It's my father's day. I'm so glad I did. I have to help this empty. Father's Day is super fun. How many hours? There's only two. That's good, Martha. All right. All right. Moving on to the last agenda item. Uh some board policies have come before the board. Um so we'll start with 904. If uh Amy or Charles want to just comment ahead four. Um well this went in front of the uh policy committee and we went many months it seemed like round and around and even thought about moving it to a completely different policy and then ended up coming all the way back around. So, this went from policy committee um with an extensive amount of people um and then we looked at it multiple times, sent it to legal I think two or three times um and director Herman can definitely correct me if I'm wrong on that number. Uh and then we settled on this which I think everyone had extensive language on. Dr. Thomas was fully involved in this as well as a number of staff members and uh as well as the policy committee and I think we are all extremely grateful for everything that everyone gave input on when it came to this policy itself and we're very happy where it is. Questions Mary. So basically if it went round and round there's two three additions and then the implementation um you know and I I've got some concerns about it but if those are the only additions what was the Can I just kind of get like a cliffnotee or a summary of of what and director Herman if you could help out um from what the cons you know what happened and I can why the round and round tie into this if you don't mind so originally uh when this first came up I think this was February um a new policy was uh presented to the policy committee uh that got brought up for as far as materials themselves. Okay. So, stop right there. When you say new policy, did that policy come from you, Director Herman? Nope. It came from me. I'm getting there. Okay. Yep. Yep. So, because of items that were missing from here, because there is guidelines that also go with this. So that's where I was attempting to fill the gap. So that went to legal. Legal gave their opinion on it. We then brought this after discussion with key staff. Uh and this is what was presented to the policy committee. Did I answer your question? Hopefully. Uh kind of. But I kind of get the gist of where the where the issues probably were uh given the minimal changes. Um but okay. Um I do sorry um members of the board, do you mind if I just add something to that a little bit maybe? Um I think the the concerns that came forward um that there there may be some continued concerns until we can update the the guidelines and procedures around this is the confusion between um all other all other districts that we were comparing to um and MSBA that ours includes the and employees in the title um but there wasn't specific um guidelines for that. it was just confusing that it had that in there but not other other areas. Um and then there was a common um agreement um from the policy advisory committee and the individuals that were working on this policy that there wasn't there's a there is a process to present a concern about a material that's out there but there wasn't it wasn't documented in a procedure of how to bring forward that concern. Um so in terms of looking at that original um proposal or the of the policy dividing it out maybe is a good way of saying it director Johnson between what do we need to put in policy versus what could we um take and build some guidelines or procedures around um so that we weren't being too restrictive in policy and we were able to still um expand upon in in a procedure. So I think those are the main discussions that we had at the policy advisory committee if I recall accurately. Um and the that's also where legal guidance came into play um to separate out some of the original proposal but keep in these these other the other additions that you see here. Yes. Thank you for clarifying that. Um I have a few concerns. Um, well, number one, I don't know why we're looking at this since we just did this a year ago. That's number one. Number two, I wasn't there at the policy advisory committee meeting because I don't do that usually. That's why we have committees and we trust what happens in those committees. But I received a few questions from a couple of members of the policy advisory committee that said this is not what the majority of the policy advisory committee agreed to what we're looking at right now. So that's concerning to me. Um that a few people said that. Um again I wasn't in the room. Um but so that is concerning to me. So I'd like to know about that. I also is am under the understanding that this policy was presented to the policy advisory committee as something the board wanted. And I'm not so sure I agree with that since I never said that I wanted to revisit this and especially since we only revised this a year ago. Um so there's that. Um, and then I have very strong feelings about some of the language in this policy that was added. Um, I have as a board member, I have zero interest in being the sign police in our district. Um, policy 209, which we are going to look at today as well. Um, it says it recognizes that my responsibility to see that schools are properly run, not to run them myself. And that's what I think this policy does. It gives us more power than what we have. And I have zero interest or time quite frankly to be the sign police for our district. Um, and just one more thought. Um, my my daughter was very concerned about a friend of hers this past school year, a couple of months ago, and she went to a teacher to talk about this because she said, "Mom, she has signs in her classroom that say she is a safe space. That says she is a safe space. so I can go and talk to her about this. So why why are we doing this? Please, why are we doing this? Why are we the sign police for our teachers, for our staff? I understand if somebody's offended or burdened which is under this purpose which we don't define and I know that was there before and I voted for it but reading it again I don't like it because I we can't define what is burdensome or offensive to someone. We say we have our school patrons are a captive audience. Well, that's school. They're a captive audience throughout the day. So, I don't get it. So, yes, I am fired up about this. I have zero interest in being the sign police when people like my daughter go to people's classrooms because of the signs they have in their classroom that say I am a safe space because she was concerned. So, a I would like to know how this was presented to the policy advisory committee. I'd like to, you know, when I have a couple of them coming to me and saying, "This isn't what we agreed to forward." I'd like to know more about that. Can I ask clarifying question to you? Yeah. Um, as far as signed police, can you point that to me? Are you referring to I would assume procedures letter D where it specifically mentions the board. I'm talking about letter D for letter D. Okay. Um I'm talking about materials displayed in classrooms should enrich students learning experiences by supporting and enhancing our materials. I I don't know I don't even know what that what that paragraph means. So I actually had this in the margin. What do you mean? Okay. And I'd like some examples. So, letter D specifically um is the exact language in other policies that we have uh that was brought up by director Dah because he gave us that language. Is that is that correct? Point of clarification. That's number five, the implementation language, not 4D. Okay. So the the implementation part was directly from there. This was exactly how everything we talk about should be done. If there somebody has a complaint for any reason, they should bring it up to their teacher. If not, it's just writing out the process. And I don't have a problem with that. I think that should happen. I don't think that is happening to be quite frank. Multiple other places that hierarchy um as far as how it got there that I'm I'm unaware of. You might be able to talk to that. How made it How did 904 come back? Um, uh, board of directors, um, it's my recollection that there was a request to review policies that all had to do with posters. Um, that was then brought forward to the policy advisory committee to review. Um, I believe it was a a future agenda topic item that got brought up. Um, I I do not recall the date of it. 2023. Yeah. And that's why we move removed that's why we reviewed 903 and approved it. So, that issue was done. That was not something that the board brought back up again. But wasn't there something I remember I was just I was in those some of the policy meetings. I actually enjoy going to them so I can better understand all these the things that we're talking about. And um wasn't there something that you brought up that you brought up part of the policy and it never got reviewed and it was kind of pending for a while? I'm just I thought I thought that's what maybe you said. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I was also trying to wonder why how this got back up, but um yeah, I um comments, but in in um May of 2023, I asked for a future agenda item, right? Uh regarding signs in in the schools, and it had been, you know, through one-on- ones with Dr. Thomas and understanding that throughout the strategic plan um there there would be some rebranding done um how 904 came up right now I think it I mean I don't even have a specific answer to it. Yeah, 904. It got brought up in a study session as a thumbs up when we were still doing that. But that was but that and we had and then we had then reviewed and then the thing was well let's wait till we review 904. Reviewed 904 last year went over it approved it and then nobody on the board voted to bring it back up after we approved it outside of the cycle. And I would do I would also say that I think we have a policy that says anyone can bring up a policy. So, I mean I I think regardless of how it got brought up, um I would say I went to I I had nothing to do in bringing it back up, but I have Director Olstead in all fairness, you've seen the emails, you've seen there's different viewpoints in our community regarding posters that create division within our district. Um we have a new strategic plan and um I think the goal is to try to find as much unity around these controversial topics as we can. Um, also I attended a workshop in January of this year at the MSBA conference put on by Kennedy and Graven and it was about employee political speech and that we as a board do have oversight in the things that are said, our employees say in the classroom, what they put in our classroom and they gave what they wear in our classroom. And so I think that there's no guidance there. You know, there's there's not a lot of tight guidance around items that have created controversy in the past. We've seen lawsuits at neighboring districts around these topics. I actually appreciate us working on this and and enhancing it. The only um feedback I had is is under um general statement of policy. I was talking to a teacher actually who lives in our district, does not teach in our district. um was just kind of asking her what are her thoughts on this policy and her comment was um under general statement of policy under the purple section where it says materials displayed in classrooms should enrich students learning experiences the idea of adding the word all. So materials displayed in classrooms should enrich all students learning experiences by supporting enhancing Prior Lake Savage School's approved materials serving clear instructional or district aligned purposes. And I love the word all because at the end of the day that's where we create unity when we have things that um don't offend anyone or you know upset someone for whatever reason. So aligning those adding the word all to enrich all students learning experience that's at the end of the day that's what we're here for. Mary um Chair White I would say first of all point of order the board voted on this. This was never brought up to be reinitiated brought up again or anything like that. It's out of order and because the board voted and I believe it was a unanimous vote, um there is there was no method to bring this up for reconsideration whatsoever to the board to have it then resubmitted through the policy committee which it had already gone through the policy committee. So I would I I that is procedurally in violation of the way we normally do things and of Robert's rules. So, I would ask that this not be a point of discussion. I I was confused, too. I didn't understand the reasons. Um, Director Bullan did bring it up. Um, we then did discuss 904. It was in the normal cycle. Anyways, it went through policy committee before it was voted on and I if I looked at my notes, it was a unanimous vote. Okay. So, this does predate me. So, well, in all fairness, can we go back to the fact that we do actually have a policy that says anyone can bring a policy forward? That's not the issue. That's not the issue. Anybody can do that. But when it's presented to the policy advisory committee as the board wants to bring this forward, that's not true. That's not true. Do we know why that was stated or where this came from? I guess that would be my question. I have no idea. Members of the board, um, I'm trying to recall in my memory. Um I don't I don't recall that being stated uh previously. I do recall us having multiple conversations at policy advisory committee about bringing forward policies that relate to posters but I don't recall us what the specific statements were in those meetings that were made. Um and again if I um if I had a misunderstanding and misstep about bringing it forward to the policy advisory committee I apologize. Um that was uh my understanding of what we were the process that we're going through. Um one of the questions director um you you had said um The committee member members said that what was brought forward excuse me in our packet is not what was agreed to at the policy advisory committee. Yes. Can you point out which things? Um they had let's see um under three general statement of policy the second paragraph. Um well actually before I answer your question I think we should actually discuss if we're discussing this tonight. I understand well and this is a study session so we're not voting so um I mean there was also other viewpoints in that meeting. I attended that the that that policy meeting but that that's actually the whole discussion whether what happened at the policy committee is really beside the point right before we move forward since this is the first why do we have a committee since this is a first reading before we get too deep into the well here um I think we do need to get some clarification on um making sure that we we bring this forward properly and and if this is if This is a policy that the board is interested in revisiting that again predates me a little, but I'm hearing is it was voted on at some point last year. Just last June, yeah, a year ago. Um, and they're three-year cycles. So, so that means that it was never brought up to the board that it needed to be reconsidered. So how it even started on the process in the policy committee basically you know without the board agreeing to do that that's my that's my first concern and rule I I it shouldn't have happened from any one board member um at a committee without going through the proper procedure. I mean, if somebody said, "Hey, we need to discuss this again as a future topic," and the board agreed and you put an agenda, then that's fine. Or if the board said, "Okay, fine. There's some concern over this. Let's send it back through." But we're on a three-year cycle for these policies. And um we voted just last year, and again, it was a unanimous vote. And I'm I guess I'm a little less concerned with it being just the next year as whether or not the board agreed to even bring this forward. And if if we didn't then where from where I'm sitting the discussion over 904 for tonight should probably cease and we should move on to the 200s and um I I would think someone would have to bring this forward as a as a future agenda topic for a study session and or a a future agenda topic is um is the way that I think we should probably proceed. I want to make sure we do this the way we're supposed to do it. I have no idea how it ended up personally. It was just there on on the first one and I'm not blaming you, so please don't take that or you. Um, it was my first one and I just there it is. So, but I know the amount of man-hour that it went to go in there and I think would be completely disrespectful um to every individual staff member that that put the amount of work into it. Not to not to mention the amount of legal funds that we put into and that's a good point. I I appreciate that. But that does get back to the point. Let's make sure that the board wants to bring this forward fully on board and bringing it forward. Okay. Can I just make a comment? Sure. One of the reasons why you go through the process to begin with is to avoid the unnecessary expense and time to make sure that this is something the board wanted to bring through. So, I don't think it's a valid excuse to say, "Well, we've already spent time and money on it if the procedure was not followed appropriately." I that's um it's something that that if if should have, you know, before this whole thing started, and Director Herman, this is not on you at all. it should have actually been brought back um to to say um that does the board want to bring this back through again through the through the committee before the work was done. So I I don't want to be held hostage to the fact that work was done. Um obviously if if and I and I have not talked to anybody on the policy committee but if the policy committee had all this con had all these concern about it and it was already done then it's it's maybe a relief to them that they don't have to go through this um again because I I and again that's all hearsay. I I don't know. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to recall um from when this came back months ago. Um, Director Johnson, you had brought forth a policy, um, a 904.1. The the policy advisory committee did not have a chance to see it, correct? And that was our very first one. Yes. In February. So, um, what I'm trying to recall is how if or how or if 904 was on the policy advisory committee for that first on the agenda for that first meeting. It wasn't in February. What I'm able to find it was it I see 90 I'm sorry, I don't have I see 9004 showing up. on April 18th is when it first surfaces. Okay. So, it did this happen because director Johnson's proposed and then um the the policy advisory committee did not see that proposed um um point of clarification on February 13th agenda. We did have a signage update 904 policy on there and then it's my understanding that newly appointed to the committee uh then director Johnson brought forward to that meeting 904.1 because we're talking about 904 on February 13th. So I do believe that 904 was on the February 13th agenda. Okay, I see that. And because um the proposed um the newly proposed policy was given the night before and the policy advisory committee we did not see it. We did not see it. So then it got carried forward and then it's my understanding um that that's when legal was um and then we had met after legal had been um had weighed in. Uh there was a group of us that met, myself included, and that's when I asked if Director Johnson was um um okay, you know, like if how committed he was to the proposed policy, if we could just look at, you know, keeping hours and then that's when you and I had conversations about did were you aware of of um legal being contacted because there was things that were out of step. Um, okay. So, I'm I'm still trying to figure out and I don't have my my notes. I'm a paper person. I don't have my notes. I have the agenda for the February meeting, but I don't know how or why 904 came up on that agenda. Is could it be that there was anything in statute that changed that it just came up again? No. Uh, director or sorry, Vice Chair Bullion. Um, again, I don't recall off the top of my head either how it got onto the agenda. I just recall it being a conversation that we wanted to have with policy advisory committee and I that's where it landed in um our cycle review for this year. Um, how it got on the the checklist. Um, that is something I don't recall off the top of my head. Um, and again, I think if it does want to be brought up um for a vote with the board um to bring it forward to another future session or not, I think we can maybe start there and then if it if it's a yes to move it forward with the board, then we can bring forward more of the information that we've we've gone through in the process. Okay. So, let me understand this. A policy got put on the policy committee that's out of sync that we had already approved the year before and it was on a three-year cycle. It was not put on there because of any statutory required change. It was done so outside of the purview of the entire board. The district extended expenses on it and a brand new policy 904.1 got created outside of the purview of the entire board and the committee met on it and multiple other conversations occurred again outside of the purview of the entire board for a policy that obviously has huge legal hooks in it. uh because of everything from freedom of speech but also you know because of the extensive conversation that did occur just last year about um what we should be doing input from staff policy committee already occurring. So you understand where my concern is about how this happened and the board never approved the work, never directed anyone to do this and money was spent and time on this policy versus other policies and the normal cadence that have to be reviewed uh and and on a certain cycle. And we already know the policy committee can be somewhat overwhelmed even though this year is much lighter than it was last year. Um, so I'm I'm I'm concerned about the break in protocol, the violation of procedure, and a many many other things that the board as a quorum never gave direction to do. Director France, I understand your concern, but we have policy 208 who clearly says under item C, policies may be proposed by a schoolboard member, an employee, a student, or a resident of the school district. That is true. So, I like I said, I understand your concern and I would probably feel this, you know, I feel I've felt the same way you have in the past about things that have happened in the past, but we have a policy in place. The policy came up in front of it went through the policy committee. I heard appe oppos opposing viewpoints in that committee. I heard supporting viewpoints in that committee by teachers in our district. So that's this pol our policy 208 where it says policy may propose by a school board member, employee, student or resident of the district is not valid. No, that's immaterial to the proper procedure. What that is the procedure? That that's not a procedure. That's just saying someone can bring it up. That's not approval. That's not approval to go through the process. This certainly is an approval to spend money on legal. It went through the process. So, well, I think uh if it would be okay with the rest of the board, we should probably get to the bottom of this. I think the tees need to be crossed and eyes need to be dotted. At least we need to make sure that they were. Um again, since this predates me a little bit, I don't have the historical view that you guys do. Um this is just a first reading. I think that um I will commit to trying to figure out what happened and how we should proceed with this particular policy moving forward if that's okay. That's not like we're taking any action tonight or if if you give me some time to try to figure out what happened and where we're at. Um this may or may not end up on the agenda on July 14th pending what I find out. So, um, if that's, uh, okay with the rest of the board, I think that's probably Can I clarify though? Does it really need to go back through the policy committee if if it's I have all kinds of questions. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's fair. And and and everybody every individual board member sitting at this table may have a whole bunch of questions as we are all individual board members. Try to get uh to the bottom of of of how we got here. Um, and so I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to do that. So then let's move on to 203.7. uh board. So with 203.7 um after getting everyone's input uh over the last month or two since we sent this out last uh we did have multiple members who suggested that this uh policy should be taken away uh be sunsetted and be moved uh either just go away completely or the procedures as a whole just like we did with the vacancies uh be moved to the board handbook. Uh we do have a another policy 211 um that's goes into civil criminal actions uh that does vaguely touch on this, but we can lay these the steps out in the board book pretty well without having a policy that attaches with it. And keeping with the precedent that was set uh for Director Bullion and I uh there is no MSB MSBA model policy. So I think uh not to speak for Director Bullion, but it would be our suggestion that this does go away. So I did um email uh MSBA. I did get a response from uh Terry Mororrow. Um, I just wanted to get being that it was the will of the board that we um were using MSBA model policies kind of as our guide as our guide. I just wanted to ask um his um what did I ask him? I just said being that you do not have a model policy uh for a school board member violation of policy and he responded with it's up to the specific board um and to make sure that there wasn't any district legal guidance given. Um that was that was his that was his only response. Um, so my question is just as we sunseted 2011.1, is that right? 2011.1 vacancy policy. The vacancy policy. We we we voted as a board to have to to remove that. My question is would the is it the will of the board to keep 203.7 as presented? it pretty much follows what the prior like what our original policy was or um go with MSBA um guidance if I mean it's just I wouldn't say it's guidance because it's up to each individual district but my question is does the policy support the board governing itself? That was my original question just to clarify 203.7. It does not appear in MSBA. So they don't have a they do not have it and I didn't know correct why I was here. Cut it. I just And so I reached out to to MSBA just to to just say we are in the process of updating our 200s given the and it was the will of the board early this year to use MSBA as a model or a guide for um redoing our 200s. Um, and I just asked if he had any direction that he would or advice to give regarding um cuz I I said that I would consider asking the board if they want to keep this policy or sunset it as we did the um board vacancy one because MSBA doesn't have a model policy for that either. Um here's the thing. So when you do have an issue, the first thing the MSBA is going to ask you, been doing this for nine years, you don't have a policy or procedure, you're on your own, I can't help you, and you don't have a precedence, and you will run into potential legal issues um particularly for consistency for um um you know, your cadence of acting consistently that can be brought into question. Um we have had issues where we've had um board member three in my time I believe one in yours if I'm not mistaken Dan before that went down the violation road we Yes. Yes, there was one. Um and after the second one um then um three members of the board went back and said, "Okay, how can we make this universal?" I mean, we came to a consensus on the on the language um and then used it one more time to censure a a board member um based upon violation of our original operating norms and ethics. So now operating norms are no longer in existence now for for professional operating norms which is very concerning. Um um but um without this if you run into a problem and you cannot hide this in a handbook you you that would be a transparency issue. It could be potentially a legal issue just like the vacancy hiding that in a handbook could be a could be a huge issue. Um, so, um, the the thing was is to keep it and then, um, again, I don't believe anyone voted on gutting our current policies. They voted on, uh, going back to some of the MSBA. Now, the MSBA has been pretty consistent. They won't tell you how to govern your own board. The the the statute is vacuous at best. um it's up to individual boards and boards do it all different ways and some boards are are very highly functioning boards and have never touched their 200s and some of them have had ups and down years where they've had to um given that I can tell you from history if you don't have something we're going to regret it and we're not writing this for today we're writing this for the future. Uh so we lay something down and the goal is is that it's fair. Um it allows for let's say new board members not you know to make a mistake and just get spoken to by the chair that sort of thing. And it's very generous that way. I think we've only ended up with this in my experience we've only ended up with a censure once. uh the other ones we're just speaking to. Um so um that's what needs to happen. But without that you can end up and again we're supposed to lead by example here. So we have to do something to enforce um rules, policies and procedures of conduct on ourselves that and again the statute is vacuous. Um, so I would suggest keeping it and I would also suggest before policies that predate me, most of them that we're dealing with in the 200s were created during your time and various fluctuations of your time. Um, they come with history out of my memory. I think this one was put in director France. This one was adopted in December of 2024. The last one it was if you the last 200 series I'm sorry I'm sorry 2022 December 2022 violations of policy December 2022. So let's be director I'm not done speaking. Well we have a time. So the 2022 was just because that's the we started changing our policies in 2021 and 2022 to actually start putting last revised date. But if you go back all the way to Yeah. So, but yeah. So, this one has been around for a long time. It's you you know that, Dan. It's been in here for a long time. After me. So, Oh, no. It couldn't have been because we had this when I started. Guaranteed. Oh, it was developed after I was gone. It's an original in 2006. No, we we started with one in 20 I'm positive of that. So I guess the the question at the table then is not to interrupt you. I'm sorry. No, no, it's okay. All I'm saying is I would suggest that we keep it in there and because this was reviewed it multiple times. I know Martha that that we didn't start putting the revision dates and all that kind of stuff um on earlier ones until later. Uh and some of them were totally missed particularly in the 200s because Director Herman was incredibly diligent when we did start doing it and we were not as diligent. I would suggest that um you actually look at what was in there. I didn't agree with everything that was in the original one and the way it was written, but I do respect the fact that uh Stacy wrote most of this when I was there with the adjustments. I did not do it and she was a former board chair and a 12-year member of the board. Uh, so I would suggest that people if you're going to take something out that you actually consider or maybe even ask uh the former um uh board member why it was put in there to begin with, which um I did not do per se, but I know that we talked about this extensively before CO uh during CO and then um and then again uh we the board voted on it in 2022 as if the last date. Can I say that this policy says that it is to provide a process which is for the board book and the board book already does mention that right here addressing team dysfunction. So it's already got a section in there. Super easy to take the items from here and put it right there. So team dysfunction I think first of all is a horrible term by the way just so you know. This was to actually um give a a process and a procedure and more or less a graduated process and procedure for the chair in particular to work with board members who violated boardowned and board implemented policy as well as uh law. And most of the law that we have to deal with only concerns opening and closed meeting uh law um and privacy, data privacy. So um the chair actually would be the one following this uh with the individual board member um alone. Now I did not use this during my term. I think it was used by others but um that's something that you need to understand that any one of you could be in that role and you will need some sort of way to go back to something and say you know can I use this what part of it and it was written fairly it was written fairly fluidly to give the chair a lot of leeway and and and the language and how um depending on the circumstance cuz there's no way any of these can can anticipate circumstance. I circumstances will be different in all different areas and times and people. Uh so that's why I I would actually ask Dan to review this from his perspective first director and also include the procedure in Can we have other people add perspective to this who have been personally impacted by it? Um, I've been personally impacted by it, too. So, in all fairness, we have a policy, and so does MSBA called 211. 211 is criminal or civil action against a school district, a schoolboard member, an employer, or a student. So that policy basically is a um it's a more enforceable policy because it pertains to the law versus just somebody's opinion whether something is a violation or not. And I would just say um you know our first of all this is a procedure. It's not a policy. Okay. And the reason that it's not a policy, well, it it's a procedure that not one other school district in the state of Minnesota has. And I and I've searched hard. I've also heard that this and I've seen this policy does not create unity on this board. And we have a new strategic plan where we are to create unity. I think it creates unity. I don't agree with that. Well, and I also say it's illegal because step number four says censuring a board member. Guess what? It's illegal. If you want to go back and look at case, Ridger Rock School District just got sued because they tried to censor a board member. So, there's a lot of things within this this a procedure that are not unifying. They are go against the law and not necessary because we have a policy that is 211 which is an MSBA model policy. So in in my opinion, I don't see how this helps to unify our board because the the the issue with this is truly the fact that it's totally subjectional to somebody's opinion of whether something was a violation. And in all honesty, we are adults and if something were so serious that it needs to come to the board for full board discussion, which is where it should if if there is an issue, it should come in front of the front of the whole board, then we follow 211 because that's where two at 11 comes in. So I don't I don't I've talked to many other districts and they are shocked that we have this in our in our policies and they you know and so I don't again we have a new strategic plan. We've been tasked with re relooking at these policies. if we want to write something in our handbook. Um, but again, if somebody has an issue with somebody, go have a private adult conversation with someone and other than that, it should become before the board for a full conversation. Period. The end in my in my opinion based on my experience. And we have 211 for those very serious reasons why there would be criminal or civil action against a schoolboard member where they would perhaps need to be voted out of office, which the law does allow, which by the way, the state of Minnesota is the only state that allows a school board member to be potentially voted out of their elected official responsibilities. So, and that's stated in min uh min state statute 123b.09 09. And I I I would just say this. Um I mean, I think it's maybe a little bit naive to think that there aren't issues that may not be illegal that boards are going to have to deal with from time to time, more often than not, probably around personality or perceived behaviors, whatever the case may be. Um so I I think I have a hard time with having nothing. But to your point, um, if we're going to be a self-governing board, let's govern. I scratch letter B on your addressing violations. And if I come to you, Lisa, and say, "Why did you do that?" And you say, "Cuz I felt like it." And it's and it keeps happening. Let's talk about it. Let's govern. Let's not put the onus on another single person who may have some kind of a, you know, issue with somebody. Let's let the board hash it out. 100% agree. And and my in my mind I'm thinking um does that do anything to make letter A a lot more effective? I don't think we need that second step. Personally, that's just me. I do think we need something because again, it doesn't have to be against the law to become an issue among the seven of us. I mean, they're they're I think that's just again I think that's being a little bit naive and I think we need something, but I I I want to move toward the board handling the board business. Maybe not always just the chair trying to be the the babysitter. Can I ask something? Well, not that I'm that's why I feel have that authority and unfortunately the chair does facilitate the question that I have and when you said hash it out I know. Okay. So, the public hashing it out. I mean, the whole purpose is to handle things behind the scenes and focus on board business at the board table. Um, we've not always been successful, but we do try and, um, Director Bully, I think we've had a couple of retreats and a few other things where we've tried to do that. Um, and I think it's gone fairly well, although not everyone walked away satisfied. Um the point is is that we are leading by example. So um if we're going to govern ourselves, I think the question we should have for the board as a whole is what does that mean? Um particularly in the public, how do you want I mean granted, you know, everything trickles down from the top. Um so you know and we have our disagreements, we vote, we don't vote, etc. We follow a procedure. Um, how will that look if you don't have our own governing policies of what we consider to be professional behavior and we don't enforce that with ourselves and and and that's a I mean, you know, there's a lot of things that aren't against the law, but people have governing procedures. I mean, I walk into court and sit on the stand and there's certain procedures we have to follow in order to show respect to everyone else even though obviously it's a highly conflict uh you know process. You can behaviors have sanctions but they're not exactly illegal. So, if I'm hearing right, just to understand all of this, I mean, I'm hearing like this is like a procedural thing, right, that we would put in procedure to address concerns, call them what you want, violations, concerns. Um, I have I had a problem, too, with just language in here of perceived policy. I have no desire to babysit anyone on this board, and they're all adults. So, um, I would not be in favor of probably ever censoring or removing a board member unless there was a grave criminal act, which is covered, I believe, by statute. So, I believe that we are elected by the people and we can be adults. So, I think as far as process, it's great to maybe have a process if there are issues, but um I think some of the language in here is a little bit like me. And I agree like I I appreciate that Dan that you don't want to babysit everyone too, right? I wouldn't want to if I was sitting in that seat. So, um I certainly think I would be um supportive of it being in process and um having it sounds like 211 and I believe there's statute too covering like criminal civil issues. Can I just make a statement? The perceived was because it's it's one person's perception. So when you say perceived, it's not right saying yes or no, right? So so that's why that language was put in there purposely put in there to soften it. It was not put in there to you know make a statement that sort of thing. But that section three addressing violations in my opinion is process that we go too much further. I guess the overarching question is do we want this policy? what it's gonna say is down the road only if you want it. Yeah, I would I would definitely agree that that would be a pressing question and it yes, we have this is a study session. Everyone should give their thoughts and and that's what this space is for. I pose the question to MSBA. Um, uh, Director Johnson and I have been try doing our best to do some pre-work. Um, I don't know what what good it really does because we all get need to talk through it in our study sessions anyway, but what I would say is that uh I would agree that the question for the board to consider and this is not to decide today maybe you know we don't make decisions at the study session but is to do is it the will of the board to sunset this the um it had been asked prior I don't remember in which sequence of what we have passed but our ethics policy which is also going to be discussed tonight if we get there before midnight um our ethics policy uh you know the the things stated polic in our policy they they transcend. That's why we um we reference policies you know attaching we reference policies so that it's supporting you know I think that it becomes confusing when we have multiple policies trying to trying to you know we have a code of ethics we have um actually help me help me what I'm trying to say but we we have all these policies establishing the board. This one is not um this one is procedural. This is this is one that MSBA does not have as a model. And I understand every district has the it is the will, you know, that has the ability to create policy and implement it. My question is is is I wanted to ask MSBA um any direction be I just wanted to do that step before coming tonight and I think that it's just as with 2011.1 the vacancies we we we asked the will of the board do they do we want this policy or or do we not we have other policies that say what the what board members are agreeing to do how they're agreeing to show up. Um, so do we need a policy? Um, and my personal opinion would be no. Again, that's not disrespecting the work of previous boards and previous people who wrote this. It's just when I think about I'm a less is more individual and I I'm one of seven. Um, so that that's all that I have to say. I will go with whatever the will of the board is on do we move forward with having this this policy in place or not. And I'm fine either way. I just gave my my opinion and then I'll set up. Chair White, Chair White. Um, Director Mason, I do agree that we are elected to put our butts in these seats and make some decisions and um, and for that I am very grateful. Um I do think um we have spent 6 months on board policies and now we are looking to potentially sunset a policy that is keeping us accountable. It keeps us accountable. I don't know what anybody's afraid of, but it keeps us accountable. Um, I think it's actually disrespectful to the people who voted us in these chairs to not hold ourselves accountable. Um, I think we've done enough sun setting for one month. So, I would like to keep it in. So keep sort of get rid of Yeah, I would get rid of Can I I just add we I mean we have policy 211 to hold us accountable and we also have policy 209 to hold us accountable. So we do have policies that hold us accountable as well. Um so yeah, I would be I agree. I I am I'm in agreement to um sunset it. I think we need something. So whatever it says, I guess I think we should have something because what what good is the rest of them if we don't have something that is as I think as director Olstead was very direct on. So if if somebody completely violates whatever code of ethics we end up with we're left without a tool and the board does govern itself. So what tool would you use? I'm okay with suns setting as long as it's procedural in a in a board book or whatever we're developing, right? Because I do feel like it's covered by code of ethics and the other policy. But I think procedurally if there's a perceived policy violation or issue, some sort of process I guess to follow and and that would be like in a board handbook, right? Is my opinion. I I do this for a living. I write policies, I have to defend them. And you you never you don't even pass an audit if you don't have um a policy about violating the policy. So, and if I could say one more thing, I um Mary, I apologize for interrupting. Um, I don't disagree that we have I I I'm not opposed to keeping the policy. The challenge that I have in my two and a half years of sitting on this board is that when we are addressing violations, the first thing it says to do is have a private conversation. we as a board have not followed that personally individually when there's been concerns that have been brought. And so I while I don't disagree that having a policy that lays things out is beneficial, it's only beneficial if we use it. And so given that again this is my what is my experience we haven't followed this policy that doesn't mean there hasn't been perceived or actual violations of policy. Um there has been um things brought forward. It's what we're struggling with is how to deal with it as a board. We're struggling with that very first part. Sometimes we're going straight to the second to letter B. And yes, we are we are taking time. I I don't disagree. Uh Director Olad, six months of of working on the 200s has been painstaking. painstaking and I I'm not I I it does it's not lost on me what the appearance that is. I think the the thing is is that in the we we had a new board um the beginning of the year and the will of the board was to go over our 200s and we have tried to do that as efficiently as possible. Director Johnson and I have tr have spent hours, you know, trying to uh support, you know, bringing what brought is brought forward and yet um we spend so much time and where what to what fruit? What are we really getting out of redoing these policies? because I'm going to guess that we're going to still continue to find ourselves in the dynamics that we find ourselves because we are the seven of us are here. So, um uh I we had kind of set a goal that all of these policies would be approved by our June regular meeting and that didn't happen and that hurts me but here we are and we're trying to keep going through. So, I guess um you know, we we either keep pushing through and take as long as it takes to get through them or we surrender this mission. I don't know. Um again, is this is I don't know. Um this is the this is the issue. We're we we can we can go over every single policy. We can go down every single rabbit hole, but if we are not following them, you know, and here's the thing, too, and I've had this I've heard this before, and this is something that comes up a lot in both legal proceedings as well as employee stuff, you name it. Um, and and let me just quote Judge Alip in San Francisco. Hopefully, he's okay with me doing that. You know, I have a I have a speed limit sign. People speed all the time, but they know it's there. And so therefore, when they get stopped, they can't really argue. The rules are there, right? But you're not going to stop everyone. And it's really going to depend on, you know, the motivation, how many resources, etc., and where the priorities are at any one time. But you don't throw away the rules because you can't enforce them all the time. We've got a dress code policy in the high school. We can't enforce it all the time. We try. Teachers try, but that doesn't mean you just throw it out. Um, so, you know, and I've heard this argument before, well, we're not enforcing them. Well, you know, just because you're not there doesn't mean you don't want to put the guidelines in. Um, and that's that's a concern. So if we if we don't have any um process or procedure for policy violation, why do we have any of these policies to begin with? That's that's I think in all fairness, we have a we have a policy. It's 211. And petty harassment of board members because someone doesn't like what someone said or someone doesn't like the way they wrote an email or who they wrote an email to isn't isn't giving creating any unity. So, I just think, you know, um I have seen how since I've been on the board, I've seen how this policy has been used and it's it's a disgrace to be honest with you. So, I fully support getting rid of it. If we want to write something into our handbook that says that one line about if there's an issue, have a private and professional conversation with another board member. That's what we all should be doing to begin with. If you have an issue with someone, pick up the phone and call them. And then if it becomes a bigger issue, we go to 211 because that's really at the end of the day, a board member is not going to get kicked off because somebody doesn't like what they said. But that's never happened and it won't happen and we don't allow it to happen. So we have there are laws. So anyway, um that's I think we need to move forward. We've been talking that I the consensus I've heard is to get rid of it. I' I'd like to keep it. Mary wants to keep it. Jessica wants to keep it. So, unless you're Here's the thing. We should move forward. Here's the thing. I I don't disagree with I say it to Charles all the time. I don't have a dog in that fight, right? I I would go with the will of the board on whether to keep it or um remove it. And because I don't have a dog, I say I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't mind the policy being here. What I what I am challenged by is when we h as board members individually aren't following our policy. And that's probably why you have to as you're reading this, it has to be faceless. You can't be thinking of somebody while you're reading the policy. And that's how I you determine whether or not it's valid or not. I tend to think that again, we have to have something. Well, it's a procedure is what it is. It's a procedure. And I and and to be fair, um that's that this type of policy to enforce policies is written procedurally. It's universal to be written procedurally. Every company has an acceptable user and ethical code of conduct. Right. And we have that in It is procedurally put into the violation the policy violation of that it's put into there also. It refers back to a policy and that is standard and I'm telling you you're not going to pass an audit without it. So they don't say no go to a procedure because the problem is is that if you go to a procedure that then is not approved by executive manager like a policy is then if you do have a serious issue and you want to terminate somebody and that is an extreme. It's a just an example. It's not like we're going to kick someone off the board. Um it doesn't hold water. And so that that is the problem is that you don't have any tool. you don't even have a tool to start a tool. And and if you leave yourself vacuous, um it's not this board that may have the issue. It may be the next board, you know, two years, four years from now or whatever that comes back and has something happen. And they've got nothing to rely on. So, we're not doing it just for us. These policies are not meant to be ripped out and rewritten. They're they're meant to provide a consistency over time. Um, and I think that's kind of gotten lost in our job to make sure that the district stays sound, that people stay consistent, that processes and policies becoming become uh predictable over time and and you can't, you know, coming in and ripping it out for one year or two years and then coming back and put something else in. that unpredictability leads to chaos. With the best of intentions, it can lead to chaos. So, just keep that in mind as as you're thinking about this. And I agree with Director Bullan. We haven't enforced a lot of our policies, especially over in my recent time uh in the past couple of years. Um but that doesn't mean they just need to be ripped out. And so this is what this well this is what we brought forward to the study session this 203.7. So if anyone I mean if to to ease our or to expedite our um our process so that we don't spend another month going through these. I mean can we just go through and this is what's brought forward to the board tonight. I I just asked the question to to Terry Mororrow from MSBA only because MSBA didn't have it. And so well and I think director Bullian what what director Johnson said about they how they do have it in their handbook means when we get to the handbook which is hope sooner than later we can all provide feedback into let's put in step one for this process. Let's put in step whatever C for this process. And it goes in the handbook. And that's way that's that is the way it's covered. And what's positive is the board handbook says right in there on I think the second page maybe that it should be looked at every year by the board. Yeah, that's a good point. Which is something different than what this policy would be looked at because once it right, we go we approve every three years. Three years. Yeah, that's a good point. All right. I think that I I don't like the handbook idea for this. I'll just tell you that right off the bat. That's going to eventually not maybe our board, but a future board that's going to cause a problem with enforcement. Okay. All right. Well, it looks like this is going away if I'm reading the consensus of the board properly. Not today. It's not correct. Because we're in a study session, right? So, the brought forward to a school board meeting and voted on. Correct. Correct. hopefully with the roll call. All right, let's move on to 204. Um, with 204, this is uh schoolboard meeting minutes. So, just so everyone is aware, I spoke to Martha about this. Um, she gave a thumbs up. Um, and I I will just read off the MSBA note here. The provisions of this policy are required by statute. I'm not going to go into anything else unless somebody else has something they would like to add in here. Um, we do we do all of these things. Yep. Everything is covered. We're just ironing it out. Okay. So, here's the thing in here. It addresses school newspaper. It it addresses newspapers located within district boundaries, all that kind of stuff. The only thing Yeah. The only thing and and because that also has an issue with other stuff that's going on and other policies that we have that are not in the 200s. They have to do with notice and stuff like that that are in other numbers. The only thing I think we've ever had before is the school board meeting minutes and the and the statute that we have to follow. Um, so I would prefer that we not try to repeat everything in the template because the template actually has embedded contradictions and overlaying and just say we meeting minutes follow Robert's rules and statute period and none of this other stuff in here because again there's language in here um that not the closed meeting but the other stuff about publication s and if before August 1st and notwithstanding any law we already cover that in non200 because the district is responsible for publications and we have another policy that covers that. The other thing is that the policy that covers that also includes all these other notices. So I would prefer to get rid of all of that so we don't have conflicts with other notifications, notices etc. Robert's rules has the procedure for um how many minutes are recorded based upon major motions who voted etc. That's it. anything that the board took as an action or was on the agenda and then the notifications and where we put it etc is already covered in another procedure and I don't want to have to go back and visit this one and three other ones that are in non 200 policies if we all of a sudden do get some sort of online or other newspaper and um and publication rules and statutes with regards to that change. Um, so that would be my goal to keep this simple. I am I understand. Um, I just become wary when it says the provisions of this policy are required by statute. That's where it gets real hesitant to me. And if to as you know if it is a statute change it just comes out automatically from MSBA and it's one read and one read only and that's the only thing that changes. No and I'm fine with that. So that's why I wouldn't want to change anything because if we're just going with the model on this and we're not changing anything else, we don't have to touch anything else. We don't have to worry about it. We don't have to do anything else and we already know we're we're good. That's statute. Yeah. Statute and Robert's rules. The other stuff in here that tries to describe the statute and the conflation with other notification statutes we've already have covered in non 200 policies. And so that's my concern. Is your I'm sorry. Is your concern to take out the notes of where it says note the provisions of this poly server recovery statute. Note in 2024 the municipal legislator enacted because I don't think you're with four right number four. It's mostly four four all the way through. Yeah. Four. But the recording of closed meeting is also statutory by the way. Yeah. Um, so and so you you my experience has been when you start to get very verbose in here and you conflate different things and we all know we go back to statute regardless and we also know that Robert's rules also designates a lot of the stuff about how the meetings are noted. Um, between that and Robert's rules and the fact that we have Martha and whoever her doppelganger may be at any one time to help us with this, um, you know, we cover it. The more verbose you get in here, the more we risk that overlap and contradiction and um, and we don't do the minutes anyways. That would be our parliamentarian. So, what are you? So, just so I'm clear, can I just clarify? I'm So, I'm looking at the open and close meeting policy and this policy actually takes a little bit of a deeper dive into what the law is regarding some of this. So, I actually appreciate having this because it's people will, you know, I've even looked at policy where you don't have to go into deep statute and find out what is the law pertaining to a closed meeting. If you look at our policy regarding open and closed meetings, it's really only just a couple bullet points about closed meetings. So, this seems to take a deeper dive, which is why more than likely it's recommended by MSBA and it's statutoily driven. So, yes, I I support it. I mean, anytime that something's written by statute, I 100% support it. Well, you don't have to repeat certain parts of the statute and not the whole statute. And we'd be better off just naming the statute. So when the statute changes, we don't have to go back and repeat. Can you clarify which parts are repeated? I'm having a hard time understanding that. Closed meeting notes is is closed meeting law, open law, open meeting law, and closed law. And it's not the full statute. It's it's just parts of it. That's the thing that worries me. And if we're going to have this be maintainable um and but I'm mostly concerned about four um recordings of closed meetings shall be maintained. Is that one publication of official proceedings? Yeah, we have and then we have the process and the procedure for the regular meeting notes being governed by uh Robert's rules. I just want to make this simple because I don't want to have to go back and revisit this every single time we have a Are you Are you at this number four or this Roman numeral Roman numeral the publication of official proceedings? So I'm all for um making it as if you if we don't making it as you know Robert rules statute but I think the argument is the proposed um to keep it simple. I'm always for keeping it simple. Um, less words the better. And I feel like it's you're it's the opposite coin of the argument for, you know, other things. So, I don't know. I think for me I I get um confused in the direction because I do appreciate your policy experience. Um I do exper I do I appreciate it on this board and other boards and um when this is the MSBA model and it's all all statute driven I it's hard for me to know we as a board gave the direction to use MSBA policy. So it's like I hear you. I hear you say let's just keep it simple and not overlap. I hear you and I'll I'll say, "Okay, great." Um, but then I also hear the will of the board was to use MSBA. So then I say, "Okay, great. It was to use MSBA as a guide, as a guide." And that's not to just cut and paste. Okay. Um, and what I and again MSBA policy, a lot of the stuff that we have tries to spell out, we've already had a couple where our attorneys have come in and said, "Yeah, they tried to summarize the statute and they could have gotten us into trouble." Um, I just prefer to keep it simple. If we follow Robert's rules and we did the original one that talked about meeting minutes and because closed meeting is a law and the statute's in here, why are we trying to only recreate part of the statute? That's what worries me. It it just worries me because of the maintenance of it. This is something this is God is this to make this one of the longer statutes of everything longer policies of everything we're talking about just so we can cut and paste from the statute worries me. Why don't we just put in the statute and say we're going to follow statute we're going to found Robert's rules for the for the meeting notes and we are going to delegate the role to our designated parliamentarian. Well, and and given we did not even h we we don't have a a school board meeting minutes policy. Well, okay. So, the so and that's that's a whole another story because a lot of our policy numbers were created before MSBA changed their numbers and vice versa. So, the numbers are different getting in the right duly noted Mary wants to be three sentences. Any other any other suggestions or questions? I don't disagree with, you know, having it be short and just saying what statute. Um I don't I have no problem with that. But we don't even we didn't have a school board meeting minutes policy. We we didn't have a separate policy. We just put in there that the closed we would follow the law and that we would follow Robert's rules for the minutes. that was in the original um one and that's one that's already been wiped out um and and that was I believe in the operating norms or one of the earlier 200s um because that's all we ever needed. This this should not be a we're never going to we can't change anything in here anyways. I mean it's the statute and Robert's rules. That's it. Well, and I think when you look at like what's the intent of the policy, right? You always have to ask what what is the intent. Um it's the policy of the school board to maintain its records so that they'll be available for inspection by members of the general public and to provide for the publication of its official proceedings and compliance of the law. And I do recall and I think it's right here under um legal references, there was a law that was passed just last year about this about how the how we publish um the meeting minutes and stuff. So, I think I think it's great to have a policy surrounding this because it calls it right out and it we're being transparent with our community and they know where to go to find it because there's a policy that actually talks about schoolboard meeting minutes versus being hidden in another policy for wherever it is. So, I like the way you read section two for general statement of policy because in there we could just mention the statute or refer to it and just say the meeting minutes will follow Robert's rules and that the board delegates the creation of the meeting minutes to our parliamentarian um or whatever we we basically delegated it before. And that's pretty much all this policy needs to state if you wanted to keep it a separate policy. Well, it does also say all votes taken at a meeting are required to be open to the public pursuant to open meeting law. There's there's a lot in here. So, but that's in the statute. I Yeah, but a lot of people won't go read the statute. We've been we've kind of gone back and forth on that where So, I will of the board, but I I I personally don't want to have to maintain this thing if I stay on the board like more than another term because that would be a pain in the butt and we wouldn't be changing anything. If anything, we'd have to maintain it. I I hear that argument about the maintaining. Um I I and I hear the argument about it being short. Um and there's always the other side. So will of the board. This is what this is what was brought forward because it's MSBA's model. If there's specific changes or you know specific strikeouts so that we can all look at it and be able to vote on it. I think that's another thing that I've found challenging in this going through all of our 200s is when we come to the study session or we come to the regular meeting, we we are doing all this talking about things and we don't have what we can vote on or what we can edit and and that for me is challenging um in trying to you know compile thought. Okay, how about how about this then? Uh, would it be okay to scratch Roman numeral 4 and shorten it by that much? You said that I think you said at least do that. I that Yeah, I think that's the one that would probably have to change the most because does that make sense to everybody or but just keep the statute? Yeah, we'd have to keep the statical references no matter what. So, so then so that that four is just all about how we publish the me the minutes and it takes up a whole page and a half, but it really is all just the statute 124D. Actually, Robert's rules also determines um what you actually record. The other statute covered closed laws and the publication. Um Robert's rules actually says you only and your in your meeting notes, you only do the um the motions and all that kind of stuff. So that it that doesn't statute doesn't go into Robert's rule. Statutes just go into what has to be legally available to the statute. The statute that's added specifically references publication of official meetings. Right. Publication publication. It has nothing to do with Robert rules. Remember the meeting minutes are if we wanted to strike four, we could because this if we strike four, would everybody be able to live with this thing? Yeah, I'm good. No issues with that. Yep. All right. We're striking four and moving on to 205. Okay. 205 is open and closed meetings. I will begin with reading the note. The provisions of this policy accurately reflect Minnesota's open meeting law uh statutes and are not discretionary in nature. So the very small um edits that are in here I sent to MSBA to Terry Marorrow. He said they are all good. So the in the definition the email change on there where study session is added um letter F. MSBA has has cleared all of those. He said we also don't have to add them if we don't want to. Right. I put them in there because that is how our meetings are done. Um, so I just wanted to make sure that everything was referenced as far as our meetings. So other than that, um, I don't think there's somebody has anything else to add. That is all I have for 205. Questions on 205. Um, no, again, this is one that we don't have to repeat everything. Um, we never have before that the open and close meeting follow statute. uh and the latest interpretation of the statute. Um what we're missing here is what was in the original operating norms about how we are going to make sure the and and in the ethics which will be next on how we as a board are going to make sure that we do not g you know give the perception uh of violations and how we're going to handle certain things about quorum and not quorum. um you know that's really hard to interpret um from the from the repetition of the statute. Um I I I still laugh the fact that we're actually in here as far as the statute interpretations. So suggestion um again it's it's interpretation of statute. um whenever there's a confusion because of the interpretation of statute um I would prefer if we put in there that we refer to legal counsel because it's we're not no it's not in here it's just um you use the current statutes and when in question um because it is a very specific um and and uh statute um And and as you notice, all the case law that has come into there of how the case law is interpreted is not necessarily in here. Uh that when we do have a question about it that we that the board does refer to legal counsel for their decision. Uh cuz it's it's it's it's kind of a snaky little interpretation over the years of how it's come across. So you're saying if we can add anything that'd be the same with any law though to be honest with you. I mean we I'm just trying to get be clear on what you what you're what you're asking. Yeah. Because we could add that to every policy. Would you add it at the beginning at the end? I mean, you're saying that any of these I would say I would say under general statement of policy that when there's a question of whether something is within the bounds of the statute that we do um that the board does contact uh legal counsel for guidance. So like a C legal guidance will be I think that's fair. I think the board will ask for legal guidance when deemed necessary. I we're we're not lawyers. This is almost all legal speak. There's a matter of fact, federally, it's actually federal law, too. And um and the interpretations of how it's happened can change on a dime. Uh so I would I think it's safe for us to say that if there's ever a question that we do refer to legal counsel. My only question about that is I don't want to put that in here and spend money to ask a legal question that like Martha could answer. That's my only question. Common sense. Yeah. So like as needed or like you know what I'm saying like to qualify it I guess is my only and I would say I think we have to have full board approval. We can't just have board members. That's what I mean. So maybe it's maybe it's legal guidance that a lawyer wouldn't necessarily have to give us per our per our parliamentarian saying legal counsel legal guidance. Yeah. But legal guidance could be Martha or Emily even too. I mean I'm I'm trying to take the the officially contacting our lawyer. So we don't have to do that. Right. We could get legal guidance from our HR. We could leave guidance from um someone that wasn't our lawyer and charging us $500 a rate. I wouldn't that I don't interpret that the same thing. I think anything legal guidance or legal legal counsel to me I would assume comes from legal. That's just my that's just my thought. The point you mentioned you can we soften it Dan? So, because I mean, if Emily's already asked the question or if Martha's already asked the question or Dr. Thomas has already asked the question, we don't have to repeat it. Just maybe administrative or legal guidance, something administration or legal guidance maybe to soften it. Um, I like that actually. Yeah, you like the gives us the option. Yeah. But it's not us. We are not the authority by any stretch. Administrative or legal counsel or however you want to put it. But how come how come it says the provisions policy accurately reflect Minnesota open meeting law statutes and are not discretionary in nature? But we might not know we might not have the expertise to as far as the nuances of of what some of these things mean. So it's it doesn't hurt for us to say if there's any confusion ask somebody. I mean I don't is basically what it's coming down to. Yeah. There's So if we could just add that little Yeah. refer to administration or legal counsel as deemed necessary or something like that. Um Mary, please state the sentence because I'm not going to make up your sentence. You know what I mean? You want me to repeat it? I can't even remember what I just I think it's I think it could be as easy as consult administrative or legal counsel as needed or deemed necessary when when when there are questions and when there are interpretive questions when when there are Yes, that's true. The board will consult administration or legal um counsel or guidance guidance from administration andor legal. How about that? I hate andor but it works here. That work? Got her. I got something. All right. I got something. Anything else on 05? Okay, let's move on to Okay, it's 10:00. I just have a question. Um, we still have one, two, Three more. Do you want to go for it or do you want to do this and take it to the next board meeting? Get them done in the next half an hour, 45 minutes. Personally, I would appreciate the sooner we can get the 200s done. It has like at Jessica Olad's point the six months of discussing the 200s it's valid. I'm also thinking of Dr. Thomas and Martha who have I think about them too. And I let's uh let's see what we can get done in a half hour here. Let's see. I Okay, I have confidence. Okay. So, policy 206, public participation in schoolboard meetings, complaints. Um, the changes in here, uh, are very minimal. Uh, actually really what was done was, uh, by director Bullion. She just honestly moved some things around so that it fit the other policies that we had. So that we had open forum going first. If I remember correctly, I'm not looking open forum and then what was the next one? And that's that's all the way down in the procedures area before uh towards towards the end. So we didn't have this policy before at all. No, we did not have this policy before. Obviously, the changes are great because it's a brand new policy. It is. It is. It's a brand new policy. And just so everyone's aware, um public forum itself is addressed in 207. So when I got feedback from everyone, everyone kind of did it in both. Um but public forums, the public forum area specifically is addressed in 207 which is public hearings. So um still in here though. It is. Yes. It's just deals with different items. Um it's a little it's just different. We we changed it more so in 207 than we did in 206. We kept 206 the same. I hope that any feedback was okay with the changes. I don't even know why we need it. Don't we already have that? We have a public forum and we've got the rules for Oh, yeah. That's right. We ripped out all the rules for people and their behavior. Right. Um, and this is discusses data privacy which is already discussed in non200s and the public's opportunity to be heard. We've already got an open forum. Um, we already have the procedures in the in the open forum meeting that we specify a period of time, right? We already have that in our meeting cadence and another 200 policy and and that we recognize 15 minutes. Um and that the schoolboard chair, if you want to add one speaker at a time in the previous cadence. Um um we already have a discussion of data privacy. So that's already in there. And then the only thing new about this is complaints. Um and we already have that discussed about complaints in another policy of how it goes through the hierarchy. So I'm a little confused. this policy is being brought forward because it's an MSBA model policy that we did not have. I I understand that but we already discussed almost all of these in different areas including many of the policies have things that intertwine and interact and that's just I say I like I like this one. And I always thought we should have this one because it gives the public clear direction of where to find if they want to come speak, they know exactly where to go to find this where before it was interwined in our policies and you couldn't find it. So, but this conflates with data privacy and and it just restates what we already have that we have an open forum and it doesn't say the rules and it doesn't have any rules for open forum. It just says you can come chair will recognize the speaker. We already have in another meeting another policy that we have 15 minutes. So you have the limit discussion. We don't um have the policy anymore that we disc we actually took out the fact um a while ago that you have to limit the discussion to something that's only on the agenda. We took that out a while ago. Are we adding that in to prevent people from speaking about things that are not on the agenda? and two and 62 682 6 oh sorry 682 the board retains the discretion and limit discussion of any agenda item you already have that it's got 15 minutes and you give each person three minutes that's already in the other one and you talk about any agenda item we actually took that out a while ago so that people could talk about anything we can we can strike out the procedures part. So it's only in one policy that's not and in 207. Yeah. And we already have a data privacy one. Okay. And we have the rules of the forum saying personal attacks and public hearings. So we're you suggesting we're scratching procedures all of number six. So and why do we have the complaints against an employee relating to child abuse discrimination in here? We already have that an official legal complaint. This is an MSA an MSBA model policy that I get it. It's they're bringing up and you know yeah there's you guys we got to we got to be a little discretionary here because we already have this in other policies. I'm aware that we've got a lot of things and a lot of other policies and sometimes we've already come right here. Policies we already approved and policies the data privacy policy we have a non201 that goes through that. Yes, but we don't have a 2001. That would be my argument. Why do we need a 2001? Why don't we need a 2001? I we're not individually discussing data privacy. Someone could walk up there to the podium and do it for the forum. Right. And again, like we we could sit and argue every point. I think when it comes for me we we can argue every single point. And there's there's validity to it all. And it for me it goes back to what the will of the board was early this year. And that's where we're the struggle. That's where the strugg we this is the struggle that we're in as a board. We're taking so much time and so much effort and then you know so as a as a board we we stated we wanted to use MSP as a guide. Okay. Maybe that was the issue. Maybe that was but that's what it was the will of the board. So that's what we have tried to do and Charles and I have tried to take what we've had along with MSBA and marry them and come to our study sessions as best we can and we are spending so much time are you know like I don't know how to move forward. I get it Amy but director bullying sorry want to be respectful. No, you're right. You can here's the thing. The We have talked about this. The MSBA puts a whole bunch of templates out there. I understand. You don't have to use all of them. You don't need to use a lot of them. And they and a lot of them with the 200s, some of them have been out there for decades. And because boards govern themselves, um you you pick and choose what you need. You don't take them verbatim like they're like they're like they're gospel so to speak. That's not what they're there for. They've never been there for that. But when when we haven't had a policy like if if there's a policy that has not been a prior lake policy, that's what we've done is we've just brought forward MSBA policy be because we haven't had it. Now I understand that in our policy we might have had bits and pieces and we've we what we were trying to do and in my um in my um opinion I guess is that it was to take the guide of MSBA, take what we have had as prior Lake Savage area schools and try to bring forward to our study sessions where we could say, "Okay, do we want this or not?" And that has become ex it seems to become increasingly challenging meeting after meeting. We're on the f final um final eight policies or nine policies and I and we have to figure out how are we moving forward with them because because there's there's many policies that have um parts of the policy are stated in other policy that argument is throughout all you know throughout all the butic what I'm getting at is is that the policy templates open forum were not made to be used verbatim. They were made as guides so that you could pick and choose what you want. They weren't made to be just taken and just plopped in. That's kind of what I'm getting at. And I understand the confusion, but um you know, it's up to us to use the discretion and how we want this to flow. Yeah. And and anytime you have policies that overlap and have and have um repetitions, your maintenance actually long-term becomes harder. And this coming year for policy advisory committee with the our the lighter um this coming year it's even lighter. And so um we we are discussing that we are going to try to create consistencies across policies to bring up um policies that are um all you know talking about the same thing so that we can right do exactly that. So we can do exactly that. And um as far as our 200s I guess um we just have to figure out how how we are moving forward with these. Well, can I make a suggestion for tonight? Can we look at quickly look at 207 because they when you look at the purpose again, you have to think about what is the purpose of the policy. Um, they're basically the purpose is very similar. Um, the purpose of 206 is the school board recognizes the value of participation by the public in deliberations and decisions of the schoolboard matters. At the same time, the schoolboard recognizes the importance of conducting orderly and efficient proceedings with the opportunity for expression of all participants respective views. So, that's really the purpose of the policy. Then when you go to public hearings, it says the school board recognized the importance of obtain. It's basically the exact almost exact same thing. So I would I would argue why do we need both? And are there is there something like is there something missing in one or the other that would be like we need to have one versus the other? There's a lot of statute listed here too, legal references. So I believe there is a purpose for them but I'm just trying to understand you know so what would be your from reviewing these and spending hours and hours on them and greatly appreciate you two doing that. I would I would think if we're going to keep something um we should keep 207. I think director Bullion and I have spent much more time. Um even though there there are some additional notes on 207 that we will need to discuss. Um, I think that would be the the best move is to in in today's terms, we're going to deuce game 206 and we're going to keep 20 I'm Yeah, we're going to get rid of 206 and we're going to keep 207 if everyone is okay with that. I'm fine with that because again, what is the purpose? They're very similar purposes and it's 207's actually a little bit cleaner to read. Um, and it doesn't have procedures in there. As long as we're clear that there's a difference between a public hearing and open. That is the other thing. The title is very confusing. Can we change the title? Public hearing, right? And there is statute for public hearing. So, I understand why they have either like currently we don't have either. So, we did because we don't have a policy about it. If if somebody calls for it, then we have to have it by law. That's why none of this is is is something that we even have a choice over if it got called. And that's probably why we don't have a policy on it. Just like we don't include the data privacy because we don't enforce it here except within ourselves and we're already have the oath of office and all that. Um if somebody if a parent came up there and did that for you know in 206 that's kind of their we can't enforce the law on them. they can do whatever say whatever they want. Uh we can only enforce the norms of that but public hearings that's if if a public hearing is required like truth and taxation um that is a public hearing. We we do that and um and we and it's mentioned in our current um um what was put in the you know what is it called the agenda thing that when we have that we have to follow public hearing and I think the statute's already in there but so I mean we can keep this in here but it's I I I guess um so before each meeting where public comment will be heard a request form will be available 10 minutes. That's required by law on the form and a request. So that was for some reason scratched out um under C1. Um now you're in 207. Yeah. So I mean if you want to keep 207 and get rid of 206, 206 is probably more redundant than anything else. And um but 207 all this I don't think we can cross anything out of here if it's all just repetition of statute. I mean, like I said, the truth and taxation is the public hearing, the one that I can think of off the top of my head, and we have to allow that. We everything in the statute, we have to allow whether we like it or not. Why was I'm sorry. And the and the signage is in our boardroom in general. Why scratched and the signage doesn't have anything to do with public hearings, by the way. Uh has to do with our board decorum. We moved uh request forums to address the board will be available 10 minutes prior to this scheduled meeting start. It's right there. No, she's asking why did you scratch this sentence scratched? Oh, it's just it's extra. We were just trying to make it easier to read. That was the same thing in less words. Yes. Yeah. Well, it public hearings are I mean just like open and close meeting law. They're pretty specific to statute and they're pretty specific to our normal cadence of some of our agendas and what we do here. So yeah. So and and the other thing the signing has nothing to do with public hearings both. Well, no, no, the public hearings are statutory. If you want to keep it in here, that's fine. But mention the statute and say the statute will prevail regardless of what we cross out. It's at the bottom of the page, right? And it's at the public hearing in there. But the only thing that isn't statutory in here is signage that goes to all of our board meetings. No signage is allowed. So why did it end up in public hearings? actually wasn't it wasn't in policy. It wasn't in policy. Well, it doesn't belong here. Where would you And it belongs in 206. No, I I would say it would belong in our board operating norms and our thing for Yeah, we are. Where do we have the signage rule now? It doesn't exist. So, who do we just enforce? Why is it hard to enforce? Do you mind if I ask? It's actually in 4, which is what we discussed. 904. No, that's that's not signage in the boardroom. Um, that's displaying material. I mean, it can be read that way. No, these are adults. These aren't students in classrooms and staff and all that kind of stuff. It's not um that could that should probably be in our board operating norms for our agendas that no signage is allowed and then also added to the rules out there uh when people go to sign up. because this is where people come to look for if we're going to keep it meeting. I'm sitting here listening and like kind of I don't have a strong difference either way because I hear both sides. But I do kind of like that like we're modeling over MSBA and and it's a direct versus like buried in our process. So if someone from public goes and looks for a policy on like meetings, they can read it. You know what I mean? Versus like I'm going to go dig into Can I add one other thing? That would be my only comment, but I agree less is more. Jessica Olstead brought up a good point that we have removed language in uh number letter C. Which one? I'm sorry. Number three, procedures in 207. Uh in 207, yes, public participation letter C. Number two, wait, can I letter A? Letter 2 A. So it should be time limitation. Uh vulgar language. Yeah. Um can't define. I think those were the exact words that you sent me. Um I agree. We have taken that direct verbiage out of policy previously and I think that we should take it out again because we cannot define none of us specifically. Have we replaced it with profanity? Do we have profanity? We can't find that either. I I can't directly find it. However, I did put a question mark if we wanted to move towards that. But then I think that would bring us back to the same scenario of who wants to define what. So I think the best thing would be to just So can I have a I have a suggest use vulgar language. Um we have rules. How about just disclose personal information about right? I think would probably be the best. Yeah, we have. So, yeah, we have rules for the open forum. So what if we created a policy out of that that we can also place over there and add in the no signs to that because uh about open forum as well as you know um our control of the boardroom and if we and put no signs in that and then memorialize that in the policy and make that the the open forum policy. Um it providing that people are okay with the rules there. the rules are a little I I rewrote them to make them shorter um at one point in time, but um what if we do that? Because public hearings really should stay concise to the statute of public hearings that we're required by law to do no matter what. So, um I just don't want to conflate that with general meeting, you know, um um you know, people. Um that's the thing that that um would get confusing 207 very specific to public hearings but then we need to go back and make sure to 20 206 which 206 does cover the public's participation. So if you if you go back and rework 27 and make it very specific to public hearings and statuto statutory for 20 for 207, then just make sure 206 includes all the things for public participation in schoolboard meetings and then you could add in the flags and signs and banners and that one. Absolutely. I mean that way you're not conflating the two. Yep. But there one's public hearings and one is for the public. That's good. So then 206 can be rewritten to our forum rule. Well, we should then refer also just so you know back to the um agenda with the forums in it just so we people know what the definition is and where it is. And then change the rules and whatever it is on the top of that thing. Yeah, that thing. Whatever that thing is. That sounds like a good plan. So, are we officially good on those two? Well, we have to rewrite 206 both. Okay. Yes. I think I think out the sign. Leave that only for the board meetings. Yes. The vulgar language part. Can we if we scratch it on the other one? I agree with that statement. Well, hold on. We as long as we have it on the open form rules right now we give to people and it also it also states they can't make personal attacks and stuff like that. Yes, I think we cover everything out, but vulgar language was specific specifically addressed and we have brought this up. This board specifically has brought this up. Not in the forum. We haven't no in policy. We brought it up in people visiting the schools. We actually wiped out all correct behavior which is dangerous for our staff. That was but okay. I think why what can I just let me bring this up. Why is there a problem with vulgar language? I don't have a problem with vulgar language. No, I meant why would we want to have vulgar language? I mean, if you've seen the city council form rules across from Edina to Prior Lake to to whatever. I mean, they have that in there. I think anyone should stand up there and say whatever they want to say. Vulgar language or not doesn't bother me. But I I would say having it in the policy if it discourages 90% of it that's 90% less we have to deal with then who's ever sitting in the chair to have the right to say you you need to leave this is unacceptable to realize that there's kids in the room and that's what they that's what they should be focused on right and that should be the focus of everything that goes on at the podium right is that it's for our kids that's why we had the no vulgar language in there. So, but ultimately someone's it's not going to stop anyone if they want to do it. Well, no, it gives the chair or whoever sitting the right to say you violated policy, you cannot speak anymore and remove them from the podium. The only time I feel like it maybe has been taken a little bit too far was I believe I don't remember when this was a while back. I someone was quoting something out of context. Well, regardless if somebody's quoting something in school materials, then I remember I believe that it is appropriate for them to say at a stand if it's okay. They weren't quoting something materials. Can we make that clear? It was if that was the case, right? And that would be my only exception. It was the case. I I understand what you're saying. Can I um can I bring up a point that I think was a good point to bring up. Under procedures, I'm back in 206. Um under procedures under number six under number two under open forum um which policy is this 206 procedures Roman numeral six. Yep. And then um number two I greatly appreciate as a member of not the board and now the board. I love the fact that our school board does allow people to speak about anything rather than having it limited to the discussion to an engine an agenda item because we don't have that many opportunities for our public to come speak. And I I firmly believe if they have to wait for it to become an agenda item, it it's just going to boil and cause frustration. So that's why we actually took that out. No, I know I'm saying I appreciate that. So I think that should be changed to what is in our current policy. This is the discretion to limit it. I don't think so. We didn't I think all tool suggest I read this as it retains the discretion. This doesn't say it's limit. I know it just I it's I I agree with with director Actson on this, but I also agree with 206 should just be the rules of the forum and of our board room. And we already have a lot of those rules down. So, I think we should just recreate it according to the rules that we have and then come back and review it in in in its entirety uh so that we're seeing how it how it looks and include the signage in there too since that wasn't um in there. I think that's the easiest way to do it. Um we already have a date of privacy. I don't want to conflate it with that. And do we have any rules in those rules about people speaking at our board meeting that have to have some sort of um connection to our district like live in the district, have a student in the district? We don't have that rule now. So, we don't have that rule now. No. Oh, did we used to have that rule? No. I felt like you had just to keep outside agitators from coming in and speaking. I mean, I know that's happened in the past. I've seen the meetings. Um, they have my memory says that at one time you had to be a resident of the school district, but I don't I can't because I I appreciate the sentiment, but I think just as a Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Martha. You wanted to say something. Yes. So, we used to have that and then MS they also had to state their address, not ask somebody to address because somebody in Rochester then Yeah, that's that's good. So, it's on your honor that live in the district. Okay. And that's that's fine. Okay. And you're right, public meeting. They should be able to So, are we clear as mud on 206? 207 206 and 207. I haven't taken a note. So, I got it. You're good. Director, if you want to go and um describe the meeting. So, we're at 1027. Can I get a clarifying? Yes. What did we decide? Are we taking signage out? I thought we were moving it signage in 206. Okay. Where does signage stop? Is my question. Uh, as far as I'm concerned, uh, no signs in the boardroom. This is not a this is not a public meeting. It's a meeting in public and we have the right to keep it as keep the quorum as any way we want. So nothing zero. You're going to come and come and speak. God bless you. But no signs in the boardroom. It's fine. I just want to make sure that that's all everything clear. Yep. And that it doesn't extend out into our parking lot? No. Absolutely not. Okay. Just not in the boardroom. So people can do what they want in the parking lot. 100%. Great. Is that cool with everybody? Yeah. It's not my role. I want to make sure. Yeah, 100%. Um, moving on to code of ethics. Uh, with 209 there were, this is, you know, MSBA's pretty much through and through. Uh, the items that were struck out were given by uh board members. Uh so with one change to the addition there uh instead of so now we're looking so five was struck six was struck the new item where it starts with support um that word was suggest suggested to get moved to uphold. So, it would read, "Uphold the majority decision after honoring the right to members uh to express opposing viewpoints and vote their convictions." That's how that would read. Uh, if everyone is okay with moving on from there, I can go with the other item that was um suggested, which is holy crap. Sorry. I'm going to just so I can quote everything moving forward. So letter E number six. So this everything would stay the same except for the last word which would change to concurrently. Oh okay. That was simultaneously. Yep. Okay. So, both changed and then the very last item was struck. Okay. Other than that, um I do not agree. We're going to be here all night because I'm going to go through each one of our existing code of ethics as well as the other ones that we had to find out why. Now, again, the MSBA will tell you this is a skeletal code. Um, and there's a lot of things in our original code of ethics that, by the way, the code of ethics has not been changed in a long time. Um, it was, we developed ours, I looked at the history, we developed ours before the MSBA ever had one. Um, so there's things in the original code of ethics and the language in there that had been approved by an attorney the year last year you were on there actually uh Dan before you came back on the board. Um that include not to use the public board office for personal publicity or to avoid any conflict. And the only reason um that we had changed anything in policy 209 is because it conflicted or it was an overlap with what was in 203 before. Uh so there was um language in here that actually enforced our professional behavior um quite um clearly and also in line with almost all other standards. Um, so if you have suggestions, could we be methodical about that and just raise one and we can say yes or no or go through it quickly? I agree. It's in a very long note a month ago or so. I was just going to say when we reviewed this, Dr. France in September of 2023, we spent a lot of time in this. I think we spent six months on it. And one of my biggest concerns is that there was so much um confusion between whether it was an ethic or a norm. And so I actually appreciate this and like this because it's very clean. These are MSBA ethics. Um I would also say yes if we're going through this and you see one thing I mean we were again like director Bullian said we were tasked with using MSBA model policy. So if there is something missing that is a big hot button for you or whatever I think we should start we could focus there but to go through every single item because that's the way you liked it done in the past or have a preference we're just it's not right. It's not fair. We have seven board members here with seven voices and this was the guidance to use MSBA model policy and that's here where we're at and we had two board members who worked very hard on this um to get to this point tonight. Okay, they cut and pasted in. I'm going to just acknowledge that. Now, let me just go through that. We did not spend hardly any time at all on 209. We spent 6 months on 204. We're we're talking about 209. Are there specific changes? Are there specific things? Are there specific things in 209 that you have issues with? Okay. So um what we had taken out of the original 209 and put it in 204 before 204 or 203 I get confused got moved was that um before a board member brings something up especially numbers that they will validate the information that they have when they speak at the public board meeting or at least make an attempt to validate it uh so we're not sitting here and arguing what number is that on our current policy just so I can follow along. It was on the pol. It was before we removed it in 20 23. It was redone in September of 2023. Yes. So we removed that. I remember the whole conversation about validate because there was a lot of conversation about how do you validate? Where do you get your source? There's so many different detail on that. He director Atinson said if somebody says I validated it and I found my source and then another board member argues and says well I you didn't validate it because that's not the source I had. Then again there's this whole bias of information and and so these are our ethics. These are things like we are supposed to attend schoolboard meetings. We are supposed to come to the meetings prepared. These are true ethics not an opinion somebody's opinion of one board member versus another board member. Okay. said validate when you're going to uh speak about data concerning the district that you needed to take the time to validate it with administration prior to bringing it in. So, we weren't making up data, financials, etc. And it didn't mean you didn't agree with them, it just meant you had to validate them. Uh we also talked about not to use the board public office for personal gain or publicity and shall avoid any conflict of interest because remember we took all conflicts of interest out of the previous one. Um we have a conflict of interest policy and then we have um I mean the original one the original code of ethics not only covered the original can you clarify the the one that's online right now? The current one. Yeah. Okay. Got it. So my question is is why are we changing the current one? Well, I mean I think it was the direction that we gave them to start with the MSBA and then like I said, if you have suggestions of points that we have in our current policy that you would like to bring back in, that's where we wanted to go. Right. Right. And I and I did I sent an extensive um um list of comments and and questions of what I thought needed to be put back in. Well, in order to avoid open meeting law, I only sent them to Director Bullan. I think I copied you, Dan. Um um I'm I'm not finding that, Mary, right at the moment. I know you did send an extensive one and and my response to you was Mary, this is extensive and like they're they're your um opinions or experience and so to bring it to the board like this, you know, line by line what needs to happen. I did after you sent that um ex that extensive uh email I did reach out to um Terry Mororrow because one of the things that you were stating was if it's not something about um if uh things were taken out of operating norms or or I can't remember your exact verbiage. But so I sent an email asking if um if something transcends my specific questions to Mr. Mororrow and again said the same thing. We're in the process of updating our 200s using MSBA model policies as our base. I received the comments below and was wondering if you could share your thoughts. I wrote being a self-governing board, aren't all policies equally enforceable? Yes. He answered yes they are all equally enforcable. My other question was does a govern does governing rules policy hold more weight than an ethics policy? I said, for example, does stating in an ethics policy 209, the board operates through the superintendent and not around or over the superintendent, does it lessen its enforcability because um it's not explicitly stated in the governing rules policy. And he wrote, "Policy 209 sets out explicit commitments that the board members can make. MSBA recommends that the board discuss policy 209 perhaps at an organizational meeting. um enforcability remains the same whether the specific statement appears in one policy or another. So we purposely and traditionally and whatever ethics is about moral and about personal decisions about uh which is much more um meant to be much more um uh non uh discreet. So, it's about be a good person, stuff like that, which is very hard to define because as I put in that email to you, we ripped out everything with our operating norms which were discreet about board members if you're not going to be able to come to a meeting, you need to do you need to contact, you know, so and so, all that kind of stuff within a timely manner. All that, we took those out. The only thing we had left was the ethics. So, I sent you the questions and my comments about what needed to be moved over and put there. And I reiterated that as long as you need the term ethics up there, ethics by default and definition do not mean discreet behaviors. They're usually a um and typically the term if you're eth if you're trying to enforce ethical behavior and you're using the broader statements that we had in our current ethical behavior then they're extremely hard if not impossible to enforce because of the decisions I and because of the definitions are very very nebulous. They're not um and they're meant to be that way. It's about ethics are about be a good person. Please consider the interests of others. Um you know you will you will uh try to honestly fulfill your board uh responsibilities stuff like that. They're much less discreet. Um I feel like some of that is written in here though like respect the rights of others to have an express opinion. So I guess I'm trying to understand what what we're missing. Again I think these are actually better. I think they're better than what we had before. like keep an open mind about how I vote on any position until the board has met and fully discuss the issue. Um well that those are hard to pin down. We had norms that were very discreet and very specific about showing up to meetings about being prepared. I found the email and I mean it's a extensive email. Mhm. And it wasn't looking at So I appreciate your putting this all in an email and my response to you was how do we incorporate it? How are you suggesting that we incorporate it? How do we marry it? Because I mean, you're you're giving you're giving examples. You're this is I mean, I don't know what you wanted me to do with this. Well, that that would came after a long discussion that was one-on-one between you and I when I was mentioning policy stuff that I was that I was concerned were being eliminated. And you said, "Go through each one and let me know which ones you're concerned about." So, I spent the time and I went through each one. I I understand. And I appreciate that. I appreciate I know it's overwhelming. How do I what was I to do? And that's why I asked you, you have to come. We each of us, each board member comes to the table with the suggestions. We are all working together to make our 200s as the best that we can. That's what we are trying to do since the the was the will of the board early this year. So, while I appreciate this, I don't know what to do with this. I mean, it wasn't like, okay, and and you know, right here, this is my suggestion and then we can discuss it. Does everyone agree? Yes. No. I I you know, I appreciate I was mistaken. I thought that you would actually include that in your discussion with Charles and I was very I pulled the number over and the Okay, can we just move forward on this? I just can't I I can't discuss things thoughts that aren't my own. I don't know how to. Well, I was I said it came from such and such a number and it needs to be put back in. And then I explained why I chose that one and previous, you know, why it was put in there. I even told you the history of some of them because I had been listening to the board meetings for like three years before I actually ran. So I remember some of them. I appreciate it. But I I didn't know okay how you know like I'm just I think that's beyond my purview as a board member. Okay. me taking your input and then trying to incorporate it into I mean does that make sense? I just it does. I made the mistake because I thought since you and Charles were working on these that I was giving my feedback and I was trying to copy others because I mentioned others. So I wanted to be very very considerate when I said when I mentioned so I copied who I could but I was trying not to copy it to more than three people to or more than two board members and then to make sure that I wasn't violating open meeting law by having this discussion um outside a quorum. I thought we wanted to give feedback. So, I made the mistake of thinking that I was giving input and feedback into the um into these policies. If it was like um yeah, Mary, I just I didn't I mean, you sent it to Dan, you sent it to myself. I I didn't know how I can't take your thoughts and make it work. when when Charles and I are are are working together, it's through a Google doc and then we'll sometimes we've met here to, you know, make sure that we're on the same page as far as what we're bringing forward, but um these are these are from you. So, it's it's hard for me to Okay, I does that make sense? I thought I was providing input. I didn't do it the right way. a lot of input, extensive input, and I asked you to bring it to the board table. Well, I I was thought we were supposed to be sending in our input so that it could be combined so we talk about it here at concluded everybody's feedback. That's what I thought. And by the way, the reason why I include Dan on it is Dan, I actually mentioned you because you were working on policy. you were fairly specific on everything from prepositions and god knows what else during your time that I remember sitting it. So I mentioned you in there to say this goes way back and this is the reason why it was put in and I see no reason to remove it. So in all due respect for time, can we please just look at what we have in front of us and see if there's anything that is a big thing that either needs to be pulled out or specifically added back in. Um because like this is code of ethics. It's pretty boiler point point boiler topic or whatever you call it. I can't speak at 11 o'clock at night. And I think um I think the two board directors did do a good job of adding in things that they felt that they received feedback on um that were specific. Um so I think that's the only way we're going to move forward. If there's something very specific that you feel is missing, can we just look at it and see if it's here? And if not, we can discuss as a board to add it or not. Well, because this is not one board member's policy. This is seven board members policy. Well, my input was not able to make it into here and I did have extensive input. Would you like me to read the email because it will be here till midnight. No, I think I'm going to suggest something. Um, don't kill me. Can we uh see if we can reach consensus on 12 and 15? 12 and 15. What? 212 policy 212 and 215. Mhm. And [Applause] carry this one over to July. What would be the intent of carrying it over to have the discussion at an earlier hour? I see I see the last I see the last with this but I would just ask that everyone brings like redlinined add this sentence verbatim very specific so we don't sit here for an hour thing chair white you did ask us to provide feedback to Amy and Charles which we did. Yes I think that's fair. So, so with with Director Fran's email, sure, maybe it was long, but we were asked to give electronic feedback. I'm not disputing that. Yeah. And it's just taken away. I know you're not, but I'm saying like we were asked to submit feedback electronically. So, several or or all I don't know who it was because we weren't on it, but to provide feedback. So, I guess what I'm having trouble with is I mean, you don't have to and you know what? You don't you don't have to take anybody's feedback if it's sent electronically, but I guess just acknowledge that it was that things were sent and to offer it up and then just to ask to bring red lines is weird to me just because we've already done that. We've already provided that. Sorry, that that was a breath that didn't go. And we're also taking valuable time away from hard things that we need to do in our district. So why we can't look at this, make our changes and move forward. I guess like I had sent red lines and I feel like they were incorporated. So I don't know what was sent or wasn't I missed if there are red lines maybe we just need to bring them back. I would be happy to go ahead and make the make the additions directly into here and send them back for a future one. Um I'm I'm happy to do that. I I could just take that and move it and redline the original one if that helps instead of doing it in a separate document with number numbered into the formatting numbers. And when I say miss, they're in here. I just forgot to say them out loud. Oh, okay. That's that's it. So which was Jessica Olstead disagreed on removing number five and then the the addition to be to with the exception of the 200 series policy which directly applied to the board. So no I said them all. Okay. So did not say this. I'm sure is it fair to say does anybody have is anybody opposed to this policy? I mean, can we move forward that way? So, you you don't want any of my input is what you're saying. I to be blunt. No, we absolutely want your input, Director France, the when I'm if you pull up your email from your policy 209 input, almost all of them are questions. No, I was questioning why they wouldn't be included or they were removed from our original policies. So, and then I was explaining why they were in there. I mean, and and how this isn't this isn't a this isn't um because what I'm concerned about is that um you're feeling that your suggestions weren't incorporated into this. But you're when when you sent the email and we had a conversation afterwards, I said, "This is extensive. It has to come to the table where we all can agree. Is this something to add? Is this something not? Um, and I and again I repeated the discussion that that the feedback was supposed to go into the two people that were writing the policies that was asked for feedback. I sent it in. They weren't. And by the way, the fact that you're discontinuing recognize the integrity of my predecessors and associates and appreciate their work was taken out of the ethics. um which actually obviously flies in the face of what I was trying to do to say this was put in sometimes in year 2000 uh because of AB and C that sort of thing. Um so so that's why I was saying you know the the operating norms and the ethics were developed over time. Very little changes were made to 209 uh in our the only thing we did was actually eliminate duplication. We didn't add anything to 209 when we last voted on it. Um, and we had gone through this process and gone through every single line. Um, to go back and just put in the skeletal and then take out some pieces that I don't agree with even in the basic I didn't think was was right. And I don't think it's going to leave future boards in a good position. Um, just like I don't believe in 212, taking our annual evaluation of ourselves completely out of our thing is a good plan either. Um, I don't understand why we would do that, but there's um, you know, the only one that I that I think we can go forward is 20. It's 215. Um, oh, I don't know why. And and and I'm fine with 215. And we made little changes to it. Just updated the legal reference and cross reference. Chair White, you sent an email to the board asking everyone to send the policies directly to Director Bullion and myself. I think it was pretty clear. Yes. And I everyone did that except for me which I did send to director Bullan and everyone else's changes made it in and then director Bullion asked you to bring other things and I don't know what happened with that but I think we should move forward on 209. That's just my opinion. And ironically 209 says come to meetings prepared for discussion of the agenda items. So it's right there. So So is I didn't send it directly to you both either because I didn't want to break open meeting law because if I would have if I would have sent it to both of you and copied Chair White and it came from me, there would have been four of us. So technically I broke a rule. I guess was instructed in the email. I remember that in the email very specifically. I remember the email. Well, I guess you know what? I've had it. I've had it. I've had it. This is not why I ran for this office. This is not why I'm sitting here. I'm very proud to be sitting here and I take it very seriously, but I have had it. We have 200 policies and you know what? If we were instructed, if the if if if the policy committee was instructed to do MSBA guidelines and that's only then I feel I was misled in what I was thought we were doing. Then I feel that that we were misled greatly. And I know I'm supposed to be doing this. I know I'm supposed to be having these discussions and having and giving feedback and I have and I have reached my point. I have reached my point and I am done talking about these. I'm done. I'm to the point where I don't even want to vote on them when we have to vote on them because why bother when we don't even have a policy anymore to dictate if somebody violates a policy. What is the point of all of this? So, I am frustrated. I am done. It's 11:00 at night and we have spent more time again talking about policies that govern ourselves than actual board work, which is why we are here. I'm done. Well, then it's what is the will of the board as far as 209 goes? We're going to we're going to have to plow through this. I have sent in a couple of random if changes have been sent in and accounted for. Then what we have before us is what we have before us. Are there any other changes that someone would suggest? I have changes. If they are not going to be considered by the rest of the board, then that is the will of the board. They're they are considered by the will of the by the board. If you discuss them like do you want I mean I I what I feel like it's 11 o'clock at night. I'm not going to go through that list. No offense. I I'm not it's it's not not worth it. Um again, all on 209 it's almost all questions. No, they weren't all questions. They were why was this removed? And I and this needs to stay in there. That was the question. I wasn't trying to dictate. I was asking why. But I am actually going to go with Jessica, Director Olstead, because um again, I was misled. This wasn't supposed to be a cut and paste. They were supposed to be thoughtful. If we're not even going to enforce any of these, then why are we doing it? Honestly, why are we doing it? If we're not going to actually hold ourselves accountable, we shouldn't. I mean, I I agree with that. I agree. I don't think anyone's saying that we're not going to enforce these. Of course, we're going to enforce them. It's just the process of which that we talked about. Of course, I mean, of course, we would enforce the code of ethics. Um, I I guess I'm trying to understand how we how we feel misled. Um, I I felt like I was okay with the approach. I And I'm trying to understand what changes you're suggesting. Quite frankly, I I'm a little confused. Well, we did remove the policy, the enforcement policy. So, can maybe just go through like the first bullet point and I would understand in the email or something. I don't I don't know. I'm just trying to understand why if we had all these suggestions, why weren't they in here? Policy 209. Operating norms are not code of ethics. Period. Operating norms are rules. Ethics are standards that guide behavior. Period. Can you provide examples of the following? What does it mean to take no private action that will compromise a schoolboard or administration? Does this include miss and disinformation? Does this include social media accounts? Does this include bringing materials to board meetings that have not been shared to help all board members be prepared? That was number one. So what are the changes that are suggested out of that? Okay. Again, and so that to my defense, right? To my defense. And so what I did is suggest that we move the thing into the ethics or and change the language of the ethics to be less specific. Actually, there is. But okay. So I can make those. I was trying not to dictate. I was saying what does this mean and we need to put this back in. And there's several examples in there that I thought needed to be go back in. I I'm just I I agree what director said. If we're not going to enforce if we took out the enforcement policy, then none of these mean anything anyways. And second of all, we are supposed to be leading by example. And when we take out everything from vulgar language to god knows what else, I I got what are we doing this for? So we can just really we are supposed to be adults here and acting professional. We don't all agree behind the scenes, but that's fine. But when we come here, the one thing that got left off is the fact that everything we do is supposed to be for the kids. It's not supposed to be our own personal agendas. that was actually in the original one and it was also in the norms and how that would actually be memorialized and enforced in a very broad way that still allowed individual expression. So all that's gone on here be primarily motive by by desire to provide the best education possible for the students of your school district number seven. That is not what I was Okay, listen. I I I'm not going to sit there. I'm just trying to be methodical just cuz it's late. So, I'm I'm just Yeah, it's 11:00 and I think this this covers everything that we need to to cover in our board of ethics. So, I'm not clear on what to do next if you're going to send red line back or revisit this next meeting. Well, I would like to send a red line back if it's possible, but I don't know if that's going to be the will of the board. If there are explicit points that we would like to add, I I am happy to review those personally. In in in all due respect to our schedule, can we review it at the next meeting when we vote on it so that we are not spending this would drop then to another study session in August because we don't have a study session in July and we're trying to wrap this up as we originally talked about. So if you send in your specific suggestions, it comes for a vote in July. we talk about it. Of course, we to talk about it at before every vote. There's discussion, then we can discuss it there and move forward would be my suggestion. Um I agree. You two are the ones that have to take the feedback. I think that um if we're discussing frustrations and challenges, um given the fact that Director Johnson and I have um we don't We're not creating policy. We're creating discussion point. I think that is that needs to be I I have zero comfortability um feeling like I have the authority to you know that I didn't put in your points. That's that's not my job as a individual board member. We we have um yeah so I'm frustrated by that because I have no authority over a singular board member. We are doing this we're we have been doing this work to bring to the board for discussion but it we are in no way writing policy or stating that that's what has to be. So this is not personal just so you know I sent in my comments for consideration. I did have actual lining at me. It's not because I did send them to you and copied Dan on it. Um, and also I did that out of respect because I mentioned you with how some of these got done. Um, but listen, it I put them in there to be considered in the process and I said I don't know how to put in questions and I did reply to that and I did call you about it. No, there's no specifics, Marian. That was that was our phone conversation. Without specifics that I can put in, okay, to suggestions, I I I'm I'm not you. So to to ex to ask me to to do that, I just I cannot do it. And there wasn't a followup email. There was no follow. I don't have a no and I would suggest that if it's if it's okay with directors Johnson and Bullan um to uh accept feedback between now and and the July 14th meeting. We'll have to discuss this and vote on on July 14th. Yes. Super. And you would put them in as like red lines. Absolutely. Can we do that with 212 and 15th just to induce like follow that as well? Um so that these don't get moved out any farther. You see what I'm saying? Just let us finish our do the same process with 212 and 215 vote on them in the July meeting so that we can move forward and and not spend additional time past our timeline that we are trying to achieve. Director France, you mentioned something in 212 already. Can you just let me know? Self the board self-evaluation. I didn't I didn't understand why that would ever be taken out. We self-evaluate ourselves every year. Okay. Uh five. All right. I will make sure that this board this whole section board evaluation. Okay. And we do do that. All right. Yeah. I don't know why it's I don't know why it's two different colors and why it's crossed out honestly. Okay. That whole section needs to Okay. We can do that. All right. So then we will move ahead to the 14th discuss and vote on these last three. All of them come up, right? But we we'll discuss these last three and then vote on the balance. Okay. Um the last thing on the uh I'm sorry, we have agenda. Last thing on the on the agenda is then a future agenda topics which I've received one email. Um uh but before we move on to anything else um I'm going to suggest due to the fact that we have um we're in an unprecedented position of having the entire executive team being replaced um at the same time that uh a retreat would be in order um in I was thinking either July 28th or August 4th. Those are both Mondays. I'm talking about no more than two hours to uh um recommmit to how we're going to interact with the new team um and with and with each other and uh kind of level set with all the new uh staff coming on so that we can uh move forward in agreement with how again how we're going to interact with these people as they come on board. It's a great idea. I'm not going to be there. I'm going to be out of the country again that day. Uh both days the last week of July into the first week of August. So both the 20th and the 4th would be out because that's the whole week. I will send I will validate my calendar and send you so we can bookend on either side. So if you wouldn't mind sending me I mean if the 28th and the or the 4th are not agreeable because I figure everybody should be there. Um, uh, you know, we can we can move this into whatever it takes. If it has to be a little bit later in August, that's fine. But I just want to make sure that early on in, uh, the the new people coming on that we have the chance to do this. I I apologize, Dan. I had sent you dates that conflicted with existing stuff on the calendar, but I didn't think of stuff that was outside of the calendar, but I will do that. So, that's that's my first crack at it. And uh so if those two dates don't work, um I'd like to keep it on Mondays just for the cadence that I want to take a summer Saturday away. Uh that's certainly not my intent. So again, so no more than two hours um a 68 kind of thing on a Monday. Good idea. So um why don't why don't you uh I guess emailing dates in late July to early obviously Mary's out July 28th. I'm out July 28th as well. So then maybe it's uh some August dates that would work for for everyone. Well, 4th is a Monday and the 11th is a board meeting, right? We'll figure it out. We'll send in dates. Yep. Send me dates. All of August that And director, what was the other future agenda topic that was emailed in? Uh it was from It was from uh ask me what it is. I didn't email. Oh, a suggestion on SRO report. Um, so I'll consider that moving forward and um we can go from there. Do we have to get full board? Uh, actually not. The new policy leaves it up to me. In concert with the vice chair and the superintendent. Okay. So, um, if there's something else to come for the board, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. We're in a study session. Do we need to do that? Oh, you're right. Uh because we came out of a closed end. Oh okay. Okay. So made second by Amy. Second by Mary. All in favor signify by saying I. I. 70 be there at 9:30.