Josh: Right. Laura: Right? Okay. All right. That sounds like a decision. Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I know what we're talking about right now is the RFP, but could you, Josh or Vicki, somebody just give us a sense of, once this is accomplished, once we have chosen this vendor, what is the calendar looking like for the work that this person will do? And when it comes back to the board and next steps and that sort of thing. Vicki: I believe the board gave us a deadline of November.

097The beginning of November. James: That's inaccurate. This is the one that I did not put a deadline on, because I knew it had to go to RFP. And I needed to understand from the vendors how long this process takes. So it's not yet defined. I agree with you that once we get them in, we need to look at the calendar. Josh: On page -- I would direct you to the top of Page 9 In the -- in the how to respond to this, provide a timeline of consultant activities that demonstrate the ability to complete all scope of work activities not later than 1-15-24. If you want to take that -- If you want to strike that date or strike that requirement, we can do that, but I just wanted to point out that that's currently

098a requirement. Laura: I personally feel like it should be before then. Jsoh: I think that would be pretty tight. Laura: Would it? Okay. James: Actually, I think 1-15, if we look at schedules in December and how long it takes to constitute a committee, I would rather not exclude a potential bidder because they don't agree with a date because it doesn't align up with their professional experiences. So I think you should strike the date and we can negotiate once we get the bids in. Laura: Go ahead, Nancy. Nancy: James, when I asked you this before the meeting, why don't you explain what this is actually doing for us. Or am I at the wrong thing? James: I'm sorry, I don't know exactly how to respond to that. Nancy: Okay. When I asked you, I said, "Are

099we going to have time?" And you said yes, because -- Okay? James: No, so, again, this was proposed in such a way where it does not act as inputs into any referendum question established for April. Right? And that was what created the necessity to act expediently for other questions. But this one does not have that. Laura: Okay. Jsoh: Right. And I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that point you just made by removing that requirement of the timeline that would preclude any of these changes being included in a potential April of '24 referendum. Laura: Laura? Laura W.: I went back to the scope of services, and I'm just wondering, do we have a little bit of time to give some feedback on this before this goes out? Because we'll approve it in a

100few weeks, potentially. Right? Laura: Uh-huh. Laura W.: So my thought, I'd like the board to think about an administration with the scope of services. It says the new school boundaries will be drawn, ensuring maximum diversity, equity, and inclusion for the student population. I'm not sure what that, you know -- I know it breaks it down a little bit more, but I'd like to think about more specifically about what we really want. What does that -- What does that mean? And what we've heard from the community, what do we want this to look like? Because if we say maximum diversity, inclusion, equity for the student population, does that mean we want every school to have the same demographics, you know? So how do we want that to look? I think we need to break it down

101a little bit more. Laura: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I don't know how that would work, because populations come and go. Like, you could mess with that all day long and you still wouldn't get -- Laura W.: Right. Laura: Next year could be different. Laura W.: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We need to be very specific about what we're actually looking for in this, and I think just need to process that a little bit more. Laura: Okay. Andrew, did you have anything? Andrew? Andrew: I don't have anything else on this one. Thank you. Laura: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I think we're ready to move on. Thank you, Josh. Josh: [Inaudible]. Laura: Yes, absolutely. Okay. All right. Next on our agenda is, under policy and governance, is the advisory committee. And that would be Melissa. Melissa: Good

102evening. Good evening. Following last week's board meeting, there was a request for a policy with respect to the board formulating of committees to do various different pieces of work. Policy 170 refers to advisory committees and indicates that the board has the authority to create committees to investigate and report on specific issues. Other committees can be appointed as deemed necessary, and duties prescribed at the appointment, and the advisory committee is disbanded when the work is completed and the report is submitted to the board. So policy 185 was drafted in accordance with the provision in policy 170. And I tried to capture what the board had discussed last week. But of course, this is your policy, so you're free to edit, change, delete anything that doesn't make sense to you. Laura: Okay, go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: I

103just want to thank you for the rapid turnaround time on this, as well. Through all of the meetings that we've had, this is going into direct consideration, setting a strong policy on how our committees are made up, and a concern that people have brought forward. So the fact that you got this to us so quickly, with that turnaround time, and were responsive to those questions is fantastic. So thank you. Meliisa: You're welcome. Laura: Okay. Um... This is our chance to talk about this. It's very complicated, actually. This won't be easy policy to put into place so that it is clear, transparent, and implement -- able to be implemented properly. Like, I feel like there's a lot of -- There's some complexity here that is going to be hard to overcome. So this this is our

104chance now to talk about it. Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: So, would this -- You're calling it advisory committees. Would this be a new term, rather than using the term "task force"? And would this be -- For example, if we had had this policy in place, would we have used this to form the Facilities Advisory Committee? Melissa: So, your policy 170 already refers to advisory committees for the board. So this is not a new term. With respect to the term "task force," we've used task forces in this district really to work with administration and to inform the work of administration. So we've had a task force for bilingual education. We've had a task force for the multi-level systems of support. And with respect to advising the board, you get to decide how that looks and what

105that looks like. You have asked to formulate this committee that is moving forward to work in Phase 3 of the facility master plan. Laura: Go ahead, James. James: But just to clarify this, the Master Facilities Task Force Advisory Committee was a board-created committee, as well. Is that a correct statement, or was it... Okay. So that would have -- There would have been a requirement that we follow this policy since the board was creating the committee. So maybe other committees or task forces formed by the district would have followed a different policy, or you would have had more latitude. But I think you're right, Lynn. This would have established a criteria for that. Laura: Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: Laura, you had mentioned some of the complexity of this. And with this being our work session, do

106you want to elaborate on the concerns that you had with it? Laura: Um... It think it's going to be hard to talk about who can and cannot be on a board or on a task -- or an advisory committee. You know, like, we can't -- you can't have like 100 people. You know what I mean? Like, there has to be some limitations. And how do we -- how do we reconcile that? How do we have some kind of control over the process but not exclude anybody? You know what I mean? There's a tension there. So, yeah, that's kind of where I would start with that. Andrew? Andrew: Yeah. Thank you. I don't -- I intentionally don't have any suggestions, because I don't want to wordsmith here tonight, but I might have some suggestions to offer

107before next -- the next meeting. But conceptually, the only thing I would add is, unless it's in here and I'm missing it, but I don't think it's -- it's important to me that the public has to be able to apply. So we can't have -- At least we can't have a -- we wouldn't be able to have a situation anymore where someone felt they were excluded and there was a situation where there wasn't a clear method to apply. Right? At least there's no doubt that someone had a chance to apply to be on a committee. I think it remains to be seen if there's going to be such a huge, huge amount of applicants that we are over full. I think, if anything, it was the reverse last time that we -- you know, we

108struggled to find people. I think the -- It's my hope that the presence of the board vote to confirm the committee would encourage, you know, the board president, of course, when we write a policy, we're not speaking about today. We're speaking about today and forever, until another board chooses to change it. Right? That the board president would consider input from board members. And, you know, in trying to reach a balanced committee with reasonable membership. So I think this is a good start. I don't know -- I don't know what there would be that really should be a district administrator's selecting. It seems to me, anything that rises to the level of appointing a committee like this seems like something that it would probably be a board committee. I don't know why we would have just

109-- I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't think it would happen very often. I think, if one of these is being created, it's because the board feels the need to engage in detail, you know, a citizen committee. But I do think this is a good -- I do think this is a good start. I think we just need to protect -- make sure that there is a way that people can apply. So, thank you. Laura: Okay. Bryan: I think, on the bottom of Page 2 -- I'm sorry, Page 1 -- where we talk -- I'm sorry, top of Page 2 -- Number 5, the board reserves the right to limit, create, or abolish any standing or advisory committee as it seems -- as it deems appropriate. Well, obviously, we wouldn't want to limit or

110abolish. If we need to, that still gives us that opportunity to make sure we're focused on the work of the board and the work of the district on it. So, Laura, I hope that would help address concerns with it that you had brought up that that gives us a mechanism to address it. Laura: James? James: So, my concern is not addressed by Number 5. Andrew, I think I heard you say, that last meeting, where you're very interested in the public being able to discover it and apply, but then the policy, as it's written, doesn't address the complexities of how do we, as a board, negotiate the selection, right? And if we don't get the numbers of candidates that we want, what is the process by which we fill the remaining slots? So I'm concerned, with

111its current construction, that it's going to put us in the middle of the road. And the last thing I or, I think, any board member wants is a open discussion about people and their ability to serve on these committees in public. Right? And that's something that I don't think is fair to anybody. And you may speak to reputation. And you're right, maybe not this board, but a future board, it may become extremely contentious -- right? -- in public. So I'm not biased to just kind of accept with small tweaks. I think that we have to really -- if you're going to have a policy like this, we have to control for those items because your idea of a selection process may not be the same idea that I would have. And I don't think we

112should leave that to be an ad hoc process in the face of an immediate need. Does that make sense? Andrew: Sure. But I mean, there is a process here. It's appointment by the board. Appointment by the board president. As I read it, it's appointment by the board president, with the possibility of the superintendent to add members, which that seems -- I don't know if that's a good idea. I don't know why the president wouldn't take someone the superintendent suggested, but it seems to be putting direct administrator control into a board -- the board's committee -- although I'm -- probably wouldn't die on that hill, because in the end, I think if the superintendent selects someone, the board president should probably take them anyways. But I think that there is a process here, which is the

113committee is appointed by the board president, and the board confirms by majority vote, as in many -- as what a committee created by many governmental bodies do that. Right? Melissa: Andrew, if I can direct you to the language on Page 2. B-1 says that the board president will make the nomination, but the committee will be appointed by a majority vote of the board. So, really, the nominations are just being facilitated through the board president, and then the board itself confirms the appointments. Andrew: It's almost -- It's a different wording of something that is almost the same thing as what I said, though technically, it differs slightly. Okay. Thank you. Laura: I agree with James about basically talking about people's qualifications in public. Like, what -- What? Yeah, what if someone is just very deeply inappropriate.

114Maybe for all kinds of reasons, finds this process, says, "I want to be on this," and now we're in open session, talking about who's going to populate this advisory board. Andrew: Well, I would imagine they won't get appointed. I would imagine they wouldn't get -- their name wouldn't get brought forward. Right? That's what -- Melissa: I don't know what this -- This is what you haven't advised. What I heard last week was that you want to appoint the members to the advisory board, and that needs to be voted on by the board. But for, essentially, Laura, or whoever the president is, nominating every single person that does an application, I don't know how you get to the point where every person who has submitted an application, which is what I wrote down, Andrew, that you're

115asking, is that everyone is able to submit an application who wants to serve. How they don't then get vetted by the board, and the vetting has to be in an open meeting. Andrew: Well, you can go -- If there is substantial adverse risk to reputation, you can you can break into closed for that, can't you? Melissa: Well, this isn't employment. This is not employment, so there's no property interest. So I would be reluctant in advising you that you could go into closed session for that. Andrew: I think there may have been cases where that's happened. But, again, I think the -- Realistically, I don't think -- I don't think the board president is going to bring someone forward that there's likely to be a serious problem with. And they may ask questions, or I just

116-- I want there to be -- I think there needs to be -- I think there needs to be a confirmational vote by the board on the committee membership. That is the check and balance to see if the board agrees that it is a balanced committee. If there's -- Yeah, I think there just needs to be that board -- that board vote. I think, in practical terms, it's an appointment -- it's an appointment with a confirmation. Laura: Andrew, so would you be -- It sounds like you're saying you'd be comfortable with the board president, whoever that might be, or maybe a superintendent, striking names off a list. Andrew: I'm not -- I don't know that it's striking. I mean, okay, in the sense that you would have -- In the sense that you would have

117not everyone who -- If there's more people that apply then could reasonably be on a committee, or if there aren't more than the -- or if there aren't enough people, if all the people from the committee come from one affected group and none from any other group, and there's some kind of mismatch there, I don't see it as really striking off of a list, but I see it as some way that -- I mean, people would have -- people who found out that they weren't on the committee, if they wanted to make a case, they could reach out to board members and say, "I don't think it was right that I wasn't picked," or something. But, um... Laura: There are certain, I mean, criteria. Like, are you going to -- On an application, there are

118certain things, by law, you can't ask a person. So how do you determine balance? Andrew: Well, it's not -- It's not employment. So if it's not employment, then I just -- Laura: I'm concerned about that, and I don't know, Melissa, is there anything you can offer about what you can and cannot ask on an application to be on an advisory committee? Melissa: I would never ask for protected category status on an advisory committee. I mean, you're setting yourself up in our district for some real legal concerns, and I feel -- Andrew: Well, then how have we done it all along? I mean... Laura: Hang on, Andrew. There's a lot of people want to talk. Go ahead. I'm sorry. It was Lynn and then Laura. Lynn: First, a point of clarification -- a question for clarification.

119And this would be either for Melissa or for James. Is it possible that this policy is going to be used to develop an advisory committee about boundary changes? James: Yes. Lynn: Then what I want to point out is that we've had only one meeting about Schema 12.1. We've only talked about it once, but we have listened for a long, long time to the community talking about it. And there were about 10 schools on that plan that were earmarked for closure. And ask yourself how many schools have been represented in the comments that we have heard. And so if we have a system whereby people can self-appoint to a task or an advisory committee, we're going to have the people who feel most passionately, I assume, and who feel that they have something at stake. Notice

120that no one has come before us to speak for Tank School. So, would anyone -- Well, except for Nancy Welch. [ Chuckles ] So, would anyone apply to be on that advisory committee to represent that community? I just think that what is being proposed as a sign-up system is very ill-advised. Laura: Laura? Laura W.: I just wonder -- I think, when we look at diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and creating where we want to go as a district, this is -- this whole challenge is the problem of not having connections -- strong-enough connections with those communities. I think I would like to see where we get to a point in the district where we have... more, I think, stronger relationships with the communities that we can maybe involve community organization partnerships. Maybe we ask for, you

121know -- I was contacted to say, who would I know from Oneida that might want to be on the task force, right? You know, is there somebody from Ho-Chunk? Can we have these community organizations represent? I mean, we've had we had that with with NEWLET come forward and say, "Here's some people we recommend." Can we do that in other areas -- the PTOs? You know, just other ways that we can get these other schools, other communities, other groups represented in a way that's -- I'd like to see it be a little bit more organic. I know we have to have -- You know, we're coming to make sure that we have a policy so that we are including everybody. But I would like that to just be a part of our culture, as a district,

122that we're not having to formalize some things as much as we do, that it's just natural that we, "Oh, yeah, we contact this community organization, they can send us a couple different representatives." We like some people with not all on the same page. We want to have a good, rich discussion. Laura: We did that actually with the last task force, though. Tried really hard to connect. We need to work -- We need to do better. Laura W.: Yeah, and maybe it's a -- You know, if not me, who else will we reach out to? We reach out to the chairman's office? When I was thinking of this, I was thinking, oops. I was thinking of a more formalized way that we're going to reach out to engage community members and maybe community organizations, and I

123don't think that through all of this, although this is definitely identifying how it's going to work, that piece is not in here, but I didn't say that last time either. But I'm just thinking about that now that where this is becoming very, very complex. And it's like we just need voices of people that are in our community. We want them involved. And I know that during the task force process, there was people that was reached out. But can we do even more? And can we then say, "Okay, who do you recommend for our task force? Please ensure that you have some people there that meet these qualifications on these." You know, I don't know. I just think we can come up with a process to get committee members, community members involved, more representative of our

124entire community. Laura: Okay. Bryan? Bryan: I think this policy helps us set up a system for that, and I completely agree with what you're saying, But one of the things that we ran into was, "You talked to this group but not this group." So when we start looking at identified groups, then it immediately becomes -- not immediately, but then the question arises, "Well, why aren't we talking to this group, as well?" We're setting up a policy with this and our clear expectations of, this is how you can -- I don't want to say "apply to be," but how you can show your interest in serving on one of the committees as they come up alleviates that concern. And then we reach out to different groups and say, "This is the policy we've set up. If

125you have people that are interested, please have them join us." And we can reach out to different groups. But then we're not necessarily omitting groups by not including them. I don't know if I'm clear on that, but I think that hits our goal with it, as well. We have different groups, but as was brought forward to us, other groups are out there that we don't know about. And now if we have this policy set, they can reach out to us, as well, and we can continue to say, as a board member, "It's good to see this group. Did you see the committee that we have becoming established? I encourage you to apply or show interest in it, as well." So I think -- I hope I'm being clear on that. Laura: Our last task force

126was put together with a view of our larger community. You know, like town of Scott, Eaton, Bellevue, Allouez -- you know, all these different -- I mean, everybody is -- Everybody who is part of our district is impacted by our public schools. So that was a little bit more of the thinking, was to, you know -- to have across-the-board representation for that task force. So, you know, my thought is -- I mean, we didn't have anybody on the task force who was disabled in any way -- that I know of, anyway. Like how many groups -- How many groups have a stake? How do you identify that? That's what I mean when I say it gets really complicated. Like, what kind of representation are you looking for? Because there are many, many, many kinds of

127representation. So, again, those are just some of my concerns, some of my thoughts. Go ahead, Lynn. Oh, okay. Go ahead, Andrew. You're muted. Andrew: Sorry about that. So I think that we're maybe overanalyzing what simply ensuring that members of the public have the right to apply does here. It doesn't change any -- It wouldn't have changed anything about wanting to reach out to make sure we had Allouez, Bellevue, town of Scott, Green Bay on the committee. It would -- Under this, the same committee as last time might very well have been selected. But if it would have had the -- It would have had the board vote to confirm the membership and, hopefully, would have the -- and it would eliminate the chances of those people who were excluded from the committee, but then told

128they didn't apply. But there wasn't a way to actually apply. Right? That wouldn't be there. So everyone would always -- There would always be a chance to apply. And then I would imagine we would get committees that would have, um, similar -- a similar range of expertise and backgrounds as we had. But maybe, you know, we'd have that closer look -- that closer look from the board for a final -- a final confirmation. And the simply adding people -- to adding the fact that people can apply does not mean we can't approach or ask or ask groups for suggestions. I just want there to be a way to get something into the board that you're interested. Laura: Lynn? Lynn: I think I understand Andrew's point better now. And that reminds me that the city of

129Green Bay, on its website, has a place where you can go and apply if you'd like to serve on a commission. Like, if you'd like to serve on the Police and Fire commission someday, you put in your application, and then when they have somebody resign and they need somebody, they might have five applicants and they might say -- I mean, when I say "they," I'm guessing the current members of the commission, maybe the mayor -- would get together and say, "Okay, of these five, which one do we want? And we'll invite that person." That's not a bad idea. It's like building up a bank of interested people who would like to be involved, with the understanding that they're not signing up to be on an advisory committee. They're expressing an interest, and that's okay. It

130seems to me that then it would be up to, per this, it would be up to the board president and the superintendent to cull from that. And it should be probably a list that all -- and I'm just talking off the top of my head here -- might be a list that all board members could access and could make recommendations and say, "Hey, Laura, did you see so-and-so signed up? I'd really like you to consider this one." And my final point is that I think that for different purposes, different advisory committees will need different kinds of people and different kinds of representation. So it doesn't hurt to build up a bank of them, but understand that what we need to come up with is a process, and it needs to be applied in many different

131ways for many different purposes. Laura: Thank you. Anybody else? I don't know, Melissa, do you have what you need? [ Chuckles ] Go ahead, Bryan. Oh, no. Melissa: I've heard a lot of really good feedback. I'm not sure how to take that and now revise this, because I've heard all -- When what I hear, I get a little concerned about public records and open meetings, as well, as part of the feedback, because we want to make sure we're compliant with public records and open meetings. What I would prefer is that if anyone has any language changes between now and the next meeting, please send it to me, and I'll mark this up, make those changes. But I don't have clear direction from the board how to make those -- what I need to do to

132make changes. And remember, not everything -- This is the overall statement. So not all the nitty-gritty details need to be in policy. So you will operationalize your policy, and you can operationalize it. This is your policy. So you get to decide. To Lynn's point, each committee might need a different take and a different look. And so you can operationalize it with respect to the different committees you're going to put together. Laura: Laura, did you have something you want to add? Laura W.: I was just going to echo what Lynn had said about different committees may have different needs. And I think just to go back to the previous task force, I know that when I was asked to recommend representation, it was looking at brick-and-mortar, it was looking at the facilities. So thought of who

133I know in Oneida that may be a good -- that understands community planning, buildings, and that's who I recommended. Now that we're looking at -- and I don't have a problem with that being looked at first, because I think you have to know some items before you can get to where we are now. Laura: Mm-hmm. Laura W.: Now, knowing we're going to be looking at the boundaries and all of the things with the families, I would totally recommend some different people. And I think that -- I think that can get lost, and I just wanted to tie it back to that, because that's exactly what I was thinking. We're going to have -- you want to pull people in on their expertise, and then you also have when it's going to affect them, too. And

134maybe they don't have any expertise other than, "Hey, I'm living in this neighborhood where there's going to be a change. And you know, that's where I have input and value in that input." So I appreciate it. I just wanted to kind of wrap it up with that. Laura: No, absolutely. Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: I think we also need to -- I like the idea that Lynn came up with, as far as even establishing, call it a bench of people that are interested with this. It's also the responsibility of our citizens in being engaged in a democracy and being engaged in any form of government to step up with it. So I definitely think if we know people that are strong in this area, just because of the circles that we run in, that we recommend

135them, but community members need to step up with it, as well. And that's why I really appreciate the -- I was thinking the same thing, with the city's commissions on it, of getting that bench set up. And at some point, we look at it as a board, and in certain areas, and put out that call for it, so when these committees come up. But it's still the responsibility of citizens to step up, as well, and making sure that that is happening. Laura: Yeah, quite a few people said no the last time around. So, okay. Is there anybody else? Okay. Again, direct to your comments or anything you want Melissa to consider, direct those to her. We have a couple weeks to chew on this. And we'll take it up again in two weeks. Okay. Now

136we're going to move on to a whole bunch of other policies. And here. Melissa: First, we have policy 823. I think this is a little more straightforward. Laura: Okay. Go ahead. Melissa: We are required in our public records policy to identify the local public officials as those are the records custodians for various different records that may get requested from time to time. So as titles change, we need to update and change those titles. So that is one of the changes that's included in policy 823. In addition to that, on March 20th, 2023, the Wisconsin Public Records Board approved a new Wisconsin public school district and related General Records Schedule. This is a pretty significant change. Prior to these changes, the Public Records Board had one what I'll call the Bible for record retention for all

137records in school districts. So from accounting to facilities to student records to e-mails, the general guide provided a retention schedule for all of those records. The March 20th, 2023 changes said, okay, we're going to just peel out of that guide only those records that only school districts will have, and that's going to be in your guide. And for all that other stuff that you may have that other government entities have, you're going to have to adopt all these other record retention schedules that the Public Records Board has created. So a facility's schedule, an accounting schedule, a human resources schedule, or you can make up your own schedule and you can go record by record, by record, by record of what you have in your school district, and you can adapt your own schedule. I don't

138recommend that. And my colleagues across the state are not recommending that either. So as a school board, I'm recommending to you that you adopt all those other Public Record Schedules, which will essentially keep in place what the record retention is under the old schedule from the Public Records Board, but it's requiring us to adopt all those other schedules and have that in the policy. Laura: Okay. Anybody? Want to arm wrestle Melissa over that decision? Melissa: Nancy does. Nancy: So what is left for us to do here? Just student records, then? Melissa: I attached in the board docs the school district schedule for you. It's in the board docs. Nope, that's the policy. But what the Public Records Board has issued is attached in your board docs, so you can look at the difference there. So

139really, it's just one record schedule for school districts that are only those records that school districts have and everything else is all those other schedules. You're welcome. Laura: Okay. Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I will just say that I really did read this stuff and I don't really understand it. And I trust you, Melissa, and I'm good with it. Laura: Okay. We're going to move on to the 200 series. Melissa: So I first want to thank the Human Resources Department for the 2022, 2023 school year. As you know, we have two board policy chapters that we review every school year. The 100s and the 200s were up this year. We got a later start than we had hoped because of all the other things going on in the school district and the human resources department, I'm

140going to refer to it as pulled an all-nighter to get these done and get these in front of the board. Still in June, so we're squeaking it in in the '22, '23 school year. So I want to thank everyone from that department who worked on these. The 200 series applies to administration and a number of these policies have not been updated since 2004, so it was time. And we're here with those revisions, as well as adopting other policies that have not been put in place and then cleaning some up, as well. So I can start with the chart. And then if you want to ask questions as I go, does that work? Okay. All right. So I did give you these a few weeks ahead of time, knowing that you had a lot more to

141read than typically. So I hope that worked for you. The first is policy 210 administrative team goals. We are proposing revisions to update and reflect the administration's role in developing and implementing team goals for the district. Any questions on that one? Okay. Policy 211. Administrator ethics. Those are revisions, as well. We are proposing revisions to provide further clarity to administrators regarding their ethical duties and responsibilities. Moving on to policy 220. This is Employment of Administration, which was updated in 2018 and we are not recommending any revisions to this policy as this reflects our current practice. Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I'm sorry. I'm lost. You were on 210. No, you were on 211. Laura: Don't have 210 either. Melissa: Yeah it's not going to be in your packet because we're not recommending any revisions. Laura:

142All right. Melissa: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm on the cover sheet, so I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Laura: Okay. Good? Okay. Laura: Go ahead. Melissa: I'm sorry. 221, Recruitment and Appointment of the Superintendent. We are bringing forward recommendations to incorporate rule 222-1 and to provide further clarification regarding the recruitment and the appointment of the Superintendent. So just incorporating that rule into the policy and then providing further clarity. Laura: Just an observation. Um, looking at the red line version. What we had before was very simple and kind of this gives it much, much more weight in context. Um, there's quite a lot of change in that one. Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I did have some questions on the content of this one, if I may ask them. Um, I'm looking at -- oh, no

143hope -- "Recruitment and appointment of superintendent." Okay. I'm looking at A. Where is A? Okay. A, recruitment process. A1A. It says, "The board shall identify a process for seeking candidates and shall make the final decision on hiring the superintendent." And then when I go down to number three, um... A1 number 3. Okay. A to F, um, it says something about "the board will hold a meeting and they may wish to consider." Then we get down to B, the big B, It's the hiring process. And again, it says, "The board shall determine the procedure." And I didn't find any place, and I did read every single one of these, and I didn't find any place where it ends. It sounds like every time it's time to hire a superintendent, the board shall create a process. I

144don't see a place where it says what the process is going to be or that there's going to be a process that we will always use. The way I read it, it just sounds like the board will create a process whenever they need to. Because from this we go to guidelines for recruitment and appointment of a superintendent and that one's being repealed. So I don't get it. Melissa: So the guidelines for recruitment and appointment have been folded into this policy. So that language has been folded into this policy. Lynn: I can follow up? Laura: Yes. Lynn: So is there a place where... I mean, is there going to be a process? Is the board supposed to create a process that will always then be used until someday it is updated? Laura: Go ahead, James. James:

145I don't think that's the intent of the policy. I think the intent of the policy is to establish ownership for the board and that based on the circumstances of that particular placement, that there's latitude that the board can implement as long as the board defines it, agrees upon it, and then executes it as part of this policy. Is that appropriate? So yeah, I agree. We started the search with basically establishing us, as seven, some of us recently, you know, elected individuals, agreed on in that time. So I don't think it's meant to establish a procedure by which we would follow. Lynn: So it would be changed each time. Okay. Laura: We've all just been through this process. So there are many, many steps and a lot of talk about how we wanted to proceed and

146that's how it works. So go ahead. James: So my concern is, and it came up during the creation of our last process that, well, I was concerned that some of what we were discussing might have benefited from a legal or an HR perspective on that plan. And I would like that bumper written into the policy that whatever plan has to make sure that we're not putting the district at jeopardy by executing that plan. Laura: So some kind of oversight, some kind of -- James: We're not experts on discrimination law. Laura: There you go. Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: James, are you envisioning that part as an advisory or a right to veto? James: I think, from an advisory perspective is really that what should be written into the policy. But we should have to

147pause and hear either HR or our legal counsel advise us on whether or not we should take the next steps. Bryan: Okay. Melissa: That change I know how to make. Okay, so the next ones are not -- I'm following on the chart 221.1, 221.2 rule. 222 are not recommended for changes or revisions or repeal as those policies are accurately reflecting the work of the district. Policy 221 -- I'm sorry, 222.1. these numbers are all blurring together to me -- administration compensation is being recommended for revision and the revisions reflect the current practices in applicable law with respect to compensation for administration. Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I do have a question about this one, administrative salary guidelines. Um, and it is in part A. It says, "The process for review of administrator compensation may identify

148needs for compensation studies and encourage communication and a team approach." Is that what I'm looking for? "May identify needs for compensation studies and encourage communication and a team approach between administrator staff and the superintendent." Are you saying that... It just seems to me that you're saying maybe we'll need to identify needs for compensation studies, but maybe not. Melissa: Can you point where you are, Lynn? Lynn: A, review... I'm in the very first sentence. Laura: Are you in the policy or the rule? Lynn: Yeah, I'm in the rule. I mean, what what else is there? There's a -- Melissa: I'm on the policy. I'm sorry. We're first on the policy 222.1, Administration Compensation. H. Laura: H in board docs. Okay. That's a policy as opposed to the rule, which is just -- she's on the rule?

149Okay. Okay. All right. So we can skip ahead. If no one has any comments on the policy, we can skip ahead to the rule. Oh, Bryan. Okay. Go ahead, Bryan. Bryan: Looking at implementation part B with it, we have a "shall" instead of a "may." Is that binding when we're looking at annual administration? Last line before section 1, "...by the Superintendent to the Board of Education shall be determined by a consideration of --" I mean, is there... I'm looking under implementation, B. I'm sorry, 2B, last line in the main paragraph. It isn't being changed on there. We always look at "may" and "shall" as two different things with it. I mean, has that ever become a concern on it? Are you understanding what I'm asking? Melissa: So the language in the existing policy does say

150"shall." I would be hesitant to say that internal compensation should not be comparable and that you shouldn't compare internal data because you're gonna have an equity issue with that. We always compare external data with respect to compensation because we need -- with every position here in the district, I mean, we may not always keep up with it because we can't due to our budget, but we're always comparing it. That doesn't require it to pay that amount. Bryan: I understand the intent on that. It was just curious if it's something that we should address. But I am satisfied with your answer. Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: So now I'm in the first sentence. Okay. It says, "The process for review of administrator compensation may identify needs for compensation studies and encourage communication and a team approach

151between administrator staff and superintendent." I read that to say that the process may encourage communication and a team approach. Is that really what we want to say? Melissa: As soon as we get to the rule, we'll address that. But we're still on the policy. Bryan was asking questions about the policy. That's okay. Don't give up. Don't give up. Is there any other questions on the policy? Okay. All right. Laura: Okay. Melissa: On to the rule. Laura: All right. Melissa: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: You should know it by heart now. Melissa: Okay. Lynn: The first sentence says, "The process for review of administrator compensation may identify needs for compensation studies and encourage communication and a team approach." It sounds to me like we're saying maybe we'll encourage communication and a team approach. We might want to.

152I don't understand that. Laura: Hang on just a second. Go ahead. Melissa: So that was essentially the language that was in the old language. The language didn't include that could identify the needs for compensation studies and incur. It says that encourage communication and a team approach between the staff and the superintendent. So if you want to revise that, we can revise. Lynn: I think I would suggest that you're saying maybe we'll need compensation studies, but we shall encourage communication and a team approach, right? Do we ever not encourage communication and a team approach? Laura: Go ahead, James. James: So there are some times where you can handle a compensation change in isolation, right? And then there are some times like a couple of years ago when COVID hit, where an entire market shifts, right? And

153as an organization, you should respond to a compensation change as a team because everyone's position might have shifted. So my example was all of a sudden, because of labor in India, was now not required to go in and they could apply for jobs outside of their geographic area, the market shifted 50%. And so in response to that kind of stimulus, you don't want to handle things in isolation. Now, you address that as a team and you do your compensation studies and you re-band everybody. That's how I read this. Lynn: Okay. So I think what you're saying is that sometimes you do it in isolation and you don't encourage communication and team approach because that's the way to do it at that point. James: Oh, sorry. Lynn: Restate it exactly the way -- James: Sorry. Lynn:

154It's stated exactly the way it's supposed to be is what you're saying. James: I think it's written to allow us to accommodate times where you remove the authority to make compensation changes from a single department and you move it to an organizational effort. Lynn: I'm just saying but there are times when you don't. James: Yes. Lynn: Good. Then I'm done with that part. Laura: Okay. All right. Okay, hang on. Are we still on the rule? Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay, go ahead. Lynn: So in this rule, in Part D, it says -- let me get there. Gosh. Part D, request for position review. It says, "A request for an employee's compensation to be reviewed may be initiated during any --" Oh, I want to look at part number 1. Where does it say this?

155It says, "When a particular position may have experienced a significant change." When a particular -- Okay. The first one, "A request for an employee's compensation to be reviewed may be initiated during any given year by the affected administrator, the individual supervisor or the superintendent when a particular position may have experienced a significant change." So this means that it could happen even if there was no change? In other words, a change in this particular position could set off a request for a position review. Is that what I... In other words, it doesn't have to change. Melissa: I think this gets back to James' point about market changes. So there could be nothing changed within the job itself, but there could be a change in the job market that would require this to take place. Also sometimes

156in the course of a year duties are added to a position or potentially taken away, as well. So there's adjustments that can be made. Okay. Anybody else? Are we ready to move on? Next policy is policy 222.2, Superintendent's Termination of Employment, recommending that this be repealed. There doesn't need to be a policy on the non-renewal of a contract as it's governed by state law, and the contract would dictate the standard for termination. So you don't need a board policy. Okay. Same with policy 222.21, recommending an appeal of that as well as there does not need to be a policy on resignations from a contract as it's also governed by state law. And the contract would dictate the standard of resignation, and the employee handbook already addresses resignations. Okay. Policy 222.22 Non-renewal or Layoff of Members

157of the Administration and Administrative Reorganization. This policy was revised to provide further clarity regarding the non-renewal or layoffs of administration consistent with language that we have brought forward regarding a reduction in force, as well. Laura: Questions on that one? Bryan. Bryan: So this mirrors similar language to the reduction in force for teaching staff? Melissa: For all other staff, not just teaching. Policy 223, Administrative Professional Development Opportunities. This policy was updated to provide further clarity in the process to administration regarding opportunities for professional development. Laura: Lynn. Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: Just a quick little question for clarification. And this is Section 3A, number 2. It says, "This plan shall also include orientation of members of the administration to the district's mission, vision and Board of Education policies and procedures." And I'm just wondering if there's actually

158a sit down orientation for them or they're just handed these things. Melissa: Both. So Human Resources has developed a really nice guide for administrators. That is where departments put their resources. In addition to that, we are given opportunities to meet with new administrators for onboarding and to provide information. I give updates frequently throughout the school year on policy changes as well as policies administrators need to know, so it's a combination of both. Laura: James? James: So I like read this multiple times seeing just to make sure. So I understand the policy, but it doesn't provide any guidance or a framework for budget and budget constraints, right? So, you know, if you are a medical professional, they will say, "You have X number of dollars and X number of hours or PTO days that can be

159used for professional development." And this is silent on that kind of construct. And I'm kind of trying to determine when I look at the budget and I see a number in this item, how am I to interpret that and how that number was developed? Does that make sense? So I was looking in here to see if this policy would address or enable me to go yes, I know how that number arrived in the budget, and it looked uniform, and it addresses a professional development plan. And I just didn't see it and I was just looking for commentary. Melissa: So this is the policy with respect to what's appropriate and what is permitted for professional development within the employee handbook and within the budget. There is a line item for administration for professional development. James: Okay.

160So I'll look at the employee handbook and it'll tell me or it should tell a professional their budgetary or time constraints around professional development. Melissa: Yes, there's... Yep. That particular monetary amount was addressed in the rule and we rolled that in when you accepted all those changes to the employee handbook. Laura: Bryan. Bryan: I may be incorrect on this, but didn't we also include then part of the contract negotiations, particularly with the superintendent as far as number of professional development days and workshops? Or am I completely off base on that? Melissa: So the superintendent's contract is usually excluded from that budgetary limitation. That is negotiated separately. Laura: Andrew, do you have anything to offer? Any questions? Andrew: Uh, no questions. I don't have any on on here. Thank you. Laura: Okay. If you could keep

161your camera on, that'd be nice. So we can see you. Okay. Next. Melissa: Okay 223.1, Administrator Orientation. We've put that in policy 223. So we're recommending to repeal that. 223.2, Professional Consulting. This policy was pretty significantly revised to provide additional clarity in the process for administration who are acting as a consultant while employed by the district. Any questions on that one? Laura: Go ahead, Lynn. Lynn: I'll just say that it made perfect sense. Thank you. Melissa: Thank you. All right. 224, Board Superintendent Relations. This policy also was revised to update and further define the board superintendent relationship. Okay. 225, Superintendent Evaluation. The policy revisions incorporate existing practices with respect to the evaluation of the superintendent, as well as the legal requirements that apply to a superintendent's evaluation. I think probably unique to education, various state

162laws set forth evaluation criteria, as well as the frequency of those evaluations. So the policies with respect to administration incorporate those legal requirements. 225.1, Supervision Evaluation Members of the Administration. So this is the companion to 225 for the superintendent. And then we are recommending to repeal the development and evaluation plan for instructional and non-instructional administrators and just incorporate all of that within one policy, 225.1. 251, Line and Staff Relations. Recommending revisions to update the policy to provide further clarity to staff and administration regarding lines of communication and responsibility. Laura: Lynn. Lynn: This is either something I just don't understand or maybe it's just a typo, but in B1, um... Uh, this must be under implementation, because there's a B and then, "Staff members shall refer matter --" Yes, this is it. Implementation B1, "Staff members

163shall refer matters requiring administrative action or review to their supervisor of their department of building." I thought, "Okay, I thought maybe I didn't know what a department of building was. Melissa: Should be an "or" in there. Thank you. "Of their department or building." Thank you. Laura: Andrew. Andrew: Is there a -- I remember seeing somewhere I thought we had language like this that regardless of the policy encouraging using the normal chain of communication for staff, which is appropriate and almost all the time works, um, some kind of language protecting that staff have the right to talk to a board member? Is that somewhere else and not here? And if so, should it also be here or referenced or is it already referenced here? Melissa: I don't know the policy number off the top of my

164head, Andrew, but the cross references at the end, it's going to be either in 870, General Public Complaints, or it's going to be in 187, Public Participation at School Board Meetings, or it's going to be in Board Member Authority, 161, or 150, Board Powers or Duties. But I do know that it is in a policy. Andrew: I'll look, and if I have concerns or if I think it needs to be here, too, I'll e-mail or I'll bring it up in two weeks. Thank you. Melissa: Yep. Okay, policy 252, Effective Schools and Participative Leadership. This was revised just to place in our policy format. I think as you probably read enough of these, you see that we have a format so that they're easily followed and transparent. Laura Lynn has a question. Laura: Oh, sorry. Lynn:

165I just wanted to ask because, of course, this is new to me. Maybe this is all old stuff to you folks. But under implementation, I had never heard of the effective schools correlates before. At first I thought it was supposed to correlate with something, but now I understand that it is like seven points. And I'm just wondering, are all teachers and principals familiar with these? Is this kind of like something that is used on a regular basis, people are reminded of, or is it just words on paper? I don't know. Melissa: I would need to ask someone in our Teaching and Learning department or in our Supervisors of Schools department. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Next is 252.1, Administrative Committees and Councils. This policy was revised to define the process for these

166committees and councils as well as the purpose that the groups will serve. Laura: Lynn? Lynn: This is just a quick one. Are these different? My reading of this suggests that these are committees that are convened by the superintendent and they report to the superintendent. And that's not what we talked about in this new advisory committee policy, right? Melissa: Correct. Okay. 225.21 is the rule. And this was just revised to place in the policy format. 253, Policy Implementation, was revised to provide further clarity to the process of implementing board adopted policy to administration. Okay. 253.2. No revisions recommended. 253.3, Student Handbooks. This is an adoption of a new policy. This policy addresses the role and the purpose of student handbooks that are put out each year to our students and their families. Laura: Lynn? Lynn: So

167you say this is a new policy, but our handbook's not a new thing? Melissa: Correct. We just didn't have a policy that addressed the handbooks. Okay, next, 254, Consultants to the Administration. Pretty substantial changes to this policy to define the role and process for retaining consultants to the administration, as well as further clarifies when a conflict of interest exists in retaining those consultants. Okay. No changes to 255, Staff Job Descriptions. Oh, I'm sorry. This is proposed. I'm sorry. There's an error on the chart. I apologize. This is a new policy that provides clarity with respect to the purpose of job descriptions, as well as the process for development, revision and adoption of those job descriptions. I know Mike Friis', under his leadership, Human Resources has been working very, very hard to centralize those job descriptions,

168update those job descriptions. We have 310 unique positions here in the district. In the days of when departments really controlled the ownership of hiring and creating jobs, it was not uncommon, for example, the Facilities department or the Teaching and Learning department to develop that job description, own that job description, and keep that job description. And it didn't filter its way to Human Resources for a central repository. So, Mike -- um, given all the other work that Human Resources is undertaking, Mike is locating those as positions come to the board for approval and there's vacancies in those positions, we bring those revisions to the board, and then you approve those new job descriptions. The policy requires you to approve job description changes. And so through that process, we're getting there. Um, we will get there. And

169Mike is doing a really nice job. Okay. And then policy 260, Temporary Administrative Arrangements. This was just revised to place in the new policy format, as well as policy 270, School District Reports. Laura: James? James: 260. So just had, you know, a quick question about that, because there is additional language here, so it's just not a formatting change. My question is, what's the definition of "interim"? Right? So say, for example, a superintendent leaves, and you have an interim superintendent. I recognize that that, there is a cycle where to get a candidate that we feel can discharge the duties appropriately, um, you know, there's a window where we can search for a candidate. But this also applies to building administrators. So the definition of interim there, does that release the district from immediately taking on the

170responsibility of trying to hire a building administrator? Or can the definition of interim be for an entire school year without actually advertising the job and going, 'cause this is designee, right? Which, you know, from a district perspective, I think we all want fair processes. And so it feels like we can read this and say interim has no definition of scope, right? And you can be interim for...whatever. Is that the intent of the policy? Melissa: I'm going to give you a really legal answer to this. Under the education statutes with respect to contracts for administrators, an interim designation doesn't really matter, because you are required to get a contract under the statutes for purposes of that position. So we give administrator contracts, and the administrator contract doesn't say that you are the principal of Preble High

171School. It says you are an administrator and the district will assign you with respect to the roles and the responsibilities within your license. If we if we have to reduce a salary, that is a non-renewal, unless that individual agrees to the reduction in the salary. For purposes of administrators that we've had to have step up pay, we can do that, as well, so that if you are the associate principal and you're principal, for example, for Preble when Natasha had to resign due to her health needs, Courtney was given step up pay, kept her position as the associate principal. Given that step up pay and was given that interim principal designee status. So there's the ability to do it. But with respect to what does interim mean from a full definition and a meaningful way of

172looking at that with respect to administrator contracts and education, it's the contract and it's the law that's gonna dictate. James: That wasn't my concern. My concern is, as I read this, it allows us to bypass a competitive process for positions indefinitely. And that's the concern that I wanted to address in this policy, is it allows us to start pointing at people and saying, "Do this job." And, you know, I think we would all prefer a competitive process for building administrators. Melissa: If you go back to the policy, though, on hiring, the policy on hiring provides what that scope is and defines that interim -- I'm sorry that temporary assignment and the ability to fill internally without going outside for that process. James: Okay. Can we just follow up after this and maybe just point me

173to, you know, that language just so that I can make sure that I understand it? I appreciate it. Bryan: I would also like -- I mean, I have these all memorized, but I'm just missing the hiring one on there. So if you could also include me on that, I would appreciate it. Melissa: Okay. And then the last one was the 270, School District Reports. Laura: Okay, okay. Melissa: Thank you. Laura: Thank you, Melissa. Okay. Um, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Um, oh, Melissa, just -- I'm sorry to do this to you. Going all the way back to policy 823, before we did all this. I'm sorry. I just -- We changed the, um -- Didn't we change the Chief Academic Officer title to something else? Melissa: You haven't filled that position

174yet. And so it's going to stay as is because that position doesn't currently exist. As soon as you do that, I'll be back. Laura: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. So, um, with that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Laura W.: So moved. Nancy: Second. Laura: Okay. Second. All in favor say aye. All: Aye. Laura: Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. ♪♪