Oh, that was the bulk of it. Sorry, I didn't know he was gonna call a break. Isn't that great? I know. I apologize for just getting up and Dan, I apologize. I didn't know you were going to call a break. All right. I felt rude then. I'm sorry. Did she drop maybe for a break or maybe she dropped it? She may have dropped it. Doing up there. This is supposed to rain on my tree. What's the deal? For the next three days cuz I'm trying to have excavation done in my yard. So, probably rain for a week. It was dry for like two, right? Until we got him there. Well, we needed the rain. It's just that it does come. It comes all at once, doesn't it? I'm okay with the rain. Can't get really can't get a break here. Besides my muddy mess. I feel like I emailed all these things. I can't remember it. I may have that up. I'm kidding. resurrection. [Music] in your mailbox. How do you want to spend your summer in them? Was it a good I hear you. We do. I was doing something completely different. Could it have been campaigning? You did a good job. She's no effort. No. Yeah. The first sound effects. This person gave this she dropped off and said she popped back on in 9:30. cuz she was just going through her phone anyway. Yeah. While the kids are sitting out there and well, should we order pizza? We're going to go there. That was Friday. like we dare go into close session. Oh, we've gone we've started close session probably I've probably started close session after 11 before. I mean, that's not saying we want to. I think there's there's an update. Yep. That was our compromise. I think there's an update. But you want to because I'd like to get out of here before midnight. I'm I was thinking of Oh, you know what? There's I didn't worry about that. The 6 a.m. daughter wake up. No, we Martha, is there something where we can't go into the next day? Like if we go up to midnight 1201 because that's the next day and we don't even say 1201. I'm talking 10. So we got 11. Can we aim for 11? Let's get the gas. Let's aim for 11. Um do you have any idea how long the update? They already have the comments on the negotiation. Is it free room? Oh yeah, we'll just contact. Let me just You guys can start. Let me just get to I feel like I have to find that email too because I I'm I'm at least will come back. Oh, we going here. Well, we're starting without her. She knows where we are. Okay. Uh, I'm going to propose because of everybody's schedule, let's see what we can get done by 10:15. Does that seem fair? If we can bomb through them, great. If not, really aren't in a tremendous hurry. We'll be close to our goal date regardless because we do have that update uh uh during the close session around negotiations. And if that I want to make sure we're not all totally dead before we start doing that, we also have to think of people waiting over there. Yes. So, um, let's see what we can do in that 10 to 10:15 range. So, uh, Director Johnson or Director Bullion, either one, you want to start us out with 2011.1. Yes. Okay. 2011.1, we had a couple comments. Uh, with that, uh, Director Olstead, um, for your comment, will everything go into the handbook? No, everything won't go directly into the handbook. Procedures will go into the handbook. Um, that was the big long thing that we were going to attempt to go into this meeting, but we just started, Lisa. We pushed it. Um, I can hear you now. Great. Wow. We just just started on 2011.1. Um, so I hope that answers your question. And this is just going to address the statute itself. Yes. My only comment, and this is Wow, incredibly loud again. Sorry. Um, my only comment was it was an awful lot to cut and I just wanted to make sure that because we've had to use this policy in the recent past that our community knows what's going into our board handbook is it was just a lot to it was a lot that got cut. It is a lot of it is directly from statute and and that's why the procedures will go in the handbook and the handbook actually we all will come together and approve and the handbook will go online. So all of it is going to be completely open to the public. So it will be out there in the open for everyone to see for everything. It's really just a change of location for just a change of location so that the procedures technically aren't in the policy itself. The only other change that um or major change was from director Mason to change in the actual purpose statement was uh to change smooth running to seamless efficient and purpose. This policy is to establish and find vacancies unexpected terms of ensuring efficient and seamless. My communications uh brain thanks you for that word. Didn't love the word. No, I love it. Suggestion. I don't like either one of them. It's really school board. Continuous running of the school board is what you're really after. And I don't agree with moving the policy and the procedure into the schoolboard handbook. I believe it needs to be in here um not only for more public perview but also because um it should be voted on separately um and um obviously the statute is vacuous again and um I don't agree with that at all. Matter of fact, I don't think it's a school board procedure per se because it is an exception. Um, and therefore, it needs to have a policy associated with it that's far more robust and it has the guidelines. Now, if you want to talk about the individual procedures for voting, the individual procedures for that, but the policy has got to be in here and there's nothing. It just says the procedure for this policy, but there is no policy. uh and the uh statute again leaves it up to us. Um so I don't agree with that at all and I think it's going to cause more problems than than not. Um so the the um the actual um um the actual policy also includes not just when we consider a vacancy but also um when the vacancy because this is something that has gone through various iterations. Um, and we've had this situation come up multiple times and that's when a board member um became uh ill for an extended period of time and we needed a policy that was consistent. Uh, it was fair um and it required notice and a few other things that that went beyond the statute that we wanted to do here. Uh we've also had a policy that of of how we do certain things here uh in in form of policy. Um and before our policy was non-existent unfortunately because we had a board that would just meet and say okay this is how we're going to do it. Um and that became an issue last time. So I do think we need a lot more in here. Um now the actual procedure for voting can go into the um into the board handbook but remember that the this the vacancy policy is truly an exception. It is not something that you would want to go to a daily board handbook to follow on a regular basis. That that is that would be truly an exception. So, I think the other thing is is is the handbook going to be filled with exceptions? Um, or how do you want to define that upfront? But, um, I I don't agree with this. And matter of fact, I remember speaking with the MSBA about this extensively. I think I think I had three of them on speed dial last year uh during this process, particularly with the legislative changes and a few other things that were going on. Uh, and all they kept saying is, "You need a policy. you guys don't have a policy. We never formalized a policy. Um and you need one to be in a policy that's that's you know where it normally is with with um with the uh um thing that the MSBA highly recommends. So I don't agree with moving all of this into a procedure. I also think it also buries it from public view. Um which is pretty important. Um, so that's I I feel very strongly about that. I have something to say. Go ahead. Um, my recommendation is that Okay. First, I'm wondering if someone can help me. Maybe you can. Director Johnson, we originally had 2011.1 in our March study session. We we talked about this. We didn't land um I kind of have notes that how what happened in March. We moved it to April April where we approved correct we actually approved keeping 2011.1 Martha. Is that right? I know. Okay. regardless of exactly the history you this this this policy we had at the March study session and at that study session we had added a we had added a section compensation we also added a section of vacancies um that wasn't the compensation part got moved to the org meeting policy that has been passed the vacancies Um we it is my belief and we'd have to go back but it is my belief that we actually passed that policy and that's we were kind of um I know there was an issue. Yes, there was an issue with that and that is why we are here today and my recommendation is that unless there are specific things in our policy such as the smooth running, I think that we all can agree that that wording is a poor that's poor word choice. Um, but my recommendation is that we um Uh we keep the the current policy as we approved it uh pending any potential edits that are brought forth tonight. So, um, this this 2011 that we brought forward with just a purpose statement, um, when I'm going back to all of my notes from the March study session, it is my my understanding that we actually passed 2011 in this state in the original state. in the original state less whatever corrections we had from then. So this new um presentation of 2011.1 it it it would be my recommendation to keep the old un uh along with whatever edits the is the will of the board because I believe we already we already passed this and by the way if we already passed it then we have to actually go to a board meeting and resend the previous vote and all Is that right? Right. And so that I thought so, but thank you for looking that up. That's what's muddy. And um you know there has been a extensive amount of doing policy work even outside of this by director Johnson and I. And so um in trying to piece through all of the notes from March going forward. on that for approval. Yeah, we never did approve it. We never did approve it. I think was this one of the ones we moved just because of time. Correct. Okay. No, there was an issue because it was all crossed out. I don't I think I think it we've already read it once. So, this basically would be a second study test. We read it at the April in March at the at the March study session and then it never came back to a regular board meeting. Yeah. Something happened with that one, never approved. There was an issue. Well, my notes state it was the two issues were um the compensation which we moved to the org policy um the org meeting policy and then the other one was vacancies and it was the um I have that it was um I had it was included in the big all of them read together for the ones um including the default 203, but I didn't listen to the study session. Okay. My notes state that the board did not agree on the vacancies whether to we didn't we didn't come to a consensus. Correct. But we had two options on there, right? We had two versions on there. Two, but the one of the links didn't open. Oh, I thought it I didn't have that problem, but okay. Oh, well, I couldn't open one of the links. to one of the options. Um, but that I think and again this is one board member's extensive notes trying to go back to what where we were at. It's just this pol this I would agree this is not a policy. It's just giving a purpose and then stating that the whole procedures in a handbook. Lisa, you had a question or a comment. Oh yeah. So, my memory serves me that um we we talked about this policy, but we talked about it is there's the law, which is what's stated in the policy, and then there's the procedure, and my understanding is we were going to come back and look at a procedure that we would put in the handbook. And so, to me, this policy reflects that, but I'm wondering where's the procedure? Like, when are we going to re actually review the procedure? So, that was that was my recollection of it. That sounds that sounds about right. I mean it that that recollection sounds sounds right. But the procedure um I think the the different um districts and how they've proposed I think we had a few options uh presented. Um and my question is and my recommendation after spending all this time on it is that our 2011 remains and then if the procedures change. Yeah, please go ahead. So, all we have actually done is 2011.1. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not. All we have done is actually voted to remove 2011.1. We did vote on that. We voted to remove it. I didn't think we voted to remove it. We did. I'm looking at the schoolboard summary from April 14th, 2025. Okay, that's we're going to put it in procedure. We do not have a 2011.1 currently. Currently, is that correct? I'm looking at I'm looking at the email from Martha right now. Okay. So, okay. Okay. If we if we voted to remove 2011.1 because uh now I I do have MSBA pulled up. MSBA does not have a model policy for vacancies. Correct. The the it's up to each U board member as long as you satisfy the minimum of the statute. And I highly recommend that we do have one. And believe me, I got that lecture from them repeatedly uh that we put it in policy, right? Which is why we went with this and then established that our procedure would then be in the handbook. Thank you. Um I'm not in favor of that. I'll repeat that. So whatever is decided that I'm definitely not in favor of of that. Um it there's minimal transparency. Um a lot of different things like I stated before. So then I don't have a preference as long as we have our procedure written at some point. I kind of agree with you, Jessica, but I'm I am a little concerned about what you you said, Mary, about different scenarios surrounding maybe an illness or a temporary type of thing that because we had to do that on the fly. Um, it was right before you came on board where we had a board member that had a serious illness and couldn't make it to a lot of stuff. So, I I just and we had to go through that manually. Um, and then again at that time we got the lecture from MSBA saying, "Where's your policy? Where's your policy?" And every one of those are covered under Minnesota statute 123b.09. Yeah. And it's under one Minnesota statute. And our procedures would cover every one of those, which is why I put multiple examples under there so that we would all have ample time for everyone to look at it. they could call Director Bullion, myself, tell us what you liked, what you didn't like, so that we could then hopefully come up with one that everyone would be able to be very happy with. Again, you're talking about four years. Correct. Yep. So that we could put in the handbook, which is why we referenced it in letter A, so that would wouldn't be hidden. If anybody saw board vacancy, right, there it is. Oh, cool. I'm going to go into the board handbook. They could click the board handbook and scroll down or control F. And then we're doing hyperlinks, right? So handbook, I would assume, might be highlighted. And it's also in cross references. So we're going to highlight it there, too. Boom. It goes directly to board vacancy. There it is. And we have even the whole policy plus the application. It's all going to be there. Like that is the intent to have everything there. So it is completely laid out and it's thoughtless. And guess what we do every single year? we come back and we look at the whole board handbook again. So the question remains since we voted and our our minutes state that we voted to remove policy 2011.1 we did. So is this a moot discussion for tonight? Well then if we voted to remove it now we've got it sitting in here. So this is a study session. No I know but I'm saying is we voted to remove it. If that's the case, I remember choosing there was you gave scenarios in the in the initial one. I chose the second one, I think it was, and sent that back in. Um, and then whatever happened, the board, majority board, if they voted to remove 2011.1, where why is it back in here? Because we never voted to actually put something back in. You said we're going to replace it. It was moved. Lisa, have to rewatch it. Go ahead, Lisa. Yeah, everybody needs to look at the minutes. We voted on 2011, not 2011.1. So, April 16th, I looked at the minutes. April 14th, I'm sorry. If you look at the minutes, we voted on 2011, not 2011.1. 2011.1 schoolboard vacancies removal of policy. So, is that the Yes. So this is a new policy policy have a first read though on March 24th. [Laughter] Good lord. Second and final reading. Removal of policy. Can I Yes, you may interject. Sorry. Yes. Since Okay. Since there are some questions March, April, September, December, can we can we table this one and bring it back and just get clarity on what we did and when? I and I confess I I thought it sounded familiar when I was reading it for this meeting in particular, but I wasn't sure. Maybe I got to trust my gut um in that scenario, but maybe Can Can we move to just get clarity so we don't have to take the time tonight and then just bring it back? Okay. Is that okay with everybody? I'm good with that. All right. 203.5 is next on the list. I I'll make just really quick. Obviously, we're going to remove the default notes. Um the Minnesota Commissioner blah blah blah blah blah that's in there obviously. Um, and I was fine with this. Um, but and this is just me. Whenever I've read F on this one, it's been really confusing. It's kind of like I know that we no longer print them out and they've always been they've been electronic for some time, but the way we edited this a while ago um has always kind of bugged me. at least one copy of printed materials including electronic communications relating to the agenda items in the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the school board or its employees and and then I is distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body. What is distributed at the meeting? Because we used to do paper copies and we don't and it's just and then two distributed before the meeting. It's just the can't we just say we make it available to all members electronically and there's one printed copy at the front or is this statutory cuz I I didn't I I know that the legislature used to have this too and it's and they changed this. They drastically removed this because they now do electronic voting. Everything is electronic. They don't hand out anything printed. They just need to make sure it's available. So the whole this whole paragraph um is is been um has always confused me and it was in an original policy a while ago. Um and I know that we talked about it like four years ago and made some changes. So um that basically talked about the electronic communications and maybe it's just me but when I read that it's like if somebody were to hold this what did it say? Well, I can I can confirm on the statutory part. Um, but if not, I can make it read just like it does for open and closed meetings because that's very 99% of it is statutory, but basically read that the first part and then we h because we do statutoily have to provide at least one copy to the public, right? Just like what Martha does. And I can make it read exactly like that. And then and then electronic everything from the letter I distributed down could be deleted. Well, and the the opening sentence I know we're we already mentioned the the statute that looks like a for excuse my saying, but it looks like a lawyer vomited on that first run on sentence. Correct. So, if there's a way we can make that concise and a little bit more accurate, um I just don't want a member of the community saying, "Wait a minute. I'm sitting in here and I didn't get a paper copy and we're not killing a tree for everybody." So, um So, do you have a suggestion of how it could read? Yeah, I do it exactly what Director Johnson just said and just say this is what we do. Um one copy made available to the public. Everyone else gets an electronic communication. It's distributed uh um it's available by meeting time which is what we're required to do and for everyone else it's available to all members and we already stated above that it's available uh when the final copy is printed and when um and 7 days prior when the agenda is ready. So and then just scratch everything from I down yeah one I guess. Are you okay with that? Yep. Sound good? I I hope that you got this right. I did. I did. Thank you. Is there any um support to change Friday at 4 p.m. to Friday at noon under uh D up two letters. My only comment with that that I sent in was um if we are going to state a time that we need to send questions in, I would like a stated time that the agenda will be avail the supporting documents will be available to us within you know give us 48 hours before that and with you know maybe the caveat that if something's late then we reserve the right to ask the question late. I'm just trying I'm just wondering if and I think I've said this to a number of you if you'd have a better chance getting your question answered um actually pretty quickly as opposed to getting in late on Friday. Maybe the person that Dr. Thomas needs to ask is already gone and it might be something as very simple and um I I I think I don't know I I just think it might help us be more efficient. It takes a little pre I mean it is Friday afternoon. you guys all understand Friday afternoons. Um I'm just wondering if that gives us a better chance of the goal which is to get the question answered quicker or or and then even even that I mean you know Michael's getting ready to leave and he gets an email at 5 to 4 and how does he deal with that? So I just I'm just trying to make a give give the administration a little little wiggle room but it's two-way street as long as that you know stuff's out to us in time. um then then I think this might help. I'm I'm just throwing it out there. So I I mean here's the thing. There's always going to be stuff that's a last minute change. We and usually in the agenda they'll say TBD, that sort of thing. So you'll know in advance or we get a notice from Martha that says, "Okay, this was just updated, corrected." there's and when we send in our questions also sometimes we I know I have pointed out typos and things um and so there's an update we get the notice from board book or she forces it out that sort of thing. Uh so I'm fine with that. I I'm I don't care if it's noon or 4 p.m. Let's say if you're if you have a ton of questions you haven't gotten them out by noon on Friday or even looked at them then you're you're probably not doing it till 3:30 p.m. anyways. I understand. Um I don't know if it makes that much of a difference for administration where they get it at noon or 4 just because I'm sure a lot of work happens over the weekend and first thing Monday morning no matter what. But um if it if it if it helps better, I I don't I don't want somebody to say, "Well, I'm sorry I didn't hand in any questions because I don't it wasn't final." Um that's not fair. Um um and and that's that's life. That's that's going to happen. So, I don't want If it doesn't help, then drop it if it's But if it helps administration for noon, I'm fine with that, too. I'm fine either way. Whatever. But I would agree with Director Mason's comments. Yeah. If I'm doing my things, it's Thursday night because I work Friday, right? So, it's, you know, I can have Friday at 9:00 a.m. if you want that, too. Whatever. But, Right. Right. As long as I have everything to be able to look at it at night. So, and your suggestion was, you know, 48 hours prior to the deadline to get questions in. Um, and so, you know, typically it's Thursday at noon is when board book is finalized by. And so, that's not quite the 48 hours. Challenging. Yeah. That's not the that's not quite the 48 hours. So, um, you know, I guess if if if if the if board boards now and in the future understand that, you know, a question at 3:30 is probably going to be answered Monday morning sometime or afternoon. It all depends. I'm just trying to, like I said, this doesn't help. This is, you know, this is going to require a little bit of give and take. is helpful to you. I mean, if it's helpful for you to have them earlier, I would say I would Yeah. I mean, earlier is good. But what we've also done as a practice because it just seems to go this way is we get the questions and we're like, okay, we'll we'll incorporate that or address those Monday at that because many of you have asked the same questions that you've already emailed in. And so, you know, that way we can just share it all out for everybody. So, the whole Okay. Um, so I think and I think that's that's fair push and again there's some data we just won't get um with this deadline based upon data that we don't control tax information etc. But I I think that's a fair push either way. If we are submitting something you know on Tuesday then we have really until Monday you know to to ask a question wherever you know and many times board book does have partial on Monday for sure and I review what I can right yeah so I think that we just have to figure out what the will of the board is is changing it to noon or leaving it at 4. I'm I'm fine with whatever the will I I'm fine, too. So, we got three indecisive people out of seven. Okay, I'll drop We could we memorialize maybe the noon in the policy and ask that that you try and push the staff to go instead of Thursday at noon you go close of business Wednesday before we say maybe memorialize that in policy and see how that works. Say say that one more time directly. So, so we will memorialize noon in policy for us for staff to help and then you ask staff to try and finalize board book Wednesday instead of half a day for half a day ultimately and then you know give and take from from both sides so that we can just just try and try and work it and then Sounds good to me. See how it works and then if we need to we can we can memorialize it later on if it works. Okay. Does that work? Yeah, sounds good. And then um Director France, you suggested to remove the note. The Minnesota Commissioner of Administration has issued an opinion that the government entity is limited to acting only on the matter specifically included in the notice of a special meeting. Well, first of all, we have nothing else in here on a special meeting. And second of all, the special meeting is covered in statute below and that's an exception. So um so that was more or less like anformational note put into the template, wasn't it? And we can remove that. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I add your removing is the best. I clarifi Sorry. Oh, go ahead, Jess. I think it's quick. Um that same section in D. Um the middle sentence that says questions raised during meetings that were not previously disclosed to the super and chair do not require a response in the meeting. Um I guess I don't remember I I don't I don't know what all my questions are before a meeting and that's fine. Yeah. So So that's what I'm saying. Do we take that sentence out? Okay. So go ahead. Um the the reasoning behind that verbiage is um of course board members always have questions that arise at the table and that's that's we're not trying to stop those questions. It's just if if an if the uh district staff doesn't have an answer just like they often will then respond in an email or whatever. So just giving them the grace that they aren't required to at the meeting have an answer for. So So should that say require an answer instead of a response because they're going to respond to your question that they don't have an answer? Yeah, right. I guess that's my point. Yeah. Yeah. Um I think that's what you meant. Yes. Require an answer. I I don't really know if there's really It just says how it's written. It looks like you're not allowed to ask questions during the meeting. No. And that's how it's that's how I read it though. I know that's not what you're saying. Help us help us. So I think it just yeah I think what you're do not require a response by staff in the meeting or something like that or I don't know what the suggestion would be especially in the follow you know after the comma and should not hold board action as described in the agenda. It is definitely not to limit uh discussion at the table. Um it's the the goal behind it is to offer the district staff the ability to not have an answer and to I mean get to when they can. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And then also not halt. There's an important piece of that is to say that if I like if somebody sends in let's say all these questions at a you know on Monday morning for instance and says if I don't get this answer back I'm not going to vote on this or or asking for a whole bunch of documentation that's going to be a pain to get out. That's what it's there to kind of say to staff, well, a it's not a reason not to vote on it if you didn't get your question in on time and and you can always ask and I think it does need to be softened a bit to say you you should be able to ask and I if I'm not mistaken, I think that what's happened in the past too is when a lot of questions like that come in, sometimes they do modify the materials in the board book so that they're automatically reflective if like three people have the respons I didn't want to skip you. Yeah. So in our last policy um director Olstead we did have the just the word that said should not limit discussion. So basically you could basically after the comma where it says require a response in the meeting should not limit discussion and should not halt board action. So I agree. I read it the same way with the same concerns you did. Um but I think we could fix it by just adding should not limit discussion. So after meeting comma should not li limit discussion and should not halt halt board action. I don't think that was the way it was stated um before and I think there was a specific reason why it was stated. So is was this a direct quote from 2035.113? I think it was a cut and paste. Right. I have it. We I think just in order to keep moving with time, do we understand the intent? Are we okay? Is everyone okay if we play with the play? Yeah, please. Is that okay with everyone? Okay, welcome. I have one other question. I I sent in about two I about a Yep. I just want to understand why the one part was crossed out. Oh, so go back to a under procedures. Yep. Yep. So why was that crossed out? Oh, uh, under A, so we use the same language consistent with, uh, the approved policy 202 section 4.A.2. And that wouldn't that wouldn't um if the if it's the will of the board, that parenthesy would not remain. But that um the verbiage in a comes directly from that policy. Okay, now I understand that. Thank you. I think the part that's missing though is that if you read the next sentence um the intent of that procedure is that that all board members we do have input in the agenda because um you know I'll call chair white and say hey we missed something or you know we all add because this is our meeting and so all board members do provide input and then it's the schoolboard chair in conjunction with the superintendent to develop, prepare and arrange the meeting. And then I think another key word is for the tentative schoolboard meeting agenda because the meeting agenda is not final until we get to the meeting when we all vote to approve the agenda. So I understand what you're saying, but I think for the intent of what this policy is, there's a piece of the intent that's missing, which is what's crossed out. So, I actually support uncrossing out what you crossed out in a because I think it's an important piece of the the policy. I kind of think it's a duplicate um because that happens anyways when we send out the agenda and then everyone can ask questions on it. Um anyways, because the agenda is part agenda is released seven days in advance and then all questions and everything like that on the agenda as well as the content are now by noon or whatever on Friday. So I do think that's duplication and I do agree with you Director Atinson. I do agree with what you said and um I don't believe that um the crossing out of that of those the crossing out as proposed in the board book um I don't think that changes anything. Um the it is the it is consistent you know consistent across policy the agenda for meetings. Yes, all you know all board members have input via you know their relationship with the chair and superintendent um in make you know I don't think that I don't know I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree with you I don't I don't think that my personal opinion again just one is that it doesn't make it not so so where can you show me policy where does it say that board members can have input into the into the developing the board agenda so um in this policy and that is the right of that is the authority and the right of every board member yeah so going to letter B and that is consistent those are not board members though that's the community um letter B says if you are a community member you can place an item on the agenda persons yeah I understood that as like B and he kind of felt like it contradict with E too, Lisa. Like I was It reads weird. Maybe we need to say community if that's what that was intended. I was just confused. So B is not specific to community. It's not. No, it's not. And that is straight from MSBA model policy. And that is what you commented that you liked that language that you like the language of B. That was your comment that you like the language of MSBA's model policy. that persons wishing to place an item on the agenda must make a request to the school board chair and superintendent. So whether that's a board member or a community member wanting to uh have something discussed at an upcoming board meeting, the person making the request is encouraged to state the blah blah blah. Okay. Um yeah, a board member wouldn't state their name, their address. Right. Right. But and I hear what I hear what you're saying, but this is that that letter B is straight from MSBA model policy. And what I felt like and again this I think we've had conversations about that. Director Johnson, I I think uh Chair White, we also did um we have been running into at our study sessions when we have the um the agenda item for future agenda items that is an actual agenda item. Uh we've been that's been um you know in most recent history it's kind of been going off the rails. We've been having a lot of time spent almost having discussions on items and to alleviate that. This policy for bringing things to the agenda could help alleviate that. Um I felt like it contradicted with E was my comment too. I thought it was that's E is more is is based on Robert's rules. So and that's the other thing. So, and here's how Robert's rules reads, right? But like they don't work together. Well, Robert's rules actually not only reads that way, but Robert's rules also talks about as we have in other stuff I think if it's coming up here is that board members have to be prepared for the discussion, right? Um and um and then there's the other thing about proper notice and not and in an informal board meeting not going off of the agenda. So, uh, one of the things that's been talked about in the past, and I know we allude to this, but we don't actually do it, and I put it in my notes also when I sent it in, is that the boards often, and I agree with this practice that say that once the agenda is finalized, you can remove something off the agenda, but you can't add to it. Um, because then you got a community who doesn't have proper notice. you can't hold board members accountable for actually getting questions in on an agenda they weren't familiar with um and and also being prepared. So that was kind of done with our board operating norms that said you had to be prepared and therefore there was no surprises. But again, sometimes we have to remove stuff off of an agenda because something isn't available like we did the um Native American uh parent committee and they were not able to come to the meeting. So, we made an adjustment to the agenda at that time. But that was something that was put into the original norms and kind of we never really changed this historically but that was the assumption that we would never add to the agenda at the time of the agenda. So to try to move thing because I was and maybe you weren't here Lisa when I trying to finish up policy to the extent we could by 10:15 because we do have a do have a close we do have a closed sessions we we're trying to get to and I don't want I want to be respectful of everybody having to get up. So I'm wondering if specific to this um you you add this language in a to be consistent with the policy referenced. Yeah. Is the old language necessarily inconsistent? or is it just slightly different? I mean, what what I think it adds two. I'm just wondering, as I read these the two sentences on top of a and then the crossed out part, I'm thinking, what's the big deal with what we had if it's not word for word with 2024 A.2? Does it really matter? Is it close enough? Well, I think does that alleviate the concerns of um you know some members about making sure that the board as mentioned is yes, we all have an opportunity to make our input known. I'm just wondering if we Yeah. Does that did that change even need to be made in you know I I understand exactly what you're saying and this is the the challenge that director Johnson and I have have been entrusted with that it was the will of the board to go with MSBA model policy as the base and so what we've been trying to bring forward is marrying as best we can what we've had to what and then you know we've we've approved some changes and so we're trying to not only do consistency across I hear and so we we are tasked with bringing forward as best we can what we've brought forward and then it is up to the rest of us as a team as a all seven of us to okay uh ho how should it read and and I to be fair We didn't say use MSBA model policy. We said to compare it and and for you guys to start with it. We never said to eliminate what almost 40 years of of building these up to match the way that we've been doing board meetings either. Uh because there's a reason behind everything. Even you know when Chair White when you were on the board prior to this there are reasons you put things in there because of you know MSBA doesn't tell you half the things you should do. Uh they basically say here's the minimum the rest is up to you guys. That's why so many that's why so many school districts look so unique and different as long as you're not violating statute. So I just want to make that clear. Um so then I guess cuz I want to be respectful time. Yeah. Yeah. Um, we aren't going to get there tonight. That's fine. Is there consensus on a to leave the addition and leave uh what's presented here? Is anybody have a problem with I know Lisa does a problem with A as presented. I'm fine with A is presented as well as B and I like the way B reads also. So that's I like the way A and B is presented. M char the same. Jess, I'm fine. Okay, it looks like we have consensus to leave that as presented. And um if there's nothing else on 203.5 unfortunately um I think we need to move on to uh the future agenda topics quick and then move to close session. Just before anybody has future agenda topics, I'd like to run something by everyone, maybe alleviate some confusion uh and some ability to kind of think ahead. Um would it be uh agreeable to the board um if instead of having future agenda topics presented at 10:18 at night at a study session uh to have them emailed to me and actually put on the agenda ahead of time so people know, okay, Director Atinson had, you know, topic X that she's wanting on the agenda. So instead of trying to make a snap judgement on whether or not it's warranted, you have a little bit of time to at least bounce it around in your head so that when we come to that, we I can just tip tick them off. You know, Amy wanted this on the agenda, consensus, yes, no, and and would that make this a little more efficient? I like that because it also allows you to try to figure out what the question or ask is instead of trying to drill down into that live in the meeting. That way you can you can negotiate that with the individuals sent you there to kind of get it down succinctly instead of doing it with everybody here and then read them off and then and then figure out what people agreed to to be on the agenda. So I like that idea a lot. Is that cool with everybody? So tonight we'll we'll take suggestions and then moving. Does that need to be memorialized or did we just say we're going to do it that way? Actually what what director Bullion just said is that's following B. She's absolutely right. Okay, perfect. I got already in there. We can we can memorialize it in the handbook. Oh, that would be greatly appreciated. We would do that. Memorialize it moving forward. So, for tonight, uh, anybody have any future topics that they would like to bring to the for future um, study sessions. Um, I just have a question. Sure. We had talked about the dashboard for accountability of um where we're at from proficiencies um that type of thing. When will we when are we going to see that? Because I thought that was going to be done by the end of the school year. Yeah. So, I have a tenative draft of that in one of my artifact folders, and we'll be sharing more about that and kind of getting a better understanding of what other things we should include in it on the 16th of June so that we can finalize everything and kind of launch that for next year. Great. I look forward to seeing that. Thank you. I would like to discuss um uh survey data that's being presented if others agree. um just the content and how it's presented and specifically we've just survived data in general. Yeah. As it as we take them. Right. Because there's been several that go out. I think they're heavily redacted. Do they need to be like just stuff like that? Okay. Uh is there any will to discuss how we are presented with survey information? Yes. You are in favor of that? Absolutely. So, a discussion as to the rationale. I want to make sure I'm getting this right. Um, you want admin to say to tell us this is why we present the information the way we present it. Yeah, you're looking for just the or you're looking for board to maybe ask for more information than we're getting or less redacted information. Which one are you look asking for? I think the ask is can we is there a reason why we just can't get full data results and what is the reasoning for the heavily redacted survey um and also trying to save your admin time like it seems like a lot of time spent on redacting surveys that okay so we have a yes and a yes I would say yes if like the redactions are based by based on I mean statute statuto toily what is are they because we're board members absolutely data privacy it absolutely every everything districts are not getting are getting full results uh Lisa no sorry it's hard to chime in this um other districts I know for a fact are getting full survey results we are the board of directors we are um there's no reason to redact data um I understand if it's a student name or something like that I think that's the conversation that maybe you're looking for Jessica. I think maybe consistency of what to expect from the from um as the board receiving data, what to expect um because I I think there's been some inconsistencies in our district is what I'd like to understand. Um and how do we save them time? Like do we need to redact everything we're redacting? Like I went and read the CPM one and the word math is redacted. Like they're heavily redacted. So I don't just discussion around what needs to happen. How do we I I support the discussion. Well, if if math was redacted, you shouldn't have seen it. So, well, you can only assume. Oh, you can assume the word. You can assume a lot of the words. What happens when you assume? Well, like making assumptions is that's why we shouldn't redact. So, you're Are you good, Amy, or no? Yes. I I think that um the is it a board discussion or is it a question that you can just ask administration? That's my question. like well I guess I'm curious to do others care like is it help I mean like in my experience and it's only two a little over two years but in my experience the amount of information that the district is offering to the board is more than in past so offering all of the you know giving all of the survey results I mean typically the the the district would bring forward whatever you know information that they bring to a meeting. I I think that it's Am I misspeaking, Dr. Thomas? This is like the discussion I guess we want to have, right? Do we need Right. And I'm just my the whole redaction thing is it's it's statutoily driven and and uh speaking that other district board get uh all you know unredacted information. I don't know that to be true. I I mean you're telling me that you have But I don't know that to be true. And if that is true, are they giving information that they shouldn't be giving? Because um that's the discussion I wanted to have a discussion. Is that a discussion? I don't think it is. I think it's I think it's I think that maybe that's an individual discussion um with the administration to make sure everyone understands or you I understand. Uh, but if if there's a question of why something's redacted and you have a specific question on a line item or something, then I I I think that that would be an individual administrator uh question. There's a few of us asking it, too. And and furthermore, um to be fair, um the re I don't we've it historically never had anyone ask for every single comment either. We've kind of um trusted administration to synthesize it so we understood the pattern. So you're not cherry-picking stuff out because the concept of the survey is to understand where the survey takers as a whole where they're leaning and and the and the synergy between the statements not the cherrypicking of certain words or statements out of that. Um because there's thousands of them. Um, so if the issue is I mean I can explain why now but I think that's not the purpose of this is well well I'm trying to figure out why the question of why anyone would want to see that amount of data 6 10,000 lines of data sometimes that's my that's my question and this is discussion this is the discussion okay can I just add context I was watching a farmington board meeting I think this might be relevant and they got a copy of all their stakeholder survey results in a PDF format totally unredacted and then the board is able to go into that PDF and put in a search term of iPads and then they can see that there's 25 people 25 comments that support iPads. There's 50 C comments that so it's really a very much of an efficiency for a board to be able to evaluate the data. I know that other districts, I do not want to name them, but I know three off the top of my head that get stakeholder survey comments on redacted. And I think, you know, Dr. Thomas, you said it best. You said I think at our last meeting to the teacher comments, we read them all. And so, I think it's I mean, this is I think the discussion we want to have. So, I think we're getting too far in the weeds, but when I when I watched the last um Farmington board meeting, I it really like hit home that yeah, as a board, we should be we should have access to those comments and be able to read them. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm think we're I think I'm I'm actually in favor of it. I think uh we'll I'll put I will write it down and put it on a a future uh agenda. Anyone else for Thank you. Okay. All right. Uh I got to move to close session first or not? Sorry. Okay. Now, well, it doesn't matter. No. Um, I will now entertain a motion to enter into closed session for the purpose of discussing uh negotiation strategy with uh PLSEA. Is there a motion on the table? So by director Johnson, second by director France. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries 70. There'll be inflow session