Good afternoon everyone. Um we're about 11 11 minutes past which is fine. You know, we will do what we need to do. But um thank you for your patience while we got our technical adjustments made. And um I also want to thank Miss Gordon for swapping the committee meetings and just for the public and for all board members, everyone concerned um that we do view that as a one-off thing. We are not swapping like policy committee will continue to be the usual 1:00 time and student achievement will continue to be the usual 3:00 time, but for for agendas today, we felt it necessary. So, thank you very much, Miss Gordon, and for everybody, all staff that was involved in that. Uh the first thing we need to do is to get approval for our June 17th minutes. So if I could get a motion to approve those. >> Madam Chair, I've reviewed the minutes and I move for adoption. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Okay. We'll give that to Miss Rice. All right. All in favor, please say I. I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. The minutes are passed. Um and board members, uh I I know Dr. Crane will set us up as we move along. But um I will say that the first two two large boxes on your agenda. So 6402 all the way down to 7265 which is an RMP. All of that is related to um the elimination of the historically underutilized businesses that was written into the state budget unnecessarily. In my opinion, I'm going to have a lot of editorial comment today, so prepare yourselves. Um, but that is the exercise that is before us today is to become compliant with that new new law, which is the state budget. And Dr. Crane, I will turn it over to you. Sure. So, the first block on the agenda here are um two policies and an R&P that the North Carolina School Boards Association has recommended that we repeal. Um these policies are policy 6402 participation by historically underutilized businesses, policy 7260 which is in our old manual minority business enterprise participation in construction contracts and 7260 R&P the regulations and procedures for implementing the minority business enterprise participation policy. This section of um the appropriations bill section 22.5 is titled eliminate office for historically underutilized businesses. And in this section you'll see in the very beginning the office of historically underutilized businesses is hereby abolished. And as you move through the statute here or through the appropriations bill here, there are any number of uh existing state statutes that are also repealed. Um the ones that are most important to our policies are 143-128.2.3.4 4 and -131D because those have been repealed in addition to the office. What has been essentially been eliminated is any requirement that the district show good faith efforts to involve historically underutilized businesses or um what we also refer to as minority women um businesses in W Enterprise and WPE. Um, so we don't have to report that and we don't have to make a good faith effort anymore. Those have been repealed. There is some other language that has been added and I'll show you that uh around small business enterprise. So some of that language has been inserted in our policies. The first thing that we need to do on our agenda is to repeal 6402 7260. um repeal those two policies and we will bring down 7260 R&P. >> Thank you, Dr. Crane. Before I [clears throat] ask for a motion, does anybody have any questions or comments? >> Madam Chair, so just to be clear, these are these aren't being amended. They are being repealed and they're being repealed directly as the result of the legislative mandate. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Follow-up question. Yep. >> I know that one thing that we have talked about, you know, with a lot of the value of these programs is that they do create opportunity and benefit small businesses. And I know there had been some discussion and I've seen in some policy some language about still having, you know, referrals and lists, but simply broadening them to be more inclusive of more small businesses. Is that still an option for a future time or something? We'll talk about >> what you're going to see on the agenda. Um, in the very first part, let me get to the agenda. Um, did I close the agenda? Did is the repeal of these two policies and we're going to pull down the R&P. The second part is revising current policies. The first three policies on that list um we'll do I'd like to do that as a small batch because it is simply striking language. The next four policies and R&P are policies where we have inserted language following the schoolboard associations uh model where they added in small business enterprise. Staff has added in small business enterprise in um our biders list. Schoolboard association added it in vendor lists. We've also added it to pre-qualification of biders, professional services selections. Those are policies that we haven't migrated over yet, but we did insert that language and statute in those policies. >> Okay. Thanks. I I peaked ahead. I saw it was in there, but just establishing that now hopefully will help us steer the discussion until we get to that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Sure. Anybody else? >> Okay. Can I get a motion to repeal 64027260 in the R&P? That that is also part of 7260. >> So move. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We got to do it. >> Yeah. All right. Yeah. Um a second from Miss Coughfield. And what uh Mr. Remy, what happens if we vote no? >> Uh well, that's a good question. um we would go back and uh evaluate whether what that would mean for your district. Um I I think you know the the fact that these statutes have been repealed now really makes it problematic probably to to pursue some of these goals. I mean the reason these policies exist in the first place was a statuto mandate. Absent the statutory mandate it puts you in a gray area of the law. Uh, so I wouldn't want to express a a firm opinion now, but it would be an issue that we would have to study with staff to to determine if there are any sort of compliance problems for your district going forward. >> And and Mrs. Mrs. Chair, if you don't mind, uh, and Neil, if you can add to this conversation, but uh, in many instances, they will identify specific things that can happen if you don't comply. In other cases, they don't. Uh but generally if there is a statute which which you don't comply uh then they do have the ability to withhold state funding. Um I can't say how often that has happened but you may want to >> Yeah. I mean I think that's right there there's no there would be no penalty under the statute. This again the general assembly just struck statutes that required you to have these policies in the first place. So it's logical to resend the policy since the mandate's no longer there. If you um to Dr. Toe's point, the risk of continuing to do things when they're not required by law would be that they would be viewed as going too far in the direction of making race conscious decisions uh without a statute a statutory requirement we do. So, it becomes harder to defend that. Again, I don't want to express a full opinion on on on the ifs and and butts, but uh >> I understand. Yeah. Um Mr. Hershey and then Mr. Hagerty, >> I was going to ask I think you sort of just answered it. repealing the law. Does it does the law say we cannot have these policies as a practice? >> No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that. But again, the um some some aspects of the of the current policies exist only because the statute required you, for example, having a having a goal of having 10% um minority business. That is it's questionable whether that would be constitutional. That's what I was at. And I think the law is shifting um and and certainly being interpreted by the federal government administration in a way that would be that where that would be viewed as highly problematic. So it may depend on how it were implemented. That's why we're reluctant to give a firm opinion as I was but the only reason you've had these policies is because law regarded that law is no longer in effect. >> Thank you Mr. Harry. So, match, I'd like to give sort of a not a counter opinion, but I I think something that addresses maybe some of the direction of the question. Both of these policies, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, to implement the policies, they direct and require us to utilize the Department of Administration's Office of Historically underutilized business, which the legislation, >> that is correct, >> terminates. So even if we wanted to resist the law and be out there, we would have a policy we couldn't implement even voluntarily because the whole infrastructure for it has been taken away. >> Yeah, that's correct. Many aspects of the policy would have no meaning because the department that they referenced no longer exists. >> That's right. Yeah. >> Dr. >> Um my my question is more kind of um overarching question. I mean, you know, even without a policy, um, we have common practices, don't we? Um, and we have referrals, um, or relationships already in the community. That doesn't change. Um, >> right. Yeah. I mean, in fact, and as Dr. Crane mentioned, you'll see in some of the later policies that what the general assembly did not do away with is requirements that you make good faith efforts to work with small businesses. So many of the uh minor MBE businesses also happen to be small businesses. So I think in in effect you'll probably have a requirement to do a lot of the same work that staff are doing. Now of course there's never it's always been the case and will remain the case that at the point of actually awarding contracts is based on merit not on the identity of the people in the companies. Um that's a legal requirement. But I think to that may get to your question that the practice will pro largely a lot of it I think will have will continue because of the overlap between small businesses and MDEs >> which we should touch on in the next block. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. So, if I could get a vote on the motion is on the table um to repeal 6402 7260 and the RMP was 7260. Um everyone in favor say I. I >> I said >> you did. Oh, okay. I thought you said nay. >> No. No. >> Okay. Anyone opposed? >> No. >> All right. Um 11:50 equity. As we moved through, one of the first things that I did was sit down with the policy manual and do some searches, right, for references to um board policies that reference or any any reference in our policies to unutilized businesses for minority business enterprise. Um so the next three policies on the agenda are policies where there is a mention of our existing policies um that he just repealed or we we will be repealing. So in policy 1150 equity in item number 11 we strike the last part of the sentence. you leave the first part of the sentence in support of the very things that I just heard you say and in support of um what is in statute with regard to small business enterprise. So we we leave promote equity in business practices and in the diversification of school system vendors and suppliers in accordance with law. Okay, >> you can go ahead and do 6430 and we will take those three. No. Um, in 6430 we have a section titled or section I historically unutilized businesses. We strike that section. That section um references policy 6402. So we strike that um title and paragraph. While we were here, um we noticed in section H um a change that we missed in policy 6430 um that reflects um a policy that we have revised recently. So that in the use of school systems term contracts from 5,000 to 30,000 but less than 90. So this is a technical correction to bring that number in alignment with policy that we passed on July 21st. And the final policy is 8350. This is in our old manual. Um, and the last paragraph has a a sentence um that says all construction and repair contract tracks shall be awarded in accordance with the board's uh policy that we are repealing. So these three policies simply have strikeouts. Um, and we can move those together if you would like. Sure. Um, let me get a motion first. Um, can I get a motion to put 1150 6430 8350 with the revisions on consent for September 1st? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in f Well, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Your your question. Are you putting them on consent for first reading? Because there was a conversation, Dr. Taylor and staff, that some of these might be >> David, have we determined that there was a a date that I don't know we talk about? >> I will I couldn't find it, but I did not have a time to clearly. >> Oh, yeah. >> You can always adjust the agenda. We recommend that we do it uh as a first reading because there's there's still some confusion as to whether or not there's a deadline in the summer all of these and so this would allow us to avoid running into that immediately. Excellent. >> All right. So, we'll leave the motion as is. Um all in favor, please say I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Name. >> Okay. Name. >> I'm sorry. I'm a name. Okay. So, I have two hands. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ramy, do Excuse me. >> I'm sorry. I'll see September one. >> Okay. So, we did before. Okay. So, that'll put us in compliance. >> Mr. Ramy, do we need to redo the motion for 6402 and 7260? Do does it have to include that September 1st piece or can staff just put it on that particular >> It's not strictly necessary. As long as they as long as if the cost committee has preference, as long as it's clear to the to the uh the staff about where to put it, that should be >> because I didn't say that before, but All right. So, for my notes, we will also include 64027260 um for repeal on the September 1st consent agenda. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> You had a motion and um a second and was a vote. That is what what we're going to do. Yes. >> Thank Yes. You're welcome. All right. Um 6441 9121 6442. Um can we do any of these in a block? Yes, we can do the next five in a block. All right, perfect. Um 6441 is bidder's list and you will see here um this is where we have struck HUD status here in this second paragraph and inserted NC small business enterprise program certification status. And then further down we have uh inserted the superintendent is encouraged to include biders certified under the NCSB program um and struck the reference to HB at at the department administration. We also added um the correct statutory reference at the bottom. Uh this is a policy that the schoolboard association made their recommendation to. Um, and you will see here the superintendent is encouraged to include small business vendors certified. Again, this is the same language. We inserted it into our vendors list as well. They inserted it in the vendor list. There's the statute at the bottom in policy 7262. Um, this is our pre-qualification of biders. This is our in the old manual. Um, and in the application part, we have a classification that the firm shall indicate the type of work the firm's workforce equipment normally performs and also provide its North Carolina small business enterprise program certification status. That's the only one there. In 7265, professional services selection, we struck in the second paragraph will provide small businesses struck uh minority businesses included small businesses equal opportunity to participate in all aspects. Also in in um section D in the definitions, we changed the definition to small business enterprise because there is a statutory definition and an official definition of small business enterprise. Now um as defined by SBE criteria in North Carolina general statute 143-128 that's the statutory reference there. And finally in the R&P for professional services selection section A listing professional service providers include small business enterprises there and including uh in section C in the selection committee the selection committee should include the district's supplier engagement coordinator in that Same edit is made in section C below uh further pages down supplier engagement coordinator and those revisions um to that R&P. So these revisions really are about striking HB and MWBE and inserting small business enterprise. All right. Can I get a motion to put 64 6441 6442 7262 7265 plus the 7265 RMP on the consent agenda for September 1st. So moved second. All right, Dr. J, Miss Cfield, um all in or excuse me, any questions or comments? Okay, chair, vice chair, and then Dr. just that like with this policy, this batch of policies, I reviewed them against the state budget bill and all of these changes appear compliant and let us keep a lot of good programs um but within the legal framework that the state left. So I endorse it. >> Dr. um question in terms of um now that we are kind of have being more inclusive of all small businesses. I mean what kind of a measures will how how much more effort will we be needing to reach out or or broaden our um outreach to the small businesses um like to notify them of prop the possible you know uh uh requests for proposals and all that stuff. Yeah, we'll continue to do the work to reach out to the small businesses. Uh just making sure that we stay in compliance. Uh I think uh when we look at many of the minority businesses uh they would have been under that same envelope as well as a small business. Uh so the department has been doing that work and we'll continue to do that uh under the law as it relates to small business enterprises. >> It just now just brought to be inclusive of all small businesses. Correct. and and um and what I can do is make sure that we uh provide an update from the department about uh any um substantial changes that we will have or what that will look like so the board can be aware of that and so if we can work to make sure to uh give a report like that I think that'll be good for the board. >> Mrs. uh thank you um for sharing that Dr. Taylor and for Dr. Wayne for asking that question. Um can you provide a little bit more clarity? I don't know if our former hood person can even ask that. Um we mentioned about being um inclusive of all small businesses. Now at this point um can we get just a little context right now when we talk about the inclusiveness of what percentage um of the minority owned businesses were even being looked at to even be a part of the small business process. when we look at that, do we have a number? Um, >> I don't have that in front of me. I know exactly what you're talking about. I I'll just have the department um go back and and share any data and information that they have on uh the number that have been identified in the past um percentage that we're actually participating. Uh we can share that information as well. I think that's some really valuable information to have. >> Is it also true that what we said I think in the earlier votes that were taken it was only 10% So we just use that a little the goal right the goal of the state was to do 10%. Um and I just I just want to make sure that we're pointing out that the goal is that and I believe on numerous occasions we didn't always meet that even goal. So I just look at the context of when we're talking about being inclusive of all small businesses. It has been the historical fact that um the small business of um the minority is not necessarily always included inclusively in the all which was the whole purpose of creating the hub office over the years. uh where there has been known fact of the numerous organizations that have been small businesses who met the same criteria as we even witnessed um in a former committee meeting around why did we give this person this amount? How did they manage to get there? Must they must be doing a great job. But the statement was it was selective. And so I hope that Wake County continues to be mindful um not asking anyone to break a law by any means at all, but let us continue to be mindful of being inclusive of all small businesses. As we say, if we're going to use the word all, let's make sure we say all because I I agree with the point wholeheartedly that it needs to be all. But if we have a situation where we have tons of small businesses who happen to be minority who go through the same contracts, have the same credentials, have the same everything, but you manage to never ever really get the contract. I think that's something that we can look at through our previous meeting we just had in committee as a restorative practice process that we might need to look at and make it work from the top down in that process of restoring. That's all. Thank you. But I would like that information for us to come back and somebody shared with the board so we can really see what the numbers are. >> Okay. So there was a motion um made and properly seconded. Um all in favor please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Thank you. And we will move on to 6220 child nutrition services. The revisions on this policy are based um again on the appropriations bill information on page 117 section 7.20 titled no alternate school meals based on student pay status. Um this is a conversation that the board has been having um around uh alternative meal status and alternate meals um in section B for meal charges. you will see that the North Carolina School Board Association um has struck uh language around uh an account balance exceeding 3 days and an alternate meal and appropriate modifications to an alternative meal. That language has been struck. Um additional changes that the schoolboard association made to this policy um include a couple of catches here. number 14 uh using CNP instead of child nut nutrition program and then um at the top of the the third page there's some work in this paragraph what you see highlighted and double struck through um is language that was approved struck before and approved on first reading back in I believe December um when the board heard this you'll see some revisions to add and guardians for guardian through here Um, in the paragraph, uh, instead of notifying the Department of Social Services, the schoolboard association struck that language and instead included, uh, working with a parent or guardian to establish a long-term repayment plan. Um, then we have another insertion. Efforts to recover unpaid meal charges should not have a negative impact on the students involved and instead should focus primarily on the adults in the household responsible for providing funds for meal purchases. We had already struck and the schoolboard association struck the next sentence there about administrative penalties. They expanded the language a little bit to include some additional types of administrative penalties or other penalties a student might see. So, the principal shall not take any punitive actions against the student for unpaid meal charges. Prohibited punitive actions include requiring a student to work to pay off the debt, withholding a student's records, denying a student a diploma, and prohibiting a student from participating in graduation, class trips, or school sponsored extracurricular activities or social events. Moving on through another the next paragraph, another insertion of guardians. Um staff have been considering this part here highlighted in yellow that we struck regarding negative balances on student accounts not being carried forward. Um and we wanted to make sure that it was understood negative balances don't disappear. Debt doesn't disappear. Um, so we included um at the suggestion of Mr. Remy a sentence that says unpaid debt does not expire at the end of the school year. The superintendent shall ensure that federal child nutrition funds are not used. And then the same language um that we had approved on first reading. Um and then finally in the end last paragraph some other additions of and guardians and some changes to the legal references. Um, I will go around around for comments and questions, but first let me just be clear. Um, for for again for those watching and anybody in the room that isn't aware in the state budget in that legislation um the general assembly did a great thing by saying students can no longer even be offered an alternative meal. And of course that was our practice. The problem I have is they did not provide any funding. So, we will continue and in and all districts, you know, going forward. Um, but in our case, we will continue to incur that debt and have to find that in our local budget to cover and for some of our districts across the state that that could be really really um painful. But that's my commentary on that one. Um, Vice Chair Hagertney. >> Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to get some clarification. You might be able to provide it. staff might be able to provide it. You know, our our child nutrition staff might be able to provide it. This legislation was in that uh session law 202641 um Senate Bill 257 and part of that language did set up a grant program to assist schools with CFP eligibility. So it sounds like there is a pool of money available. Are we eligible for that? Is there a chance that that could be used to offset some of these costs or is it something where the qualification criteria would really be focused on more rural more poor counties? >> I'm not sure. I would have to say more. Are you saying feed fee funding? because the funding that they've had this July was related to CP expand. >> Yeah, I didn't have my glasses on so I was reading CFP, but it is. >> No, no problem. So, yeah. So, they did um a lot funding for if you had a school who was not already C the previous school year, then they paid the gap. But so when we started because we started school the second seven when they passed it we had already submitted our feed to grouping. So we could only get the funding for the original group if we had started in like August traditional and we could have regrouped based off that and we could have gotten the gap. So we won't be able to expand it until if I regroup next year but we did get it for three sites. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I appreciate that. Thank you for clarification. Thank you, >> Miss Cfield. Um, so I just I'm worried about the second to last paragraph striking that out that the negative balances will be carried forward. Okay. Um, we correct that again. >> Yeah, I think that's that I shared that concern. I think the reason that's the reason I was originally so there's a technical role with with federal reimbursements. the the account with the federal government cannot roll over to the next year. So you are required by law to basically use local funds to reimburse the federal government for any shortfalls in the in the child nutrition accounts. >> Okay. >> But we discussed that we we shared the concern that just say striking negative balances will not be carried forward. It almost seems like if you don't pay your debt by the end of the year, it's wiped clean and that's not true. Um so so that's why we recommend that. >> I was following along here and I did not see that. So I'm sorry. So I appreciate that clarity. Um, and then I have a question. I know that we have free and reduced lunch and we have other ways for them to apply, but we know that there's a pocket of people that fall in that kind of area where they may not qualify or or it's not giving them an assistant that they need. Is there cuz I know like if you go to the hospital and you could apply for assistance for somebody to help you pay with those bills. Is there another community resource that does that for these children or for these families I should say that if they have a balance and they're just finding that they just cannot pay this off. Is there another resource for them to go outside of the free and reduced lunch application that they could get assistance to pay those bill that bill? not a government assistance um that the angel fund has served. >> So the angel fund kind of helps us clear the balance, but is there an assistance for the family to settle that bill with us? >> Not not that I know of. >> Okay, Miss Ross, um uh thank you for for doing this work. Again, I agree with my other colleagues. I think this is something that um state legislators have possibly got right half right considering we need the money to go with clearing the balance and take it to the next step and do universal um universal lunch. So, um, thank you for making sure families understand and I hope that there's some metrics to make sure that because I'm sure this will go viral media wise to make sure that our families really do understand there is no free lunch. That is not what has happened. And I am concerned about families assuming that there is free lunch and the fact that our state legislators are not as versed in the law to create a state law that goes against our federal law and we know federal trumps state law. So what do we are to do? Um where would we look good on paper but it's not the truth. So, I'm just only concerned about families and particularly the families um as Miss Lawrence mentioned in previous presentations, the families who leave in the balance are literally our families who don't qualify for the free and reduced lunch space. Those families are taken care of, but the ones who don't are working-class families. And I would hate to see graduation um withheld and because these are real things that if these balancers are there that stuff goes on their transip and they don't get certain things released over time. So I don't know what that looks like Dr. Taylor and team um with making sure families really really know and don't assume and then they are hurt in the back the back end of it. >> Yeah. If I could clarify from a fiscal perspective, >> the school district is responsible for reimbursing child nutrition funds. >> We understand >> um and therefore in the policy you see there cannot be punitive action against any student or their families related to unpaid meal tag. the district actually reimbures child nutrition funds, but the local funds that are used, we can still, which we're looking at what that may look like because when 50 cents is owed, it's not worth the cost of the stamp to send a letter to say, please reimburse us 50 cents. So we have to look at those things because you trying to collect 50 cents is not really you're spending more to collect it. >> Just I'm sorry Dr. to just to rebut because I think that what Miss Coser says is important um to recognize but I think it's equally important to recognize for the families who are in the system who uses the buddy the buddy blocks or whatever that thing is my phone that I used to put all this money on my kids account that I saw other children uh that were within our circle that needed money and I was able to transfer. So, while that does happen, at what point though does it get erased? because there were balances that were there from the summer but going into the new school year that um the what's the name of the atmosph so uh Miss L I will say and I'll let you respond to this that uh the debt that's owed uh is paid by the district but if I'm a student that has a $15 balance at the end of my fifth grade year or sixth grade year, does that balance transfer them to their preceding grade? They go to the sixth grade. I don't know if that actually happens or not. I I'll let you answer that first. Uh um you may not have a direct answer right now, but if they end the year with a with a balance in one grade and even though the district has to pay it off, does that balance still follow them uh the next school year? >> Kind of twofold. It is still tracked that they owe the money. >> Okay. But once you walk clear it on my side, it's clear but it's still accumulating for that student. Like we have records showing how many days they had that day. >> Okay. So, so thank you for that. So, uh, so one of the things I'll say is that um there is uh historically been this old practice that if you got balances at the end and it's time to graduate, then we're going to hold that over your head in hopes of capturing that. And yeah, and so that's something that that I found upon for for many years. 20 years ago, I may have thought differently about it, but uh it was a different day and age. So glad to see that that's reflected in the policy as well. Um um and I was going to keep my mouth closed on this. I probably need to uh but one, this is a good step by the state to put this in place. Uh because we don't want that to happen. Uh but there is a tremendous amount of work that still remains for them to provide no cost meals and close that gap. And so uh we've been having that conversation for at least 10 years and they know that's there. And so this is a good first step. Uh but we know and understand that um um the will has to be there to provide the funding. And so, uh, it puts us as a district, um, in a position we don't necessarily want to be in. But there's any debt that I welcome is paying off, um, uh, lunch debt for children. So, >> and the punitive part, it does say the principal shall not, it's not a may, it's a shall not take, etc., etc. Did you have something else? >> No. Okay. Sam >> um a couple of I got a couple of items on this. Some really unnecessary and I don't think good language in the revision to say efforts to recover unpaid meals meal charges should not have a negative impact. If you take legal action against the family, it's possible that the kid knows it has a negative impact. I don't think it's necessary to have that entire sentence efforts to recover and I don't think it's necessary to list prohibited punitive actions because I'm not a big fan of having lists where we may miss something. If you just say the principal shall not take any pu punitive actions against the student for unpaid meal charges, that should be the end and everyone understands what that means. Um since we saying that uh the principal shall take the next course of action which may include everything is about the guardians and so I don't know or the parents or the guardians so I don't know why we have to then say it should only focus on the adults slash and really that would be missing and guardians in the household anyway. It's just excessive language that doesn't really do anything. Um, >> I was waiting for them to respond to that. Okay. All right. Well, >> yeah. Is it? >> I mean, >> yeah. I didn't know if they ever had a comment on that. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Have you have any response? >> I I would just I can I I I believe Dr. K, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe there's a school board association language. The um the language in red efforts to recover unpaid, no charges to not have a negative impact on the students involved. The statutory language for what it's worth is local boards of education shall not impose administrative penalties on a student for unpaid school. >> Why don't we use that then? >> So that's that that phrase would would suffice. I think that's the that's the intent of the uh school board's language there. >> Yeah, I' I'd support that as well because otherwise what if the principal comes up with an administrative penalty that's just not in our list, right? Even if we argue, well, you weren't supposed to do it, there's whole there's the whole back and forth and confusion. I think that's much more clear. >> Okay, Dr. >> Um I mean I I was just kind of thinking, you know, when when someone talks about punitive actions, it could be all over the place. Um and and what does that mean? Um it could be uh and I think that the the gist of that was to try to try to say punitive may may include these kind of examples. Um but I can certainly go with um just try trying to um use the language from the statutes as well. >> The language in the statute does have the um uh include withholding a student's records prohibiting a student from participating graduation and denying a student's diploma. That is statuto language that was not struck from the statute. Um what the school board association did was kind of rephrase that into deny student records. Um so that's their um not denying a diploma. So participating in graduation um and uh denying the diploma >> I would prefer >> and then also sort of expanded it to class trips, extracurricular activities, social events like prom, etc. >> Are those considered administrative? >> I think Mr. Hershey's suggestion would be not not to change that last um couple of sentences but to change efforts to recover unmade meal charges should not have a negative impact on students involved to the statutory language which would be schools shall not impose administrative penalties on students for unrest and I was also suggesting that the last that punitive actions include >> okay >> that's my I'm just wondering I'm just >> I know but okay but got a good point I So when you say administrative, punitive, administrative, or whatever is in the statute, that wording, that is not clear to me. Now I'm not a principal, but that is not clear to me that I can't keep you from attending prom, stop you from playing sports, keep you from attending a, you know, homecoming game. That's not clear to me. So I don't know if that would be to principal. So that's my only push back against Mhm. >> what Mr. Hershey is saying, I feel like the the language in the um legislation addresses, you know, report, you know, student reports, um your diploma report card, you know, what have you. So, I I would like for us to meet in the middle on that. >> Would it help to say in uh punitive actions include but not limited to? um that's always better regardless. >> So one one possibility again I think any any of the options discussed or find the school board language is consistent with the statute. I get the point that it's it deviates from language. One option would be to delete the sentence efforts to recover unpaid meal charges should have not have a negative impact on the students involved. Delete that sentence. Delete the following sentence. The principal shall not take any punitive actions. Replace those but both with school. This is straight out of the statute. Schools shall not impose administrative penalties on on students for unpaid school meal ted. And then the f the sentence that follows prohibited punitive actions can be prohibited prohibited actions include. So the you're still providing the examples of the administrative penalties that the statute now prohibits. >> Include but are not limited to >> includes but are not limited to. Yeah. >> And I think Yeah. >> And I would add >> objective but are not limited to. >> Right. And I can show you then it would be we would be deleting the sentence to begin efforts to recover. >> We would be deleting the principal shall not take principal punitive actions. And in place of that in place of those two sentences, we would add schools shall not impose administrative penalties on students for unpaid school meal debt. And then the next sentence we would just add but not limited to in the after schools shall not. What was the you going to delete the sentence before that schools would be this is the that would get deleted and then schools shall not impose administrative penalties on students for unpaid school meal debt. We say prohibited delete punitive say prohibited actions include when are not limited. There you go. That's closer to the statute. >> Thank you. >> I think that's one of the examples. Yeah. >> All right. I do need to move us along. Does anybody have anything else on this one? >> And I think what we need to do is we need a motion to bring 6220 to action next week or is it next week? It is September 1st. Oh my gosh. Um because that way staff can show us the the new present the new updates and revisions. >> Sorry. So moved. >> Would you like to put this on first reading again so that it has two readings again? >> Sure. >> But on the action agenda. All right. Um motion was made by Mr. Hershey. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Dr. Ing. All in favor, please say I. >> Any opposed? Okay. 3510 religious based exemptions from school. The appropriations bill also has a new section titled released time religious instruction. In this section they take um sort of reformat what are excused absences. We will get um an updated student attendance and uh school accounting manual, the SAS manual will be updated. We will get new codes for how to code those things. Those things are expected I think in late September, early October. Um as I've talked with Miss Honeyut here in the district who manages that. Um one of the things that happened here was the addition of release time religious instruction in what are considered excused absences. And there is a new statute defining what release time religious instruction is. Um and that is uh instruction uh where a student is permitted an excused absence for a minimum of 1 hour a week um to attend private religious instruction. Um and that is an excused absence. The parent has to submit a form to say we're going to do this. Um and they keep up with providing the notes. Yes, this is exactly what happened. Um and we do not uh at first the statute said the principal could authorize up to four, but then a correction um was adopted in a later bill um that says that the public school unit shall authorize excused absences for at least one, but no more than four. With this language, the schoolboard association first is dropping this into religious-based exemptions from school programs. We will get an updated uh 4400, which is our attendance policy. Um when the state board of education adopts new rules um the North Carolina administrative code, they will adopt new rules um reflecting this updated statute on what are considered excused absences etc. Um until then the school board association went ahead and put it in the religious space exemptions um policy. You'll see here in the beginning u there's just some moved language where the policy starts out um about the board supporting free exercise of religion and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. Um and there's some added language about the board also recognizes that parents and guardians may want their students excused from school to attend private religious instruction. So there's a new section new headers the headers have been added. Um the first one is religious objection to classroom discussions, activities or assigned readings. This is existing language in our policy just the new header and then a new section um has been inserted released time religious instruction. Primarily it reflects what is in the statute um regarding what this is. Can't get academic credit. Um it's not sponsored, supervised or controlled by the board. We don't spend any local funds um administering the policy. Um participation is voluntary. The school system employees don't encourage or discourage participation. And number two, before a student can participate, the student has to parent or guardian must provide the principal with a signed copy of the school's consent form. That says school's consent form. That's what's in the statute. Uh, I believe the statute says the district's um consent form and I have talked with communications and um Michael Pashion Michelle Woodson about what form can we create that all schools use a standardized form to submit regarding this excused absence. So, we're looking here um at a district's at the district's consent form. um continuing to reduce the amount of time. This language was wholly put in by the schoolboard association. This language is not um in the statute. You have to decide one hour up to 4 hours. The schoolboard association started with one. Your choice to increase that or no. Um they inserted some language about won't be permitted during core classes of math, science, social studies, or English language arts. We're not sure how we would manage that. Every student with a different schedule. Every kid would have a different prohibited time. That's not included in the statute. We did not strike that. But we did leave in um will not be permitted during state required tests or screenings or other assessments or state required remedial instruction interventions or retesting. Um again the schoolboard association suggestions and the state board of ed may develop some rules around this as well. We go ahead and get this into policy. Now finally that the principal the parent or guardian has to provide the principal with written documentation affirming that the child did attend the uh religious instruction every time there is an excused absence or put that in what does this look like over a year um 1 hour a week uh 18 weeks in the fall I believe elementary schools are um suggesting 300 minutes a day, 300 plus minutes a day. Is that right? Is it a day for um literacy instruction? So, a student could miss 60 minutes or, you know, 15 to 16% of their daily for that one day. Uh literacy instruction, that percentage goes up when you start talking about math or science or social studies or PE or special. Um, in high school, if you miss the same day every week, um, for a schedule, you're looking at 18 hours, um, of missed instruction over 18 weeks, which is 20% of the instruction. Well, 20% of the set time, a little less than that percentage wise. Um, but that it is required for us to provide it as in statute. So, this is your policy. Thank you, Dr. J. I have so many questions. I'm sorry. Um, going back to what you just said, does it say anywhere in the statute that like the teachers have to work to make up what they missed? >> No, it does. Um, it says in the statute a student attending release time, religious instruction shall make up all school work that is missed. Okay. And um >> the one hour is what the schoolboard association is suggesting a week, not what we're Okay. So we could >> minimum. It's one to four. You have to you have to give at least one hour, no more than four per statute. >> There are other districts that already have a policy like this. Um and they provide I think the largest is Jawan I think has two hours. Okay. Or at least up to two hours a week. it just hypothetically. Um would it have you seen any districts or is it possible to do some sort of flexibility where like if a student needs to go to or a student wants to go to a retreat that'd be 8 hours but did it miss any other school time they could say well it was basically the equivalent of 8 weeks of really >> like banking >> banking it yeah basically >> I don't think so under this statute. I don't think that would be an excuse that I think it would be limited to the more to the no more than 4 hours per week. If your policy allows 4 hours a week, there may be another basis for an excused absence of like religious observances is another another um excused absence now and similarly students are responsible for makeup work. So if it was a religious retreat and it was an observance for the family that could be excused on that basis, not as release time instruction. >> There it is. Yeah. Religious observance minimum of two excused absence. right >> each year for religious observances. >> And there's no there's nothing in the statute too that defines what religious instruction looks like or anything like that. >> I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. >> I saw Dr. Religious instruction instruction offered by a private entity during the school day. >> So Dr. A and then Vice Chair Hy. Um so there's that that one hour minimum is that inclusive of the transportation time. So that means that when they are out they you know they're going to have to be transported to wherever um the the place is. >> Yeah. And so so if we were to make this a viable um option for certain you know families making it 1 hour may not be sufficient. this transportation is part of that. Um, you know, Wake County being such a big place. >> Um, so that's just a, you know, why I would say, you know, making it open to greater than 1 hour to to make it accommodate families that do want to do this. Um the um and and the other you know comment I have is you know what's or question I have is you know that that there should be some kind of communication between between the family and the and the teacher and the program whatever the instructional program hopefully there will be some flexibility uh to make it so that it's the least intrusive on on on the child's learning uh you know because we you know every every minute is precious uh and school time wise. So >> having Thank you. So uh Dr. Job stole my thunder a little bit but yes you did. I have um a a a couple big questions about what's missing under state law and what we could or could not do in our policy. And it gets back to what this definition of religious instruction is. So again, if if I understood your answer, there's no state guidance as to what constitutes religious instruction. The definitions at the front of the statute say that the purpose of this section released time religious instruction means religious instruction offered by a private entity during the school day. >> So religious instruction means religious instruction just offered by a certain group. Okay. So I'm curious because over the years we've had proposals from different groups in the community. For example, in my area, the BAPS temple and the Hindu Society offer classes in Hindi and Gujarati. That's not necessarily instruction about a religion, but it's instruction provided by a religious institution that they that you know you I think you could make a claim is directly tied to their religious worship. Hebrew school >> and to that degree Hebrew school offered at the temple for reading the Torah, Arabic for being able to read the Quran at a mosque with all of these because they are offered by a religious institution and they revolve around something central to the practice of the religion. Even it's not about the history or teaching or belief of the religion. Would that be covered under this under state law or our policy? Not sure answer that. I I don't think so. Again, it would be helpful that the terms were more precisely defined. But it for context release time, religious instruction, there's there's case law on that going back for many years, including two Supreme Court, one Supreme Court case, and uh some four circuit case law. And the in all those cases, it's teaching religion. not teaching about religion and from a secular perspective but teaching the precepts of a religion. So again it would be helpful if the terms were more precisely to define that I don't think teaching a religious entity teaching secular instruction about a language would count as religious instruction. I think the idea here is a private entity teaching the precepts of a of a religious faith or belief belief system. >> Follow just two points. One a little bit of push back on that. It's not as if we're talking about TempleBth or teaching Spanish, right, or teaching algebra. It's talking about something that is fundamental to that religion and that religious practice. So unless we have case law really defining that what is allowed and what is prohibited, I think there could be room for challenge >> because like Hebrew is necessary for barmena classes for barit. So I mean it's like you literally have to go do that to participate in the religion. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I tend to think religious instruction given the context of the decades of relief instruction means something different. But >> the other point is that there's there also um I believe I'm not sure if we can pull up the attendance policy. I believe you already have the um ability to have excused educational absences. So to to be released from school to for an educational opportunity, my child has you wants to study Hebrew. um that that could be excused on not for religious reasons but just because it's a valid educational opportunity. >> So then my second followup comes to defining exactly what a religious purpose is. So we don't have a definition of religion and you might think well why is one necessary? I know that in other aspects of law talking about government accommodation of individuals private religious rights, there have been many cases where what you or I might state we believe or practice around the table um is exceeded. And we hear about a lot of other cases particularly just down the road in Johnston County. They had a case it was a challenge to their dress code and they were seeking a religious exemption and the religion was they stated that they were devout members of the church of bodily modification which is registered and recognized as an actual church. And there has been case law about this. And in not to compare schools to you know the corre the department of corrections but there are often cases you know prisoner cases where the nature of the religion is the ability to wear hair down to their ankles or they can only eat filet minan or whatever other accommodation it is they're seeking by stating that they have a a sincere and devout belief even if it's not a religion that most of us would think of as common. So where I'm just wondering where are the guide rails here if if I say I want to teach my son to you know honor his father and mother by coming home and mowing the grass and washing my car you know because that's teaching him about the commandments. I mean, can I claim that and get him out of school? >> That's a great question. So, you know, for a little actually the Shan County case, I defended and settled that case county. So, I'm very familiar with that. Um, that so that was an interesting one >> and researching for that for that case I learned that federal courts are are will allow some limited government probing into religious beliefs of families for purposes of accommodations, but it's limited. >> Okay. So, uh, it is valid to inquire to make some inquiries and potentially even to deny accommodation requests if they really aren't religion at all. It's a sham, right? That's you're it's risky because you're telling the family essentially you're you're mis you're you're you're lying. You're you're you're stating something as a religious belief and I don't believe you. I don't think it is. I'm not going to give you the exception. But if there's evidence to support that or it's also um I've seen some cases where you know you can ask parents to put things in writing and sign documents to to certify that these are good faith religious beliefs. Generally speaking if a parent's willing to swear out an affidavit what we learned in the in the church and body modification cases that's enough for a federal judge. >> Okay. >> Judge is not going to the judge is not going to say I don't think this is a real religion. I don't think this is akin to other religions. The other thing court federal courts will not do is probe the centrality of some practice of religious belief. So you could not say something like uh show me in your scriptures or in your faith documents that that support your faith tradition that this is important enough to your faith that your child needs to miss school for example. That would not fly. Um so again I think in and again the statute is he's Dr. Crane showed you the whole statute. It's a page and a half. Um we don't have a lot of definitions or standards. Um I think religion is is going to be understood in a broad sense as you point out. It will include some idiosyncratic uh traditions. It doesn't there's no requirement that be a a certified you know a faith with a certified number of members for example. It could be a could be a small group of people and that's their religious belief. And as long as as the school system doesn't have reason to think it's not a good faith request that it's genuinely motivated by religious belief, I think you basically accommodated a lot of that one up to one hour per week or up to four hours per week out of school. All right. Thank you, >> M. I saw your hand. >> Yeah. Um, you know, okay, granted the elephant in the room. Yes, I'm a pastor. So we get this falls right in line with my category of way of life and all these amazing things. Um I just I I don't understand um the state statute but I I guess that's my issue that I have to deal with as a faith person. Um and when we have situations if you are part of a club as I expressed at the last board meeting you can attend and go to uh I am deeply concerned about instructional time and whether we say what we say in there. Um I am concerned about how will we handle it community um engagement wise with families um to the same points that Mr. person you talking about cuz right now I'm thinking about an organization that is not necessarily Christian based of my faith but um has great principles and values and is talking that that is their religious um points and stuff and so if they utilize this what does that look like um so I still have reserves about how this all looks um you you know, there's whole weekends that we have to teach and train these children, these religious faiths and practices, things that we do outside. And then the other part for me is um a deeper element which is security. Um and what does it look like and who gets to come get our children, what times they get to come pick them up or whatever to practice um the expansion of their faith in the middle of a school day. um in a culture that knows that most people go to school and if you want to practice that on a internal basis, there is other homeschool methods or other things that where you don't have to be in a more uh structured process of doing things. And so my question um superintendent and and staff is just what does that look like securitywise um for us as a school system with allowing the in and out um because again as uh Dr. Crane indicated uh our students schedules are completely different. You can't say this group gets to go. I mean you just can't. So it's an individualized situation. It can be anyone from community. How what is the pride or protocol for if someone's picking up a student for the religiousbased purposes not to go home? What's the security protocols that we have? Has Mr. What's that director's name? The chief what's the chief security bank? Has >> Mr. Scott Mr. Scott has he been informed about what that would look like for his team and and in doing those things? And so it's security for me um in the religious space is security for me. My particular religion which seems to I think it's kind of the dominant religion culture um within our country is you know there's a Bible study at one night of the week in the evening times and it's a Sunday morning service which is the most segregated place um in the system in America. However, nonetheless, um we have our own security things that we do in the faith space of Christianity that even though it's a Christianity space, we still um what you do, we still background check the folks that's going to deal with our youth. So how will we be held accountable when someone wants to pick up our youth and bring them back considering the historical origins of that particular faith where unwarranted touch is there and we bring our kids back into the school space. So my my question is not all of that. It's the security of doing that. >> So um um I'll answer that question and it's a lot. No, it's it's actually a very good question and and the answer is we don't know. >> Uh and what I mean by that is that release time is not something that's new. Uh districts have done it uh before in the past and I was in a district where we had release time. Um most of this was governed by some church organization that um came to to the school at a at a specific time. uh and then they were released and and you know did whatever they did came back. Uh now this sort of puts it in statute and so what that means is as I interpret and certainly have our attorney here that uh when the parent uh gives that permission that they shall come and their child can be checked out then is their responsibility as I understand it to make sure those things happen. Now, if they're someone who's a registered sex offender or anything of that nature, they wouldn't be able to come on the campus anyway, that restriction would already be there. But once that parent gives that permission, uh then they are subject to whatever may happen to their child when they leave. They would certainly need to make those arrangements for transportation. Uh and so when you talk about uh a large community like Wake, we have absolutely no idea what that might look like. I mean there are probably I don't know 500 or more churches in Wake County and and so that is something that um you know we certainly have a concern about but honestly we don't know what it's like what it would be like uh in most communities whether this has happened it's been very small and and it wasn't an issue. Um and the other thing I'll add is I want to go back to what uh Mr. Hagerty was sharing and Dr. go. Um, and I'm not familiar with the case law, uh, as it relates to what happens, but what I can tell you is that, um, if an organization comes and they participate in release time, uh, there is no responsibility that the district has ever had in vetting what it is that they teach. And so if they, you know, teach, you know, how to read, whatever, you know, I just as as far as we know with this statute, there's nothing that requires the district to engage in vetting what that is. Right. >> No, that's what I there should not be any pain point to Mr. Hagert's point. It it's this is available to people of all faiths and all faith traditions and we can't pick and choose and can't and really can't do much second guessing. I don't really think you believe that. I mean, unless it's unless it's clearly just a a not a good faith representation, a madeup uh clearly fake madeup religion, and it's and you know, I I think you'll basically just be saying that I would add is that we will Dr. Crank certainly reach out to DPI to see if they will provide any additional guidance because normally when they have general statutes to come, they will issue guidance and I haven't heard anything. I don't know if any of the chiefs or anyone have heard, but we'll certainly reach out to see if they plan to do that. >> I see your hands. I do need us to to move along because we still have some really big items to get to. I don't want to boot due process because that was the whole reason we swapped times. So, um just be mindful of that, please. And then, um on the on this question, so the intent is to bring this one to action on September 1st. Do we think we can get some answers to the safety issue by Tuesday? Because I think I think that's valid and and and you you you've mostly answered it, right? It's the parents obligation to get the the child transported. It's not we are not transporting children to these things. But um just for clarity to address ms rice um a little deeper, did you have a followup? I I really this is really about data. It is really about the data. I just I just that's this bothers me. This worries me deeply. Um just the security and then the data trends. Do we have any data trends? I know you mentioned I've never heard of it before in all my years of schooling. I didn't know people did that. I'm trying to figure out who's leaving school in the middle of the day to do religious practice other than the practice of a prayer that may just take a moment in a special space which is understandable which I you know I think Christians should be pray and take a break too in there five times but you know we we don't always get to do that. I'm just I'm just it's I'm going to stop but it's really about security for >> so I saw Miss um Cfield Miss Gordon I didn't want to skip you. Are you good? Okay, Miss Cawfield. Um, so just a couple of quick things I guess. Um, I'm thinking about like what you were saying before about retreat. Um, I think that is also really more um I don't and I don't know if it's broken down in here and perhaps we could link it to religious observance and then you used another policy with educa uh religious education >> educational opportunities >> opportunities. So maybe we could link it there so that it kind of continues on and somebody's not so stuck on that they're not going to be able to practice or or attend anything according to this policy cuz it it seems like this is really more about uh religious exemption. But I agree with um uh Mr. Hagerty. We don't really have a definition on how where this would apply if we're not really specifically stating what religion is. cuz for me like if you're doing a retreat and you're going away that is also educational. It's real life education. I mean some of these kids go and they're building things for communities and so it's it's a really good opportunity for them to do that. Um the other thing I wanted to mention was 1 hour. I would like to stick to what they had in 1 hour and up to four because I can tell you just infor you can get out of there in an hour. So just your travel time to go to be picked up, check a kid out, get to where you got to go, do what you have to do, and then come back. I don't think that's practical. So maybe if we stick to what the language is, one with a max of four um hours. Um I I would tend to think that most parents don't want their kids to suffer with that blob of core instruction. Um, and most religious organizations will make sure that they're doing it outside of school hours to get more attendance. So hopefully that will kind of help anybody. But couldn't redefine >> it rather than just saying I can tell you I I will move this policy forward and I will vote for it so that we are in compliance with the law. I will absolutely not support one minute over one hour. We are in the business of educating children. I think this is a just very harmful, detrimental addition. Um, and I just so for mentally opposed to it, but I will I'm thinking of it more as an exception, not a weekly rule. This is and you know, maybe maybe we can define it more what that term means. It's more of like an exception or something you need to attend. Um, I don't think that anybody should be allowed to take 4 hours off a week to go practice religion because then this is not the right, you know, at environment. All right. So, I'm just saying there's an exception. >> Yeah. I'm sorry to cut you off. >> That's okay. That's all I wanted to address is those three, Mr. >> Uh, two points. I would like to see us based on the law put the makeup work part in the policy so it's really clear. um to is it >> the very last they're retired at the very end >> the students will be responsible okay I'm sorry I missed that part the one place we cannot let them come out often times schools will say do not do early once it gets to this time don't come get your school your kid early it's like 30 minutes before the release of school for so we have to have if it's within that or whatever don't come get Um, I would not go a minute. I would do this as minimal as possible. This is a total disruption uh to public education and to our staff and it's totally uh not necessary for somebody with um strong religious practices to create time during our public school time. There's plenty of time, as Miss Rice pointed out, to get work done uh with your religion and whatever someone wants to do. But we are in the process. We're our focus is teaching and learning public schools. So minimal one hour that's it nothing more. >> Yeah. Um so let me make a note that I do want to bring this to action next week um to get us in compliance with the statute. However, we can bring it back so we can continue to work on it even after we move it forward to be in compliance. Um so I say that to acknowledge everyone's you know different concerns and um you know the potential further discussion of allowing a buffer for transportation or not um for travel time rather. Uh so anyway so that is I'd like to ask for a motion to put 3510 on action on September 1st. >> So moved second. >> Okay. All in favor please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Is that Miss Gordon? Rice. Yeah. >> How many? Wait a minute. Who's Who's a nay? >> Right here. >> Two nays. Okay. Yeah. M. Thank you. Um 6420 contracts with the board. And this should be this one and 3200 should be free. Um in a part of the appropriations act titled repeal textbook commission um there is language regarding um procurement. Um it's in an uh a revision to 115 C-98 where it says all contracts for procurement of instructional materials shall include a clause granting of local board of education the license to produce braille large print. It said uses the phrase audio cassette tape and other accessible copies of instructional materials um for use. The policy here is 6420. Um, and we've included the statute here um with a section from the schoolboard association that we have revised just a little bit. All contracts for procurement must include the clause um for the board to produce braille large print and we use the phrase audio including digital format or audio cassette tape and other accessible copies. pursuant to the statute, the revision of the statute. >> Okay, >> board members, any questions? Dr. A. >> Um, so to translate basically you we're just basically writing the same content into a different format that a person may be able to understand. Is that correct? >> Right. It's going to be template language in your procurement contracts that give you the right to produce braille or audio materials for people with visual or audio original. >> You're not copyright violation. You're going to be given permission. There's a requirement of your contract that you can produce braille materials or audio recordings. Yeah. And it's statutoily required. There's really no >> Did you have something >> just just a a question I'd ask you Dr. Hill about whether this was common or something that's in our current contracts. And it sounds, and please do correct me if I misspeak, that this would be something new that not all vendors grant this permission. It could potentially restrict the curriculum that's available to us. Um, it's not that we would have to wipe everything out upon enactment. It's only for when we procure new, but it could restrict our choices in terms of what's available. we would have to list it in the RFP as an accommodation that we would want to include to be included as a service to us >> and that might impact price. >> Okay. >> If I could add in a former life I was over the textbook procurement when we had it at a district level um when I was in academics. Uh it was something that when we they also had the larger state adopted textbooks that was a requirement in all the state bids. uh we generally never had issues that if special education needed to print something in large print. The vendor the publisher generally did not produce large print but we basically had rights to go ahead and print it in large print. Same thing with braille as well. So it would normally be uh something in a child's IEP that required an alternative method of of learning or reading the curriculum whether it's braille large print or audio. So if I've read that correctly, you you were not predicting any increased cost in the procurement contracts to >> we obligation at no cost that we have the right to do this because they can't provide it to us in that. No, my but my question was the cost for the contract the contract is the purchase of rights and because you are purchasing additional rights beyond what may not have been originally provided do you see any potential increase in costs for the purchase of those additional rights or is it just generally made available >> in the past it's generally >> okay okay if that's good practice I won't contest it And I think anything is a possibility Mr. Hagerty because again it was one thing when the publishing industry was paper and ink anything but that now so the scenarios that describe they're still applicable but they're applicable and things are different. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? Can I get um a motion to put 6420 on consent for um next week 91? >> So move. >> Second. All right. >> Yes. Yeah. All in favor, please say I. >> Any opposed? Okay. I believe 3200 is the same issue, right? The textbook, >> the same section is included in policy 3200. And I'll ask um Dr. and Alan joining me at the table. Um we have L Jawers in the room. Dr. Lawers in the room as well as Dr. All folks who can answer um the questions showing these two policies. One of the things the statute does is revise some statutory definition. It repeals the textbook commission and removes the word textbook from numerous policies and includes the phrase instructional materials. Um, it also includes a new part of 115 C-85.1 that defines what instructional materials are, what library books are, and what supplementary materials are. So the first thing you're going to see in policy 3200 um is that the schoolboard association of course we're going to change the title of the policy to selection of instructional and supplementary materials. So we include that language throughout um for section A. Our title here we've added and supplementary because it applies there and we obstruct the word core instructional resources. So we've obstructed the word core and changed everything to instructional materials because that is a statutory definition. Um there um in section B you will see where we have included these definitions. Uh so instructional resources, deliver etc. um are systematically organized that statutory language um to cover the primary objectives outlined in the standard course of study for greater a course and then includes what the formats potential formats are. That's statutory language. Um here's the all contracts shall include um language that we just talked about. um supplementary materials and then include the definition here. Um print and non-print materials that are not encompassed by the definition of instructional materials and include textbooks, library books and audiovisisual um materials. These are materials used for instruction in classrooms. um such resources and we move some language around here selected to complement, enrich or extend the curriculum and to meet diverse needs or rapidly changing circumstances. You'll see we move some language here and struck a few things out. In these sections, we lay out not just the definitions but who is responsible for the selection of those things. Finally, in school library collection materials, um we now have a specific definition there as well. The resources include electronic print, non-print resources excluding instructional and supplementary materials held in a formal library or in a classroom for independent use by students and school personnel outside of the standard course of study for any grade or course. um in there who is responsible for choosing those um acceptance of given materials. We include all of the categories there. instructional supplementary or school library collection materials. And in section F, um we have struck most of what is here um to say that challenges to instructional and supplementary materials um as defined in this policy which is based on the statute will be addressed pursuant to policy 3210 which is inspection of and objection to instructional and supplementary materials. We'll see a lot lot of uh revisions here in the legal references. Any questions about this these changes members? All right. Can I get a motion to put 3200 on consent on September 1st? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor, please say I. >> Any opposed? Okay. 3210. Um board members, this is where we are required to create community review committees for objection to materials, instructional materials and instructional books and we're including books. Um a new statute was created 115 C-98.5 challenges to instructional materials and supplementary materials here. um that it is a pretty explicit process meaning very detailed um and specific with who is on a committee, who appoints the committee, what are the um criteria that material can be challenged uh on a timeline for a hearing, timeline for the hearing to give results to the board, and a timeline for the board to have to put this on their agenda for the following meeting after they receive that. All of this essentially takes place over 5 to 6 weeks from first receipt of a challenge to within two weeks a hearing take place takes place to within two weeks that recommendation has to go to the board and then at the board's next regularly scheduled meeting they make the decision. Um, and it it's very pretty specific here at the end. The local board at all times has the sole authority and discretion to determine whether the challenge has merit. Um, the committee will hear the challenge and then investigate it and then give that information to the board. What does that look like in our policy? That is policy 3210. Um and you will see that we have struck through parental here because the statute states that the challenges may be made section CQ the challenges can be submitted by a parent of a student enrolled in a school governed by the board. So, a parent at any school um a teacher employed by the board. So, any teacher of our district or a resident of the area of assignment for the board to any resident in Wake County. So, if the teacher is not a resident in Wake County, um they could challenge something because they're employed by the board. Otherwise, resident of the county or parent of a student at a school in the county. Our current policy is that you must be a parent of a student at that school and the challenge is at the school. This is a much larger broader um implication. So, the new language here in the front recommended by the schoolboard association um that the board strives to provide instructional and supplementary materials that support and enrich the curriculum, enhance student learning, and that the board recognizes that parents, teachers, and community members still may have concerns about those. The board respects the rights of parents to review instructional supplementary materials as they're defined in policy 3200 and provides processes for objecting to the specific use of particular instructional or supplementary materials. Parents still have a right to review um all instructional and supplementary materials um used in their child's classroom. We changed the uh correct policy here from 5120 to 3450 there. And here in section B, we're going to have the objection to materials obstruct parent or guardian because now that process is open to a broader audience, a broader pool of eligible challengers. The first thing that this section provides however um is the ability to object to an individual students use of materials. Um so on a religious objection, religious based objection points us to policy 3510 and what's laid out there to to manage a religious objection. Section B, objections to materials used in reproductive health and safety education. That's laid out in policy 3540. Parents have rights there. Parents can restrict student borrowing of a school library book in existing policy language. You see this in green. We've moved it from a different section of the policy. We already had that laid out. Parent can go in and restrict their child from accessing any book in a library at their school or in their classroom. And then we have an other objections to individuals student use of materials. Um and this is more um the it doesn't fall under religion. It doesn't fall under reproductive education. Um it's not a library book. So what other concerns do I have? And it directs parents look speak with the teacher first. If you can't resolve it, speak with the uh principal. It's just about informal resolution here. Um and then in determining whether to accommodate an objection, school officials should consider the effect on the curriculum, any burden on the school teacher or other students and any other relevant factors. After that portion, we get to the a new section. This is challenges to instructional and supplementary materials. Um the schoolboard association included a part on informal resolution of concerns. Uh we kind of already have this in in policy speak with a principal about whatever the material is or the teacher. Um so we struck that and moved directly to um the language that comes from the statute regarding who can challenge a parent of a student enrolled in a school in the school system or teacher employed resident of the geographic area um may submit a challenge alleging that a specific instructional or supplementary material is obscene. one, two, inappropriate to the age mature year grade level of the students, or three, except for library books, not aligned with the standard course of study. The challenge has to be submitted in writing to the board, and the board will use a community media advisory committee to investigate and evaluate the challenge. Statutory language. Um, members of this community media advisory committee will be appointed. The school board association recommends you delegate that authority to the superintendent will be appointed by the superintendent and include um and it's very specific. The statute is even on who these members have to be at a minimum three principles middle school, high school, elementary, three teachers, high school, middle school, elementary parent of a student in high school or middle and elementary. um three school library media coordinators, high school, middle school, elementary school, and we have suggested that the board consider adding um the assistant superintendent of instructional services and or their design. Um what's in red is what's statutoily required. The next part of the language does say that the committee can request additional information on the subject matter um by folks employed by the school system. Uh we recommend staff recommends that we go ahead and include that as one of the items or one of the categories of individuals who should serve on the team. Here's where it lays out what the process is. Within two weeks of receiving the challenge, there will be a hearing to provide the challengers an opportunity to present their concerns. Um, the committee can ask more information. Within two weeks, the committee shall make a recommendation to the board on whether the challenge has merit and whether the challenged material should [music] be retained or removed as unfit material. Um, and the committee's determination will be limited to the specific grounds of the material being obscene, inappropriate to age, maturity, or grade level, or not aligned with standard course of study. And here's how the when the next report out has to happen. At the next meeting of the board, after the community media advisory committee's recommendation is received, the board will determine whether the challenge has merit and whether the challenged material will be retained or removed as unfit material. Um the rest of the policy um we strike um because much of this has already been included parental guardian or objection to materials. Um this is a the process that we had used before. Um that process has been superseded by one that is set out in statute. And section D is the part that we moved up regarding library books and parental restriction there. >> Can I offer like 15 seconds of big picture on this because this this is dense I recognize. >> So the driver of this is all what Dr. Crane just went through in section two challenges to instructional supplementary retails statutory. No wiggle room for any of this except that staff are recommending adding the superintendent of instructional services to the committee. Other than that, you really have no choice. The statute says the these challenges to instructional and supplementary shows open to parents of any of any student in the district, teachers in the district and residents. Um so that that's that is what it is like it or not. Um the the on the flip side an interesting aspect is library books are now a little different than than in the past. In the past you all probably have remember some challenges that came to the board challenging library books just sitting on a shelf. That's no longer covered by this same process that because you you now have this new mechanism where parents can go on to the library catalog online and and select which books their kids are not allowed to check out. So each parent controls their own child's access to library books. No parent has a right or community member has a right to challenge books just sitting on the shelf in a library. So it's a kind of a different statutory structure. There's more process. It's faster uh more um intensive on the instructional and supplementary. But those are defined terms, right? So instructional materials are are just the kind of core instructional materials and supplementary are could could include library books potentially and other things but only if they're used in classroom instruction signed by a teacher and that and and it's only those materials that are subject to the to these new challenge procedures. Just let that >> okay board members here's what here's what we're going to do. I want you to ask your questions, but I don't want staff to answer them here because this is another one that we are going to have. My motion is going my request for a motion is going to be that we bring this to action next week. Um again, all of this is already in like we're already statutoily obligated to to have it going on today in this school year um this week. So bring it to action next week and allow staff to answer the questions we raised today on next week at at our our board meeting because we've got a lot of staff in the room. I know the due process piece is very important to all of us and I'm trying to respect everybody's time. So um I know I have a couple questions so if you'll just please ask those get them out there but but staff please just reserve the answers till next week. Dr. Uh yeah, real just a logistic question. Um when it comes to um the review by the board, is it a panel of the board or is it the entire board? Is it is it under a closed uh session or an open session? No need to answer. >> Thank you, Miss Cfield. Um I had a question in reference to two I'm trying to understand the coloring. I think I got it. And then red is the state requirements. Blue is the school board or other way around. Um red is what is recommended to us by the schoolboard association. >> Okay. >> And blue is where staff have made any revisions to that or deletions. >> However, the red a lot of the red is directly from the statute. Correct. >> Right. Right. >> And what about the green? >> That's a move. We just the same language we had down in section D. >> Okay. >> Here we moved up to the part where the schoolboard association had placed restricting student access to library books. So on page two item C that was what was struck down at the bottom. >> Is that correct? Okay. >> I did notice that we we changed the wording though. parent restrictions of student borrowing of school and we took out objections to the use of certain. So that was our choice. >> Yes. Because we have >> Should we hold answers >> please? Yeah. Okay. So that was just my question and um I guess we'll discuss it more in action on item number D. I was just wondering why we removed the grievance and the reference. It seemed like it was more a discussion than it was an actual steps for them to follow. So, I don't know if that was put somewhere else, but you could answer that if you want. Thank you, Miss Gordon. >> Yeah, I just um I have a clarifying question for for really us as a board and the public. Um so when we looked at the last policy um policy or the um the addition of supplementary materials with the last policy I think we were looking at >> 3200 300 yes and then this one the inspection of and objection to instructional and supplementary materials that means that we are broadening That does not mean we are broadening. >> It was it's a change in language. No, it was all all of that already fell under the existing policy. >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Rice, did you have anything? >> I just I hear you, Mr. Hurry. Okay. So my questions are I want to know if this committee can meet virtually. I don't understand how we manage this or the committee manages this meaning if it's there is there appears to be a solid two week deadline. So if a challenge is made on a Monday or or four challenges are made on a particular Monday but then four more on a particular Tuesday. You know I'm just trying to envision how this committee will be able to bundle if you will but yet meet the twoe requirement and I have not worked that out in my mind. And um I also want to put in I think this would be an addition that the board would have to put in. Clearly the committee is going to know there's going to be some sort of recordkeeping of when this committee meets the books that they're addressing because they have to then bring it to the board. I want the committee to report to the board how much time is spent addressing these challenges and I'm going to limit my item. So those are those are my questions for right now. Um I will probably have more on Tuesday. >> Chair Evans, thank you. you've actually inspired just one or two questions just if you could be prepared to answer. Um I'm also speaking of those limits and looking at the statute. I don't see any limits in the statute but I don't see any prohibitions on limits in the statute. So legally is there any limit that you see if you can when you bring this back about the the the number of challenges or the frequency with which these challenges can be brought or and also can the same material be brought back and challenged over and over and over by any number of individuals or can we have something that restricts that once a material has been ruled upon one way or the other that that decision is final or at least final for a school year or a period of time. Dr. J, I also would like to know how we're going to verify that the community challenges are actually people from the community. It can't be just they put their address in and you know and and we just go with that. I really appreciate everyone's flexibility um as we're cramming here at the last bit of our time together. Um thank you staff and so I do need a motion to bring 3210 to action on September 1st. So move >> second Dr. Cfield. All in favor please say I. >> Any opposed? I'm sorry. Okay. Um, my big process fans, Dr. Walker and your team. >> Thank you all so much. >> Board members, this is an information item. So, we will not be taking action on the due process um item. I have no chair for Larry. Yes, ma'am. When you're saying it's an information item on next Tuesday's um on next Tuesday's agenda is an information today. Okay. Oh, if we could Yeah, cuz I really I know everybody's time is valuable, so let's get going. Thank you so much. Um, I have volunteered to give my two sentence elevator speech of what all of these provisions are about, and that is a new type of appeal hearing to address solely disciplinary reassignment appeals. Currently, those are managed in the same kind of appeal as the long-term suspension appeal, and that is big and cumbersome. and a new appeal process makes that um simpler, more concise, and more accessible for families. And let me I'm sorry, Dr. Walker, if I may. So, board members, one of the reasons this is an information item only is because it's only regarding the R&P and we don't take action on R&P. So, that's why there's no vote on this. Um but anyway, go ahead. >> Yeah. No, that's exactly it. And I think exactly what Dr. Crane said, and this has been a great collaboration with Mr. Ramy here. Uh, in my work, I don't get to make too many easy decisions and thoughts. Um, and I'm thinking that this actually should be one of the easiest and most common sense decisions you might make today. That's that's my hope here, right? And it just goes back to exactly what Dr. Crane said. Uh, and so when working with uh many hours with uh Mr. Raymond here, our board attorney, uh we were looking at the infrastructure of appeals. Uh and so what I just want to clarify exactly what Dr. Crane said, there's much of what I might say might be some mythbusters here, right? But we have long-term suspension appeals. We have that process. We are not taking any appeals away. So parents will still remain the right to get an appeal. So that is not changing. So, I want to clarify that we average about 12 long-term suspensions a year. 12. Based on statute, we are still maintaining that all students who are long-term suspended get a full evidentary appeal. The challenge is for years we have not been in line with statutory language. We're offering these full-blown evidential appeals for disciplinary reassignment as well. We're kind of the only system in the entire state that cumbersome is a good word, right? And so this is really, you know, I always like to speak to all of you as board members, but I'm really speaking to my parents here. Um, where when I call and say, "Hey, I need you for 3 hours." They said, "Well, I got to take off the work. I got to take a half day." Now, I want to be able to say, "Can you give me 30 minutes so I can put you in front of an independent panel so you can get your voices heard because we need to do a lot more appeals." I want to say the same thing to principles. Principles, I don't need you bogged down for 3 4 hours for a full-blown gender appeal. No one does that, right? And so to be able to provide that opportunity. And what's great also in R&P is that we already have the opportunity. I want to reintroduce getting some retired educators as a panel. Uh so I'm not pulling administrators in for that as well. So it's uh it's a huge amount of win-wins. And so this was just a brief graphic. Uh of course we have already again with with uh Mr. Rabby gone through and clarified the things that we have to do for R&P. Um but again the main thing is to ensure now that we're doing about 150 appeals over time I want to double that. Now, that seems very odd, but when I have 1500 recommendations every year, when I keep looking at that number at 150 and I know that this is one of our most marginalized groups, 82% of all recommendations for long-term are black and Latino students, right? This process that we have doesn't work anymore. And so we just need to be off able to offer like every other school system a more streamlined process to get this done. >> Yeah. Can I just give again a 20 second legal summary? So legally you you've always been done more than the law requires. Long-term suspensions where a student is out of school for more than 10 days. You provide full-blown evidentiary hearings. Um they're they're an hour per side. They often run three hours with translators for four or five. Um, and these are there's cross- examination witnesses very almost like a court hearing. Um, for long-term disciplinary reassignments, the law requires no appeal at all. And that's but only if it certain criteria met. Has to be a full-time education program, keeps the student on track for timely grade promotion with and graduation with their cohort, full standard course of study. So these are kind of full-time alternative schools. If you do that instead of a suspension, no appeals are required. And most districts do not have any is my understanding at any process at all. There is no appeal. >> I looked at the data across districts and they don't >> I'm not I'm not aware of any clients of other clients do. So uh you've always done more than a lot of requests in this here. What what Dr. Walker is proposing and I've found it really interesting talking about this is it's really his one of his primary re reasons to want to change this is the process is so daunting and formal and long that many parents just don't appeal. I want my kids to go out of full-time alternative program. I'll just accept it. I don't want to take off work for a whole day for a hearing and be cross-examined. Um so this process um it more than law requires it is um it's it's still a hearing. So it's still the same process of the same hearing panel that that you have for long-term suspension hearings. Due process officer, one of the false designes supervising the hearing. Um but it's an abbreviated process. It can be virtual if the parents consent. there's position statements, you know, submitted in advance. Everyone can see the written positions of the other party and then you get together for a briefer hearing. Otherwise, it's the same. It's just a it's a abbreviated process where no process is required and in hopes that I'll encourage more appeals um to to really, you know, see if there's if mistakes were made whereas parents are currently not opting not taking advantage of the appeal option. It's too cumbersome. That's essentially it. >> Are you ready for questions? Are you good? >> We are. Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Um so for those um um disciplinary um what do you call it hearing um what I mean if it's not based on a long-term suspension cause what are the other top reasons for the disciplinary reassignment uh um that would lead to a hearing. >> So so perhaps this is part of confusion. So a student is recommended for long-term suspension. The first and also what we've done in RB is clarify the discipline review committee. So it goes to Dr. Taylor, right? He doesn't review all 1600 or 1500 recommendations. He has a committee that does that, right? Miss Wilson is one person, Miss Al Red is on the committee. Every Wednesday we meet and then two area superintendent. They'll look at the recommendation and nine out of ten times they're going to do a disciplinary reassignment to like school. That's why I always say if a kid is at school, don't call them long-term suspended, right? If they're at connections academy, they're a disciplinary reassignment, right? Uh so it goes there first. And so that's the majority. Even what you see as a board, most cases that you might even see on appeal, they're not long-term suspensions. How's that sit with you, Dr. >> Um Um, so yeah, I mean we only see part of the picture, you know, I guess from from our hearing. >> Um, so we don't know >> what goes through the the all of them go through DRC. All of them go through DRC. Yeah. And so all the standard reasons you see, narcotics, assaults, all that students often can result in a disciplinary risk. So, so there are some that would um as result would happen be without us being involved um in these hearings that we are participating in. >> Yeah. Yeah. Nothing again, nothing changes. They're still getting the appeal. >> They all start as long-term suspension recommendations from the principal. Then the DRC takes the first look and they can they can either shorten the length of the suspension, overturn it entirely or convert it to a long-term disciplinary reassignment. This is their three options. We've kind of been clear about that. That that's been the practice for years, but now it's very clear in the R&P. >> Then from there, the parents have appeal rights. If it's a long-term disciplinary reassignment, it would be this new more abbreviated appeal. If it's a long-term suspension, it's the same full-blown one hour plus 1 hour versus five plus appeal guarant process that >> follow up. >> So, what if um the parents do not like the um result of the disciplinary reassignment appeal? What happens at that point? Sure. Nothing changes here. So, part of uh the commitment will be also from you. So just like now if they don't like the outcome they get to appeal to you the board right and so I ask that you may get more appeals coming to you right if we're doing more of these >> that's not the question I asked I'm laying it out just so you know right >> thank you >> um so forgive me if this is not spec this is about um a conversation we had we've had at times when we've had our reviews long-term suspensions and we've wanted to make modifications including we don't want this kid to go back to a school. Can we send them here and there? I know that this is not exactly that. Are we going to get to those to that process as well? I like this very much. Are we going to get to that process as well? Because that impacts us as board members and has kind of been an ongoing discussion for a while. So, so yes. Okay. in the sense of and it's all noting a lot of what comes to you where you have appeals and all the appeals that you usually get are disciplinary assignments but more often you also get long-term suspensions that result in the 365 right and then Dr. Taylor's involved in that cuz he's the only one that could bring that to you. And then there's expulsions and the nuances of policy, right? Those are some things where yeah, depending on the circumstance, right, you might say, "Hey, I don't want that kid return to school A, right? That that process and those questions still have not not changed." And so I think that would be another uh opportunity if we want to talk about the outcomes that can come from an appeal then that would be another discussion. >> Actually if if I may one one thing Mr. Hershey that we've clarified in the R&P it it the current language is that the board panel will deliberate in private to determine whether a long-term suspension or disciplinary assignment will be upheld overturned or modified. To avoid confusion over what modified means, we've changed that to reduced in length. So, it's really just a matter of if the if the it's a guilt innocence determination. If the panel is not convinced the student violated the the policy charged, that's overturned. Student immediately goes back to the original school um or um upheld, you know, upheld. And then finally, you can just decide that the length of the disciplinary assignment is too long. But it's uh the idea of the board panel assigning a student to another school, you know, is problematic for a number of reasons. There may not be capacity. There may be um we've had examples come up where there's gang activity, the students involved in a gang and that's the that's the seat of the of the other gang or some things that the board me board members might not be aware of. And my suggestion is generally if board want if the board panel want would like to see explore some other option other than the more limited range of overturn upheld uphold overturn or reduce length of such it would be remanded to the administration for further consideration of other options without a commitment that something will happen because that gives the administration a chance to explore logistics is transportation feasible for example and then you know see if that works out and that can potentially come back to the board on a second appeal. So, one f quick followup in in the hypothetical because I don't want to actually go down your path right now because I don't want to have that's close session stuff. >> But in a hypothetical, if we've modified a 365 to a to change it sort of to a disciplinary reassignment, >> can they then appeal that? So, here's >> Yeah. And these are the the lines of how they get to you, right? Because what's also can be the clarification and and and Mr. Ramy can can clarify this as well, right? So often sometimes it's a student who might be expelled and so I might come to you now it's a readmission appeal, right? And so then that outcome can be different. I will tell you, hey, if you decide to read this student, >> then you have to clarify what that assignment looks like. But if in a in an appeal that's not a readmission, you don't get that, right? And sometimes the nuance of when you see that you're like, "Oh, is it the same as the" and I'll be like, "No, it's a different circumstance." Can you clarify that? >> I think that might be the next such readmission is different. If a student's not in the school districts asking to come back in, it's appropriate to to get to bring a recommendation to the board and ask the board what what setting are you comfortable putting the student in? It's different if the student has been say assigned to score. That's the decision the administration's made. It's coming to you on appeal. That's the decision you're reviewing. You might say, "How about Milk High School?" We don't know if that's a good option or not. There's nothing in the record. It hasn't been vetted by the administration. So, that would be something we'd want to avoid, you know, a surprise decision at the board level. >> Cfield, um, just a couple of things. I just wanted to clarify this whole what we're discussing right now. Is this an appeal change on your end before it gets to us or is this our like what happens when it gets to us? So this is just the initial process >> of trying to streamline what avenue >> the disciplinary action for the student is going to be. >> I'd say no different no difference in what what can come to you and what it would look like when it comes to you. Your your board appeals will be the same, >> right? >> Okay. So, we're not minimizing 15 minutes >> and 10 minutes for those people. >> Same process that you you currently have for your >> and um I I agree um >> with uh Mr. Hershey because I know that we've talked about this quite a bit. Um you know, when we're in some of these uh close sessions, it's definitely one of the hardest parts of this job, right? So having that flexibility to be able to say, you know what, we've done this appeal. We've seen evidence. Um sometimes it's new to like the initial story that came in. and having that like just being strict to you're either overturning it or you're accepting what they said was kind of difficult many times because it was like well it's kind of a and b you know like and and that could make the difference for the child's outcome in the long run. Um so I I definitely would like that to come back if that's not part of what you're talking about today. I would like us to talk about that process more. We clearly we need to >> right and then >> yeah that's >> okay and then the one last thing I just wanted to understand on this graphic that you have it references that there is no formal letters or legal transcript and I'm wondering why. And then it says it's removing the witness live testimony in question which really does make a pretty big difference sometimes when you're hearing about that. So I'm wondering why those two things are removed. So, uh, we are in a sense of the the script the transcript was never necessary, right? But this is something in practice and I'm looking toward uh my team this moment and Mr. Woods. Uh, it's something that is just going to be a default that we continue. Um, and we're talking about the written transcript, but it's still going to be recorded, right? Because I have to if it comes to you as the board, right? But this was just talking about a a written transcript. >> So, you're still going to have the recording. You're just not going to type it all out as well. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And what about the witness live testimony? >> Yeah. It's not evidentary, right? And so what they can do just like when they come to you as a board, it's really kind of the same tree line. It's like it's like look, y'all come and bring if you want to bring a couple people to talk or that's how it's going to be. But it's not going to be a formal, hey, you got to come in provide testimony. Now you get question witness. Um it's it's not going to be any of that. But they can we're not stopping anyone from coming to testify, quote unquote. >> Each each side can use their minute, their their few minutes as they see fit. They could have family members testify, ask the ask the students testify. But otherwise, there's no calling witnesses. It's not those same formality. You don't see this cuz your board appeals. It's just the family comes to you. But in the evidentiary hearings, they're now very formal as like I like to call my first witness and you know, you ask questions of the witness and then the other side can cross-examine the witness and that that would be done away with. That's what Paul is saying is daunting and and problematic for a lot of families. >> Just quick followup, if if that if you have witnesses that are coming in that are giving a little bit more perspective to the situation of what has unfolded, wouldn't that be more helpful in in the decision making, you know, cuz some of these things they're pretty serious, you know. >> So, I don't think they're saying they're going to get rid of the witnesses. They're just not going to call them witnesses. They're not using the formal language around it, but they can bring anybody they want. Those same people can still come and speak. >> So I see on the right side though it says presentation strict 10 minutes >> per side for school and family. So you're going to allow the students, parents, any witnesses or anybody only a total of 10 minutes >> correct >> timing >> and the opportunity to submit written statements and written position statements in advance. So everybody gets their written position and then it's 10 minutes per side at the actual hearing. >> That's right. >> Instead of an hour. >> It just seems a little bit tight to get >> and it's only for the dis the reassignment appeals. >> Correct. Only >> not for the long-term. >> All students are full in a full-time education program. They just were reassigned. They're not actually suspended. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Glad I'm working my way around, Miss Gordon. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm going to be super quick. I can appreciate us, you know, making the effort to remove barriers for families, but I just want to make sure that we are um that we are not uh that we are not seeing these as as our perceived barriers. So I I heard when you said that families are saying you know I have to take off and um administrators are saying you know I'm I'm you know away from my work for 3 hours. Are there any other um barriers that have been communicated or even data that has been collected around the types of barriers that both families and our staff are experiencing to get to this to get to this decision? >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And uh and what I made sure is uh you know our we have a um retired educator that does the hearings uh and Miss Moan, our senior administrator and and director Woods uh lead them and I've took the time this past year to watch every single one. uh and um and the qualitative data is there right the conversations prior during and after these are very difficult adversarial things that we're asking a lot of uh parents to do so the other data I also have there miss Gordon is no one else does it uh in the sense of of and and that's where the win is here that we are continuing to make sure they have this major opportunity Um because part of the first iteration was do we just do what everybody else is doing? And I wasn't quite ready for that and that's why I'm not bringing that to you. I'm saying we're still doing it. They're still going to get the independent. Um and so the the data uh and again in watching all of these particular hearings, talking to parents um and and consulting with principles and thinking through it, um there was just no negative that we saw about trying to streamline these um from 3 hours to trying to get them in and out in 30 minutes. And one more followup. Are are students able to participate in these? >> They absolutely >> okay. >> Are able to participate? >> Yep. >> Yep. When we talk to parents, we actively encourage that. >> Good. You good? >> Yes. >> Thank you, M. Rice. >> Um, first I just want to say I I I' I've walked with Dr. Walker for well over two decades and um doing this work and understanding his appeals and advocating for families um before they could even get to him. So I do want to appreciate you for bringing this work um before it. Um in my um humble opinion um I see it as an indirect work around uh what Miss Wilson's team and them just brought around restorative practices. We're just trying to do things that are just more uh family focused and oriented and trying to make sure students and families get the best outcomes they can as well as I think supporting staff wellbeing with talking about not pulling people from doing their jobs but looking at other avenues where people with just as experienced and probably have have some different outlooks too after I've done the work for a while and step back a moment may look at things a little bit different. So, I do appreciate um you coming to this sharing the data, who's most impacted, why we need to change some things um and make the process a little bit better. Um so, I I support the process. >> Thank you, >> Dr. J. Do you have anything? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hardy. >> I just I endorse the all the changes. Thank you, sir. I think um I guess student achievement would be the right place to bring to bring this back this discussion that because to your point I think we might have some lingering questions and need to see this again Mr. Randy can come I need to know by no problem. Well, thank you and thank you again um to everybody, board members and staff. You know, it's um 5:25, started late, ending late. Um but we all knew this was very important and I appreciate all of your time and um your flexibility and how we ran things today. So, I will adjourn. Thank you so much.