Welcome to the Lakeland Area Schools um school board meeting this February 10th, 2026 at 6 PM. Uh this is a work session uh tonight. Um and with that, I'll start with a roll call and um we'll start to my left and go around. >> Uh Tracy Broville, director of technology, >> Paul Carbone, >> Brenda Albert, what >> is this? Okay, it's fine. >> Executive director. >> I don't even know. Sorry. >> I noticed and I was like promotion tonight right now. All right. >> What changed? I was away for a half hour today. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Administrative services. >> Michelle Humphrey, executive director of student services. Kim Baker. >> Lucas Yoho, executive director of operations. Carly Anderson, school board, >> Matt Swanson, Bill Homegen, executive director of business services, >> Tony Reichenberg, >> and Michael Bowman, >> Amber Cameron, and then our guest over there. Is that okay? Chris >> Kristen Rezac, director of student nutrition. >> Nicole Adams, director of continuous improvement. >> Jamie, Monica, achievement and integration coordinator. >> Great. Well, thanks for being here tonight, everybody. And then in the audience, are you all from the same troop? >> Yeah. What troop are you all from? All Saints, All Saints 26. >> Oh, nice. Welcome. Thanks for attending tonight. Um, for the record, um, because I don't think everyone can see on, we have a, um, a scouts troop from All Saints here, um, as part of their merit badges, right? Okay. All right. Great. >> All right. Well, with that, um, uh, we'll start with policy review. So, um, just a I think a a a new procedure with policy that we'd like to discuss tonight, um, is we're feeling like based on last week's conversation, um, and other conversations that this like two-step with the policy committee hasn't been the most effective way for the board um, to maybe review policy. And so making a recommendation um tonight to the board um where we would sunset the policy committee um and have review of policy happen um at the table. So all seven members would see um edited policy together rather than doing it twice which has kind of been um the mo for a while. Um so are there any objections to to doing it that way? Can >> I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead. >> So, I guess like my only concern is that even if we continue to do it this way, it's like we get stuck in these lengthy discussions about the policy and not that those are bad. Um, it's just that we were supposed to finish going through all the policies in 3 years. >> Um, and it's been three years and we're not done. Y >> as far as just like updating them. Yep. >> So, I'm wondering if we could allow like we had been at one time just having the district do like updating the policies and then they just came through on the consent agenda and we just knew that those were just updating to um statute, right? Can can we do something like that so that the district is working on going through those that just need updated and then if the board has like ones that they want to look at and more discussion about it, that's fine. But can we at least get things updated? Like that's what my concern is. >> Yeah. Thanks. And I um I think before we launch into the actual policies, I'm interested in having a conversation about what are our policy goals for the next year and what do we want to try to accomplish so that I think that fits with that potentially. Um I I know we've talked about this before at our board, but just as a review, um so MSBA did an audit of all of our policies and um return the policy audit to us in June of 2025, and they recommended that we go through like a three-stage process. So they grouped it into mandatory policies that we need to address in terms of edits. Some of them are more minor, some are more substantial changes. There's 39 policies that fall in that bucket. The second stage is legal. Um and so uh still um suggested policies that um have legal ramifications for the district. And even if we don't update those, we're still obligated to to follow the legal um uh um what's the word? Legal um precedent that's been set by by state statute. And so with that category, which is that second stage, as I mentioned, there's 54 uh policies. And then in the last stage, the third stage is the recommended policies. And there's about 50 of those that MSBA um has recommended that we look at editing. And so MSBA has made the recommendation through that audit letter that um if we have inconsistencies between our school district policy and the MSBA policy that the board would be encouraged to adopt the MSBA language. um if there's changes that we'd like to make that that alter kind of the intention of the the policy, then it's strongly recommended that our attorneys would get involved in any um any edits beyond what MSBA is offering because MSBA has already gone through like the legal uh review for all of the policies and that's what they've sent to us through the um through the audit. And so before we launch into the policies from our first reading from last u meeting, maybe extending on Kim's um Kim's points, what are what are the goals of our policy work for this next year? Do we want to try to work through and get compliant as many policies as we can? Are we interested in a slower approach where we would, you know, tackle one a month because that's about what the track that we're on right now is about one a month and that could be satisfactory to the board. Um, but I'm curious to hear from board members and from Superintendent Bowman like what what would be the what would be the preferred course of action in order to get us um in compliance uh with all of our policies? Any thoughts on that? My thoughts are I'd love to get us in compliance uh first because that's uh the administration we've been trying to get there for a while. I think we do have a comprehensive audit that anybody could um review in whatever detail that they want to. But uh I think starting with compliance is a good um first step uh for for policy uh goal. I'd make that the first goal. >> So to clarify that would be pushing policies through the consent agenda that have minor edits to get in compliance with MSBA's recommendations. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> How do other board members feel about that? I feel like everyone's on this appreciate that >> because one a month is not going to get us there. >> Anyway, >> yeah, I I completely agree. I think um uh the minor edits to update the current policies would help streamline the whole entire process. And if we want to come back and revisit something at a later date to consider a more overall, more thorough, you know, reconsideration of it, we can do that then. Um, but just getting up getting things up to date seems to be the um the minimum we should be should be at and we're not there yet and I think we need to to get there first. >> Better Paul, do you have thoughts? My only thought is uh because things have a tendency to flow as you all well know and it probably would be a good idea to give ourselves a deadline date for each. So these three by this, these three by this, these three by this, and and literally put a schedule together so that we can try as best we can to stay on schedule because because again, and it's no fault of anybody, but sometimes things have a tendency to float out a little farther than they should, >> right? Yeah. >> Matt, do you have thoughts? >> Yeah, I mean, I think the policy audit chart helps a lot. Um, I' I wouldn't mind involving the district if they have a preference as far as how we tackle those priority wise because some of the edits, um, they might recommend a lot of edits, but they might not have any real significant effect on the policy. >> Um, so I don't think we're out of compliance as much as it sounds by the number of recommended edits that they have. Um >> but yeah, obviously it's better to have gone through them than not not update them. So >> So would people feel comfortable um having the district, Brenda in particular, shepherd this process uh whereby you would create maybe a schedule for Paul's comment and um decide, you know, at this board meeting we can bring three forward or however it makes sense given the extensiveness of the edits. Um, and I think they could if if board members agree, what I'm hearing Superintendent Bowman say and others is that they could be put on consent agenda if if they're not substantial changes. Um, but then if they are substantial, they they should not go on consent then. They should be part of um discussion for first and second reading. Is that a plan? >> Yep. Okay. Can I >> Yeah. I just want to make sure um because I think part of the challenge is that individual board members may have policies that they think warrant or do not warrant kind of more specific analysis from the board. And so um perhaps it can I don't know how we identify policies. what I what I want to try to avoid is maybe pulling things from the consent agenda and spending kind of a lot of time discussing those when the and then we have to bring it back for readings. And so >> Brena, do you think there's any that do you think there's a pile that or can we go along with the the MSB recommendations about ones that just need those edits versus is that would that be the plan? >> Yeah, if um I'm going to be really honest. Uh, I think that yes, there are probably a number of them that could that have very minimal edits um that could be put on the consent agenda and moved through rather quickly. Um, and I have heard us say more than once that that's what we would like to do. But when those policies are then put on the consent agenda and they're pulled, we're not looking at we're looking at all of the language rather than just the recommended changes, right? >> And that's where we're getting caught up is that we start going through all of the language and why this and let's change that and then it's taking weeks if not months to get a policy done. So if we are truly putting them on the consent agenda and just this time through just looking at what the recommended changes are just to get them all up to date, I think that we can do that rather quickly. >> That's what I would hope like the board is together on that that because I think if everybody's not on the same page there, then we're going to be turn spinning the wheels of with the progress. So >> yeah, Matt. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I mean I think to that point we could just send out a list, you know, ahead of time with the recommended changes. So at the beginning of the month, like, hey, these are the ones we're going to look at any of these. I mean, with the expectation that board members would actually review them and then let the chair know like, hey, I'd like to spend some further time discussing this one. So then it's not a surprise if it gets pulled from the consent agenda or it can just be scheduled, you know, for further discussion. I kind of like that where he said at the very end like if there's one that after it's sent out that people have concerns about then you put it on for a further discussion at like a work session but it still goes through in the consent agenda so that we can update the language to be legal and then we can come back and discuss it later and have more I that was good. I like that. That's not what I meant, but I like >> Okay. So, we'll create a schedule on what policies will come forward. Um and then at the beginning of each month, you want just the ones for that month, right? To be not all, right? Okay. Just the ones for that month. And then, um >> maybe Brenda, you would make a recommendation in that document whether it would be put on consent or first reading. Um and then if if board members want to pull it from the consent, we can do that ahead of time. Okay. Does that everybody feel comfortable with that? All the board members and I guess other people too in particular for Okay. So with that, um I think how um we're interested in in moving forward policies that require first reading and a second reading. um would be to have the first reading at our um at at a regular meeting and then at the work session clarify or go over um questions or concerns that board members brought up at the first reading and then the subsequent um regular meeting have the second reading for um consideration for approval by the board if if that's okay with everyone. Um so that um let's start with Valness. Director Rezac, would you want to come up? So, as a reminder, um, this policy, and if you're going to do this, you can take it, too, but I don't mean to take what you're going to say, but Oh, no. >> That the I think we, as we said at last meeting that, um, the wellness policy hasn't it's it's quite out of compliance. Um and that the uh wellness committee, which is a committee of um parents, administrators, uh district staff, and and community members, um brought forward this um redlinined copy uh to um for consideration like a a year and a half ago or so now. Um and so we reviewed this copy at our last board meeting. I think some of the questions that came up and I think all of them almost were from director Thompson um but if if I got that wrong and I realize um he's absent tonight but was um just trying to uh find out more information about the purpose of the of the title of the policy if if it should be um confined to wellness or if it should it could be broader potentially. looking at um the the information about parents sending meals and snacks um and encouraging those to be healthy choices. Um information about childhood obesity in this um in the document also about cultural foods and our desire to try to um to meet um cultural food um needs. And then um the last one um was around um food as reward using not using food as rewards. So I don't know if you've had time to think about any of those or have recommendations on um why why the policy as written would be stronger in your opinion or if anything should be adjusted based on our conversation from last meeting. So, I I looked up what really the law is and what is required um for a wellness policy and it was put in um section 204 of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 um the local wellness local school wellness policy implementation. And so um the purpose of a wellness policy is to require at minimum goals for nutrition education, physical activity, other school-based activities that promote school wellness as well as nutrition guidelines to promote student health and reduce childhood obesity um for all foods that are available on the school campus. So those also include goals for nutrition promotion. So, that's where I I want the focus to be when it comes to this policy is making sure that we're hitting each of those points that um you know, we're focusing on those positive behaviors, that positive promotion um to affect the childhood obesity, the um the hunger for students. Um that we are promoting positive positive um >> policy and procedures to support those policies and that it is consistent with the law in the state of Minnesota as it is been uh given to school districts and we're pretty much in line with all of the school districts of the metro uh in that >> in that regard. Um the other part of the policy that um I think may be in question around this is uh the childhood obesity. Uh I don't know if in 2010 um I think I wasn't old enough to be uh reading laws. I was so young. Um the uh the problem I see um from a policy perspective is that is not inconsistent with what um has been communicated um from the uh DHS uh federal and state uh with regard to you know trying to reduce that and this is talking about in schools and what we have control of as a um as an education entity and an LEA. So I think all of that aligns with the law aligns with Minnesota DHS federal DHS irrespective of administrations. Um so you know I think we're we're aligned very well with with that if that matters >> and um in prepping the policy committee was involved right in prepping these from um the last time and I believe this is the MSBA language >> um as well so it aligns with that. Um, considering our conversation from from last meeting, are there things about this policy um or things from our conversation that other board members have questions on or that you would like to see um uh Director Misak um kind of give her give her recommendation on? >> Okay. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. >> Um you might not know this. We did get the email from one of the school nurses kind of in support of the policy uh and the revisions. So, I thought that was very helpful. Thought they should emailed everybody and >> explained a little bit more. >> Okay. >> Anything else anybody needs before this would come back for a second reading. So, I think because it was only one board member, we're no changes would be made to the to this copy unless someone wants to see something different. Okay. All right. Okay, this will come to the next meeting for review and um consideration for approval. Um the next um policy that we reviewed last meeting was the hazing prohibition. >> I believe there were two things primarily that we wanted to look at. One was um under uh the definitions it's talk about what contraband means and it said control substances. We were interested in adding the word an paraphernalia just to catch like I don't I don't know these things very well but you know pipes or ei the eig but not the actual cartridge and I'm not not um well versed in this area. Um are people okay with with having paraphernalia added? >> Sure. >> Okay. And then I know there was conversation um both in this policy and and also the next one which are kind of similar around um and that's the search of student lockers around um notification of parents in the event of an investigation or search. And so I believe um Brenda you were able to connect with our legal attorney about their opinion based on those conversations. Sorry. Okay. You willing to fill us in? >> Yeah. Yep. I can go over um what his thoughts and concerns are. Um he recommended uh against including language and policy stating that we will notify parents prior to doing any interview with their children for both legal and practical reasons. Um first, there's no clearly established right in any case law or statute that says we have to notify parents prior to interviewing students. And generally uh he advises against creating new rights by policy that aren't rights under statute. Um if we did if we did this for these two types of investigations, we would likely have to do it for all investigations or at least would receive push back on why we give students or parents this right only in limited circumstances and not all circumstances. Um there is concern for the administrative burden and the delays that this would create in investigations that may be otherwise very quick. Um for example, administrators can pull kids uh students into their office, potentially conduct and complete an investigation in a couple of hours as opposed to the investigation taking days or weeks. um parents could potentially delay investigations or interfere with uh that interfere with students safety. Um and we we may need the right to immediately question students regarding the presence of let's say weapons or something like that. Um regardless of whether or not it's in policy, our administrators still have the discretion to call parents to let them know about the interviews and will often do this when it's advantageous. Um so therefore putting it in the policy may not be necessary because we can do that. We don't want to do that without it being a policy. Um so basically not um infringing or further restricting what the district can do under statute by putting additional language. um questions or reflections on that or things we should consider for is it okay to lump the two together because I feel like it's a very similar issue >> and and I think you can't put them both together Amber because it was it was about parent or guardian notification. So So that's fine. >> My question would come out of the legal opinion and Matt you might have a few point on this too. Where is the intersection or where is the point in time um when a parent truly should be or a guardian truly should be notified because something is developing. Um you know I get I get it. You know somebody's there's a suspicion and let me call you in the office. I want to talk to you for five minutes. I don't think you need to call the parent. But the question becomes, I believe, where does it become a legitimate situation where the parent or guardian should be notified? And and I don't know if that should be in the policy or if if Michael, it's something that >> Well, I can tell you that procedurally and the protocols in schools, usually the intersection is is discretionary for um the person who's dealing with the investigation. There's usually an escalation process. So if it's a an AP say talking to a situation, they're going to talk to the principal, the principles typically are going to notify parents if there's something uh more serious going on. Parents can be allies, too. And we don't take a we don't take a adversarial relationship with that at all. In fact, the opposite is true. Um, the concerns are, I think, as Brenda stated there is what are we limiting ourselves by doing and how are we going to be able to continue to operate at a normal clip or pace or whatever for the things that we're doing. But, you know, the intersection for sure is if there's disciplinary action that's going to occur, there's an intersection at um the severity of the situation. But knowing and having dealt with administrative law and situations that you know they're they're variable. I can I can give you five times it's like this and the six times it's like sixth time it's like that. It's case by case. >> Yeah. It's very case dependent. But um I don't think and I've not gotten um push back from parents saying uh that they weren't contacted uh very often. it it has happened where a parent has said hey I I should have known about this well when you peel the onion back there were some communications I mean there's different again it's a very case uh driven scenario but I think our administrators do a good job of making sure that the parents are brought into the situation again because they are typically allies in in whatever the situation may be but if the student goes home and that conversation's going to happen with the parent. The administration doesn't want to be sitting there going, "Oh, yeah. We didn't do anything about that." And and then the parents calling and saying, "You didn't." >> Yeah. And and and I think that was where the discussion went last time. >> Yeah. >> Where do you want the student to go and tell the parents and the parents go, "What just happened today?" >> And then you have a little bit of a dilemma there. And Michael, I agree. Um, parents aren't always adversarial. Um, case in point. You think a student has um drugs or paraphernalia in their locker and you search and there's nothing there, that just might mean they they're really good at hide-and-seek. And the parents may want to know and check the bedroom and, you know, wherever else. uh which would be you know assisting the parents to some degree uh in something the kid shouldn't be doing. So so again uh I I think the question becomes is is there an intersection point where it should be in the policy or not? >> Yeah, Matt. >> Yeah. I mean, another way to frame it is at what point does does administrative inconvenience outweigh, you know, potential rights of students and parents um on the searches? I mean, legally, they don't have a right to any privac privacy. You know, we can search their lockers, we can search their desks, if they're bringing their backpacks, there should be an expectation. And so, I think it's after the fact do we notify parents like, okay, because I mean, I'd want to know like If my kid's backpack continually gets searched, it's like, well, one, what are you doing? You know, that the teachers want to search your backpack, you know, are you involved in some suspicious activity or is my kid just continually being targeted for searches, you know? Um, but again, I think that's after the fact. The other, so that's on 502, 526, the concern was, and maybe there's delineation here, um, as the severity of the hazing. If the hazing becomes like this could be criminal, uh then I would absolutely want the parents to be notified, you know, before the the kid is interviewed because the kid does have rights. Um and unfortunately, some kids might not know like look, you don't have to answer questions about this, you know, if there's potential legal consequences and and maybe it won't be a lot of situations, but it could be some situations just depending on what the incident is. How do you reconcile like what our attorneys advise to not include that versus like what what you're saying? I'm just curious like >> so there's no consequence, right, to not have it in there. Um because we don't have to extend those rights. But then the question is well when are we when are we disregarding maybe parental rights that they want to be policies of the school just for the purpose of convenience on the administration side? So, and I agree like we don't want every little thing to be like, oh, we have to notify your parents before we talk to you. But if something is serious, you know, then it should like click a light bulb like, hey, this could be a situation where we need parents involved. >> Other thoughts? Carly? >> Yeah. I mean, I know I said this last time. I just feel like I would probably align with um our superintendent in terms of trusting our administrators to handle the situations appropriately. And I feel like I I'm only an end of three years here on the board, but I've never received any sort of email contact about our administrators not responding appropriately in terms of alerting parents. And so I think we potentially, and Brenda, tell me if I'm wrong, but increase our liability if we start putting things in policy that make a demand for that versus trusting our administrators to make the right decision in the moment, which I feel like if there's potential legal consequences for a student, I would guess the parents are going to be involved pretty early on for that would be my assumption. But so I I I appreciate what's being said. I just also think they're doing a great job of I we just don't get email traffic on that. Um not to say it doesn't happen then, but we're not being notified of any sort of situations. Also, um if I could, students are given a tenny warning before they're questioned by administrators. And that tennis warning, um it tells the student what their rights are, that they they don't have to answer questions. um if they do answer questions to answer them truthfully, how the information is used. So um they are uh sort of alerted to what their rights are before an administrator asks them questions. And then um uh I don't mean to put Michael on the spot, but he could probably speak more eloquently to uh furpa. There are notice uh some instances where we do need to notify parents ahead of time with a FURPA notice. Um, I just had to have the principal do one today. So, I like Michael said, every case is different and it depends on the circumstances of that case. Um, but I I would caution against putting any language in policy that might get us caught up, right? So, if we put that in policy and then an administrator misses making that phone call before we interview a student, um I don't want to see us in a situation where I the district can't defend itself. Um because we put something in policy that that we can't defend. >> Cameon thoughts on this? >> I feel like the procedure for when they contact parents is in the handbook. it's pretty clear on when parents are contacted. Um, and I also feel like there should be some left up to administrative discretion on that because it happens a lot during the school day, especially at the secondary level where students are searched. Um, and I think like if we put it in policy that they have to call parents, there would be one dean that would be just calling parents all day for how many times kids are searched. Tony, you you don't have to speak. >> Well, I mean, everything's been pretty much said by anybody else. Um, the one thing I would say is uh um allowing the administration discretion and you know, the the ability to make that decision um is pretty helpful. Um, I don't see a problem with putting in um a statement in the policy and situations that that Matt said where, you know, something may have, you know, criminally happened. I would, you know, defer to the administration anyways that they would actually call the parents at that point anyways. Um, so in that sense, putting something like that in the policy isn't, you know, hurting anything. It's basically just putting in, you know, putting it in there that this is at this point. This is when we're going to definitely bring in a parent, you know, um if uh you know, everything up until that point, leaving it to the discretion of the administration, um I'm perfectly fine with >> Kim brings up Oh, no. Go ahead. >> I just say Kim brings up a good point and that is there's because I feel like there's policy and then there's the handbooks or like the procedures that people are expected to follow. So, is this pretty well out I haven't looked at this specifically. It's pretty well outlined in procedures because then I feel like that would balance both the direction we want the administration to take as well as not necessarily increasing our liability as a district in certain situations. >> I can't answer that off the top of my head. I would have to actually pull up the handle and take a look at it. >> Okay. But that might be a good resolution. Yeah. Matt, >> uh, two things. Just one I think if you're violating the procedures, you're probably in the same position legally that you are if you're violating the policies. Um, how often I mean we're saying a lot of kids are searched. I mean, how often are we talking about like a hundred in each high school a day? Like how frequent is it? >> Oh, not not 100 a day? No. I don't know the stats, but it's not 100 a day. Oh, >> I mean, I can imagine >> it's usually it's usually event driven. You know, >> sure, >> something's going on in the bathroom, somebody reports something to somebody. Mhm. >> Um, >> and again, I don't fault teachers or administrators from doing it or asking it. I'm just curious how often like what is the number? You know, are we adding a significant burden to the administration or are we just assuming it is? Um, >> I think where I I'm falling is like our legal counsel has advised against it. Um, and that I'm interested in getting compliant with policy as quickly as possible. And so the version that was sent to us by MSBA is is this you know edited version. So I think um in practice if our administrators are calling I mean I would think no question if a if it becomes criminal um you might not know that it's going to become criminal though. Hi there. Is there an issue? Um no I work in a high school so I can share a little bit of somewhat informed expectation of not the amount of searches but just like the daily number of incidents >> is that >> because you said >> okay >> sure >> sure >> um just in terms of things that I'm aware of because there's calls over the radios we probably have um just for once called over the radios probably five to 10 bathroom inspections that are called on a day and um mostly during some of the more free times. Uh yeah, I'd also say five to 10 situations where students are clearly trying to evade authority or go in locations where they're not supposed to be. >> So, sure to potentially be stipulating events. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Um Ammer, do you want to restate that because I bet people didn't pick up on that. >> Yeah. I'm trying to think of what I was saying now, though. >> Oh, no. What he was saying. Oh. Um I'm blanking on his name for Aiden. >> Aiden um works at the high school and um just reported that um that there's like six to seven incidents where bathrooms are needed to be searched um and then um additional searches happening throughout the day for a variety of things. Is that a good summary? >> Correct. Um, I guess how would the how would the board like to move forward on either of these related to um notification of of parents? I think where I was going um before Hayden was able to share that was that if a if an when you start an investigation, you might not know that it's going to become criminal or that it's that is is as bad as maybe it could be, right? And so it it could start off very innocent, a very minor thing that could by investigation open up into a big thing. And so I don't think an administrator would always know when when that time to call the parent before an interview would start. And so my my personal feeling is to heir on the side of administrators doing their their jobs, completing um these investigations in a in a way that the attorney has recommended. Um with with the expectation that in practice we're calling parents if if something significant is happening. Um that's my personal opinion though. I don't know if that's what the what the board as a whole is interested in. I mean, I think I know your stance. Um, I would share I mean, I would I would just share that opinion because I feel like we do want to take MSBA policy and look at how that fits with Lakeville. Again, I come back to these we're not getting a lot of feedback that our policies are not appropriate for what's happening in the schools. not getting parent feedback that that administrators aren't doing their jobs. >> So, I don't see a reason to stray from policy. >> Okay. >> By MSBA. >> Yeah. Thank you. K. You mentioned that this is already in a procedural handbook. Do you know roughly what it says >> or what the terminology is? >> The last time it was presented to us was like two years ago. So, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head, but it did reference um alerting parents at certain points in the process. So, >> okay. Um maybe we'll bring this forward for a vote for consideration and um if the majority of the board feels comfortable with it, um you can see how the board um lands on approving these or not. It might be helpful though for us to figure out what is in the procedural. >> Yeah. Right. >> I can get that question >> because that might resolve like I said the >> the concern if it is pretty well outlined then I don't see a need to put it in policy. >> Okay. >> Michael, can we have someone get back to? >> Thank you. >> I wouldn't know for so 526 is hazing. I mean >> it is a limited circumstance. I would assume that an administrator would know one is there, you know, underage drinking involved, something that would be criminal like, uh, has somebody injured somebody else, you know, by an act. Um, if it's just, and I know we've been copied on some information about other issues that are just maybe less traumatic phasing, that wouldn't drive civil criminality, but if something's like a parent on its face, I mean, you can kind of tell, you should be able to tell. >> Do you have any perspective on that? I know you're trying to multitask here. Okay. >> Should we find out what's in the procedural handbook and see? Okay. Great. Okay. >> Those brought to the next meeting for a final meeting. >> Yeah, let's do that with information about the handbook. >> Do Friday noted. >> Yeah, in the Friday notes possible. Thanks. Okay. Um, next we're going to move to the presentation on the um 2026 29 achievement and integration plan update. So, welcome Nicole and Jamie to the table. Great. Hi. Hi. Welcome. >> Should we just start with some intros, please? That'd be great. >> Okay. Um, I'm Nicole Adams, director of integrated continuous improvement. Um, if you're wondering what that means, I oversee achievement and integration, MTSS, and uh, data and assessment for the district. And I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Jamie Ut. Schumacher who has been with us since June of 2025. He is our achievement and integration coordinator um he has a strong background in um educational research and measurements so and has done a tremendous amount of work on our next iteration of achievement and integration um since his start here in June. So um we did share everything in advance and did not prepare a formal presentation um because we wanted to just be respectful of time and so at this point um I don't want to reiterate everything that was already shared. So we will just stand for questions that you may have. >> Okay. Great. So in the Friday notes from superintendent Bowman that um this two two pager was um sent right with a note that this would be discussed today. Um so with that um do people have questions or reflections on this? And if anybody I'm happy to pass this around if anybody wants a copy of this right now. Anybody >> I'll take just pass it around to Carly. I only have one. So >> Oh, keep it. You keep it. No, no, you keep it. I'm pulling it up on my computer. >> Oh, okay. >> I have I saw it in the notes. just to like the physical person. >> Do you want to would you mind maybe going over kind of the focus for um the next couple years? >> Sure. Let me start with maybe just providing just a little bit of overview of what achievement and integration requires of us and then sort of how we are shifting our focus a little bit. Um so achievement and integration is uh a program as designed by uh the state of Minnesota. It's under state statute and its purpose and intention is to design racial and economic integration, increase student achievement, create educational opportunities, and reduce academic dispar disparities based on students who are coming from uh diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Um up until this year, Lakeville Area Schools has chosen to opt into this program. It is uh not necessarily been required. However, our demographics have shifted enough that we now meet a threshold where we are required to participate in the achievement and integration program. If you're wondering what that threshold is, roughly speaking, it means and there's a state formula that the commissioner develops every year and then tells you whether or not you are racially isolated as a school district. for generally what that means. It means that at least one district on your borders um you are 20% more racially diverse than one of those other districts. And so it's a pretty complex formula but um this year we have met that threshold um in comparison to some of our border districts. So uh is no longer optional. we are required to participate but the good news is because we have been optionally participating um we were pretty much set and ready to go. Um there are three uh areas that you are required to build your plan around. One is an achievement goal and that aims to improve racial or economic disparities specifically in academic performance. Um, so while I want to point out this plan does have an academic requirement and is a key component of the plan, it is also broader than just academics because it is looking at an integration goal um that aims to increase integration in participation of racially and economically marginalized students and a teacher equity goal which is aimed to improve equitable practices to support students um in schools. So yes, there is an academic component, but it's also focused on a learning environment um piece as well. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Matt. >> Uh before you move on, >> um what exactly does it mean integration of participation? Like what does that look like practically speaking? >> Yeah. Um it means well if you look at data and you feel free to jump in here at any point. >> Sure. Um when you look at participation in academic programming or you look at those outcomes um and you're seeing patterns of students who are coming from racial or um ethnically marginalized groups or economically marginalized groups that you are taking intentional efforts to ensure that their participation in outcomes is comparable to their non-m marginalized peers. So I think um on the integration goal there's there's pretty considerable leverage in terms of what you can choose to focus on. >> So historically the last three years we focused on advanced academics and trying to diversify advanced academics. I think we've seen some pretty considerable changes there. Um and uh the district offers a bunch of examples of things that it encourages you to look at. One of which is disproportionate discipline. Um and so then when we looked at our disproportionate discipline rates, we saw um enough concerning data that that's where we decided for the next three years might be a good integration related goal to focus our attention toward. But you have pretty considerable leeway. I know some districts have had goals or sub goals that focus on athletic participation, right? You can kind of go in a pretty wide direction on on the integration goal. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Paul. >> Yeah, thank you. Is it too premature to um ask what kind of results you're getting? >> I I mean one of the things you're trying to do and I and I understand how you're trying to move the needle accordingly for certain populations. >> Sure. >> But I mean is it too early to say it's successful? It's not. It's it's >> Well, this is a new plan that will be implemented starting next year. So yes, >> but there hasn't been any >> for the old plan. Yeah. And I think it was in was it October or November there was a report sent to the board that was kind of like detailing where we are succeeding and where we're falling short based on the old plan. >> Um and so what I tried to do with that if you if you if I mean we could bring that up and discuss it in more detail if you'd like is to um say that so the state requires very simple goals. It has to say like you have decreased the margin um as it relates to graduation rates between say your white population and your Latino population by X percent. And what I tried to do when I presented that was to say well at in the simple way that the goal is required that we report it looks like we're making a ton of progress. When we look at our data, it's more complicated than that because we're seeing increased rates of graduation with some groups and decreasing rates with other groups, right? And so, like for instance, our net graduation rate among our white males has been going down over the last three years. Um, it's been holding steady with our black and Latino males. It's been increasing with our black and Latino female. Right? So, essentially what I was trying to say in that report is that um the simplistic answer is like we're making progress. Uh and I think our metrics show that the more complex answer is that there's a lot more nuanced work that we have ahead of us. >> So when you disagregate >> Exactly. Yeah. And that the the way that we are required by the state to write the goals doesn't necessitate disagregated data in a way that is as a data scientist myself I struggle with because it makes it really easy to hide or not hide your your what you're trying to accomplish. And so I tried to offer a bit more of a nuanced perspective for you all. >> Yeah. Matt, >> um I was just wondering because it looks like we're spending about $1.9 million annually on the plan and there are a number of different components of it. Um from a data scientist standpoint, how do you test, you know, which which portions of the plan are actually being effective at at achieving the goal or moving us forward and which ones are not? >> Yeah. Well, so we've done a variety of things since I came on board. I can't necessarily speak to everything that was done before the last six months, >> but I have devoted pretty much I would say 80% of my time since I came on board trying to get my head around exactly that. So for me, it's been everything from qualitative data collection where I've met with building leadership in every single building and I've had just ask them like what do you think is working? What do you think is not working when it comes to the achievement integration plan and the way we've spent our money, the way that you've seen the resources used? We've also run like for instance with young scholars we ran uh both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the program. Um we're able to see a lot of you know effectiveness in the program and so we're trying to figure out how we can sustain it long term and not just in this budget that we know exists right now but we can't guarantee in the long term will exist. So what do we do with young scholars long term? So, it's been a pretty varied uh approach that has included both some quantitative analysis and some qualitative analysis. We were just discussing earlier today that moving forward with things like um the the um fastbridge reading scores that we're proposing using for our achievement goal in the next round, which is also something we used in the last round. We'd like to see u some more inferial statistics and not just descriptive statistics. So not just like this percentage of our students is meeting a threshold or not, but actually some sort of longitudinal analysis that says across the threshold of all of our students, are we seeing trends in the right direction, not just thresholds where your thresholds could be hiding, >> you know, just follow. So, are you tracking individual students then too in order to determine whether or not the interventions because some of these things like >> elementary reading interventionists that seems like it'd be pretty easy to track. You've got the before the intervention, the after. >> Yep. So, like that's for instance with young scholars. That's what we did. We downloaded a a very large data set of every one of the students that have been impacted by young scholars and we ran um some longitudinal quantitative analysis on whether or not it was having the intended impact >> for the reading interventionists. They've only been fully implemented since the beginning of this year. So, we don't have enough data yet. But my intent as somebody who that values that sort of uh inquiry would be yes, we're doing that kind of analysis. I always caution with that analysis because um you know within measurement you want to caution saying that this one thing caused this one outcome because it's never that simple in human subjects research. But I think as much as possible trying to get a better sense of what is the impact of what we're we're doing is important to me knowing that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to meeting the needs of our most marginalized kids in our district. >> Can you talk about um and I feel like Nicole, sorry you got cut off. No, when it comes to the data analysis part, >> I I'm curious like given the work that you've been doing on evaluating the program, can you talk about the evolution to this new plan um and how you landed on on these um these areas of work? >> Yeah. Did you want us to remind me and the board >> um what you need us to do in relation to this plan? So, I'm gonna create a little overview and then I'm going to let Jamie talk about the actual process and then and then I will also address your piece of it. Um, so in hiring Jamie, we knew that this new plan was coming due. So, over last year, we had been working on the plan that we inherited and making a few minor adjustments along the way. Um but we knew that we wanted to make sure that this plan was more uh intentionally integrated within existing systems. So that's why you're seeing um some of these components um coming alongside teaching and learning. So while it is not a teaching and learning plan, it does support the work of teaching and learning. While it is not a student services plan, it does come alongside and support the work of student services um because equity is everywhere um and needs to be systemic. So we are really trying to make sure that we're embedding as much into direct student services in the systems that currently exist to try to bolster those systems. Um >> which is an efficiency and the fact that we don't have a lot of resource and vast capacity. So it has to be that way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And um so and then I'll turn this over to Jamie in just a moment. He can talk a little bit about how we >> determine here >> the pieces. Um, what we will need from you is this will be on your February 24th vote. We do need a vote on it and then we need your signature before we submit it to the state on March 15th. >> Great. Thanks. >> Um, and I'll just say separately that um I know Brian had some questions about the budget. Um, we're more than happy to talk in those specifics. we weren't sure how much into the to the weeds you wanted to get. But I did also share um just at the beginning of when we started talking with you Amber just a very basic breakdown of the budget that gets into sort of what percentage are we spending on liaison as opposed to reading interventions list as right just so that because when you get into the in the weeds budget it's many many tabs of spreadsheet that you might not want to sort through. You're welcome to if you want to, but the more simplified version hopefully can help you get your heads around it before the the vote, just so you know. Um, but in terms of how we came to the goal, so the one of the things that we found with the outgoing plan is that the primary metric that we were looking at was graduation rates, which is fine. It's not a bad metric, and the secondary metric we were using was reading scores. The problem with graduation rates is it is a one-time piece of data at the end of a four-year period that's very very hard to determine what is impacting them. Whereas with reading scores, there's a lot more data that you can use to determine what's moving the metric. We also collect data three times a year at multiple grade levels on reading scores. So, we decided to sort of sunset the focus on graduation rates. Not to say that we shouldn't be focusing on graduation rates, but that it doesn't give us a ton of information. So instead, we're focusing more specifically on the reading scores, continuing to invest in the interventionists, knowing that we now have reading intervention. We are paying for three of them in ANI, but there are nine of them, so that we have them at each elementary building. Um, and I know that there's a hope that I've heard articulated from our middle school principles to expand into similar work for our middle schoolers. Um and in the data collection in in meeting sort of with um some of the important decision makers throughout the district, one of the most important things that I was hearing over and over and over and over again is uh and including from our student services colleagues is a need for support as it relates to our EL student population in two ways. Um, and that's one of the things that we're putting new energy toward that isn't that wasn't in the previous plan that we think will impact our our reading scores. The first is some better coaching for our general ed teachers on what it looks like to meet tier one needs of EL students. Um, and that can relate not only to reading, although we think reading is one of the most acute ways that that's being is showing up, but that would be true in math, that would be true in science and and other areas. And so in these um coordinator positions, they would be working, we would have one at the elementary level and one at the secondary level. Half of their focus would be on supporting tier one instruction with your general ed teachers and half of their focus would be on um helping coach our EL teachers on co-eing mainly because many of our EL teachers are like, I learned about it in my training, but the actual practice of co-eing in our district is really hard to make happen. Um and so that is really because we through a lot of what we were hearing uh and what we're seeing in our data as well as from um reports that we've gotten from the state is that our sort of our lowest hanging fruit and our most acute you might call it pain point when it comes to equity in the district is with regard to um the sort of the gap between our EL students and our non-ELL students in academic achievement. So I would argue that where we can see some of the largest sort of uh return on investment would be trying to support the the reading and the math etc of of our EL students and we're focusing on reading because that's the area where we have the most robust data available to us. But we could have probably similarly seen an an output with regard to our math um with the type of intervention that we've decided to invest in. So that's the integration one. I'll pause there before I talk about I mean excuse me the achievement one before I talk about the integration or the or the teacher equity. Does anybody have any questions about how we chose that focus? >> Yes, please. >> I mean kind of related question. I love hearing all this. This is amazing. Um and hopefully we can find things that work and then expand it out into teaching learning for other groups as well. Um >> I noticed that the bar programs mentioned the 2023 to 2026 plan. >> Yep. but not brought down to the 2016. >> Yeah, it's not going away. Um it's just being reallocated into different funding sources. >> We're not carrying it anymore, but it's still I got the message very loud and clear from our high schools that it's it's working really well. They're seeing it in the data. They love it. >> Um we just when we were making decisions when we were having conversations with with you know our our superintendent and our our other decision makers that that would be better carried elsewhere so that we can use these funds in other in other ways. Carly, >> I think I don't know if this relates to kind of where you are in this discussion at this point, but one of the things that I do hear from teachers who've been in the district for a while is just the former use of AVID and I know there were some like um fidelity concerns and things like that. But I guess I'm wondering how you guys feel about I mean that got cut the budget cuts and how does that differ from kind of the intervention that's happening? Yeah, I would say well that occurred before our time here. Um and but I do have experience with AVID as an AVID district director from other districts and it can be a really great program. I also know that um it is often um implemented as an overlay not integrated into the daily systems and structures and procedures of school districts. So, um, we chose not to go back to AVID, not because it's bad by any means, but because we know we have other areas of significant need, um, systemically that we need to address, i.e. interventionist like our MTSS model is missing that h that is a gaping hole in our MTSS model and until or unless we can fill that um AVID is just kind of an overlay and not really addressing some of our core fundamental issues. >> So it feels like a band-aid as opposed to like addressing the underlying >> Yeah. Well, and I'll say that both of our high school leadership teams told me that they in theory, and I'll explain what I mean by in theory, they in theory are really excited about bar as compared to AVID because bar reaches every single 9th grader currently. At the end of this coming year, the dues for bar go from like $160,000 a year to like $15,000 a year, which creates a lot more room to expand bar. And so the hope would be that we might be able to go into then ninth and tth graders, see how that's working, see what's what what needs to be adjusted and and go from there so that it becomes more of like a tier one intervention that every student receives, but that is meant to accomplish similar study skills, academic behaviors, etc. that AVID was accomplishing for a smaller group. So when I talked to their leadership, they were like, "We are not necessarily in support of going back to Avid, but we what they're worried about is that we will give up on bar before we have the chance to see the fruits of that labor." And I was like, "Well, we're not trying to do that. We want to keep bar going." And our hope is that at the end of this year, maybe we could explore going to nth and tth grade or something that helps to to make it feel a bit more robust at the high school level. you bring up a great point because that was one of another another one of the challenges that was brought up about AVID because it is a smaller focus >> and for those kids I think it has a really great impact but it wasn't reaching a ton of kids. >> And I will say this, AVID usually has two components. There is the AVID elective that hits like a particularly um identified group of students. But there's also AVID schoolwide um which is a very robust program and that would be tier one instruction and for reasons that I'm not you know aware of because I wasn't here I don't think we really jumped on to the average schoolwide piece and that was never fully implemented. Had that been maybe more fully implemented that might have addressed some of our tier one >> but that just for whatever reason that wasn't the case. it was more focused on the AVID elective. And so from a systems perspective, it didn't make sense to try to go back to where we were. So we're going to try to just address our systems problems with what we currently have and then what we can see we definitely need. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, Matt, go ahead. >> Uh just on bar and I guess this is my question from before too. So how do we determine as a district whether or not it's effective? Like how do you test that? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I haven't gone into from an inferential standpoint, but I've seen some of the descriptive statistics and uh the ones that the high schools are lifting up to support bar is rates of, for instance, uh attendance among nth graders varies considerably compared to 10th graders. And so, you almost have this natural experiment of your ninth graders versus your tenth graders. Ninth graders who are getting bar, 10th graders who are not. They also noted number of missing assignments which is a big part of bars like being organized and having academic behaviors. Again, ninth graders versus 10th graders, it's it's pretty considerable in its difference. So, the reason I say that those are more descriptive is you would need to do more investigation to say, well, what about bar specifically and not just the process of becoming a 10th grader, which we all know as you get more comfortable in high school, you might be less likely to turn in your assignments, etc. But um but they seem to feel pretty strongly that they're seeing it in data that has to do with basic academics performance and attendance. Uh and so again, that's where in the longer term we we would want to to see what ways we can tie it more specifically to bar. But I do think the data points they were mentioning were were encouraging just because I don't think our 10th graders or nth graders are going to be that drastically different compared to some of what they were showing me in their data. >> Sure. And you know once we get towards the end of this year we will have two different cohorts to look at. This year's cohort of nth graders and last year's cohort of nth graders. So that would be another way for us to be able to take a deeper look. It's just we're mid-process right now. So um haven't gotten to that analysis yet. >> Do you want to go to the next? >> Y integration. >> Um okay. So again historically for the last three years as well as part of the previous plan I don't know well enough what how how far back it goes but our goal in integration was diversifying advanced academics which I think is a great goal in many ways and we've seen a lot of success through the investment in young scholars in that um you know the inquiry that I did was able to show that young scholars is for the students that it serves which is a small percentage of the population but for the students that it serves it is very highly predictive and whether or not it is diversifying um advanced academics. So our recommendation when we was to say that we think that this program is having success, we think it should be something that is moving in the direction of being more a part of the general fund so that we can then use ANI funds to to to move on to sort of another another area. Um so that's where you see in integration the focus of our dollars being less on young scholars but young scholars didn't leave our budget if that makes sense. So we are now sharing with G and I don't know exactly how this looks but with general fund the cost of things like young scholars so that we're not just dropping it and it goes away but where we can then start putting our attention toward what I noticed as sort of one of the first glaring red flags that I saw in our data when I first came into the district and started exploring which is that a our data when it comes to discipline is inconsistent but what data that is there indicates that we are hugely disproportionately disproportionately disciplining in exclusionary ways p primarily out of school suspension um black and brown students in the district. So um the integration focus that we came up with is in year one really not doing a lot of intervention. It's trying to get our ducks in a row with regard to what we are measuring, how we're measuring it, how we're recording. For instance, I just in a very non-scientific way in just chatting with our two high schools have noted they have very different processes for recording. I don't think either process is bad, but it just makes it really hard to compare them. You know what I mean? >> Um, similarly, I don't I think our middle schools are more on the same page, but I don't know the degree to which they're on the same page. So, it becomes harder to know is this, you know, when we say black students being three times as likely as white students to be out of school suspended, is that accurate? It might be, but I'm not positive. Right. So, year one is really about getting our ducks in a row, understanding the nature of the problem. I don't think we are unique. This is actually the area of my dissertation research. Um, in in terms of exclusionary discipline, I don't think we're probably unique and that we're probably very disproportionately suspending and and employing other forms of out of school, I mean, excuse me, um, exclusionary discipline um, against kids of color. And so then our hope would be to start over the second two years um based on expertise of people at the state in year two focusing on how do we create better systems of non-exclusionary discipline. So taking what we already have and doing it better so that kids are not missing learning opportunities because of an outburst that happened or or something that happened in class or or in the hallways. And then in year three trying to create better systems around restorative practices. Um, and something that I heard a lot as feedback is that we dipped our toe into restorative practices two years ago in a way that people were really excited about, but something that I know from my own research is that um, restorative practices is actually something you tend to want to get into in year three or four after you've done a bunch of ground work that makes restorative practices sustainable. And so that's our our sort of vision on the integration goal is getting our data right, making sure that we understand the nature of the issue, creating better systems around non-exclusionary discipline, and then creating better systems that are that are restorative, meaning that if a kid has a really hard interaction with the teacher or a really, really bad interaction with another peer. We're not just punishing somebody. We're trying to help repair any harm that was caused. We're trying to help create better, stronger relationships so that kids feel like this is a place where they want to be. Any questions about the integration goal? >> Matt, you have >> uh just two things. So on when we're talking about exclusionary discipline, are we saying you know same act, two different kids, different race, one gets treated different than the other? >> Yes. >> Yes. The dilemma is I don't even know if that's what's happening because our data is inconsistent, but yes, that is what in theory we are discussing. >> And then what does it look like from a the next step when you're you know implementing some changes? What does it look like from a teacher's perspective? >> Yeah. Well, so I mean it can look a variety of different ways. One of which is um you know the research literature on the subject says that um certain types of things that are out of a teacher's control can actually impact how a teacher addresses it. Such as knowing that there is consistency at your building. Right? So teachers are more likely to um keep kids in class for a behavior that otherwise might they might have sent somebody out if they know that there is consistency in how it's dealt with at the school level. Right? So if they think that the that it that they don't know whether or not it'll get dealt with, they they'll just send the kid out of class because it's like not my problem, right? As opposed to if they know there's consistency at the school level, they're more likely to keep them in class and deal with it in a more holistic way. So, as an example, having those consistent policies, which I think some of our buildings probably are doing fantastically, others could use improvement on is one thing, but then it also is about professional development at the teacher level of um something as simple as emotional regulation when you are when your classroom is out of pocket. You know what I mean? I often >> I used an example in a professional development I led just a few weeks ago of how once when I was a high school teacher, I completely lost it on my students. Um, I I lost my cool, lost my temper. And the next day I apologized to them. I was like, you know, I'm the adult. I'm supposed to be emotionally regulated. And the reason I use the example is that my students who were in nth grade at the time had never had a teacher apologize to them for the teacher's behavior. And the example that I was using was like, we actually need to be the ones regulating because we have prefrontal cortex development that they don't have, you know? So, it can sometimes be that sort of thing. And then there's other things as well, but it's at the teacher level to your question, it can be systems above them. so that they can trust the systems and then training for their classroom so that they feel like they are better equipped to to meet the needs of students. >> Restorative to make an apology. >> I was just like, well, I shouldn't have yelled at you guys in my life. You never had that happen before. I was like, shouldn't we nth grade and never had an adult in your school apologized to you? >> I see um that we might partner with Farmington. Correct. >> Can you discuss that just a little bit? Not not a lengthy description, but a little bit. >> Yeah. So that is a component that's required that's another required component of your achievement and integration plan is that you have partnership a collaborative partnership with another district. Historically we have been partnering with district 191 um and we'll continue to have connection and relation with them. They're taking their plan in a different direction where um they really they're going to be partnering with Bloomington focusing on AVID. Um and that's kind of where that partnership originated. Um, so Farmington, they are opting into the ANI plan. I think this is their second goound with it. Um, and so they're they're really looking forward to working with us. And where we're really going to focus at is on our student alliance groups um, and bringing them together because that is a component is that you actually have to bring kids from the districts together. Like that's that's part of that integration piece. >> And I'll just note that I was super impressed. I went to their um they have a leadership summit for middle schoolers that's 100% planned by their affinity group students from their high school. It was I was very very impressed. I thought it was fantastic. And we had already separately been discussing ways that we could try to offer more leadership development to our affinity groups in our high schools. I was like, "Oh, this seems like such an easy synergy for collaboration because they already have an infrastructure. They have a system that's working." And they were like, "Yeah, let's do it. could bring your high schoolers and my high schoolers together to plan and then we can bring all of our middle schoolers together to learn and I was like love it. Let's do that. >> And they're close. >> That's nice. >> Yeah. Easy. >> Okay. Do you want to talk about the third area? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um so our teacher equity goal I don't know it for those of you who read the report that I that I sent in October. Um, one of the biggest things that I noted is that our third goal, our teacher equity goal before was a fantastic goal that we didn't have a metric to measure. Um, it was about the percentage of our teachers that were using culturally responsive practices in their classroom, which sounds great, but I'm like, I don't have a way to measure that in our in our district, in our capacity. So um the biggest thing that I have heard from folks is um you know our Lakeville framework has around the center of the Lakeville framework the word equitable practices um kind of going around that center but I have found that you will get 20 different responses of what that means depending on who you ask in the district. Um, and so our hope is to really collaborate with teaching and learning and with student services to create a stronger vision around what it means when we're talking about creating equity in our district so that we can then do things like create a longer term strategic plan around PD, which I know teaching and learning has already been working on. Um, and so we're like, okay, well, how can then we bring our work in equity uh, you know, into that longer term planning that they're doing? Um, similarly, we wanted to try to figure out how we can offer clearer supports to, you know, I've I've had some really fantastic conversations with our school counselors about how they can create more equitable practices from the counseling lens. But the big thing here was that we didn't have cohesiveness. And so our hope is that we can create a more highly collaborative um environment between some of the departments so that we have clarity around vision, clarity around plan so that a teacher can say, "Okay, I entered this year. I can see the next three years what my PD journey is going to be and how I can get to be where I need to be. Um and then uh lastly, we are required by the state um since the new standards of effective practice were implemented two years ago, three years ago, two years ago, I don't remember. Three, three years ago, >> I think they were passed three years ago and they went into effect two years ago. But those are the standards that govern teacher practice. And we've started the process of in um better implementing those practices or those standards into our teacher evaluation processes. But those new standards have a lot of of really explicit equity uh requirements of our teachers that we need more support in what it means to be evaluated about. You know, like how can our teachers effectively do them? How can they demonstrate them? and how can they be evaluated on them? And so I have heard from our teachers that they fe there's been some nervousness around well how am I going to be evaluated on whether or not I'm using more racially just practices. I was like well we need to work on better rubrics and alignment so that you feel confident that that you're being evaluated in a way that's reflective of your brilliance and and also that's fair. That's sort of the the goal is a three-year process of creating more cohesion recognizing that it we are already doing a bunch of professional development. We're already doing a bunch of coaching. We're already doing a bunch of work with teachers. This would be more about how our system can better support a teacher who is say new to the district or trying to figure out where they are in their journey. >> Questions or Carly? >> I know one in the past. I'm just thinking about the previous AI plan. So, I hate to come back to >> No. Yeah, please. It's helpful. >> One of the things that we had a goal on that we actually got worse on over time was representation in terms of teachers of color. >> And so, knowing how important representation is, is that something you guys are, >> you know, we've had a lot of conversations about that like a lot. And you know, to be perfectly honest with you, that is an eventual goal, but I would say that right now, as a district, we don't have uh the framework or culture where we can recruit and retain teachers of color um that would like to stay. So, we need to make sure that we're in a place where we know what it means to engage in equitable practices um and that um we are really developing our framework around that and we're living that um and then move into that recruitment and retention. >> Yeah. But we are I'll just sorry just to put we are putting attention there in the short term recognizing that we need to build more infrastructure to support >> you know this hypothetical effort to recruit and retain more teachers of color. So for instance um something I heard loud and clear early on when I first came into the district is teachers of color feeling like they need systems to to talk to one another and feel supported in what their experience as say a teacher of color in in our schools are. And so we are starting a support sort of affinity group for educators of color um that one of my colleagues is is going to be leading right recognizing that those sorts of efforts will then help us create the infrastructure so that if we wanted to say start a grow your own program like three of my leaison have told me they're interested in maybe becoming a teacher. >> Awesome. How can we support that? But then also for those who then become teachers, helping make sure that they stay in our district after we put in that time, energy, and money into training them so that they don't go to another district where they feel better supported. >> Thank you for the questions. >> Okay. Well, thank you both for your leadership. I feel like what I appreciate about the plan is that it has very tactical, tangible things around like reading intervention, right? And then you're also thinking about systems change work. And I think it's hard to get that all encompassed in one plan sometimes, but I appreciate that in my opinion that this does that. And I really apprec I think the whole board probably appreciates the the attention to metrics and um looking at um strengths and opportunities in in Lakeville um based on the data and making decisions based on our data. So thanks for that. >> Yeah, thanks. The one other thing I just want to say because I didn't manage to speak to it, but um I think it's just really important because I I care a lot about their work and I see the impact of their work. When you look at our budget, you'll notice that the largest singular category of the ANI budget moving forward is the liaison, which is seven FTE. It's seven people. And um over and over again when I went and I met with every district I mean uh u building lead I said what's working and what's not with ANI every single building said the first thing that they said was working is the support that the liaison offer to teachers to students and to their families. Um, and I could point in a million different directions toward what that support looks like, but I think the fact that um, we heard that loud and clear. We also heard our elementarymentaries say over and over again that they're not getting enough time with the liaison, which is why we added another liaison whose sole focus is elementary this year so that we could better provide time so that now most of our our elementaryaries are getting somebody two days a week. Um, with regard to to that time, um, I just wanted to to sort of speak up in favor of just how important the work that they do is and I see it day in and day out and, um, that's why we are investing, you know, such a considerable portion there is that there's there's a host of reasons, but that that I wanted to speak to that and honor the work that they're doing. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, this will come before the board next meeting for >> the 24th today. >> Um, yeah, that's our next meeting. Yep. Two weeks. Yep. It's not going to be next week. Um uh for consideration for approval. Correct. >> That's correct. If you do need or anybody wants more specific information between now and then um please feel free to reach out to both of us. Um if you want a conversation, that is absolutely fine as well. >> Thank you. Great. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that, we'll turn it over to Director Holin for a budget update. Thanks. >> Yeah. Tonight we'll talk about our revised budget um which I'll bring back in full book form at the next meeting. And we sent out a um handout last Friday. Do everybody have theirs or I have some here here if we need more. >> Pass them. Okay. >> Now each year of course we bring forward a revised budget because now we know who we've hired. were last last May and June. We have a lot of estimates in in the budget. So on the first page right on top just gives you a quick overview of what each fund is looking like um in the revised budget. You can see that the general fund we're expecting about 3.2 to3.3 million increase in the total fund balance pushing that up to about 29 million. Uh we see um the student nutrition fund um dropping about 151,000. Of course, this is planned. Remember, we have a little bit too big of a fund balance for student nutrition. Um doing a lot of work with uh new equipment, new coolers, new freezers, and so forth. A lot of work over the last few years. Um so, anyway, that's to be expected. Um community service fund. Um small increase. Um they're working hard to uh turn that um loss they had here a few years ago, but about a $30,000 increase in their funds. >> Yeah. >> Still recovering. Then um the building um construction fund you see there an increase there about almost $10 million and that's because we've talked about it earlier this year. We're planning to do a bonding for LTFM um about $21 million. Um actually Ellers will be here next meeting to give kind of a update of where we are in that borrowing process and we'll be borrowing those funds the end of March. Uh about 21 million Um when we look at our debt service fund again this is a very healthy um fund and of course some of this is available to help us with our new borrowing. We have some money right ahead of ahead of time ready for make some payments so that's going to help us out. Um trust fund is our again is our scholarship fund. You see we plan to use the funds that we bring in on a yearly basis and then our internal service fund. We'll talk in more detail here a little bit. Um, we are expecting at this point in time to be a little short in that fund. Um, I know we've talked about it here the last few months and the concerned about that deficit and what's going to happen to it and whether we have to cover it. Um, I've worked with our auditors. Um, we can u borrow against the general fund. So, we can borrow the money to fill the hole and then to build it back. So, it's not something we don't have to just take general fund dollars and just take it and pay it off. So, that's all good news. Uh if we go move down now to the second portion of that front page, I just want to talk about some of the changes in the general fund. Um the the local other you see about a 25% increase in um from last from last year. Really what this is is we're we're receiving some interest earnings that we didn't expect. Um we have more funds of course we have a fund balance now. So we actually have funds invested. So we're actually collecting some interest. So that's all good news. our third party um billing, which is for our special ed students, our one-on-one um pairs and so forth. That's about $400,000 increase from what we're used to getting. Uh so we're very pleased with that. Um as you know, we've gone through working on um increasing our rental rates to cover our cost when it comes to all of our buildings. That's about a $200,000 increase. And then um fees just how we how we collect it. Actually, it's most of this is coming from um athletics and the actual games that go on and the fees that we're collecting. We had um anyway, another couple hundred,000. So, we're very pleased uh with that what's happening from the year before. We look at our state sources. You see there that we're up about 4%. This comes from three three places. As you know, we received 2.75% new money from the state of Minnesota. Um but the other pieces here, of course, we have a little bit more enrollment. So that's generating our um some more more funds here. Also um then we'll move down to property tax. Now here you'll see a negative number. We've talked about this the last couple years knowing that when the enrollment really slowed um we have to you know now we've levied too much money. We have to give it back is really what's happening here. Um, but because we're always two years in advance when we're looking at our levy, that's why this is kind of seems like way delayed, but that's because we levied it two years ago and now we're giving it back. So, that's a that's a one-time piece for fiscal 26. And our federal sources, there's a little change here, but not very much. The thing about federal, whatever we spend with our federal dollars, we get all of it back. So, it's 100% washed. So even though you're seeing a little bit increase here on federal funds, we're also seeing the same exact amount being spent on the expenditure side. Uh if we move down to the expenditures, just want to hit some of the highlights here. You'll see under administration, you actually see a decrease in the uh cost of our admin. Remember last year we paid for more than one superintendent. That's what that is. So it's coming off. We see a decrease and we're back to where we should be. our district support services. Um, as you know, this past year there was some reorganization when it came to um executive directors and so forth. So, we have some more costs there than we did the year before. You see the elementary secondary, you're up we're up at four or five, you know, four points 6%. Um this is due primarily to of course increases for the staff but at the same time um any new staff that we have in fact you know quite a few new FTEEs this year our vocational that's a big number 37% that fluctuates on a yearly basis when we look at our vocational is vocational dollars are only can only be used on 10th through 12th grade students. So sometimes we have a vocational licensed teacher that teaching some ninth grade and then we can't have them in this area. Um so the good news here is we're we're um seeing who they are and we're getting a better job getting reimburseed for it. Okay, moving on to special education. Um here we're seeing about a 5% increase just like we said with the rest of the staff. So this is this is good. We'll talk about that a little more detail here in a minute. Um that community education. You wonder why is community education in the general fund. Remember that's that unemployment summer unemployment uh seeing a little increase there. Um this past uh this past summer we spent out $63,000 when it came to just the special educ just the community education portion of that unemployment. Again, that's 100% reimbured instructional um support services. You're seeing a little higher increase there about 9%. Um that's the assist of principles that were added. deans that were added this past year. And then when you look at the um pupil support services, um these are new c new counselors we put in place. And we have a little new cost of transportation. Uh our sites is really all our custodial, all our LTFM and the general fund. Not too much of a change here. So that's all good. Insurance um markets increasing yearly about 10% right now. So we really actually feel good about a little less than that and we look at our cost. So with that quickly said, is there any questions on any of that? Go ahead, Matt. >> Yeah. Um, what did you say was the instructional support services? What does that encompass? I'm just looking at it jumping from, you know, 12.8 million in 2021 all the way to, >> you know, 23.5 million. >> That's all the deans that we put in place this past year, >> plus the increases for everybody else. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, were we do we not have I mean, looking back at 2021, is that just we've added a lot of deans since 2021? We've doubled almost instructional support services. Are there other Well, there's other things we've done support-wise in our districts. I can't even think of an exact example when we go back. >> Counselors go in there. >> Counselors actually sit in the pupil support. So, they're the next ones down. And same thing there. You've seen, you know, some pretty good increases over the year. We look at support for our students. So both of these areas are that >> okay >> CBAs and uh the three deans at the middle school. >> What was the first one? A CB What did you say? >> Collective bargaining. >> Oh, thanks. >> Sorry. Sorry for the acronyms. >> Um a qu I have a question. So you're reporting here that our total revenue um inc is is projected to increase to 2.84 compared to last year. Correct. And our expenditures are expected to increase 5.73, but you're still projecting our fund balance to grow by like 1.3%. >> Right. Based on the last slide, >> that is correct. Okay. And if you if you think back to last year and the year before, our increases were close to 3%. So definitely slowed consider. >> Okay. But then if we get if we hit this 8.3, then we're approximately one and a half% away from our policy goal. >> Yes. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yes. That's We're gonna hit that, >> right? So, by fiscal year, >> you're jumping way ahead, though. >> Yeah, you're the last page. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. I thought you were Okay. Thought we didn't go. Okay. Questions on the first page. >> All right. Keep going. >> Okay. Well, I just want to make sure we hit the highlights, huh? Make sure everybody understands. >> Um, second page. Um, here we look at the expenditures a little differently. We look at an object level. So, you're seeing it by, you know, salaries and benefits and purchase service and so forth. So you'll see that our salaries and wages up about 6% which we talked about. Um you see that 12% we have a this is a lot of insurance costs. We're seeing a lot of um employees bringing their spouses onto our plan because of such a a good plan. So you've seen a lot of lot of increased costs there. U service about the same as last year. our our supplies um lot some of this hits within our um our building um custodial budgets and then our capital expenses again are about the same. Now the 214% remember this is in draft form. I don't want anybody to panic on seeing that number. Um we we had found here over the weekend that we had a um an error how to add it together. So this number that says uh ne negative I mean positive $1.8 million there on the bottom is really only 822 which is practically the same number as the year before. So and the one the one ahead where you see a negative 2.4 4. Well, we need to that number is actually 148. So, the total is the same. Um, but I'm I'm sorry for the confusion there. That will be correct in the book that comes forward. But, so, um, yeah. So, then what I want to do, we can look a little more detail. Um, when you look at the next page, we put with the one with food service at the top. Again, you see the negative 151,000 in the fund balance. But when you look at their expenditures overall, I mean it's very consistent with what they've done over the last few years. So food service very very healthy fund balance. It's going very well. >> Can you remind us again what our maximum fund balance can be? >> It's supposed to be three months of our expenditures from the year before. >> Okay. >> And that's right probably about three and a half million. >> Okay. Great. >> So we're at three and eight. Yeah. We're pretty close. >> Okay. >> And then community service. you see a little just a little more detail of where the money is coming from there. We do have, you know, we do have a uh property tax piece, you know, the 1.3 million. We do get some state money at 1.3 million. So, it's not all all fees we collect, but of course, that is at 7.6. Again, a small increase to their fund balance of 30,000. Working to get that out of the hole internal service fund. Again, this is our estimate at this point where we think we're going to be and we hope it's going to be better. It's very hard to to know until we see the claims come. We don't know what it's going to be and we certainly were surprised uh last year. Um really took a taken a weighted average here over the last five years to uh do some estimating here, but we do expect it to be a little short to the end of the year. Okay. Now, the next portion is just more details um programwise. So you see that we have a report which is always in the budget book but we have expenditures um by object by program. So again usually you kind of look forward you know if we see something 10% over under you know what's going on there. So again this uh superintendent's office we talked about that one that's a negative 40%. um instructional administration. Again, the reorg um in the district office, this person isn't gone, they're just in a different place, you know, budget wise. So, we don't that savings isn't real, it's just somewhere else. Um school principles, um they're about 8 86% um change. Uh second next page, again, this is there's a different administrative areas. You see here, it's where we shifted people over. So, you're seeing a 26% um increase. These aren't new people. They're just um in a new place. Uh same with the other administrative support. >> Um >> well, can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> Sorry, just going back to under the principles with >> I'm going back page. um with the me membership piece changing that significantly. Is that >> sorry >> going from76,000 to $600? Are we not covering memberships for things anymore? >> I have to go back and look at what they what they spent their memberships on. Lots of times when we look at our element well all of all of our buildings, you know, they're allotted so many funds and they sometimes don't budget enough in a certain area. And I think this is what's happening here. So you see the budget for this year is $600. That's what they telling me they're going to spend 600 bucks, but you see that last year they spent quite a few dollars. So um they were still within their total budget in their building. Um but a lot of it got spent here. But I have to add I'd have to go ask them exactly what they spent those dollars on. Okay. um you get to the back page after we get packed the past the administration you know you don't see a big changes you see under legal services um we did had some large bills in 25 um where we ran um you know $260,000 last year we're running much less we're about halfway through the year we're at 74,000 so that that budget has been dropped to 150 and then the school elections bottom of that page you see 109% well that's because we're doing two elections So, it's going to be double on double what we usually do. I get to the next page. You see a huge number under title two. We have some funds in title two that have been carrying over and carrying over and carrying over the last few years. They haven't been spent and all of a sudden we need to spend them. So, that's what's happening there. It's a one-time, but of course, we have these funds in hand. So, it's not really a new expense. These are totally covered. >> Can you explain what title two is? Maybe we'll have Tracy explain. >> Yeah. Yep. Um title two uh is funding that we have and we can choose some different categories that it falls under. Professional development mentoring is another one. So we are spending some of those funds on our mentoring program. We're also um wanting to um uh you heard Jamie and Nicole talking about our EL teachers and supporting them with professional development. Um we have some funding that we're um setting aside for that as well. >> Great. Thanks. Okay, another number looks kind of big. Look at that business number 230. Again, this goes handinhand with the vocational budget and if they're in the business areas because they're teaching nth grade kids and not the older kids. So, it kind of shifts around. Um, so the way the way the state wants us to of course report it is vocational separate from some of these other vocational classes that we do in the high school that aren't technically vocational. And if you look at actually the volume of these dollars is not very much big percentage of dollars. Okay. So we get into the next page. You see that all these dollar all these dollars are pretty much behaving in the way they should. Um industrial education about halfway down the page you see that minus 20 again that's tied to vocational in the business. So we're up places down other places but in the end it's about the same. We go to the next page with the one with the stem on the top of the page. You see that under secondary individualized instruction, these are some new intervention dollars that we're spending. Again, these are the total volume here isn't huge, but the percentage looks huge, but at the same it's only a 20 27% increase. Um, additional time in summer. This is our targeted services program. We spent a little here less here this last year in special education. You see overall we're at 5.2%. 2%. But you're seeing that uh the actual salary is up 1.8 um but purchase service is down 1.6. So we're seeing the increase in our sal in our salaries. That's because we're we're getting some of our contracted people from last year replaced with employees. So you want seeing that shift. Um, again, community education, the unemployment, um, again, not $10,000 is relatively small, but it says 20%, but this is 100% covered. Um, you look at general, um, instructional support again. Um, remember we added an assistant principal, a couple of them this year, >> Lake Mary, and Hive View. >> Yeah. So, I'm just trying to hit the highlights. If you have any questions, let me know. Okay. Um, we look at secondary counseling. That's where we added some counselors. You see there increase there of 49%. Of course, that's our new employees in in our uh in our school district supporting our students. And we get down to the end, you see that our overall our increase 5.7%. So, it does bounce around every year. Um, things move, things are done in different place. Sometimes we're told by the state to put things on different place. >> Go ahead, Matt. Yeah. >> Uh I had a question on the transportation. It looks like it went up a little over $800,000, 7.4%. Is that is that a contract increase or it's two? It's two pieces. The contract has increased this year of 4% which built into the contract. The other is added transportation service. Remember, we do have we do have more students. We've got to move more students. So that's that's what that is. And then if you go to the last page, sorry here, just a little history of what's happening with our fund balance. And like I said, you can see from 23 to 24 and 24 to 25, we saw, you know, 3% increases, which was tremendous, right? Really put us in a good financial position. So that's slowing because of added pieces that we put in this year. Um, so we do expect about 8.3%. Um, so we're not to 10 yet. Keep working on it. Would it be fair to say that potentially, let's say it that way, by fiscal year 27 then make another Okay. >> No way. >> No. No. I'm just candidly telling I don't see a way. Uh but but uh we are, you know, we are going to, as I said in in our last uh my last opportunity to speak to this, I mean, we're we're going to have to get into object and program and see what what we can do about that. Um or uh shifting priorities to put money where it needs to be. Um, but I'll stand by the fact that uh uh our long-term prognosis uh for doing some of the bigger things and and I've been working on this quite a bit, you know, because we get a lot of um statements in different different places from different locations in the district about needs, right? uh and and wants and um I think a while back the major conversation was we were talking about facilities and then should it be integrated with a teaching and learning long-term vision plan and all that and so I've taken that to heart um but the bigger things like seven period day in high school uh or if we want to reduce class sizes that has a facilities component and it has a uh a hiring component. What does all that cost? You've asked me that before. So, I'm costing all that out. Uh, you know, I think there's been a couple of opportunities here. Uh, one that sticks out in my mind, uh, I can't recall the art teacher's name, but I stop in her class all the time. I feel bad I don't remember her name. Um, you know, she talked about the challenges they have with how and if you go back in history with Lakeville, we cut art and we cut music and we cut all that stuff back in 2008 and then we worked hard to bring it back and this is as far as we've gotten. So, if we want to go the next step with that, um, you know, what does that cost? So, I've itemized all these. There's more coming. Uh, and Bill and I have been talking about, okay, when's the when do we start having that conversation more holistically, but that's a long way to say that from a financial stance of the district, the gened formula is never going to get us where we would like to go. So that means operating levy or future bonds. That's that's the only path. and how we communicate that um more broadly. I think it's it would be irresponsible to just throw any number out there. It should be based on some very um uh defined priorities and um that's a collective process of trying to figure out what those are. >> Okay, Carly? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think um it's always nice to see kind of that upward swing, but also to acknowledge that those big swings were related to cuts. And so the fact that I think as a board member, my personal perspective is as long as we're continuing to move in the positive direction, we can't expect these like big percentages unless we're making significant cuts, which I don't think we want to be doing at this point. we want to be growing um our what we're offering and keeping our staff and all of those kinds of things. Bill, the one question I did have is um I I don't maybe we talked about this before, but it's the first mention I see of the anticipated $800,000 deficit and the insurance um that we're going to be taking out of the general fund. Right. >> Well, no. I I mentioned that earlier. We can actually borrow the money from the general fund. So, we're not just going to cover >> Well, there's two components to it. The first is um I I told Bill that we need to present this in um real terms um trying and taking a fiveyear I think we took the five-y year a five years >> u and juxtapose that against what what is potentially our insurance bill. It could be less. Yeah, it could be. >> But I don't want I I don't think it would be appropriate to not do some sort of estimating based on some kind of real number. Um, you know, it could be more, but I also asked him to check in on borrowing as a solution if we needed to go there. I don't right now we don't have to go there. Um, but we could or or you don't borrow and you say, you know, let's say that number lands right at 800,000. Do you deal with that through your unassigned fund balance? That's these are all options, but or do I cut elsewhere on our expenditures in order to avoid that problem. So there's priority of how you deal with that, but seeing it is the first part of knowing how to deal with it. >> But the anticipated where we're going to be at is accounting for what in the 8.3% is that anticipating the $800,000 >> included or deficit. >> Okay. >> I I guess one more point just to say on insurance and we all know that insurance is starting to squeeze us. We're going to see some big increases next year. Okay. So that's going to be something we have to put in as new expenditures that we're not used to doing. So back to trying to get that fund balance to grow. It is going to slow quite a bit and we're going to be squeezed quite a bit. >> Yeah. >> Our portion of that. >> Yeah. >> Our portion. >> Yeah. Matt, >> uh is is some of that, you know, we're showing a second, you know, decrease essentially in that balance two years in a row. Is it because our our fiscal year splits in the middle of the summer and the summer is when we saw a heavy usage? >> Well, yeah. summer >> insurance plan, >> excuse me. Summer, we usually always see some increased usage just because that's when a lot of our staff are at home and they have time and they're not taking time off to, >> you know, have to go to the doctor. So, that's a good thing, but at the same time, it is a time that cost us a few more dollars during that period. So, but like what Michael has said, um, we looked at a five-year average. So went back, you know, what's happening with our expenditures on a yearly basis and what would we really expect it to be this year. So that's what I did. And we're showing that $800,000 deficit in the fund balance >> potentially. Potentially it like you say it could be better. We we don't we just don't know and we won't know until we get to July. >> Yeah. >> So >> well I can't imagine anyone could have predicted the two-year swing that we just had. No, that was totally right. >> Just what happened? Y >> Okay, any other questions? So, this will come to next meeting as well. >> Next meeting, um I'll I'll bring this back. We'll have the budget book for you in detail >> and we'll walk back to some other pieces. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Bill. >> So, I'd just like to note too that in the budget book because there's been a lot of conversation about how we're depicting the the uh the budget. So, um the last few pages on here, um sorry, set my glasses down. Um we have the general fund expenditures by object and by program and they're all they're all laid out with the 25 26 and the variance plus the percentage difference. So um I mean that's that's a the level of detail reporting on EUAR's design reporting uh which is our requirement for uh it's the uniform finance and accounting reporting system. This is how we get audited. Um I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable with the fact that it's being laid out in that level of detail. I think this is appreciated by board members and I like to see the categories both in dollar and percent. So, >> and I think I also shared with you adjusting and showing variance in in dollars for each of the object and programs as well and we'll continue to do that for you uh as well. So hopefully that level of fidelity is satisfactory. >> Does that work for everyone? >> Thank you. Great. She did. >> Okay. Um, last item on our agenda today is going over um board procedures and protocols. So, um I don't think since we since I became chair, we haven't had an opportunity to discuss as a team like how we want to um do board m business together. And so, I've been kind of over the last month or so keeping track of a number of things that um I think Carly and I as chair and vice chair are interested in going over today. And we've consulted with Superintendent Bowman on a number of these things. Um, executive cabinet like you're welcome to stay but also text to go if you don't want to stay that's fine too. Um, so it's up to you. Um, say leave but also >> it's up to you. You can stay. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> Thank you for coming. >> Please stay. Okay. So, one of the things I I was interested in just starting out with because I know we all haven't had an opportunity to um do MSBA training in particular. I don't know Tony if you've had an opportunity to, but I I went to the MSBA um conference a few weeks ago and attended um phase three on how to build a high performance uh schoolboard team. I found these two things um just insightful. Um and I think many of us have seen this before. Um but one of them was around how to how to build like a a high performing team. Um and so I thought just going over this briefly um to remind ourselves kind of what's what MSBA recommends. So um real briefly I'll just kind of summarize this. The first one is that everybody understands our role as a board and I think the chart below which I know when we did training um with MSBA before articulated um you know what the school board governs and what the superintendent manages um and that that this chart helped me kind of you know put into buckets like the things um that we're responsible for and then what we're asking um the superintendent um and through his delegation to to implement. Um, another thing around a high performance team is that um, we're skilled in group leadership, that we have a high degree in trust in in one another. Um, that our interactions occur in a supportive positive environment to the extent uh, possible and that we come to this table um, you know, assuming good intent and that respect is shown for for our team. Um, the expectations for our group is very high and that goals are stretched with each other um, and for the district. feel like we have shown that quite a bit already, but um just continue to to push the board um is not dominated by one individual or a subgroup and that we want to make sure that everyone participates um and has a voice at this table because we all bring different expertise and knowledge and um perspectives to these issues. Um that we have a process for things like decision-m which I think is our Robert's rules. um for conflict resolution and meeting management. Um so we have policies on some of these um but I think there is some work we could we can do on this topic um that were future focused. So um when we're making decisions, we're trying to think about, you know, way out into the future, how will this decision support our long-term plans? Um and then that we evaluate ourselves periodically. Um so I just wanted to to share that from the conference. uh any thoughts on that or perspectives or things that you're like, "No, we don't need to do that." >> This is always good reminder centering in terms of our role. Um I think one of the challenges kind of coming into a board with a bunch of people that we don't necessarily know is you do have to have a high level of trust and that's like usually you're giving trust. I mean, giving trust to people to start with, but I do wonder if we can kind of work on some trust building and some of that just occurs through um actually spending time together away from the table and obviously not doing any sort of board related business, but just getting to know each other more. >> Um because to me, that's how you build trust. >> Yeah, we can think about that. Anything any other reflections? No objections to that here. >> I was surprised at the conference how many full schoolboard teams were there together. It was kind of amazing actually. Um and I think especially for outstate teams you you know they're excited to like they travel together and stay overnight and go have drinks or whatever together. Um so it's kind of interesting. So just to be clear, if we were to have an activity with the board, as long as we are not doing any sort of board related business, >> correct? >> That is okay. Y as long as it >> Yeah. >> Yep. We can't be discussing business. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So that might be something we think about. >> Yeah. Um Okay. >> Um Matt, did you have something you want to say? >> It's like paintball. >> What? Yeah. Throwing or Yeah. I mean, there's lots of >> That'd be fun. Honestly, I think >> I want to come to that. >> Schoolboard versus administration. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Mike, what do you think? >> Yeah. I think if people have ideas like how to build relationships and and any one of these things on how to improve um please reach out and you know, we want this to be effective both for our experience but more importantly for for the students and families we serve, right? So, um, the better we're here at the table, I think the better decisions we make and, um, the better we do for for 194. Um, with that, um, I think around board communication, we've, um, Carly and I have met with superintendent to talk about a couple of different, um, avenues here. Um, I think just a couple reminders. Um, and a lot of this I took from the MSBA template handbook. Um, which I know we haven't adopted, but yeah, Matt, go ahead. >> Yeah. Are we Is the handbook in process? >> It is in process. >> Okay. Because are we talking about protocols that will go into the handbook? >> Not necessarily. I mean, they could, >> but um I think for now it's just like how does for the next year, how do we want to operate? And they they could inform the handbook, but they don't have to. >> Have a handbook for a year. >> Well, no, we could have a handbook in a year. The goal for the handbook is to have it ready for the next round of um onboarding. So like it will be done by >> Okay. >> January. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So not >> that's 11 months. >> You know the handbook the MSBA template handbook is lengthy. So I'm not suggesting um we're not going to go through all the pages from that tonight but just some like general themes. So, one of the things and >> I was disappointed. >> Some of this has to also do with that Tony, you're like a newerish board member and I don't know if you've like heard all of this necessarily. So, wanting to make sure that um in a we can do bonding things of course as long as we're not talking about board business, but we do have to be careful about how many how many board members are talking to each other about any particular topic that will come before the board um because it could uh violate open meeting law. And so, um, what is suggested by MSBA is that, um, uh, you try not to like have side conversations or even like, um, conversations where like if I talk to Paul and then Paul talks to Kim, that's considered a conversation um, amongst three board members even though I'm not talking directly to Kim. And so I think just keeping um keeping mind of um how you're doing business and not not breaking open meeting is important as um I think we've learned that Minnesota has one of like the most strict open meeting law policies in the country. And so um it I think it it's easy to to potentially like violate it because um it doesn't take a lot to to be considered a meeting. Um, so to that end, if you have suggestions on board topics or questions that that you need me to take action on or or um the two of us, Carly and I together, if you guys could send an email to me and CC Carly, that way we're tracking what's going on. And it cannot include one more board member. So like um if like Matt emailed me and a CC Carly, it can't also include Kim because then it's we have a quorum on that one topic. Um the only way we can we could do this is if like information needs to be shared like the the ANI plan that was shared right that can be sent to all board members so long as there's not two-way communication. So one way communication is fine but if there's interaction um or discussion on a topic um it can only be again um three board members max. So if you have suggestions on topics send them to me and CC Carly. Carly's gonna help me keep track of things. Um, and yeah, if anybody has any thing they'd like to suggest otherwise, I'm happy to entertain it, but I was trying to think like how to keep it organized. >> We'll keep like a running document in terms of top topics of interest and hopefully try to bring things forward, especially those that might have multiple members interested, >> right? >> Yeah. Um similarly with um emailing questions to the district office, what um I think Michael has requested um with consultation from us is that um uh you can send Michael a question. If you could CC the two of us again for tracking purposes and then Michael will triage accordingly. So if the question requires like Tracy to answer it, he'll connect with Tracy. But what um I think a challenge has been is that if we're all emailing staff members whether or not we want them to because we're board members, they kind of drop all their work. Um and prioritize the response to us rather than kind of keeping on track with what what they are trying to accomplish. Um and so this way, Michael can kind of serve as referee and um triage questions based on the known workload of your staff. >> Yeah. Well, here's what happens. All right. Any board member, my staff knows uh you're a board member. You are going to get a response or an answer, but we're also going to internally we're trying to triage that to get it to the right place. So, it's it is it depending on the nature of it, it can be disruptive. I would just like if I could get it, I can streamline that by saying, you know, either Emily, make sure it gets to the right person or I can go direct to the to the uh staff member and say, here's where it is in your priority because I'm trying to run a district and there's a lot of stuff going on and we want to answer your questions. I mean, I've tried to be really diligent about that and if you don't get an answer right away, it's not because I don't want to answer you. is because I got to fit it into the priority or there's some research that has to be done and I don't want to give you a halfbaked answer because that'll just frustrate you more. >> So, does that process work for everyone? I think Michael, you've also committed to like let's say Carly emails you a question, you'll research it with your team if needed. >> Typically, I'll answer everybody >> and then you'll respond back to everyone >> so that everybody has the information. um if it's sensitive or something more personal, I try to use my judgment on something like that and I'll probably call I mean probably almost everybody here I've called or texted once or other. Um I want to be responsive and professional with your inquiries, but I also want to manage the plethora of things going on. And sometimes you don't know. We're in the middle of crisis number four of the day and you're just innocently asking your question and we can't get to it right away all the time. But I do try to tell you I can't get to it right now or I don't >> Yeah, >> you're very timely. >> You are. >> I try to be. >> I think so, too. Um, I think this carries over from Matt your practices, but correct me if I I have it wrong, but I think past practice with media is that if the newspap a newspaper or news channel reaches out, either I can respond as chair or I would pass it to Grace to respond based on the topic. Um, but I'm also happy to get input on how you would like a response so that you know it's a it's the voice of the board. It's just not my opinion, right? It's it's the district and or the board's opinion about something. Um, and likewise, I commit to responding on behalf of um the board to all the emails that we receive if they're addressed to the whole board. There's been a lot lately, so bear with me um in getting through them all. Um, Carly had a great suggestion for me today to put something in the emails that says if you're if you're comfortable with this, all board members have received your email and I am responding on behalf of the board so that people know like all seven people have received it. Um, and that what I'm sending is not Amber Cameron's opinion on a particular topic, but the board the board >> needs to be response. Okay, >> there there is an automatic response that people receive, right? That says something like the board received. >> It doesn't seem very personal, you know, like >> Yeah. >> It's like an auto response. >> Well, that's what it is. >> But they're voluminous. It's >> I know it's it's respectful to acknowledge. Uh it's not respectful to not respond at the end anyway. But >> so yeah, people do receive automatic messages that if you want. >> Sure. Okay. Um >> can we go back one thing just to clarify with regard to also with meeting with members of the executive team. Should we that should also be funneled through >> through Michael? >> Yes, >> I would I'd appreciate it. >> Yeah, professional courtesy, but sometimes it's personal, so I don't you know >> I don't get too uh uptight about it. And I also know that I live in Reelsville and there are things that happen. uh I just put it on my staff that I need to know about it otherwise I'm going to get blindsided and nobody enjoys that experience. >> So ideally they go through >> that would be my preference. >> Okay, great. Um and then going back to emails that come to us board members are h you're more than welcome to respond obviously in addition after I send the we received your message. So if you feel like you want to but don't you don't have to obviously. Um, anything that you want being done differently with any of those things? >> Well, media inquiries are uh can be very sensitive depending on what's going on. Typically, if there's a media outreach to a board member directly uh that we haven't received at the district and I'll just my most recent experience with Matt is he's been very good about like, hey, this is going on. Um, and sometimes I know, sometimes I don't know. Um, and it's good to be coordinated uh on on a response because I would not like to be put in a box that I can't get out of. >> And I'm certainly not going to usurp a board member's authority or position on on a you know, a sensitive topic. So, um, the more coordinated we are, the better. Typically the board chair responds to media if there's a response from the board but that's internally coordinated I would assume >> and then we would need to know as administration because somebody's going to come to us and say you know what about this or what about that so the more coordinated we are the better the trick is and sometimes you have to drop everything and deal with it because it can be very sensitive uh and very high profile right um and I can think of the times in covid when that happen. I can think of times when the incident with George Floyd occurred. There's things like that that just are really big. Uh and they're they're even bigger than all of us, frankly. >> And you know, we want to be responsive to our community. So, I just tread light tread carefully around median. Let's stay coordinated. I >> think that I think the goal is to not get into it if we didn't have to. >> Correct. Yeah. Right. >> Okay. Um then similarly when we're interacting in with public um I think we have our day-to-day encounters right with stakeholders that we're talking about issues and so to the extent like what if you learn about things that would be helpful for decisions obviously bring that into the conversation from people that you're talking with. Um we also because of the data data dashboard that has been developed and continues to be um um or is is continuing to evolve um we think it's important that we're thoughtful about how things are shared from that um for non-public um non-publicf facing information. So there are things in the data dashboard that you know we don't put on a website or we don't share in media. Um and so I I think it's important to to be conscious of that and that while we have the ability to look at that data um the board should make a decision whether or not that data is goes public um through like presentations or um conversations that we have with with individuals because I don't think that was the intent of the data dashboard was to take the data and then um share it. Um, and so I think having a thinking about our process and how we want that to look >> the data dashboard, Amber, that that that's a good point. It was really put together for us to make decisions, identify issues, and to and and to change policy, change whatever we needed to change, right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> I guess I guess I'm curious as to what your thoughts are. I mean what you mean like if someone's just like saying >> like what's the concerned use? I guess >> I think I think we just as an example. >> Yeah. >> Um and we did talk to Michael and I can't remember if Tracy was involved. So, we did a presentation, Brian and I did like showing other uh schoolboard members some of the data dashboard like, hey, this is what you can do, you know, for the benefit of them looking at expanding their data metrics. >> Um, >> and was it our private data? You mean that was shared? >> Well, so none of it's private technically. It's all >> public non-public facing. Well, yeah, you can't get on the dashboard, but the data is all available publicly. So, anybody can request the data. >> Um, nothing, no personal identif identified information or identifiable information is available to us through the data dashboard. It's all metrics, you know, >> but just to show people like, hey, these are the different categories. Um, I assume that's not what you're talking about, but are there specific concerns? Just so >> I understand what you mean. I have concerns about the level of data that we have access to when I sent you an email about it when we were looking at the data dashboard because I don't think that we should have metrics down to comparing this second grade classroom to that second grade classroom to this elementary building to that elementary building. I'm comfortable with board members knowing the average or the overall like this is how second graders are doing within our district. But when it goes down to comparing against another elementary school, that puts administrators in a tough position. When it goes down to looking at, well, I can see how this second grade classroom is doing in comparison to that second grade classroom. Again, I feel that goes into the administrative lens where um it can it puts our teachers in a bad light, too. like we don't have all the information about what goes into leveling that classroom or what um is in each specific classroom or the population that's in each specific building. And I think that that data can be interpreted um that and it could negatively impact relationships within our administration and within our staff. That's just my opinion on it. I don't think we need that level. >> I think it's a different question. I guess my question is on the use of it or >> yeah I think um I think it's important that data is presented in context right and so I would never want us to get in a situation where we're just holding up a slide on you know how a how a school is performing and saying like look at this second grade level at this school compared to this second grade level at this school and saying one is doing better than another >> without knowing the student demographic. So that like we just had this conversation, right, about the EL populations, maybe one is a higher EL or special ed students or there's so much context that goes into that data and if it's presented out of context, I think it can set um I think I think that it can mislead the community to thinking bad school, good school >> without teacher, good teacher or or teacher at that level. >> Yeah. Um, >> the other side of that though, and and I know some of these discussions took place when we were talking about putting a dashboard together. >> The other side of that is, you know, are there aberrations? And that was one of the reasons that we were looking at a data dashboard. If all we're looking at is an average all the time, average all the time, average all the time, are are we really seeing aberrations? And and when that gosh what did I think that started last fee a year ago February today is this February yeah a year ago we started conversations on that and and that's part of what we were looking at or attempting to look at are there aberrations good aberrations that we might want to duplicate or bad aberrations as to okay what needs to be is can the board do anything to help this bad aberration um and can the board do anything to you know um bring forward a good aberration. So I, you know, I know I know we don't want to get down to um, you know, Mrs. Smith in second grade at at, you know, Lake Marian is doing, you know, I I don't think we need to get down to that, but we do need to get down to grade levels and in in even between schools. And I think part of that is um what I hope we'll eventually see with the data dashboard. I guess I would disagree with you on that just based on the fact of what is our role as a board is policy. Um we talk about curriculum and if we're talking about curriculum, we're setting the curriculum for all second graders within the district. That's our role, right? But then it's the administrator's role to make sure that that in that curriculum is implemented with fidelity. And that would be the level of detail that you're discussing like well that this would be like a one-off. What's going on in this building? Like what is that teacher that's doing so great? Or what is this going on? The implementation of curriculum is done. >> We set the curriculum, they implement. >> But but I would suggest that without knowing the the the things I was mentioning, how can we as a board, how can we as individuals on the board, if if Tracy comes to us and says, I I need this curriculum. I need this curriculum. This is why. Okay. If we don't understand the aspects of and and I'll go back to just using the term data dashboard again. Um if we don't understand those pieces, how can we make a decision an appropriate decision for Tracy or anybody >> in regards >> because we're looking at the grade level as a whole. >> Yeah. But >> I mean that's what we're looking at is how second graders are doing because that's where we are responsible to the state. like we have to report back to how our students are doing at specific grade levels on our state standards. Like that's what we're that's what as a district we're responsible for. So we don't need to know >> the detail like that's what they do. >> I was just going to say I feel like our our role is systems level work, right? and that the the goals that we set with the metrics was around large um what's the word like looking at looking at a metric at a macro level. So we want to move second grade x% right or well actually we I don't think we even did my grade we what we want to move students by x%. And so for me, the data that we need access to then to make those decisions is at the macro level and that the building level or the the district level staff are the ones to decide what levers need to be pulled so that that macro data continues to improve. Um, I don't think it's the the role of the board to to legislate how like a resource or um a a strategy would be implemented at a in a particular school at a particular grade. But our job is to to make sure the overall system is heading in a positive direction. >> Yeah. And Amber, I'm not suggesting that we manage u a second second grade class in an elementary school. What I'm suggesting is, you know, Bill showed us $20 and some million dollar budget and and millions of dollars go into curriculum, millions of dollars go into other resources. Okay, we need to understand below a macro level what's going on. If again I'm going to use the word aberancies, if there are aberancies, good ones or bad ones, so that we can help make decisions. I mean it's it's part of our decision- making not manage let me be clear about this Amber >> I'm not suggesting the board should manage a second grade second grade class in Lake Marian what I am suggesting is the board should have enough information i.e the objective data to help make decisions on whether it's Tracy's curriculum issues or programs or whatever or whatever the next thing is. So, so anyway, >> do you think we could agree to that that having that level of access I think it's at the um building school grade level, right? I forget where we're at. is is something that we can utilize to make informed decisions, but that that is not intended to be a public facing document. >> I've never Yeah. Okay. That's I think that's the issue. >> That's a different to me that's a totally different question than what I'm discussing here. >> I'm not suggesting that we should put a billboard billboard out there with >> I mean that's our that's our information to know. >> So we could like commit to that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not suggesting we should run around town. >> Yeah. No. And I think we are talking about two different initials. I mean we kind of strayed from your initial question >> saying on where we left off. >> Can I just add my two cents and it kind of goes I mean these are tools to evaluate the performance of the superintendent which is what our job is. It's not just policy. Um the board is perfectly fine apparently of micromanaging the budget and looking down at every line item. Why not education? >> Right. Um, I think especially when we're looking at, you know, the data that's available publicly, you know, the the standardized test scores and we see it dropping, you know, for eight years in a row. Um, we we want we should be asking those questions. What's going on? You know, and then like talking to Jamie, like I want to know what programs we're spending money on that are effective and are not effective. >> Um, and what we're changing to be more effective as a district. Yeah. >> So, some of that, you know, again, like Paul was saying, if we're looking at one second grade team is just crushing it over here and another one's not like, okay, what are and it's just even asking being able to acknowledge it and ask the question, you know, Superintendent Bowman, are you are you talking to them just to be able to ask the question to say, hey, what what practices are they doing over here that we can maybe replicate or what additional resources need to be allocated to this other second grade team? >> Yeah. So, >> and I think we all want to do that. I think Yeah, it's strain. I think >> I think that's the job of Tracy to be presenting, not to put a job on you, Tracy, but like Tracy would provide a summary level data of like what are the trends that we're seeing, especially like these are our goals for the metrics. Are we moving toward that or not? Where are we seeing? So I actually don't agree that we're getting down to I would expect Tracy and team to be getting down to where are we seeing those really great things happening what are some challenges or barriers that are coming up and how are we going to address them and that then she comes to the board saying given XYZ this is what we need from the board this is what I'm recommending >> you know like these resources these interventionists that we put in place are doing amazing things or we need more liaison because they're doing amazing things like that's where I feel like our yes, the seeing the data and the trends and going in the direction we want them to go in is what we expect and and that's the information we use to evaluate the superintendent. But I'm not going to be getting down into comparing the grade different classrooms because I have no idea what's going on in those classrooms. So I to your point about like >> I don't think the point is for us to be sharing out can we share out hey our district our school board is doing really great things with regard to establishing this data dashboard here are the different metrics we're looking at I think that's fair like >> we're looking at you know graduation rates we're looking at you know but I don't think we should be sharing out our non-publicf facing data as you say >> so there's consensus kind of with that >> I think we're okay with that I don't I don't think we're saying we should be >> right >> putting that stuff out in the public. >> Yeah, I Yeah, I completely needed to be >> but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking the questions and trying to dig down and find out what's going on and looking at that data to make decisions. >> I go back to what with I agree with Karly like I I don't think we should have level access down to the grade level. I understand what you're saying but there's two faces to that conversation. And so yeah, I mean the conversation could be this is so amazing what this team is doing over here, but then the other conversation and the other side of that coin is well what what's wrong with this classroom and why isn't that teacher doing that? and then why is this building doing better than I mean you can still there's two sides to that coin like and it it opens up a conversation that again as board members that's not for us to decide like we don't we don't have any of the information about like how the evaluation system is in place for that or what coaching has happened with those individuals or what that building principle like what their goals are for the year and what they're working on. I just I just think like that's administration administration's job and I I just think it puts us in a place where that that's a dangerous conversation to have as a board. I think >> I think we all expect administr not not to talk about you both but expect administration to be doing that work right looking at the data using using the data to make informed decisions about how to improve at at a grade level building level and even even at a teach teacher level right so that is an expectation that's I mean >> it's an expectation but I mean in a district where we're already struggling to fill positions like if I was a teacher and I was coming to this district and I knew board members were having convers conversations based on my classroom versus another one. I would take that into consideration when I applied. >> Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I think um it seems like we can all agree that the non-publicf facing data at at the moment we have access at building grade level, >> right? >> But that that is not intended to be shared publicly um with with the public. >> Yeah, Amber, I don't think anybody's debating that. >> No, I completely agree with that. Great. Okay. Um, regarding meetings, we're going to return um back to doing like one regular business meeting a month and a work session a month so we can hash things out um like in this format and then with the hopes of the regular meetings um um you know being the time where we can approve and ask final questions. Something else um Michael and I have discussed is adding back a board communication section at the beginning where this it doesn't have to happen every meeting, but it's an opportunity like if we're getting a lot of emails about a particular topic like boundaries or the the um settlement with the teachers, we can provide like a statement about what's happening and just acknowledge or or in public comment if we want to um you know, we had a lot of people talk about something at the next meeting, we could follow up on that and so it's kind of a placeholder to just allow for updates to happen. And um Michael might do it sometimes or I'm happy to do it. So if you have ideas of what you want the board to um communicate out on these types of things, happy to happy to include items. >> So separate from like a board board member reports. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So announce >> I feel like board members report is more like what have we participated in and this is more like >> um a response to or an update on things that have been happening that aren't a formal agenda item. just to Brian brought this up um >> for example when um we were getting a lot of emails from teachers and he thought it'd be a good idea to give an update on where we're at with negotiations and so that was kind of the thought is like have a placeholder so that we have it on the agenda. It doesn't always have to be used but um >> it is part of the script like we say that we'll follow up >> later and we never do so. >> Okay. Well, I I would say that I think the script says that board or administration and we typically >> grab those and respond. >> Sure. Okay. Um for some things we might try, it might not be listed officially, but I might try to set some time parameters. So like you know the maybe in the next 20 minutes we can get through this item or you know whatever might make sense. Of course if we need more time we can do that but I would really like to avoid three-hour board meetings. Um when I I feel like a lot of what what pe what members want to say has been already surfaced. And my my goal is like to make every board member feel like their their perspective and voice has been heard to inform the decision. Um but but not necessarily to like to belabor things over and over again. So um we'll you know we'll kind of take that how it how it how it may and um some things need more time of course than others. Um but trying to be mindful of of efficiency >> combined with discussion >> and that was something that when Kim was chair for a period of time we had that in place. And I think I think the um what I would say is every board member needs to be mindful of the like if we have 10 minutes and we do want everybody heard that we make sure that everybody has time for input, >> right? And if it got to be like a super long discussion, we just said we're going to move this to the next agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, are people comfortable having public comment at the beginning of the meeting still or would you prefer it at a different time? >> I like it at the beginning. >> Are you guys okay with that? Okay. Um, and then I think you talked about you normally discussed is it still okay to record public comment? There was a time where it went off recording because it was just so contentious, but just confirming that everyone's comfortable, not not when we've been on the board, but prior to us that we're all comfortable with it still being recorded. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. >> Yeah. I think it has has to be part of our meeting >> per public comment was part. So yes, if we weren't comfortable with it being recorded, we would have to move it to before like before which you did, right? Or someone did. >> We did the first year. >> Yep. >> But if you want to approve any policies, it has to be at the first and second reading have to be where public comment is offered at the meeting. >> Right. Yep. Um Okay. Um Tony made a good suggestion to me just as we were eating Jimmy John's together um before this on unplanned we happen to be there together. >> So um technically following Robert's rules when we have a recommended action we should first take a motion on that item and then have discussion and then vote. Right now we're doing like discussion then the motion comes then we're doing more discussion and then we're voting. And so I feel like it'd be nice to get to on recommended actions, a motion is made and then we discuss and then we can say, you know, vote yes or no to that motion and maybe it fails, maybe it >> Yeah, there's there's there's two things about this. First off, last week um I noticed at one point we had discussion, then we made the motion, and then we talked again on the same thing for another 20 minutes. >> And it was like, okay, we're spinning our wheels here. We're just doing the same thing over and over again. And I was like, this is redundant at this point. And then the other thing I thought is that by doing it this way, um, you're focusing specifically on the motion that's on the table as opposed to the broader themes and the grand ideas that, um, are outside of that scope. And so it focuses the discussion a little bit better. Um, now you can still, you know, offer, you know, amendments. You can still, you know, withdraw it. You can still put it on a table. you can still do all sorts of different things with it, but you're focusing just on the business that's in front of you as opposed to everything outside of that. And that was um you know, one of the thing one of the the ways everybody's done the business here and and I'm coming in as the last one here. Um it's it's it's pretty informal. I mean, you guys do a really good job of just maintaining the direction and the and the the structure of the meetings. Um you don't need a parliamentarian. you just, you know, you're very informal as far as you're doing things. Um, but one of the disadvantages of that is that you end up doing, you know, spinning your wheels and having those three-hour meetings because of it. And so I think, um, just kind of getting to business, I mean, you know, kind of focusing on what's in front of you as opposed to everything outside of that might speed things along a little bit better. Well, I would add to if if we do have this goal of our work sessions are where we those are going to be our longer meetings that we are hashing out and the ideal is then end of month meeting. There can still be additional discussion but it's mainly like we've hashed out our things, it's time to do our business and move things along. So I think historically I've seen wide variety of that. Um but it would be good to get I mean ideally if we could get back to that. that would be helpful. The one the one challenge that might come up with that and I think this is what happened last week was something removed from the consent agenda where all of a sudden now it's >> okay discussion on consent agenda item and then is there a motion to approve the item you know >> but otherwise >> you make the motion first motion to approve then discussion and then it could be voted yeah or nay >> yeah I'm just thinking about how it's structured on our agenda items typically I think >> because I think the motion is I want to remove this for discussion Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Or the request rather. >> Okay. >> But I think like if you set the precedent that a board member contacts you in advance if they have an item that they want to remove from the consent agenda for discussion, then you would prompt it differently. You would just say >> ask for that. Whereas if nobody had said anything, then you're just asking for the motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. um scheduling um one a question for the group and it can be different for individuals if need be. I think we're struggling to get responses from people on and you may have experienced this too on what people can participate in. So, for example, um on the 21st there's the arts and activities festival and community ed has asked us to be greeters and I've heard from some people and not others. What is the best way to like nail down people if they can attend like email? Like email's the current mo mode. >> I just respond to the calendar invite. >> Yeah. >> Or calendar. Yeah, people can do and I'm happy to text too if that's helpful. I don't want to lecture >> like I barred people. >> I didn't I didn't respond to your email because I don't responded on invite. >> Okay. So either use front email calendar invite and if I don't hear from you in one of those are you okay if I send a text? Should that be like okay I just don't want to like miss anyone. >> Ideally people respond to their email right so that you're not >> that yes if possible. >> And ideally people are responding to Kim Ellison's email. >> Yes. from Kim calendar, >> right? Yeah. >> Cuz I think like that isn't necessarily the work that I want you to be doing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, you can also establish a default, right? If if the method of of notification is through the calendar, then that has a green check or an X. Or if it's email, a nonrely means you're not attending. Mhm. >> Mhm. >> And have a standard so that people aren't burdened with it. But I can also tell you that if you don't agree to that and discipline, execute on that, then people are going to get upset saying, "Well, I didn't know it was going on. I didn't get an invitation." >> I think the only tricky part is like for this one coming up, it's I think our calendar invite is for the whole day, but it's only we only need shifts of people and so We have to just figure out that how you know this seems so minor, right? But it's also like something that's taking up a lot of time. >> You say yes and and you say yes and your reply you say I can be there from this time to that time. >> Okay. So you can make a comment in your >> I can make a comment in your RSVP. >> Everybody needs to get up. >> We have the technology. >> Technology. We need a lesson on the technology. >> Okay. So it's a three mode like calendar invite. If that doesn't work, email and if that doesn't work, text. Is that good? And I know people can't come to everything, right? Of course. >> Um to that extent, I think similar to policy committee, I think, um Carly and I are interested in like sunsetting policy for now. um just because we have so many events that we're invited to that um Kim Ellson's argument which I thought was a good one was that that that is a lot of public engagement that we're not we're not even at all those things yet and so to the extent that we can fulfill those with one or two of us attending um we can see what gaps there are with groups and of course if any community member or group ever wants us to attend something or meet with them um they should definitely connect with with one of us. Um, and we will do that. Um, but just in terms of like having another committee, I don't know at this point if that's needed. That that's kind of your thought, right? >> Yeah. >> Spring is busy. >> I just think I think we're busy with a lot of things. And so, and if people have ideas, bring them forth. >> Okay. >> I feel >> to that um point there by myself. We won't hash this out today, but this is um I think where we left off on the committee assignments for our for the school district from um from 2025. And so I'll send out with this um an email including there's this like kind of um table that describes each of the councils and and committees. Um, but if you're interested in doing a different committee, even if someone else's name is attached to it, um, if you'd let me know and we can figure out who who would like to cover them. I think it's nice to rotate whenever if if people are interested in that. So, just because you're slotted for something doesn't mean you need to stay there. Um, and um, yeah, I don't Are there any questions right now on this? This is more like homework to take with and I'll send it to Brian, too. But I think ideally like we are we're splitting this more or less evenly. Um >> the chair usually does AMSD. >> Yeah. I don't think this has been changed like since 2026, but um like I think ideally, you know, we're representing all of these groups and the work is more or less evenly divided. Some of these councils meet a lot more frequently than others. Um, and so in the in the grid or in the matrix I'll send out, it kind of talks about that and the commitment that would be required. Um, but I think ideally we'd have one person assigned to each thing, but you can see like on some committees we've had more than one person interested. So I think two is fine. Um, so any questions on that? Otherwise, I'll just send this out for homework. Okay. And then >> So we'll talk about this at like the next work session. Yeah, I think next >> or next meeting late. >> What? >> Next work session. >> Yeah, I think not not the board meeting but work session. Yeah. >> And then um likewise with training um I had Kim Ellson run a report on um the training that that the board has done through MSBA. And um I think there are four of us that need phase 2 training which is the school finance training. And so um a question for the I'm included in that. Um for the four of us in that boat um we could either look at having MSBA come and do a training like I know um we had phase one come and do a training for the full board. We could do that and just the whole board can be invited or only the four of us that need it would be at it. Um or I also asked MSBA this week, but I have not heard back yet when their next virtual opportunity for that training is. And the reason I'm focusing on phase two is that um all board members in the state of Minnesota should have phase one and phase two training um to serve on the board. Um it doesn't specify when you have to have it done, but um that's that's the goal. So, I don't know if their preferences to like a group training for phase two or whatever the virtual is, people tap in if they're available. >> I don't >> I think group was good. I think it I think it may have saved us money last time to do it all at once. >> It same price. >> I think it's about the same price. Was it? >> Yeah, I think so. >> It's generally better though. And I might do it together. >> Yeah. I might even show up just as like a >> Okay. I guess that adds money. >> We can have Kim Kim look at costs. >> Um we can have Kim look at cost and it could be um scheduled like during one of our work sessions so we don't have to add another meeting potentially. But yeah um are there other things that people wanted to talk about regarding like our procedures or protocols or communication style? Okay. Um are you thinking? >> Yeah, I'm just thinking. Sorry. >> Okay. No, you have to apologize for thinking. >> I didn't mean to raise my hand. I was >> um Okay, with that, um uh I guess we'll adjourn and we'll see each other in two weeks. >> 24th. >> Yeah, 24th. >> Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. What? >> Yeah, there's no make a motion.