All right. I now call the Force Lake Area School Regular School Board Meeting for Thursday to February 19th to order. Please join us while we recite the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Member clerk, will you please take the roll call of attendance? >> Yep. Member Rebeline >> here. Member Corkran >> here. Member Antonson is here. Member Christensen >> here. >> Member Tyson >> here. >> And member Castle >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> All right. Great. I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion to second. Is there any discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed. Motion carries. Brings us to scheduled and unscheduled visitors this evening. I have two green cards. Um this really quick here. Although the board is not legally required to offer public comment, we believe it's an important part of community interaction and have included it on tonight's agenda. We ask that speakers keep their comments relevant to the indicated agenda item, be respectful, avoid personal comments about board members, and refrain from sharing private or sensitive information. This process is not interactive. We request that everyone present be respectful of commenters and refrain from making their own comments or applauding to help keep things moving. Speakers will have three minutes. The clerk will give notification to speakers as their time is expiring and the chair will strike the gavl once your time is expired. Shuffle both of the green cards here and we'll call speakers by first name and last initial. Please be ready when it's your turn. We'll start with Claire L and Andy C will be undecked. >> Hi, good evening Dr. Massie and school board members. Um, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to speak on agenda item 7.1, the appointment of district legal counsel. Like many other community members, I am very concerned with the idea of Mr. Beck representing the Forest Lake School District. I'm going to speak respectfully, but frankly. First and foremost, Mr. Beck seems to move to a different employer every few years, at least throughout the last decade. In any employment setting, the instability of that non-committal pattern would be concerning, even more so for a public school district where taxpayer costs and our reputation are involved. In addition to the apparent inability to stay on board with the same firm for more than a few years, it also isn't clear who exactly Beck Law Group is. It doesn't appear to exist. This is in contrast to what appears to the Minnesota judicial branch records which places Mr. Beck with Robishard Schroer and Cora. Of course, there might be a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency, but as with many agenda items over the last year, we have yet another transparency issue with the lack of public information on this two-week old agenda item. For context, it's worth noting that every other attorney recommended by administration and appointed as legal counsel has a well-detailed resume publicly available for review. Mr. Beck's lack of experience representing public school districts is probably the biggest red flag because it means he's not qualified to represent Forest Lake Area Schools. While Mr. Beck's case history and affiliation suggests that he's very comfortable suing school districts. School law clearly isn't isn't his area of practice. And that opens the district up to easily avoidable vulnerabilities that could be avoided with a more responsible recommendation. Because while anyone can sue a school district for any claim, the opposite isn't true. As with public education funding, public education law is complex and our schools, our students, and our employees deserve appropriate representation that is in alignment with our district values. Our district taxpayers deserve to know that their dollars are being spent responsibly and it is clearer than ever that experience and knowledge of public education make a difference. There are seasoned and knowledgeable attorneys with far clearer reputations for professionalism and good ethics, some of whom are from the same firms that already represent the district and who come MSBA recommended. Those are the attorneys the school board should consider tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right, that brings us to Andy C. Well, it's hard to follow Claire after that, but um yeah, I I would like to add to that. Uh pursuant to what she said about 7.1, it seems Mr. Beck has a focus on um HR and employer oriented or employer facing outward law practice. And it doesn't seem to me from what I could surmise from research to be an all-inclusive or comprehensive educational legal representation to have on retainer just as a general like overarching uh attorney to have uh on hand. I think we can do better. Um and Claire gave a very nice background as to where we can do better as well in addition to what I just cited. So I think that's probably enough for that. And then I just wanted to say a few words of encouragement for the achievement inte integration plan to just accept that for uh what it is. I'm excited to see what some of those metrics produce over the next couple years in our students and at the independent buildings. Um and so yeah, let's let's see what happens with that. Um and thank you guys for what you're about to do tonight. Appreciate you guys. >> Thank you Andy. >> All right, that brings us to committee reports. I'll start with the 916 report. That report is very brief this evening. Uh um when we had our last meeting on February 4th, uh we met with our lobbyists there. They gave us an up an update on the upcoming 20 26 legislative session, legislative platform that the intermediate school districts have adopted. And we also worked through um approval of the legislative platform and we approved the dates for the extended school year and summer programming for various 916 programs in 2026. And that concludes my report. which will bring us to buildings and grounds uh committee report. Uh director Ren Bghetti, >> thank you very much. We had a wonderful evening tonight at the maintenance building. And so we know that that's coming up for uh roof and also fire suppression uh redoing this summer. And so we got to see the need for that. While we were there, we also got to review all of our uh grounds equipment uh and talk about that and the replacement schedule that we have. Um, we also talk about snow plowing. So, we usually plan for around three to eight snow events in a winter. And so, we are just at that low end. We've had three so far. We're only in February, so you know, there'll be a couple more, but um, looking good for snow plowing this year. And then the other thing that we talked about is our partnership with the city of Forest Lakes. So, um, community ad director McKinnon and I have been meeting with the parks and wreck, um, person at the city, Kyle Young, along with the maintenance director, um, Dave, and he, we've been working on our fields and our recreation areas in the district, talking about the fact that they have fields, we have fields of baseball, of lacrosse, of all those areas. And so, uh, we're looking to do a comprehensive study, uh, with the city on all the recreational spaces within the district, including the ice arena and also the potential of a pool, uh, a need for a pool in the community. And so with that, uh, we'll be looking to undergo a study, um, with a firm that specializes in recreational areas and through the month of March and April and then bring that back to the board and talk about what those needs might be. And the main thing here is we're each doing the same thing in a very close uh space to each other. And so we want to make sure that we're utilizing uh everything that we can to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible. And so that's um what we've been working on for the last couple months, but just wanted to report out on that. And that was our buildings and grounds committee. >> Wonderful. Did anybody have any questions? [clears throat] >> All right. Seeing none, we'll move to uh finance. Director, >> thank you. Uh so in finance tonight we did our budget status and enrollment update. Both are looking really good. We talked about what our budget planning will look like and different committees that are happening legislatively and other as we prepare for that FY27 budget. We did also talk about uh the work around the reboundering that we've done including sending um an email and letters to families that are changing buildings making sure where they want to be. As a reminder to families, March 1st is that deadline to get if anyone wants to stay at an elementary that they had a boundary change into a different one. They need to get that in district transfer form to us by March 1st. Uh we did then go into self-insurance fund balance just talking again about how we can make sure um that we're getting that fund into the positive um but also making sure we're not getting increases that are too large for that. And then we did the federal audit. So we reviewed the audit. We have about $4.5 million worth of federal funds. That audit came back um with an unmodified opinion, clean opinion, and so that uh will be presented to the board and hopefully accepted coming up here on March 5th. >> All right. Thank you. I did have one question on the self- insurance fund balance. How is that looking? >> Uh it's looking really good. So, we were negative only by about 365,000 last year. So, we anticipate um about over a million positive next year. So, that's really exciting. That's an excellent one-year turnaround as well. Does anybody else have any other questions? [clears throat] >> All right, seeing none, we will move to Director McKinnon for the inaugural report from [clears throat] communications, family, and student engagement. >> Yes, with our our newly branded name. Um, uh, tonight we started off with just an overview of our current monthly topics and then talked about areas of which we may want to look to expand. Um, we talked about social media and marketing in our district and really the use of social media and what we are and what we are not. We're not necessarily marketing focused uh per se. However, it is certainly marketing when we're showing uh kids who are engaged in classrooms, all the different activities. Each of our schools have their independent or individual uh Facebook pages, our our sports booster clubs have them, our PTO's have them, community ed, we have one, uh early childhood has one. So, lots of different ways at which our district does get shown in a very positive light. Um, we moved on to talk about the the quarterly newsletter, although as Renee said, newsletter might not be the best name for it because it's not necessarily all just about news, but more about things people need to know and getting that information out. Um, information like this is being registration season and kindergarten enrollment. Uh, key dates that are things that are coming up. um here's uh what's going on with the with the bullying prevention work group that's being done in the district. So ways of getting now the information out to our families on a quarterly basis and then we transition into our elementary reboundry communications. Again, continually making sure that everything possible that can be known to families with this re reshift that's coming up here uh from this year to next is is out there. and uh very individualized letters actually went out um recently. It was five different versions of those letters depending upon what your situation was. If you were moving from one elementary geographic location to another or if you live in one elementary geographic location but you've been like in district enrollment to another. So identifying what people's specific circumstances were then dictated what type of letter they got for individual communication there. And then we closed out with some uh just an update on our community ed catalog. We we our catalog got out there. It was a little bit delayed. We had some printer delays that were on the printers end that we've been able to work through. And so the winter catalog is there and the wind the spring one will be coming very soon. We're always in catalog mode and and then gave an update on just some registration software stuff that we have in community yet. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions? >> I have a question and it was a lot of conversation in there tonight. I'm happy to be part of this committee for the first time. Um, do you typically or historically have you had community members on this committee, parents? Uh, no. >> We we certainly can. Um, we have had some and then some come and some drop. We right now we have two administrators or principles on there along with Renee and myself and we certainly would welcome the perspective of any and others. We've had we've put it out there to um our principles to recruit if they know anybody that have. That's how we've most often got some of our community members to become more involved and engaged in that committee. Okay. And then >> and variably things come up or schedules get full and then they drop off. But we have Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just thinking with the update to the name and the focus expanding to families and student engagement. I'm sorry I didn't bring it up earlier, but we were talking about a lot of different things and yeah, I just didn't have Yeah. the window. So, I just thought I'd bring it up now as a possibility to think about it. >> It'll be it's a good time now to go back to our our admin team much like we've done in the past and say, "Hey, you know, if you we welcome the perspectives because, you know, I mean, I look at it through the lens of a district administrator and a community director. Renee looks at it through the lens of the communications coordinator. >> Getting the perspective of our principles is is awesome. getting teachers or community members saying here's what communications is right two-way message out message receive and making sure that our message is being received is very important to us and uh we welcome that perspective >> great well um director McKinnon and member antinensson's point it's it's a little different but there's also the community at advisory council which meets monthly and it doesn't have the same focus as the committee that just changed now but there's what three I'm trying to think off top at least three community members on that. >> Yeah, there's there's five. I think there's there's three that show up every single meeting and they've been coming for many years. >> Just to your point, I mean, there is some there's community involvement on that committee. It's not, you know, the exact same, but >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But it's it's welcomed participation >> given the topics that we cover. Absolutely. >> Perfect. Yeah. member Tyson >> and we also talked about in tonight's meeting how when we went through a lot of communication transitions and changes and updates with working on logo and working on taglines and all that stuff. We had a very robust group and I think we've fine-tuned a lot of things. We talked about how the digital backpack has made its final transition and is [snorts] been around for a while now. So, I think we're at a point where, excuse me, with a new name, we can maybe engage some more people, but absolutely there were was a time when there weren't enough cheers in there. So, >> and then can we talk about or can we share what Rene's thinking for the name of the newsletter, >> Renee? >> Yeah, because it's awesome. >> It's awesome. [laughter] She said yes. Go ahead. It's going to be called the Ranger Family Connect. >> So, yep. excited >> that quarterly newslet more colorful than quarterly newsletter. [laughter] >> Yeah, sounds good. >> Definitely. >> So, and that'll be mailed. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that is mailed, right, Renee? >> Emiled. >> Emmailed. >> Emailed. >> And that will include a please join the committee. >> There you There you go. >> There you go. >> Awesome. >> All right. Anything else? >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. We will move on to curriculum instruction equity. Director Jacobson. >> Yes. Thank you for having me this evening. We had uh Kelly Wilson, our director of special education, uh join us to talk about uh our scope of special education services that we offer uh to our families, to our communities throughout the school district. We started by talking [clears throat] about the overlap or the connection to general education, knowing that all of our students are general education first and that special education is there to support them in the g general ed setting and provide those whatever level of access or need uh that they they they have. Uh our committee learned that in special education services we service families students all the way to age 22 and as early as birth or even earlier than that if there's a known disability prior to birth uh we provide services to the family um uh director Wilson talked us through the different tiers of support starting with tier one in the classroom uh certain programs and ways that we use funds to uh provide supports even prior to special education services because our goal goal as a district is not to grow our special education program but instead to have just the right dose of support for whatever a student needs. Uh and then we talked about the federal settings, federal 7 one, two, and three. What is the difference between the different federal settings? And then federal setting four. What does what happens when if a student and a family and an IEP team agree agree that a federal setting 4 is what's the best and most appropriate uh level of service for a student and talking a little bit about how 916 operates in that regard. Um so uh really vibrant discussion uh really good question. We had questions. We had some uh uh commu committee members who happen to be parents of current or former uh special education students in our district as part of this discussion and so it was um yeah it was it was a good discussion all out. >> All right. Thank you, Director Jacobson. Does anybody have any questions? >> No, I just thought it was it was a great presentation. I learned a lot. I thought I knew a lot about special ed, but Director Wilson did a great job explaining it all and kind of the different tiers and and I me one of the members on the committee also said the mis mis understanding of special ed in the community sometimes. Yep. And how people don't really understand how it's funded and you know how that money's brought into the district. So that's something that'd be nice to you know it's hard to explain but you know it's it's something we can look at for the future for more education. >> But thank you that was a great presentation. Yeah. for sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, we will move to policy. Director Freeman. >> Good evening. Kindly forgive me. I sound like a fraud. It is what it is. Um, so this evening we talked about the student transportation safety policy and making some structural changes to that that would bring it more into alignment with the the MSBA model, which is not required. Um, but it might be helpful both from a a user perspective as well as from a staff perspective [clears throat] as and we also talked about the student information, student data usage policy and we talked about just basically adding 10 pages to it that we have previously omitted um permissibly omitted from it trying to make it more user friendly. But we've determined that um if it's going to be not user friendly, 20 pages is probably about the same as 30 and it will help staff be able to figure out where the changes where the changes are coming in and being able to track those a little bit better. So, and when then we had some conversation about our directory information which has changed so to bring that into alignment with state statute. >> Okay, that's it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move [clears throat] to staff welfare. Uh Dr. Massie. >> All right. We covered a number of topics, some of which have already been addressed by other directors in their committees. One of which was enrollment. I'm happy to continue to share that enrollment is trending in a very stable way. We are trending ahead of the number that we budgeted for the year. And that just means that we are on the positive side of enrollment. While enrollment isn't necessarily increasing, it's staying steady. Uh the year after year trend of losing a hundred students, give or take uh we is we're entering a different era where we're are factoring fewer much less loss than we have in the past. So that is a really positive trend with the backdrop of fewer kids living in our district, declining birth rates. So, I think that's a really positive testament to the overall appeal our district has to the community and surrounding communities. We talked about our budget development work. Uh we are in the throws of that work now. Uh as was mentioned in other committees, the boundary work that we did a year ago. If you recall, we made significant changes to elementary boundaries that tied into the closing of one of our elementary schools. And the reason for that was to create more efficiency in terms of our elementary schools. And with one less elementary school, shifting boundaries as we get through the communication with [clears throat] families around where their new elementary school boundary is and getting information from families on which on whether or not they're going to actually move to that school or drive their kids to their current school. As we sort through that, we're getting really clear indications that we we created really nice balanced schools that will lead to more efficiency in grade level enrollment and as a result grade level staffing. So from less efficiency to more efficiency um is just going to be a more a positive development with budgeting and staffing overall. So, we're excited about that development. We also spent some time uh talking about and providing updates to the conversation that emerged about a week ago around concerns with Lifeouch, our photography uh service. And I spent a lot of time with our directors um studying that issue, trying to better understand the dynamics of that issue over the last number of days consulting with other districts, other superintendents, reviewing the communication from Lifeouch, the CEO from Lifeouch um to conclude that the concerns with [cough] the the the financer for Shutterfly that bought Lifeouch five years ago. Um that the uh Shutterfly and and the Apollo the funding group for Shutterfly is several layers removed from the actual operation of Lifeouch. We received assurances from Lifeouch that none of the student data, student files was ever breached by the financial um financer for Apollo Management Company or any other breach of student files. So, our student photos and the billions of other student photos nationwide have been secure, have always been secure, and has never been a breach. So with that level of assurance and confidence, we are going to continue with life touch and continue to monitor whether or not for other developments should there be one. But I think that's the prudent way to go at this time. We have a number of engagements yet this year that we want to continue to provide for our families and we'll monitor moving forward. >> Yeah. >> And that would conclude my report. >> All right. Thank you, Dr. Massie. Does [clears throat] anybody have any questions? So, there was an email and it was suggested that we use a local uh company to do this instead. So, have we ever done bidding to find out if that would be feasible? >> You know, we have not done uh a request for proposals for uh a local photography company. The level of service that we receive is quite extensive. Not to say that a local provider couldn't provide that, but we get our student ID badges, our staff ID badges. They provide photos and support for yearbooks across all of our elementary schools. Uh they do class photos. They do student photos in the fall and again in the spring. So, it's quite extensive and they are a comprehensive organization that provides uh a real depth of service. It doesn't mean that we couldn't go out for a request for a proposal uh should the board want us to do that. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Seeing no other discussion. Um does anybody have any item they would like to remove from the consent agenda? >> All right. In that case, I would entertain a motion to approve 6.1 through 6.3. >> So moved. Second. >> A motion is second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? That motion carries. Brings [snorts] us to action items. Appointment of school district legal council 7.1. Um this is being brought back in limited scope. Um this is to approve um as the document indicates here. Um this is to approve Beck Law Group. This law firm is being brought to the board um for consideration on the representation and expertise uh specific expertise of understanding the uh nuance of being an elected official. This isn't a a school district general counsel. This is more understanding the difference between elected officials, employees, um volunteers, those different student groups. Um, this was brought in uh to the attention of the board this evening due to last week's discussion um where we were attempting to approve [snorts] multiple law firms including a couple of uh policies and those policies. Member Corkran specifically pointed out that she would like them to be reviewed by a law firm. Um this would be the most appropriate law firm to do that. Uh so with that uh set up here, I would entertain a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this? >> Member Tyson. >> Yes. So, I have a couple questions for you, member chair. >> Um, I had more time, adequate time now to research this and I found that he's with Robishan Schaefer in Korea. >> So, I saw his picture and I saw that his focus is primarily labor law. >> Um, do you know if he has represented anybody, any public school in the state of Minnesota? Um, I could not speak to that directly. Um, if you'd like, I can speak a little bit to why um, or how I came across the Beck Law Group and why I'm making the recommendation this evening >> with that. >> So, was that a no that you you're saying? >> I cannot say one way or another. >> Okay. Because I didn't find any information that led me to believe he specifically worked with public schools before. And then has he ever represented anybody on the board here? Not that I'm directly aware of. Um, >> could you repeat your what? I'm sorry, member Tyson. >> So, I asked two things. I couldn't find where he specifically represented a public school in the state of Minnesota. So, I was wondering if the member chair knew that. >> And the second, I'm sorry. >> Oh, the second one. And the second one was I I'm wanting to know if he represented anyone on the board here >> so that they have reference. Again, not not that I I'm not aware of him representing in a legal capacity, but I I have worked with him before. I do know him. >> And then >> I'm sorry, say that again. You member chair, you have worked with this um Alec Becker yourself in a personal capacity. >> Yes, I I have worked with >> oh gosh, probably a hundred attorneys across the state of Minnesota. >> So, I [clears throat] have some I do have some familiarity with Mr. Beck. >> I'm wondering uh if that is a conflict of interest or >> I don't believe so. No, >> no. If we if we uh >> um if we eliminate every attorney that I've worked with um in the past, we would be eliminating the ones that we've already approved and we'd be eliminating the ones that would be up for consideration. in the nature of my professional career, I work with lawyers on a very regular basis, regular discussions with them. It's not unusual for that to to occur. >> And just to clarify, so that Beck Law Group then you have worked with them in a personal capacity or in a capacity of a previous position vote. >> But again, you [clears throat] said you've worked with hundreds of lawyers, but I mean, this is the only one that we're approving this evening. this evening um to specifically address the question that member Corkran had about reviewing those two policies that were uh on the agenda last week for approval >> with those changes. >> Yes. >> You spoke to this this lawyer about those policy changes. Is that what you're saying? >> No, I can't speak to this lawyer with about those policy changes without approval from the board. >> But you spoke to this lawyer regarding other matters. >> Not in my capacity as a school board member. >> Right. But in a personal capacity, you've had interaction with >> I I have worked with Mr. Beck in the past. Yes. >> I see that as a, you know, a pretty major. >> So, as I stated before, um, I was looking for at the direction of the board. I sought out an attorney who had experience working with elected officials. To do so, I worked through our elected officials and asked them specifically who they would recommend or different law firms that they would recommend. So, uh, individuals such as, uh, Karen Hley, uh, Michael Krun, uh, Mr. Karan, uh, Patty Anderson, Peggy Scott, and others across the state. >> Um, anytime you're working to get recommendations for lawyers, a lot of times you end up moving through hoops and you're getting recommendation over here and a recommendation over there, and then they consolidate and they give another recommendation. um in pretty much all cases um I eventually ended up back to to the Beck Law Group through those recommendations and the individuals that I worked with. So that that is where this name came from and that that is why is being presented to the board this evening. Member Tyson. >> So I heard a couple of legislators names mentioned just now by you. Yes. >> And I'm going to see them all at day at the capital March 9th. RJ. >> Yes. Yes. So, could you clarify what were the conversations you had with Khaus and Eddie Anderson? >> Um, the conversations that I had with the various elected officials that I reached out to, as I said, the board has interest in uh finding legal representation that can help us answer questions that are specific to elected officials. Is there any individuals or any law firms that you would recommend? And the ones that made recommendations, I followed up with those law firms. And then I followed up with the recommendations of um from the law firms that were recommended who they um who they recommended. A lot of times you don't you get recommendation for a law firm, you call the law firm, they don't specifically handle it or or it's not a case load that they'd like to take on or the type of work that they do. So they refer you to another party to another party. Um, so it ended up being a significant number of phone calls uh and and a lot of kind of around around the world, so to speak, to to settle on an attorney who uh finally did say yes, that's the kind of work that I do. I would be more than willing to help dig into the the policies and understand the nuance between elected officials and staff and exactly the kinds of questions that we had uh that we would like answered. >> Okay. So, I just want to clarify one more thing. Um, so when I talk to Ken Housing and Patty Anderson, when I see them soon, do I are [snorts] you calling him the Ro with Roishan Chaern Korea law firm? Because he does does he have his own law firm? >> Yes, that the Beck Law Group is if you look on the business filings and the Secretary of State website. Uh, I looked at it again earlier this week because it seemed that there were individuals who stated and we had the public comment tonight that stated that uh this law firm did not exist. The renewal was issued on December 31st of um oh no, I'm sorry. The filing date was uh February of 18 uh February 18th of 2025. So it is active in good standing. It is registered to Alec J. Beck and it does match the address that uh is on file with the law firm. >> So we would be hiring him and not this um Roashan Schwaer in Korea. >> Correct. that is the law firm that he is associated with, but uh he does business as the Beck Law Group. Similar to the approvals that we've made with other attorneys where we're not um authorizing entire uh firms where we're authorizing specific attorneys >> follows the same pattern. >> One, this is my last question, I think. Are you um putting this forward so that we have an attorney just for board representation and not comprehensive for the district? >> That is what this individual would specialize in would be for um elected officials. Yes. >> If you go back to the agenda item, >> feels equitable to me. >> If you go back to the agenda item that we had last week, that motion with the uh the multiple law groups failed. Um, and I what I heard from the board that evening had failed because there was concern about the policy. We wanted the policies reviewed by a legal firm. We do not currently have a legal firm approved that could answer that question from a elected official standpoint. Therefore, I put it on the uh agenda this evening so we could do that uh policy review that was requested uh last week. So the superintendent confirms that we don't have anybody that can look at the policies the vice chair wants looked at. >> Not from the they can look at it from the perspective of a school district. Not from the perspective of a an elected official. It's a completely different matter. >> Okay. So can the superintendent weigh in on that? What it so we don't have legal that I mean >> so if I understand the question does any of our current legal representation have the capacity to advise the board around policy 4 ch recommended changes on policy 425 and policy 1211. >> Correct. Thank you. Um, I would I would say that um I would have a degree of confidence that they could provide opinion on both of those policies. >> Um, clear certainly from a districtwide standpoint, which would >> I would assume encompass elected officials as well. Mhm. >> Um so I I certainly would have reason to believe that they could provide um legal guidance and legal opinion for the board and the district with respect to the changes on 425 and 121. >> Okay. And I just want to remind everyone around the table that we had all of our legal kind of stripped away at the organizational meeting. So now we're trying to put things back in place. So thank you. >> Member Christianson. >> I have a question to Dr. Massie. Are you aware or perhaps um or director Freeman is is not here, but are you aware of other school districts that have special representation just only for um elected officials? Is that because to my knowledge we haven't had that specific specialty in the past? Yeah, I guess my answer to that would be I I'm not aware of that being a question with other districts or >> that they've delineated attorneys along those lines. Um yeah, so I'm I'm not aware of that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there any other discussion? >> Member Anderson. [clears throat] Well, I I would say remembering back this was at the organizational meeting. It's something that is done every year and and I don't think anything was necessarily stripped away as was mentioned, but perhaps just more slowly moved back into place because it's something that we do every year is to establish these items. And my recollection from that meeting was that both the chair and the vice chair were going to go and look into this and and try to find uh legal representation that is familiar in at least some capacity with representing elected officials. you know, because of the last year. Um, you know, as one of the speakers mentioned here earlier, as anyone can school or sue a school for any claim, that's the same thing can happen to any board member. And you know, some employees have better representation than other people in the district. And I and I I I honestly think that there's some for [clears throat] districtwide and and legal too, there's there's gray areas that could use some clearing up. And I would say that I think we would be acting in our in the best interests to to do this for current people and future people on the board and boards to come. And that's all I think I have to say about that. >> Member Tyson. Well, I just want to add that um to member Antinson's point that we did talk about bringing more um firms forward and I did my research at the leadership conference and met with Peton. I went to their re website then and looked up their um you know what were their references, what was their story. They've been around, they're very very reputable. Um they've been around since 1890 and they've taken over other firms. But when you go right to their website and pull it up, school law is right there. And then public municipalities. So that just feels like comprehensive, good coverage for all of us as well and is more equitable for the district in terms of having and retaining a firm that's notable and renowned for school law. Um, that just seems like a better investment. I would just counter that a little bit with I think I mentioned the phone call last week that was had with myself, member Corkran, Superintendent, our district um legal representative um director Freriedman. It was clearly stated by that legal representative at the time that her main focus is to represent and the district doesn't have anything to do necessarily with elected officials. And for that reason, I'm in disagreement with what you just said because it's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about district representation. So, are you talking about a civil or a complaint or the difference between a civil and a criminal complaint? >> I'm not talking about any of those right now. I'm just talking about who lawy legal represents, who legal is in support of at the time of their interaction. Well, let's have the superintendent clarify that because that isn't in my mind how how it works. >> I'm not sure I understand the question. >> So, could you clarify what member antitinson is saying that Peton Law being steeped in school law for many many years as an institution could not cover us? I would say that school attorneys, the ones that we've had in the past, the ones that we currently have approved, are in a position to represent the interest of the district and that would be inclusive of school board members as well. So it's not I don't again I don't in or see the delineation in their service of the district separate of the school board. So they would be inclusive of school board matters, schoolboard interest, all as it relates to Minnesota and federal statute. >> Thank you. >> Member Christensen. >> Yeah, I just would I mean for the reasons that we've all stated before. Um, and I think that we just also have to realize that our council must be to have, you know, legitimacy and transparency and have the community trust what we're doing here. Our council must be perceived as neutral, professional, non ideological, and focused on district matters, which I'm for other reasons that we've discussed at the last meeting. I don't think Alec Beck um you know would would check those boxes. I mean we had concerns about him last meeting. He's been brought forward again. It's been um determined member chair that you've had interactions with this uh individual. There's questions about which law firm he represents if it's this law firm or the the one that others have uh um come up with. Um, yeah, for those and reasons we've stated before, I'm not going to be supporting this. >> Maybe we should just call the question then. >> Yeah. >> Before we end discussion, Mr. Chair, if I can add just one quick comment, >> I don't want to lose sight of the fact that from a broad perspective, the district still has a need for more comprehensive general counsel legal support. >> I can't speak to the credentials of Mr. back. Um, but there are additional recommendations that I would um ask the board to continue to keep in front of them as we move forward as a district. I know you're looking to to address the matter at hand around the policies and I understand that. I can't speak to the credentials of Mr. Beck, but I don't want the board to lose sight of the need for more comprehensive legal representation. had provided those names previously and I'll continue to advocate on behalf of more comprehensive legal support for the district >> and I would agree to that Dr. Massie. We can have more comprehensive legal support. It just for so many reasons doesn't have to be this person. There's other law firms other you know you've said that other schools other districts not to your know to your knowledge do not have someone specifically to talk about elected officials. I'm concerned if we have council specifically for elected officials and then the the chair and the vice chair are the ones that are able to speak to them. I mean, is that something that serves the whole district? Is it something that serves the entire board? Is it something that serves, you know, a particular board member? It seems like it's kind of a slippery. So, member Christensen, I I would remind you that that was the directive that we were given at the organizational meeting was to find somebody who could provide comprehensive um representation for elected officials. So, if you find Mr. Beck not to be um meeting your expectation, and I assume member Tyson is thinking the same thing, um as a board member, you do have the right to reach out to myself or member Corkran and make recommendations. So, who would you recommend in place of uh um Mr. Beck knowing full well that our elected officials, the individuals that were elected to represent us at the state level have recommended Mr. Beck? Who do you recommend? >> That's not fair. >> Well, first of all, that the question is not I mean directed at [clears throat] me right now. We called the question to a to uh do the vote on this and I just I mean again I feel like so much of this is we're just bringing controversy upon ourselves. We're stepping on rakes that we don't do not need to step on. Two weeks now people have had concerns about this particular person. So I think in the honor you know maybe we just say okay this person isn't working and let's find >> point there was very little discussion on Mr. Beck last week. The entire discussion revolved around the policy and the specific policies and the request to have the policies reviewed. Mr. Beck was identified as the individual who would do that policy review. >> So that would that is inaccurate to say that there was a ton of concern about Mr. [clears throat] Beck in the meeting last week >> there ex there have been email pardon me then there was not specific discussion at the last meeting. There have been several emails >> I received >> and I believe that there was discussion at the listening session which I was not at but I believe there was discussion at the listening session. >> There was [clears throat] >> that's what I was referring to. >> Okay. >> Member Tyson. >> So member chair I'm not comfortable with you just referencing lawmakers that I haven't had a chance to discuss it with either. that that doesn't make me comfortable when you just say, "Oh, yeah, they all agreed on that law firm," who I honestly had never heard of and had a hard time finding information. And so if you would have put that in an phone call or an email with specific quotes from Karen Hley or Patty Anderson or Krun, it would make more sense in my head. But just saying that I I just >> with all due with all due respect, Member Tyson, I was given a directive by the board to seek out this this individual. The only uh board member outside of uh well did there were three board members that did reach out to me to discuss this issue. It was uh member Castle, member Antonson, and member Corkran. I was more than willing to have conversations with uh with you, member Tyson, and with member Christensen should you had questions or concerns. You certainly >> you did not you did not bring them up. I have reached out several times and said, "Do you have concerns about things on the agenda? Do you want to discuss them?" >> My phone asking you where the attachments were for these things that you threw on the agenda. >> I cannot control things that administration is in charge of. I do not have access to the system to add attachments. The information was out there. The information had been provided. I don't have a control over the schedule of when it gets added to the agenda. We discussed that last week as well. But your response to me was that they're in mediation and they're busy. So is there >> you knew they weren't there? >> Is there any other discussion on the topic at hand or should we go to a vote? >> Well, I'd like the vice chair to weigh in because >> Yes, I have not. [laughter] >> Was this your intent as the board chair is saying that you directed him to look into these policies by a labor lawyer? >> I when I made the motion, I just said I wanted an attorney. I didn't specify what attorney or I just said I think attorneys an attorney needs to look at these policies so we can at least get more clarity. I want disal before it goes back to policy because it seemed like it was too much going on. Um, and the long-standing history of our district is to work with reputable very large law firms that have they're steeped in uh where I feel like we really have worked with them for years and and I feel like they're trusted with the district. You know, I I did talk to Chair Rabaline and you know, I said I I couldn't find him either. He did tell me, you know, where to look him up and and I I do have a problem with him having his own side, like a side business. It's not, you know, he's associated, but he's also has a side business. So, >> you know, I I can't believe we don't have anyone that we have on retainer now that couldn't give us advice because we do have some attorneys. Maybe not all the attorneys are maybe not as specialized as he would be, but at least there must be other people like him also that are based in larger firms that we would feel more comfortable that we have some history with or that we could as a board agree on. I feel like this this is kind of a confrontational discussion and I feel like we're not going to agree. Um, and I believe we should just call for the vote at this point. >> Okay. If there's no further discussion, we can go to a vote. Okay. Okay, I see none. Now, I did um I did incorrectly hear the vote last week. So, to avoid any confusion, I'll ask uh the clerk to please take a roll call on this. >> Can you repeat >> item 7.1, appointment of school district legal council, Alec Beck? >> Correct. >> Are you ready? >> And who made the motion, >> Joy? >> And who seconded >> to what? >> It was a while ago, wasn't it? >> Because it was a while moved and member Castle second. >> Mhm. Okay. >> Okay. Now, are we voting on um calling this vote right now? >> No, we're voting on the approval of the agenda item of item 7.1. >> Just wanted to >> So, an I is in the affirmative to to approve 7.1. Yes. >> All right. We good. Member Corkran. No. Member Castle >> I. >> Member Antonson votes I. Member Tyson >> no. >> Member Christensen >> no. >> And member Rebeline >> I. >> Does not pass. >> No. Motion fails. That brings us to determine next steps in the superintendent search process. Um we discussed this issue at length. Again last week we saw presentations from uh three different uh search firms. School Executive Connect, Ray and Associates, and MSBA um for bringing this back to the board tonight. Uh hopefully for the selection of search firm or if not, we'll proceed with the uh um authorization that was given to the chair and the board chair to to continue the search uh ourselves and and determine next steps. So, does anybody want to kick off discussion on this? I guess I'll start if somebody else wants to. >> Member Anton. >> Um, so before last week, I I spoke with numerous people that had had experience with MSBA. I had not heard at that point from anybody regarding Ray Associates. If I'm recalling correctly, at the end of last week's meeting, I think we decided we were going to mainly [clears throat] focus as a board on Rain Associates and MSBA. Correct. Mhm. >> Yeah, that was the feeling I got. >> That's what I did. And so, okay. >> Um, >> I have heard absolutely nothing but rave reviews about working with Dan Bitman and the team that would be behind him. I asked him to, as member Christensen did over there, about how he's able to manage um doing both. And I'm going to have a trouble finding my notes from him specifically because this was a lot of phone calls. Um let's see. So Dan Bitman said this is in a nutshell that he has led over 50 superintendent searches across the country. He just does one at a time. He's always had very satisfied customers and never had a bad experience doing this with anybody. Um it's a board-driven process. he has not had an issue balancing the superintendent search as well as doing his superintendency at the at the district with which he's in. One of the things I liked about what he said was he chose to work with Forest Lake. And I said, "Why would you choose to work with this our situation?" And he said he is knows Dr. Massie. He knows this area. He's, you know, from the Twin Cities and the greater area up here. He's got the family and he said he wants to give back and give our community a positive experience that we can feel good about and proud of and that I thought was kind of important um because and I'll just talk about what um Eric Olsen who's a superintendent of Monaceel um worked with Ray and Associates on another board that he sits on for um I can't write technical um with Bob Sansere. I believe they worked at the same time together on this. Uh Eric Olsen is also there his board that he's working with right now as a superintendent of Monaceel is also using Rain Associates and he said [snorts] he couldn't give higher praise to working with Dan Bman. Bob Sanszir also said the exact same thing. Definitely choose them again over and over. And one of the things that sticks out to me, aside from him really wanting to work with us, is that um is that he is willing to do the superintendent contract negotiation, especially, you know, as the concerns were well, not maybe concerns, but issues that came up the last time you guys maybe did a superintendent contract negotiation on your own. I really don't want any part of doing that. And I think having someone having had done the job for years as a superintendent and having done the job of leading these searches is a important person to do that on top of the work that he would be doing for us. And he would be coming in person and meeting with us every time. We're not going to pay extra for this meeting or extra for that or extra for this advertising. And so for that reason, they are my first choice. Now, I did speak with Amy of uh MSBA yesterday and [snorts] she's very confident she can do a good job for us as well and said the same thing. She hasn't had any complaints in the years she's been doing this. Um, and I don't have anything against MSBA whatsoever. I know that you guys have used them and you have some bit of loyalty and I think we all do because we've all taken their training, but and there's more, you know, I'm just not going to keep going through everybody that gave me all the positive rave reviews about Ray and Associates. Um, so I think I'll quit right there. >> Thank you, Member Anderson. >> Anybody else have a opinion? Member Tyson, >> I guess I'll go. So, I had um contacted the board chair, Sean. He wasn't listed on Bitman's um references, but I contacted Sean Olsson. He was the board chair for um Monaceel or for um Eastern Carver County. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. Good. So that's and and so they had a little different process where their superintendent left midyear, but he has some great feedback here that you know they they were really encouraged to have Bitman. Um given that he's a superintendent, but the candidate pool did not prove to have the depth that they were hoping for given that he was a superintendent. They thought it would be he thought it would be better their their board their full board did. He said specifically in our case, we didn't get many candidates from the metro area. Um, we got them from around the nation and Canada. He said in a lot of smaller rural districts tended to be from out of state. He said we put our internal candidate in charge and so that's who they ended up long story short going with. He said they didn't have any particular difficulty with Dr. Bitman's availability. um even given his other employment like any firm you have to work around different things. Ray's process for community engagement was effective because that's one thing I wanted to know about and um Dr. Bitman was the person who assisted him from their regional office and he that the good that a very good job was done in sessions and organizing feedback in an actionable way for the board. So that was important to me too. How do they synthesize it all down so that we can move forward? Um, from Monaceel, Jamie Seven, she had a response that was more positive. She said they're not concluded in their search yet. So, we don't know, but um, moving forward, they were organized. Same thing that they synthesized it and had actual items they could work with. Um, so anyway, I also talked with um MSBA's references. Allison Sherman from the Stillwater District. They used MSBA and hired, excuse [clears throat] me, in 2023. Um, lots of positives that they worked through a lot of great information. They liked having that transition year and they did use it for their superintendent after he that one year that they do free of charge after their superintendent was in place. Um Egan Apple Valley Rosema 196 they hired in 2024. Um Corey Johnson is their board chair and lots of positives from him in terms of the communication and how smoothly the process went and how easy they were to communicate with with the focus groups of students, staff, community, all of that. Um, and also at the MSBA leadership conference, I talked to Robbinsdale board member because they had recently used um, MSBA and again I heard those same positive things that they're highly organized, easy to communicate with, [snorts] they had a great outcome. So, um, and I think member Castle and I kind of agreed that MSBA, they've kind of fine-tuned their process and I think what they offer is just different because they've looked at it over the years and they've made changes. And so I think that's important because you need to move your your search process forward and how can you make it better for um boards and in finding the and in aligning those goals and and things that they want to see in their sup new superintendent. Um and I think member Christensen talked about how you know MSBA is kind of higher up in what they offer and what you get for your money. So MSBA is my first choice, but Ry and Associates is a close second. I think they're both great search companies. Um, I did like taking into account what I was the feedback I got from their board members. >> So I what I did like the most about MSBA is that they did have a improvement process >> that the other companies didn't talk about. However, if you've been in the business long enough, you've probably already done all that improvement. So, it it can be a positive and it can be a negative if they haven't gotten there yet. Um, I [clears throat] talked to several uh board members that where they had repeated searches um on on the list. So the 20 the list had the 20 21 2020 >> 20 21 2022 2022 23 and so there were several of them that were had done it three times during this period of time for MSBA. And uh while it seemed that the general uh consensus is what they is that they like the MSBA, there's a couple things that I that don't seem right to me. So there was the the board couldn't come up with somebody and so MSBA come up with a interim and apparently that satisfied their guarantee of the of the of being able to place somebody. I I I don't agree with that. That's an interim person should be an interim and then when you get your final person that should be the one >> that satisfies that that clause that they have for being able to have a guarantee. And then um there was some concern about the questions to the prospective candidates and whether or not the board was able to get the questions that they wanted during [snorts] the interview process. And that doesn't sit right with me. >> Trusty, can you say that again? I'm sorry. that that that the the board the questions that were going to be asked to the prospective candidates. It wasn't that that there was one of the board members was not happy about the questions that were being asked as if they couldn't get their question to to the prospective candidates during the interview process. >> There must like they didn't have enough input into the questions or or at all. They just had to take MSBAs. That's what that's what it sounded like to me is that the MSBA came up with the questions >> and even if they were to take input from the board, >> right, >> they they weren't happy with the questions that were presented to the candidates. >> Okay. Thank you for interesting. >> Otherwise, everybody did seem to be relatively happy with the MSBA and the way that they worked and everything. Gotcha. I have a question. Member Castle, >> you have a question for what? >> For member Castle. >> Yeah, go ahead and then member Christensen can go. >> Me go or her go? >> You You go ahead. >> Member Castle. That was a great report. What districts were all of those? Do you can you just you name which ones you >> So I I called uh I don't have my notes with me, but I called like six different six different places. Um, some of them were pretty outstate and I think that was >> the outstate one was the one that had the interim. >> Okay. >> Um, >> and then was it a recent one or an older one? Just kidding. >> It was ones that would had the multiple >> Okay. >> multiple uh searches done because that that concerns me of why do you have to have so many searches done in this amount of time? So if you didn't, that tells me that you you didn't find a good candidate. >> So were they on these? >> They were on this on this list. Yes. >> Okay, great. >> And so I went through the list and marked off, okay, that these ones were in 25 26 and they also did it in 23 22 and they also did it in >> Oh, I see you cross referenced them on here. >> So I went to the ones that had the most chain or searches during that period of time that's on this on this list. >> Gotcha. to ask them, you know, why they had so many searches. >> Okay. And there were some that were they the board like the interim one was the board couldn't come up with a couldn't decide on on the candidates >> and then MSBA produced an interim >> and then they >> so they but then they MSBA or the board said that MSBA considered that as satisfying their >> clause for getting a getting a candidate even though it was an interim person. Yeah, that's kind of what happened to Rain Associates with um Eastern Carver County is that the depth of the candidate pool wasn't as good as they thought it would be and so they ended up keeping their interim assistant superintendent on and hiring them, >> but it wasn't them. >> No, it was this was a different situation where they they they post they installed an interim person. They didn't have an interim person. Okay. >> They did a search. They didn't the board didn't agree on any of the candidates. >> Okay. >> So then MSBA um offered an interim candidate. Okay. About this >> and then when they accepted that interim candidate, MSBA said that that was that satisfies their >> there. Okay. >> That guarantee. >> Thank you for clarifying that. >> Okay. Member Christensen. Well, um, member Castle, I wish that you had had your notes this evening so that we could refer to that a little bit because I think you're talking about two different things. One thing you said that someone on some board said that they couldn't get the questions that they wanted. >> They weren't happy with the questions that they were able to have to the candidates. Yes. >> Okay. Because in the notes that I have, um, Barb Dorne said, "Our district leads it, we lead it, and they are just there to guide and support us." and she was talking about numerous ways of how they do those things. So, you know, I don't um and additionally there's always ways like as a board that you could follow up probably with a candidate if you wanted to. So, I'd be interested in a little bit um more information on that or if that was a oneoff if one person felt that way or if it was felt um >> it was only one of the people that I spoke with. >> One of the >> Yes. >> Yeah. One of the several people you spoke with. And then um also you were saying that they weren't um happy with the with the candidate pool or or what you I guess I guess you answered the question when member Tyson was asking you. >> Yes. With the interim >> issue they the board did not agree on anybody from the candidate pool. >> So just another followup question. So, at our last meeting, um, you were talking about how, um, we I just wrote some quotes that we were all saying that you were really impressed by MSBA and that they were always improving. And so, you feel like maybe the information that you found out, you've changed your mind about that or >> Well, maybe they need more improving till they come up to the same caliber as as dedicated outfits that do searches. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Did Did you have anything else you wanted to cover? Uh, member Christensen. >> Uh, no. >> Well, I mean, I've just I mean, just hearing us our discussion, I think that, you know, they're both great reputable firms. Um, they both have had many searches. I feel like, you know, there's going to be negative said about either one and there'll be positive set about. Not one's going to be 100% happy with each s each search firm. Um, my only problem is I mean, I like both of them. Of course, MSBA, I said, is like the gold standard in my eyes. Um, with their proven track record, we have history. They just know our district. I mean, I just feel like they've done, you know, 250. I mean, they've done so many searches. It's kind of like to them it it's, you know, you do have a dedicated person, but they have an amazing staff behind them. I maybe Amy is busy, but you have amazing people to work with her. I feel like, you know, with Rain Associates, I don't know who his people is as backup. I mean, if he had a family emergency, if he had something happen in his job or his primary job, who will we have? I mean, who's going to be that support system for us? I feel like MSBA is such a structure that I feel like if something happened, if something happened to Amy, we would have really dedicated people behind her. I don't know if I feel comfortable with Ray having that structure. Um, that is my only concern really with them. I think, like I say, they both seem really good. I've had great feedback from both sides and not really any negatives. So, I feel like, you know, I could support both, but I I prefer MSB and the money's the same. I feel like financially they're kind of on same kind of playing field. I don't feel like that's even a problem for me with the money. Um, but I they each have their strengths, but I feel like they're both they would both do a good job. And I believe we do need a search firm to help guide us through since we have new, you know, new members on the board that have not done searches. Um because it is it's a very eye opening experience. I think you work together as a group. You get to know what's really important to you and what you feel is strongest as far as um the attributes and and the strengths of the superintendent that you want. And you don't really you don't really talk about that until you have someone kind of bringing you together to talk through all the different parts of it. I think that would bring us together as a board, too. So, that is how I feel. >> I feel like member Corkran kind of set me up there perfectly because >> [laughter] >> uh >> well, >> um I'm going to get contradictory and say I'm probably the only one here that doesn't feel it's necessary to work with the search firm, but I've been through executive search on both sides of the coin. I' I've been recruited and I've done recruiting as an executive search. But what I mean by member Parker and setting that up perfectly is I see tremendous value in having executive search work with us, especially work with this board. I think it'll bring uh much needed uh unity, some cohesiveness, rebuild some trust. Uh there's obvious trust issues that we all have with one another in one capacity or or another. So, um I I see tremendous value there, not in just picking the the next executive to lead the uh the district and work with us to do that, but in >> um making this unit a little bit more um functional, a little bit more productive, and being able to get some work done and and rather than uh failing on these three to three votes all the time. I I know I've opined to a couple of people in the past that the the board majority right now are the three that are willing to batten together and say no, but in doing so that causes damage to the district. It causes damage to the um it's ultimately going to cause damage to the students and their experience. And I don't want to see that happen. So um with that, I had a couple of observations. I contacted MSBA. I contacted Ray. I contacted several of the districts that work behind them. I even contacted uh Dr. Dr. Bitman's former board chair and that was a rocky road and I wanted to understand you know what how that how that worked out why that occurred you know where did this uh reputation in certain circles come from and and I thought it was excellent that um both the MSBA contacts that I worked with and the RA associate contacts that I worked with were very forthcoming with information they answered difficult questions uh very directly and I appreciated that. Um, a couple of things that that did stand out to me that I' I've made notes here about is with um the compare and contrast here. I I think both are competent especially when it comes to law and regulations and the different types of things and how the HR function works. And we have a great HR team here too. But, uh, things that stood out and and that I contrasted between the two was that, uh, um, yes, Ry had a dedicated local individual that was going to work with us. MSBA had a dedicated representative, but they didn't have a dedicated individual that did the vetting, that did the that looked at the candidates, that gave opinions. um they had some superintendents that they relied on regionally, but we didn't know who that was going to be. And it could depend on the schedule, it could depend on the applicant, and there was going to be some uh uh perhaps some give or take there. Um another thing that that really stood out to me um right off the bat was that MSBA wasn't willing to take our current applicant pool that we have. They said they would be willing to encourage the individuals who have already applied to the district to apply again through the MSBA system where uh my conversations with Ry and associates were the exact opposite. They said, you know, you send me the names and I'll get to work tomorrow morning on vetting them out and and making sure they're still interested and they have the proper credentials and they they would be a good fit for the district. Um, so a little bit different uh difference there. Um to that point, um that was one thing that um Rey was very adamant about was that they were willing to start uh tomorrow morning and get this underway. Um MSBA did say it would take some time to get their system running to get the uh get the job posted and then there would be a period of waiting for the applicants to come to them where um MSBA was a very passive organization when it came to executive search. They sat back and they waited to see who applied to them. They had a network that they would say, "We posted this job." But they didn't they weren't mindful of, "Hey, I know somebody here. I know somebody there that would be excellent fit for this." They weren't going to reach out and have those conversations. Uh um they when [clears throat] when I asked if they did any active recruiting, they they actually seemed kind of offended at the idea of doing active recruiting that like there was something wrong with trying to attract the the very best talent to the to our district and and that didn't sit right with me. Um another thing that uh um actually I think that that was it. that was really the only the the major contrast between the two organizations that that I vetted out in my search and um that's [snorts] kind of my thoughts on the issue. Did anybody else have any other questions or comments or uh even want to propose a motion? >> I move to approve Ray and Associates. >> Second. So moved. All right, we have a motion and a second on approving Ray and Associates. Is there any discussion on that? >> Well, I feel like I should add this last part from Sean Olsson, the board chair. I mean, we're not really affected by this because we don't have CESO, but he said, "One other district specific concern we had with Ry was their association with CESO. At the time of the search, our two previous finance directors had gone to work for them, one in an executive leadership capacity, and they had recently hired away our longtime finance manager. [clears throat] As a result of where we are in that relationship with them, we did not utilize that partnership with CESO at all. So, that was kind of a negative for them. >> And I wasn't really going to share that about Rey, but I think >> Yep. >> CESO So >> says so I think >> yeah the civil engineering and environmental branding what >> I don't >> and we don't have that but they obviously hired somebody away from their district and >> that is the world of executive search. >> So just adding that on. >> All right. >> So that sounds like a trust issue there. And then I do want to add that member chair MSBA provided the map in here that shows all the areas where retired superintendent um reside or are appointed to. >> Yes, they did >> to bring bring in >> So you saw that in here? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. >> Yep. Yep. And I do know that they go outside of those regions just like Barb Dorne would not be our representative and Amy would be. >> Um Amy is not assigned to our area. She does not work in our >> primary area. And that they also have the national recruiter who works >> Yes. at at um >> Right. >> Yes. >> So you're not just pulling in applications. You have a recruiter that's finding them that work >> passively >> work with the district that >> correct >> align with the goals that align for your district in hiring your >> and that was a passive uh passive search is what they shared with me. >> So that's what you were referring to. >> Yeah. the difference between a passive and an an active executive search. A passive search is you just put the put the job up on a website and you see who um clicks in a link and clicks apply. >> An active search is when you actually reach out to individuals that you know would be a good fit. >> But that's what the recruiter actively does. He goes, she stated that he goes to different areas and different states to actively recruit. >> MSBA indicated to me that they do not do any active search in the phone call that I had with them. In fact, uh, when when Dr. Massie announced his, uh, retirement, I I did my own active searching. I called individuals that I felt would be a really good fit that I think that I would love to see applications for, reached out to them directly, and said, I would encourage you to apply to this role. Um, so I think it's a very important piece of executive search. I think it's a very important piece that the individuals who have already applied to this job be given the opportunity at least get reached out by the organization and and said uh um and vet them out. I think it's only fair to them to do that. So, but is there any other discussion on approving um Rain Associates? >> Well, I would just like to add a couple more things that I don't think we've brought back up to the table about this particular firm. Um, one of them being that they do those with the with the semifinalists or, you know, midway between in the process doing these video interviews that >> that are candid with the applicants where they're answering, you know, questions that they have not been >> given beforehand. And so, very off-the cuff, very genuine, and I like that. that we would get a moment of that in between since, you know, it's going to be not until we have people in the room that we're actually interviewing them for the work. >> So, those are the virtual stakeholder sessions >> you're referring to for [music] No, >> Ray. Okay. >> Um, he me >> Yeah, I am I speaking correctly? Yeah. >> Yeah, he wrote I wrote it down. Yeah, because I mean and I thought that was >> and those are not this virtual stakeholder sessions. >> These are video. They're not stakeholder sessions. These are these are session >> with the candidates. Yes. >> Right. Okay. >> Um they price match. So I I mean I and I did get um from Eric Olsson and Monaceel. He said, you know, they came down in price for us twice, $5,000. So I mean as far as >> I don't know. I I that's can't remember the other thing I was going to say. So I guess I'll leave it at that. >> Okay. If you think of it, you can always come back for that. >> Is any Well, assuming that we have more discussion. >> Here's the other thing I was going to say is they have been doing this for over two decades. Is it three decades? >> It's been quite some time. Early 2000s. >> And so I mean I have really zero worries. I both MSDA and Ray and Associates said, "I'm available 24/7." I I think both of the people that are running these um searches or would be running the searches for us have the capacity to do great work. I just feel more comfortable having a superintendent do it because this is such like the pinnacle job of our whole district. And I think he he himself being having done the work is is going to have good insights and everyone I talked to for Ray Associates said he's an amazing communicator and he was able to bring people together. So, and Amy, you know, said that she can do that, too. But I guess I'll leave it at that. >> Christensen. >> Well, I mean, I I think that we can just probably kind [clears throat] of keep going round and round here. I mean to me MSBA to member Corkran's point is the gold standard. Um I did um Ray and Associates would be my second choice. And I just think that um you know this might be a good opportunity for us to come together. I mean we need a search firm. We need to get this going. Um so I'm I'm willing to vote um for Ray and Associates to get this moving and to have us come together. Um, and just move forward. We need to move forward on this. So, yes, we do. [clears throat] >> And I just want to note, member chair, that I like the email he sent to all of us. >> Yes, I do, too. >> Oh. Um, >> Dr. Bman. Yeah. And and I share with the board, too, that Dr. Bitman reached out to me very early in the process before I was even ready to engage with anybody. Uh, this is a a search he's had his eye on for a while, and he I I believe he sincerely wants to help the district. I I believe that in my heart of hearts >> and he was um >> he's genuine >> extremely available for me. I called him at all times throughout the day as early as probably 7:45 he answered the phone. I I called him I think this afternoon around 3:00 this afternoon he answered the phone. So, um I have no concerns about availability either. But I did have an a similar experience with uh MSBA. I called them more during the business hours just knowing how they're structured and and I had no problem getting a hold of Amy either. >> She was very open. >> Yeah. If if there's no other discussion, I'd love to call a vote. >> Yeah. >> Clean up this mess of my >> member clerk. I'll I'll have you do the roll call. >> All right. I will start with member Tyson. >> I. >> Member Corkran. >> I. >> Member Anton. >> I. Member Castle. >> I. Member Rebeline. >> I. >> Member Christensen. >> I The eyes have it. >> All right. We have uh we've adopted a search firm. >> Yes. >> And uh member Corker and I will we'll continue with the authorization that we had. I'll I'll give uh Dr. Bman a call tomorrow morning. >> Wonderful. >> And get him on the hook. And uh we'll get I'll try to set up a conversation between the two of us. We'll bring an update to the board uh in early March. Um but uh >> at the next meeting then >> yeah I was I was actually just trying to pull up the date on the March dateth >> March 5th. >> Yeah. So we'll have an update there. Um as I indicated earlier when I spoke with Dr. Bitman he was ready to go. >> So unless I see an objection on slowing down I would suggest we we go. >> And I really do like the fact that they're going to take those existing applied. I mean that is because they how long ago that was and they're waiting. I don't want them to have to reapply and go through all that again. Me neither. So I'm glad you move forward with those people. >> So you can bet them. Yeah. >> This is a post discussion. Um it's probably in every field. But I know for myself if I was going to be a manager of something that I do now. I do machine programming. I've been a machinist for many many years. Having done the job, I know what to look for in a candidate >> for sure. >> So, I think it's a it's a positive a very good thing that a person who's going to do the search has actually done the job because they know what to they know what they need to expect from that candidate. >> No, I'm just >> I would just say I appreciate the >> cooperation or consensus at the table. Yeah, I'm excited. We had a unanimous vote discussion on it all. >> I I hope that means good things for when we identify the next superintendent, we have a unanimous vote. I think that that would be a exciting way to start this up. So, >> well, and I think we can all agree, I just want to close with this. >> Yeah, please go ahead. >> That you know, they were all excellent firms with reputable backgrounds and a lot of the references were positive on both sides. So, it was a tough decision. >> Yes. I would like to add one more thing. Um, we haven't talked about this recently. We had brought it up a while back about having MSBA do a board self >> the self survey for the board. And I mean I I do believe that this superintendent search process is going to >> bring us some of that work and evaluation and what um cooperation will be happening. But I don't think we should not, you know, I don't think we should forget about that either about having MS do that because they were booked out quite a bit. >> And we did, we did agree on that as a board in one of our last meetings. I know Dr. Massie did reach out to them. >> Um, we can probably bring back proposals for next steps in March. >> Yeah, they indicated that they could probably initiate the process in as early as late April or May and into the summer. I think you just have to determine >> what's the best timing of that given the other things on the table. >> Right. And yes, >> do we want to add that to the agenda in March? >> Sure. >> I know we're getting a little off topic here, but >> sorry, I just wanted to say that before I forget. And >> yeah, I wanted to bring that up. And just to clarify, we're talking about the board self evaluation, >> correct? >> That's a great process. That would be excellent. >> Okay. Why don't we uh >> me member Corkran, if if you wouldn't mind following up with MSBA on that and getting some scheduling options, we'll bring that back to the board uh in the March 5th meeting. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And uh I'll give uh Dr. Bitman a call tomorrow morning and um any changes of course I'll I'll email the board just to make everybody aware of what's going on. And [snorts] I think we can move on to uh item 7.3, school board vacancy discussion. All right. So, with this, uh, Member Corker and I had a couple of discussions over the past few weeks on what we were going to bring as a recommendation to the board and, uh, I think what we ultimately settled on was that we went through an application process. I believe it was, uh, late October or early November that we settled that. We're going to propose that we do the same thing. Um, there was some discussion, but I don't feel like we we finalized the recommendation on whether or not we would accept uh the 11 applicants for reconsideration or if we just wanted to move on with a new batch and we hadn't really solidified how long we would leave the application process open. Um, I was thinking about 30 days. So, those are kind of the things that are on the table. Um, so I'll throw that out there and open it up for discussion and see what the board thinks. We did talk about having someone facilitate the discussion and we were thinking internal, someone from the district, but that's kind of over the line a little bit of the expectation for one of our own employees. >> But now that MSBA is not doing our search, >> maybe that's something we want to consider for them helping facilitate the discussion. >> Did you want to have that conversation with MSBA? uh when I talked to him about the self maybe it's just a one >> one day couple hours you know trying to >> work through that I don't know >> just with like in a workshop with just the board members or is this a public meeting I don't know >> it would be a public meeting >> probably be public but it'd be more of a kind of a facilitator to help us kind of figure out what we want to do for the fill the vacancy maybe to come together for qualifications I mean just to kind of bring us together with a discussion and having someone lead the discuss discussion, but also we do need to open it up again for more applicants, too. >> So, I Well, should we? >> Yeah. I was going to say I'd be happy with that if we want member Corkran to follow up with the MSBA, see if that's something they can provide for us. >> Yeah. >> Are you aware that they do that, Member Corkran? >> I I'm not sure, but definitely ask them. >> I can ask. I mean, I I mean, if they do the self-evaluation, it's kind of almost in that same kind of vein of talking through things like that. So, >> I'll find out. Yeah, maybe a mini self evaluation. Yeah, I'll I'll I'll reach out to them and talk to them. >> You think it's >> uh I guess because to to run to be on the school board, you're only like you have to live in the district and you have to be 21. Like those are it. That's it. That's it. There's nothing else that you have to do. Can we I don't know that when you said qualifications I just >> well qualities I should say qualities or what we what we want as our board >> sort of like the profile I mean >> profile yeah exactly the profile okay yeah that's kind of I mean I just feel like we need to come together >> and we need to find a way to do that and I don't I mean we can have everyone apply again but it's just if we don't know what we're really looking for right >> then it's all >> that might help us work through the applicants because I I I feel like with the last round of applicants that uh we we individually [clears throat and cough] found our favorites and we just stuck with our favorites and >> that may have affected the outcome of some of the votes, >> but uh yeah, I I think that's a great idea. We could bring it back on the March 5th meeting. We're loading up a lot. But I know that the meetings tend to get long, but >> so are we going to wait to have put the application out the the announcement out until we figure out if MSBA can help us or can we >> I think we should still have applicants. I mean, but then before we kind of get into the discussion of them, we can have more clarity facilitate what we're looking for. >> So then the other question that was on the table was uh how long on the applications are 30 days? >> What was it last time? 28 days. >> It was >> It was three weeks. It was two or three weeks. >> Yeah. Because we were trying to fit it in. So if we did an appointment in December, it would be >> somebody would be there by the organizational meeting. >> Um so we were we were kind of time boxed on on the application process. >> Um this time I don't feel like it's necessary to time box it. I think it's more >> prudent to find somebody than it is to uh >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I think this month might be a decent because we're going to have a lot going on to this. I'm guessing with >> if we gave a direction to administration to to basically regurgitate the last uh application we had on the 23rd um and post it on the 23rd, then it could be well because of the way February falls it we could have set a closing for we could even do March 30th and then look at it at uh the April 2nd board meeting. Um, that gives us uh a little over a month for applications. I feel like that word of mouth gets around really well there. >> End of March. >> Otherwise, we could do it for just shy of a month. Have them be due on March 16th, which would be two weeks earlier, and then we could discuss it again at the March 19th meeting. I don't have a strong feeling either way. I I just kind of look around the the board and see what >> everybody thinks. >> What do you think, Superintendent? >> Yeah, I think >> I mean, is a month too long? [laughter] >> Wait, >> feel free to sit back and say, >> is a month too a month seems long to me. But >> you had a process. I think >> what are we doing? >> I'm hearing you say you want to reactivate the similar process that you activated before. >> Um I don't think it's going to take long for us to get it posted. There are paper deadlines that we'd have to meet, >> right? >> Um if the goal is post as soon as those deadlines um we can get it out there ASAP. It just matter. >> Yeah, it's already ready to go. >> Yep. >> I think a month is long, but what do you think? Are you calling for the same application >> form? >> Well, today's >> be completed. >> Today's the 19th. If it was due on the 16th, that's just shy of four weeks, >> that'd be about the same length of time as it was before, I think. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, if we just I'm good with that. >> Use what we have and go with it. I don't know. And then do we we want to leave the process open or uh because there's 11 applicants we've talked about at great length and >> caused a little uh consternation with the board. I don't know if we want to get back and have those discussions again but we certainly can. >> Oh, you talk what did >> uh so we had 11 applicants last time. Would they be eligible >> to reapply? >> I think we need to move forward with new applicants. Don't you believe that at this point? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, give us a deadline. >> Yes. I was going to say I don't have this uh written down, but if I'm understanding what the the board is intending here is we'll direct administration and this will be a motion. I'll move to direct administration to um utilize the same application that we approved in November um to post it um by Monday >> and set a deadline of the 16th of March and that the only difference in this process would be that uh the 11 individuals who applied in November would no longer be eligible for reapplication. And you're referring to Monday, February 23rd. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Monday, February 23rd. Did Did you capture that, Dr. Massie? >> Yep. And if I miss anything, Joyy's got it. Joy question. >> I do. >> Yes. >> My only question question is February 23rd may be too early for paper postings due to deadlines, >> but we may want to go March 23rd given that if you're looking for a longer >> Oh, did I say February? I I meant March 23rd. I'm sorry. >> So, hang We're going to March 23rd. >> No, you guys would start February 23rd. The >> That's the February 23rd date that I'm saying. Maybe too early. >> I don't think we'll get it in or as soon as possible. >> Okay. >> Let's let's throw Let's throw an as soon as possible in there. >> Okay. And then uh Joyce said most of that motion was off the top of my head there. Can you please repeat that back so the board knows exactly what was proposed? >> Could I ask just a clarifying question before the motion? Are is there anything that says we can um are we able to eliminate the 11? Is that any kind of >> should we include that? >> I I think that was part of my motion. Was it? Yes, >> but we are eliminating the 11. But I'm saying can we do that like legally? Is there any problem like we can do that? >> Oh, >> we can can we legally >> I mean I'm not I don't know what the answer is I'm asking. I am not a lawyer, but I would be concerned about overtly tell people that they can't. >> Let's strike that we've we've already eliminated all of them via motions before. >> So, I think a reapplying would be >> true >> in uh >> true >> would be fruitless, but >> um >> I don't think we can stop them. >> We can't tell them. It would make sense for them to make that decision. >> Yep. Yep. I I think I I would agree with that. Okay. So, we have a whole bunch of amended motions. What What does the motion turn out to be? Joy, please. >> So, essentially is what I've got at the moment utilizing the previous application that was posted October 31st, 2025. I've got it right here. Um posted in the papers in the in the website. >> Yes. >> By February 23rd or as soon as possible within March 16th deadline for a review at the April 19th schoolboard meeting. at the March 19th school board meeting. >> March 19. Yes. >> I don't believe so. So that that is my motion. I'd be looking for a second on that one. I'll second that. >> Okay. And do Joy, can you go through that one more time so everybody knows what we're voting on here? >> With you utilizing the previous school board vacancy application, have it posted to Let me clarify, where are we post? Which paper are we posting it to? >> Um, this would be a >> because it's not a bid. It's a notice of vacancy. >> Um, so this would be at administration's discretion. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, there's nothing that says we can't put it in both pages. Correct. >> But yeah, I mean, >> yeah, we'll leave that to administration's discretion should you choose to put it in both. Um, >> so utilize the previous schoolboard maky application that was put out on October 31st, 20 25 posted at the administration discretion of paper by February 23rd or as soon as possible. Also on the website with a March 16th deadline for applications with a school board review of March 19th at the meeting. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion and second that we have on the table here? [clears throat] >> No, but thank you for member Christensen pointing that out. >> Yeah. Excellent. >> I would point out um if I recall correctly, the application had a set of disclosures that raised some concerns. >> Yeah. Um, >> so I would maybe ask the board to consider whether or not you'd want to proceed with that list of disclosures >> um >> after the concerns that were raised >> and can the board chair review what those were? >> Um, yeah. I don't know them off the top of my head. I have to go back and I don't either. >> I can read them. >> Yes. Thank you. >> That helpful. Yeah. >> Actually, let me write one. >> You were talking about the portion where the um the applicant is affirming the information is provided to a correct legal citizen of the United States of America eligible to vote in Minnesota. Do not currently occupy an elected public office. I do not have an employment relationship with ISD 831 where I expect to make over $20,000 fiscal year. I'm at least 21 years of age. I've been a resident of ISD831 for at least 30 days. I am not directly or indirectly involved in any group that aim to overthrow the United States government. I am not part of any groups that promote directly or indirectly hate or violence against elected officials and or publicize dishonest information or deceitful propaganda about ISD 831. And I have not been convicted of criminal sexual misconduct for which registration is required under Minnesota statute 243.16. >> Okay. Thank you. the one you're referring to, right? >> Yes. Those are the >> Yeah. >> most of which come from statute, I think. Uh >> yeah. >> Second to last two or three or additional. >> Do we want to try to amend that at all or are we good just moving forward with what we had before? Member Christian. >> I think it's hard. I appreciate that, Joy. Thank you. It's hard to discuss it without having it in front of us. So I it's hard >> but I do remember the you know overthrowing the government or whatever. I mean, I would say keep in what we're supposed to keep in >> the statute. >> The statute or the >> whatever we're supposed to have in there. And if there's two things in there, I mean, I don't even know what that means. Of, you know, you're not going to if you're wanting to be on the school board, I don't think you're wanting to overthrow the government. So, >> I'll second that. >> I would take that part out and just keep it clean. I I you know, again, I don't have it in front of me, but >> Okay. So, your motion is to strike the sentence about overthrowing the government. Um, >> well, I'm leerary to make a motion because I don't have it in front. I don't I don't >> Can I steal it for you? >> Would you like me to print them quick >> or email it? Can you shoot it to us an email? >> Member Tyson, >> I think member Christensen would just like it to follow the statute. >> Yes. >> Which is what I would like. >> Can it just additional? >> Yes. >> Yes. That is my motion is to >> follow the statute. follow the statute as required by law and not >> to only only add things that are >> whatever. >> Yeah, I'm [clears throat] fine with that, too. I mean, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. You're just talking about that uh that section on the bottom that the affirmation section, >> the disclaimer, the whatever whatever by statute we have to have. >> Yeah. >> Thank I I would be even I I would even since we I don't think we have a motion on the table for that, do we? Well, technically Jill just made a motion and Gil. >> Okay, so we do have a motion on the table. Okay. Um, >> strike that >> or amendment to the motion. >> The amendment to the motion. >> Okay. And that's clear enough to administration on what to do. I was just going to say we could give administration discretion, but >> um if to have the the information provided that they swear or affirm to contain only with statute verbage as required by law. >> Okay, perfect. Um, do we have any discussion on that? >> All right. All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. >> Okay. That motion carries. Um we'll trust administration to make the edits as necessary. Um we have a mo we do have a well we obviously we have a motion on the table to >> that was the amendment to the motion. >> Okay. Great. I'm I'm I'm trying to keep track. Um I get lost [clears throat] sometimes myself in uh procedure. Um, do we have any other discussion on going out for the application? >> No. >> All right. Um, in that case, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed. >> Okay. So, that will be posted. Um, that brings us to uh 8.1 new business of uh the 2027 2029 um achievement and integration plan. Um, this was primarily put on the agenda for public awareness. So, they could see the plan, they could see the full text of it. Of course, it's here if we want to have some discussion. Um, following our kind of our first reading, second reading approval process. It'd be here for amendments should somebody want to offer one. If not, I don't even see any discussion. So, we'll go in. I would This brings us to I would entertain a motion to close the meeting as permitted by Minnesota Statute Section 13D.03 03 to consider strategies for labor negotiations as it pertains to the following bargaining units, directors, principles, and supervisors. >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion, a second. Any discussion? >> All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. Okay, that motion carries and we will now go into close session.