001We were there. We were at a conference in Disney. >> [clears throat] >> It was a deposition conference. So, they went down with me and then I stayed with the rest and they went back Tuesday and I came back home Thursday. So, it worked out really good. Oh, yeah. Definitely. They got a nice family. I try. That That's That's what we do. Right. What's the first part of February? So, yes. Just get there. Right. Right. They loved it. All the characters getting in the pool. They didn't care about trying to go anywhere. Kathy, we're not going to start on time. >> [laughter] >> all day. So, we're back to just hand and stuff. So, everybody knows four docks are down. 5:35, can we start the meeting to avoid the late hours? I'm ready. Okay. So,
002what is stopping? I thought I heard some something. Was a motion made or anything? Okay. Thank you. Call to order. Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Oh, it's 6:00 5:35. Sorry. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Under roll call. Ms. Leverett. Here. Ms. Summer. Here. Ms. Herbert. Here. Ms. Washington. Here. And Mr. Christian. Here. On to item D, agenda approval. Does anybody have any questions or concerns? Um yeah, I have I have a statement to read and I have copies to leave with the treasurer and I'd like this added to the minutes. Um Regarding board-level exit interviews, in my opinion, this is an attempt by the board to
003conduct business that is not board business. An exit interview is an administrative function, the result results of which should be available for public inspection. This appears to be an attempt by the board to conduct exit interviews in secret and to bind the board to confidentiality under the threat of lawsuits. This would be a continuation of board's violation of Ohio's anti-slap law, officially codified in Ohio Revised Code Section 2747.01 through .06. I waive all rights of confidentiality regarding this executive session, retain all rights to take notes and share information for the good of the district in the spirit of proper administrative exit interviews. The informa- information shared will not be statutorily confidential and I intend to treat it as such. This is a repeated pattern of our current administration and some board members following their recent
004attempt to discuss budget reductions in executive session and their subsequent refusal to have the discussion in public. Please also note that the invited participants are under no obligation of confidentiality and I'm participating as an observer to protect the public's interest. I intend to ask questions that would be typical of such an interval interview. I do not have any idea who is going to be interviewed and that appears to be held in confidence by a select few. How can any board member prepare themselves under the shroud of secrecy? I also believe that the board will be left with two simple choices. One is to conduct a proper interview and violate the Open Meetings Act or two is to restrict the speech of those being interviewed in such a way as to make true and complete answers
005impossible. Additionally, I'm very concerned that this meeting and the actions leading up to it may involve the Open Meetings Act and round robin communication. These concerns are heightened by a prior settlement agreement that former board president O'Toole and AutoBurger into entered into without public board authorization, which cost tax-payers an exorbitant amount of money to settle and reportedly bound board members to potential $10,000 fines, among other penalties. A settlement agreement purchased at such a substantial price without supporting documentation or evidence of underlying claims is deeply concerning. After that, another 50,000 was spent with full knowledge of that agreement and disregard for it again without board authorization by Seth Bowers. The names and faces have changed slightly but the activity appears to me to be the same. The public deserves transparency, lawful governments and a board that
006conducts its business in the open without uh whenever possible and I believe all the board members when running for this office committed to that to the public. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? I have a statement to read as well. Before we proceed, I need to place several concerns on the record regarding the notice and development of the special meeting of this special meeting. First in my opinion, the proceedings leading up to this meeting raise concerns under the open meetings act. There may be evidence of possible serial or hub spoke communication where members individually contacted the administration to shape the notice outside of the public meeting. That risks improper deliberation. Second, the statement of purpose is problematic. The notice asserts that the board believes it is imperative to hear differently from exiting
007employees and to better understand the organizational climate and improve staff retention. In my view, that statement in itself evidence a consensus of collective positions formed outside of an open meeting. To my knowledge, it was never discussed or adopted publicly. Third, that same statement uh the same statement of purpose describes administrative day-to-day functions, not board business, and does not clearly align with a valid statutory purpose. Fourth, there are significant notice concerns. Not all members received notice in the manner required and I still do not have clarity on who is expected to attend, who requested to meet with the board, and what specific matters are being presented for board consideration. Fifth, I received additional information this afternoon between approximately 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. I've not had sufficient time to fully review it. However, based on the initial
008review, it does not appear to support the assertion that there is a major crisis. To be clear, if the board wishes to consider exit interviews with specific high-level employees, that determination should be made in open session at a properly noticed meeting. Finally, given the board's prior open meetings act settlement, proceedings under these circum- circumstances creates legal and substantial financial risks to the district and the individual board members and they constitute a violation of that settlement agreement. For these reasons, I object to the meeting as noticed and proceed under these circum- under the current notice. Can we pass that down there? Mr. Collier, thank you. Any other comments? Well, I think check this is apparently the school board of Kathy Walsh cuz you control everything. So, you tell us. I mean, last I checked, I requested
009to talk to Ty Overson when he first made the request. I made that request to you. You shot it down, didn't even bring it to the table to have a discussion. So, you tell us cuz clearly you run everything. Okay, it'll be clear. Um there was no request that met the reason we were going to executive session then. I'm talking about the first time I made the request when he requested it originally from the email sent by our treasurer saying if he would like to meet with the board in executive session. For what purpose? For what >> For the contract. Which was renewed? Correct, but they still have the opportunity per Ohio revised >> No, you're actually wrong, Ashley. His request had not it didn't say nothing about his renewal. There was multiple things in
010his request, but you don't know what he was wanting to discuss. You didn't even give him the opportunity to speak with us. You stopped that. You took away his rights. So, if you said I didn't like the popcorn in the lunch room, you can apply that to a non-renewal in your mind. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with half the stuff you guys do. What's that mean? So, to be clear, I mean, you did have a meeting with Dr. Salazar. Her request was for non-renewal. Her contract was renewed. Same thing. No, not the same thing. How is it not? Her con- her request met board policy. It was for non-renewal. It wasn't because I don't like this or I don't like something else. It was non-renewal. We don't have board policy, unfortunately, for
011I don't like this and I don't like this. >> You don't know what was wanting to be discussed in executive session. I know his request. There was multiple things in the request. Have you talked to him? Do you know what he wants? >> Okay, so when we Okay. I'm just asking. >> We have counsel. We have counsel here and we have counsel that told us it was not appropriate. You had one counsel. It wasn't even Steve Tudent. He said it. I spoke with Brendan about it and he also agreed with my rash And obviously, you want to point at me and say I stopped something, that's pretty much impossible on one board member. Oh, you're correct. You did not. Kathy did. With board counsel. And now >> does not mean the board. You still have
012to have the full board support to make a decision. You could have made a motion during any meeting to have that done. You did not. Um additionally, the request did not ask for a meeting per policy or state law actually when my understanding from board counsel is when there's contracts that were renewed and they asked for a meeting with the board, we have to meet with them. That's right. They have to ask for that. Both legal counsel said it was not a good idea to meet with Ty Overson. That was a correspondence and I can make sure they send it to you if you would like. And I mean, I'm just doing what they're saying. I'm sending them requests and they're saying, "Hey, this is not a good idea. You're interrupting Okay, um we have
013I think I I think I have a solution that might work. Um did you not counsel, do you mind is it appropriate? Can you come up and talk to us because I think you weighed in on this matter and I You did not Brendan, okay. But you know Brendan's advice to us, are you familiar? I don't actually know Mr. Overson but I can't hear. Okay. All right, we can we can cover that. So, um yeah, the the issue was again and because honestly, the way I feel about it is just a simple hey, anybody out there, any any employee, anybody in the lunch room, if you have any grievance at all, you can name anything you want, bubble gum stuck to my shoe, and you can now come in with the board. We have statutory
014policy that dictates when you come to the board and from what we were told from counsel, Brendan, it didn't meet that threshold. So, now we kick it down the road and we address it through exit interviews for someone who's not exiting. We just continue and it makes no sense to me and it's not that I want to silence Ty or anything like that. It's a matter of what Pandora's box do we open if you don't state it statutorily correctly. What do we do? And I don't assume and I don't go meet with you and say, "Is there something between the lines that I I'm not done talking." If there's something between the lines that I missed, can I fill this in with you? I don't see that as my role and and I'm not trying
015to be obstructive. I'm just explaining what happened, why, and when as I understand it. Thank you. I was told by Steve Tudent that he does not think it's a good idea for us to meet with Ty Overson. Period. So, if there any other comments right now? I I do have one comment. Um did the board already set this precedent? Has the board met with several of the people over the course of this year in executive session about concerns and complaints? >> All right, and that's the other in our old admin level. I was going to say prior to the new board. >> I can't understand what you're saying. >> Prior to the new board, this other members of the board, myself, you, Kathy, and John have met with other members of our district without legal
016counsel before. So, this is not the first time that we're meeting with anyone who's requested to speak with the board regardless if it was a non-renewal or anything of that nature. So, this is not I'm I'm just saying it's not I'm not here to argue. Everyone has their opinion. We did seek legal counsel. It wasn't that we just made this up. Um I asked the treasurer to go to legal counsel to get the reason. There was the reason provided, hence we noticed the meeting. So, I know I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to pretend to be one. Therefore, we went through the proper channels and I did reach out to the board attorney and did not get a response cuz she was out. And so, her and I did speak this morning. So, it's
017not that I didn't reach out to whom I guess the board deemed is the first point of contact before even going to our treasurer to then reach out to legal counsel so that can be on the record. But, this is not the first time that this board or the board previously had met with administrators who have had concerns. And we've done that without legal counsel. Can I make a statement, please? Yes. So, I don't have anything written or prepared or anything like that. I mean, you know, didn't work all day. I'm I'm super embarrassed to be sitting here as a part of this board at this moment. It's really unprofessional, unbecoming, and doesn't represent our students well at all. I think intimidation and bullying tactics are inappropriate towards our staff. And I thank you all
018who did come to speak to us. I'm open to hear what you have to say, and I apologize. And anyone who wanted to come and did not, you feel free to reach out anytime and I'll be I can't hear what you're saying. Anyone [clears throat] who did not wasn't able to attend today or was afraid to attend because of the display of behavior today for this reason, um feel free to still reach out to me directly if need be because we do want to hear from you and others do go to other board members. So, don't be afraid if you need to speak with me. I open my door. Thank you. Are you referring to specific people? No, Kathy, and I'm not going to take your rage baiting, either. So, hopefully you heard that very
019clearly cuz you like to rage bait, you like to bully, and I'm speaking I'm speaking directly to you. You asked the question, sister, you're getting it. So, you're the one that comes here trying to get a rise out of folks, and that's not what we're here to do. I'm trying to be consistent. We've done it for others. I just want to do the same. That's it. It's not personal. It's not. I I have no rage, Tam. I think my opinion should be able to be shared with the Philadelphia entire by four members. Um any other questions or comments? >> And I was just hoping you would do the same for others. Any other questions or comments? I just >> would like to say, sorry, John, I did not mean to cut you off. There would
020not have needed to be a special meeting if you would actually listen to the board members and do what we requested and asked. On numerous occasions, you have overruled and done what you wanted versus what people want. And again, this is not your board. I based my statement on I'm not talking about Sam. I'm talking about in general, Kathy. That's all the time. This is a response to your accusation that I'm not considering. I did I sent it to legal counsel, and that was the decision was hey, let her just wait until after the investigation. And that's exactly what I sent out, and that's what I it legal counsel said to me and said that I should share that with the board. So, also another problem with the agenda is the notice does not have
021consider on action to have action. So, we should remove item G. So, since we don't have action on the notice. So, does anybody have a problem with that? And is that the email you put out earlier today or was that also for the 7:00 meeting, too? Both meetings are the item G action cuz that wasn't clear on either notice. Yes, neither one of the agenda notices had the action. So, um and I think I already sent to Jamie about the And and I want to I want to point out very peacefully, not intimidating. I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. The situation that we have this year is much, much different than we had in the past years, and therefore counsel was different. I don't even know if when we went in to hear from other
022uh assistant principals and other people, we obviously didn't have this level of um illegal activities going on at the time between administration, etc. So, um it was a different climate, and I wouldn't be surprised if no one even felt the need to check with counsel. In this situation with uh the different investigations and things that might be going on behind the scenes, it was a heightened environment, and I think that is where um counsel was involved, and I don't think there was any ill intent in that, and I do think there was opportunity that we probably missed and we're missing today um just by not wording things more carefully and getting better counsel in preparing these because we want to hear from Ty today, which is awesome. It shouldn't say we're hearing from him from
023him for an exit interview, and that's what the board that's what the notice says. So, again, it's just procedural, and it's not like, oh, we're trying to silence or we don't want to hear from people. If you want that, then there's a way to do it, and again, procedurally, we didn't do it. We said we're meeting for exit interviews. So, um you know, again, if there's there's ways to get it done, and I don't think people are trying I'm not trying to thwart it, but obviously there's a higher level of legal engagement with the several attorneys weighing in on this particular at this particular time moment in time. So, thank you. Carolyn, was that We need a first and second. And did we remove item G? Yeah, I was just trying to make sure we
024read the meeting notice. I was trying to find the one for this meeting really quick so we can read it on the record. So, just give me 1 second, please. Because I know what was submitted. However, when we spoke with legal counsel, there was different language that was provided. Where's the email that you sent to Randy? I was looking for the um the language that was provided from legal. From Brittany? Mhm. And whatever was provided. I just couldn't find it, but I just wanted to make sure we read it if possible. Did she send that to the whole board? Send me what? The You said you were looking for um I was just trying to find the legal guidance that we got. So, that's all. Legal guidance? Mhm. For the the special meeting for today
025at 5:30. I Oh, I thought you meant there was an email sent out. >> [clears throat] >> I'm just trying to go through my email to find it to speak to it. That's what I'm doing so I don't know what you're asking for, Kathy. That's why I was asking. >> I said I was just curious if it was sent to everybody cuz I'm looking in my email, so. I don't remember seeing that. Not to hold them up anymore, we can go ahead, but I do want to make sure we read it. I don't want to hold them up anymore, so. Do I need a first? Latoya, first and second. Second. Ashley. Roll call. Kathy, roll call. Aye. Mrs. Dellinger? Aye. Ms. Emert? Aye. Ms. Herbert? Aye. Ms. Walsh? No. And Mr. Kersey? No. I move
026for a 5-minute recess. So moved. Do we need a second? I second Ashley asked for a 5-minute recess, and I second it. Sorry, John. It came up 35. >> up it said 35 minutes recess. That's a long one. Thank you. Okay, um Mrs. Dellinger? Aye. Ms. Emert? Aye. >> Aye. Ms. Walsh? Aye. And Mr. Kersey? Aye. 5 to 2 7. Thank you. >> We have the next item is executive session. I have a comment. Sure. So, based off of the statements that you and Mr. Kirchner have read, and I'm speaking to make sure you can hear me clearly, you both are waiving the confidentiality, and that was the question I had with our legal counsel, and then also with those employees still wish to speak at this time. If you're stating you wish to, if
027I could see their statement, please, to read those specific areas so that the everyone knows exactly what was being waived. So, an executive session, it keeps it confidential, um, and then it's stated that you would, um, that it's the board conduct exit the attempt by the board to conduct exit interviews in secret and to bind the board to confidentiality under the threat of lawsuits. This will be a continuation of the board's violation of the Ohio's anti-slap law. However, there's a statement that you read I believe Mr. Kirchner it spoke to waving that. So, I just want to make sure that our employees that are here that came to speak to the board understand that and if they still wish to speak. Um so, I would like either if I if it's appropriate I at least
028want to give them the opportunity to make that decision based off of your two statements Kathy and John waving the confidentiality in the executive session and I just think that's fair. So, I would comment with comment. Um cuz you put me in there saying that I did that but I did not make that statement of that always waving confidentiality. So, I'm going to correct So, the record. My apology whoever said it I just wanted to make sure that the employees that are here that they have the chance to either say they wish to even go in to executive session with the statement being read this evening that a board member's confidentiality will be waived or they're just going to do whatever and whatever you know and that might be a funny when I say that
029but whatever that means. So, therefore the confines of what executive session would have been for them to speak in that private matter I we if board members openly stating that they will not and I just want to make sure that those employees are here understand that and if they still wish to speak with us with that being stated. And so, And I respect it if you don't. Right and I want to be clear what's what's being said. If you do an exit interview and you do a whole exit interview you're not limiting it to items that are specified under the open meetings act. So, if I am leaving and one of the reasons I'm leaving is because the fluorescent lights give me seizures that is not executive session conversations or if I'm disturbed by this
030or that I can't you know that kind of thing. There's a whole if you're doing a whole complete exit interview you're going to be back and forth across the line of what is confidential and what is not confidential. If it's statutorily confidential I'm not going to violate that but when you say we're going into an exit interview my assumption is we're going to be a real one. And the real ones we just got today are in spreadsheets that everybody can see and the answers are there for everybody to see. So, when I see we're going into executive session I have to think well, why and then how are we going to do the whole interview? So, that's what I'm getting at. Um I want to ask I will plan on asking questions that are not
031covered by confidentiality and looking for answers to that climate questions. I mean if you're doing an exit interview do an exit interview. Ask the same questions we ask all our employees when they do exit interviews. Uh maybe ask some more probing questions but those will not be covered by um confidentiality therefore what the heck are we doing in executive session doing that? So, then the only cure is to confine them and say oh well, here's the three lanes you have to stay in and basically then we're forcing you into complaints. Uh right? Which >> Instead of beating around the bush can we just not do the executive session cuz no one's going to be happy. I don't think that I just want to get >> because we're talking about a hypothetical. We don't know what
032our staff wants to talk to us about. >> Right and also >> of legal being here which I requested I don't know if anyone else did was to make sure that we stay within the bounds of what's appropriate for executive session. We could sit here all day and talk about what if and if this happened and that happened but we won't know until we actually give them the opportunity to speak. Actually I I would know because I have questions prepared and the >> But you shouldn't ask them that wouldn't be appropriate. So, we're not really doing exit interviews we're doing them >> them to speak with us as requested. The same way we allow other people to speak with us. And so, um I guess for clarity for my special meeting notice that I typed
033and I'll take full responsibility when I speak of conducting an exit interview is to hear from you departing staff members um and it also talked about hearing directly from um exiting employees regarding their experiences, concerns, and reasons for resignation to better understand the organizational climate and improve staff retention. So, there was not a questionnaire or anything like that that went out which you all know cuz you didn't know I got anything. There is one that's provided by our HR department which is volunteer volunteer. So, we don't make anyone fill that out and with the amount of things that have come in we've all said at one point we wanted to hear directly. So, this was our opportunity plus we had requests to do so before we have more resignations. So, I appreciate you clarifying that
034Mr. Kirchner cuz I took that it is that no matter what was said in that room that it would not be held in confidence or in confidentiality but what you're saying is those things that aren't meet the confines of executive session you will adhere to cuz I just think that's fair for employees that are here to know what that means. >> I don't plan on breaking the law. Actually I was clarifying that I wouldn't but you know when we do exit interviews I want a complete exit interview. And if we were to do this right and if anybody would have involved me or if I could have been involved in the decision there would be lanes and there would be portions that would be right out here in front of everybody and there would be
035portions that would be back in there. We'd probably start in there to determine what was private and what was public and then we would be able to do the entire thing or better yet cover anything that requires confidentiality in executive session and let the administration be what the administration does and that is a complete exit interview. That was my that's my position and that's what my issue is with this is is we are taking on the role of administrators and in doing so in going into executive session we're tying our hands to hear like you even mentioned climate. Uh climate is not something that you know unless there's a specific item under the G items as you know very well. Um then climate isn't one. You can't you can talk about well, you know, common
036known things that have happened that are in the press etc. And that's not executive session. So, that's that's where I'm concerned here and then obviously I brought up the other part not as a threat just explaining that when I have had open meetings concern it's resolved in hundred thousand dollars or something like that spent against me and dragging me through the courts for better part of a year. So, I'm very sensitive to that. Thank you. So, is it okay if are we able to ask our folks that wish if they still want to proceed with the information presented? I just want to make sure it's okay. I don't want to I'm okay either way but we can vote on it and if they go back they go back. I don't know. I just wanted to
037make sure everybody understood what was said and before we move forward. That's all. I'll also say I'm kind of responding in the blind cuz I don't know I didn't know if we were seeing two people or 40 everybody that's leaving. We have a lot. So, I have no idea what we were setting this up for as far as personnel. There were a couple other who couldn't make it or declined. So, just for clarity purposes let's say um request and then they declined or do they request and the state wasn't acceptable to them? Uh one person had a conflict and it's couple other people just declined to come in tonight. I guess what she was asking did they ask or did we ask them? >> [clears throat] >> Um I was people who were leaving with
038concerns I was asked to see if they wanted to come in and talk. Okay. So, are there any other comments? I I have one. I just don't know where it stops and starts because it's almost like we're setting policy without setting policy. Now we're doing exit interviews instead of with administrative staff we're doing them in executive session. I don't know when that stops when that starts. We don't have a policy for that. So, that's a little concern for me. We just do roll call. Is there any other questions or comments? No, not yet. I have another I don't know. We haven't even read the motion so we can't do a roll call without the motion being read at this point. And discussion is healthy and part of being on a board. So, um >> [clears
039throat] >> I want to make it clear that I object to this executive session and we're going in under objection. Just want to be clear about the record. Um the record my read the recommendation. Well, I will ask one of the board members who are making this recommendation to read it cuz it is down. Well, now you want the presidency so you need to read it or you can resign if you don't want to read the recommendation. That's your job as president or resign. I'm sorry. Thank you. Are you having trouble hearing? I forgot to do my paperwork. What's what's It is your I'll read it. It is recommended that the board the Groveport Madison School Board of Education enter executive session to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a
040public employee or official or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual unless the employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing by division G1 or section of section 121.22 of the revised code. And I My objection is even more strenuous as this is way too many reasons to be going into. It's not specific. So, I think our attorneys have definitely said it needs to be So moved. Okay. May I do roll call, please? Second. I I need a second. John second? Yeah. So, to that point, two board members called this meeting, which is great. There's no problem with that, but when you do so, I don't think it's fair to attack the president and tell her she has to read the motion that you brought.
041So, just for the record, I think if you if two board members bring this, one of you should be willing to read the motion. And neither one of you did, so but okay. Are there any other comments? Roll call, please. Mrs. Albers? I. Mrs. Zimmer? I'm abstaining cuz I don't want to deal with this. Okay. Mr. Turbert? I. Ms. Walsh? No. Mr. Kushner? No. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Um uh Board of Education. I make a motion to adjourn. Second. Roll call, please. Mrs. Albers? I. Mrs. Zimmer? I'll abstain again. Mr. Turbert? I. Ms. Walsh? I. Mr. Kushner? I. 6-1. The meeting is adjourned. Who did the first and second on the adjournment? All right. >> Mhm. >> This is Latoya. Okay. It's 7:00 and this is the 7:00 p.m. Board of Education special
042meeting April 27th. Uh call to order and now we'll do the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Treasurer, if you could do roll call, please. Yes. Mrs. Noble here. Ms. Zimmer? Here. Mr. Herbert? Here. >> Ms. Washington? Here. Mr. Kirchner? Here. Next item D, agenda approval. I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Second. Any questions or concerns? Do roll call, please. Ms. Zimmer? No. Mr. Herbert? No. Ms. Washington? Yes. And Mr. Kirchner? Yes. Um since we didn't have the agenda's not approved. But I don't think we have to approve an agenda, do we, Mr. Tujetsch? We need you to vote it. I didn't hear
043what you just said. I didn't hear the question or the response. Um Megan had said we don't have to approve an agenda and that's what we're voting on. Is there some changes you would like to make to the agenda? There were no comments. So earlier we didn't approve the agenda and we didn't go into executive session, but now we're not approving the agenda and we are going into executive session, is that correct? This meeting was scheduled during the board meeting on the 14th, I believe. And the executive session on this board meeting is for specific purposes that the board attorney gave us, which is G1. Um pertinent purposes here. It's not for a whole wondering dispute for G3. And for G1, it's uh executive session to consider the investigation of charges and complaints against the
044district employee, which is what the board attorney and what we agreed to during the April 14th meeting and three to confer with attorney regarding disputes involving a public body, which is also what both attorneys had asked us to put on there. Right. My question was we didn't approve the agenda for the meeting before, but we also didn't approve this agenda. Are you saying that because you agree with what's on the agenda that is approved and we can go into executive session or we couldn't go into the one earlier because you didn't approve of what was on the agenda? I believe the last 5:30 meeting the agenda was approved. The executive session was not approved, but the agenda itself was approved. Um so Right. Yeah, it was three to two, so it didn't the agenda wasn't
045approved. So is there any other comments? All right. Can you go ahead and read the executive session? Um I recommend that I move that we uh move to executive session for the following um Groveport Madison School Board of Education in our executive session to consider the investigation of charges or complaints against the district employee or official pursuant to ORC 121.22 G1 and to confer with the board's attorney concerning disputes involving the public body that are subject to pending and imminent court action pursuant to ORC 121.22 G3. Is there any comments? I would second first. >> I'll second. Kathy John first, Kathy second, okay. Yes. So does anyone have any comment? I would say my comment would be that this is what we as a board decided to do at the April 14th meeting and the
046reason is what we decided at the April 14th meeting and I think it's important um that we do so because the attorney said we have some pretty important um things hanging out there. Um issues hanging out there that we need to address as a board in a timely manner. Any other comments? Do roll call, please. Ms. Zimmer? No. Mr. Herbert? No. Ms. Washington? No. Mr. Kirchner? Oh, I wait. I reconsider. My vote is yes. Okay. Kathy, yes. No, Deonna and no, Ashley. And Mr. Kirchner? No. I'm sorry, yes. >> [laughter] >> Doesn't make any difference, but yes. Sorry, yes. Yep. All right. So um the next [clears throat] item on here is the board to consider executive session item, which we were going to have removed anyhow, but didn't cuz we didn't accept the agenda.
047I would make comment motion for the motion to adjourn. I make a comment that, you know, this this is just seems a little tit for tat and it's going to be it's a problem for the district when you talk about you want to See here's then how they look at things and they're looking at this and this is just so childish. I make a motion to adjourn. I would like to make that comment that we didn't discuss where the agenda was not actually fully done for the record. So not all pieces were included in the executive session. Okay. >> are also missing one of our board I'm sorry, there's a lot of noise over here. I'm sorry, Ashley. I really want to hear what you're saying. I'm sorry, there's someone making a lot of noise
048in my ear. Um could you state that again? Could you state that again? >> have a quorum, so we We have six people here. The original things that were supposed to be discussed is not happening cuz not all of the individuals could be here. So what we have approved to have this meeting for is not actually happening, so it's changed. Okay. The key key The key piece is not here, so we did not agree to this specific session meeting. You're saying it's a the key isn't The specific reason Okay. is not here. Thank you. I need to roll call for adjournment. Ms. Zimmer? Yes. Ms. Herbert? Yes. Mr. Herman Yes. Okay. So, all right. We're adjourning at 7:08.