We will move on to letter B, the first readings of some 200s. So, we'll start with uh policy 2011. I'll turn it over to Charles and Amy if you want to just give us a little Here's what we're thinking. All right. Yes. I'm gonna I'm just pull up my email real fast. I think if I could just say um you know based on the recommendation of the board to um have Charles and I kind of do some pre-work to bring forward using MSBA as a as a base model. We you know just to kind of share the work that we did. We worked on it separately. we um kind of compiled thoughts in a in a Google doc together and then we met together um and with the goal in mind of having the 200s um completed and approved by the end of the regular meeting on June 10th. Um that was what the board had had um the will of the board was um and our our goal together at least from my you know you add what you um if there's anything different director Johnson but our goal was to take MSBA policy um what and look at what we currently have if there was anything that our policy stated that wasn't an MSB BAS to somewhat bring them together so that we had something to bring to the board. Um my hope is that if there are suggestions um that those are are heard heard by the board and that we can um move in getting the will of the board on each policy tonight because if we're if we drag it out we will be far past our June. Um, so again like this pre-work we spent we spent many hours Charles Director Johnson probably more than I because he actually did the uh the documentation of it. Um, but we spent hours and again it's it is just bringing something forward for if you have comments we'll hear that and hopefully tonight we can get the will go so we can move forward and have a final reading next. Yes. And if you have any suggestions on a way that you want to see anything, any additional notes or anything like that moving forward, please let us know so that we can put it all together and make next time smoother and easier. Yeah. As we as we go through. So, um, to go through 2011, legal status of the school board, this is MSBA policy, um, with very minute changes that, um, director Bullion had just to basically clean it up. Very simple, very easy. We did add in the student representative, the student representative as the ex facto member. Oh, I'm I am Yeah. Yep. 2011. Yes. Yes. So, first of all, the student rep is not an ex official by legal definition as everything else and they're not a legal part of the school board. That's why we had the separate policy um that I do think the student council needs to review every year because it's theirs. Um they could decide not to be part, they could decide to change it. One of the purposes of having the students here is to get them acquainted with this process as well as to hear as well as a way to hear their voice but also with leadership skills and everything like that. So, you know, the student rep wasn't always here and sometimes they don't have a sub maybe one year the council president may want to do it. We've had other school districts that want to put it up for anybody on the council or anybody in the district. So, that really should be separate. Um, the other So, that I don't First of all, they're not a legal part. So, um, scratch see scratch the student representative out of there again. take out the take out the red and and I would strongly suggest that we actually take policy 2011.1 and send it back to the student council as as a for them to actually determine and be a part of that leadership and understand what it's like to write a policy. Um I I've asked for that several years because I think it's part of their learning. It's part of their leadership. Um and again I don't think we had one before 2016 at all. Um, and um, so that's just something I just think it'd be a good learning experience for them because that's what they're there for also as well as to give student voice. Um, I'm not, excuse me, I'm not done. Um, now the MSBA model policy in this area combines management and governance. It's kind of a word salad in a way, particularly with one of the paragraphs in there. Uh the last red line from the MSBA was in um basically 2002 and then 2009 and the latest one in 2021 or 2022 actually only changed the names because it was there as a template based upon again the size of the district what we want to do. So, there are some districts out there that take all of that out and just say because the statute doesn't represent latest interpretations by courts like there's a couple of other districts um that either use this and don't really ever review it that much like the just the template, but there's a few of them out there that adopted the language. The basis for the establishment and operation of the school board lies in the state of Minnesota constitution, Minnesota statutes, court interpretations of these laws, and the powers implied under them. So, for instance, if there's um any type of court decision, which I'm not aware of any, um that it would automatically encompass that and you wouldn't have to do that. Um but the student rep really is not part of the legal definition of any school board. And then the other thing is is adding in school breakfast. That was a temporary funding thing and that probably is going to go away. So I don't want the district to be responsible for that piece either in the other policy. So, um, that was my, um, that was my comment, but most particularly the student rep and like I said, I'd like them to take a look at their the policy about that, the 2011.1 or 202.1. So, my feedback on the 2011, whatever the policy was for students, I actually felt like it was 99% procedure and really should lie within the student council procedures. I don't even think it's necessary for us to have it um within our policies. So, I would agree with that. Yeah. So, I think that I agree scratching the student rep out of there. Um and then if it's statutoily, there's some talk that there might be some the law statute laws changing with that, then we redo the policy. But for now, that would be my recommendation. Um I agree about the breakfast. If that's going to change, then yeah, then we maybe keep it general so that we don't have to update it. Um but other than that um and oh and then I have one thing about vacancies. So I know we talked about we added that part about are we going oh sorry yeah no no that's part of the whole policy. I just want to make sure we have 2011. I did want to address that but the compensation and the vacancies I also think need to go because the compensation is determined in the or meeting and the vacancies is its own policy which we definitely need to review but that doesn't belong in the legal status of the school board. Just from an admin side just point of clarity if I may chair white. So, is the board is the board interested in repealing 202.1 and in that being subordinated to then student council kind of works through that for procedures. I'm good with that. That sounds fine with me. I I agree with director France that it could be okay. Should we get a will a consensus? Anyone have a problem with that? Anyone? Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. It's all I needed. Um, so we can cross that one out. I think so. We still on 2011? Yes. So 202.1 is going to go to student council to be reworked. Well, no, they can become the procedure. That could be a board. Got it. Mhm. And they should write their own and present it to us actually. I think that would be a great learning. So um when we were discussing 202 202.1 student representative on the board currently it's its own policy. It was my recommendation to keep it its own policy because of it's a separate thing that can be changed. Um the question I have is if we are ready as a board to say that we don't need the policy altogether. Um is it the will of the board that we don't have 202.1? uh I think for bringing forward this information we combined 202.1 into it and again I that was my recommendation to leave it by itself because it is a separate so we didn't have to bring the whole policy together but when when director Johnson and I were were working on this I said you know we'll just get will of the board so um if I can remind Just a just a little historical context. My very first year here, this conversation came up and the former chair Nelson and I met with the student council. Um, and so I I hear things I hear two different things. The process of selection term and all that. I think let the student council govern that because that was something that she and I brought to them to inquire because there was conversation whether it should be one person the whole year rotating all that kind of stuff. There's a scholarship that they usually can apply for. So it obviously means more if because it's not huge. So if you're splitting that among three students it doesn't have that much of an impact. Um, but I think the purpose that you all in policy declare you want to have a student rep, I think still needs to be stated somewhere. Um, in terms of whether it's buried in the regular 202 that um, you know, as part of the school board, we will also have a student board rep and whatever put it there. But I unless the board is like I don't hear the board walking away from having a student rep. Um so I would just say maybe find the purpose in the regular 202 then um with all this other stuff going away. So what I suggested is that um um first of all it it doesn't belong in the legal status. If we're going to leave it the title the way it is and this is the true legal status of the school board. It basically follows statute. Um, and there's some things in here that are that that don't belong in there, but um, I personally would like to see the 2012 one or whatever it's called. Um, actually give that each year to the student council. And we just referenced it that we're going to because they may change, you know, the year that um, that it did go to the student council. um the next year they do have new leadership and they do decide on how they're going to delegate that out and that's part of their growth. That's part of the purpose of them being on the student council to make those types of decisions. Um I know that during uh COVID they didn't show up at all and they decided instead to be part of the committees. Now, we didn't change the policy at all or even I think we didn't even have one at one point in time. Um, but as their own body, that's part of their learning of determining how they want to engage. I absolutely agree with that. And I'm just wondering if in 202 when you look at exofficial members, you know, like do we just list them as an exofficial member? Technically, they're not an ex official. They're not. Okay. I don't legally. not defined as Yeah. Just another sentence that says I will have a number four student representative. Yes, I think we can just write it as number four, student representative, just like I have set up in 202 right now. Instead of having everything on there like it is, I'll just have one liner, right, that says the board will have one student representative, right? Period. Okay. Yep. That's that's very Yeah. And then the council can decide each year. So talking on here. Yeah. So So that's So that's 202. Can we I think Can we get back to We'll go back to 2011. 2011. So on on 2011 specifically, is there anything else? We talked about uh maybe scratching uh 4C forming partnerships and ad hoc committees is not part of the legal status. Um it is um at all. Um just uh number nine F9. Can you can you just tell me where you're at so I can F9? Okay. Sounds like a fighter jet. Um Well, that's listed in MSBA, but it's I was I was going to say that is that particular F9 that language is referenced. That one's not. No, that's we it's referenced similarly in 213. Yeah. I wonder if we if we even need it here because it's it's already in 213F. So, that was one that we had in our old policy. We must have added back to strike it. 213F says the school board may establish such ad hoc committees for specific purposes as it deems and it was in our 2011 which is why it's in this 2011. So you moved it. So I I moved it over. So I'm try So just to give everybody peace of mind, right? If there wasn't something that kind of connected the dots between everything from ours to MSBAs, it was moved over. So, as long as everybody is good with not keeping it, I'll cut it. Yeah, because it's referenced later. So, I think we're I think we're good. And again, the MSBA templ is a template that covered both governing and managing boards and they have not updated this really in decades. And I just want to make sure that everything was was covered, right? We're not trying. So, so we're cutting nine. Nine will be cut. Got it. And then compensation and vacancies. Compensation is in the organizational meeting. Um it is not part of the legal status. There's as long as we get paid, I believe it's a dollar, we could do whatever we want there. Um so compensation move that to the organizational meeting where we decide that and vacancies is its own policy. Um and to keep things clean. um uh we really should have and the vacancy policy by the way is fairly broad too. So it's very much up to independent school boards which we do need desperately to redo that one um and do that in a way that we can feel consistent. So that I would remove that out there because otherwise when you start talking about legal uh status um really the the the um statutes are very very broad because we're independent school districts. Um and they're very broad because it's got to cover districts of a couple hundred to over 10,000 20,000 in some cases uh kids. So, you know, they they kind of add in um language in here that's um not necessarily board salad, so to speak, but they compensate for it um with with the powers A, B, and C to make sure you can go either direction. And that's why I said I've seen some districts that basically say, okay, if you're talking to talk about the legal status of the school board, um there's I found several of them of our like size that say have the language the basis for the establishment lies in Minnesota constitution statutes and the interpretation of the laws. Um now that means that our entire policy would be one sentence, which some of them just don't even have the policy. Um but again it's it's um it's meant to be really really broad. Um so if we want to make it doable so like most policies should be where they can be auditable and consistent in language then um we can either mention the statutes or whatever but we should stay with the definition of what the legal definition of a school board is or the legal status which is only given to us by by statute with a lot of caveats of being an independent school So, I think they do list that though. I mean, they break that down into all the different powers and duties. Those all align back to statute. So, I'm I'm a little confused. I understand what you're saying that there's new case law and all that kind of stuff. That's going to happen anytime, but I feel like this policy in particular, MSBA does a really good job of aligning it right back to the law. And it's pretty clean. It's pretty pretty cut and dry. Actually, it's not aligned to the law. It's broad because the law is very broad. So when you have the school board shall do whatever and the powers and duties, it actually covers both managerial boards. And if you look back in the history of the MSBA, um the last real change that they made, uh was in 2002 and then they have one in 2009 that that added an additional statute. And then in 2022, I believe they just changed the names of the statutes to align with the current naming. So they've left it really really broad for a long time. And you know, most school boards can cut and paste this because the legal status no matter what is going to end up in statute. But when you go beyond the legal status about talking about providing breakfast, compensation, um, uh, student, whatever, that's where we're kind of blending the two. And so, you know, that's so we mostly talking about six and seven, sorry, to be scratched and and they're covered somewhere else. That is that what you're getting at? Well, vacancies is covered in a separate policy and compensation is covered in the organizational meeting and other than I think um $1 is what I was told uh when I looked into this several years ago um we're not required to give ourselves any money, you know, that sort of thing. So, it's not really part of the legal status. Um, Director Frank, can I can I ask you? That's why I'm just since it's already covered, are you are you referencing the compensation piece because because of we're going to MSBA policy? Is that why you're referencing why compensation is out of place? because compensation is in legal status of the school board 2011 which was policy done in 2022. Okay. So So that's that's why it's in here. That's why that's why it's put in here. So that that's that's why it's in here. I get that. And what I'm trying to say is the template for the MSBA is more than two decades old and a lot of school districts don't use it or they only stick it with the legal status referencing statute only. We are not required to pay ourselves. The compensation is actually determined and organizational thing which has been a standard for some time. So the only thing we need to do is I think the requirement is to get a dollar a minimum of a dollar. So that's why I'm saying if we're going to talk about compensation part of the organizational meeting and we make that decision every year then let's not have it in two places. So when we change one we got to change another. And then the vacancies of course if we say per statute the statute's also very broad. So when we go into our vacancy policy, we have a conf a conflict. We'll have one saying it only follows the minimum statute and another one that may be more detailed. So you don't I would prefer if when we do discuss them that they are mutually exclusive. So when we update them, we're not we don't have conflicts built into the policies and then also that we have clear ownership and change it in one place. Um that's that's all I'm saying there. But um again, keep in mind that again, this is a template. Um and that's why there's a lot of school districts that don't even have this. They just basically say, "Yep, we have a school board per that language that I just said or per statute." And then they go on with it. So that's why I was saying, you know, we're we're dealing with something that really hasn't been updated in decades. Sorry, I'm I'm trying to understand. So the compensation was on our existing 2011 policy. We added it to the MSBA template, right? That's why we have it in red. So you're saying you think we could just remove it and we don't need it. Yeah. The thing is is that we haven't and historically, right, for a reason. I don't know why. I'm curious. Well, since we're going through this, like I'm saying, we've had we haven't really ever had to use this policy. So, it's never really been challenged or whatever, but it has been a an issue where um as we're going through since we started the policy committee and since we started going through this that we actually try to do something that's a little bit more enforcable and with the times. Um, and like I said, the MSBA template that we've never questioned here because the only thing we've ever really updated is the legal references when the when the MSBA put in the changes. Um I'm sorry when the legislature changed the things. Um all I'm saying is if we're going to do this a legal status doesn't include the student but we do include we do have a vacancies and if we leave this language in here that means we're going to conflict with our even our current vacancies policy. The way I understood this is that we would be getting rid of 2011.1 and just referencing the statute. Did I misunderstand that? So we won't have a policy. Did I misunderstand that? I thought that was 2011.1 is a student rep. That's 202.1. 2021.1. Sorry, the numbers are driving me nuts. Yeah. So 2011.1 is a schoolboard vacancy. So the way I understood this and someone correct me if I'm wrong is that we're removing 2011.1 and instead we would reference that we'll follow this statute process. Yes. So I was I was going to get to that point on the vacancies. Well, since we're there, we may as well go ahead. Yes. is that we can right the way the vacancies policy is written is basically a copy and paste from the law of of what it is and it doesn't really outline a procedure process. Okay. At all. So it's not a policy either. It's just a cut and paste. Yeah. Yes. it it's a policy number the way the policy number that we have is basically a copy and paste from the law on into our policy number. So that's why it is written the way that it is here. It fits in my opinion with legal status of the school board because it references the same references right as school board vacancies. Right. Right. all of the all of the legal references right cross reference into the same thing as vacancies. So, so, so then right we can then take an actual procedure to say this is how we would do schoolboard vacancies, right? And this would just be an example, right? Somebody resigns, right? Okay. At that point, 30, right? 10 days later, right, it would application would open up, right? 10 days later it would close. 10 days after that, we would have a a right and we could lay that out and we could then put it in our board book, right? And that would be the procedure because we would all have to approve the board book itself and the board book would go in there. That's that would be a suggestion, right? It wouldn't have to go in policy and all we would have to do is ultimately, right, we'd leave it there because we're following the law, right? which we could leave this vacancy piece in here. We're following the law because I just talked to MSBA and I ref I asked them, Director Atinson sent an email, right? Um, director Bullion was on the email. They said they don't have anything as far as laying it out the procedure of how we fill the vacancy, but the law states this is how you have this is what has to be done. Okay, cool. So if we only do this one line, we are hitting the wicket. The way we do the wicket is completely up on a different document. Can I talk about that as a separate conversation and that and that can be completely like further on down the line because what we currently have my one line hits the policy that we do have. Okay. So I also had to deal with MSBA last year quite extensively on this understandable and the vaca the vacancy statute is very broad because the first thing they asked is don't you have a vacancy policy and I was like yeah but it's it's vacuous right it's there's nothing there and it's we've had it done before and usually the board gets together or the executive committee gets together or whatever and says okay this is how we're going to do it this time. Um, sometimes we had people apply, sometimes they actually had to like reach out in the community and grab somebody in and beg them. Um, so there wasn't really a voting procedure or whatever. Um now the voting procedure can change each time but they highly recommended we had a vacancy policy simply because um of that very reason of what happens when you do have more than one person apply and you don't even have an you don't even have a policy that says they they need to apply. And the again in my time and also dealing with other statutes like this um not just for school boards the these ones are written very broad so that the school districts can determine their own and as long as you follow the minimum statute. What I'm afraid is going to happen if I do a use case and we have a policy or a procedure and we have a schoolboard policy what sits at the top of the pyramid, right? And it says our only requirement here is to follow the statute. Procedures aren't a requirement. Procedures, especially for boards, they can come and go if it's not actually um a memorialized in a policy. So what you can get is somebody putting a complaint going, but that's all you need to do. And the other one and and a procedure that's not part of policy then comes in and says, you know, something else. And it's like, well, they they will challenge this because we start with policy. And if the policy only says statute, that means underneath we can have somewhat of a free-for-all depending on the environment. So, in that use case, and that's kind of what we just went through, and I think um Chair White, you and I have talked about this, we definitely need a vacancy policy. Um, we need I would say we need a vacancy procedure, whether it's a policy or not. Director France, please take a look at AIO. They have in theirs they have it listed as this is the policy but then under 200 right next to so if you can imagine that we are having we're developing this board handbook where we would have this is our policy and right behind it procedures for appointments to temporary fill a board vacancy and it's very spelled out it's it's very cleancut it's something that our full board would align behind Farmington does the exact same thing so I don't if it's spelled out online, it's a lot better than leaving it up to three members on the executive committee or one the board chair determining their own procedure. I mean, I I really believe that we need to have a procedure spelled out and I do believe that the vacancy does follow the law. So, I do I like the way it's actually done. So, you don't have to have an go find another piece of paper. And then there's also confusion between the law and the procedure. And that's where it got really really confusing. So, and that's exactly why we don't want that. So, you it's good that you mentioned that one of those school districts because I think both of them do not have a policy 2011 at all. They simply state the basis for establishment and operation of the school board is the state of Minnesota constitution, Minnesota statutes, court interpretations and these laws and the power implied underneath them. That's actually from AIO. So with that AIO takes AIO actually combines multiple different 201 their 2011 is like super long and it's multiple policies combined into one. So they they really don't have the separate 2011 to avoid just this and they don't say just the the cuz that's where I took it from. Um and others I found about four or five others that did the same. And you know, and again, um I just don't want us to literally step on a rake with this one by having the policy state the very broad um statute. Um and then not have a vacancy policy that incorporates the procedure exactly as you just said. That was my purpose. So you don't want to have a conflict. you don't have one policy saying minimum is a statute and another one okay going into the procedure because then we've got a conflict. So then I would recommend then I would recommend the statute doesn't mention the procedure though. No, it's up to the school boards the independent school board and I would say like the statute within the the board book. Yes. It has to be in the board cuz our 2011 today is not a procedure. Like it doesn't say how you're going to vote, right? So like I think I'm totally fine getting rid of that and just referencing this because it is a copy and paste of the statute and then agree we need a procedure. I think this simplifies it to be honest with you. I think ours is it was super confusing. Well, it's not a procedure right now. No, it doesn't. Well, I I would have no problem and maybe it's semantics, whether it's a policy or a procedure, as long as it's spelled out and understood that this is what the board is going to do in a certain case, I have no problem with just leaving that. And trusting our handbook to handle the rest of that's will the board. I I understand what you're saying. I I really I really do and I I would like and we just went through this is what I'm saying. So, and it was the exact same issue we're discussing here that you're saying you're okay with that actually came up. No, I think it's going to get better. Actually, I think what we hand this is the why we're doing this to make it better. And so, the vacancy policy should stay in place and the statutory reference should go in one policy. And you know I went through this for two and a half months last year and that was the that basically um it was it was an issue. You you if you have one and then you have someone who doesn't like it they'll say well you know procedure if we don't stick that in the vacancy policy even at a higher level. Well could the vacancy policy reference the board handbook? Yes. Could that be the vacancy policy? Exactly. Doesn't have to spell anything out. It can say this is where it is. Or we could just put that as a bullet. Yeah. I think that the issue today is that 2011.1 is not it does not spell out the process of how we so I think it's like it's basically copy paste as you said. So it really does us nothing. And so I'm totally fine just referencing that and then having whether we have it as a separate procedure that we redo or number one policy matter board handbook which we should be at least scouring once a year to make sure we didn't want to make any I think that process might work. Yep. I think that's good. Y I just want to make one thing. It can until somebody says but wait a minute this policy references only the statute and this other one references the statute and a procedure that isn't backed by statute. If we come into that situation where you have a board member or somebody applying that questions that you're always better off just putting it one place also if for instance the um we don't have hyperlinks which I I understand why but if you reference it in one place you can change it and keep it up to date in one place and we've just I just want to go through history because it has been that has been an issue too. Well, maybe and we're supposed to learn from history and I can I can understand that, but I I'm I'm wondering if if we would to be accomplishing that by making the policy, the actual vacancy policy, the procedure the procedure. Yeah. Because that's what we haven't had in the past. And um responsible boards will constantly um at least yearly look at the handbook and make sure that we're still in sync. And I I think I think that can work. I'm comfortable with it. I I So, we're going to keep the vacancy policy though and put my my what I'm saying is the vacancy policy will say um the vacancy policy will reference a procedure which is fine. Yes. Well, the the procedure actually is contained in the board handbook. Correct. Why why don't you just like why don't you just call it 2011.1 board vacancy procedure and then it just calls out this procedure because that's ideal you know or just under this section add B like we will have a procedure for vacancies reference I mean like we do right behind like 2020 is school vacancy procedure so that it's all laid out so that there's no confusion about what the procedure Yep. Instead of having it in the board manual. No, no, it has to be in the manual, too. But, but that would be in addition to having the procedure, right? Follow the policy. Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to be No, no. They have it all in there. I agree. Follow at the same point that I was. Yeah. One will be school board. It would be school board vacancy procedure. Instead of a policy, it would be school board. Well, it could be policy. It is a policy and procedure. So it's it's that's yeah I don't care about the nomenclature thing. I mean we do have I mean we just went through we have procedures and policies so I don't care really but it really becomes it really is the procedure of the policy versus laying out the law. Understood. So the desire is that we do not put vacancies number seven that we leave it its own policy. Yeah. So we would change the title. Am I hearing you correctly? And that the policy and procedure and all that and our board handbook is usually some of you know our board handbook basically is going to be the 200s anyways. Yeah. with probably a little bit more meat like we have in the board book training right now. So, I'm okay with that. And then 2011.1 becomes the procedure forward on 2011. The proposed is that we take off the vacancies, take off number seven and leave it in the policy. Yeah. And it would have to come out of the definition too because there's a definition part that was added. There is a definition. So there's definition and then there's number seven. [Applause] So take off B. Take off in Mhm. leave 2011. Yeah. 0.1 and that would include both. Well, I think that needs to come 2011.1 needs to come up. I I would the way that I would do it if I was doing it, I would reference the law just very simple. Here's the law, the statute, and then write the procedure just like we did here. Yep. Just like there. I would I would like I would write that one line and then the rest would be all procedure is what how I would do it if I was writing it. Yep. That's the way it'll be. Is everybody good with that? Anybody have a problem with that? I think that's where we started. Yeah, I'm good. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah. Go ahead. So, um, so we are I want to get some clarity on on the compensation that that red part there. Are we saying we don't that doesn't need to be there or it's it's part of the organizational meeting? It's part of the organization. So, it's not necessary to be here. Is that what I'm hearing? Is I don't care if it's I think I'm fine fine with that. We added it. So, there's no reason because it was in our original one. That's why. Mhm. So, it doesn't need to be there. I don't care. It's not I have one word that I thought would be interesting to talk about, but it's not it's not a big deal. So, let's uh So, we're we're still on 2011. Still on 2011. I know. But, okay. So, we we've we've kind of cleaned that up. One question to ask. Should we remove breakfasts? Oh, yeah. I think because it says at its discretion may perform the following at the top. Like, it's not saying we're going to furnish breakfast or lunches really. It says the school board at its discretion may and we do provide breakfast right now. So we do we do current does give us milk and you I read that but if it's not breaking policy are breakfast going away anytime soon. The only statuto requirement is lunches and then we got the extra funding so breakfast wasn't in the uh I just haven't even with the most recent recent cuts I haven't seen is that we can use public monies meals if it's going over x amount of time um and it's on the natural lunch hour without a break. So that's how we've done stuff like that. We've kind of cut back everything to like coffee or like the things that committees we buy out of our own pockets as the in the legal definition they put that we will furnish school breakfast and lunches and the only thing the statute No, the only thing the statute requires is that we provide a lunch. The breakfasts were added in with the extra funding. We didn't um we had them for free and reduced lunch and we had them offered but we never offered them for free and if we do get the funding removed the only thing Minnesota statute requires is the lunches and then um let's take that let's take that I I would highly doubt that the because it does still say May gives us the gives us the opening we are taking out and the student representative as the next we're scratching 4C well no just that sentence that part. I was taking the whole thing out. Okay. And I'm right above there on B. So if you all want to stay right there. Um I just have a question. It says board member elections take place on even number years on the regular election day in November, which is generally true, but we have a unique situation this year where we're going to have a board member election this fall. So I wonder if we should add the word board member elections generally take place on even numbered years on the regular election day in November. Um, does the vacancy policy cover that? I don't know. It would it would it would it would, but also um the we do it here. Other school districts don't do it on even numbered and like you said, so that's why again most districts don't get that. Well, we took this from our policy. That's why this is a policy. But again, I wanted to say that we hadn't touched this just because it's not really used. Um, so if we're going to go over it, we might as well either scrap it for what other school districts have done and just place, hey, we're going to follow statute and any interpretation. I was going to say, why do we even need be? Right. I mean, we are legally bound to have our elections. That was determined many, many years ago. scratch it then just scratch I would because right now in the legislative session there is a bill that's going to govern like you can go even or scratch which may affect vacancies as well. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all that's all I had on that. Um, anything else on 2011 nine? Um, um, director Oh, I'll get to me. No, you go because I've already said I've said enough words for the whole week. Um, this seems very loud to me. I don't know why. Um, okay. Um, it wasn't redlined, so I just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly. Um, I'm looking at our um our board retreat packet from February when we initially started to kind of talk about the 200s. Um, and then we got to this point. Um, number, pardon me, under P, well, I'm under the former. So, under powers and duties number four, um, it doesn't exist anymore. And under powers and duties as it's currently right now, ABCD, we seem to have deleted the school board in accordance with statute has delegated all management of the district to the superintendent, its programs and services and district procedures needed to implement district policy. Superintendent is nowhere in here. I was and I know we were going to we had brought that up at our retreat but it wasn't redlined. It was clearly deleted. So I just I' I'd like to where are I think because it's not in MSBA. That's why. So again MSBA's A and C is word salad. The school board said superintendent and manage. And then the other one says the school board exercises administrative functions and legislative character and they they kind of and then the and then you know the and then they add the sentence the general charge of the business. The reason they do that is because you have really small school boards and really large ones. None of that's in statute and you're supposed to pick and choose. That's why I mean I think ours follows the MSBA follows the law. That's I think that that's the key. I mean those are the powers and authorities of the school board. No, it's actually under like powers and duties. The first point powers and duties of the school board. What director Olstead read is our old one. Yeah. Uh number letter B number four because a governing board delegates the day-to-day running and the administrative functions 100% to the superintendent and we oversee the superintendent as our only um uh employee. But again, I can't emphasize this enough. The the the template that the MSBA has not changed was meant to be modified by the independent school districts depending on whether they wanted to be a governing or managing board. And 20 or 30 years ago, there were school districts here with like a hundred people in them. And the boards were managing boards. They were day-to-day. Matter of fact, there wasn't even a conflict of interest rule at that time that said that you would h you could have actually have teachers and principles on a board. Um, you know, it didn't really make any difference. That's why I've been trying to say that's why AIO took that out and only put that one line in there because that is the true legal status of the school board. The rest of it is an independent district. We decide how we govern. Um, I like the way MSBA is written for simplicity reasons. Yeah. I feel like the status of the school board though, but like I guess I don't understand why we ever I don't know the history of why the language was added or why it would be needed. I guess again it's it's kind of word salad. It doesn't say the statute does not say we're going to provide school buildings and erect needed buildings, that sort of thing. It's the statute's very very kind of broad and it has pieces of it in here. Um, again, that's why other school districts, a lot of them either accepted it and they never really use it or they modified them. Um, so but again, I'm not following because MSBA's is simpler. So, you're saying we added it in its word salad. So, MSBA doesn't have that point. The one she's referring to it it it Okay. So again, MSBA's model template, right? And I use the term word salad loosely because they basically created a master template that would go for all different sizes of school districts and all different types of governing models because we have an independent all the statutes down there are for independent school districts. So we have a lot of leeway in what we do. Uh unlike other states, other states, you know, like in Georgia when they had the Atlanta school board do something, those guys actually got sent to jail. We don't do that here. We have a lot of leeway and and not a lot of prescriptive language in the statute providing we just, you know, practice our and I'm going to paraphrase our fiduciary duty and stuff like that. So we have by being a governing board have delegated the responsibility of day-to-day running of the district to the superintendent which is perfectly legal in statute. And again the MSBA model template for this is old and it's meant to it's just it's got a lot of words in there and we take it and make it our own. If it's never come into question about who manages a school district and stuff like that, then then a lot of them don't even use it. But we as a board have said so many years ago, we are no longer a managing board. We are a governing board and we're delegating the day-to-day to the superintendent. And I appreciate that history. Director France, can you show us me exactly in Minnesota statute where it says we have the right to do that because I'm not seeing it. And I think the key point here is that just because we've done something in the past and how we've operated in the past is not necessarily correct or how it even allies aligns with the law and there is nowhere in AIO where they delegate the authority. I look through their whole entire first 2011. There is absolutely nowhere saying there is no state it's 203 on theirs but it's their 2011. There is no way where where it says the school board um has delegated all management. Um, so I don't know where you're seeing that. I don't know where you're seeing it in the law. So, so the law doesn't tell us, but you just said it does. You said the law gives us that authority. And I'm saying I don't see it in here where it says that. The law allows us because we're an independent school district to make that determination. The law does not state which one we want to be. Okay. It gives so are we determining whether we want to be managed like do what we've done in the past which is grant all management or do we want to be a governing board like the the law states which is our authority and our we are to oversee just like it says in the law which is the way the policy is written that the board must have the general charge of the business of the school district the schoolhouse and just basically how it's read which is how MSBA policy is written the general charge I'm support of keeping it technically. Um, so but that's but what director Olad that was the last thing that I was going to bring up because I was going to see if anybody else caught that. Um, you know, in the legal status of the board, we can either say that oneliner like a lot of other school districts do and then use the terms and our operating norms, etc. that we delegate or like has started to be done here in the past two decades is we said we're no longer a managing board because we're too large of a district and we delegate that to the superintendent and that we abide by MSBA rules that says the superintendent's our only employee. So that's governing the superintendent but we do not go beneath the superintendent and tell a principal how to do their job, tell a teacher how to but that's all that's all called out in other policies. This is about the law. It's about the general powers of the district, the legal status of the board. This is not about the the operating norms and all that kind of stuff. This is truly aligns to the statute. Then if that's the case, I'm going to go back to what Mary may I think you said earlier. Does does 20 where are we at? 2011 need to be more than a sentence like you were talking. Does it does it need to be if if the the the broad scope of what we do is covered in other policies? Does it does it need to I think it does because there's more than one sentence because it says that we being a little bit obnoxious. Yeah. Because if you read the whole I mean you could just take the statute honestly and just put it in here because it has you know there's a lot of things like oversee library facilities and we provide library facilities. That's all spelled out in here. We provide um you know employ the teachers. We provide services. I mean everything that's spelled out in here is what a school board is. the powers and the duties of the school board that's here already and that aligns to the law. So that's what I'm saying. It's already in the law. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Director Olston. I guess my point is is Is that just me or am I in the loudest one in here every time I talk? Okay. So, um I guess my point is under VB V powers and duties under B, I don't agree that the school board exercises administrative functions. That is the superintendent's job to me. So in my mind, in my mind, the superintendent exercises administrative functions. The school board also has certain powers of a legislative character and other powers of a quasi judicial carrier character, which quasi judicial speaking of word salad. Um, I guess that's where I feel that belongs because I don't think it is our job to exercise administrative function is my point. So I would I would suggest the superintendent exercises administrative functions. The school board also has certain powers of a legislative character because we do. But I think when it comes to everyday administrative functions, that is Dr. Thomas's job. That is the superintendent's job. I think it could be stated that way. The our old policy uses the word oversees. The school board oversees administrative functions that and and I don't I don't agree with that either. Ultimately, I think that's the I mean that's like I agree. I don't like the word exercises either, right? But like yeah, I get what you're saying. Yeah, that was our old policy. What wording? It said um schoolboard overseas letter number. Uh I think it's 5B now where you are. Yes. Yeah. 5B on our old policy powers and duties. Whatever. B2 powers and duties. It's here. No, this is the proposed. This is our old policy powers and duties. Sorry. Yeah, I'm looking at the the new revised Okay. Um one. So VB, that's number two. The school board oversees administrative functions, adopts and revises policy, and it's the final body for appealing administrative decisions which also follows the law. That's under our old policy, too. Oh, sorry. Yes, the old one. Yes. I was reading off of the new revised version. Could could we take um could we take the B under powers and duties and just make it make number two make it B. So we're basically taking the school board oversees administrative functions, adopts and revises policy and is the final body for appealing administrative decisions and just make that our old policy two and replace it where B is in the new policy of the well basically the new one. Say that one more time please. Oh original original policy two powers and duties B2 number two. Let me go back. Okay, I got follow along. Okay. Yes. Okay, I'm there. So, original policy 2011B2, actually 3B2 to be honest with you, where it says the school board overseas administrative functions, adopts and revises policy and is the final body for appealing administrative decisions. Just take that line and put replace replace the B under five powers and duties B and just replace that. That whole sentence is because it basically says the same thing but it says that we oversee it instead of administers or exercises administrative functions. And then when we oversee we're overseeing the superintendent. I would language needs to be put back in there then. So we establish a I don't agree with that but I agree with moving this one and then the other one I don't think needs to be in here. So we can c So what you're saying what you're suggesting is to cross out the the VB. Mhm. Yep. Yep. And replace it with and replace it with the our original policy 3B. Yep. Correct. And I think we have agreement on that. will of the board. Does anybody have a problem with that? Yeah, I'm not sure. just I think what's going to happen and again given the discussion here is that this thing is going to be cherrypicked and and if we are are going to be a governing board we just place the statute in there and we say the superintendent is authorized by the board delegated by the board to carry out those administrative functions. uh which includes of course in his job description, hiring, firing, etc. Um and and basically making sure that the you know that the board like any other governing board um basically doesn't tell him how but tells him you know um what is to be done. I think the superintendent roles are actually defined in another policy. It's actually coming up. It's 202 so we've already got that already defined in the next policy. This is about the legal status of the board, right? But either either ref if the legal so let's look at the definition the legal status either we say just the statutes and any interpretations by the courts when we start to cherrypick out of those statutes and only include certain pieces in here and all that we're going to it that's where we come into the issue and you know the legal status of the board has always been just the statutes. we've never had to use this before and and then you know in the last couple years then it's been I want to dive deep down just into this thing but and not the rest. So you have to be consistent. We're either a governing board or we're not. And we're and the reason why all this stuff is being taken out by other districts is because we're following statute and only statute and the court interpretation of it. Um, and then like you said, we took the superintendent out here, but we left all this other language in here that actually contradicts other policies that we haven't gone through yet about that superintendent oversight. And that's what I'd like to avoid. That's kind of my point. I'm wondering if this needs to be so prescriptive, if if the actual carrying out of all stuff is covered, like for instance, Dr. Thomas' duties are covered in other policies. Does it make sense just to make this as short and sweet as possible? We're referencing statute ABC and D. The particulars are will be in the other policies. I mean, is is that where you're kind of going? Yeah, cuz that that seems reasonable to me. As long as it's covered somewhere, there's no sense covering it twice. Correct. I feel like that's what we kind of that's what it really tried to do, right? It cleaned it all up because our other one was like this mesh of all different things that talked about compensation and it talked about vacancies and so I think we're we're really I think we're that's exactly what we're doing to be honest with you. I mean so we really only need like one sentence there and right now we've got well without the repeat of the student rep. We're still sitting on several pages here. Um I'm sorry that was 202. We're still sitting on what two and a half pages. It's more than just subdivision one board authority. So like I mean you that's that's again that's 2011 at this point 2011 every every change that that director Bullion and I have made have been can there's been one addition that director Atinson has made which is now taking the B right the powers and duties which is what director uh Olstead just recommended and that's now implemented. So everything else is back to the ex exactly what MSBA has. Mhm. Okay. So So there is no So there is no there's no addition. I hear what you're saying. Um and I I kind of wish we could go your direction, but I don't think that's the will of the board. So, as long as Wait, so let's let's ask about the will of the board. So, we Is anybody have a problem with where we're landed right now for for 2011 exchanging the original was it B3 and replacing uh 5B with that original language that that Lisa talked about. Um, and then there's the other ancillary changes we made with the student rep and those kinds of things. Is there anybody with an issue? obviously think you do an issue with where we're where we're sitting right now. Good. Good. Director Olstead. Um, yeah, I'm okay with it because I mean I appreciate what you're saying and I kind of agree with it, but if if the other policies put the meat on these bones, I I guess I can live with it if you know what I mean. Yeah. It's just that the again it some of the language in the powers and duties contradicts being a governing board because again MSBA made it so that it was pliable. They didn't make it so it would be repeated verbatim um and hasn't updated it as such when I don't think we I I I don't know for sure but I couldn't find one that's a managing board. That's my concern. So I hear what you're saying. I hear what you're saying. Yeah, that's okay. Well, I think we have consensus though. So, um, so did we, if 2011 is consensus, did we kind of take care of 2011.1 or we we decided that we're going to make that basically a a one line with procedures underneath? Is that what we talked about? I thought we were. So, when So, are you guys going to take a Who's taking a crack at the procedures? Are you doing that right now? Is that part of what you have been tked to do? Um, come back. I mean, apologize. Um, I was wondering that too because it may not have been on your list since we were like striking it, right? Is that where you're going? Okay. We will come back with procedures. Um my concern about coming back to the board with a even and I mean so this work has it was the will of the board to have the MSBA be our base template and then we brought whatever was in our policies or we tried to bring what was in our policies bring it to the MSBA policy so that we could get will of the board. My concern with director Johnson and I coming up with any kind of procedural thing is should we move that to a future study session? So, this probably should be a board retreat. And honestly, I would con I would actually consider all of this work being a board retreat because Director Johnson and I can do I mean, us putting in the hours of pre-work together to come here to do hours of work again. I'm I'm just saying. Well, isn't that what we're doing right here right now? Study session. I mean, that's what we're doing. We're doing the work right here, right? But it wouldn't be necessary for him and I to do all of the hours of work. Oh, I think you pre I mean because you have the MSBA I mean everyone has MSBA policy. Everyone has our our district policy. So I you know again just for I think it has added some organization though because there's you've been able to bring the viewpoint of you know this this is this and you added this or whatever and this is where it came from and so we're not all independently doing that to get here. So I I would just go back to what d um director said. I do think we should bring the procedure of the 2011.1 to a study se to a future study session or retreat. I don't care what we're going to try. We won't be able to attack that tonight and I don't want to put all of this on you guys and I think it Thank you. Yeah. So there's there are other boards out there that that have there's some good procedures out there. So there are and there are other boards that we could we could do a really good job of honestly they already have it out there. We could just say hey what do you what do you think of A B and C and and move forward you know and move forward. It it could be fairly easy. The problem is nobody promised everybody promised not to resign between now and August. That's funny. Okay. I mean, not funny. Okay. Are we on 202? Yes. Okay. Um 202. We moved on. We did. Wow. I actually do want to say thank you for doing this because it's really helpful to have the red in addition to the MSBA starting point. Thank you for putting this statement in. I only had one thing in 202. Okay. And it was grammatical. I'm not an English teacher, but it seems like uh 4 A2 should read the agenda for meetings of the school board should be the responsibility of the chair and vice chair in collaboration with the superintendent. I think that's weird word worded funny. Fire clap, comma, vice chair. Yeah. So, it's basically you're you're switching the comma after chair with the and after vice chair. Oh, I see. That's all I had. Okay. And then 2022A should just reference the organizational meeting um and not say shall meet annually and organize and all that kind of stuff and leave the rest of the language. just say the organizational meeting will determine schoolboard officers keeping in line with the with the naming convention. Um, and then letting the documentation on the organizational meeting cover the detail because one of the things that we've never done as a board is actually spell out what happens every year at the organizational meeting, which we probably should because we do follow Robert's rules almost to a tea. Um, and that in including the compensation and the who does what and all that kind of stuff. So, just leave that really simple cuz when you start Can you can you hit me at where are you at exactly again on 2A? 202 2A. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Just simplify that and refer it back to the organizational meeting for CH for choosing board officers. like it get to say just say um the organiza the organizational the school board um shall hold an organizational meeting in which schoolboard officers are chosen. Maybe not make it as passive as that. I can probably figure out a better way to say it grammatically. Um because um we have changed board officers in the middle of the year. uh we have done the organizational meeting is where it's chosen and then and then in the organizational meeting procedure we can actually talk about there may be times during the year with a resignation with uh somebody who you know can't do the job anymore or something like that where we've had or many organizational meetings throughout the year. So I'd like to keep that as open as possible and just say the organizational meetings where you choose board officers, school board officers um as a general statement of policy. So the annually part is yeah kind of the annual and then so your suggestion is that can I can I read it out? The school board shall meet annually and organize by selecting officers. Um, organizational meeting uh will determine the um the selection of school board officers. The organizational meeting shall determine the selection of school board officers. You might want to put annual just we've done more than annual before. So that gives us the opportunity saying an organizational meeting might happen. It might happen just through that opening. Oh, okay. I'm following you. Okay. I was going to say under organization section 3 it actually says annually too that it does say annually there too. Say that again. I was just saying it's getting it's restated under organization. Oh yes we can scratch that under three as well. So, do you want to just remove the word annually or? Well, that's just explaining the process. One of the things um that that um we started to do but pulled it out of the other policy 203 which it talks about uh study sessions and all that. We were going to just lay out the organizational meeting format and it just got a little too heavy for the time. So it so we we scrapped it but um basically the we have had times where uh we've had uh another organizational meeting uh during the year to not only do board officers but one time we swapped auditing firms and a few other things too. Um so that's just um give ourselves a little bit of leeway there. So stay just help us by saying stating what you're suggesting. You just want like I see him just crossing just crossing what you're asking. The school board shall meet to organize by selecting a chair, vice chair, clerk, and treasurer. I just said that an organizational meeting will be held to choose school board officers. Perfect. Period. Up here. Up here. But then under organization is that no so a up there and then b don't put that in there. Uh just talk about the process of the organizational meeting itself. Um that's it. Maybe going forward the organization how to get the suggestions clear so that we're all on the same page because I'm I'm not clear. I are you did you get that? No. No. No. No. So the organ So here's the thing. You talk about the organizational meeting under organization. Is that where you want to put an organizational meeting reference because it's kind of not clear now. Well, it determines when the officers are elected or selected. That's the whole point of it. You're determining how your officers are selected, right? And so we just had that one short sentence. Do we need to repeat it here then? Well, you got the general statement of the policy and then you have the actual how it happens. Well, that that's kind of what I'm asking because in the in the schoolboard operating norms, we lay out study session. Can number 2A say the school board meets to meets and organizes or the school board. So yes, we do that at the at the organizational meeting, but like you said, if it if it if it may happen at other times in the year, it has to be reflected in the in this statement under three, then I I put here the organizational meeting will be where schoolboard officers are elected. That's good. Yeah, I think that's good. Maybe change the word the to and so like an organizational meeting. Organizational meeting. will determine the selection of school board officers. Organizational meeting. Yeah, I like that actually. An organizational meeting. The singular unorganizational meeting. An organizational meeting shall determine the selection of board officers. Is that what you have? That's I think that's good. I have an organizational meeting. Shall determine the selection of board officers. Sounds really good. So it So the next question that I have is are we okay? So we we got to a good Are we fine? B is fine. Yep. Okay. Are we now we're on three. I think that's fine actually. I think it's good to state how that works. We just need to take out annually. Right. So that So we've got a little bit of a mixture here. Are we talking about the organization of the school board itself after the organizational meeting or are we talking about the organizational meeting in number three because statutoily you have to do it you're you have to do it after the the very first Monday or the as soon as there after that's what that is saying right there that's what I'm saying so so this is the question that I have and this would be you know I I I I'm a little nitpicky with polic policy usually because I do sometimes have to defend it quite a bit actually. Um, so under organization three, are we talking about the organizational meeting or the organization of the school board? I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah, I see. I I I I now I can see that because we mix the two. We we would maybe don't need that paragraph or at least parts of it as I read it now that I hear hear what you were just saying. Okay, I think we need it actually because it it literally goes right back to the law. Is it in procedure? It literally is in the law. Is that in procedure somewhere else? How we do? No, actually that we wanted to do that last time we went over policy 203 which talks about the study session and the operating norms and all that. You can't say we could change it to the first organization. Well, what the first organization? We have it in other places where the first meeting of the year has to be or the organizational meeting uh in the beginning. It's not the school board meeting. Is that actually a separate meeting is called an organizational meeting. I see what you're saying. That that paragraph could say the school board um shall consist of or something like that of a chair, vice chair, and treasurer. Then the four remaining members are directors and we move down to C. I think you're you're right, May, that we should be describing what the organization is, not the process by which we create the organization. So maybe maybe uh this paragraph becomes a and spells out that we're going to be made up of a chair, vice chair, and a treasurer. B is the four remaining are directors. C becomes uh our ability to delegate, you know, those certain duties uh um to Tammy and whoever. and then C becomes D. Uh the only thing I'd say is if you look at the law Minnesota statute 123b.14 officers of independent school district it says officer selection on the first Monday of January of each year or or as soon thereafter as practicable. The board must meet and organize by selecting a chair, a clerk and a treasurer who shall hold their offices for one year and or and until their successors are selected and qualify. what that sentence really needs to be. But then I'm just saying I'm just saying that it shouldn't be here. It should be uh maybe maybe that maybe that maybe that goes up and becomes a Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So So again, I think Chair White, you and I are on the same page with what number three should or shouldn't be. So either we say a separate section with the organizational meeting either here or where we do study session and all that to comply with statute or we have another section that just says you know basically what we have to do by Robert's rules and what we have to do by statute to choose those. And by the way we do a lot more than what the statute says um because of everything else that does need to get done. So whatever it is, it it to me, you can't combine them all in that one paragraph. We need to either have a separate section. Maybe it doesn't go here. Maybe it goes I don't know. But just to me, it's three needs to make up your mind. I think three needs a different title. Maybe it should say three should say officer selection instead of organization because there really are it's not the organization at all. Organizational meeting does more than just officer selection. That's what I'm saying. I don't think that that is the right terminology for three. I think it maybe should be officer selection because this we're trying to tell everybody how are these officers actually selected and it really ties back to the law which is on the bottom of the policy which is the statute and I get that. So again is that I don't care as long as we're consistent and we have boundaries. We're not trying to put too much in there. That's all. No, I think then what you have listed below is listed below. I think it's the title that's throwing everybody. Yep. No, it's actually the conflation of organizational meeting with the organizational structure with how often the organizational meeting occurs all in one paragraph. Which how do we fix it? Yeah, just make up your mind what you want to cover here. If you want to cover the organizational meeting, then we do that as a separate section or we put it someplace else or we That's all I'm trying to say is that right now it's I think it should be organizational meeting. Okay. As a header. Anybody else header? I mean it isn't. I'm looking at MSBAs too just to that sentence is actually in MSBA is a school board. Tell me, right? I mean, I know we added it, but or you could say organizational meeting and officers or election of officers. Yeah. Officer selection. Yeah. Although it funny enough, I had to read the now. Um I think it's going to be C. The persons who perform the duties of clerk and treasurer need not be members of the school board. I had to read that 10 times. Yeah. Because we don't follow I have I have that's one of my hot points in this pop topic. So, we'll get to there cuz I don't we our what our clerk does. Our our vice chair doesn't do the duties of the clerk. Actually, Martha does those duties. So, I feel like that's super muddy, but I don't want to go there right now. So, no, no, no. Let's just get through line one, please. Actually, we didn't get there. We never got to this policy two years ago. And, and that and by the way, the we did add for six years ago the duties of the clerk and treasurer need to be separate. Um but again the organizational meeting does delegate to other titles roles right and so and that's why I'm saying we're either going to talk about the organizational meeting here or we talk about just the organization of the school board but when you start to combine them all at once and remember the MSBA are generally broad templates except when they do try to reflect just like certain updates like the I don't know the the, you know, uh, bullying policy or something like that where they tried to help out school boards. Um, so this has always been a problem and if we're going to go through this, we might as well fix it correctly. Well, and I think to clarify, as a school board, we really only need to nominate a chair, elect a chair, and then we could have you could have somebody from the school district be a a non-board member be the treasurer and the clerk. And then you really it's very optional to have a vice chair. That's the way the law is written and that's why it we have to like almost write this policy to be reflective of what our district is and what we do. Correct. I mean that's that's the reality of it. We have to have a treasurer and a clerk and a chair legally. we have to now the the duties but they don't have to be board members um is partly shared by Martha who has s who we actually vote during our organizational meeting have signature authority um on things but we still by the way all that packet that that Amy you sign that's part of your duties but Martha also signs some of them and puts it together so what we've done is we've kind of shared that role that is very typical of of boards Um, and we just have to make sure that the definition for the vice chair clerk. That's the tricky one. And the and the other thing is is realize that if you have a larger board, you can have four officers. We can't have four officers because that would make a quorum. The quorum. Yep. So, the school districts like Rosemont and stuff like that that do have larger boards have separate duties for each. The vice chair is not also the clerk. So number three, selection of officers instead of organizational meeting because I think we will hit meetings in a future. That's not good. That's that's actually not a bad idea. Yeah, that's Yeah, because then we can Yes. maybe move. So selection of offers will be conducted at the first meeting in Okay. I'm I'm supportive of that because that again follows the law. Okay. Yes. So, and we're and then are we scratching? I did. And we rewrote 2A. Yeah. Okay. And then and we're going to we have to change the opening paragraph then because it talks about the annual and all that. I think we're saying that stays because we're making this organization and officer selection title and title. Right. Yes. Right here. Am I following? And so we have to so by law we have to have an organizational meeting. Correct. That's what it because it's not it's not a board meeting. It's an organizational meeting that has to happen the first before the first business meeting of the year. That's the way it should state. Correct. and and then in that meeting a part of that meeting we select the officers. Correct. So are is it right that what we're capturing is that number three states for the title organization and officer selection. I think it should just be officer selection. I think it should be officer selection officer selection. Okay. Thank you. then then the rest probably still works. That's fine. Okay. So, we're we're clear there. Anything on any of the other pages? Did you get the change for the um meeting? Uh the the um the the chair the Let me get it straight. The the Where is it? The agenda. Oh, you got that grammatical correction. Yeah, you got that responsibility of the chair and vice chair, and in collaboration. Yes, with superintendent. With the superintendent. Yep. Okay. And then chair, we're good. Anything else on So, I just under B for vice chair, clerk, vice chair, please. Because that's not how our role is determined. Um, I'm just wondering if if we just leave it, but I but I think we have to have a clerk. That's the thing. Like we don't have to have a vice chair, but we have to have a clerk for either one of these with cl can can these um can we just add our ability to delegate certain duties? Yeah, because I mean even like then we can we don't have to change all the language. We can maybe just add language that gives us that ability. Yes. for both the the vice chair clerk and the treasurer. we as a board can delegate some of those your duties to well like number four we just say delegate it per the per the organizational meeting and then that leaves us the opportunity to have that organizational meeting documented four five and six are all clerk duties and those are things that Martha does and so so that's I mean so maybe um no no four um by the way as chair you sign them um and then under vice chair clerk, you also sign them. Um, now we delegate some of that, but by signing all of those documents, if you were to stay until 2:00 in the morning and read them, um, that's it. But the organizational meeting also delegates part of that to Martha. You are still as vice chair, clerk, the ultimate signature on those. they cannot be processed or adjudicated without your signature. So we we got to be careful what we're changing here because we're not we and by the way legally I don't think we can fully delegate that. That's what I'm saying. Maybe maybe the sentence on maybe in for instance vice chair B let's make a B7 um at the at the organizational meeting uh certain duties may be delegated to someone else I mean pick somebody I mean you know what I mean yeah I mean have language that describes the organizational meeting both for statute as well as um Robert's rules and that we can probably cut and paste Uh delegation of these duties will be determined at organizational meeting. Right. Any delegation of these duties. Would that's would you put that right up? No, I would make it like seven. Yeah, because like like four the the vice chair clerk shall see that an accurate record of all school district business is kept in the schoolboard minutes. Well, Martha writes the minutes. We as a board approve them. She signs the minutes. Right. So that's what I'm saying. Maybe maybe seven after all the that's what I say here we sign all the papers. So it's maybe seven is delegation of any of these duties will be determined at the organizational meeting. Okay that's just for both for both chair and or vice chair and treasur just special note we are going to send to to legal for review. Okay. Delegation of any of these duties will be determined at organizational meeting and you're not truly delegating. You're actually sharing. You delegate only pieces of each one of those. So again, words matter because partial delegation. Well, actually the the assignment. So you have this vice chair. Um is this necessary to add a seven? What I would suggest is that you make a general statement. The organizational meeting determines the rules just one and then leave a B 1 2 3 4 5 6 alone because where do we put that statement? Well, actually we could we could put that up at the top of the Yeah. Or policy. We could put it like right officer. Yeah. under general statement of policy under officer responsibilities and make it very general. Don't make it discreet. Um because then we want to actually use the language from the organizational meeting when we talk organizational. So what would it look like? just put a statement saying an organizational meeting um um will I don't have will determine any duties to be shared um will determine uh duties uh will determine the board's assignment of duties and then go on and say and then the officers in addition the officers have these responsibilities I think that's the yeah so I guess that the top the the top line gives us the ability to okay push those out. So number four officer's responsibility and then having a statement under there such as under three officer selection there's a statement before ABC and starts. So under officer's responsibilities having a sentence that says an organizational meeting the organizational meeting the or okay so up under two we have unorganizational meeting that's right now down here do we want to have the no an organizational meeting then make it consistent you're right I'm good an organizational meeting will in case we have to have more than one will determine the board's assignment of duties I think the board's assignment of duties I should that just say officers the officer's assignment of duties officer assignments of duties the officers the organizational meeting doesn't determine that the organizational meeting determines that let's say Tammy has certain signature authority and can prove Emily to do certain things. The um what do we I don't even know what we officially call Martha. She's the executive administrator. Executive administrator. She has certain things. So in you know but then the chair, the vice chair and the treasurer still have the ultimate signature. So you can't take those away. You just say an organizational meeting will determine the overall responsibilities of the board and administration. In addition, these responsibilities are assigned to the officers. And then you go through chair, vice chair, and treasurer. And if I had a court reporter to play that back so I could remember what I just said, that would help. Well, you'll be recorded. What do you have? Well, I don't have what she just said. I have an organizational meeting will determine the board's assignment of duties. But she said more and don't ask me to repeat it. I can't. I mean, I think you need to keep it pretty general. This stuff is And I think that I agree. I think that's a general statement that would work. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I think that's good. And you need to keep it general because a lot of this is it'll be literally spelled out in the law of who does what and it will also be further but clearly spelled out at the organizational meeting. Mhm. So, I think Are we fine? I think we're good. I got that. I got it. Okay, you got it. I got it. And then each other's I think we're all clear that we're just going to change the student rep here to just have a very simple statement that we will have a student rep and then that's it. Yeah, that's it. We know that. Okay. Yes, we're taking that off. Okay. I think I think we've talked about having just one line saying that we will have a student representative on the board and then the rest I think the rest all needs can come back or can go back to the student council what we talked about earlier the student council deal with that but how what would you like it to say what are you proposing that I'm proposing you take some language out of purpose A I think you can simplify purpose A and take make it much simpler just condense that so so can I say make a statement. This whole policy is schoolboard officers and membership. Um we you know we have other members of the board that are non- voting members. Why don't we just make a little thing that says and the school board reserves the right to have non-boarding members including a student representative. Period. Yeah. Super simple. Does that work? Rewind. Repeat. School board reserves the right to have non- voting members including I didn't Okay. The school board reserves the right way Charles. Good job to have non- voting members including the name. a student representative. That's good. It'll be condensed. Hopefully, it'll fit all on one page or two pages then or so. Close. I dare move on to 20. Man, I think we're getting close. Oh gosh. My only thing with 208 is under section two, general statement of policy, uh the red that was added back from ours. Again, I feel like it's like subjective language. I can't handle it. Like the professional conscientiousness and professional manner like again define that, right? But it's also not just employees. Um we have policies that cover um visitors. We have policies that cover um um students, etc. So that is I I would scratch the red and I know you guys put a lot of work into that but it's No, we just pulled it from one to it was it was in our It was in ours and that's what we were trying to do is to make sure we're capturing and then we can discuss and again the board I appreciate that you added it back to show the difference but yeah I personally Oh I would strike it real 2082. Anybody have a problem with scratching to the last sentence? I don't have a problem with that. The red Yeah, the red added section. I'm fine with that. Anybody have a problem? 208. And then we're taking that out. Yep. Taking the red out. And then under 3 C, um the policies may be proposed and all that kind of stuff. That was written and that has been that was previously discussed that we were going to have to go back and and change some of that. Now that we have a policy committee and uh we have a different process. Um so um the and then and then also the idea is submitted the superintendent designator review basically that also contradicts with the role of the chair and the vice chair meeting with the superintendent. So that has been on the scratch list for two and a half years until we were going to go through this or three years now. again. Um, plus it didn't hold water before that. So, I think it the first sentence the first sentence can probably I'd like to Yeah, I'd like to understand the intent of that. I feel like the intent is is that um any schoolboard member, any employee, any student, any resident district can propose a policy. That's the intent of the that is the So, does the second sentence kind of almost become procedure? Um, kind of. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Am I reading it right? Yeah. Because at the end of the day, that's the intent of the line. If we scratch that, would that be an we have a a a plan, a procedure in place to get policies heard. Does it does it need even to be on here? No, I that's why we needed to rewrite that. And then also talk about um uh another thing that was discussed and we never got to it like I don't know three or four years ago was uh proposing policies because policies also reside in statute and all that kind of stuff. So did we want to tighten that up that they can say policies may be suggested or whatever. um something to kind of cover the district from being inundated with that to have it like be submitted to a certain place or something to give some guidance. That's what you know. So C was sorry C's never really been the way it was anyways. And then with the introduction of the policy committee and um changes to first, second, third readings and all that kind of stuff. Well, so then if we just scratch the second sentence, is that enough? Well, that's I'm asking. I I'm fine with that because the rest of it it's that's exactly how it should be. Yep. Yep. All right. So, we're going to scratch C, sentence two under number three. Um, anything else on 208? Looks like there was some added language. So, I had nothing on that one. Good. Director said you're good on 208. Yes, sir. Okay. 210. Any questions or additions on either did I? That's all pretty much probably statute. Yep. Yep. It's legal definition of conflict of interest. Yep. 211. 211. That seems like kind of the same thing. Yep. And then I don't think we can change to 11 much to tell you the truth either. All right. Then 213. Excuse me. [Applause] There. Where was it? Last time we adopted this. I know we had to make some changes to it. 223. Yes, 213. I can't remember what it was, but we've actually buted against this a couple times and I and I need to read last board adoption was December 12th of 2022. Yeah, but there was something about it with um and Dr. Thomas, um, I'm going to ask your question because I know that when we've come up with ad hoc committees, there was language in here and I couldn't remember what it was and I couldn't find it that we wanted to be more discreet with between um, board pol um, board um, committees and the rest of them being like ad hoc. I can't remember what it was, but we ran into it a couple times in the past couple years. And u maybe I just need to review it again um when it's not 9:30 at night. uh there I mean so there the are board committees and then we have various councils and there have been there's been a ad hoc committee since I've been here and that was just during the strategic plan there was a task force or something like that that was um uh attended by the board uh members of the board so so generally speaking that's That's my only interaction with the ad hoc. Everything else has been management committees. Okay. Or management councils, whatever. We've also been trying not to call those committees, not to confuse them with board committees, but yeah, there's only the three currently. I I hopefully this does it. And then we've had questions on C the second the the on what is it 3C. um because we've always used the organizational meeting to do this and one of the reasons why we had to was because we had committee meetings going on that week that needed coverage like Southwest Metro and um finance and stuff like that. So, we've left this open. Um, and we've had the same language in here for years and then it's always been that we never did this on see the second sentence. Um, now people can always change committees through the year. Um, they just ask the chair and say, "Hey, I don't want to be on this one or I can't make the time anymore." But, um, and it leaves it open. But then we've had conversations with why are we deciding everything at the organizational meeting and that was because the meetings start right away. Um well when you guys do your org meeting those are that's always in January right and these councils are inter agency things are ongoing right so right so this this this follows what we do see how did how does it not I'm confused well the second sentence said board members will be assigned no later than the second regular board meeting which is basically in February no it says it says the second regular board meet that word second is not right so it should No later than the it's at the organizational meeting. So whatever whatever the write it in no later than the or just say organization at the organizational meeting organizational meeting will be assigned at the organizational meeting right you said that at the same time that's very good perfect unity that's our core belief all right so that's anything so C is taken care of correct yeah I had nothing else on this one anyone else on two where we at And then do we keep each board member should be assigned to at least one? I think so. One committee. Yeah, I think so. Right. 214. Oh my gosh. Are we done? Yeah, we're done. The only thing that I could Tammy read over 20 214 to just to make sure the language is okay with reimburseable expenses and all that kind of stuff. That was my only Yeah. What's that? Yeah. That I mean any kind of travel or things that you all do it aligns to our admin protocol. So I mean every employee board member to that same protocol. Just make sure the language is consistent. That's all because I know that one we I want to know the last time a board member traveled out of state on official business. I did but it wasn't reimbursed on official business. I went to Florida to a schoolboard national schoolboard conference just recently. like like you had to go to like NSBA, the national like something like that. I did go to the National School Board Association, but I went to the school boards for academic excellence. So, it's a different it's a different version of the National School Board Association. Not very often, but they are an official organization. So, there's nothing on what you said have Tammy just Tammy review it. Yeah. Just make sure. Okay. Yeah. I mean, is do we have an expense policy or policy? Can we just like reference that? Well, that's what I was saying. We haven't The board touches this and really Tammy needs to look. Not that we probably ever use it, but just got it. Roger that. Two hours. Yeah, we're good. All right. Um, we're towards the end of the agenda here. Any uh we have lots of future topics to discuss at our study session. So, I would Well, I think we added one tonight. We did. I have a uh vacancy procedure and you mentioned is something about an organizational meeting procedure that you are concerned need to be tied up. I mean we could combine those. Well, the vacancy needs to be a policy and procedure in order to make sure it's out there. And then the organizational meeting um the actual outline of it not I mean obviously it may change a little bit but the purpose the outline and stuff like that really should be memorialized like we have the content of the study session and the content of this of this of the um of business meetings just to be consistent and also to avoid a whole bunch of us saying organizational and no definition of it. And that Martha has the organizational step by step too because that's usually split between chair and former chair. We have organizational meet or we have um regular meeting next month. So we can yeah that that should be that and the vacancy can probably I just I'm trying if if we can tackle this at a at a uh study session so you guys aren't carrying all the water saying but if this is going to be the organizational meeting part fine okay um that's that's so the vacancy procedure we will discuss cuz that's that's pretty cut and paste as far as the the layout and everything else how how all that stuff you want to make sure it's memorialized yeah and because we're referring to But we should keep it in the same. We can I have a question. When you want it memorialized in policy, which one? Well, that's kind of the the question. Do you want to put it into the operating norm organization? We could put it in zone. You know, that's where the study session and the board um and the board layout is. Uh and then we've got language in there that says you can as long as it contains these parts, you're good. Um, so it could be in different, you know, pieces, but that's I'm going to leave that up to you, but I'm kind of um going off the look on your face. Well, so I appreciate clarity like that. I I that I'm clear on exactly what you're stating. if it is memorializing what the organizational meeting looks like and adding it to the policy that memorializes what our regular meeting looks like and what our study session is, we can we can do that. But um anytime you know you put something out there and just hope that I'm catching your meaning, I want to make sure that I know what exactly you're asking to memorialize and where you'd like it put. If it's in a certain policy number, if you want it in a policy by itself, I want that's the clarity I'm looking for because you we could sit and do the work. We think we know what you asked and then we come back to this. So, are you clear on what she's asking? Um, I'm clear that she wants it memorialized the organizational meeting. What I'm not clear on is where you want it in an additional be at 203 point something. We'd create one. We'd have to an additional point something. Okay. If that's And I don't care where you put it. Wherever it's most convenient for you. Yeah, you don't care until we do it the way you don't want it done. But it'll be in 203 somewhere. The situation that I want to avoid. So, as long as it's in 203, we're good. Yep. Okay. All right. Anything else for future? We're going to have some plenty of work to do. I have some Is it possible to recap what we have pending or pending? Uh what I was thinking out um board goals maybeish is what I'm thinking. Um there was some talk about so board goes our survey and then we do our goals from that. Uh well that's a good question because when normally we do the board survey of ourselves and how that process works we do the goals and the goals we want the goals in um at least the survey discussed and the goals should be part of the next year. That's the way we've done it before. So after June 30th we didn't do our goals this year. They weren't done last fall. So there's a miss there. We'll work together. So we're basically working under no then. Well, we did kind of have a discussion. We did not um we it did not come back for conversation. I it got we did and it got sub it got subjugated by another issue. Two things two things in in April that I we the modification of that $25,000 authorization that we have. We were going to talk about that. Thought we could do that in April. and then um whether or not we want to have a negotiations ad hoc committee for this goound. Just have that discussion and determine whether or not we want to move in that direction and then we can determine how it will work once we say yes. So those are the uh stutter results I think we'll be able to have by April as well. Okay. And if there's anything I highly doubt um legislatively I'll provide that update too. Okay. And then I think that's I think one of the things that I don't know where it was brought up, but reviewing the ANI plan and re kind of reooking at those dollars. I know that you know some of that is in the works, but bringing that to the board so that we can talk about that as far as that the we're in the third year of that plan right now. So what what are you what are you thinking as far as that that timing for the board? So probably like in May is where I would present that as part of Yeah. I I think so what my intention around that is to look at that third year of the current plan to see if there needs to be any revisions around that third year to realign to our new strap plan. Um so that's that's the one aspect that I want to look at that for sure cuz if so then there might be some changes with the budget. So, I want to make sure that's all included in in our our budget proposal. And that comes first in a study session. Would that I I shouldn't make that a statement. That's a question. Does that does that come first in a stud? That would be my preference. So yeah, we we certainly can for for May. I would agree because um when it when Yeah. I think it's important for us having dialogue before going to a regular meeting. Yeah. And that's how it's been done in the past is it comes to a study session first and then um the other thing that we talked about bringing back was um having getting an update on the cell phone policy particularly at the high school. Okay. Sir, so that should have already been on the list, but maybe I do have it written down. I will have to admit that when that was Let's go to a policy committee. No, no, she No, she she just wants an update from Yeah, I think the previous board was very clear for those members who are still here that I I mean I recall is is that and you did you didn't mention that and I didn't get consensus and that was my fault. So now we have she's bringing it up. Is that something that it's an update from principal visa and talking about moving in just a just a general absolutely this how it's going this what we didn't see middle school and high school right yeah it'd be okay K12 but Dr. Thomas, can I ask a question about the ANI because I know this is a bianium year? Mhm. Um, is there we're good with the third year of funding or can that change this year legislatively? No. Okay. That that no changes. Yeah, because no changes are going to happen this year. So, getting an update at the end of the year, maybe after the school year's over, we'll plug it in somewhere. Mhm. Okay. The only concern is that if you know there was discussion about potentially changing it at the high school and them needing some lead time to do that, right, with Yeah, we ran into that last year. So, we do need to give them enough lead time. We need to give them lead time. So, if we did it in July, would that be early enough? That's exactly when the cell phone policy because we needed to because they when we update the policy, they have to put in the student handbook. All right. Then, so if July works, I'll put it that give him enough time. Well, we did get some push back on timing on that last year. When did when was it discussed last time? It was July and there was push back of can we implement it within the next couple weeks or whatever whatever that was a whole new roll out the whole roll out that would be a little bit different. It was you know that was going this is more of an update because they're waiting to see how they think it's going. I think we'll leave it July unless I hear something. Yeah. I'm just again I'm going to be cognizant if he needed more time. Do we pull that into June or I don't know. Mhm. Maybe I'll call John and ask. Yeah, I I'll I'll I'll do that. So, I'll I'll do that. That's nice. Anything else? You better schedule full through like August now. So, yeah, I'm through. So, I have one for July. I have nothing in August yet. So, um those are the things that are that are coming forward and we'll we'll tackle them. If there's nothing else, we can adjourn.