Okay, we will uh move into the study session portion of the agenda. Uh there are no speakers for the public forum. So we will move on to the purpose and agenda. Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Chair White, board of directors. Uh tonight, uh as all study sessions, we'll dive deep into a couple of key areas. Uh we'll start off with um several proclamations that we'll read um with the board to recognize some of our employee groups. uh do a budget and staffing update and within that budget conversation um have conversation around um authorization thresholds with regards to purchase and leases etc. um board, you all will engage in conversations around the development of an ad hoc uh negotiations committee um and continue discussion to get clarity around the curriculum audit and uh the 200 series um for uh the board is our uh work session agenda. All right. Thank you. We'll start with the proclamations. We do have four and I appreciate the administration's attempt to truncate them just a little bit. So, we will continue with reading tonight. So, the first proclamation is the uh celebration of Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week, National School Lunch Hero Day. If Director Johnson would read that proclamation, Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week, National School Lunch Hero Day, April 28th through May 2nd, 2025. Prior Lake Savage Area Schools recognizes April 28th through May 2nd, 2025 as Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week. Our child nut nutrition staff are committed to supporting our our children by providing nutritious scratchcooked meals to more than 8,600 students. This week, we celebrate our thanks and gratitude for these essential individuals. Whereas the school nutrition association declares May 2nd, 2025 as school lunch hero day to highlight the difference child nutrition staff make for every child who comes through the cafeteria. Whereas Prior Lake Savage Area Schools child nutrition staff serve approximately 1.2 million meals every year, averaging 6,000 meals each school day. Whereas child nutrition staff are vital employees dedicated to preparing and distributing healthy and delicious meals directly to our students all while providing a warm and welcoming environment. Therefore, let it be resolved the board of education hereby extends its appreciation to all Prior Lake Savage Area Schools child nutrition staff for supporting the nutritional needs and success for our students and declares April 28th through May 2nd, 2025 to be child nutrition staff appreciation week in Prior Lake Savage area schools. Director Malone. Yes, thank you so much for that. Director Johnson, our child nutrition staff truly are the heart of our schools, nourishing students, not only with the nutritious meals that they serve, but also those caring connections. We just love the vantage points that we have because we get to see almost every student every day. Even though it may just be for a little bit, we get to see them grow sometimes for 12 or 13 years of their lives and go through different um likes and dislikes and it's a really personal connection that we we really um value and love. um child nutrition staff. Their work ensures that students are wellfed and ready to learn, making a difference way beyond the cafeteria. So, just really proud of my team and thank you for recognizing them tonight. All right. Thank you. Thank you. The next proclamation is National School Nurse Day. If Director Atinson would read the proclamation. Yes. Thank you. National school school nurse appreciation week is May 5th through the 9th of 2025. Whereas students are our future and investing in their health today builds a stronger tomorrow. And whereas families deserve to know their children are safe and cared for at school. And whereas students face increasingly complex health needs requiring skilled support during the school day. And whereas school nurses have supported student health, safety, and academic success for over 120 years. and whereas they play a vital role in addressing both physical and mental health needs, coordinating care, and connecting families, schools, and health care providers. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools proudly recognizes Wednesday, May 7th, 2025 as school nurse day. We celebrate the dedication of our health services staff and thank them for their ongoing commitment to student well-being today and every day. Thank you for recognizing this team. Um Kate Kyle, our health services coordinator, and along with um with her team of nurses at every building. Um see a multitude of kids each um each year each day. So I know last year I told you how many um office visits we have. It's 805 right now is our average office visits um across the district per day to our health offices. So they definitely fill um a vital role and need within our buildings. And um on behalf of Kate and myself, we want to say thank you for recognizing that group and thank you to them. Thank you. And so you can stay right at the I'll skip down to D so you can stay there and if Director Mason would read the proclamation um regarding National Speech and Language Pathologist Appreciation Month. Yes. Uh National Speech and Language Pathologist Appreciation Month May 2025. Prior League Savage Area Schools recognizes May as speech and language pathologist appreciation month, honoring the vital work of these dedicated professionals. Whereas May is nationally celebrated as better speech and hearing month with May 18th, 2025 designated as speech language pathologist day. Whereas speech language pathologist and teachers of the deaf heart hearing provide essential support to students with speech, language, and hearing needs. Whereas the key members of our student support teams and valued partners to families and educators. Now therefore, be it resolved that the board of education expresses deep appreciation for the contributions of our speech and language pathologists and proudly proclaims May 2025 in their honor. Thank you again. um speech pathology um or speech pathologists across the district. Sometimes I go invisible and unrecognized, but we have 700 students who receive some form of speech services in our district. So um a shout out to them. We have 17 um speech pathologists that provide those services. And then also a shout out to our deaf heart of hearing since May is um more than just speech pathologist. It's it's um what did they call it in there? Now I can't don't have it in front of me. But anyway, it's also a shout out to their deaf heart of hearing teachers and we have a 1.0 0 equivalent but two deaf heart of hearing teachers that work in our district and provide those services as well. So thank you to them and thank you for recognizing that crew as well. Thank you. And our last proclamation uh is teacher appreciation week. Vice Chair Bullan, would you read that proclamation? Yes. Uh Prior Lake Savage Area Schools proudly recognizes May 5th through 9th, 2025 as National Teacher Appreciation Week. Our teachers are vital to student success and this week we honor their dedication and lasting impact. Whereas May 6, 2025 is National Teacher Appreciation Day. Whereas teachers inspire, guide, and empower students every day. Whereas they serve as mentors, motivators, and role models. Whereas their influence lasts a lifetime and strengthens our democracy. Therefore, the board of education expresses its deep gratitude to all Prior Lake Savage Area Schools teachers and officially declares May 5th through 9th, 2025 as teacher appreciation week. Thank you, Vice Chair Bolan, and uh on behalf of all the administration and and folks throughout the district, I can't thank our teachers enough for the tireless work that they do every single day in our classrooms. And and I share this every year. um outside of parents, teachers have the greatest effect on learning of students. Um and actually it's collective efficacy. So not only them in their classrooms, but them together and collaborating do great things on behalf of our students every single day. So just a huge shout out and uh lots of love for our teachers throughout Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. Thank you for what you do. All right. Thank you. All right, moving down to oversight of operations. Uh we have a 2526 budget and enrollment update. Uh Director Frederickson. Thank you, Chair White. Um you have a document for kindergarten enrollment. I've updated that for you. Um as you can see, we are as of April 24th, very close to where we were in 2425. Um we're still about 19 kids short of where we would expect to be in October 1st, but um we're back to where we were at this same time last year. So that is good news. Um we'll continue to hope that we'll get a few more over the summer and that will be a very positive um trend for us. There any questions about the kindergarten enrollment? I just have one question. Of the total 496 enrolled, how many of those are open enrolled versus in district? Do you know off the top of your head? Um I'd have to get that. I don't know off the top of my head how many kindergarters there were. I was just curious and if there was um you know starting to think about um potential building closures down the road if there's any um thoughts on like do we need to start thinking about limiting that now or eventually or down the road or um I will get that number to you. Okay. Thank you. And then um the budget update, we have a financial advisory committee meeting tomorrow morning. Um we are going to be presenting them with um our updated revenue and expense projections and there's some discussion that we're going to have around um some um uses of restricted fund balance. So once we vet that with the finance advisory committee meeting tomorrow, we will bring that to you on May 5th. All right. Any questions around that? All right. Thank you, Director Frederickson. Thank you. Moving on to a staffing update. Director Herman. Thank you, Chair White, members of the board. Um Dr. Thomas, just to provide a quick update for you all. May 1st in multiple of our contracts is a big date um for our administrative assistance and our our teachers contract is the date that we are provide their tenative assignments. So our administrators did provide a tenative assignments to our certified staff on Friday and we are sending out all of our calendars for administrative assistance for next year um by the May 1 deadline as well. Um we will continue to look through our staffing as um enrollments come in and we're making adjustments in in all of our other contracts. they all just have a little bit slightly different time frames than than those two do. So, just wanted to give a quick update that we are still moving forward with all of our um staffing assignments for the upcoming school year. Any questions or comments? All right. Thank you. All right. Moving down to a uh few of the requested um study session topics. I believe this one goes back all the way to January where uh um it was requested that the board discuss um potentially altering the the $25,000 um number for um what's brought to the board for um any any amount exceeding for purchases. So uh I can't remember director did you yes want this brought forward? or do you have any opening comments as to what maybe you want to talk about? Um, no. I think it was just looking at um sort of based on what we learned last year about our budget process and perhaps where we fell fell short. Um, do we need to adjust this dollar amount whether up or down or whatever it might be on the purchase orders that exceed $25,000? And I think also just like looking back past this year like where is the consist there's I I'm seeing some inconsistencies about what is brought forth. Um sometimes we see the teachers on call sometimes we don't. Um so just really understanding from a board standpoint what is the expectation of what we will see on this purchase orders over $25,000 and then going back to the original request back in January. is this the correct dollar amount in order to allow us to be able to have transparency to these very large purchases um so that we can have some visibility of I don't know trying to stay on budget or try to hit our budget requirements. So and I was my anybody else before I say anything um and I'm just wondering if for a district our size if that is maybe I'd like administration's input on this. Does that seem low, high, about where it should be? Could this be a a tiered kind of approach where up to a certain dollar amount somebody has authority? If it goes, you know, to another dollar amount, then it would require Dr. Thomas's. Okay. Um, I'm just spitballing here and and wondering what your your thoughts on that might be, either Michael or Tammy. Sure. Uh, Chair White, board of directors. Um I I would say I understand and can appreciate the inquiry for the uh authorization um limits. I I would uh say that there there are a lot of purchases made on a weekly monthly basis and um anything below 25,000 I honestly I would get concerned with our ability um to meet frequently enough to get a turnaround time to pay these bills on on on time because there's tons that come through. Um and so I'm I'm I hear kind of two things, Director Atinson. um uh the threshold conversation versus uh letting like what's showing up consistently on on the ledger or whatever. Um and and I don't know if they're mutually exclusive to you or if they are somehow imshed. Um because in I think there have been some times where questions as to why something didn't show up on on the uh $25,000 and over. one, there were two different purchase orders, like distinctly separate purchase orders. Um, even though it was with a same larger company, they were for different services. And then one, there was an oversight on our end that we owned and we rectified that the next board meeting. Um, I don't think we have a pattern of not having the items that are 25,000 and up on that ledger. Um and where like I said where we have we we've taken care of that and remedied that to ensure that there's a check uh better check internal check system dropping it below 25 um I will say this is fairly low um just generally speaking with public entities of our size um in scope uh that's a very low dollar threshold um I think uh and then if you look at other um aspects like our capital um $25,000 will go out the door in capital quicker than we can bat our eyes. And so I would say for some of our capital projects um to again I've seen capital uh uh thresholds much higher. So to your point, Chair White, um if if you were tiering something like this for for me, I would see it as tiering for academics and tiering for operations or capital. um because capital has larger bigger contracts. $25,000 is, you know, you usually don't touch even replacing doors, you know, in a building or windows or glazing and things of that nature for that price. So, so that's my wondering. Um, uh, Director Frederickson, if there's anything else you want to add to that that I might have missed in terms of Yeah, if I can just add, um, for the capital projects, a lot of those are on our LTFM, which this board has to approve anyway, so they're already um, kind of on there. There are some um, to Director Atinson, your point of sometimes they're on there, sometimes they're not. Um, for things like teachers on call, I never used to put them on there because it's just kind of a given and then I got questions on why they weren't on there. So then I started adding them and then I got questions why they were. So I can go either way. Um, teachers on call, we kind of as we build the budget, there's some bigger items that we always talk about that we don't have control over. teachers on call, utilities, transportation, um some of the insurance, some of those things we don't have control over and we're just going to have to pay. Um so for those items or I think another one was the lease on minaps. Um that one once the contract gets approved then we're going to get monthly bills. Um phone bills are the same way. So, um I I can certainly go either way that this board prefers to have everything on there that's over 25,000. We can certainly add it. Um if you want to exclude those things that like are going to be monthly invoices um that are probably going to be over 25,000 every month, then I can exclude them. So, but I just um haven't gotten a consistent message from this board on which way you wanted to go. C can I just add um sorry uh Treasurer Atinson one one more thing maybe just to add um to kind of turn it back for um comments similar to this too um some of our products that we buy like supplies we might have an open PO um so we know we're going to be buying paper all year long and we might buy you know $25,000 worth we might buy $10,000 worth we might buy $30,000 but the PO of the you know let's let's just you know for an easy number is it's $100,000 for paper what or whatever that supply might be. Um and we'll add you know purchases against that PO that's approved by the board already for the entire year. So if that's something that you want to see when the uh the primary PO has already been approved and then everything charged against that PO or do you want to see just the PO? So I think something like that too would be another point of clarity. um of what the board would and that's kind of what what I'm wondering. I mean, I'm sure we have a lot of POS that are in excess of $25,000 that we may pay over time. And I want to try to stay away from approving something for $100,000 and maybe making three $33,000 payments and have to have that almost like double looked at. We've already approved it. The fact that our payment might be over that limit, I don't think warrants it being brought separately to the board. Now, if we have a PO for $100,000 and all of a sudden we find out it's going to be 100 and a quarter. Sure. That's the kind of information I'd like brought brought back to the board, but I'd like to honor the definition of a PO and make sure that once we approve it, it doesn't come back unless we're going to go over for some reason. And um that's kind of where I'm getting whatever the number is. If it's 25, 3550, um that that's really kind of where I was going with this. Yeah. Yeah. And I think getting a consistent understanding of sometimes we see split POS. So is it one PO even though you issued two payments, but it's the same invoice number because then often I've seen them where there's two payments of 20 or 20,000 and they're the same invoice number, but there's two checks, you know, T. So between two different buildings, two different accounts. Yeah. So I guess just that's typical. Yeah. But where is the consistency there? And honestly, all it does is really add transparency for our community and for our board when we're putting these purchase orders above 25,000 on a register, right? And it's happening before they get they actually get paid. That's the other thing. It has to happen before they get paid. So then I wonder that's that's the see the thing is is that by just going through the fin expense transactions, look for anything over 25,000. Not all of them are POS. Obviously our utility bills go over that. So, um, you know, the the idea behind that was for the concept that we do bidding, approval, all that kind of stuff. Um, most districts don't have that low. I know the state doesn't require that as I had already mentioned um in a previous uh conversation. So, um, and they don't do that for several reasons. One, the cost of the process of approval, putting things out to bid or whatever. um actually causes a negative result on the actual efficiency and cost of the overall project. So, um, I would actually be in favor of actually going back to the original definition of what a real firsttime purchase order is, not a recurring one, not a recurring payment, and actually raise it to 50,000 where actually the state and most other state uh, funded uh, taxpayer is because I think that's going to be a little bit more indicative of um, where larger spend is, but not have it be I mean, our bus bill is over that. So that would not be a separate PO item and also the POS are going to be by individual EUAR's account grouping code, right? So if you had a PO for let's say Glendale and another one for Hamilton Ridge, those would be two separate POS because they go against two separate accounts. Um so and that's you know and if we want to look at the aggregate that would be a board decision. If we don't, we look at it the other way around. But again, per what Dr. Thomas just said, our annual printer is way above that. Uh just for the printing services, uh not even including the paper. So, um we need to figure out where we want to prioritize our our time. But as far as transparency, everything's in the transaction report anyways. And a lot of these things by the time they're put on that separate group, have already been paid, services already been received. So, it's not like the board is actually making a decision on them either when they're showing up in the consent agenda. Um, can I get clarification? I thought the whole point of this project or this report was that they go on there before they are paid. Correct. Correct. Correct. So, that's not correct. Um, director France. So, no, it actually it is because the problem is is that people have asked for things to be pulled that are not in the original definition. And that is where we've kind of gone above and that's where I'm getting at. I think we need to concentrate on that on making sure we take action once on a PO, right? And if it happens to be well above whatever threshold we decide we want to land at, that it doesn't come back when portions of it are paid. That's kind of what I'm getting at. And um I mean, I'd have no problem raising it. I don't know what the would that require board action to officially raise that or if we if we decide to go that direction or is there a thumbs up we can give or Well, the thing is is that the definition of it has changed. So like when we did the paid the insurance and everyone pays everybody does personal and business in increments, right? Every six months or every so many months etc. that got pulled back several times uh because of the confusion of we approved the original PO for it, but then the numbers in the actual transaction report got larger. So, but that wasn't the intent of the 25,000 PO threshold. We've actually now started going beyond what the original um threshold was um and including other things in there. Um, so like the the speaker uh insurance bill we pulled that got pulled out several times because it was confusing. We already approved the PO but then an amount in the transaction for the second half of that showed up and they wanted that pulled out too. So that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. So the original So we have the intent which was already low to begin with of 25,000 for the aggregated one or above and then we started pulling a lot more into it. So what we probably need to do if we want to keep with that threshold is actually create a more discreet definition particularly for the public in policy of what that actually entails or take that 25,000 and raise it to be more of the um standard with other uh districts, cities, councils, anything that uses taxpayer money. Director France, there are a lot of districts that are sized that have this dollar amount. Please don't. I mean there I've done my homework on this and there are districts that our dollar amount is on par. So I think the convers that's why the conversation is here. So would there be any desire to to to raise it with that understanding that we are going to do our due diligence to try to only approve POS once and then um I mean in all fairness, Director White, we have not done a great job of hitting our budget. In fact, our district has not hit our budget. I can't even tell you when we've hit our budget. And so that's kind of the main reason this came to the board table is like do we need more oversight on this um so that we can bring a balanced budget and hit a balanced budget for our community. I think if we were a district who was cons consist consistently if our expenses were meeting or you know um on par with our revenue and we didn't have a a situation where we had to go consistently ask to dip into fund balance I don't think that we'd be having this conversation. So, I do not support raising it. I think defining it is really important, but I do not surprise until we can get our budget um our budget balanced. I do not support raising it. I'd like to actually challenge what is the relationship of the $25,000 limit for the or above for a PO approval and the increase in transportation and sped costs that we experienced last year. Well, I don't I don't believe there was a relationship between the board approving one thing or the other. We approved the transportation contract and we had some surprise expenses that were explained and we also had sped costs that we are completely out of control with which were then balanced in credits uh uh with the with the balance sheet. So um extra revenue coming in not as much but those were out of our control for the most part and we are trying to bring what we can in the transportation pack. So, I'm not seeing the nexus between the PO limit and the the budget. Yeah, I I did give the board a reconciliation of the differences for the revenue and expenses. We did get additional revenue to offset some of those additional expenses. We did still dip into fund balance and as I explained in the reconciliation um we had gone over on our transportation for all of the reasons we talked about. We had additional special ed expenses for all of the reasons we talked about. Um so um there certainly are going to be expenses that come up that um we didn't anticipate. We try to do our best. Uh, and again, this year, as I've said, we're going to be very close to what we budgeted. Um, and hopefully next year we're going to have a accurate budget revenue and expense projection. So, I want to make sure we kind of stick to what we're I mean, is there any is there any will here to change anything regarding this? If if not, we'll move on and get to the other things of the agenda. This was just an item that was requested to be brought up for discussion. If there will of the board is to to leave it alone and and um we can that's fine. I just I would just like to understand like the intent of this obviously is to try to identify any maybe unplanned expenses right and have board authority for approval. So you know is there any written process or procedure around tiered limits on approvals um by the administration as well as you know maybe we write some procedure that any repetitive payments in nature don't need to be included. So things like transportation and teachers on call like that's pretty typical where it's really just you know we want to identify the non-repetitive maybe things that the outlier. Yes. Exactly. And that's where you know I think what the amount whatever it is um just really trying to identify as a board like these are not um typical things or maybe outliers of of requests for things that we didn't plan right. So then so maybe if there's like definition of what this is. So, is this better handled policywise or do we just kind of understand moving forward that um when it comes to this 25,000 we are really are talking about things that are outside of the scope of a budget that we've approved. Is that am I going too far there or That's the way it used to be. And then I think um and correct me I don't know exactly when but they never used to be listed individually for anything that was just over 25,000. It was only for those big ticket items which is the typical and of course the state statute um the the threshold is I believe 50,000 to and then it's discretionary and then anything over 175,000. Now, um, so that's that's where a lot of districts our size are. We've only added this report in the last year. It had never been done before. So, it was came as a request. Um, I can say that um when this board approves um the budget, so departments are going to get their allocation and it is up to the department to decide how they're going to spend that allocation. So the assumption is when this board approves a budget that the allocations go out um for instance if we give an x amount of say a million dollars to the IT department it's up to the IT department to manage how they spend that budget and if there is something that's over 25,000 um it they're going to do that. They just need to manage within that budget. I think that that to me is kind of my concern. So, do the departments have the authority to just decide what they're going to spend the money and how do we ensure or who's approving larger expenditures that are to ensure that they are um aligned with our strategic plan and focused on academics and the things that that department has to deliver. Right? So are there controls in place by administration to you know after whatever threshold of amount given their budget that you know you're ensuring they're spending it on the right thing in that scenario right you have a million dollars in it they something comes up and they have to spend 400 grand is that need does that just happen or or do they come to you and say listen so yeah no no so when when we have um just kind of a real case scenario we We are working through the transition of getting rid of very old and very insecure desktops right now. Okay. And we're going to have to procure um additional devices to take the place of those. Um Marcus and his team is not doing that in isolation. We have had a variety of senior leadership meetings talking about various scenarios that will one will eventually be coming to the board you know for a recommendation because it's a sizable purchase. Um so but then you know there are times where Martha's going to go out and buy you know a dozen reams of paper. That's not something that we're going to come back to the board with. And so there's there's you know we we have an established background of obviousness of practice in in every organization I've been in um to to this point if every department gets allocated you know their their resources and where we have found certain departments uh based upon some environmental or external factors are challenged to do that. That's where we've had public conversations with the board to say we're going to be over budget with utilities or gas prices or whatever it might be. Um, and this is what we had fixed. And we do try to move resources around to balance. This is what we're doing right now to bring, you know, this year is uh down to a close to where we might have surplus to offset anything that might have been an overage. Um, but that's the nimleness of budgeting. This is I mean as a governing body you approve an aggregate budget and um outside of the aggregate if if money comes to the board and it's above that budget there's it's never been done in secrecy. It's never been done without sharing here's the reasons here's what's contributing to it and here's our request you know like we don't have that authority to do that. Um we do have authority on a daily to can I there's with regards to like the example we are because we're using taxpayer funded dollars tax monies um there is a requirement too if it's really is a 400,000 we have to go to bid yeah they have to go out for an RFP but let's just say it's a um $40,000 um security patch you know that uh Marcus and again I'm probably out of my lead you can correct me if wrong, but a security patch for all of our iPads in in the district. Okay. That's not something that um if it's within his budget, that's not something he's coming to the board, correct? Every single two weeks to say, "Can I spend this? Can I spend this?" Like I said, you'd be in board meetings every week, multiple times a week to keep up with the pace of purchases that are happening all throughout the school year. And so that's why I was trying to get clarity on the issue here. So I don't know I I I appreciate the the clarity of making sure that folks understand how money is being spent. I I don't uh question that at all. I don't see the connection to the threshold. Um I think those are two different issues. So, so that's why I wanted to just better understand today in this discussion because I think um we will always want to make sure how we're spending our money um is done so you know with integrity um it's public resources again even with fund balance we've never used anything that this board hasn't approved can I'm sorry Dr. Thomas, when I'm reading the description here, it's it's interesting because it says the description under what we're talking about. This is the verbatim of what was said that during the board meeting. Oh, okay. That's all. Because it just says in here, it says provided that any transaction in an amount exceeding um the minimum amount for which bids are required. Yeah, I think Martha, correct me if I'm wrong. You were just paraphrasing what was said from that January board meeting in terms of I thought that was the same. Well, it's what's written into the January board meeting. Correct. So the question is is so is it just for what bid which bids are required because that would make sense if we're going out and we're bidding something and it's over $25,000. It would make sense that that would then come to the board for review and approval if we're doing not just every single right if we're doing a bidding process for something. So then it kind of makes sense the way it is. Maybe just the way we're doing it on the back side is not making sense. You know statute,000. Yeah. Anything over 20 125,000 we're required to do an RFP. Anything the actually the CFR the code of federal regulations number 200 um states that the recipient may self-certify a threshold up to $50,000 on an annual basis and maintain documentation to be available. Um they also require anything um over 50,000 to have two quotes which we also um follow up with all of the departments to make sure that if they're putting in a purchase order that they do in fact have two quotes. Um and we follow up on that quite frequently this year. That's federal. Yeah. So state is a little different. states states actually the state of Minnesota for our tax levy funding because I looked it up today um because I have a my company multiple MSAs with the states so they repeat it on every single one they're like that thick um that it's 50,000 and and they will except for a minute they literally come back and say if you want to go out for a bid or whatever on anything less than 50,000 it's not even costefficient. So yeah. So then where do we land here? what's what's the comfort level of the board um to uh increase that to that 50,000 with the understanding that if I'm hearing you guys right that with those purchases over that that requires an RFP that we would then be made privy to or have to vote on. We have to vote on. Yeah. Would that kind of meet in the middle or or you know what I'm saying? I mean, honestly, if we were hitting our budget, I'd be fine moving it to that, and I think we could work towards that, but we're not, in my opinion, we're not there. And I think that the way I read this, keeping it just to the the bids that are required versus just putting every single like the bus stuff, all the recurring stuff, we don't need to be have on there. The teachers on call, we don't need to have on there because those are reoccurring costs. I think it's the one-offs. And I if I think about back to some of the one-offs that have been on here where we've actually as a board there's been scenarios where we haven't approved them and we haven't moved forward with I I think of one scenario um that I remember. So I would I think now that I understand what the intent of this is. I think the intention of it being a bid and it being like not the everyday charges and keeping it at $25,000 is where I'm comfortable at. Does anybody have a problem with that? All right. Can I just That's not reoccurring POS and that's PO by account, right? Just to make sure we're clear because I don't Right. Okay. All right. Do we need to update the language in here eventually? Maybe. But I think Yeah. So, the annual or meeting will just reflect. Um, Chair White, uh, board, may maybe I just want to make sure we walk away with, uh, shared understanding of the conditions of satisfaction. So, here's here's what I'm going to offer. Um, I I we I will work with Tammy to kind of write up this discussion on where we've landed, more like a procedural kind of uh, language. Um that way um I can share it back and verify does does this capture it so that we can then carry that into the org language and then replace that moving forward. Sounds good. Okay, that sounds good. All right, y All right. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is discussion surrounding uh whether or not the the board is is interested in moving forward with developing an ad hoc committee uh for purposes of the upcoming uh certified negotiations. Um I've spoken with most of you I think at least briefly about this and just wondering what the appetite is uh um for this possibility moving forward uh for this negotiation. um cycle. Um kind of where I'm I'm envisioning this. If if there is an appetite for this, if there's an appetite for this, um I would go ahead and appoint two or three members that would take this on um between now and next Monday, the 5th. Uh take those those three members, maybe Tammy and and Dr. Thomas and and and Director Herman as well kind of set the ground rules. How are we going to be involved? What aren't we going to do? What are we going to do? And lay that out um very specifically so that uh we know exactly what the board's role would be and would not be and then bring that back on the 5th to say this what we came up with sound good and and go from there. So that's kind of what I'm So step one is is there an appetite to uh move forward with with developing this committee for this negotiation cycle. Can I ask a question? Yes, you may. Um and this is a question to administration as as well as the bargaining units. Um honestly um would we get in the way I guess is the way I would like to put it. I know that um Vice Chair Bullan and I were privileged to sit through one of these last year. It was quite impressive, but also the the ground rules are pretty clear and plus we are not qualified contract negotiators. Um does it help? Does it hurt? Does it expedite the situation? Does it make it worse? I mean what what are your thoughts on this? I know that's a loaded question, but it's got to be asked, I feel. So, Director France, members of the board, I think there's pros and cons to everything. Um, I think in the past when we've had negotiation um subcommittees that we were able to um share regular updates with, bounce ideas off with um throughout the course of time before bringing to a close session. It helped us inform what would be helpful to bring to close session um and when to come to close session. extra set of um you know thought partners around that um and keeping them updated on a more regular basis. It does add additional step to negotiations um for sure. I think the main piece of it that that has some potential roadblocks or concerns um in my opinion is that everybody involved um on all sides of the table and throughout the committee know community sorry know that that that committee cannot change the parameters of negotiations and I think sometimes that's very difficult um when there are board representatives present or even if they're not even present but there's a subcommittee of them that a pressure and or assumption is made that that committee can make those changes and they cannot. So I think as long as that's very clear um that helps with it but that that potential that individuals may feel like if that committee does come to the table um or they're present or they're available during negotiations that they can even change any of the parameters um would still be present and that would be a concern of mine that we'd have to ne uh navigate through. Um but again I think everything in life comes with pros and cons. So that would just be some things that I would um ask the board to take into consideration. Well, that was my question exactly since we don't obviously we can't if if you know in the positions that we had before we were observing more or less and um during the negotiations and currently we can't speak for the board that only happens in a quorum um and it was you know fun to watch uh in a weird sort of way um and um just wondering Um and and also another another guide rail would be when is it at every step? I mean and I would be looking to you all as well as the bargain unit to kind of give their feedback on comfort level use, you know, whatever. And also knowing a lot of these are going to be somewhat confidential. It's not like we can just go off and give our opinion and talk to other board members and stuff. it would only have to occur during a close session, etc. So, um, again, like the pros and cons. Um, that's that's where that's where my opinion sits. I don't want to be a road I wouldn't want the board to be a roadblock in any of this. Director Fans, members of the board, um, I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the union um, on what their thoughts are around that. Um, I am happy to reach out to their lead negotiators to start that conversation. We were supposed to meet today for our opening session um but decided to to cancel because of the the threatening uh weather, but I can reach out to them um and get that feedback from them um because I don't want to speak on on behalf of them. Vice Chair, you had a comment. Um yeah, I'm curious. Okay, let me see how if I can. When I think about I'm open for the will of the board. If the board wants to have an ad hoc negotiation committee, I'm open. I'm open to that. When I think about what my experience was with director France last year, it was asked by the union that there was board representation and we did have the privilege of sitting with the negoti the district team. Um it was a privilege to sit through that. Um we didn't we we didn't um participate in any portion up until the very end when we were all together when there was a agreement made wasn't that was that correct we only yeah we only basically said thank you right yeah so um again so I am open to the will of the board if the If the will of the board is that we have an ad hoc committee for negotiations and I would also like to understand to piggyback on what you said director France is um it was asked by the union leadership for that and when we were there we we it we weren't really invited to participate if and and I know we can't participate So, excuse me for using wrong language. Um, but I want I want to say that um the ad hoc committee between the if that is where what the board decides the the board involvement along with the district involvement along with the union involvement. It is a collaboration to come to an agreement. Uh I am I I'm just want to uh encourage that we have that set from the beginning that it's not where it's um any kind of us and them and we're all working together to come to an agreement and I want there to be I want to understand from the beginning like is this something that the union is requesting? uh it seems to uh be it's the the union bargaining with the district, right? And so adding in the board ad hoc committee um I just want the I want to respect the time of the board uh the time because it's all so fluctuating. How do you set that? So, that being said, again, my my desire is obviously to do what the will of the board wants as far as an ad hoc committee, but I do appreciate the questions that you ask. Does this hurt? And I and I appreciate also you saying, Director Herman, that there's pros and cons to everything, and we don't want to hinder us coming to agreement. We want to help it. Right. Vice Chair France. Um I I do again I don't want to speak on behalf of the union and we're happy to to get their feedback. Um and I do I do just want to say I think from the past um I think that was a little bit unique because that came in at the very end when we were in mediation different than starting from the beginning. That's kind of what I was going to add too. And so in the past when we have at least here from my limited experience here when we've had a negotiations committee um it had been from the get-go and they were provided regular updates and then it was and then the the bigger updates and any potential conversations about need for maybe changes or anything like that that came to close session from there. Um, I think one thing that we have heard in the past from the union that may be helpful moving forward, I don't know if this is how they currently feel, is just the the contract is between the union and the board. Um, we are the representatives of the board at the table and um, I think sometimes there's that desire to take uh or to have that ability to talk directly to a representation of the board. um so that there's not a telephone maybe to situation. Um and then sometimes that's not the desire. So again, I would just I would just ask for an opportunity for us to hear directly from them. So we're not speaking on their behalf. Um but we can always work with a negotiations committee as we've done in the past. And um again, there's pros and cons to all of it. Director Johnson. Um, Director Herman, don't feel if you don't know the answer, so please don't. Right. Um, I I got to sit through the the MSBA negotiations training um, a month or maybe it was longer than that. Um, and just with with Pelra and doing doing it that way, uh, or or speaking about that, we could have every one of us on ne the negotiations team and then that would force every single one of our negotiations to be public according to MSBA or we could have three people and then it would be right and then it could be like any other committee, right? Not not videotaped or anything else. It would ultimately be how we chose to do it. it it it's it's up to us how how we chose to do it, which I think is the right thing. And I appreciate you saying it is a contract between the union and the board, right, which which is important. So, I'm fully on board um with with setting up a committee like this. Um now we just to be clear here um making all the so first of all a committee would not be able to really negotiate with the the union any union any bargain unit because they wouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the board. So it would be more of an observational that's under that's understanding that because we're not in a quorum that yes we do not speak on behalf of the board because we're not in a quorum but there hasn't been a willingness and I know that last year or last time two years ago two one year ago yeah because that one went on for a while um the there you know we have if you want it to go smoothly you really want to have both parties involved in understanding how this goes because the the negotiations um um also start off different. They start off with priorities on each side. The board sets the budget, the overall budgetary limit and then they start to whittle down on each side, you know, what they want to be added or subtracted to the contract and stuff like that. And there isn't always a willingness on both sides on the administration and the and the union side to make that public particularly in the beginning. So that's why we have to actually um even though it's our decision, we could make things worse by not actually asking right now the administration to go and reach out to the bargaining units and get their desire to uh because the purpose of this is to actually build those bridges, not burn them down literally. And so that's that's why I want to be sensitive about this. So, Director Olstead, you had your hand up. Yes. Um, I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. Um, I remember last year or last cycle, I guess I should say, last year that like as you said, Director Herman, this our the board members attendance during mediation was a request from the union at the time. Correct. was by their request. Okay. So, I think the what I'm struggling with um and a couple of points that have been made already and I I can't speak for anybody's day job of course, but I know I'm not a professional negotiator when it comes to this. Um, I realized that we wouldn't be actively, at least we'd have to determine this, actively negotiating and it would be more of an observation kind of feel um or role. Um, to your point, uh, Director Herman, I would like to hear from the union to see if the union has an appetite for this. Um, I think generally speaking it might be same leadership, but I'm not sure on that. Um, so I I would like to hear from this. Um, and what does the word committee mean? Does this mean just board members or others? So I think we need to flush that out. Um, who makes the call? How are these folks chosen? Um, or appointed or whatever word you want to use. Um, would this be for all contracts or just pla? Um, it this feels rushed to me. Um, at least right now. I'm not saying I'm opposed or for it necessarily, but it just right now feels rushed. And I I feel like we'd want something in writing to really hammer out a what the unions or unions multiple unions appetite would be. I know at last year at this time there was an appetite for it. Doesn't necessarily mean there is now. Um I think it kind of changes the the feel in the room sometimes. I remember Dr. Thomas you saying last year to I hope I'm not getting into um anything closed. Um changing the the changing the room, you know, or the feel of the room depending on who's in it. and you certainly wouldn't want to um um jeopardize that either. So, I feel like this needs a little bit more discussion and maybe some flushing out and something in writing so that everybody's kind of, you know, will the board in writing, but making a decision tonight for next week feels a bit rushed to me. Director Mason. Yeah. Um, I was just going to say I um had the pleasure of attending the Southwest Metro meeting and had a closed session on labor negotiations. Um, it was enlightening and I would highly recommend that we do that as a board um to discuss just overall strategy and how we want to approach labor negotiations. Um, I think that happens next week. That happens. Yes. So I think does it make more sense in that session? and we can discuss make the decision pros and cons. We'll have some time to maybe get some feedback from the union and then re readress this at the close meeting uh next Monday. Does that make sense? Oh, next. Okay, that's what you're talking about. Maybe may extend the conversation. Director. Yeah. Can I add some context? Um what when we talk about negotiations ad hoc committee, this is very common. It's very common with other districts. It's very common to have the three board members working with administration. Um, and really what it does is it brings together, like you said, a very collaborative appro approach between the union and the board. And the the board is not there to negotiate. They're there to have a presence and really to be able to bring back the message to the full board just like in any other committee that we do. um we as board members aren't out there making decisions or dictating what's being said in these other committees. We're there more to um attend and report back to the full board. And so it's very common and where I know that boards have done this, it works very well. So I fully support it. And um yeah, and I would say two to three. And um as far as how many contracts, I think we could start with the one, the big contract, and see how it goes. I mean what we've done in the past there's been some big hiccups and I think we as a board just want to do better and see how we can create a more collab collaborative relationship with the union throughout this process so that it it isn't as rocky as last time. Or would it be? Oh, sorry. Anybody? Just to kind of finish that like I think in that closed session determining how many members we want, you know, if everyone can think about before then and maybe come prepared and then um you know there is training out there if we want those people to attend training. We chew on it for a week or Yeah, we can't do that in a closed session just so you know legally. Um we can't make those decisions in the closed session. Um but we can come up with a way to do it and um again we've gone backward and forwards historically in this district as you are well aware. Yeah. Um um there's just the guard rails need to be up. Um especially with people haven't been involved in negotiations before that sort of thing. So we got to be careful. Um and again I would very much appreciate the feedback from the bargaining units. um on this because I know that it went the other way because of other things and last time was a unique circumstance understood because of the bianium the funding the confusion with the funding and a lot of other things so last year was not normal so if we ultimately made the decision let's say on May 19th is that would that be a go ahead I'm sorry just can someone explain why we can't make that decision because I because I don't think we We can't take the we can't take any action to to make up a committee with in a close session. Yeah. Um maybe it's not a defined committee anymore. It was how we're approaching the strategy to negotiate which we will do on Monday. That is in the close session, but we can't as a board make any decisions within a close session. My question is if if we don't if we make the decision on the 19th, will you have really even met in any substantial way yet? And you can know it's a guess, but um Chair White, we were scheduled to start negotiations today. Um we're hoping to reschedule that next week. Um looking at different schedules um from there, how fast we negotiate is is slow at the end of the school year. We typically go pretty fast in the summer. Um, but again, I can um I'm hearing it's the will of the board that we get feedback from the union. Um, I can also encourage them to email you directly uh with that feedback and then um we should have a better understanding during close session to at least have that conversation. Understand that can't be a vote there potentially for creating a committee. But that that conversation can be at close session to move from there. The we will have that feedback and that not the entire meeting isn't closed. We do have a Yeah, we can do it outside of the close session. We decide before we go into close session whether or not we're going to do this. So, would it make sense to get that feedback? We can chew on it for a week and then we'll come back at the regular portion of the next meeting and make a decision. I have a question and this is a procedural question that you may want to call and ask about it. Once we get the feedback and we discuss strategy in the close session which is normally what we do and um the board gives you know direction can't vote but give direction um based upon that feedback could we come out into another topic area or is that not allowed and I know I I've never seen it done here um in the times that I've witnessed the board meetings before I got on the board but I don't know what the cadence is after you're saying you would um you know have have the regular uh business meeting. You close for um negotiation strategy session reopen the meeting which we do and then in that reopening you would have a you would have an agenda topic an an action agenda topic. So I guess what I'm wondering and Martha we can talk about this too. If you think that that might be the case, you may want to put that on the agenda following the close session so that it's noticed because you wouldn't have time to notice the community. So, I would just say put it on the agenda ahead of time and then you can always pull it or something, but that way it's there. Give the board the flexibility. Yeah. And again, I've never seen it done, but I don't know if it's not possible. The time frame of how long you're going to be in that session because We all have to come back for let us work through some of that understanding of and I'm I understand what you're saying and I'm just wondering if we can't just do it at the at the open or the regular part of the meeting ahead of the close session um at least either agree to or not to to have the committee I think you could yeah at the regular I just didn't know Maybe so maybe put it on the agenda um at the regular part of the meeting. We'll uh tomorrow we'll amend the agenda. All right. A couple director. Okay. I I still think that this is very rushed for next week. Well, it's not it's two weeks actually, isn't it? No, it's a meeting. That's right. Because we have the spring members of the board request. I I'd like to request that we get something in writing about what we can do. in an open and close meeting before I'm comfortable. Well, if we do it beforehand and we're okay with that, that's fine. But I was wondering if if we wanted the feedback during the closed meeting and discuss the strategy and then come out. Um either way, I just didn't know what was appropriate and also I don't I personally I don't want to keep anybody here at like 10 11 o'clock at night either. Have them come back in. Right. Yeah. Members of the board, I do to um Director Olstead's um point. I I can't promise when we'll get feedback back either. I want to respect their potential need to meet with their team to have a bigger conversation, but I will reach out to ask for that connection point and keep chair white um updated as I I hear back from them on any anticipated timelines of when they can get their feedback back to us. Thank you. Question. I'm sorry, director Johnson. Well, I I mean we are going through open and close meetings this evening as part of our 200 series. I mean I just glanced over it and it doesn't say anything about that we cannot do that. Oh take action at a closed meeting afterwards. Oh afterwards. Yes. Correct. But I'm again we're trying to be sensitive to everybody having understandable with that. Just understand we can do it. We're just trying to be a little sensitive to people's lives. Yes. Absolutely. All right. So, I guess I would encourage everybody just to kick it around, you know, this for this week and um we will come back to it on Monday. Chairway, um just because of what uh Director Herman just mentioned in terms of making the offer discussion by the time it comes in, should I hold until Friday just let you know like no later than Friday to add this agenda? Is okay with that? Okay. All right. And if we again that's be a similar situation if we had it on there and we didn't get the information we can always then we can Okay. All right. All right. Everybody good? All right. Thank you. All right. Uh next on the agenda is the discussion surrounding uh a curriculum audit. I thought to start this uh because Dr. Thomas has been through a full-fledged uh version of this in another district. If maybe it'd be uh helpful for him to give us maybe a couple of definitions of what it could mean um depending on on how we uh would move forward with it. Yeah. So, well, I think it would also be helpful to understand what the ask is or what the you know, the the outcome. Um but generally speaking when you go through a curriculum audit um it's a very comprehensive uh process that takes um a good four or five months. Um there's big companies that do this very similar to what um uh director Frederickson goes through on the on the financial side. It's a it's a curricular dive just like we would do in an audit a financial audit. um and they can cost upwards of 50 $60,000 depending on the scope of the project and you know what you're looking size of of all your curriculum instruction etc. Um so that's that's a very traditional audit objective third-party person coming in checking for um uh materials aligned to state standards reviewing lesson plans looking at unit assessments you know the whole barrage of of what's in your CNI um division and then based upon that generating a report to say here's where you have gaps here's where you have strong alignment here's where we would recommend that you you know augment an adoption cycle or it's good, you know, all of that. Okay, so that's that. Um, you have uh you could also do a curriculum review. Um, I shared with Chair White um a review cycle that I have put together. Um, and it's more of a higher flyover of checking for curriculum aligned state standards um, and resources. So, you're basically cataloging what you have in your CNI division. Um, and that obviously is something that can be managed internally, but again, we're, you know, we're a pretty lean uh district, so how timing and all that, you know, where we would uh do that. We could certainly discuss that. And then I would just share with the board um and those of you who have been here um through this every time you adopt a curriculum um you essentially go through an audit. So let's just use Redact that was that that's going to be the next big one in our state um that we're going to have probably statewide comprehensive um ELA curriculum adoptions happening um or realignments etc. So um you know when we have to uh when the readact passes and standards emerge etc curriculum you know guides what needs to be covered we now now will have to go through and review all of what we've got in our ELA curriculum and look at um the core curriculum as well as are there supplemental materials that we've purchased to fill gaps in the past do they still align not align and um this is part of what uh Dr. Edwards was alluding to um because this is also something that we would then be taking through teaching and learning to say okay here are the new standards here are some of the resources that we're going to start considering um get perspective from from you know various committees etc and then come back ultimately to make a recommendation to the board to make a purchase of a comprehensive ELA curriculum. Um, so you're going to build in the curriculum audit, if you will. Um, I I'll just say curriculum review because an audit is truly a third person entity coming in and doing that. So, um, a review is probably more common that's done and you do them in cycles that naturally occur or you could kind of do a cataloging on your own if you will, which is something that we started to do with elementary, which I believe we did that two a year ago, two years ago with elementary. And I know our team now is working through the cataloging of our resources and beginning in various content areas in secondary. And again, just kind of going by subject. So, give us the board a little context of um on the academic side, what does that mean? What does that look like in a variety of different scenarios? And then my ask is, you know, the intent of the conversation u being brought forward, what's the outcome? Um and then that might help me better understand what the ask of the board is of what you're trying to gain from that. Can I ask a couple clarifying things that you shared Dr. Thomas, if you could elaborate a little bit on the cataloging, what that actually looks like and then you mentioned CNI division. What is that? Curriculum instruction. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Um so, uh sorry, teaching learning curriculum instruction. We call it a lot. CIES. Um so uh the the cataloging basically saying for um our geometry course what what textbook are we using? What resources do we have? What materials do we have? Um that that's the cataloging process I'm talking about. Okay. I just needed a mental picture. Yeah. And I think when I first brought this up, um, this was being done in some other districts. And I think the main driving factor in the back of my mind is we have a new strategic plan. And the number one pillar, one of our priorities is that students receive rigorous, challenging, and relevant instruction for the their unique learning needs and goals. And so in my mind, um, it's it's a twofold thing. It's making sure that we're going we're going through okay what is what does our science curriculum look like from elementary to middle to high school. Does it align with standards? Are we before standards? Are we after standards? Because I've heard some things feedback, you know, like we're behind because standards are going to be emerging new new science standards. Yeah. So that's where I'm as a board member. I'm totally confused on that. Okay. And then um and so you know what are we using? How does it align from all levels of you know elementary to middle school to high school and then also adding it to our website for transparency for our community because other districts have all their curriculum on their website. And so to me that's what I understand. Um even school boards for academic excellence they mentioned that John Hopkins I believe it was that they do that that audit that you're referring to. It's about $50,000. You're right. But that's not what I was referring to or even asking for. Audit. I I Sorry about that. That's what I read. So I think it's knowing that we have this we have a new strategic plan and how do our our resources align with the plan making sure that it's challenging and rigorous and relevant and then adding that trans and does it how does it align with standards and then adding that transparency to our um website for our community is what in my mind what I was thinking about. Yeah. So I would say um I I would liken that to more of a curriculum review and I think um that is something that we did with our elementary beginning and I think that's been uploaded to the websites uh ele elementary department or the uh teaching and learning department I believe on the elementary uh page. Do you want to speak a little bit about some of the um we've begun the work of of that some of which has and much of which has not yet um and so we would through that process that was described um and we are beginning that work in various content areas. Um we certainly have that work in regard to math uh in that we have done a comprehensive audit if you will or curriculum review to use the terminology and we've adopted um a K8 now uh curriculum again uh we are in that work with our social studies curriculum for example and we're beginning to identify those resources that are currently uh the the dates and and how long they've been in place. Um so definitely have working documents that we have not yet uploaded. Um but certainly getting some additional input and direction here uh with what the will of the board is with regard to that is certainly something that we're very much open to. Yeah. So I I Sorry. Go ahead. No, it was any uh director Jasmine. Um I think your high over flyover example that you that one the review. Yeah. Um I think that was a a great thing. And then what director Atinson referenced with the strategic plan is is on point. Um exactly what I was thinking when um I read it. And then I understand that adding it everything to the website is going to be extremely time intensive. All of those types of things. But maybe all of our schools have an open house. But putting all of our curriculum on display should suffice for for the time so that we're not, you know, being budget friendly, right? And maybe focus on these upcoming sure curriculum. natural the natural cycle, right? That you're attempting to push through, right? So that we have an open and transparent of this is the new things that we're looking at, right? Before they're even implemented, this is what we're looking at, right? and a simple link, right? So that so that we can begin this process, right, of the community to see it because those aren't things that people are going to be able to see, feel, and touch and that but they're going to be able to at least start to dig into that process. I think maybe allocating a little bit of time into that part instead of uploading everything. So we can kind of especially with with summer coming up, right? all those types of things. That might be something that could be able to be planned um with an open house rather than trying to push to get everything uploaded, you know, before the end of the summer. France, you know, um, one of the I know that co kind of threw things a little bit ary, but one of the things we used to do is like with these curriculum reviews, just put the cadence of the reviews on a timeline on the website so they know that like for the next two years we're going to be doing social studies. We just got done with math. We've got the read thing going on so people can see it and they know who to contact for questions, too. Um, I think that that may help the community understand that whole cadence of review that we do no matter what and we've done consistently. We're just not maybe communicating it as well, which tends to maybe have led to the confusion. Um, but you know, every district does this. Um I don't know if you're know can you know can see what you're going to do three or four years from now but just letting people know that hey this is coming in and obviously the standards are constantly being reviewed and have a certain time limit update um a minimum of once every 10 years they completely overhaul so that way people can see that we're keeping up with it or at least attempting to. Yeah, I agree. I mean I think it would be super helpful to have some sort of documentation or matrix of you know catalog whatever we want to call it to identify the curriculum being used at every level and what year it was implemented when the standards are changing or just you know some sort of you know so we can understand as word members like how long have things been out there what you know parents could click on it the link to whatever curriculum we are using um and then also so that we know you know what's upcoming every year you know okay standards are changing for social studies we need to reook at it next year, whatever that is. Yeah, we we have actually this is good feedback and and I think to Dr. Edward's point. So, we actually have an internal document of our curriculum review cycle um at and I believe Dr. Zumbush might have actually shared this um once with the board in a work session um at some point. Um if you recall, there's these linear lines that overlap and kind of when we could expect to see results and all that kind of stuff. So we have that document internally. It's not something that's published, you know, so we can certainly make it more um average public friendly. Yeah. Um and and I think that's the other thing right now. Um, I think I shared some with Chair White the other day, too. And just a a template that I've put together for how we sequence all of our curriculum with um, dates, publishers, uh, which standards are they hitting because we might have core curriculum, but then we might have two supplemental curriculums because no curriculum is perfect. So, you have to fill gaps. Um, so you'll have some of those um, additional resources, but are tied directly to the core curriculum. Um, so yeah, we we do have that. Um, and I think uh a review cycle um I think starting with that document I think that Dr. Zumbush mentioned that might be where we begin. But to a couple of your points, yes, when we do school open houses, it's an opportunity for uh teachers to share um you know, as a third grader coming in, this is what you can expect over the course of the year. Okay? and and I think that's something that we can build towards for the fall and then kind of make that transition into a digital upload to everything as we work through um I will say our our next opportunity to do this as Dr. Edwards mentioned is with social studies and ELA. Um, science. Well, well, I don't I'll just say social studies is probably still spinning into. So, so ELA is probably going to be the one I can really say with confidence that will be the next kind of statewide implementation of new curriculum um because everything's going to change as a result of um when they land that in the legislature. So, um that will be our big focus area. But in the meantime, I think we can work at building out some of these other aspects to have it face forward more. Um, helps me understand that you're not looking for a very traditional audit because that was no $50,000. And I just think it it kind of it kind of goes back to our strategic plan there. The message was loud and clear from our community that they want to ensure that students are receiving challenging and rigorous instructions. And if for some reason we're finding that it's not, then it needs we need to come to the board and decide how do we supplement it or whatever. So that's also like as a parent, you know, as we everything especially middle school is on an iPad, right? So we don't have like a book at home where I could just like page through whatever social studies and kind of see what they're learning the year. Like there's just not it's a different world, right? So as a parent, I think the feedback you hear is like I have no idea what my kids are learning. like to be able to see that or have links to it is super helpful. Sure. Um Chair White, I I I did want to um mention too in a couple of the curriculum reviews since sitting um in this chair, I know that we did just for the public's knowledge too, we did have the curriculum either what we were looking at and compare and contrast, we did have it, you know, in the district office so people could come out in the public. We invited folks first. Invited people to come and like to your point, Director Mason, like hold it in your hand, like flip through it and things like that. Not a whole lot and never came back. Yeah. Right. Yes, I did hear that. Um, not a whole lot of people took advantage of that opportunity. I will say that with the two that um I've known about since sitting in this chair. But on the other side of it, the math night that we held, you know, very well attended, you know, so I mean it just kind of depends, but we do have usually when we're especially if it's like, okay, we're looking at these two, you know, we put both out in there. Um, and not a whole lot of people take advantage of that. Yeah. And that's where I would jump in. I appreciate you bringing that up. And I think the comment uh or the perspective and feedback around maybe they're not going to come and see it uh here, but they're going to come and see it potentially at open house or we're going to present it on the website in a more uh userfriendly way. Uh I think a great point uh director Mason around links. So like if this is the curriculum, I can go uh peruse that particular resource. Um so I think those are all good uh feedback that help inform uh our next steps on this work. You clear? Yeah. And I think as we get ready, you know, in June, we'll have like an academic um session with the board and I think we'll bring some proposals to the board at that time to share kind of what we think would be plausible to move forward with um if that if that is okay with the board, it fits timely with the topic. Good. I think that's right. Thank you very much. Appreciate the discussion. Why don't we take uh a quick five again and let everybody that wants to leave leave and then we'll dive in. Okay. Uh everyone um I want to be respectful of uh people's a couple of board members have an early morning as well as Dr. Thomas uh with a finance committee meeting. So, I'm going to propose uh that we do our best to try to get through as much as we can by 10 and uh with the goal of trying to get through 20 see if we can get through 203 and um and go from there. So, let's dive in and do it and see how efficient we can be. So first on the agenda would be uh policy 203 the uh operation op or operation of the school board. Director Johnson if you want to make a maybe an opening comment. Yes. So what we have here is uh policy 203. So we have so for just purposes right we took out the prior lake current policy 203 and struck it out. And then this is just a normal 203. The only thing that has changed in here is we have put in the latest edition of Robert's rules with that. All right. Any opening comments, Director France? So, we don't follow Robert's rules revised edition. They're only for boards 12 or greater or parliaments. We follow, and that was in the old one. We follow the Robert's rule for small boards, uh, which is taught by the MSBA. Um, and that's a that's a huge distinction because there's a lot of things in that Robert's World Revised Edition um that will never apply here. Um, we can't do it. So, you're saying that 12th edition is the revised edition. Is that what you're It is. It's the re It's the Well, usually they go are are Robert's rules revised, but yeah, the latest edition or any edition. We only follow the MSBA small boards. So would crossing out that red part there suffice or so we can change that to instead of 12th edition we can say Robert's rules of order latest edition for small boards. Well actually they don't have Robert's rules itself doesn't create a small boards division. you we we use the MSBA which was in the original operating norms um and it was specifically pulled out because of the issues with well you know you're supposed to do a motion this way or that way or whatever and we don't so we you know when you went through your phase one and phase two you went through the the Robert's rules training uh and you got a PowerPoint presentation probably out of it or a download that you could have downloaded those are the steps and the motions and stuff like that and they also have something online. Um, and that's what we normally follow. Um, and then a lot of states and different areas have their own version. What the school MSBA also says is that um, regardless of what happens because we're independent school boards, we have to do certain things by motion, but the rest of it is actually determined by whatever rules we put in there. So, they they also say that in the actual MSBA training. Um, and it's and it's kind of important to point that out because otherwise people pick up the book and kind of cherrypick stuff out of it and they'll say, "Well, the board didn't follow this or didn't follow that." And obviously we don't pay a hundred and something thousands for a parliamentarian and we don't do all that either, which is required. So then, so then what should just say Robert's rules of order? Yeah, I do think so because there are a lot of things that we maybe don't do that we should be following in Robert's rules of order and at the end of the day um there's not much difference between the the big I mean yes there's big difference between the big board and the small board but it's really there's not that much difference and if we follow Robert's rules of order we follow Robert's rules of order I mean that's it's that simple you know and this is this is MSBA's policy that they had the only thing that was changed was I put in the latest edition of Robert's rules. So we can change so we can keep latest edition or we can just the words latest edition or we could put in 12th edition or Okay. So the actual book is like this thick. That's why so either we follow MSBA or we say which parts of Robert's rules we're actually going to follow because otherwise you get into and we have had this happen where people go well you didn't do this and this is a motion and you should have done this it this way and you know it's a big book so if we're going to have guidelines either we use the MSBA or we say which version it is because otherwise you will and we have ended up in this whirling dervish of which one applies, how to apply it. Should C read how does how does MSBA get filtered into this? Should C not read Robert's rules of order? Should it read MSBA? We actually stated in the last norms that we follow the MSBA rules for small boards. Can you please point that out because I didn't see that in here anywhere on our old policy. Um, yes, it was a small boards on the policy. What number is it, please? I don't know. It's all crossed out. Hold on. Let me see if I can find it. I think there when you say Robert's rules of order, it's there is Robert's rules of order has been created since the 1940s or something and it exists. It was British parliamentary. So yeah, 19 whatever I don't know the right names or years, but the point is is it's really helped it it helps to keep moving meetings running smoothly and it also protects the voice of the minority. to be honest with you, the rules are the rules. And so you cannot cherrypick and say, "Well, we're going to use this part of it and that part of it." And and so you either use it or you don't. And I think that's why we do use it in business meetings and we don't use it in study sessions. Okay. So that's the other thing that needs to be um in the crossed out version. Okay, let me get to where we are. It's under number five. No, no, no. Sorry. What's number six? It's 610. Board members shall be conducted according to Minnesota statute where applicable and then by Robert's rules of order for small boards as prescribed by the Minnesota School Board Association using the authority normally vested in the board chair as described in Robert's rules of order. And so is the um would it be sufficient to take the language of 610 and put that in C? I'm fine with that. I agree. I mean it pretty much says we're use Robert's rules of order. So I'm fine with that. Okay. So 610 will from PLSAS policy 203. Okay. And the only other thing I had was um because there is a a distinction between our regular meetings and our study sessions under three uh rules of order should say rules of order for regular schoolboard meetings be as follows. Yes, that was my other comment. That way we can still kind of Yes. do whatever we want to do with this study sessions. We can be a little more loosey goosey. Yep. We'll add regular. Got And if there's other places that I didn't catch that that where it says rules for schoolwire meetings, if we could insert it, I'll I'll keep looking, but I I found that one for sure. And I'm think I found another one, but yeah, there was another one that I also Yeah, on page 50 there was another one. Yeah. Three point. So it' be three rules of order and then just insert regular after uh word four. Got it. We will make that change. Okay. Anything else on 20 I was sorry I was on to 203.1. So anything else on 203? Good. Yep. Now 203.1. I noted that one change. Is there any discussion on 203.1? Does MSBA really say to raise our hand? No. No. That was my suggestion. And I kind of like I'm not a fan. There is a um where was it? Where in MSBA they actually have where they stand up. So MSBA's struck language. It says schoolboard members need not rise to gain the recognition of the chair. Right. Um, and so I suggested that in order to be respectful and that we're not talking over each other as board members, that if we get the attention of the board chair by a hand, he will then direct the meeting to make sure that the the board member is addressed. No, I like that. Again, regular board meetings for the most part, the conversation is a little more loose um at study sessions. Yeah. and B, C, and D also follow the small business um things and the rules of order on 203.1 as well. So, um it needs to be anything need to be changed? No, it's the minimum. Um I think that um you know the the older policies were a result of experience and things happening and then having to be defined and and having you know where policies were confusing or whatever. And then the boards went back and we made things more discreet and we're going to start from scratch again. So, um, that's kind of what this looks like. Was there anything specifically that you would like that's more prescriptive put back in? Well, I mean, there's there's a lot of things in here that went through years of discussion uh because of circumstances and and all that. And some of those um we had taken ethics, a lot of the stuff out of ethics and put it into the rules norms because they weren't really the definition of ethics. um which is more or less um you know uh um loosely stated like you know um being nice, moral, respectful, stuff like that and instead moved more discreet things in here into the norms um because they were really rules. And so then as we had experiences of of things happening um they became they became more prescriptive over time like the open meeting law um uh you know the rules in there to allow for instance Martha to be able to inform people of when it's okay uh to like go to things in which there's a quorum and leave it up to her because she has the expertise and know knows what she's signing. us up for versus things that we have to make sure uh we don't have a quorum in because board business will be discussed that sort of thing and then like um some of the um uh other circumstances under that. So that was put in more prescriptively here to transfer that authority to our pseudo parliamentarian um to help the board make those decisions. Um, so that was done. Um, and then um and then we made other things like a little bit more uh prescriptive as far as showing up to meetings. So, and I did make a comment in the comments that I sent back to to everybody about um meeting attendance and quorums uh because we cannot meet here and be on record or whatever if we don't have a quorum. we would literally have to cancel the meeting. And the default language in here did not say that. That was put back in. But that also requires for public notice that requires adequate notice to the chair uh that you won't make it. And during flu season, believe me or not, that is huge. Um um and during inclement weather. So um we made it a little bit more prescriptive to say within you know as soon as you know you have to notify the chair that you won't be at a meeting instead of just saying you know we were getting messages at 2 minutes before the meeting going I'm showing up I'm not showing up that sort of thing. Um and that's not that's not really being respectful not only that to the public that shows up to a study session or to a well I think I think so that's why we got really prescriptive in here. Um, so that came that's the reason why the norms got so large. Okay. And that's up to you guys. I mean that's up to the will of the board of putting that back in there. I hear I hear what you're saying and I think if I could understand what letter if there's something you know that we had in our old p kind of similar to what we did just you know bringing back 6.10 10 to to see like if I could understand, you know, what exactly you're saying for what letter, I'm I can I'm listening and I understand what you're saying, but I'm I'm not I can't grasp what you're suggesting to put back in. Well, so when you guys went through the original policy, did you look at what you wanted to remove or did you just go to the MSBA template and put that in here? I don't know what your process was. Okay. Yes. So my process was look through all of MSBA find right have prior leg side by side make sure that we had something right MSB in MSBA that matched right something in in prior league if it didn't we needed to put it in there yeah other than that if something was similar in MSBA that was sim you know the wording might have been a little bit different But like as long as it matched the intent diligent about making sure what if there was something that Prior Lake had that MSBA didn't then it was brought over. Um but otherwise it was the uh MSBA model was adopted if it if there was something connected with the M does that make sense? There was something that connected. We we were going with the MSBA model policy rather than fairly as we stated before MSBA is a template that you fill in particularly because no statute is going except for the open meeting law is going to do rules and norms that is the board kind of managing itself. So it's so like I said the original one was done over the years added to because of experiences and how this the boards in previous wanted to operate. Um so if there's things in there that you didn't like or didn't think were appropriate then you take them out or whatever your pol policy was. But you you as long as the board is remembering that a lot of our policy numbers were created and before MSBA came up with a model policy for something and sometimes we were as you can see in a lot of the other numbers we conflict because they came up with one to fill a gap and we had already used that for something else and that was procedural, statutory, studentled or whatever. So doing that one- on-one has never really worked and actually the policy committee talked about that quite a bit of why we're off on numbers. So, but that's you guys whatever you did here. That's that's why I'm asking what was your process when we I'll just say this and please add whatever when we received from the will of the board that we wanted to adopt MSBA model policy specifically if we're we're on 203 right now. Prior lakes 203 was extremely long and I understand that it is based on years and years of um morphing maybe whatever word you want you know of work put into it. MSBA's model policy has it split out into um understandable chunks 203 203.1 you know and I think it's uh because it was the will of the board to adopt that MSBA model policy. I appreciate that for 203 specifically because it allows it's digestible. It's digest. Yeah, it it's in chunks that you can It's or an organ um better organiz organized organization. Yeah. Thank you. So that's what we did. I get it. Um after being on the board for so long, like whenever something would happen and we'd say we'd call the MSBA and they'd say, "Well, don't you didn't you write that in your policy?" We'd be like, "No, well, we only gave you a template. You need to do that for yourself and then you need to govern yourself in the 200s." So, that I remember from the very first year that I was here. So, and I'm not sure, Dan, if you experienced that in your history um of them coming back and say, "Well, it's your policy. We're not going to tell you how to do this. We're going to set the basic guidelines." So, that's why we're having this conversation. But the little things like the note the board may choose to include the policy a method of calling the role. Um again my feedback was we already have that in our agenda. So we chose to do it by putting in our agenda items of we do a roll call, right? Um so that's why I put in my notes that just take that whole section out because that's how we decided previously. And by the way, you already had that in there. Um so putting those little notes in there. Um yeah, we crossed the vote. Yeah. Chair White, um I just have one thing under J. Um it's so 203.1J. It says the order in which names will be called for roll call votes will be determined by the school board and isn't it typically it is the chair. So I would just change that to by the board chair. Okay. Yeah. Because that's because you're running the meeting, it falls under that. So that's the only change I had regarding this policy. Um, letter G, there was some comments on letter G from multiple board members. And if I can point out uh specifically with the the phrase any member of the audience. Um I pointed that out. can either um take that out um if everyone is okay with that and director Bullion and I can can work that um if everyone is okay with that or we can basically work that into the phrase of hey it's going to be the administration. Yeah. However, whatever everyone is okay with. And I I think I would just take the whole sentence out and leave it. members of the public who wish to be heard shall follow school board procedures because we already recognize administration and another sub part of the policy. I'm I was going to say either either scratch it or somehow we do this through the open forum. Yeah. So either I I don't care which way you want to go. If you want to just leave it out, we're not going to get rid of the open forum or somehow tie this sentence to it's going to be through the open forum that this recognition is going to take place. We're not just going to be willy-nilly calling on people in the audience during open forum. The last sentence actually take it out and leave it in the open forum and agenda section because maybe that maybe that we do have an open form and agenda section in the policy. Maybe maybe just scratch G if everybody's comfortable scratch G and add but no no we don't need we don't need to statement elsewhere because I so it's a like if the way I was reading it was like the school board shall have the authority to I would reward it like recognize administration in the audience regarding a request to be heard but I guess this is specific to the public is which we're talking about right and since we have a policy on open form maybe that covers it that covers it Okay. Okay. So, we're just going to scratch G. Scratch G. I was trying to understand what they were saying. Change the lettering. Got it. And then to uh Director Fran's earlier point about maybe it's surrounding letter M. Um you're right. We wouldn't meet. I think this is written like for a night for tonight. Severe weather hits. There's two people here. It basically based on what the little bit of research I did today. you know, the two people can call the meeting to order and then adjourn, which then would allow us to meet the next day as opposed to posting for 3 days for a special meeting. It's a very unheard of and probably ultra rare occurrence, but it it is covering something that I suppose could happen, but I've never We would go to statute for that. And that's what I'm wondering if statute covers that. It does. It does. So if it does statute statute does it is it is verbatim from statute. This letter M. So is the statute is it is referenced. So we can choose to leave it. Well, as long as if it's if it's then I have no problem with I just want to make sure that Here's the thing is the language that so it it's somewhat verbatim from statute. There's other parts of that statute that then we ran into this I believe Martha um one time where we didn't know if we were going to be able to I I'm not sure if it was increment weather or something else where we said well what do we do if we've got to call the meeting and then I believe we had to call MSBA and ask them you know how much notice do you need if it's under this circumstance or whatever I can't remember I think maybe it was a snowstorm um three days yeah and that was the question that we had is do can we delay for 3 days because I think there was a deadline of something we're supposed to vote on. Um and so the statute you actually have to go to the legislative version of the statute where they had to deal with this in the legislature about their timing of voting and that's what we got. Um, so technically though, if a if a public reads this, it makes it look like we still meet. And technically, I don't believe we can even have a valid motion. Um, according to we can with and again, this is so super rare. This is literally not us cancing a meeting or not cancelelling. It's more a couple of people showed up. No one else could get there. What do we do? Right? which would then allow this just allows the two members to call the meeting to order, adjourn, and allow us to avoid the three-day meeting. To your point, if there's something that's this time sensitive, we could meet the next day. Well, and that's where we had that's where it wasn't written in statute, I believe, and they they had to go through a legislative interpretation and blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah, I I would prefer if M actually we just we have the statutes in here and the statute that this references is in there. Um I I would prefer just to take it out just cuz typically what we would do is put a notice of saying the meeting's canceled and not even do the call and adjourn. And that's what I believe we were given permission to do if but it didn't occur. And it's it's so incredibly rare that I don't I can go either way. Direct way. It also is really Robert's rules of order because if you had four of us here and one of us got sick and had to leave, then you still still do need to um adjourn, right? And that's really what this is this is also another another scenario that would allow us to meet start the meeting again the next day as opposed to so it's really but it follows Robert's order. So if we follow Robert's r why do we need it in here? So so is it the will of the board to cross M out? I I you know what I would prefer to do that because it's kind of confusing. Um and I believe no we did we had a snowstorm one day where on the day of the meeting uh we did cancel in 20 17 or 18. I think we were all here though and then we left. No we weren't here because I got I was landing on a plane when I got the text message an hour before the meeting saying don't show up. I if if statute covers this Yeah. and it's never going to happen anyway. We can probably cross it out. Avoid some confusion. So, is anybody have a problem with scratching letter M? No. Okay. Uh, one last thing I think before we're done with this. Is anyone opposed to removing the notes? No, I won't. No, please. That's fine. Splash away just to make sure that we're good with everything. Yeah. No, they should be in there with the Oh, no. We're in the next one. Sorry. Go ahead. All right. If that's all on Do you have anything? Hey. Well, unless it's somewhere else that I missed um about the notice given. Where are we? U Well, I'm still in 2031, but I don't know if it's covered anywhere else about notice being given, the 3-day notice. It's in open and closed meetings. It is. Is it? Okay. Yes, it is. Thank you. You're welcome. Then if there's nothing else on that, we'll move on to point two. the order of the regular schoolboard meeting. Any This is I've just read them so many times. Director Johnson on 203.2. Looks like you just crossed out the default and put in a Yes. 203.2 should be, and Martha, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. This should be our new meeting order that we have um that was recently redone. And other than that, there should not Let me just double tap that. Oh, yes. And then um on the the back letter B um multiple comments from from board directors. Letter B did not make any sense to anyone. Um okay. So, everyone kind of said like this should be struck. Okay. which is why it was the the language the following agenda order similar to um basically the chair at the time can change these like you did uh chair white um because of the language here. So we don't want to get too picky about that. So like if you wanted to put administrative or board reports up at front, you are more than welcome to do that because all the only thing that that language really states is that these particular areas be included. Yeah. Be covered regardless of the order you want to put them in. Okay. That's still similar. Yes. And then the program presentations is actually showcase. Say it again. But does does the language cover everything in that Laker Pride special recognitions and program presentations? Does that cover everything we normally do? Showcase instead of program presentations. What do you think? Doesn't matter. Lakers showcase instead of pride. Should No, no. No. Instead of program Laker showcase instead of program presentations. Okay. the last one. Okay, thank you. Getting to the same outcome. Yes. Just want to make sure they're not run into a vocabulary. Laker showcase, pardon. So, special recognition stays the same. Yeah. Thank you. Um, is there part for new business? Did we miss that? Because there's unfinished business policy administr new business. Oh, there's no new business. Always have new business, folks. That is true. Is it on the old? This is for the regular meeting though. The new business comes under the study sessions. No, no, no. New business comes under the Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. We rarely have anything in unfinary. I know. We always have new business. It's part of It's part of Robert's order. Unfinished business. New business. It would be technically after the approval of the agenda in between 9 and 10. And you know that if it's No, because there's approval agenda consent. Well, that's where it was tonight. So, I'm just new business would be after unfinished business. Yes. New business comes after unfinished business. Yeah. Great. This was one number 13 and a half if you want to. No. Okay. We'll You'll know what And um here's the thing. I I personally, this is for Chair White. Um we we kind of state it earlier but not really. I know it's under your thing but the um the the following agenda what we don't state it in here is the fact that you have the ability to determine the agenda. I know we state it with the chair, vice chair and superintendent. Um, but I mean if if if someone were to challenge this and say, "Well, the board didn't agree to it and all that kind of stuff," did you want to restate it or at least have a recursive reference to the policy that states the role of the chair in here? I guess I I I'd have to I'd have to consider that. On the top of my head, I can't give you an answer. The role of the chair is is specifically stated in statute and Robert's rules of order. So if we follow Robert's rules of order and we follow Minnesota statute, it's already defined. So yeah, but there's a lot of things we do that aren't in Robert's rules of order. And what you're saying is I'm just saying that I I just, you know, based upon history, I do you want to codify my ability to Oh, we already talked about that in the other previous 200s that we went through about the role of the chair officers reference to the policy underneath here. Yeah. Cross reference the policy. Okay. cuz you do cross reference it. It's in the operational procedure that the board submit or creates the agenda. Sorry, we did. No, we set our own operational. That's what I'm saying is the board doesn't create the agenda. The chair and vice chair and superintendent do with the chair have final say number I feel like it's in another policy. Um 202. Okay. Add cross reference to policy 202. Perfect. Okay. board and I'll just make a note for myself for chair responsibility or whatever school board officers and memberships what their responsibilities are 202 perfect if there's nothing else on point two we can move to three um this is uh Charles anything give me one second no problem are you going 203.3 study sessions. 3.3. Okay. Study sessions. So, um, MSBA doesn't have a study session. So, this is created based off of the previous one that we just went through. Um, Cher White and I had a discussion on this. There was a couple things. Um and then yes, but we are open to I think the only thing we really wanted to do was um delete numbers delete letter C down at the bottom. Yes, that would seem to be a point of contention with a few board members and then everything else was was pretty copetthetic with everyone. I think we should specifically state that we don't follow Robert's rules for small business in here. And I think Did we cover that by by inserting the word regular board meeting in the other policies? Yes, I think we did. Yes. You know what I'm saying? No, I'm fine with that. I just didn't know if you wanted because um the school board shall conduct an orderly school board meeting. Um it just I don't I would hate for someone to come back and say, "Well, you didn't actually state it and therefore we're not, you know, whatever." Um and then my only other suggestion is is um when I first I'm not sure if you remember this, Dan, but they used to do the pledge of allegiance at every the beginning of every meeting. all that sort of thing. And um it it w it added a formality to it, you know, and kind of started the bookend process of the meeting. And I was talking to Charles about this today and I I I can go either way. I I put it this way. Study sessions are supposed to be a little less formal. And um you know, we don't do the national anthem before practice. We do it for the games. And I think I think having the I think that a regular meeting is more worthy of the pledge than a than a study session. That's my personal opinion. So I agree. I just um I just remember when we did the and I I do I love the analogy. I think that's very appropriate. It was just um I just remember when we all stood up and did it. Um it kind of you know we don't actually have the gavvel the whole bit. So that was it. But I'm I could go either way. I don't care. I'm not gonna fight for that one. Okay. So on 203.3 slashing C scratching C and anything else? Yes. Yes. So on B. So we can always have a regular business meeting session and it doesn't have to be at the beginning of the study session. It have to put a time that like let's say 7 o' and Right? We can go anytime after seven. So what we can do is we can put it anywhere in the agenda wherever we feel it fits. So if it was at the beginning of the meeting that's cleaner, right? You want to do a steady session and then have the business afterwards. That's fine. But we have to list a time on there and then we'd have to wait. I think that was in the original norms too. But yeah. Okay. So, how how how would you how are we to what would be a I think it just should start at designated time. Didn't we have language before? There's language in there before that stated that. I thought, didn't we must be open and close start. Yeah, we've I think you would have to legally do that. Yes. So, how about how about if we how do we say that? How about if we cross out start before the beginning of the study sessions to start at a designated time? I think that's fine. Then it could be before after closed separately and should start at a designated time. Yes. That cool. Yeah. Martha, we've always had our designated time when we do the study session before a board meeting at like at 700 p.m. But wasn't that tied to the requirement for public notice? This is good. No, I I get it. But I thought it was tied to requirement for public notice so people know that after a certain time it's going to happen regardless at that time or others. Yeah. Um and I I I don't think it's a huge thing, but I don't want to say anything in there that's going to contradict the re this the statutory requirement for public notice. That's my concern. Like the language that we use. But you're talking about stuff like truth and taxation. And you have to say it h you have to allow public to speak at 6:00 or something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No. No. I'm talking about the fact that when we have a board meeting, we've got a notice that so many days in advance and a time and that's where that time came from. Um so when you have a study session with a board meeting or a board meeting or study session, you've got to provide so many so much notice and you've got to give it a time, right? Um that's all. And I and I know that's somewhere in statute, but I don't I I just and I'm sure what we put in here would be fine, but I just don't want to do anything that could potentially contradict it. That's the only thing that I think you're you're referencing open and closed meeting law. No, no, no. I'm referencing the requirement to provide notice that we're going to have a meeting um regardless of whether it's open or closed. And there's language in there that the same language we were just referring to that said we have to have at least a 3-day notice of that. So that's so what language what's that? So then why don't why don't we just meeting so why don't we um leave it at at a designated time and you can double check double check and make sure I'll double it. Sure. Okay. Got it. 203.4 organizational meeting. Yes. So, same thing. Um, no MSBA on this one, right? Uh, so it was built off of the regular meeting and this comes directly from our January 2025 organizational meeting, copy and pasted exactly how it is. Martha, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that, but it should be exactly verbatim everything in order. Number four, that would happen every two years. Yeah. That we wouldn't do a c ceremonial oath of office. Um, but when necessary or when Yeah. Um, Martha, is there any There has been kind of changes to what we add on here and what we individually vote on. Is there any way that we can put um some looser language other than similar to or something that would say that you know let's say um cuz we we talk the consent agenda a lot of those aren't voted as one. We do vote like on individual items uh and take them out um like legal audit stuff like that that we individually vote on. It's not the typical consent agenda um that's routine um for all of them or voted as one. So, I'm wondering I don't want to be really specific here to allow for the flexibility, but is there anything we can do with the following orders as similar to or like um any language we can put in there that could loosen this up so we're not if anything comes up in the organizational meeting that we have to approve for the following year, statutory changes, individual stuff that's not part of the consent agenda. Um, I mean needed maybe just put something like that in there. Where? Okay. Where is where is our that would be under 3A organizational meeting 3A um instead of order similar to um or um similar to an as needed um or designated by the chair. an agenda order similar to or as needed per the chair or per administration because it's really administration that does the organizational meeting. It's not the chair. Does similar to doesn't cover it? I think a similar to covers it because you're really just talking about the order. You're not talking about the content because you could put five different things in the consent agenda. An agenda order is different than adding new agenda items. And I don't want to get stuck. Anybody can similar to or as needed by or as designated by administration. Um because like I don't determine you didn't. No. Yeah, that's not going to structurally change anything. If it No, if it uh adds a little comfort for the board, that's fine. What's the What's the language on that? Got it. She's got it. You got it. It is similar to or as needed by or as needed by administration. Correct. Yes. Somewhere I wrote designated, but I don't know or is designated. My only concern with the administration is that these are our board meetings. So I would I think it really should be the chair because the chair is the one who develops the agenda. Well, the problem is we've already written that policies back there. We've already that's already been written in our 20 whatever policies. So, we want to keep the chair in conjunction with in collaboration with the superintendent. Dan, you were brand new. Um most a lot of times the organizational meeting is set by administration of what we need to approve for the administration to be able to do their business. Um the previous school board chair. Yes, the previous school board chair if they don't run again is not there or if they're not the chair. So that's why it's going to go to the vice chair. The the truth of the matter is is that Martha sets what's what's going to be on this agenda. I wonder if this is a little bit of an outlier cuz this this is going to be the organizational meeting order. Correct. Right. Going forward forever probably. Yeah. Mhm. Uh, so I don't know if we need to I understand what you're saying saying, Mary, but um, so getting in the weeds or similar to covers I just feel like orders similar to covers any any variance that may come up. I agree. Is that okay? I agree. I'm I'm fine with it. 203.5 reminding of our goal of 10:00 for those who have the meeting in the morning. See if we can We're getting close. We're getting close. Uh school board meeting agenda. Charles, if you have anything to really Yeah. Yes. Can I Can I ask can we skip to 203.6 six and then go back to 203.5 because I think 203.5 might be the the sticking points. The sticking point. We need fresher brains for that. Correct. Uh 203.6 Six is our consent agenda items from the organizational meeting again from January and our regular meetings. And I think between uh Director Bullion, myself and Martha, we will make sure that everything is just double and triple tapped on on that to make sure that we have everything in there. I think we've done a fairly good job of that just to make sure. But, uh, we I made a few comments on this one that I that were sent out. Um, one, um, the the consent agenda items, the definition is actually in our current board book that they're routine in nature, blah blah blah blah blah. The words non-controversial or similar. Um, I don't, you know, again, I made a comment in there about the number of times things are pulled off and and and how some of that doesn't really fit with the consent agenda itself. But I do believe the language that we use in our board book and have always used and it's the same language used by usually city councils, county commissions, etc., um covers that B portion much better than the fairly legacy language out of the um MSBA template which is pretty old. So if really consent agenda items should be routine in nature and we've had contracts that are recurring every year that show up in consent agendas. We've had other things, some things that I've actually questioned whether they belong or not cuz they're they don't seem routine and I've been pointed to years and years and years of how they have been routine. So, I just want to make sure that we're leaving this as the routine in nature definition and not trying to be as discreet here as as some of the language and using terms that are not necessarily um going along with how we've been doing this with, you know, saying actually defining them as non-controversial. I actually like the word non-controversial because there has been things that have been put in the uh consent agenda that are considered controversial and they're put in there for a reason to avoid the conversation. So I personally that's describing motive. I don't want to go I don't want to go there but the word I think I don't want them non-controversial is really important here because that's the whole and point of the con the consent agenda is you you're not really supposed to put things in there that are um controversial like they're they're supposed to be transparent. It's supposed to be very routine in nature non-controversial. Um, and I don't want to give examples, but there's, you know, we get, we've been criticized for, oh, they threw it in the consent agenda just because they wanted to pass it and not talk about it. That's the whole point of the consent agenda is to make it very routine in nature and the items should be non-controversial. I really actually really appreciate described non-controversial. I mean, what is the definition of non-controversial, right? that and going back to the definitions of how the MSA MS the vote on the MSHSA policy that was put in the consent agenda. I mean there's one I'm seriously asking going back to the meeting that you guys had and you're talking about the policy that was talking about co uh conduct in a school and you struck all this language of what yelling or being mean or whatever. I'm I'm literally asking how will that be universally defined of what is controversial versus non-controversial because what one thinks is the other might think it's not. So I think it's a fair standard that you guys might want to uphold to not if you did it in one policy how are you going to do it in this policy. Appreciate your perspective Dr. Thomas. Um I think that's it goes back to that routine in nature and non-controversial. I think that those two words hand in hand um define that they're not equal. I think in order in order to do that right um we would have to take out the ore. It would have to be non-controversial and routine in in nature because because that would then if if I'm hearing because the routine word isn't in there which which director France mentioned and I agree with you Dr. Thomas, right? And I think to take right to hit that those words, it should it should read non-controversial and routine in nature. Non-controversial is an extremely subjective term. It's very subjective and it is not appropriate for here. I'm just going to state that right off the bat. I don't know about saying it's non because it's came from MSBA, right? Yeah. And it's written in other people who have this policy. It's exactly how it's written. This has come and there's a reason why it's in there. This comes from MSBA policy, model policy. Yes, it's a I think avoiding the and or is always a good thing, right? Um non-controversial though, I mean it is a subjective it is it is subjective. I mean, and to we don't need to belabor that, but it it re it truly is subjective. Um, and so is there language another word or language that would be sufficient? Um because non I mean I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with the items are to be non-controversial but that word in and of itself is subjective because just like whoever said what one might consider controversial another might not and there's but the whole language in here this is extremely legacy language from decades old and it has other language in here that do not require further discussion or explanation, which means that if they don't, you're not taking stuff off the consent agenda. Where in our policy in our board book when we go through in our board thing, when we go through the definition of the consent agenda that repeat every time above the consent agenda, that language is every I mean, do people have problem is there problems with that language that we've been using? Um the as far as like what they read at the beginning. Yeah. I think if we look at what we had what we had what we what we've had it's on it's on the agenda. We can just go look. Yeah. It's May 5th consent agenda and then read what it says. Items in are considered to be routine in nature and would be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items of these items unless a board member of or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed as consent agenda and addressed the removal of an item for discussion must be requested prior to the approval of the consent agenda. So I'm fine leaving routine in nature. I I just appreciated the non-controversial because it's like I said it's it it to me it is exactly what they should be very routine in nature. So if we want to use routine in nature that's fine. I'm fine with Are you fine with we are we are you fine with taking what we have written here and putting it on B I think so. Yeah. Yeah. What she just read I have no problem with. Yeah. And does anybody have a problem with what we've been using? Yeah, that's fine. It's exactly says the exact same thing. Okay. So I don't like question. So I think that makes sense. uh in uh under the regular meeting um 2D PMA financial. So I I'm just curious that we have a company specifically named in policy. So I would advise the board. Where are we? I'm sorry. Am I I'm I'm maybe I'm behind 203.6. No, you're right. It does say policy under the purple lettering two called regular meeting, right? And then take a look at 2D. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I I I think that's a carry. I don't think we should list a specific. Good catch. Um, just financials. Yeah. And and the financials, you know. What should it say? It's already We've got financials. I would just I would just strike striking B. is a financial report that's called the PMA financial right but that's but if they change the name or do whatever it's a financial report for our investments that's but yeah we should let's uh let's make sure we understand cuz let let me talk with Tammy um tomorrow and ask what that report would be called in a bond report or something it's capturing that like a portfolio investic can we just say investment report. No, we just need No, the PMA financial is where the Yeah, I know. I'm investment report. It's not necessarily an investment report. So then you'll get back. You just asked Tammy the generic way of investment report. A generic term for that. Yeah. For that 2D. Okay. Strike O. The reassignment that was just a oneon strike O. Yeah. And if we go if we ever have a building bond referendum, the regular meeting and the finances also increase to show the the balance of the bond investment and god knows what else. So getting some more generic language in there that says the same thing would probably be best for the for the uh in general for the detail that's in here. um try to figure out how to make it so that encompasses the spirit of what's supposed to be in there and not necessarily the line items of just what we've been doing for the point in time. Are you suggesting shortening this to have just a broader Am I capturing what you're saying? Well, just what what Dr. Thomas suggests that we talk to Tammy about about the what well what to call some of these in here. It was I was only saying the one because it can be misconstrued as a singular company, right? also the others I wasn't weighing in on. But um there's a few things in here that would change like say if we did pass a referendum. Yeah. There would be three or four more things in there and you know so is there a way that we can put language in here that's going to encompass enough of what is actually in here without having to be detailed. Well, it does say under B though, such agenda items might include ministerial tasks such as but not limited to. Mhm. And they should be routine in nature. That's the thing that we go back to that. So, as long as this line because we we replaced be here. Yeah. So, that's that last sentence might might cover anything that might need to be added during specific periods of time. Yeah, that's I think is a good idea. Use our description. Oh, I would just ask to add that last line and then just add to this this last sentence. Yeah. So that we can like Dr. Director France is saying it allows for different periods of time like if like bond issues pass. It's the big the important one is but not limited to. So keeping this Yep. Last allows us to add something add things to the agenda that might be temporary in nature. Yep. Thank you. that are routine that are still routine during that temporary time. And we like that language. Such agenda items might include ministerial tasks such as but not limited to. Yes. Okay. Next. Okay. 203.5. We're backing up and we're after 10. It is 10:05. I suggested us trying to wrap up by 10 and continuing this at the May session. So, do we feel like 203.5 is a lot of lot of discussion points get through it or could we finish 203? It's actually a short policy. I want to be respectful of those that have an early meeting in the morning and I think it's a good stopping point actually if if we feel like the next, you know, because these are going to get approved and still in time for our our deadline. Um, so we're just gonna push these to the next study session. That is my suggestion based on because then then let's do another one. Let's do another. No, I understand. I understand. And so is that if that's okay with everybody. I don't think we're we're in a super time crunch as long as we're still on schedule. Understanding that this might affect the next study session in May um by adding a couple to it. Um I just it's if we're good, let's get out of here. There's just two, right? Um except for we do have to go through the rest of the agenda. There's a few more things on the bottom. Please, there is. You are correct. All right. So, we'll move on to the uh Oh, and then before I before we move on, uh the schoolboard vacancies that were suggested in here, and appreciate Director Fran getting the quick response. Those are actually going to be discussed or meant to be discussed on May 28th. So you have the full month to kind of peruse them and and send our feedback if we have recommendations. Okay. In advance of that. So you have plenty of time on the 2011.1 if you want to. Mhm. And then uh future agenda topics. Administrative reports. Um did I miss something? Yes. 16 administrative report. Oh. Oh. Am I in the wrong We're in a study. Oh, sorry. I'm in the wrong meeting. I'm I'm already in one report a night. I'm already in May. Sorry. Sorry. My sincere apologies. I was in the wrong meeting. Okay. Why are those policies in May then? That's so weird. Okay. Anything on anybody's mind? Gonna approve that. Oh, we're approving MMA. That's why I Yes, I have some things. So, Oh, but everybody else can go first. I don't want to go first. It came to mind when we were talking about open enrollment. I would love um some information on open enrollment and just further discussion on um and maybe this goes with some of the budget discussion um and potential school closures, but I think some discussion around so exactly policy on if we need to adjust that going forward with school closures, things like that. So, you're looking for like numbers in and out or uh because I think the state statute pretty much covers how many we're letting in and if there's criteria um each year the board um takes a vote on whether or not you're going to cap open enrollment. Believe that every year that they do that, right? So, I think we can tie that as part of with Yeah, the timing would align just fine. Our recommendation won't have to go until October of what we're going to do. So we'll we'll I mean we've done open enrollment reports as part of enrollment in the past and so usually break it out. So we can open next update easily share kind of what we are tracking. Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be helpful as we discuss building so that okay so that will be just another agenda item tied to a existing report existing enrollment report. Yeah. So then I won't necessarily have to make that separate. Yeah. And I think if I'm not mistaken, Director Frederickson already wrote that down when you suggested earlier. I just know if we needed like a discussion topic around it further. It'll be part of the ongoing report then moving forward at least for the whenever you can cobble it together. I don't think there's huge hurry. Anyone else? Um I have I was It's been a lot of um traffic recently and a lot of accidents um around the high school, around the middle school. So, if we can and this might be something that that's that's coming up school safety, outdoor safety, um maybe even I understand it might stretch into like the city, those types of things. Um, but there's a there's a lot of discussion and noise around town and if there's anything that we can maybe do with that. Um, and even bringing in city officials to address those things when because normally those things I feel come back to us anyways because they are entering and exiting the schools. Um, so what [Music] exactly? So I know in the past we've had joint meetings uh around that. I don't know if if uh well we have issues with people complaining about the congestion, people not following the rules in the parking lot and then you've got the issues of coming and going from our parking lot. I would say coming and going definitely. Um not so much parking lot. There's but there's been more than a few accidents towards the high school lately. Um a few things around the middle schools. So um well and I think I I would just like to add to this. Um I mean I saw one of those accidents, but I think the conversation has been was there a conversation had when we added the upper new ad new upper level entrance how it impact traffic? How does that impact the traffic flows up there? Um, I don't know if there ever was because that that if you try to drop your kid off in the morning, it's so how would that manifest? Would it uh I want make this something that we can get some consensus. Would it be a I don't know a report from high school admin on and what their protocols are or even how many accidents there's been reported in the last year. We could get maybe something from the city to say how many accidents have been reported at that one intersection. I mean, that would be good to know, too. the school probably knows. They probably get notice of it as well. But then but then that then some the public would need to go to the city and say this isn't going to cut it. You need to do I think that has already begun to take place. I think I think so too. And I feel like this is just something because right public safety I know we're I know we're going to have a talk about about that soon. I don't know if this is something that we could colllocate the two with one another. Um or if that's even too soon to say like that's a lot of information to to go to and this is very broad. Um so I I just don't know how we or do we need to add a crossing guard or I mean that's resources go. Yeah. Before you jump to solutions, we need to figure out do we have a what's the what's the ask because I don't I want to make sure we're not because it's real be real really easy to get into Savage's lane here in our discussion and I know you're not but sure that it's so easy to get we have a representative going to the city right now and dealing with this or is it even in our pro I mean both Dan and Haley work with our SRO's and um dealing with any accidents and things of that nature, but it's it's well, from my opinion, it's bigger than just accidents because uh the congestion piece that you're talking about, people waiting uh you know, I know my sister-in-law hears about it because she lives two blocks away from the high school and they're all parked down on the culdeac waiting for kids to get out, you know. So, and they they've explored conversations with the city. Um, and the city may or may not add signs to say no parking during x amount of hours, you know, similar to what we have at Lola on the hill. Um, but then that's a city issue, not our issue. Um, do we still have an issue with Hamilton Ridge and the congestion coming in and out of that subdivision? I haven't heard anything, you know, on my radar. That was over there recently. It was addressed by the school though like like you said crossing guards or like is that are maybe that's what the qu the ask is like are there options we maybe How about this? How about how about an update? I mean I'm sure high school administration is very aware what's going on up there. Would a would a would an update from high school admin at some point um about traffic flow about just just yeah just how the how they what their what their plans are, how they handle it, what what they've been add can we I know the high school is probably the primary concern. Um I just I deal with middle school daily basis, right? It's that's a not any funner than that. And there's quite a few. It's also 10 times better than it used to be. Trust me, it it absolutely is. I completely agree. It's still not great. And yeah, maybe even just having the the SRO's come in with them and seeing what they're what they're encountering with with the middle schoolers on on the ebikes. I know the ebikes have been a a So, what if we just have Dan do an update? Yeah, maybe a publication. And I would assume that Dan does will know what to do or he's going to advise you and Dr. Thomas on the timing for this particularly. You don't want to preempt any discussions with either city, Prior Lake or Savage. Yeah, we'll start there. Maybe maybe that's maybe that's way to go. I'll start there. Involve as few people. Is the will of the board or is the consensus to come back with a uh a secondary update on um traffic safety traffic traffic safety um in students? My question I think that would be great. My question to you Dr. Johnson is like I completely understand wanting to know more. My question is, is this in this stage? Is this a good agenda item? Does that make sense? That's why Dan needs to Dr. Thomas to talk about the stage that it's actually in. I completely agree and understand wanting to know more and all of that, but is it are we re What's the word I'm looking for? Is this too Is this premature to have it be an agenda item? To answer your question, my reasoning of of now is we're we're we're getting ready to move into summertime and we can start with the conversation like Dr. Thomas just said, and if we can move into something, we can start having the conversation with the city, with the cities, excuse me, and then maybe we can come to a resolution before school begins in the fall. That would be and just to be clear, it wouldn't be the board having the discussion with the city. It would be Dan Powers who's representing essentially that's probably already underway. So we So the timing of it needs that would be great to know. That's that's that's more my question for is it a board agenda item or is it just work we'd like to see done by that's I guess that's my and I think the update that Dr. Thomas suggested it would be more of an update because our our power is pretty limited here because the city was is the final arbiter of what they do anyway. Okay. Okay. I have um two things on my list. Um one we've already talked about but I wanted to get more definition around it and when it's going to happen and it's the discussion of the reworking of the ANI funds and my it comes out of one the strate the timing of the strategic plan. So aligning the funds to the strategic plan. It also um I think expediates expediates the reason for bringing this to the board based on what we heard from the APAC committee and their focus on closing achievement gaps. Um, and then thirdly, I'd like to have the conversation sooner than June so that we could, um, if we do need to readjust funds to align with those three things, um, it could be done before we approve this budget for the next year. So, my understanding I speak on on your behalf, I mean, the the budget for this ANI plan has been has already been approved. We have the we have the right and the authority to revise the plan especially this last third year at any time and but it's the you know we obviously we would want administration to bring back their ideas of what they're recommending um based on the things that we've heard um and then it would come back to the you know we get a presentation these are the recommendations and then we as the board can discuss it make suggestions whatever it might be and then Dr. Dr. Thomas, my understanding is you take it back to MDE and make sure it aligns with their statutory requirements is what I I understand. Yeah. For that third year. Well, I mean the plan the plan and the budget have been approved by this board, right? But the plan can be revised and and the I'll go I'll go back to um director or vice chair Bulling's point. Um with all the pressing things that were are on our plate right now with the the the thing for me is reworking uh currently some admin salary resources. I can do that without doing anything to the plan. I can realign it's it's similar to their district budget. We have a district budget and based upon es and flows and needs, we make adjustments all throughout the year to to address that. I don't I don't need to rewrite a plan and and do a comprehensive rewrite and I I won't have time to bring it through TNL because if I'm gonna do this as I take the more direct um oversight of that work, it's going to go through TNL. It's going to go through finance committee. It's going to go through channels. I can't get that done this year. It's it's I I won't have the time. our our meetings, our committees are done in May. Well, I will say I'm disappointed to hear that because we talked about this back in February. So, and that was the will of the board to move forward with this. The will of the board was never to rewrite I've never heard the will of the board to rewrite uh an entire ANI plan and a whole new ANI budget. It was never to realign the plan the realign the funds to our strategic plan. That was what we talked about in February. So I realigning the the funds um Director Atinson can be done absolutely can be done. Um and aligning it to academic excellence as part of our strategic plan and putting those dollars closer to our students absolutely can be done. Um so so that that's that's my that is my plan. Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, I I just don't recall the will of the board saying it's on the it's on the minutes. So, you can you can all go back and write read you can all go back and watch the the meeting. So, well, we had a we talked about I brought it up and then we said, "Okay, let's go ahead and we go ahead and talk about that." Um, so it was a future agenda item topic. It's in the it's in the minutes. Which which meeting? It's February. I'd have to go February study session. Yeah. It's the 28th I think that was. And that's why I've been asking Dr. Thomas, you and I have talked about this multiple times. Talk about this about realigning the resourc. I've sent you examples. So for example, Forest Lake, I have that district example of what is in the exact same timing as we are. And I can send I will send all of you board members FYI do not respond a copy of this plan because I think it's really important to see it. And based on the feedback from Apac and their comments about closing this achievement gap, I think we really need to reook at our plan and really focus in on this academics and closing the achievement gap. And the way that Forest Lake writes their plan, it's very specifically focused on that. Um, and so, um, that was my ask and that was the, like I said, I thought the will of the board since February and I've been patiently waiting for that. Um, so I don't know how we move forward with that. Um, um, so I don't remember it either. Um, nor you know, and all of our ANI budget has been within statutory requirements. Um, so um, reworking it and all that kind of stuff I don't believe was ever brought up. Um, if it was, it was probably by you, but I don't remember us ever going through and getting a will. the board to redo the ANI funding. It's it's in the minutes. Chair France director France the budget and the reallocation based upon salaries doesn't really I mean it I do much I do support and I thought we were going to look at the funding also for ANI planning and and I agree it also you know with the change and the director role and um shifting those funds and APAC and focusing on academic achievement gap well here I thought that was I think I think we need to be so that it's ready for the fact that right we I think Dr. Thomas taken a gigantic step in reallocating a big chunk of that by eliminating a position specifically to target it more toward kids. Where that gets targeted is is the how in my my opinion. Um, and we haven't even had a chance to sit down with APAC yet since since that last meeting and even cobbled together a response letter that we're required to do within that 60-day limit. Um, February, we didn't know we were position anyways. I I don't know what where we'd target it until we had a chance to get together with these folks, figure out what we're not doing in their eyes. I I I don't know. Yeah. Yeah, like the Lake Forest plan's very specific like increase Native American um you know math achievement by 10 points and I mean it's very specific. We have that we have those goal metrics in our they're very generic. They're very I mean they're very high level very specific cultural groups as well. We do but there there's one based on attendance. I think I I'm talking focusing those goals on courses and others really honing in and focus on academic achievement based on our strategic plan. I guess I'm having a really hard time understanding why we wouldn't reallocate or reook at those funds. We have a new strategic plan and this plan this plan was written two years ago and so why wouldn't we realign it? It makes no sense to me. Well, I I don't I think we are. Yeah. I I guess maybe I'm just asking to have the update come to the board. If if Dr. Thomas is working on it, then let's have it come to the board so we can take a look at it. I I don't want to I don't want to allocate specific time on this. It's going to be part of the overall budget. It's already being done. Um, our plan is statutoily compliant and there's we got to quit cherrypicking one out of 380 or 70 school districts to say, "Oh, do this for this one and do that for that one." We have our plan. It's been approved. We're going to It's not working though. That's the problem. It's not working. Hold on. Hold on. That is We are not closing that achievement gap. Director Director France, in all fairness, we heard it from their community. So, we've heard a lot of things from that. We have not developed a response to that. And by the way, it's there's a lot behind that. So, I would prefer if we look at it holistically as we go into the next budget year and not cherrypick stuff out right now. And my my point is just I wouldn't know what to recommend until I I mean, who knows if one how many meetings it's going to take to come some kind of a maybe a new working relationship with this group. I don't know, maybe it's one, maybe it's four. I Well, the reworking of the plan can come after that meeting. I think that that's a really great directive to be honest with you. From my perspective, I mean, the budget doesn't change, right? It's how we're using those funds. That's how you're using the financial. And so, I think that's the important discussion and I personally would love to see some discussion around that before the start of the school year because I would hate to waste another school year for these students. Right. Agreed. This is that's why I made the decision and I'm working through how we're going to reallocate some of those funds directly to address some of what we've heard from Apac also what we see in our data um with various student groups in their achievement and bringing additional supports that will bring that kind of academic you know tutoring support etc on top of what's happening in the classroom. Um that is the direction that I'm moving in. That's what you and I have been talking about. And um so again I I I just right tonight I guess I've never heard the will of the board to completely redo the plan. That was my first. So, I misunderstood your individual comments for the will of the board because like I said, if I'm going to do this, well, when I do this team, it's going to be in a different process than what we've done in the past to engage different committees um and participation in the development of this uh and um so that we have a targeted focus moving forward. And I that's I'm not wavering from that. So, can I just make a comment or just a thought too? I think we all would agree we want to be in compliance with the for for Apac. Um we all want the achievement gaps to the community. I mean, we all want that. And there's another um part that we don't control. So I think that there is work in motion right now. Um there are changes being made. There was a position eliminated to to direct funds and and th this conversation needs to be an ongoing thing. Um but the the thing that isn't discussed or hasn't been really said is the the achievement it includes the students too and it includes that communities. I mean, we can do all of the things and you know, we we heard from that like some of them are they just are um they're just going to vote non-compliant and and I we have to we have to work on that relationship. We have to build the relationship. We have to put the things um in place. I feel like we're we're we are doing work. We are we haven't arrived. We definitely have places for improvement and we cannot force achievement. We can allocate. So instead of allocating resources for paintings, we can allocate resources for tutors. That is we're getting too close into this conversation. I do think I think we're getting too far in the weeds and I agree with you and I think all I want to know is like could we get the will of the board to have Dr. Thomas start that process of reworking that last year the plan and start like you said if you want to go through the process of taking it through TNL and taking it through finance I fully support that I think that's great um but can we get the will of board that that that's where you want to start the process the process what he's been trying to say is the process is already underway and it has been underway and that's the house so what I heard so um and I I for one um do not want this as a separate agenda item before the the budgets the final budget in June hopefully is passed. Um because I don't believe it's I think it's part of the whole I don't believe it's a separate item. I think it's going to detract from the whole budgeting and and preparation as we go into not only more budget cuts but also the allocation of the funds to support the overall strategic plan because it's already happening. So I I didn't hear the will of the board the first time. I didn't even hear I don't remember any of this conversation of reworking and I it wasn't this detailed. It was but please go look on the agenda. Um if if it Well, I'm not going to speculate but we would have I would have agreed the board would have agreed to a discussion. We wouldn't have agreed to a rewriting of the plan. It was a discussion, right? And so I'd have a hard time committing to Michael to rewriting a plan when my guess is he's already starting on the rewriting of the next three years. Um, no, that that doesn't we we we do that as a board. Well, when that comes up, but we have the authority to rewrite this last year as well. You're right. We do. Actually, we delegate that, too. and and yeah, I I'd have a hard time going down that road when it's when Michael's already indicated that that process has already begun to the next three years in a completely different direction. I believe that the structural changes to next year's allocation is um is potentially a gigantic change in in the in the potential success of our plan. That's my personal opinion. And can we see that though? Yeah. I mean, it's good to believe and it's good to think and wish and dream, but can we have some content behind that? He's planning on on coming to the board on the June study session. Yeah, that's when I was going to be sharing this information as to the the direction that we're taking as we begin to make these shifts. Um it that's kind of that big focus of our work our work session is around academics and this is to your part a lot of the little pieces equating to the whole of what we're attempting to do differently moving forward. This is included in that conversation. So that's that's my plan. Um and you all can provide perspective and feedback on that as we move along in that direction. Um but my my focus is to bring more direct student support first and foremost. I mean we we've got to find ways to support kids differently. Okay. I just had one other thing. I'm sorry. I'll try to make it brief but I think it's timely. Um my understanding is teachers have um they are able to preview the MCA scores. So is it possible that next month we could get a just a brief update on how the MCA scores are looking um because I understand they have moment at time they can go in they've seen them they they can go in and look at them as far as how they are how they're um looking. Um let me touch base with Dr. ambush to ensure that we present something that's fairly clean. Yeah. Because there are errors and issues that come up as we start going through and cleaning and scrubbing the data files. So as soon as we can do that, um I can let the board know when we could have a preliminary, you know, conversation rather than waiting till October. My other last item was just that um an update maybe on summer school programming. Um Dr. Thomas and maybe this will be included in your June but I know we had some discussion around MCA preview preliminary I'm sorry y say that was green meltdown update or discussion around summer school programming and offering and maybe that will be included in June I'm not sure but I I wasn't planning we've never it's not but if that's the will of the board how would that manifest itself I mean we we have programs comes planned for the summer. My understanding is it's just a budget discussion, right, going forward and how we're handling it and for summer school. Correct. Do we even know what the teachers are recommending what the Yeah, it's our it's our we're running very similar summer school that we ran for the past several years. What I meant what I meant is um we we offer the same things but who qualifies what the special needs are and the and the actual target we have targeted criteria that we're utilizing. So all of that the same criteria. Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm what I'm saying is is that we don't know that parents and kids have not been told and we don't know the numbers and stuff like that. Right. We don't know numbers yet. But um teachers were identifying based upon student performance versus like this open call, right? Um very targeted to get the kids who really need it most because we have a smaller dollar aotment and and for this year we now only have a smaller dollar. I understand that we lost transportation also, right? There's no funding for transportation. Yeah. because so that's we used the update I wanted to talk about and if we you know further down the road do we need to allocate funding for I don't know I'm just bringing it up as a topic again I'm looking for a specific um administration to be clear on what we're asking um is this like a an update on this once we have some numbers in June an update on how the programs are looking or do you want I I'm still confused as to or just I guess my I was curious the changes that we've had to make due to funding and then that's for this summer and then also looking down the road um as we start budgeting further down the road are there further funding allocations we need to consider for the programming. Does that make sense? Yeah. Making sure it's making sure it's funded for 2526. Right. Right. I mean that's Yep. Yep. Is any have a problem with that? I just I'm I'm gonna ask Dr. Thomas to try and I know that we've talked about this usually as part of the overall budget and then usually after the summer's ended to talk about Yeah, we do we do an update as to how the summer programming went and all that. Would that be an appropriate window to Yeah, I think just at some point. Yep. We've done that with Michelle and Joel both this year will do the ESY and you'll get so so that's already usually done in okay early school year I guess my only ask would it be consideration for budgeting for 2526 do we need to allocate budget so I think we'll probably let me weave some of that inquiry into the June conversation okay um because that's also where I'm looking to move ANI funding more towards um and how we do that because we started doing that this year with the breakmies and we're doing that this summer with some of our ANI funding to support um summer learning as well which is a little different than what we've ever done. So that's part of that. So is summer school programming uh this is this summer's program 2425 or is it both or is it 26 2526? Yeah, cuz July one happens. Yeah, this is for 2425 the entire summer. No, no, it's only for four weeks. Okay. So, but it's out of 2425 budget. That's what I'm getting at. Even though it might happen after July. So, no, we're No, our our summer program is still the same four-week program that we're doing. Okay. And it's done. It's done by July 1. Yeah. And so, as we move forward, um Okay. Some of the other ANI rewrite and re reallocation, I should say, is going toward supporting that programming into the school year for the for the 25 26 school year. All right. I think it's relevant for the community because the the criteria has changed. You're clear on the 2526, not for the 2425. Criteria has changed. Didn't we already have it? Maybe we'll touch on it in budget. Yeah, you're going to touch on it already in budget. Okay. Because I know we've already discussed it, but I think it was before you got on the board. There is no other potential future agenda topics. We can adjourn.