I'd like to uh call the meeting back to order. >> You can try if you want. You need to. >> Next item on the agenda under new business is the lease purchase of MacBook Air M4s, laptops, and Apple TVs. Director Malazo. Chair White, board directors, Dr. Thomas Marcus Mazo, director of technology. In your board packet, you have uh items from the proposal. The first is a memo that we submitted regarding um the proposal of 800 MacBook Airs and 600 Apple TVs. The second is the resolution and then there's also the lease agreement is in there as well. What we're proposing is a 4-year Apple lease at 0% finance for four years. So, I'll open it up to questions any questions that you may have and here to be a resource. All right. I'll first entertain a motion to accept the resolution approving the u lease purchase of the MacBook Airs and the Apple TVs. Is there a motion on the table? >> So, made by Director Bullan, second by Director France. Discussion or questions? >> Um, I just have a question. You answered a lot of questions, so thank you. Really helped to understand um why we're going down this path. Do you ever compare like um uh like Apple products versus HP products like and how does that compare from a cost standpoint? I mean I understand that our kids are all on iPads or they have iPads but how does that did you look do you look at that or is it >> we did and thank you for the question. Um >> and I'm sorry I didn't get that in time. I just someone actually asked me in the last couple days. So >> no I appreciate the question. Um so when when we looked at the lease for the um consolidation of staff devices, we did look at MacBook Airs and HP desktops. So part of the comparison was when we when we compare I don't want to use apples to apples, but when we compare apples to Windows devices, you try to spec them with similar specs to the best of your ability. So, we we have the quote from Apple for an M4 MacBook Air. And then we have a quote for an HP um Z2 which has similar specs. Um we got that quote from a preferred vendor and that that pricing was on a state contract. So, it's extremely aggressive pricing. And the MacBook Airs are $271 less per unit than the desktop that we spec. pretty comparable. >> Any other questions? >> Um I had one followup too. Thank you for answering everything else, but um the 600 Apple TVs, how um I don't know how many classrooms we have it. Does that include like all of the conference rooms and the classrooms or how like is that why there >> it'll be instructional spaces? So, and I'm a visual learner so I brought a little bit of >> Thank you. >> Talk about Apple TVs. We're not talking about monitors. We are talking about device and I'll let you pass it down. Um, so that allows the MacBook Airs to connect uh through AirPlay. The idea would be that we connect that Apple TV directly to a projection system in the classroom and allows for a new and different way of u mirroring than what we currently have, which is we're using a um legacy product to connect um that's running on the desktop PC and then the MacBook Air is connect to that which is connected to the classroom AV equipment. The other question was, and when we discussed it a couple meetings ago, it was about legacy uh peripherals like 10 key um keyboard, the extra the larger monitor, the legacy mouse. So, we found this unit, which is a USBC hub that we plan on using as the docking station. And that hub allows all the connectivity to the legacy equipment. So, uh you can use that as a docking station if you will connect your uh external monitor, your existing keyboard, your existing mouse, and then it also has Ethernet as well. So, if you prefer that higher wired connection, it has it. So, um that is what we're proposing to be the docking station. And we can get that at bulk pricing. And with the MacBook Airs, the Apple TVs, and that unit, it's still less than what the desktops were pricing out at. >> Is this already considered in the pricing? >> It's not included in the lease. That would be an additional cost to the technology department that we would cover under hardware account. >> Yeah. Sorry. And I just to clarify, the question was like around the number. It felt high but I don't know how many classrooms we have and especially if we're considering a a building closure is that for backups and for all the conference rooms or is that why Okay. Yes. Any learning spaces? >> Every space covered. Got it. >> Yep. And additional backups as well. >> Y >> and then what happens to the old devices? Do we get credit for them or when we turn them back in or >> Yep. Thank you for the question. Mhm. >> The uh legacy MacBooks uh we we had a lease agreement through Providence Capital and there's a remarketing agreement within that lease. So when we go to replace legacy MacBook Airs, they have to go back to Providence Capital for remarketing. But yes, we do get a portion of that value back to the district. >> All right, if there's no further questions or discussion, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. >> Resolution. >> Oh gosh, I did it again. It's right in front of me. >> Director Olstead >> I. >> Director Johnson >> I. >> Director Atinson >> I. >> Director Bullan. >> I. >> Director France. >> Hi. >> And Director Mason >> I. >> And I. Now the motion carries 70. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is a joint powers agreement for SRO's. Dr. Thank you, Chair White board of directors. Um, this is our updated uh SRO contract with the city of Prior Lake. Um, we have a three-year uh contract with Prior Lake and a 5-year with Savage. So, we're just out of different sequence. So, we will be doing the same with Savage, very similar contracts that we have and obviously definitely a partnership we want to maintain. And um you see the contract before you and it just includes the updated uh contract costs um for that and it's built into our budget for um the anticipated growth of those contracts over year-over-year. >> All right. Is there a motion to accept the joint powers agreement as presented >> by director France, second by director Johnson. >> There's no further discussion. >> Um I just have a a question. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So, in the agreement, it says that it's effective 2025 and expires on 2030. So, is it a five-year agreement? >> I'm sorry. This is a fiveyear agree. This one's a five-year agreement. The other one is I had them flipped. >> That's okay. I just point of clarification, I guess. So, thank you. Mhm. >> All right. If there's no other questions or discussion, all in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. That carries 70. Next on the agenda is a resolution to establish dates for filing affidavit of candidacy uh for the school board which would be July 29th through August 12th. Dr. Thomas. >> Um actually that's all I was going to share. Okay. So >> all right. Um I'll entertain a motion uh to accept th those dates and that resolution. >> So made by Director Atinson, second by Director Johnson. This does require a roll call vote. Uh, director Olstead, >> I, >> Director Johnson, >> I, >> Director Atinson, >> hi. >> Director Bullan, >> I >> and Director France, >> hi. >> And Director Mason, >> I >> and I, that carries 70. Next is the service agreement uh, between the city of Prior Lake and ISD 719 um, for absentee voting on November on the November 4th, 2025 special election. So, I'll entertain a motion to accept that service agreement. So made >> by director Bullian. Second. >> Second >> by director Olstead. >> There's no discussion. >> I have a question actually. >> Okay. >> Um so will this election take place at city hall? >> Martha, do you want to >> All of the polling locations will be open on November 4th. Okay. >> But this since the city has a question on the ball. Oh yeah, that makes sense. There's a hierarchy and so they have to conduct their city of higher lakes portion. So we're just going to combine. >> Okay. But all the polling places within Prior Lake will be >> in the school district. >> In the district school district. >> Oh, okay. Okay, that makes sense because there's a question. Okay. Okay. Thank you for >> There's no other comments or questions. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> That motion carries 70. And uh next is an approval of a resolution establishing procedures for counting of write-in votes for the schoolboard election. Is there a motion to accept the resolution as presented? >> So made >> by Director Johnson. >> Second >> by Director France discussion. Okay, this does require a roll call vote. Director Olstead. >> I. >> Director Johnson >> I. >> Director Atinson >> I. >> Director Bullan >> I. >> Director France >> I. >> And director Mason >> I. And I that carries 70. All right. Next on the agenda is just a hopefully relatively quick discussion. Um just for a little historical perspective. Um for as far back as I can remember in the school district, we had what was called a building and grounds committee. Uh it goes back to at least the 70s. >> Facilities. >> And it's been called different things. When I first got on it was >> some facilities. Yeah. And so, um, through the years as we were growing and doing a lot of building, it kind of morphed into more of a construction oversight type committee. You guys called it something during the last building. >> We combined finance and facilities into one and then knocked off the facilities when the building construction ended. And so I'm just wondering um if it would if the board would entertain the possibility of either um adding um a a permanent board committee in the traditional building and grounds um style which would oversee um you know help prioritize maintenance, give some assistance to Dr. or to director Powers um or if um combining again a a adding a building kind of you know addition to the finance committee um if that makes sense. I mean, even though we are declining in enrollment and all the things that we've had a, you know, these discussions about tonight, we still have 10 buildings and hundreds and hundreds of acres and millions and millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure that need maintaining. And I'm just wondering if uh if if the board has any desire to move back in that direction, whether either it's you know a separate standing committee or or maybe re-upping the the the finance and and building type style committee. Um I just wanted to do this because we don't have a study session this month and I thought just a quick discussion. Is there any desire to move back in that direction? I feel having been on that committee for years and years and years, you know, before it was more of a construction style committee. Um, I felt it was it was very helpful not just to the board but the administration to kind of have that little filter before stuff gets brought to the board as to why something might be prioritized over something else. Um, just in a on a regular basis. So, I'm open to discussion or forget it or wherever direction you guys want to go. Go ahead, Dr. Boo. >> Um, first of all, I have a question if if um you could share a little bit of perspective on when finance and building was um was combined just in some discussions regarding this since the agenda has come out. Um, and when I'm thinking about uh what our projections are going out, you know, fiveish years, enrollment and such, um, our building situation should remain constant for at least the near future. And so um I would initially without having us you know before discussing and hearing everybody's point of view my thought would be a a whole building committee might not be where we would want to go because we aren't really building. Um but definitely would like to know more about having that building portion in with finance what that looks like. It seems given uh um what our budget um forecasts are that you know everything that we're doing has to do with finance. It's tied so closely together. So um I would I would apt in this stage to um buy for the the combination of the finance and the building committee not having a another board >> committee. Um, Director Bullan, you asked about the history and um, so even before I was elected to the board nine years ago, um, or almost 10 years ago now, um, they they had finance as part of the facilities committee. So we called it the finance FSC. Yeah. Flur flour. Yeah. >> Um, um, fine range and long range whatever. >> Long range planning. uh because the cost of the you know obviously in our finances the cost of that infrastructure and we were going through bonds. So that was a huge piece of it too is having that committee look for the bonds when the building stopped when our last bond and all that the referendum passed and that stopped uh and we made the simultaneous choice to not make it only an internal committee because it was really made up of uh administration, the finance director. Um, it had one board member at first and then we Was it two when you were there or is it just one? >> Oh, it was two. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it was uh I know it was one a while ago and then it became two and then it stayed two. Um um and we invited the public into that finance committee. That's when it switched and became primarily a finance committee with of course the numbers for infrastructure, building depreciation, long-term facilities maintenance built into that with the focus being fi overall financial management. Um when we had the flurp version um we also had our construction contractors and maintenance contractors part of that. We no longer have that. So that is uh also a consideration of why it moved to be overwhelmingly finance. Um my concern about creating yet another committee and not just expanding or making a making a a conscious decision to expand maybe the definition of the finance committee is going to be on staff and administration time to do yet another committee. That would be my concern. We're already incredibly lean if not under subsistence level in our administration. uh and to have an yet another committee is is management and and um the the cost benefit in that I I I do not see the benefit of having that. But I do agree with particularly as we're regardless of whether growing or shrinking to add an additional consideration uh and maybe even section of the existing finance committee to talk about the cost of the reconfiguration, the moves, the building sale, etc., and have that be a piece of that. I'm not the one who chairs that. The um director writer will chair that. So, and so that will be on her shoulders obviously. Um so that's that's my input, but that does add uh another section to that meeting that that would be additional to to administration. And and I would just add um I would also envision director powers to be joining so from a co-admin standpoint to basically resurrect the finance long-range planning committee to do both finance as well as the operational support long LTFM etc. Um because to your point um vice chair bullian it all comes down to dollars and cents. So whether it's the con reconfiguration consolidation plan or if it's the projects of the the shipping decks that uh director powers is talking about um that's all going to come down to dollars and cents. And so I think enhancing that finance committee with perspectives from folks from the op side from our community that has that interest I think would just naturally you know kind of fit together as well. I um yeah, I think adding a grounds element in there too to to throw um because I've been on many uh baseball fields and uh you know, not here, but you know, and we've had to to move fields, you know, due to poor poor management and things like that. So, um, >> part of that, too. >> Yeah. um you know and I'm sure um Jeff Marshall would be I don't want to speak for him but um I think that would be a great element to add into and obviously that all trickles down to dollars and cents and I know people have already talked about you know our football fields coming up on its age >> sure um >> so that's where I think maybe and I don't you know I agree agree putting a whole another committee together. I I completely agree. It's a It's a right. Nobody wants to add something else to the plate, but maybe we can figure out a time schedule to where we're narrowing down. This is where, you know, we're going to almost combine all these things together and focus on instead of having our individual like committees this month, right? If that's what it is, maybe, you know, this quarter, right, we're going to hyperfocus on this element, right? And may that's a way we look at >> Yeah. I I can't imagine that, you know, the building and grounds or facilities conversations would be necessarily regular or but there there will be times that I would think that it would be helpful for Dan to be able to come to the committee and say >> generator turf lease stuff like that that's >> the tracks falling apart whatever it is. Yep. So >> and having served on the finance committee for the f past six months I think there's definitely the bandwidth to add on to the agenda as well. um and looking forward with director writer as well to help you know work up those agendas and what we're planning on discussing. So I think there's definitely room within from what we've discussed so far. >> I I would agree. I mean I was going to say actually we've kind of run over a couple times too. So I don't know if we'd have to expand or you know increase the duration or of the beating or change the time maybe. But I'm I think I'm supportive of that idea. >> Okay. moving forward, what would you suggest doing? >> So, if it's the will of the board, um, you know, I'll work with Lisa and Dan Powers and the two board reps. >> Um, and then, you know, we'd probably want to cast out for folks who have a passion about buildings and grounds >> um uh on top of of the finance folks that we have. So, I would just add addition I would recommend that we would add additional attendees um from the buildings and grounds and ops side um that would regularly participate and I think just be part of the discussion. Okay. >> Um >> I would add to that maybe if there are partners like PLAY or people of interest that use our fields and grounds regularly, they might be um good additions to that committee. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. So, yeah, we I think we can just adjust the member. If the board's okay, we would just work with the two board uh directors and adjust the membership accordingly. >> Yeah. >> And and re rewrite the scope a little bit. >> And we do do we have some we do have already some new members. So I would like to kind of go back and you know >> understand I think one of them particularly has good grounds or building building background >> if I remember correctly. >> You're looking quizzically. >> I don't know how I feel yet. And and I'll just say as I came in this committee existed. Um I mean it was being sunseted. I mean I didn't initiate the sunset but it was being sunset as I came in. So I got a little overlap of the flurp >> and and I understand the rationale for it. I think it's very you know you want to talk about optimizing resources of time and people's commitment. I would just adjust the scope of finance and resurrect flur or whatever it's going to be called. >> Yeah. >> Um uh because I think the interest is already there on the finance side. We round out the buildings and ground side, add Dan to be a co-director with uh Director Ryder teams there. Um and it's going to be very efficient in my opinion. >> Okay, >> I agree. >> Okay, then we'll look forward to an update on that. Appreciate the discussion. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next on the agenda, my number. Next on the agenda, uh, under policy, um, we have for a second and final reading tonight, uh, 203.7, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 212, and 215. Uh, is there a motion to uh accept these all in one one vote? >> So made >> by director Bully. Is there a second? >> Second >> by Director Johnson. Any discussion? >> Um, I thought we were going to take 209 off of that. You just read it as part of that. Um, I believe the earlier motion to amend the agenda moved all three of the uh under letter B, all three to a second reading. Did I remember that right? >> Yeah, the the three 200s. >> That's correct. Um I I still have my same concern about all of them and particularly the public hearings one. Um that is inappropriate for us. We didn't have one before. There was a reason for that and as I stated there's a conflation of forms and hearings. Hearings are legal proceedings. Forms are not the language in there that's been added is not appropriate. And also the reason why we didn't have that before is we delegated truth and taxation hearings to the finance department. Um for a reason the board is not capable nor qualified to hold those or to manage those. Um so therefore it became a procedural um item that was um in the organizational meeting was sent and delegated to the uh finance director. Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Nay. >> Uh motion carries. 52. And then moving down to letter B. Uh first reading policy 9004. Uh either one of you two want to any updates since we really didn't discuss last time. Um, has there been any in the last uh since our last meeting, has there been any any uh input from other board members since you redlining anything? >> No. Other than what we spoke about at the study session that 20904 um was introduced after the board already voted for it without any board discussion of reintroducing it as a policy and then of course um the language in there is um was misrepresented as well as uh the language in there is not appropriate. >> I can annotate on that if you don't mind. So I'm going to read directly from our website now and I'm quoting for the 2425 school year we have planned a comprehensive review of policies in the 700 800 and 900 series. Additionally we will conduct the required annual review of policies 506 722 and 806. It is on our website. So it was already scheduled to be there. I'm not done. >> And 904 was voted for in June. Now, yes, the previous school year. Yes, >> that's correct. >> Not the 2425 school year. >> It wasn't on there to be renewed every year. >> The correct >> year for it to be redone >> was the 2425 school year. It was done in the 2324 school year. And it was done for a reason before you got on the board because director Bullan had asked for us cycle was the 2425 school year. >> That is exactly >> with all due respect director Johnson 900 France I'm still talking everybody relax here right just director Johnson finish your statement and then Mary you can you can come in. >> So to continue I I'll read directly from the email from director Herman to add to it. Thank you for your valuable feedback during our December 12th, 2425 policy advisory committee meeting. Attached are the final drafts of the policies for your review with the exception of policies 902 and 904. Policy 904 based on requests for additional information. This policy will be revisited at the next pack meeting. So that came out January 17th. >> Understand that. Who requested it? Cuz the board had just voted on it. It had never gone through the board ever. >> Seeing as it is part of the 900 series and that is the year, right? The 2425 school year was the correct year for it to be redone >> and it was >> and that year started in July. >> Okay, let me finish because you weren't here. Director Bullan had asked in 2023 and again in early 2024 to have it renewed or have it reviewed for signs. We had discussed it at I think at least more than one study sessions because you did a thumbs up for it. It was expedited because of the request. That's why it was voted on and June reviewed by the board and voted on in June of 2024. It was expedited ahead instead of starting with the full schedule on June 30th for the 900s. 904 was moved to June of 2024 >> out of cycle >> and that would have put it out of cycle. >> Director Johnson, it actually was expedited within the cycle to be done sooner than later because of the request from Director Bullan. It was discussed so it would go back on its three-year cycle after the board votes. Robert's rules has has rules. If the board votes in order to bring it back up, the board has to have a discussion because it was now brought up again expedited out of schedule without any discussion at the board table. The the the the direction came through somewhere the committee. I was chair in December. It never passed through me and I was on the policy committee before that when the entire cycle was started. How this got brought up out of sequence after it was already voted on and it was supposed to start on its other three-year schedule is something that was never discussed at the board. That's my first concern. The second concern is the misrepresentation for the policy itself and that is that is a concern that that bears on the integrity of this board. >> Okay. So, I I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't say in here that every 900 series was planned except policy 904, >> but we did. >> So, who brought it up? >> Because >> well, that was in December of 2024 and as chair, you would have been responsible. >> Yes. And nobody brought it up to me. So, how did he get brought up without the chair and the rest of the board knowing? >> Well, I don't know. >> Can I Can I interject? Um Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. You go ahead. Cuz you're on you're also on the committee. >> Go ahead. >> You >> um I'm not interested in I'm not interested in the back and forth. Um, I think given the fact that my name was brought into the conversation regarding a request from May of 2023, that is accurate. As a board at that time, I had asked for signage, not the policy. I had asked for a board discussion regarding um the signage in buildings because the community had emailed the board um before I was ever even elected. That has just been a a a cons a place of concern. So in May of 2023, I asked in a study session if that would be the will of the board to have a discussion regarding it. And it was and sometimes what I've learned in two and a half years of serving on the board is sometime some things in the district seem to seem to move quickly. Some things seem to move slowly as I had um maybe on two occasions I I don't know how many I don't keep track like that. I had brought up at the board table again that I had asked for that and and it was the will of the board to have the discussion. I think where we're having um um concern over this this um policy in talking with Director Herman, who is no longer here, so it's it's hard to talk about her because she's not here to defend. Um but my understanding is that the 900s were always on the schedule and so at the last meeting when the question was arose how did this get back on the docket um a you know it was a long meeting. It was um it it was a long meeting and there was a lot of conversation um and frustration. Um, and I think that after the meeting it was clear that that the 900s were always on it and director Herman expressed frustration that, you know, um, the question was asked, she didn't answer at the time and none of us really like, you know, none of us put it on this schedule, but it it was always on the schedule. The 900s were always on the schedule. And so instead of wasting time, you know, who did what or where, um the the I've heard, you know, from the community in open forum tonight, the concerns that were brought forward, um that it was out of sequence. I don't think that that's I don't I hear that concern and I hear the questions. Um but I I after you know the last meeting and talking with Director Herman um I don't believe that's the case. It was always on the schedule. So I don't believe the out of sequence I don't believe it was out of sequence. Um the other concerns that have been um talked about 904 uh what has been brought forward since that last meeting. No one has brought any specific questions. red lines or like what to add or subtract. And I think if we could just focus our discussion to specifics instead of what happened when we can move forward together as a board and that's what I propose we do. >> Okay. So here's the thing and and and I do have the if I could get my juice back on my laptop. Um, it was brought up in May. It was actually brought up before then. You actually brought it up before then. May was your second request uh to do the thumbs up to talk about um signage. It was actually discussed in that meeting that it is covered in policy 904 and 904 will be discussed according to the schedule. Can you wait? The answer was yes, I can wait to discuss the policy. Then it was brought up again and then the discussion was with the policy committee was we're going to then expedite that and even though it wasn't supposed to start until after July 1st they had room and they brought it up in June and it was discussed at the board and that's why a policy that's normally on a three-year approval schedule got moved up very first in the in an early portion of that next year. That's why there was so much confusion of we already voted on this. It was voted on in June 2024. It is on a three-year schedule. So, if the 900s weren't supposed to start until the 2425 school year, we actually took that and moved it up to satisfy the request for the discussion about signs. And it was discussed quite quite voraciously actually. It was a very very long meeting. um several of the meetings regards that were were long uh but it was moved up and it was voted on. There was no discussion with the board chair and I believe even in I I believe we had a couple of meetings um with you myself and Dr. Thomas and I did not take notes and and record those or anything so I don't remember when but I remember when it was brought up again did we discuss signs because there was a list of things and the answer was yes we did we talked about it in 904 and it was discussed very very lightly again I was as surprised as anyone to see it come back up in May of 2025 and I was contacted by people of the policy committee going I have no idea what's going on so I was totally surprised when then it came up to the board table. Um, but when something is voted on like that, and it is on a three-year schedule, and the board voted on it, and it passed, and I believe it passed unanimously. Um, if we're going to bring it up again with within that three-year schedule, we're basically challenging the last board vote, and there's no problem with that. But it needs to be brought up at a board table and it needs to be discussed that are we going to bring something up that we just voted on that doesn't need to be voted on that isn't due again. And if the if it was the will of board to actually discuss that policy that would be fine but as I've asked people I've learned that there was a whole bunch of conversation and draft policies that were actually introduced that dealt a whole bunch of different things. And as we discussed in the last study session, legal actually got involved with a couple of draft policies that the rest of the board wasn't even aware was being introduced to amend a policy that we had just voted on less than 12 months before. So it's it's not that if somebody has a different opinion about it, that's one thing. But the procedure is if the board voted then and and the vote stands, you don't just rechallenge it in the background and just bring it back up again and say, "Hey, I want to change." That's not how Robert's rules works. That's not how the procedure works. So, if we want to go ahead and discuss it, then let's bring it up formally, have a vote on whether we want to amend policy 904 and stick it on the schedule like it should be. Okay, that's not a problem. The problem that I have is how it actually happened. That's a procedural issue. And then the and because it's not it's it's a procedural issue with rebroke procedure. Then the second thing comes in with the integrity of how it was introduced which is a different discussion not a discussion of procedure. So, if we want to talk about reintroducing policy 904 and have the board vote on whether we're going to take that again out of sequence and vote on it, that is the that is the will of the board. But we should do that instead of just surprising everybody. >> So, how was it a surprise if it was on the schedule? >> So, the schedule again, the schedule was set. We expedited that one because of the request to discuss signage because it got brought up by you multiple times and it was said we were going to wait till policy 904. So with room in there, it was brought in uh slightly earlier, just slightly earlier to expedite it. And that's why policy 904 was voted on in June of 2024 instead of July or August of 2024. That's the whole reason. >> So, my recollection of that was is is a little bit different. And um again, um when 904 came up and was voted on, the the concerns regarding signs in the buildings weren't addressed. Um, and so in conversations that I I had on my one-on ones, um, and so on and so forth, a lot of that was going to be, uh, um, discussed with the strategic plan. Um, we were rebranding. We were going to, you know, be doing a lot of different things with signage, which has happened since the, um, adoption of the strategic plan. Um and so um those didn't coincide and I do you know I I I agree with you that when the when I had brought it up the first time for when there was a thumbs up I don't remember ever bringing it up for two different thumbs up just one and um uh it was mentioned maybe I think that even a director said you know maybe when we discuss 904 or however. Um, that wasn't the stipulation of the discussion that I asked for. >> And I would say I would redirect the conversation because when we did vote on it, there was discussion that Dr. Thomas did lead about reviewing the signage in general because of the new strategic plan. And that that I I don't mean to throw you under the bus here or whatever, but >> remember and and that was part of it that okay, here's our policy on signage and then the review of the signs in the building and what was going to happen was going to be part of the strategic plan. So when we voted on 904, that was something that was brought up by Dr. Thomas and that that I would defer to him. um chair white as being one of the I'm sorry >> I just want to I guess I need some clarification then because um >> I think I can add some clarify um >> so so you're right the procedure should be followed my question is okay it was expedited um Charles wasn't seated until January how did that get brought up in discussion at the December policy meeting Mhm. >> Um I mean I think I think I think the implication is that that Charles might be driving this somehow, but it was discussed before he was on the board. So how did it was something happened at the policy committee level that >> that never made it to the board as a whole, >> right? But I'm just wondering how that how that happened. >> I think I can add some clarification if you guys go back and watch the meeting in June. I went back and watched it and Dr. Thomas, you specifically say when we're reviewing that and it was a short conversation that that policy 904 had nothing to do with posters in the classroom and it was more about um other people handing out flyers and and we had talked about the election. I brought up a concern because of the election concerns and you know different camps of vote yes or vote no and so that that actually joged my memory. Thank you. I don't sometimes don't have great memory, but then I attended that um December meeting and I specifically remember Emily Herman saying something to the fact that um director Bullan when we review 9002 um or whatever policy it was within the 900 series, this policy will come back up for for review for discussion. I specifically remember her saying that. Um, and I don't know if it was the procedures of it that then addressed the posters. Um, and you know, like I understand your concern. I understand your concern, Director France. So, we have a specific policy that says any community member, board member, parent, teacher, blah, blah, blah, whoever, all the people. >> If you have a suggestion for a policy, you can bring it up through the proper channels of Dr. Thomas. Um and and so this the work that was put in for this this policy six months of work or however long it was taken to reviewed cannot be dismissed that you know Dr. Thomas was sitting there reviewing it and and if he didn't feel it was out of sequence for whatever reason at that time Dr. S. Thomas again I don't want to throw you under the bus but um you could have brought that to the committee's attention but it was discussed in December. >> So there's a slight variation in the memory here. the one of the one of the issues was that 904 only deals with >> third parties. >> Okay. >> And the question was that came up was policies that we don't have that addressed things that are put up internally which was not covered by 904. And so the discussion that was brought up was this policy doesn't cover that. It wasn't we're going to go and redo the policy because it was already expedited out of sequence. It was talking about the policy that we may or may not want to have about internal. So not policy 904. It was if you want a policy of that, that's a whole separate discussion because 904 is dedicated to external um third-party um items that go into the school and how that is performed. So, if I if I may, I know my name's been thrown into the mix a few times and and uh like the rest of you, I don't have all, you know, notes or photographic memories of every every meeting that I've ever been in. But I will say this, um yes, the strategic plan process, I've been very public about our brand. Christy and I have been talking a lot about being on brand and email signatures and district approved signage, all that kind of stuff. So that was part of our our marketing if you will to rebrand um around the strat plan etc and our you know the attributes of a learner uh all that um there was a conversation at the policy committee meeting um around some of the and 904 currently does not pertain to district signage. It is that marketing all that you know using our kids for you know pushing product etc. Um and so the the conversation that came up initially was actually a new policy 904.1 that's how this whole conversation of internal com uh signage began and when that was introduced and then reviewed by legal um which we do with a lot of our policies. So it's not just 904. So I want to be very clear about that too. There are some things that get pretty sticky. We'll ask our legal to put eyes on it. Um, and legal suggested that you merge this. Don't write a separate 904.1. Rewrite 904 because there were things in the 904.1 that they said there's a lot of exposure here and you're going to kind of get yourself set up. >> Can I ask you something? >> Who wrote 904.1? Um 904.1 Director Johnson uh brought forward as as a conversation piece. >> Okay. >> 904.1 >> was that ever introduced to the board or to say that we were going to introduce a brand new policy? >> That was not brought into the board. that was brought into the policy committee as part of our conversation of 904 because Emily also had the desk notes that I think director Atinson re uh referenced of 904 being discussed at a later date in policy committee that was around that time as she was leaving that was the desk file note that she shared with me that this is we we also left last week's meeting or whatever it was trying to refresh our brains because it was late and people were fatigued and we're trying to play back the tapes of that so there was a discussion at policy committee level where this was a conversation that was going to happen um this 904 904.1 and the convergence of that it was going to happen um because our 904 only pertained to external and there was the to address some of the questions that uh vice chair Bullan brought up having something internal And then 904.1 gets introduced. Uh, Director Johnson, brand new to the board, and we said, you know what, this hasn't been briefed with the committee at this time. Let's hold on this so we can introduce it to the committee and then get some perspective on that. So, I think that might have been the next policy committee meeting. I don't know, February or so. >> Um, or Jane. Yeah, February. Yeah, that's right. Because you got seated in January. Um so so that's how the convergence of 904 and 904.1 came to be 904 um because it was advised by our attorneys to not have a 0.1 policy um as it stood and so that got introduced to the policy committee in that February time frame and the iteration started to go from there. you know the the process of a review started to go from there. Um so so so again I I think I mean that's my recollection of process. uh I might not have it 100% you know accurately reflected but that's my interpretation of this the chain of events that led to the discussion of introducing um that to the committee and then what gets brought before you today and and then also I believe um I know was referenced a couple of you and some from our community from the committee I guess at the May meeting um there was bigger discussion I was actually at my daughter's college graduation so I was not at that particular meeting where that discussion took place. Um and it must have been June um beginning of June that um I met with Emily Amy or Vice Chair Bullan and Director Johnson and they were talking about the meeting and I'm like time out. I wasn't at this meeting. How did we get to this place? So bring me up to date on that. So they briefed me on that process of discussion that came from that May policy meeting and then um from there a final review was given back to the attorneys I believe to put eyes on that kind of merged language and I think feedback from the committee that landed that conversation in early June perhaps I >> late May early June >> add one bit if you remember correctly um there actually a closing discussion within within the pack committee to completely remove it all from 9004 into a completely separate policy altogether and I don't remember that policy number I I have it written I just >> yes >> it was4 I was at that meeting it was a 400 series policy >> yes I just I don't have the book my other notepad >> it was like an employee it's it was an employee policy Um so go ahead. So and then and then and then we sat down and basically did comparison of does this work. It was the >> it'll come to me. I don't remember what it was. Um yeah. So, and then we we sat down and finalized the language because there there were notes from director Herman on there of highlights and cleanup language, right? >> And not everyone is going to agree on things when it comes to policy. And that's >> that's okay. >> But that's >> so without the rest of the board's knowledge or awareness, a policy we had just voted on was being revised for revote. Well, the >> and that's so that's where I'm going to stick with the procedure because that is >> and I'll just add one conversation point I had with former administration as well and that is um keeping the 900s whole um versus bifrocating whatever policy number or sequence that we're on. If it's pulled out of sequence even if it was approved it should have come in with the 900 so it stays in the 900 sequence. And that was one of the things that um previous administration was adamant that we can't keep handpicking stuff out and then putting it into a different sequence because then it would have been reviewed out of the three-year cycle and then we would have been out of violation of the policy of the board to review every three years >> and and we did talk about that and it was discussed because of the request that kept coming up. Yes, that's how but that's how the 900 >> I get that but we voted on it and no knowledge to the board >> from admin from um from administration came in to say oh now we're changing this back even though we agreed to the to the exception >> aside from the 9 it being part of the 900 batch right >> so when it when it's noticed to the board >> in July that the 900s are going to be reviewed that includes every 900 00, >> right? >> Including the one that had just recently passed to keep it in the sequence of the cycle of the 900s, >> but that was not informed to the board when we said we're taking it out of sequence just to make sure we were satisfying the original request. >> I I don't recall that. But I'm just saying what we notice every front end of every policy. >> I get that. All I'm saying is we >> made that I was one of the very first people on the policy committee when we set up the sequence >> and we knew we were taking it out of sequence >> and we made that one exception and then and then said we're not going to do it again because it's on a three-year cycle. We simply will skip it where it's in that sequence. I don't recall that. >> I was in that conversation when we decided to move it up because I was chair at that time and I know that that was a huge part of the discussion because it it's confusing but because we were only moving it up 30 days wasn't that big of a deal. >> Well, it would have been Yeah, but we wouldn't have been reviewing policy until September. So, it was >> and that's well >> not not 30 days. I mean we we wouldn't hear what July was saying July and that's was the discussion of does it matter one way or the other because this has been it's been outstanding for a long time. It was a request. It had been discussed. You had made the comment. >> I understand the logic of expediting. I don't recall the conversation of pulling it out of its own sequence of the 900s because we wouldn't want to fingerpick any policy out of any sequence because how do we keep track of all the ones that we made? >> That was the discussion. So, I don't recall that, so I can't speak to that. >> Well, when we discussed the agenda, when I went over it with Director Herman, that was the concern. And it's like, okay, how big of a concern is this since July 1st starts next year? >> I mean, it's like June. So, you know, but it was a it was a concern because it had been a request. It had been sitting out there for a while and and it was something that we definitely didn't want to keep ignoring when somebody made a request to have it reviewed. Well, not to have the policy reviewed, to have the concept of signage reviewed. It was kept showing up on our list of things we hadn't done. >> So, where does that leave us now? and I leave it up to the chair because >> well I would say you know I'm listening to this without any historical perspective and so I'm trying to you know jumble this through my mind um from where I sit no matter how it got there it it's here it's not we're not we're not violating any any protocol 904 is part of 900 That's just that's where I'm landing. Um, you know what? Once more time, this is a meeting in public, not a public meeting. I would very much appreciate keeping the chatter down so we can have our discussion. >> Could be serious. Uh so from where I sit um we're we're at first reading tonight and I would suggest any uh red line eliminations additions be submitted to um either Director Johnson or Director Bullion or both. Go ahead. I was just going to say by August 1st, but you go ahead. I'm the director Johnson and I were given um the task from the will of the board on the 200s not the 900 and so I would appreciate to be >> that was my fault >> removed >> you are correct >> thank you guys are both on the policy committee >> when it comes to the board the policy committee members are supposed to represent the the discussions of the policy action uh policy advisory committee in the interim, you know, chairway, if I may. Um, go ahead. >> While we're in the inter transition of HR, I would like to I would be more comfortable with that being submitted to me. >> Okay. >> So that I could have conversation with the two board directors on the on the committee, please. >> Okay. >> Um, I have a few um questions, comments. Um, I know that the policy advisory committee is just that advisory just like our teaching and learning, just like our finance. And I know that these committees don't don't vote, right? They don't take formal votes. They are there in an advisory capacity. I still have concerns about the PA and I've talked to some, not all, um, of the PA committee members, or I'm sorry, the policy advisory committee members. My concern still lies in several have concerns about some of the edits in this policy that the majority of the pol not all but the majority of the policy advisory committee weren't in line with. Um, I know we we heard from a few today and I know we have had some um emails into the uh schoolboard email which to my knowledge hasn't been responded to. So, they have questions about the feedback that they have given at the pack. Um, again, I know they don't vote, but when the majority of a policy advisory committee has some thoughts or very minor thoughts and then they see this, that's concerning to me. That is misrepresentation in my mind. Again, I didn't talk to every member of the policy committee. So, so that's a concern for me. Now, knowing that legal has looked at this, I know from talking to one of the members, you know, is it possible, and I know this doesn't happen very often, at least to my knowledge, is it possible that we can send this back to the policy advisory committee to review again and have another conversation because I know that they were they knew that legal was going to be reviewing it. The policy advisory committee hasn't seen what legal advice was provided. And so is that again I know this probably doesn't happen very often. Is that a possibility that we can take this since we're we moved this to a first reading and it's not a final reading. Can we bring this back to policy advisory committee? And I'm apologies I don't know when the next one is probably when the school year starts. September. Okay. >> Um so there's that's my question. And then number two, if if we have these advisory committees and collectively again majority, not all, um if a majority, you know, thinks or has kind of a a sense of how they want to move, then I think we need to honor that knowing we don't have to agree with it as a board. We don't have to agree with everything and quite, you know, we go through policies all the time. Um but if if this if something like this is being misrepresented, why do we have an advisory committee in the first place? So if that those are the two concerns I have. So concern misrepresentation number one, concern number two, they had some questions that they weren't given any answers to. And then a question about if we can put this back to the PAC PAC for further review and discussion. >> Director Bull. >> So I I appreciate your concerns, Director Olstad. Um and the community's concerns, the um policy advisory committee members concerns. One thing that I'd like to um state uh regarding the concern regarding misrepresentation um from the May 15th policy advisory committee meeting um director Herman along with uh dire uh Dr. Thomas um and Director Johnson and myself, we had another meeting. Um we had a follow-up meeting the following week. So there was um uh we had just And was there anyone else in that meeting? No, the four of us. Uh we we had a follow-up meeting regarding that. Um and we discussed things. I know that there was um language that we were trying to work through. Um you know, so I just I want to I want to say that I hear the concern regarding misrepresentation, but there was one more meeting between the district and uh Director Johnson and I who serve on the policy advisory committee. There was one more meeting with four of us. And so then when we when the policy was um presented to the board, things that were um not uh in um in people's perceptions if they weren't discussed at the policy advisory committee, I still can't grasp exactly what because I'm looking through all of my notes. I'm a notetaker. I'm looking through all of my notes from all of the different meetings and yes, there's there's things that's been changed, but I don't know that it's misrepresentation. I I feel like we were trying to come to a place um to bring to the board that the board can discuss and then move forward on. So, um I I hear you. I appreciate the concerns. I have no problem with it going back to the policy advisory committee other than the fact that it's just more time. But um you know it's that I just wanted to add that added context. But I I hear I hear that but I don't know that misrepresentation is the right word. >> Mer. >> Yeah. Chair White, I'm just looking back at the meeting minutes. Thank goodness for Director Herman for doing good meeting minutes. Um it was introduced on February 13th. It was discussed on March 15th and on May May 15, well looks like March 15th, the whole entire meeting was dedicated. There was only 904 discussed on March 15th and then on May 15th I attended that meeting and that was the primary discussion of the meeting. So I that's a lot of meetings talking about one policy. So I and I didn't have access to this when I was in that meeting because I was just an observer, but I'd like to know how many changes have been made that the policy I mean there's always going to be changes coming out of policy committee meeting and policy is board work is policy work is board work. So while I respect the work of the committee, I just think they've had three meetings to discuss this. So I would question why we would I mean you know what else is going to what else is going to come out of that I guess is my point. >> Well I think that's my point is they've had a lot of these they've had a couple of meetings to discuss this and there's still a lot of confusion. So that kind of goes to my point. >> Yeah. And I think director Olstead um I think that's why we're here having this discussion today. And I am grateful that it got moved to um where we're at today as a you know as for further discussion. So I don't necessarily think it needs to go back to the um the policy committee but I think we can have as much discuss I mean we are elected by our community to do policy work. So I think we can have a lot of conversation here amongst our board members. >> Dr. France. >> So a couple of points of clarification from what I understood from the chronology is it was 904.1 not 904 that went back um number. So, so it wasn't until later that 904.1 and 904 apparently in some meetings um outside the whole board purview were asked to be discussed. But I do ask this, why change the original 904 that was approved in June, a year ago? What is the incentive behind the change? What is it that um members of the board certain members of the board are trying to do here? What why the why was the change needed? >> In my in my perception or my understanding, it is the procedures on if there's if there is issue with signs in the building having having that laid out. >> But that's not the changes that were made. The changes that were made essentially say that the board is going to determine what teachers put in their classroom. >> Where does it say that? Well, that's assumed in the language that's put in there. And I think that's where the question of the >> Let's go to that spot. >> Okay. >> We're talking about 4D. >> Sorry. >> We're talking about the changes in two places. >> So would be 2e if it's >> formally approved by documents or resources means any materials, documents or resources formally approved by the school board or school administration. Why is the school board in there at all? These are classroom level. We are a governing board, not a managing board. >> So, Director France, um this I I asked the same question, but then my memory goes back to the fact that we just approved a library materials policy and we have the exact same um flow of approvals with that same policy. And so I I don't disagree with us because at the end of the day >> um you know >> okay what was stated we represent our community >> library materials are different from instructional materials that a teacher puts in their classroom >> but it is in that policy and that's the hierarchy that we approved. >> You're not comparing apples to apples. >> I am I'm clearly comparing apples to apples. So >> So I want to I want to cut to the chase here. The reason for the changes in here were so the board can walk into a classroom and tell a teacher they can't put something on a wall >> because if that's the case then we need to >> completely misre misrepresenting the intent of the policy. But you're still I understand you have a question to ask. I mean, just from sitting on the board and reading the emails that we've received about controversial um items in the school district, um we've we've all seen the emails, right? This is not this is just not one person complaining in our district. We see the emails and we I think this also goes back to the strategic plan where we are um tasked with aligning our our policies to our strategic plan. It goes back to signage that like you said is on branded on brand. Also creating unity, creating a um a less distracting and um learning environment. And when I say unity, there are people in this district that are opposed to a lot of political signs that are in our district. And I can tell you if somebody had a red elephant elephant sign hanging in their classroom, we'd hear about it all also. So I I think in order what does that mean, you know, in order to um I think that's just really the the gist of it. If somebody wants to answer the question, where does this come from? >> I'm gonna ask another question because you seem to be more involved with this policy than the two committee members on the policy. >> I just attended the meetings. I've had nothing to do with this policy. >> Okay. Well, that's goes beyond. But um >> why does that go beyond director France? >> And and the thing is is that I just want to say that I am not in an agreement with the changes. The changes were legal. the changes followed the model policy. they these new changes do not follow the model policy and add in language that injects the board into a management role into the classroom and I think that is the primary goal of this particular of these changes and I think that's what is trying to be hidden in here and that is what I think that the policy committee had an issue with that is what I have an issue with that is what the teachers have an issue with and they should have an issue with it because if you put up a map that has the Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America on it, I have a feeling you are going to be the first one to complain. Is that a true statement? >> Um, if it looks like if it's if it's upsetting somebody, then we have a policy that they can go through and follow. Right now, we don't have a policy to be honest with you. >> We do have a policy. Yes. Well, we did have a policy. We still do have a policy because this one has not yet been approved. >> We don't have a policy currently that addresses that. Is that correct policy? I mean, I'd like to hear from platoon policy members. I mean, you guys worked on this, so >> to say we I'm I'm I'm sorry. I'm not following why we the comment that we don't have a policy >> to address signage in the classrooms. >> Well, right now as as we don't need a we don't need a policy. I could go into a classroom right now and make a determination on how to regulate what is on the walls or what's in the classroom. a as as district speech because that's I mean I'm just letting you all know that's the authority I would have as a superintendent that I would delegate even to principles or whatever like that exists right now. >> Yeah, Dr. Thomas, I think you make a very good point that needs to be reiterated that as um could if you could speak more about that as far as employee speech in our district, what what what um how that's different than just um even student speech or anything? Well, there's there are laws that do protect teachers differently than students, right? Specifically teachers. >> Um, and I can't speak to that off the top of my head which law that is, but there are some different ways of of freedoms of speech that teachers >> um or educators, you know, compared to like a student can say here, you know, different things like that, >> right? Um but to the question here about which policy um currently gives I'll just use me gives me the authority to do that. I don't need a policy to do that. Um I have that authority right now to go into a classroom and say I don't want that particular illustration of whatever it might be on the walls for whatever reason. I have that authority as a superintendent. >> Okay. >> Right. because they're they're employees of our district, >> right? And so I can set the context for the expectations that I may have. >> Um and and so I guess I I don't know who asked that question about >> I >> the policy, but I'm just saying I don't I don't know of a policy that tells me that. It's just part of the inherent managerial rights that I have as a superintendent >> and and as a board, as a governing board, we have one employee and that's a superintendent. >> Uh to have board members go into classrooms and take pictures of classrooms because of they're concerned about a sign on a wall or anything like that is not only wholly inappropriate, we're way overststepping our bounds. And if we're supposed to be trusting the teachers, as by the way, a all the emails, even the ones that were pro, there were very few that were pro uh getting rid of the equity uh thing, but of those they said you need to trust the teachers to do what's right in the classroom. And they said that you almost unanimously. What this policy does and the or statement in there is basically says the school board can walk into a classroom and say instructor so and so you cannot put this on your wall. Okay. And and encourage people and most of the complaints about the signs in the buildings do not come from people with students in our buildings. They come from people. >> Point of order. Director France. Point of order. That is first of all your point of order is a rule. I understand that. But that is completely first of all >> the point of order is not for first of all to insinuate that any board member would walk in to a classroom that's really >> that's just so sad that you would even say that. I mean honestly I've heard that too. >> It's incredibly sad. I mean >> well it's incredibly sad. And so I I think what we're trying to do is solve a problem that we have a dis in our district. That is what policy is. It's about solving a problem. And you cannot sit here, you cannot tell me, you can honestly sit here at this board table and tell me that you have not seen the emails of the concerns of parents about signage in our district. >> So, so and and and that is what this policy is trying to solve. >> If the parents are about signage, they can go to the superintendent. >> Okay. The superintendent manages that through the principles and the teachers. That is not our role. So, if I may, >> I think Director Johnson's hand was the first. >> Sorry, I didn't see that. Go for it. >> I just wanted to clarify that by no way I think to speak for myself any nor with the policy 904.1 was it the intention to have a board director walk into a classroom and tell somebody to take anything off the wall. So I just wanted to make that clear. It was simply to make sure that one, right, there's a clear outline, right? A chain of command if somebody has a complaint. There you go. Right. Which is in there. >> It has the or in there though. Director Johnson >> have the order in there >> and we have a chain of command and that is the superintendent. So I I mean when I read the language and again I have been removed from policy committee but just reading the language and like the use of the word or I actually appreciate I think that you know we're not saying an individual schoolboard member could do this. I you know we as a board meaning the majority vote would have the authority to like if there were a major concern brought forth that maybe Dr. Thomas approved that we were getting more complaints on. I would think as a board a majority vote would have the authority to say no, you need to take it down or yes, we accept it. That's the way I read the language. Not any individual board member certainly and and only in the event that if there was some major escalation that maybe we disagreed with administration like I don't >> but we >> I don't feel like this gives us the authority as individuals to remove things from teachers walls >> but we already have that if something comes up we can tell the superintendent we want to have discussion or we have that with everything. >> Sure. So this sort of just reiterates that statement in my opinion how this reads >> but it has or >> where which or >> so point um sorry point 2 under definitions E is I think what we're looking at and it says approved materials firmly approved by the school board or district administration right >> so maybe it needs maybe the suggestion is to reward that to say >> by the district administration you know ultimate authority I don't know how other policies are rewarded but if that's the concern like I I again I'm just or wording if that matters. But um all I'm saying is that >> we're not giving individual authority to board members is I think >> is that the suggestion >> there wasn't a need for part E to begin with. That's the first thing. The second thing is the or in there makes a school board equal to administration on these decisions and we should not be we are a governing board. The superintendent and we have a hierarchy. >> So how would you suggest the language? We don't need the language. That's what I'm saying. We already have a hierarchy that's already in our 200 policies of our hierarchy. We already have it where we are a governing board and we delegate the day-to-day administration to the superintendent who then has the right to delegate it to everyone else. When the board injects themselves in the daytoday work, we are introducing chaos and we are none of us here are qualified to make the decisions in that area. So the whole purpose behind this statement is not only not needed but also it in it and it injects a brand new hierarchy that someone and people have kind of tried to take advantage of and I am not happy with that. That is not our role. So again, I feel like personally, again, me just looking at this coming not from policy and I haven't been privy to a lot of the discussion, the approved materials language around if you took out the school board out of this language, we don't really have it anywhere stating basically that our our resources are going to be aligned to strategic plan and and district-wide initiatives. I think that it it seems like to me that's how I read the intent of that point. >> So I mean again taking out the word schoolboard that's how I read the intent. Now I think the question becomes you know is it maybe we remove that and we reserve the authority if there was some sort of escalation. I don't know but that's my perspective. >> We have that in procedures already. >> It is covered in D. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. if you wanted to take >> so the school board completely out of E. >> I think >> the school board does approve the materials. >> Anyways, >> it's true. >> No, actually we delegate the classroom materials to the strategic plan into the >> the strategish plan does not say the school board does anything. The strategic plan has a bunch of principles. The >> strategic plan is approved by the board. >> Yes, it is. But the strategic plan is not is not discreet at all. is a series of principles and that's it. And it's a principles that just about every other school district shares. So I I I I question why and I'm going to go back to it. Why was this even modified to begin with? >> Are we working with removing the school board from letter E? Would would we like to go to reworking letter E? Is that your suggestion, director? >> My first suggestion is letter E really isn't required at all because the the superintendent already has the approved materials that is embedded in his role and he delegates that out to principles, other administrators and and all that. >> I could I could see how that E is redundant. Yeah. >> And probably isn't needed because if you're looking for a procedural way for someone to address a concern, it's covered in D because it kind of works its way up. >> I do like the statement of having approved materials. Basically stating something that we want our materials to align with the strategic plan, instruction materials, district initiatives. I think that's the piece of the statement that I actually like. But again, if it's the schoolboard piece that is the point of conflict, then I would say just strike that and that's, you know, we're ultimately on D. >> Well, okay. The strategic plan again is not discreet. There's nothing in there that tells us what materials >> are in there. There's no alignment to it. >> It's it's it it actually opens the door to weaponize the strategic plan to try and manipulate it. And that's not what the strategic plan is for. Basically, it's a series of principles that says we honor academic excellence, we honor inclusion, we honor all those things in there, we honor community involvement. There's no approved materials that would you there's no line there's no linear line to that. So what? So the whole addition of e and then the or statement in there. I mean there had to be a reason why this was even added to begin with. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of it because I never got an answer to my question about the map. >> What the map? If a map goes up in a in a teacher's classroom, to be blunt, and it says Gulf of Mexico, Director Actinson, are you and the group that you have in your so-called community going to start emailing? I'm being honest. >> Excuse me. >> That is so offensive. Director France, I can't even start. And and I would say, >> let's get back to the language. >> Let's just get back to and keep politics out of our board table and keep politics out of our district. Okay. Honestly, I believe the whole reason E is put in there is because of politics and that's what concerns me. The board does not belong in the >> This is a first reading. So, >> um do we have consensus that E is even needed in in at all? Cuz I think I think I think it's redundant. I could I could live with scratching it because you're you're asking for a definition of approved materials. Um, and then the redundancy is board approved instructional materials and and other things. I I I I don't think it's necessary. I think it's again redundant. If we're if the goal was to give the community, whoever that may be, a procedure to address a concern, it's covered in D. I don't I don't think this is needed at all. And I I wonder if the board could live without it. Well, my only concern about that is when you go to the next page, and I don't know, there's no numbers, so I'm just going to say section 1, two, three, four on section four where it's in blue, it does talk about approved materials, and I I would believe that that's why it's defined approved. Wouldn't approve materials be explanatory? No, I I think it needs to be if we take the word out there, then I think we need to take the language from E which says including but not limited to the district's curriculum, the strategic plan, board approved instructional materials, districtwide initiatives, and other foundational documents that guide the district's mission, vision, and operations. So I think if we're going to take the definition off, I think we need to take that sentence and move it over to that section so that we have clear understanding of how the materials that um enrich students learning experiences by supporting enhancing Prior Lake Savage area schools. >> Okay. So we also have the paragraph in there that said the superintendent of schools or designate will implement this policy within the scope of federal and state laws and exercise professional judgment under three >> as necessary. >> Yep. >> In the best interests of students. So we're we're delegating >> to the superintendent there. Also we already have a policy on approved instructional materials and again this is third-party whatever coming in here. So E technically is not needed at all. >> I would tend to agree. So I mean I'm trying to get to a >> catch us on on this particular paragraph. >> I actually like it stated that we are trying to have the things on, you know, our our materials align to either the curriculum that they're teaching, the strategic plan, board approved, you know, district-wide initiatives, whatever they are. I think that to me that's important. Like I don't um context matters. If you bring up the situation about a map, I mean, if that's in a history classroom, fine. But if it's in another classroom trying to make a political statement, that's a different story. Like, I think it's context matters. And I do think that the things in our classroom should be relevant to the instruction, >> but that's covered in the very last paragraph of section three. >> Exactly. >> Yes. >> I don't I don't feel like it's stated explicitly. It's not we don't we don't state it out in in like we don't we like I said if we took that definition and we moved it over here I think we'd be good and we have a policy on instructional materials already. >> So my question to the board is can we live without E? And I'm looking for thumbs up thumb down. >> I can live without it. >> I can live without it. >> I can live without it. All right, then we're going to scratch E. >> Um, question under general statement of policy, the second paragraph where it talks about federal and state laws. Which ones? >> The general statement of policy, uh, the second paragraph that starts with the superintendent of schools. Um, it says the policy within the scope of federal and state laws. I I don't know what those are pertaining to any if you can shed any light. >> I think those would be the legal references in the back. >> Yeah, those are just the legal references >> at the bottom. >> Yeah. >> And that that applies to fault anyways regardless. Yeah, >> it's it's it's it's just it's it's kind of window dressing there, but it just reinforces the statutes at the bottom of the policy. >> Thank you. Um and then the last sentence in that paragraph >> in the best interest of students uh yeah is it starts in cases of differences opinion the decision of the school board will be final. Um >> yeah I don't I disagree with that. >> I I disagree with that too. Um and I don't think that's needed if we take e out. Um I I believe that we already have rules that says the superintendent is her only employee and if people have concerns there's we have to follow the hierarchy and then if we want to bring it up as a board we can bring up anything we want as a board. We don't have to have these things written in here like this and also be duplicative and and potentially well incendiary. >> Thank you for bringing that up. >> Do we have that process in other policy? >> We do. the library policy, curriculum policy, it's in a lot of different policies because ultimately we're the board. I mean, that's and I get I don't need to hear we're a managing board versus a governing board. I I'm fully aware of the difference. >> I'm just wondering I'm just saying that >> that those concerns that I'm hearing >> I think they're covered in D. It gives anyone in this district who has a concern as long to climb as we leave D written as D then I can see where that could be as long as D because it is duplicative. It does say it in >> you could put a period after >> so >> state laws or >> and we don't repeat it everywhere nor do we need to um any complaints regarding anything should always go to the superintendent or to the school administrator. We have that in our own policies and they currently do that. So again it's it's duplicative. And here's the problem with when you put duplicative language in policies is when you change it or let's say we change it in the 200s for instance then you've got to go through every other policy and change it. You only need it once and that's the whole reason why you want efficiency in these things. And that's one of the reasons why um I believe director Herman before she left started to make these things a little bit more streamlined to say if it's already in one policy you don't need to say it in another because it's a maintenance nightmare for administration. Chair White. >> Yes. >> Can may I suggest that we just do the period at the end of the first sentence at the end of students? >> Victor Johnson, are you in 4D? >> Uh, under procedures second paragraph of three. >> Yes. General statement of policy. Second paragraph. >> I just I don't >> I don't have my other notebook here. I I switched I ran out of room. >> Um, and I don't know why Director Herman put all that other stuff >> in there. And I know that this was sent to legal just with with all the other annotations that she made. >> Scratch. >> Um, >> so is it because I know you suggested write period at the end of state and federal laws. So just scratch the last sentence as >> the period would be after the word necessary. >> No, after the word students after students. >> And I agree with that. I think that's >> and then you're striking the last sentence. >> And strike the last sentence. Yeah. I agree. It is. >> Yeah, I'm fine. >> As long as >> Are we closer to good? >> So, we have E E struck up under two. And then in the in section three, second paragraph, our period is ending after students. >> Students. Yeah, correct. and the rest is the same. >> Okay. So, second reading on August is it 11th? >> August 11th. >> When is the next policy committee meeting in September? >> September. >> All right. I appreciate guys. Um any uh next on the agenda is administrative reports. Are there any admin reports? Probably not. >> No, I'm sorry. I know we're looking at 9:40, but uh so team, this is where we would typically have reports, but just for the sake of time, it's the two of you, Michael as well, if you'd like to say anything or just introduce yourself to the board or take that time. >> Yeah, absolutely. Sure. Hi everyone. Uh Michael Kudson again. Um thank you so much for the opportunity. Um really just doing my best to to keep the trains moving uh in human resources and uh administrative services. Um Emily had big shoes to fill and um I'm hoping with uh along with uh Dr. Thomas that we can find a wonderful candidate to uh to fill those shoes. In the meantime, I'd just like to shout out our incredible payroll and human resources team. they've done an incredible job uh picking up the slack. In the meantime, um with three big transitions across the organization, there have been people stepping up left and right the last few weeks to um just rise to any challenges that have come up and just wanted to express my appreciation to all those folks who have done that. So, that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Um hi. um very happy to be here at Prior Lake Savage Area Schools and I I echo the fact that the staff that in one day it's like it's so evident how the quality of the staff that I am going to be able to work with is wonderful. So I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to that. And um I am I am I'm very excited to be here and to be able to provide some support and clarity where possible. >> Welcome. >> Just to keep the trains moving. Great phrase. Um this should only take 30 40 minutes. So, >> um, in other roles in other places, I've sometimes been accused of being overly verbose, but I think I'll fit right in. And so, um, I just thank you for the opportunity. It's great to join, uh, Dr. Thomas and these fine folks. Uh, I would echo the same thing. The staff is, uh, super committed. This is day five. Um, so you wait till day five. Um, >> uh, super aligned and and it's clear they they're just so committed to kids and the community. Um and so it's a privilege to to join that team and I look forward to working with all of you. So thanks uh thank you very much for the welcome. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any more reports? Going a little slower right now. Anything recent? Anybody? No. Okay. Then we are to future events. Uh board retreat next Monday uh at 6:00 till 8. Hard stop at 8. Um, as we vote on tonight, the school board filing period for the seat that I currently hold will be July 29th through August 12th. Our next regular meeting is on August 11th. Uh, if there's nothing more to come before the board, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So made >> by Director Bull, >> second >> by Director France. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That carries at 70. Thank you.