001[Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Hello. Okay. A special meeting uh special school board meeting is open to online participation available to public via live stream. Okay. So today is Wednesday, May 7th, 2025 for the special school board meeting one routine matters a call meeting to order and verify quorum present through a roll call vote. Um, board member Mononttoya, board member Aspus, Secretary So President, Vice President Wells, and I'm president. Present. Um, we are we have quorum and the time is 12:02 p.m. Sorry, I'm looking for my pen. Two reports. A legal overview of um, thank you. Board boards Oh, um, board member Mononttoya is here. A legal overview of board's roles and district governance by Miss Chappelle. Miss Chappelle, would you like to start? Sorry. Uh, board president, I'm
002wondering if this conversation might be better had in the small conference room. Um, just so we can have a back and forth conversation on the the the uh case loss that I'm going to review with you guys. Okay. What do you what does the board think to go into the smaller box conference room? Um it's not executive session right it will be open for um it'll remain online but we will be able to have the dialogue in regard okay we will move to the small um conference room mini boardroom we'll move move to mini boardroom it's not executive session we will just move for the smaller um setting [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Are you [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Okay, I'm going to share my screen. I'll pop one of the ladies
003You all walk. We're live. I'm going to share my screen. You guys can see the um deals with this issue the most closest. Oops. Okay. Germaine, you should be able to share your screen now. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, um we have all had conversations about House Bill 212 and what that changed, right? And so this case is the case that uh actually goes through the the House Bill 212 changes and harmonizes what's left in the statute with respect to the role of the board and the role of the superintendent. And and actually this is partly a central consolidated school district case. Um and just for those who are listening in, this is a 2017 case um held at the Court of Appeals, this case has not been overruled by the Supreme Court
004or anyone else. And so as it stands right now, this is the court's um analysis and findings of the House Bill two changes. Good so far. Kind of explain the CCSD portion of the petition like Sure. So, what what happened here is that the court of appeals combined two cases together because they dealt with the same issues. One, and I'll get into this here in a second, one of the um cases was an Albuquerque public school APS case. In that case, um an employee was discharged and because of House Bill 212, the the school board at that time thought it could not hear um an appeal from this particular employee. Um and so it set off this whole uh long lengthy court um battle that ended up at the court of appeals. And what the
005court of appeals held essentially on that piece of it was that um House Bill 212 uh does give primary jurisdiction over personnel to the superintendent. I'm going to get into the details here in a second, but that the um the legislature left in place the right of appeal by employees to the school board. So, the way that this um the way that the court articulates that is by saying that the the superintendent recommends discharge essentially to the school board in that situation. And if the the employee decides to go to the appeal route, then it's ultimately the board's decision. So that's that piece. The second piece came out of um a appeal on a grievance submitted from the union had to do with um the school districts central consolidated school districts I I guess imposition
006of some stipens without going through the CBA negotiation process. And so what this what this part of it does is really help establish what the role of the school board is with respect to CBA negotiations and what the role of the superintendent. Does that help Carlson? Was that over? Yeah. You ready for me to move forward? Was that overview just for superintendent or for all of us? He asked a question. I was just responding to his question. I mean I mean the whole I'm just wondering why you're I was responding to the question he asked and I just was just following up just now minutes ago and I just wanted to make sure that I had answered his question before I moved on. All right. So, um All right. So, this case is 33 pages
007long where the opinion is and um how many of you have read a case before an opinion before. All right. So, I'm going to kind of go over the how how these things are organized, right? So, in the beginning and then I'm going to come back into the meat of it. Um, [Music] so in the beginning what happens is the court will set forth what the issues are, right? And so right up front here, just kind of essentially what I went over, um, I have highlighted what the two issues are that have been presented to the court of appeals. So the first one is an APS one and it had to do with um sorry excuse me essentially what what APS did was appeal the district court's decision to the court of appeals and it
008is is exactly what I described that um the district court concluded that the discharge hearing for certified school employee under the school personnel act must be conducted by the school board and in this situation EPS was saying because of House Bill 212 that hearing should be held by the superintendent. The court said no at both the district court level and the court of appeals level. And I'll get into the uh analysis of that here in a second. And then the next one um it discusses that central consolidated school district um affirm the district court affirm the order of the public employee labor relations board which we'll be saying PLRB from now on on that that the school board is required to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the school superintendent under grievance procedures set
009forth in the collective bargaining agree CBA. So in the very beginning of the case that the court sets forth the issues that they're reviewing and here the court is saying both of these cases rely on and argue that the changes from House Bill 212 are why the school board's no longer doing these things and having the superintendent do them. And so the district both the district court and the court of appeals said no. that is not what the law says. So the next piece of this case is um essentially what the standard of review or the law is from the court's perspective that that they're going to be using to analyze the two questions we just talked about. So I'm just going to I'm going to come back to this, but I just want you
010to see that essentially what happens is the court goes through all of the legal analysis in front. So we know what laws they're going to refer to in their analysis. All right. So that's all of this. Finally, um about let's see here midway through we now get into the facts and the law. And so what the court's now going to do is analyze what it sees as the facts and the outcome of the law. And so so it's broken up um in the APS appeal and then the CCSD. And so that's kind of how the case itself is organized. All right. So let's go back just starting off to the standard. Any questions so far about the how how the case is organized? Yes, I do have a question. Yes, sir. This is it only
011comes before the board and if it's contested that right on on a discharge situation. Yes sir. Yes sir. What was your question? That the the board only it only does before the board if a discharge case is contested or a grievance is contested. Excuse me. It it seems to me that it's kind of backwards because um not trying to be challenging but you know when when it's recommended in the first level to what they need or what they need and then the superintendent knows and is aware and signs off and then yet from there their force is um kept away from the case until you know the employee decides whether to contest or not challenge to CPA when the superintend right and so what we're dealing with is when is an employee discharged and and
012there's two things right one superintendent recommends discharge or termination And if that employee does not appeal that to the board, then that becomes a final decision. Yeah. But you're saying I mean the whole point of of 112 was that superintendent has ultimate decision and this case says no. This case says because of the statutory construction and the provisions in this in that in in how what what House Bill I think it's perfect. I liked it. Okay. I'm glad I brought us. Yeah. Um, so what what the court is saying is that the position of APS and the position of CCSD at this time in 2017 was too narrow a reading of what the legislature actually did. I'm going to get into the weeds of that so you guys can understand it. Okay? But it is
013has been a source of confusion for us for lots of folks for a very long time. Now there are some people who will say the court got it wrong. Okay. But that's currently what the court says that's and that is what stands. And I think I I'm reflecting on some of on this when we get packets, I don't know if um other board members have gotten packets from different people um advocating or whatever from regarding situations and um it was order that Yeah. Well, with any of the any kind of grievance and it was recommended that we can see that we got the packet but it's advisable that we just set aside the pack because ultimately at the end of if there is a grievance then we're the the last we have to make a
014decision and we can't compromise our I guess the our partiality. Yeah, we have to be be impartial when we make these decisions. And so, um, it's really good to know that if we get those packets or emails or any letters, those things we should just set aside in case there's a grievance that comes up. So, um, that's the first part, right? If employee does not appeal, termination stands. If employee does appeal, then the superintendent has to show at the hearing in front of the board that he had just cause to recommend termination and then the board determines whether or not that was true. That's from an employee standpoint. On the grievance standpoint, um what the court says is that what the the role of the board in an in an appeal of a grievance is
015to determine whether or not the policies of the schoolboard and the CBA have been complied with. And that's why it's like the court standing in a kind of an appellet review situation. Do you think um I think over the years over the years see um this is I mean the way you're when they talk about this at sessions it's it's like clearcut and then but when you throw in little things back in there and one of them it being um natural preference I mean, I think we better be careful when we're talking about um I know it's not reduction in force, but when we're reorganizing um because and I don't think that's happened yet, but somebody with that has that knowledge can come back and ask, well, let's look at your how many neighborhoods you
016have employed. How many did you cut? What was what was left? And so, um, I'm just throwing that out there. So, in that situation, there is a case about reductions in force. I'm not going to talk about today, but I want to do that at the next meeting we have because I just think it's a lot to absorb a ton of cases all at once. Um, but there is a case that does talk about the school board's authority in a reduction uh in force situation. And so that's a little bit different than what we're talking about today. But your point is a really good one because in that situation we have to comply with all of the laws that are applicable. So federal, state, and tribal to the extent that they don't um conflict with
017federal and state. And I think in large part the navigation law does parallel state law in many respects. They're very similar. So for this particular question, can we save that for when we talk about the reduction enforcement case? Well, I I don't expect to go over. I'm just saying that okay, you know, I think as we're the years are going by, you know, people are learning law and what applies to it more and more. And so um we're veter careful how we do things organizations or you know because um simply say you know reorganizing because they're going to ask for those numbers statistics. All right. So with that, I'm going to get into the analysis of the nuts and bolts of what the court found and how it looked at it. Any questions before I
018I start into that? Because to me when when I read these two cases just to probably give a high level approach this the the normally under house bill 212 or the current statute is that the way people interpret is the board's role is you you have no business and personnel. However, these cases seem to highlight that those exceptions are with regard to discharge hearings and this other process of the collective bargaining agreement. Right. What I one of the things limited exceptions basically. Correct. One of the things that I really love about this case is that it gives us an overview of what the legislature the court's view of what the legislature intended with House Bill 212. And so it really talks quite a bit about the board's role as the policy maker and the superintendent's
019role as the chief executive officer of the district. And so what it goes into really great conversation about which I think is helpful for all of us in kind of having these back and forth conversations in terms of the changes that are trying to be made um in the district is to really understand the black and white and then the gray. And so the court construses the role of superintendent more as manager and implement of policy. So if it doesn't apply to a single employee but a group of employees that's policy. If it employ if it applies to one the employee doing well or not well that kind of thing then that's that's management of that employee. but we'll get into that. All right. So, the first standard that the court looks at is what
020I've already kind of highlighted and that is what did the legislature intend and the way that the court decides or or analyzes what the court intended was on the plain language of the statute. Right? So, there was a whole statute in place prior to House Bill 212. So the court first goes through that and it says what was this what was the board's responsibility and the superintendent's responsibility prior to House Bill 212. Well, prior to House Bill 212, the board had literally plenary responsibility over the district. It had all power to hire, fire, everything. And so, um, what the court is doing here is it's saying, well, what exactly did House Bill 212 change and what did it leave in place? And so, I'm just going to read this part because I thought it was
021a really good summary. Um, so prior to the adoption of House Bill 212, local school boards were required to be involved in the day-to-day operations of school districts on an operational level. For example, school boards were required to supervise and control all the public schools in the school district to apply for waiverss of certain provisions in the public school code relating to length of school day, staffing pattern, subject area, or purchase of instructional materials to supervise and control all property owned or in the possession of the school district and to repair and maintain all property belonging to the school district. In addition, while the 2002 version of section 22-5-4 provided in subsection C that the local school board had the powers or duties to delegate administrative and supervisory functions of the schoolboard to the superintendent,
022the statute failed to specify what those functions were and certain administrative and supervisory functions such as the power to hire, terminate or discharge employees could not be delegated. So that prior to 2003 that was the purview of school boards. Um and so the court again repeats thus prior to 2003 the school board had the sole power to employ terminate or discharge an employee and then superintendent only had the power to recommend the employment termination or discharge of an employee. Now that part has remained only in in so much as whether or not an employee seeks an appeal. Otherwise, now that role has moved over to the superintendent. And so now the court talks about House Bill 212. Um, House Bill 212, sometimes referred to as the public school reform act, made sweeping changes to statutes
023dealing with public education and at the same time enacted many new statutes to reform public education. In stating its legislative findings and purpose for enacting House Bill 212, the legislature determined, among other findings, that one of the keys to student success in New Mexico is a multicultural education system that elevates the importance of public education in the state by clarifying the governance structure at different levels. The legislature finds further that the public school governance structure needs to change to provide accountability from the bottom up instead of from the top down. Each school principal with the help of school councils made up of parents and teachers must be the instructional leader in the public school motivating and holding accountable both teachers and students. Each local superintendent must function as the school district's chief executive officer and
024have responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the school, including personnel and student disciplinary decisions. Um, in accordance with these findings, House Bill 212 defined a local school board to mean the policy setting body of a school district and a local superintendent to mean the chief executive officer of a school district. And then it goes through um the new House Bill 212 changes to what the superintendent um is in charge of. Um and those just for reiteration, carry out the educational policies and rules of the state board, department, and local school board. Administer and supervise the school district. employ, fix the salaries of, assign, terminate, or discharge all employees of the school district and perform other duties as required by law. The court goes on to say, um, our work policy C0.0 qualifications and duties superintendent
025are any are we going to be proposing any edits to our board policies? As a part of that word policy, it states the superintendent shall employ fixed salaries of assign, terminate, and discharge all employees of the school district, which is still consistent with the language. So, are we implying that the superintendent is now no longer responsible for those in any way or he still will be responsible for those duties? Fixing salaries, assigning I don't understand your question, don't I? So, we're not talking about changing policy right now. I'm just going through the case. Okay, I'll hold off on I don't see any need to revise our policies. Because I think I think in large part our policies reflect ex existing state law. Correct. And when it talks about fixing salaries, that means individual employees, not
026a group of employees. House Bill 212 clarified the powers and duties of local school boards and superintendents and structured the relationship in a familiar and well understood framework. The school board enacts policy of the school district and employs a superintendent as the chief executive officer to implement its policies in the day-to-day operations of the school district. That is, the local school board governs the school district through its authority to enact the regulations, standards, and rules under which the school district operates. and it employs the local superintendent as the highest ranking manager of the school district to implement them on an operational level in the day-to-day operations of the local school board. And that I think really like when I'm wrestling with what is schoolboard versus what is administration, this is something I I go back
027to often to help me think what's the gray area here and what's black and white. And so the other analogy to that and the court does um kind of the court does allude to this as well. It's essentially like the the legislature makes the laws and the governor and his or her executive administration implements those laws. Say that again. The analogy part the governor. So it's similar to the legislature. Similar. Yeah. Yeah. It's similar to analogous to it's similar to that. Um and what follows is that the court is backing up its overall summary of that with other cases. That's what you see that next. So that's what the court says in a nutshell is the law, right? Superintendent is the manager and CEO essentially and this the school board is the legislature. They enact
028policy um and the rules and everything that governs the school district's operations. So, now we're getting into the APS appeal in the in the court's um ruling and it gives the background that's giving all the facts and it's also giving what APS's arguments are. And so APS argued because of House Bill 212, what APS said is that House Bill 212 transferred powers previously exercised by the local school board to the superintendent. and and that's why they said we could that the school board could not hear the um employees appeal and the district court disagreed and the court of appeals agreed with the district court. And so here's kind of a deeper dive into why the legis why the why the court said that the school board still retains the ability or the not the ability
029but the requirement to hear an appeal by an employee that comes before them. Good so far. Did I lose anybody with that? Can you say it one more time? Um here I'm gonna read this and then we'll say it for me. might be better. Okay. So, APS argues that the 2003 amendments aka House Bill 212 to the public school code reflect a specific legislative intent to vest the local superintendent with plenary authority over all personnel decisions, thereby devesting local boards of authority to hold district hearings and the ultimate power to discharge employees. APS argues that this specific legislative intent was expressed when House Bill 212 deleted subsection D from the enumer enumerated powers of local school boards in section 2254. And that section provides that a local school board or provided that a local school
030board must approve or disapprove the employment termination or discharge of all employees of the school district. Um and then they in the simultaneous enactment of the new statute APS argued that that vested the local school superintendent with the power and duty to employ fix the salaries of assign terminate or discharge all employees of the school district. And the court comes back and it says, "We conclude that APS reads House Bill 212 and the amendments it made to the public school code too narrowly without taking into account other changes made by House Bill 212 to the public school code or the fact that the legislature recodified but did not repeal section 27. This case involves the contemplated discharge of teacher a certified school employee. A discharge charge under the school personnel act is the act of
031severing the employment relationship with a certified school employee prior to the expiration of the current employment contract. House Bill 212 recompiled but did not otherwise amend the procedure for discharging a certified school employee under section 27. So, what the court is saying, and don't worry, I'm going to reiterate this with their own language, but what the court is saying is where while House Bill 212 took away some of the ability of the school board to discharge under the enumerated sections of 2210A-2A, it left the appeal provisions to the school board in section 27. seven. Okay. And so what the court is saying is you can't just read one of those provisions on its own and ignore the other one. They both exist. You have to read them together. So um continuing on, in the absence
032of a clear legislative directive to abandon existing law, we continue to apply it, which is what I just said. Importantly, section 27A explicitly states that a discharge may only occur according to the procedure it then sets forth in detail. Um, section 27A states that a certified school employee may be discharged only for just cause, meaning a reason that is rationally related to an employes's competence or turpitude or proper performance of the employees duties and that is not in violation of the employes civil or constitutional rights. The requirements for discharging a certified school employee under section 27 are clear and explicit. Under section 27, the local school board is vested with the exclusive authority to discharge a certified school employee. Further, the school board can only discharge or just causes proven by the superintendent by a
033prepoundonderance of the evidence. Pro procedurally, the superintendent shall serve the employee with written notice of his intent to recommend discharge, stating in the notice the cause for his recommendation, as well as informing the employee of his right to a discharge hearing before the local school board, which Tanya does very well. Um, section 27A, the employee may exercise his right to a discharge hearing before the school board by giving written notice of that election. And if the employee makes that election, the school board shall must hold a discharge hearing. And if the employee makes that election, the school board shall hold a discharge hearing. At the hearing, the superintendent shall have the burden of proving that at the time of the notice of intent to recommend discharge, he had just caused discharge to certified school employee.
034And um it goes obviously through the presentation of evidence. Um, but this is where the court concludes that the that House Bill 212 gave the authority of the superintendent to recommend discharge. That discharge was final. If that employee didn't appeal it and if the employee did appeal it, then it went to the board for finalization. Good so far. if um as I was saying I mean I I've already been told about people um well they've already called and said that they were not so is that something well I'm sure it is um it come and contest that. They could contest that and um then like I said, you know, there's always that out there. um not even just now preference but also gender age you know that they can contest and those are just some
035of the possibilities if I ask a clarifying question an employee is tenure probation they have one of those the way that I read this case plus the probationary um employee provision I don't think they have a right to come to is there case law there is no case law but you just said that their rights so this case is talking about certified slide That's what's in front of Is that what stated in CPA? Tenure is when you sign that third contract. I mean I mean I understood that um union will stand by anyone whether they're a union member. So So let me just a little bit so we're all on the same page on terms. Probationary employee means an employee that's been employed by the district for one year or less. And in that one
036year, the statute allows the district to discharge or terminate that person for no cause at all, just not a good fit, whatever. So from that perspective, appealing a termination of a probationary employee where no cause is required to the board creates kind of a circle because there's no re there's no recourse. The board's job is to say, did the superintendent have just cause to terminate? But for a probationary employee, you don't have to have just cause. So that that employee really is at will um and has no rights. He's employed at will and he's terminated as well. Yes, that is correct. As a probation employee. Yes. Moving into year two, that all changes. That's a signing of the third year. Under the CBA, I'm not going to disagree with you, but with where the law
037stands, I would say that be a gray area, year two is no longer probationary, and I think you would leave just cause. The other key word that you had stated too was prior to the end of the contract that was that you read when when it's when it's someone who's who's tenured or is being discharged or terminated prior to the end of Right. So, and that is a good point. Non-renewal is not the exactly the same as discharge um for cause, but when you become tenured and you get non-renewed, you do have those rights to to say it needs to be for just cause. So that's pretty good to for certified employees. Yeah. Differentiation between termination and non. Oh, absolutely. There's huge difference in the specs of the language. You get fired, you get fired
038before the end of your contract or a termination of of your services as at the end of that contract. So you don't you don't hire them back. You make a business decision not to rehire in respects to especially if you're going through realigning, reorganization, whatever it may be as long as you're following that CBA. So that brings in another set of analyses um when you're talking about reorganization or reduction in force totally different because then there's no just cause it's not an individual employee that you're dealing with it's a position or a set of positions you if the employee records well and find and sees differently and anybody can do anything for any reason, any any cause. However, if you follow the policy or the law as is as it is written, then you're truly
039limited. Sure, you can go get a lawyer and say, "Hey, violated." So, I just going to press a quick time out because and a pause. We're in open session. We're not in executive session. And so, this analysis is very general and broad for a reason. Okay. So, um Okay, let's do a reminder. [Music] Um so, there are gradiations here that we're talking about, right? Probationary employee the least amount of rights associated with employment. Um past the first year, your rights start increasing. Your rights getting even more strong when you become tenured as a certified employee. Right? In the situation of a reorg or a reduction in force, completely different set of rules which we're going to talk about next time, not today. Fair enough. Okay. Yes, sir. for folks everybody just make sure we clarify
040that that there's two again termination of the contract and then terminating two different if the contract expires it's not it's really it's thank you for your services move on the other is like discharge that's breaking the contract before it's been fulfilled so let's just get our terms together again. So certified employees, right? Everybody that has a license under PED and is not an at will administrative employee. So at will administrative employees, superintendent, most of this um central office would fit in the potentially certified but not say that because some of you have certification but you're still at will. So I want to make that distinction, right? Um, so for the most part, administrative employees are at will specified in the contract, but they also have a contract, which in state government is very weird because
041everywhere else in state government, at employees do not have a contract, right? So, school administrators get a little teeny tiny bit extra in that analysis because they do actually have a contract. But to the point of what happens at the expiration of that contract, nothing. There are no rights. The contract expires. That position is over to that point. If I could also clarify under the novel preference employment, if a contract expires on its own terms, it's not considered adverse action. However, if you add just stuff that's like just cause to the non-renewal, then you have to have just cause. But generally under a sales v sales versus ruffro community school a non-renewal is not considered action or non non non of a contract in that regard. So that's the other parallel and with respect to
042administrators completely agree with you. The public school code makes it a little tougher though for folks that are certified employees and tenur that are not administrators. So, teachers, aids, um, pretty much anyone under the CDA. So if I may ask a question um and and if it's not just okay one of the things that came up was um they're given that nonrenewal and the lab behind that it's like um nobody needs to say it out loud. But it's kind of like um a negative. But when it's administrators, they're given the option instead of uh termination or whatever. The option to resign and they go away with their everything intact positively. But whereas a teacher or somebody that's not non that's kind of a negative from a legal perspective I don't have a good answer for
043that. Um, from a day-to-day practical standpoint, um, I do think that some folks do give certified staff the ability to, uh, resign instead of having their contract, you know, um, non-renewed. So, I do think that applies to both sides of that. Um but the non-renewal you know I agree with the statement that it's not intended to be um punitive in some certain circumstances just like administrative leave is not supposed to be you know looked at as punitive but and in the eyes of law but from a practical standpoint people put different labels on that. So I hope that answers that question in a balanced way. Okay, so it it kind of, you know, this is a good segue back to the court's decision. What the court goes into is exactly this. Why are there more
044protections for certified teachers and certified staff? And the court essentially says, look, as a state, we have put a huge priority on teachers and making sure our teachers are licensed and educated. And so these folks are a really huge resource to our communities. This is what the court is essentially saying. And um as such we need to give them subtractions because if you terminate them in the middle of their employment for example this is the court talking about now they might not be able to get another job in another school district because of the way that's set up. So the court is saying we have reasons to treat this class of employees differently than others. Um, and so I'll just give you some some snippets about what the court said. However, the procedural and substantive
045rights contained in section 27, just to remind you, that's where an individual employee can appeal a recommendation to discharge to the board. Um, so the court is saying that the procedural and substance of rights contained in section 27 are a legislative expression that the discharge of a certified school employee is anything but a managerial task to be performed by a superintendent in the day-to-day operations of the school district. No offense to our superintendent, but what they're saying is we want a little bit more review or safety checks on these decisions. So, the court goes on to say, discharging a teacher in the middle of the school year is significant because a teacher may not have an opportunity to find other employment causing extreme hardship to the teacher. Certified school employees have historically been accorded procedural
046and substantive rights by the legislature to encourage individuals to enter the profession of teaching our children and to protect educators in their employment. These goals are expressed in a public school code where the legislature finds that one of the keys to student success in New Mexico is to have a multicultural system that attracts and retains quality and diverse teachers. In recognition of the realities attending a discharge in the middle of the school year and consistent with its commitment to protect rights of certified school employees, we conclude that the legislature consciously left intact the procedural and substantive protections of section 27. Don't know. Was that me? Okay. So, do you kind of see how the court I guess um shored up its determination that House Bill 212 didn't by reference or just surreptitiously um delete section
04727, section 27 exists and the changes from House Bill 212 exist. And so what the court is saying the legislature must have had a good reason and the good reason is we want to protect that stuff by giving a little bit more review to employees in the situation. And I think the other part is like if the legislature had intended to divest school boards of this authority they would have expressly done so by amending the statute in question. Exactly. They would have deleted it. Yep. So, um, ultimately what the court says is we reject everything that the EPS came uh with and they uh hold that um I'll just say this. I'll use their own language. We begin with section 27. We've already quoted and described the operation of section 27. The mandatory obligation given
048to the superintendent and school boards on the procedure to follow before a certified school employee can be discharged could not be more clearly stated. The school board shall have hold a discharge hearing once a certified school employee demands a hearing. There is no option and no room for interpretation. So from my perspective, this being untouched by any other uh court uh like the Supreme Court for example or the legislature quite frankly this is 2017 right? So the legislature could have come in and said court you got it wrong and we're taking out section 27 which that has not occurred and that's been eight years. So from my perspective, um this is a good analysis and outcome of what the the statute holds right now. Um this section that I've highlighted here just essentially says the
049same thing. I can read it if you guys want me to. Um but I think the point has been has been made. Does anyone want me to read kind of a recitation of that? my wife. Okay, this failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not something we need to talk about. Um, so now um we're going into the school district appeal on the um union. Ready for that one, guys? Does anyone need a quick break or a drink of water or anything before I do that? We're still in open session. Should have said that again. I missed that part. Nothing bad happened. I just [Music] Do you? [Music] Okay, we're we're starting So, the next component of this decision has to do with CPSC having similar confusion about what House Bill 12 did to um VA
050negotiations, for example, and whether or not the school board had a role in appeals on grievances versus the CPS. All right. So, I'm just going to kind of give the procedural background. Union filed a complaint with PLRB. Do I need to say what that was again from the beginning? The labor board. Right. Thank you. [Laughter] Um, one that the school board of the school district failed and refused to process grievances as required by the CDA collective bargaining agreement in violation of the PIEA, that is the public employee bargaining act. And two, that the school from now on I'm just going to say PIBA. We know it's the act, right? Okay. two, that the school district gave certain employees additional work and paid them an additional foreman stipen, thereby changing the terms and conditions of their
051employment without bargaining with the union as required by the PIBA. Um, and they refer us to section 10-7E-9A of the New Mexico statutes. Um and so under that statute uh it provides that the PELB has the power to enforce the BIVA and to this end may establish rules necessary for filing hearing etc. Not not so relevant to what we're talking about. So I'm going to keep going. Um, in its answer to this grievance complaint, the school district asserted that the revisions made by House Bill 212 transferred powers from the school board to the superintendent of the school district with the result that the school board had no authority to hear and decide grievances. In its answer to the foreman siphon complaint, the school district admitted that pre-existing employees agreed to take on additional responsibilities for
052an additional siphon, but denied that there was a PEA violation because no new foreman positions were created. In addition, the school district argued that if bargaining was required, the union waved the failure to bargain because it agreed to and acquiesced in the school district's long practice of paying additional stipens to employees to perform additional tasks beyond those inherited in their day jobs. So, those of you that have been here for a while probably remember this, but it's been a while, right? But one thing I've heard, and this was before my time, is that we constantly have issues when we talk about um the additional pay and it continues to kind of Thank you. Okay. Um, so kind of talks about the process for PLB and I'm going to skip straight to what the hearing officer
053found. The hearing officer found that the parties negotiated a CPA in which they agreed upon procedures for filing and processing grievances. The grievance procedure has five steps. Step one, the discussion level in which a grievant meets with the immediate supervisor to attempt resolving the issue. Step two, supervisor level in which a written grievance is submitted to the immediate supervisor and the supervisor communicates a written decision. writing. Step three, superintendent level, which is invoked by appealing the immediate supervisor's decision in writing to the superintendent who renders a written decision after meeting with the grievant and the supervisor and reviewing the record and information presented. Step four, and this is the step in question, the board level, which is invoked by appealing to the school board through the superintendent. And step five, the arbitration level. After the
054school board members, I'm sorry, after the school board renders its decision in which the arbitrator conducts a hearing and renders a final initing decision. So the question before the hearing exam hearing officer was whether the school board complied with step four and the hearing examiner hearing officer said no the school board did not comply with that. So, moving down to the district court's review of this, I mean the sorry, court of appeals review of this. Um, they essentially reiterate what the hearing officer found and agree with it. The last line there, I'll read um the last two lines. The hearing officer also rejected the school district's defense that the union waved the failure to bargain on grounds that they had acquiesed. To the contract to the contractor to the contrary, the hearing officer found in
055VA that the union and school district had entered into memorandum of understanding to create a joint committee to review those requirements. So the court then goes through what the district court looked at and district court upheld the um hearing officer. And so now we're going to go into the court's the court's analysis, the court's analysis. And the reason I think it's really helpful to go through this in this much detail with you guys is that it doesn't just talk about the CVA. It also talks about what's meant by the school district sitting in the seat of a policy maker and how expansive that is. Um, and so that's that's the secondary reason I wanted to bring this to y'all's attention so we could talk it through. So the district court mean sorry court of appeals
056says to reiterate house bill 212 enacted a new statute section 22-5-14 which gives the superintendent the powers to administer and supervise the school district and to employ fixed salaries of and assign terminate or discharge all employees of the school district. Secondly, House Bill 212 deleted section 22-5 4D providing that a local school board was invested with the powers or duties to approve or disprove the employment termination or discharge of all employees and certified school personnel of the school district upon a recommendation by the superintendent. So that was deleted from the enumerated powers of the duties of the school board. The school board contends that because of the powers given to superintendent and because the school board is given no authority with respect to school personnel that the legislature took away the power of school boards
057to interfere in personnel matters when it enacted House Bill 212. So the court then goes on to look at that argument within the context of the PIBA public employee bargaining act um which was also enacted in 2003. And in that act um what what is stated in this act um is that essentially I'm going to try to find that part. So it allowed public employees to organize um I'm going to get to my Okay. I'm I I was hoping not to have to read this, but I think I'm going to. Actually, I'm going to skip to the highlighted portion and then I'll go back if we need to. So, the court concludes the school district's arguments focus on section 22-5-4A, which provides that the local school board has the power or duty subject to the
058rules of the department to develop educational policies for the school district. While conceding that the school board is a policymaking body, the school district asserts that under the foregoing language, the school board only has the legal authority to make policies that are subject to the rules of the department and quote unquote educational. Thus, the school district proclaims the school board is not given authority to make whatever policies it may choose on whatever subjects it may choose. The school district asserts that because the policies involved here are grievances under the CDA uh relate to labor or personnel matters, not educational issues. And because Bill 212 took local school boards out of personnel reon except for one employee superintendent, the school board has no authority to negotiate and sign the CDA. The court says we are not
059persuaded. Meaning we have we have wrong in our argument. So, the school district's argument, and this is what the court says, overlooks the fact that in addition to other changes discussed above, House Bill 212, section 3 also enacted section 22-1-2H, which defines the school board as the policy setting body of the school district. Simply stated, policy means to organize and regulate the internal order of govern. And it cites Webster's third new international dictionary. As we have already pointed out, House Bill 212 reformed and restructured the relationship between the school board and superintendent. And consistent with this purpose, House Bill 212 clarified the respective duties of schoolboard and superintendent. Under House Bill 212, the school board governs the school district by exercising its power to enact policy through the adoption of regulations, standards, and rules. At
060the same time, the school board employs the superintendent as its chief executive officer to implement and carry into effect at an operational level in the day-to-day operations of the school district. Section 2254 does not alter or limit this relationship to to accept the school district's arguments on their face requires us to conclude that section 22-1-2H defining the school board as policy setting body of the school district is mere surplus our word surplusage to22-5-4 in providing that among the powers and duties of the school board is subject to the roles of the department to develop educational policy for the school district. This interpretation violates a fundamental principle of statutory construction that we are to give effect to all parts of a statute particularly when they are enacted together. So I'm going to skip that. It's not
061quite it then the the court goes back into the priority of the legislature um in having a I'll just read it. Multicultural education system integrates the cultural strengths of its diverse student population into the curriculum and recognizes that cultural diversity in the state presents special challenges for policymakers, administrators, teachers, and students. And to also change public school governance from the bottom up instead of from the top down. In order to avoid any question and to be consistent with its purposes, House Bill 212 expressly and explicitly states that a school board has the powers or duties to develop educational policies for the school district. Granting a school board such authority is not a limitation but an express recognition that each local board is a partner with the public education department in making education policy for that
062particular school district by taking into account sorry into account the state's multicultural diversity to achieve student success. Um the next supposed to take into account me. This is um the legislature is taking this into account. But yes, as part of that bottom up system, the school board has a very big role in making sure that those um intentions are you want me to pause for a second? Okay. on. Um, and so what the court next does is it goes to other parts in in the statutes that that provide explicit authority to the school district in developing policies that aren't necessarily quote unquote educational. And so going through all of that, and I will spare you that. Um, going through all of that, the court says, "We therefore conclude that the powers of duties granted to
063school boards in section 22-5-4A in addition to and not a limitation on the general power to enact policy for the school district recognized in 22-1-2H." Um, and this is the part I was really wanting to get to, so I'm glad it's we're ready for it. Um, we therefore reject the school district's additional assertion that under the PLRB and district or sorry assertion that the PLRB and district court error in determining that the school board is the public employer under the PIBA and that when the school board signed the CVA it did not have authority to do so. The court says under the PB under the PEIBA, the appropriate governing body to engage in collective bargaining and enter into a CBA is the policymaking body representing the public employer. That at the local level is the
064elected or appointed representative body charged with management of the local public body. Section 10-7E-7. The school board is the policy maker here and it satisfies the definitions in all other respect. Summarizing the PIA provides that the locally elected body of the employer which makes the employer's policies is the proper party to engage in collective bargaining with the labor organization which has the right to represent all public employees of the bargaining unit in collective bargaining. Collective bargaining means negotiating for the purpose of entering into a written agreement regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between a public employer and its employee public employees without question implicate policies of the employer and KA therefore dictates that the policy maker of the public employer is
065the proper party to engage in such negotiations enter and to enter into a CBA agreement. You're the policy maker and employer is the school board and it was the proper party to enter into CBA with question. Yes. Um, so does that mean since the school board, let me ask this. Does the school board because they are the employer and the policy, right, with regards to the CPA, does that now mean that the school board will be negotiating with the uh Q directly? So, the way that this has been construed in recent past is that the administration has a a group of folks that actually do the negotiations with the union, but that prior to negotiations starting, it's been a few years ago now, um the the the folks kind of um I guess identified to
066handle those negotiations ations um would come before the board in executive session because that is a an exception under the open meetings act and have that discussion. So I can't really see you because you're behind Tanya. I'm like how do I make sure I'm addressing you respectfully? Um and so what what has happened in the past in order to comply with this um was that the three union issues and the three we're not going to talk about any specifics here because we are in open session. um and the three um issues that that the administration wanted to um negotiate would come before the board. So the board could say well we have we we also have some ideas on what needs to be negotiated. Um and that's how um dominant we have dealt with that
067so that we don't have the situation where there negotiations occur and then all of that comes to the board without the board being part of those negotiations and then we have to like do a hard stop and renegotiate which was not a fun thing to do in the past. And so that's why um that has been the the process um to kind of align ourselves with what the court says here. I don't know if that answers the question. I can answer. What's that? I can answer. But based on what you're just put up there is saying that the board has is the employer and the policy and therefore negotiates with the union. So my question is if the board is responsible for that who does that because I guess where I'm coming from is this
068is fantastic information so appreciate can we be careful that we are in a concession please. Uh sure. So um the question becomes where this gray area is running where there's cause for concern. You have language that states well the board is respons or has a has a responsibility or a right and then how does that get delegated? There's a lot of language that you just went over that defines the boundaries between superintendent and board, but now we're on the CBA. It doesn't sound like it says that the superintendent has to make his recommendations or HR has to make their recommendations with regards to the TA and negotiations with again who is responsible if you are the employer, right? and the policy maker if it's not you and if it's not the board who who is
069supposed to do that based on the law and I guess that's where the concern is if there's gray area then it can be like well then the staff needs to do it or you've asked several questions in one so I'm going to try to unpack that um first off this court court of appeals says that for the statute the school board is the signer of the CVA. So they are they are entitled and trusted given the responsibility of making sure that there is a CBA in place where it's applicable and they are this also says that they're responsible for engaging in negotiations with the CBA because they ultimately have to sign off on any changes that are made. Um, so the reading that I think lots of school districts and my reading of this and
070and I was also um general counsel of two very large agencies that had uh union employees. Why are you rolling your eyes? That's what I was um the standard is that administrators do the negotiations in consultation with the overall governing board and that was how it was done at Department of Transportation and Department of Public Safety and it also is applicable here specific to just negotiations with union. Correct. So in order for the entire board to negotiate with the union that would that would create a pretty big problem because you are then having five people uh that is a public body enter into negotiations with a union. So what has been done in practice is that the board delegates the actual negotiation back and forth to folks under the the um superintendent um with that
071process of identifying upfront what the issues are to be negotiated and um regular status updates on the progress of negotiations throughout. Okay. And that way you have a very organized, efficient manner of making sure the board is um aware of what's being negotiated and can sign off on it at the end. Any other questions? To me it's um being a member working under that um when negotiations come about usually it's um okay the you both sides union and the management um their representatives their group of representatives are are bring it and negotiate and to me I feel like that's not here and um and then even on the management side you know um highest which is my manager involved here we don't um I think this has is involved and so then when it when
072it comes back not the previous system so so to me I feel like why isn't our superintendent involved and um because if anything um he's more aligned and and more of the executive meetings mainly you know and he knows the board's um goals expectations and then years past that is exactly how it happened you had a core team of negotiators they would go back to the union union they have the negotiators negotiations then they come back with an ask and then they take that to the superintendent and superintendent would say yes, no, concerns, whatever and then they'd go back. But ultimately all of that is like creating a final rough draft for it to come to the board because in accordance with this and the statute, the board is the final yes or no to
073those changes and then not the entire contract is negotiated. It's just whatever they draw that right issues and um thank you board member so for pulling this up um but in the CBA itself to your point and question Mr. under management rights and that is or five the board retains and reserves unto itself out all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested in it by the laws and constitution of the state of New Mexico and federal laws unless specifically limited by the provisions of this agreement. So, not only is it in statute, it is in this case law, but it's also in the CDA regressive. Thank you. Um, I think this is great. I think it's consistent with our policies. I was just wanting to make sure that this relationship between the
074board, yes, that they sign the document, but the law also supports them in being directly involved with the negotiation. Right? Otherwise, they would just be a check the box board and the statute does not contemplate that at all. But with bargaining, CBA's that we're just talking about CPAs right now. So, for example, just because the board signs off on the budget, we're not there are other rules that we maybe covered that say you don't get into the negotiations at that level. Don't agree with you on where you're going with this, Mr. Satena. I'm just saying because the board set signs a document doesn't give them free reign at the level at which this particular law allows them to be engaged with the CDA. And I'm not going to agree with you on that point. We
075can talk we have there's another there's some other cases that I can help bring up to help you understand that. But the board is not a check the box entity. So if they're passing something, it means they have to have full knowledge and understanding about what they're approving or not approving. It can't ever be a check the box. Yeah. No, I'm not implying that they're I don't understand your question in the context of this conversation. Yeah. No, because it's very clear that using the argument because you guys do sign the document, but this law specifically says you can you be you are allowed to be involved right at the negotiation level and the the there is case law that also says that with respect to every decision the board makes. So, if the board is
076passing on the a budget or approving or rejecting any portion of the budget, they actually have to be well informed about all of the pieces of that budget to do so. I'm not talking about being informed. I'm talking about about making decisions. It feels to me like you're making an argument that is not currently on our agenda. That's fine. I I digress. So, any questions about this analysis? Well, I I that was the reason why I brought up my question or the way I responded was that you know um what happens when the management negotiation time comes around but management has one team and they're fully trained on how to negotiate whereas the other they they have another team also. And um and then I I really wouldn't agree with in the past from other
077board members um you're saying they board members know or um have full knowledge um I would agree with that because sometimes you know a lot of this language from CBA contracts they're they're you know tricky And then as we're talking about contracts, I don't even see one here. Where where is the CBA and what does it say? And um so I that that was the whole reason I um as far as um just reading that read that paragraph about and saying that the board is the employer. And I I guess I'm kind of thinking where he's getting at is then why aren't we one first at negotiating? And so but I'm saying my side of what I see as a union employer I mean employee and um what happens there and and why I don't
078see us as being that team because um when that team is is made up it seems like there there's people different strong points and um so and then they know what the bill needs to be negotiated I've been I've been fortunate to sit on both sides within this district and the decision to um for the opportunity to negotiate is again that inevitably at the end of the day we sign off on we are informed whatever those three topics are discussion in executive session we should be given every aspect of those three points we all know some of us know the pain sitting there for a very long time about some of these things. It goes on and on and on for hours. Now, having said that, same thing is said that that responsibility of the
079superintendent to put together his team. Your point of what you're saying about having people that are knowledge immersed in it is absolutely agreeable. They should be on how you do that. And again, we have our concessions. The union is going to have their concessions because again, I've sat on that side as well too. They have their points. They come and they bring their people in and we sit sit at the table. We go back and forth. Then you separate and depending on where the contention is or not bring it back to the to the board because inevitably at the end of the day they are the final arbiter in what is going to be agreed to or not to questions about being the one sitting there per the language as it's written delegation of an
080authority which we have a right just as super has right to delegate to but also you bring up a good point of at the higher level of the administration whether it's the assistant or the superintendent sitting at that negotiation in conjunction with other individuals according to what the union has said do they have it's absolutely a good question to ask but again at the end of the day the final arbiter of that decision and those concessions are made by the board now whoever he puts who whoever is in that place to negotiate doesn't do a very good job at iterating that to us and explaining that to us then no one asks the questions that's our fault right just as the the union has that same opportunity or not they miss something they miss a
081word they miss a phrase well then they get to eat it too at the end of the day point is both sides have to be prepared and again I understand it's it's looking at the language to the explicit use of that language and it give us that opportunity. Yeah. But we also delegate that to the superintendent to do that on our behalf. Does that kind of sort of make sense? So just to clarify what I meant by the board needs um all of that information to make a good decision. Sometimes the board doesn't get all of that information, but they're entitled to it. And that's exactly the point of this conversation is that this is not a check the box board. This case clearly establishes that school boards have a huge role in the governance
082of a school district, right? And it kind of goes into that. So when Mr. Such are talking about kind of analogizing that into the budget context. The same analysis applies there. In order to make good decisions on the budget, the board has to be fully informed about all of the issues with respect to what's in front of them. And if they're not, then they're not able to make a well-informed decision. And so that's the relationship between the governing body, the board and administration is you guys have that information. And it's important that there is a good communication between administration and the board to make sure that those decisions have the um enough uh information behind them so that they're well-informed decisions. And then that's why I um um you know there's there's no telling but
083one day a judge could call us all in and say why is your signature on there. It's exactly right. Power to be suitable soon. Uh thank you. Um, I just wanted to follow because I feel like uh uh board member Mononttoya helped me kind of what I was thinking about and in the source of my question which was in this instance there is no delegation from the board to the superintendation if he does it. Yeah. Implicit. There you go. But where with like other other administrative functions, the board clearly designates those responsibilities to the superintendent under board policy. In the past, I will say it this way. In the past, the board has clearly delegated to the superintendent the expectation that have a team that negotiates that prior to negotiation, the three issues on each
084side come to the board for review and analysis. that has been done in the past. Okay, before I I move before we move forward, there are snacks on the outside if you want to go take a quick break. Yeah, we'll take a quick break. I know we have hungry people here, so there's some foodry. So please grab okay responsibilities. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Hey, hey. [Music] Let's begin again. Um let's let's continue on with with the report. So Miss Pel, is there anything else? Um no, the the court just goes on and talks a little bit more about the rest of the the issues um and just makes the same point. So I
085don't know that we need to go back through that. Um, but I'll I think I'll I'll end with this last one. So, the court says, "Thus at step four of the grievance process, the CDA provides that the school board as the policy maker who negotiated and agreed to CDA simply determines whether its own policy, i.e. a specific provision of the CDA has been violated, misinterpreted or misapplied. Making such a determination is not interfering in personnel matters, nor does it constitute overruling a personnel decision of the superintendent. Instead, as the union asserts, because the CBA applies to all employees, the school board is not involved in making a personnel decision on a personal basis, but under the contractual structure of the CBA through which all individual personnel matters are administered. I know why I made that
086um point in the beginning, that distinction between is it a specific employee matter or is it employees general. Um and that concludes kind of the overview I wanted to give on that on those points. Um, and I'll just kind of summarize again that one of the reasons this case I think is so helpful is because it goes into detail about what the policym um authority of the board is and how how broad it is. Um, and there are some other pieces that I will bring forward in the next one next round of this um to help us all understand how to deal with um the gray areas. We understand the black and white, but it's the gray areas that really require a lot more um work and discussion and communication amongst both the administration and
087the board to get through. Are there any question? Okay. But but in reality um what happens in that trail and and I think um and explaining this it would have been nice to see you know some type of um but anyhow in the trail when when the policy is made which comes from legislation then it's adopted by the schoolboard association Right. Yeah. There there are gray areas, right? The school board, right? And then then it flows down to to the rest of whoever's in that association, Mexico. And then from that point, it either um conformant in a way or Here's an example of a gray area. Um, our ceremonial dress policy goes beyond what the state legislature allows. I mean, not allows, but what beyond what they talk about. And that is consistent with the
088the um public portion of public interest portion of what the school board does. You guys have the pulse of the community because you are elected officials. And so that's why your voice is so important. But it's it's to make sure that the education that's being provided our students matches the communities. Any other questions? Clear as all right. What kind of graph would you like? Because I think that might be a good idea. I mean just as you were going through the people and from where it started just like map it out for you guys. I can do that to show the courts basically. Okay. All right. Now we're moving on to number three. A convenient executive session discussion on personnel regarding the board's goal and expectation of the superintendent as permitted under NMS A8 section
08910-50-1H2 of the new open meetings act. discussion on collective bargaining regarding collective bargaining uh agreement negotiation as permitted under NSA 1978 section 10-15-1 H5 of the New Mexico open meeting board member aspis yes board member Mononttoya yes um secretary s yes vice President Wells and I will convene in in executive session. Recon. Excuse me. Hang on. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What? We're not ready. Damn it. I got What's the hold up? Why is nobody ready? Okay, we're live. Okay. Quoting Miranda. Three. Number three. Executive sessions. Letter B. reconvene open session stating that the board has discussed in a session only the subject identified in the agenda as reason for which the meeting was closed. Discussion on personnel matters resing to board's goal and expect expectation of the superintendent as permitted under NMS NMSA1978 section 10-15-1H2
090of the New Mexico opens meeting act discussion on collective bargaining regarding collective bargaining agreement negotiation as permitted under NA 1978 section 10-15-1H5 of the New Mexico opening Do I have a motion to reconvene in session? I'll second that. Uh, if I could a roll call vote. Board member Aspus. Yes. Board member Marky. Yes. Secretary. Yes. Vice President Wells. Yes. And I vote yes. We are back in uh open session. Did you get that motion in the second? that the time is 8:50 p.m. Sharon, did you get the motion? Uh, who made the first motion? I know the second was Matthew. Vice President Wells. Thank you. Okay. And then for reports and possible actions. Um, a board discussion and possible actions on strategic plan and district priorities. The board supports the current recommendations from um supports
091the superintendent's recommendations for the reorganization chart. Neot. Can I get a motion? That was right. Second. Okay. All right. I have a motion by Vice President Wells and seconded by uh board member Mononttoya. Um the vote uh board member um Estus, how do you vote? Yes. Board member Mononttoya, how do you vote? Let's say something first. Yes. Go ahead. Just with the current recommendations. That's right. Of the superintendent. I vote yes. Okay. And secretary sub. Yes. Vice President. Yes. And I vote yes. So fe determine export retreat and topics. So the continuation we with the two topics that we had on hold we will discuss uh in the next ret. Um, were there any other topics that that we were going to discuss? Approval of approval of the district budget. I'm not sure what the
092time frame is on that. That's going to be next board, Mary. That's going to be before the retreat. So then the retreat will comprise of the continuation of the reorganization chart consolidation and consolidation in the next set of legal cases and legal cases. Okay. All right. And when would be a good date? In June. It will be in June because the second part um involves one of the departments. There's going to be a speaker one of the departments. So that have to be sooner than June. It'll be in because that directly affects the budget. And we got the law conference coming at 5, six, seven. June's going to be busy. Late June, mid, you can go of June. 17 June. How do you see? That's that's that's crunch time in respect to the budget when
093it needs to be approved because we need to make sure we approve the organization prior to the budget being approved. So the week before then I would I would say yes the 9th or 10th or 11th it's going to have to be and I think public hearings have to be held on the budget under the budget rule saying yes. So It'll probably be half June 10th then. June 10th or 9th which is the 9th is on Monday. The 10th is on a Tuesday. Okay. The 10th. So June 10th will be the the continuation and I will not be here. So when are you back? I do not fly in until the night of June 12th. The vast vast majority of it will be done pursuant to what we've reviewed. All that is left of those
094two as far as clarification. One of those is a report from the sp auditor. That's executive session. And so maybe we should do that after the budget's done if that's all that is. But the recommendations are the recommendations because that directly impacts the budget and that can be done prior to that because again what's the exact date of approval of the budget superintendent? What what is it? When do we need to turn that in exact date? Well, it has to be approved by submitted May 19th. Subject to board, I believe. So, that gives us nine days if we do it on the 10th. May 19th. No, June. Oh, June 19th. No, it's May 19. May 9th. May 19th. May 19th. Was that nine days in there? No, no, no, wait, wait, no. I I don't
095believe there's a time frame after that. as long as you tell what. Okay. So, the budget is contingent on this reorganization, right? No, but the district has to submit a budget already to P. We have to submit to the PD by the 19th, but it's subject subsequent board approval. That was that that's my point is us approving that in a timely manner. And again, these decisions and the and the concurrence of the of the organization needs to be approved before we approve it. There's a there's an easy clarification, but we need to be in executive session to make it. So, okay. Um to reconvene in executive session with this whole thing. Yes. Okay. Discussion on personnel affairs regarding the board's goal and expectations of the superintendent as permitted under NMSA 1978 section 10-15-1H2 of the
096New Mexico meetings act. Discussion on collective bargaining regarding collective bargaining agreement negotiation as permitted under SA 1978 section 10-15 H5 open. Do I have a motion? Motion. Okay. And roll call vote. Board member Asus. Yes. Board member. Yes. Member cell. No. Well, yes. And I vote yes. Did you get that? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear um the motion for second. Uh motion by um Gary and second by Arian. And uh the vote was 41 or approved and one oppose. Opposed. That's it. Who opposed? Matthew. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, let's turn this off real quick. Few minutes. Yes. Very quick. real quick. [Music] Under three, executive session B reconvening concessions stating that the board has discussed in executive session only the subject identified in agenda is a recon to meet discussion on personnel matters
097regarding the board's goal and expectation of the superintendent as permitted under NMA1978 section 10-15-1H2 two of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act discussion on collective bargaining regarding the collective bargaining agreement negotiations as permitted under MMA 1978 section 10-15-1H5 of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. Do I have a motion? Motion second. Okay, we'll call Sharon Sharon. Motion by second by Okay. Um, board member. Yes. Board member. Yes. Secretary. Yes. And yes, I reconvene in session for possible action. Um, a board discussion of possible action on strategic plans and district priorities. Motion to support the current recommendation subject to review from the superintendent for the reorganization chart. We have a motion. Motion. Second. And board member as member. Yes. Secretary. Yes. Well, yes. And I vote yes. Sharon, did you get the motion? Yes, I did.
098Thank you. And B, we determined it retreat and topics and goes for our discuss continuation organization chart consolidation and legal cases on June 10th. Location, where would you like to have it? Here, Shiprock or here in Shiprock. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Five. Ajourn. Motion to adjourn the time. What time? What time do you want to have the meeting? Noon. Sounds good. Noon again. Yeah. Okay. And that's the continuation. Yes. Yes. Why not? 10. 10. 10. Are y'all okay with 10? Okay. Okay. So 10 p.m. I'm just 10 a.m. 10 a.m. on June 10th for the continuation of this five adjournment a motion to adjourn the special second by Mr. a second. So, board member aspmber vote. Yes. Board member. Yes. Well, yes. And I vote. Yes. We are journeying at um 908 I know. [Music]
099I'm [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]