I agree >> with you. Are you guys gonna through the whole meeting? I can hear you. No. How? Well, good evening everyone. At this time, I'd like to welcome
everyone here this evening. It's good to see everyone as we work together to effectively educate each student for success. I would like to call to order this Anoka Henipin School Board meeting for today, March 23rd, 2026.
At this time, please join the board in pledging our allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, and justice for all. Thank you. Our first order of business tonight is to approve the board agenda. Is there a motion to approve the board agenda as presented? >> So moved.
>> We have a motion from director Duchaine. Is there a second? >> Second. >> With a second from Director Arco. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, the acting clerk this evening, director Matt Odet will call the role, please.
>> Mr. Simon, >> I. >> Mr. Arco, >> I. >> Mr. Shane, >> I. >> And I will vote I. Miss Langenfeld. >> I also vote I with five in favor and zero opposed. The agenda is approved.
The next item, members, is the consent agenda. And as normal, members can remove items from for separate consideration and discussion if it's their desired. Is there a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented?
>> So moved >> with a motion from director Duchaine. Is there a second? >> Second >> with a second from Director Arco. Is there any discussion at this time? Director Adet. >> Thank you, Chair Langfeld. just a a
little bit of discussion related to um item 4 I which is the achievement and integration plan. Um the plan I just want to make a note that the plan remains a problem in my opinion. It's a something we spend significantly on
which has a stated goal to improve the achievement gap. Um and the however the academic improvement goals in the plan remain weak and the board has really yet to see or has seen little evidence that
the programming um including the magnet schools are making a measurable impact on on academic performance and I wish we could see that. Um and so I recognize however that the plan does
have the support of a majority of the board. So, I'm not going to pull it. Uh, but I did just want to make the point that I think that that plan in the future should be redone with greater emphasis on academic performance. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Director Arco. >> I likewise um don't think it's a perfect plan for the reasons I stated at the last work session. I do not like the idea of plans that exist solely on the basis of discriminating racially, which is what this does. even if it's done
with good intentions. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But all of that said, the state is giving us money and as director pointed out, the majority of the board is fine with it. So I'm not going to pull it or vote against it or anything. >> Any other discussion at this time?
Hearing no more discussion, the acting clerk will call the role, please. >> Mr. Simon, >> I. >> Mr. Arco, >> I. >> Mr. Shane >> I >> I will vote I. Chair Langenfeld. >> I also vote I with five in favor and
zero opposed. Our consent agenda is approved. >> At this time our next agenda item is communications, delegations and petitions section of the meeting. This is a time for our community members to provide input directly to us the school
board about issues that fall within the school board's authority. We plan typically for this agenda to be 15 minutes, but I see we have a number of cards. Our policy is to allow for community members to speak up to five minutes, but because there are several
persons here that want to speak, um we are using our discretion would like to reduce the time to comment uh for the all of us to hear all of everyone and keep the meeting on schedule. So at this time we will have two minutes for each
uh speaker. If you have written notes or wish to email the board, you can leave them with Miss Ball or actually email us because we value your input. It's very important. So tonight I did not count the cards, but there are several. Um Oh,
they counted for me. There's nine. Thank you for that. Um nine cards to keep the meeting on time. I ask individuals to keep the comments to two minutes. Speakers, you will be able to receive a time on the screens to manage your comments and our microphone system will
be muted at the end of the time allowed, but we welcome as noted written testimony if you have more to say that than time allows. And if there is there anyone out there who also would like to speak as we move forward, please make
sure that you give fill out a yellow card and give it to Miss Ball. A couple of procedural reminders for all of us. Our meeting participation uh procedures are in place to assure open and orderly public comments as well as to protect the due process and
privacy rights of individuals under law. If speakers use specific names of students, staff or board members, I will need to interrupt and to stop the speaker. Please remember to rec direct your comments to me.
Members of the audience, please listen respectfully and if the board cannot hear the speakers, I may reset the timer to allow for the speakers to be heard. and audience members that disruption this portion may be asked to leave if
there's a significant disruption. So at this time I would like to invite and welcome Sarah Nelson to the board. Good evening. Thank you for coming this evening and we look forward to hearing your comments.
>> Thank you. Uh, good evening, co-chair Langenfeld, other members of the board, Superintendent McIntyre. My name is Sarah Nelson. I'm a parent of three students and a teacher in Anoka Henipin
at Oxbow Creek. I'm aware that you've had to make very tough budget decisions and have tried to cut keep those cuts away from the classroom. I'm sure that hasn't been an easy task. I'm here tonight to speak about cutting social workers in elementary schools. This
decision will directly impact the classroom. Last week, we were shocked to hear that a school of 1,114 students would be required to have only one social worker. We were shocked that social workers were
ever considered expendable. One of my colleagues looked at me and said, "It's an injustice to our students. I want schools where we put kids first. This decision does not. Social workers are our frontline support system. Social
workers are integral, vital, and essential to the work we're doing. I've been a teacher for over 20 years. There are countless situations where I've relied on the expertise of our social workers. A social worker helped to get a parent into a new parenting program and
avoid her kids going to foster care. This changed my student and his family's tra trajectory and in turn his and his siblings education. One year, I had several students in my class going through very serious issues including anxiety, the death of a
student's parent, and a girl who was going through treatment for a rare cancer-like disease. There is no way I could have met all those heavy needs without the support of a school social worker. My colleague stated it this way. Classroom teachers already have an
overflowing plate and aren't equipped to deal with the unique needs of students with mental health issues. When students are in crisis mode or feeling anxious, their brains are not able to focus on learning. Having a safe person and a safe space to go makes all the
difference in the world. Just last week, I had a student become upset and cry heavily, which is very out of the norm for him. He wasn't able to tell me what was wrong. there hadn't been an issue in the classroom. I was able to send him to talk to the social worker. Access to
that support met his needs and allowed the instruction to continue for the rest of his classmates. >> Thank you, Miss Nelson. >> Yeah, just I'm almost done. The rising mental health and behavioral needs across the country is also happened right here in Anoka Henipin. We can't meet all the needs of our students with
adequate support. On a personal note, all three of my kids received social work services at various times during elementary school. The most critical time was in 20120 during the pandemic when I was diagnosed with cancer. My kids needed extra support during that
time as any child was. We also sought outside resources to support our children. However, children's feelings don't happen at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Feelings can come up during the school day and interrupt learning. It's a huge relief to know. Thank you, Miss Nelson.
Can you give your We really want to read the rest of this. If you could please share because two minutes went very quickly. So, thank you for your testimony tonight. And if you have copies for that, please share with Miss.
At this time, I would like to invite Christy Extramm to the board table. Thank you and welcome. >> Thank you. >> Two minutes goes very quickly. I used to testify at the legislature. So anyway,
thank you for your patience and if you have any written testimony, please give it to Miss B. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Good evening. My name is Christy Extramm, community education secretary and representative for the Anoka Henipin Educational Office Professionals
Association. Our association represents 217 active members. We are the people who keep our school offices running, answer the phones, and support our families every day. Recently, we surveyed our members about rising insurance costs. The
results are a wake-up call for this district. 72% are reconsidering having district insurance. 82% that is 174 secretaries are actively questioning if they can afford to keep
working here. Last week we recommended plan changes to curb those costs. We did our part, but the trade-off is higher deductibles. For an hourly employee, that isn't a budget adjustment. It's a crisis. Our members want you to know
their reality. One shared, "My paychecks get smaller every year. I can't add my children to my plan because it could cut my paycheck in half." Another said, "So far in half a year, I've made $2,000 less than last year due to due to
premiums. I'm moving backwards, not forward. It's insulting. Many feel they're on an island. Essential to operations, yet an afterthought compared to other groups. Why do our benefit strategies differ?
Why do our lowest paid employees bear the heaviest brunt while others have flex amounts to cushion the blow? We chose this district for the community knowing the superior benefits were the equalizer for our lower pay. And that equalizer is gone. We've done our part.
Now we ask the board to do yours. cover the 4% reserve amount with a one-time payment so it isn't added to our premiums and frontload HSA accounts with an amount significantly higher than the proposed $750 because our members can't afford the
upfront costs of these new deductibles. All employees deserve to feel valued and supported. We're asking for equity across all positions. Help us stay here and help keep our schools running. >> Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. I would like to invite Gina Newlander to the board table. >> Good evening, Gina, and welcome. >> Good evening, Superintendent McIntyre, Co-chair Langenfeld, and members of the board. My name is Gina Nulander and I
have been a school social worker in Anoka Henipin since 1999. For the last 21 years, I've served Oxville Creek Elementary, one of our largest elementary schools with over,00 students. For 14 of those years, I was the only social worker there. As mental health needs exploded, that workload
became unsustainable. And in 2019, the district finally added a second social worker, which was prior to COVID. Even with the two of us, we're completely overwhelmed. Last Thursday, we were notified that Oxbow's allocation will be cut back to one position next year.
While I understand that budget cuts are happening across the district, this creates a massive inequity for our building when a social workto ratio is not even considered when allocating staffing. Some schools are able to buy back their social workers using title
one or admin intern funds. In addition to our social work cut, Oxbow Creek's admin intern has also been eliminated. These positions are provide critical support to our over 1100 students. To understand what this cut means, you have
to understand an average day at Oxbow. We're at the doors helping anxious students even get into the building at arrival and ensuring safety at dismissal. We're in the classrooms diffusing behaviors and pinpointing anxiety, depression, family change, trauma, grief, and loss. We're we are the bridge for families who need food,
clothing, and basic health care. Ultimately, these services provide the essential support for teachers to focus on teaching and for students to focus on learning. Without these supports in place, the social work position will become purely reactive. I love my job to
the core, but I'm telling you, it's becoming too much. You adopted three core strategic priorities as a board this year with one being to improve student engagement and behavior. How do you intend to meet that priority when you have cut the support staff who intervene in this area? I invite any of
you to shadow me for just one hour. See the intensity of the needs that come with,00 students every single day. I know the budget is complex, but we must prioritize additional funding whether through the state or a fall referendum. Please make this a priority not just for
Oxbow Creek, but for the health of our entire district. >> Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I would like to invite Mara Nether Mayer to the table, please. Welcome. Thank you for coming to the
board table tonight. Good evening, board. My name is Mara Neermmyer. I'm a parent at Oxbow Creek Elementary, a PTO leader, and a volunteer. Your phase three budget reduction and reallocation decision is wrong. Cutting one of two social workers
in a school of over,00 students is not minor. It is a 50% reduction in one of the most critical support systems in our schools. And I think it's important to be very clear about what a school social worker does because it's more than just extra support or us outsourcing our
parenting to the district. They are the people who respond when a student is in crisis. They check in daily with those dealing with anxiety and depression. They run small groups that teach essential skills. They support behavior regulations so teachers can teach and
classrooms can function. They manage 504 plans, support special education evaluations, and help families navigate complex systems they could not access or understand on their own. They are the people making sure students are not just physically present, but ready to learn.
As Miss Nulander said, the position being cut at Oxbow Creek is not new. The role was established before federal COVID relief dollars came to be effective at the start of the 2019 to 2020 school year. So, let's be honest about what happens
next. All the proactive work disappears. The small groups, the daily check-ins, the relationship building. What's left is crisis triaging our students instead of proactively reacting. And it's not just at what school, it's at the elementary, middle, and high school
levels where I would argue the issues become more complex. So again, what is the plan? What is the district's defined social worker to student ratio? A question I have asked of all of you and no one has been willing to answer. My ask right now is simple. Put a
referendum for a levy on the ballot. Let the community vote and choose what we want. Thank you. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE to invite Maggie Maggie Mingi to the table. I hope I said your last name appropriately. >> Good. Yes.
>> Good. >> Thank you. Welcome. Good evening board members, board chair, and superintendent uh McIntyre. My name is Maggie Mangi. I'm a resident of Champlain and a parent of two children in the district, one at Oxbow Creek. I'm
here this evening to speak on the reduction of school social worker positions um at Oxbow. As this board knows and has been mentioned, um it's one of the largest elementaryaries in our school district and in the state of Minnesota with just over 1100 students.
We're lucky at Oxbow to have the caliber of staff and the incredible support of our community to make our school not only one of the largest in the state, but one of the best. Student support services and most critically the role of school social workers help students by facilitating earlier interventions and
learning disruptions that will only grow in severity as a child ages. My son is one such student who has had his life changed because for the better because of the intervention of his school social worker. He struggled mightily in adapting to kindergarten, was disruptive in class, refused to complete school
work, and as his very first year progressed, he grew more and more disheartened. More than one time he would come home crying because he didn't feel like he could do anything right. I reached out to his social worker trying to figure out how we could help my son. She gave us so much hope that he could
be supported. She helped us uh with the navigate the process of obtaining an ADHD diagnosis, shephered us through the 504 plan, helped us understand different ways that the school could help support him, and invited him to a small group that she facilitates where he and other
peers with ADHD learn to navigate behaviors and emotions. My son's almost at the end of his first grade year and and his social workers um support has made a pivotal impact in his academic success. He's now one of the top students in his class. He loves going to
school and he is able to understand his behaviors and curb some of his impulsive reactions. By cutting school social worker staffing down to one person for 1100 children, we're without question cutting very capable students off the knees. Cutting to one resource at Oxbow
requires not simply a change, but a seismic shift in prioritization and a focus on only the most urgent and critical cases. It leaves behind children like my son. It's imperative that Oxbow retains its second social worker position. It is irresponsible to
all lot a school the size of Oxbow the same resources as other smaller elementaryaries in the district. >> Thank you. Thank you, Maggie. Next, I would like to invite Nolan Zski. I don't know if I said that accurately.
Oh, good. A student. Welcome. Did I say your last name right? >> Uh, yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. We always want to say names, right? >> Okay. Good evening members of the board. My
name is Nolan Zilki and I am in fourth grade at Oxbow Creek. I want I want to talk to you about my social worker because she is really important to our school and is perfect for Oxbow. The way she teaches kids and helps us in social
groups makes a big difference for a lot of students. I have anxiety and she has helped me with it since first grade. With her help, I have gotten a lot better. She is important to me and lots
of other kids at Oxbow. Because of her, I can calm down, focus on my learning, and feel better at school. Without her, I I don't think a lot of kids would be doing as well as they are right now. She is really great at her job and she and
should be able to keep it because she helps so many kids and does it really and does it really well. She helps kids when we are struggling and she is a p and she is kind and patient with us. She
also helps us solve conflicts and learns and helps us learn better ways to handle problems. If she leaves or there will only be one social worker for the whole school. A lot of students will be impacted.
My social worker helps me make Oxbow a better place for kids like me and my friends. Without her, we couldn't get here today. I really hope you will let her stay at Oxbow. >> Thank you, Noah. That was very much appreciated.
>> Thank you again, Nolan. Next, I would like to invite Jessica Flynn. No, welcome. Thank you for coming. All right.
All right. Hi, my name is Jessica Plane and I'm a parent and PTO board member at Oxbow Creek Elementary. I want to start by saying I understand you're all making difficult decisions with limited resources. But understanding the constraints does not mean agreeing with the outcome because this decision is not just about staffing. It is about whether
our students have access to the support they need to function and succeed in school. My daughter has worked with our so our school social worker Anne Parisian since kindergarten. If you spend any time at Oxville, you know an she's everywhere at drop off, in the hallways, in classrooms checking in
with kids and building relationships for our students. She's a hug, a safe place, and just a familiar face that they can count on. That's not something that you can replace. And I've seen firsthand what that kind of support does for a child. When my daughter started school, she struggled. She's a shy child with
anxiety. And she had a hard time finding her place. She did not attend daycare, and her early school experience was shaped by co. With consistent support, small group, and a safe, trusted adult at school, she grew into a confident, social child with strong friendships. And that did not happen by chance. It
happened because someone had the time and capacity to support her. And that is exactly what this decision removes. At Oxbow, our two school social workers are already working well beyond their capacity, averaging an additional 20 to 30 hours per week between the two of them just to meet students needs. That's
with two. So I have to ask realistically what is expected when it happens with one because the need does not decrease. The workload does not disappear. The students do not stop struggling. the support simply goes away. Students do not get help early. They get help when
they're already in crisis. And that has consequences beyond these individual students. Because this work does not just benefit the students receiving direct support. It affects every single classroom. When students are struggling to do not receive a sport, it shows up in behavior focus, peer relationships,
and overall learning environments. But when students are supported, classrooms are calmer, safer, and more productive. And it's happening at a time when student needs are increasing, not decreasing. If we are serious about student achievement, engagement, and behavior, then we cannot continue to remove the very supports that make these
outcomes possible. That is a contradiction. I understand funding is a challenge. But if the issue is funding, then the solution should not be removing essential support from students. Give the community the opportunity to decide. If restoring these positions requires a levy, then let the people you represent have a vote in that decision. As parents
and taxpayers, we are asking be part of the solution. It's not just about budgets, it's about priorities. And right now, this decision sends a very clear message about where student mental health fall. Our students deserve our support before they are in crisis, not >> Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. I'd like to invite Tamarie Smith, please, to the table. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. Um, one second. All right. Thank you for t your time and
allowing me a space to share. My name is Tamari Smith and I am an 11th grader at a Champlain Park High School. Me and my peers with me today have been discussing about this idea for a while. We would like for student roles for youth on the school board to include their voices
when making these major decisions. I think it's important to have student representatives involved in decision-m because having only adults isn't fully capturing the student body and our voices, student experiences, and what's fully going on in the school.
I went around surveying people and I've received feedback from about 40 students um about school related feedback and many agree on the theme of needing a student voice and representation in our school. It helps blend our voices with yours and hope to collaborate when
making these major decisions. I've come here to say that there's a lot of voices in this district who would like for more student representation on the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. And thank you all for coming. Thank you. And our next person invited to the table is Michelle Powers. Please
join us, Michelle. >> And thank you for coming. >> Thank you. Good evening, superintendent, school board members, and community. My name is Michelle Powers. I've been teaching at Kunapasa Middle School for 17 years, and some of you may also know me as a co-founder of Parents for Good.
Tonight, we've heard from many community members, many of them from Oxbow. Way to go. Way to organize, everybody. Um, who are really worried about the state of our schools. Um, I'm super proud of Oxbow. Uh, yet there are feelings just like this all over the district right now. And what I'd like everyone
listening to consider is why we've had to make these cuts. Funding to our schools is being cut. Yeah, taxes are high and yeah, families are struggling. Some are trying to cover basic necessities and others are rethinking
things like vacations or home projects. The cost of living has gone up for all of us. I can't go anywhere without spending $50. And honestly, our nation is in a really tough place right now. People will argue about why politically, but I'm tired of politics. What I care
about is simple. Kids being able to go to school, learn, graduate, and going on to do something meaningful with their lives. I want that for not just my students but for my own children. I want them to grow up in a world that is better than this
one. There are people asking why do schools keep needing more money. But the cost of running a school keeps going up, right? Supplies, curriculum, transportation, health insurance, food, everything. The
system is strained. It is broken. But our community is not. Motans are strong and we are resilient and we care deeply about our kids. We can come back from this, but it's going to take hard choices, hard work, and a willingness to
set aside our pride and focus on what matters most. Right now, what matters most is our students. We have to be honest, we should have passed a levy a few years ago. Without sustainable funding, our school system will continue to decline. I remember the sacrifices my
parents made for me when I was a kid. They added potatoes to Chile because potatoes were cheap, filling, and helped the meal go further. They didn't travel on extravagant vacations because they spent their money on my dance lessons and my brother's baseball tournaments. I know my parents took date nights that
consisted of going for a drive because they couldn't afford to go out to dinner and pay a babysitter. That is what we must do right now. We must prioritize the kids. They have to come first. And that's what we need to do. Our communities need to repri re rep prioritize and our kids have to come
first. Tomorrow, we're inviting anyone who cares about this district to join an emergency community meeting. You can find the sign up link on the Parents for Good Facebook page. Let's come together. Let's make a plan and let's do some good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Michelle.
at this time. Um, the cameras are we need a five minute recess while we get the cameras rebooted up for our community. So, let's take five. It is 7 o'clock um on my cell phone. Let's see. It's 7:02. So, let's go for 707.
Thank you for your patience. What? >> I'm sure >> we don't have a corn before. >> Oh, yeah. I wasn't counting myself.
He said we lost Jeff. I said we only have a quorum. >> We this. Yeah. >> What? Thank you for your patience as we move forward. Our next agenda item is item six. That's the board calendar and
district update. Superintendent McIntyre. >> Yeah. Thank you, Cochair Langenfeld. Tonight I'll be presenting some items of interest for the board and our community regarding activities and events that we are proud of in our district. We do this to celebrate students, staff, and
community members who are contributing to the accomplishment of our mission, which is to effectively educate each of our students for success. So to start us off, we always like to highlight our state tournament participants, and we've had many here recently. The state tournament fever continues in
the district as Blaine boys uh Blaine Bengals boys basketball advanced to the state tournament with a thrilling victory over Andover in the section finals. The Bengals drew topseated and undefeated Tartan in the first round which is for tomorrow, March 24th at
Target Center. This is the sixth ever tournament birth for the Bengals in their first since 2016. and also the Blaine girls basketball team advanced to the state tournament, defeating top-seated Forest Lake in the section title. Blaine's tournament trip
ended with a loss in the consolation finals, but this was the Bengals seventh state tournament appearance in school history and their first trip since 2009. So, it was a big year for Blaine basketball and congratulations to both teams. The Andover High School boys hockey team earned the sixth seed at the
state tournament after winning the sex section 5A championship over a Centennial this year. The Huskies made their sixth state tournament appearance in school history and finished with the season record of 1116 and three. And over lost to Edina 3 to1 in the
quarterfinals and 4-3 to Lakeville South in the in overtime in the constellation bracket. and overhead coach Mark Manny was also named section 5AA coach of the year. The 2026 Minnesota State High School
League boys and girls state wrestling championships were held February 25th through the 28th at Grand Casino Arena in St. Paul. Anoka Henipin was represented by 12 individuals at this year's state tournament. Two student athletes uh from Anoka Henipin placed at
the state tournament. Blaine High School's Lillian Drews placed second in the 235 girls bracket and Simoka Canth of Andover High School placed fourth in the 189 girls bracket. Additional results are also posted in the sports
recap on the uh district website. And in boys swim and dive, Anoka Henipin was represented by 12 individuals in four relay teams at this year's state meet. A big highlight for Anoka Henipin came courtesy of Champlain Park High School freshman Pangju Lure who claimed
the onemeter diving individual state championship. So congratulations. >> Oh those results are also posted on our website. And we also want to take a moment to recognize our adaptive floor hockey team, the Anoka Henipin Mustangs, who qualified for the state tournament as the six seed in the physical
impairment division, eventually losing in the constellation final. Anthony Brown, a sophomore from Rapids High School, was named to the all tournament team. So, congratulations. So, as you can see, it's been a very exciting winter season for our athletics and activities in the district.
Blaine High School junior Tason Scoffield was one of Minnesota's top math students and was recently named to Minnesota's allstate math team. This eight-member state level team competed and finished 13th out of 100 teams at the Harvard MIT math tournament on
February 14th. Skullfield also turned in a top 10 finish in the Minnesota State Mathematics League and will be competing at the state meet later this month. The Fieldhouse board members, many of you been to this. The Fieldhouse at Champlain Park High School is the place
to be on Saturday, April 11th as an Noah Henipin's Indian Education Program hosts a pow-ow in partnership with neighboring school districts. The event is free and open to the public. The doors open at noon with the grand entry at 1 p.m. and a community feast at 5:00 p.m. The event
will feature native vendors, informational breakout sessions, and dance performances and much more. One of 128 candidates statewide for the 2026 Minnesota Teacher of the Year includes six Anoka Henipin educators who
were nominated. The teachers are Matt Belki, social studies at Rapids Middle School. Holly Bojlet, business Blaine High School. Alex Keany, technology at Sunrise Elementary School. Scott Mackey, special education at Blaine High School. Rebecca Maxi Thomas,
American Sign Language at Blaine High School. And Jeremy, excuse me, Jamie Wheatz, special education, Champlain Park High School. Minnesota's teacher of the year program celebrates a tradition of excellence in teaching throughout the state and right here in Anoka Henipin. So,
congratulations to those nominees. And finally, community input into curriculum decisions is an important element of our Anoka Henipin curriculum approval process. The district will host a social studies curriculum review community night on Wednesday, April 8th from 5:00 p. p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the In
Noah Henipin Educational Services Center. This is an open style event that provides an opportunity to pre preview and provide feedback on instructional materials currently being uh considered and that includes K5 social studies, grade eight global studies, grade nine
civics, grade nine human geography, grade 10 US history, grade 12 government and politics, and grade 12 economics. So during the open house, attendees may explore a variety of curriculum resources, connect with vendors, and share input to inform the
decision-making process. The school district will be promoting the community night opportunity with all families in the focus e newswsletter, websites, staff newsletters, and social media. So thank you, co-chair Langfeld. That concludes my superintendent's report this evening.
>> Thank you, Superintendent McIntyre. Any comments or questions for Superintendent Okay, let's move to our next agenda item. It is number seven, resolution relating to the nonrenewal of teaching contracts of probationary teachers. I
would like to welcome Shelley Leeski, director of employee services to the table. Thank you, Shelley. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, co-chair Langfeld, Superintendent McIntyre, and members of the board. I'm Shelley Leesky, director of employee services.
I'm here tonight to present two resolutions for your consideration. These resolutions are a standard part of our annual staffing cycle allowing the district to align our staffing levels with projected enrollment and budgetary requirements for the upcoming school
year. Resolution one, which you can find in appendix M, this first uh resolution is relating to the non-renewal of teaching contracts of probationary teachers under Minnesota state statute. Teachers in their first three years of
employment in a district are considered probationary. This resolution provides the district with the necessary flexibility to manage our workforce for the next academic year. I ask the board uh to adopt this resolution, please. >> Board members, are there any questions
for Miss Leeski? Hearing none. If not, before us is a resolution relating to the non-renewal of teaching contracts of probationary teachers as presented in appendix M. Is there a motion to approve appendix M as
presented? >> So moved >> with a motion from director AED. Is there a second? >> Second. >> With a second from director Arco. Is there any discussion at this time? Hearing none, the acting clerk will call
the role, please. >> Odette votes I. Dashaine >> I. >> Arco >> I. >> Simon >> I. >> Langenfeld >> I. With five in favor and zero opposed. The resolution in appendix M is adopted.
Thank you. Next we have item 7B, resolution relating to the nonrenewal of teaching contracts of tier 1 and tier 2 teachers. Welcome again. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Cochair Langanger. Uh the second item um is relating to the
non-renewal um of our tier 1 and tier 2 uh licensed teachers in appendix N. Uh tier 1 and tier 2 license are generally issued to meet immediate and temporary staffing needs. By taking action on these non-renewals now, we ensure the district remains in compliance with
state licensing standards. This also allows us to post these positions to seek tier three and tier four licensed candidates as prioritized by the state guidelines. I ask the board to adopt this resolution, please. >> Board members, do you have any questions
for our presenter? Is there a motion then to approve? If not, before us is a resolution relating to the non-renewal of teaching contracts of tier one and tier 2 teachers as presented in appendix N. Is there a motion to approve appendix N as
presented? >> So move >> with a motion from director Arco. Is there a second? >> Second >> with a second from director Aette. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, the acting clerk will call
the role, please. Odette votes I. Desaine >> I. >> Arco >> I. >> Simon >> I. >> Langenfeld >> I. With five in favor and zero opposed. The resolution in appendix N is adopted.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next agenda item is finance. Item 8A for the 26 school year amended budget. Welcome Michelle Vargas, chief financial officer.
Good evening, Chair Langenfeld, Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board. Tonight before you, I have the amended fiscal year 2526 budget. This budget is a midyear or final adjustment due to the late nature of
teachers contract settlement and that it's pushed off a little bit later than we would normally do a mid-year budget. Um but with this budget, we are looking at our updated pupil units from our October 1 counts. We had an increase over our projection by 331 pupil units.
That results in estimate of 41, 2017 for the year. Um based on that, we will update our revenues and expenditures um for the pupil units and using our prior year actuals and contract settlements for current year trends. We are only looking at amendments in the general
fund and the community service fund at this time. So overall our budget is a $752 million budget. Um for revenues, as you can see, we adopted a budget of 750 million959. The revenue side of this change is 1.9
million or.3% across the funds. On the expenditure side, it is an $ 8.2 $2 million reduction or a minus 1.1%. And again, the only funds that are being changed in this amendment are the general fund and
the community service fund. So for the general fund, our summary detail um our projected units of as I mentioned are going up by 331 from 40,686 to 4117. Um and that is based on
our October one count. And then we look at um the projection of what we keep to get to to full um adjusted pupil units for the year. The revenue increase is $2 million or.3% in the general fund. Our expenditures
are decreasing by 7.7 million or 1.1%. Our projected general fund balance of 161 million with the unassigned fund balance at 66.3 million or 11.9%. Looking specifically at the revenue
detail of that $1.99 million, the state increase is due to that pupil unit estimate going up. Um so 1.5 million of that is straight on the general ed formula. The remaining $494,000
is on other pupilbased formulas um which are operating capital, our staff development, talent development, library aid, student support aid, and achievement and integration aid. On the expenditure side, we're looking at 7.7 million decrease. This is based
on um that 7.5 million of prior year expenditure results, which was the reduction we did in our um reduction target initially at the beginning of the year. Um as the results of fiscal year 25 came in, a net reduction of 1.6 million in our health insurance
contributions. So, as you've heard, we had a reduction in enrollments um for our staff that are accessing um our health insurance plan and we also had a migration from family plans to single. So, that has reduced contributions by $6
million. There was an negotiated increase in the teacher settlement over what was the projected percentage um by 4.4 million. So, that's a net 1.6 million um reduction in our insurance contributions. There's also a $1 million
increase for contracted services and tuition payments. 500,000 in the area of our special ed contracts that we're seeing just based on trend that we've seen this year. Um and then our PSO create credit rates increased. They're
somewhat tied to the general ed formula. There's the we negotiate with North Henipin and Anoka Ramsey for those. Um but the the rate that MD would pay them goes up with the formula. So theirs goes up when we negotiate and sign those
contracts. Um the achievement and integration also went up 356,000 um based on people unit counts and um percentages of students. This amendment summary shows our revenue
and expenditures and I always try to like to show it kind of side by side if there's a revenue and an expenditure within different areas. Um the general ed formula is just going to offset expenditures in general as there there aren't added expenditures. Um capital
76,000 you can see is the increase. Staff development 49,000 talent development 4,000. Achievement and integration because that is a use it or lose it funding source. We add the expenditures into there and make sure they're available um within the budgets.
there is no carryover um in that source area. The library aid went down by 1,769. Our student support aid is the 9900. Then on the expenditure side that aren't aligned to any specific revenue, you can
see the teacher settlement benefits at 4.4 million. The reduction in health insurance, student migration, and drops at 6 million. And then our contracts at 500,000 each for those two. and then the 7.5 million. So overall what we are
reducing is our original operating balance of a negative 255 million to an operating balance of 15.3 million. Um so that is putting our ending fund balance down to 161 million from 176 million.
So this is the showing our our areas of our revenue and our expenditures. You can see that all of our revenue is in the area of our state revenue of 2 million. In the expenditure side, as um we budget and we entered all the actual
amounts, there's the shift in between where um the objects codes are budgeted versus where we actually laid them out when departments and staffing all drops in. Um there's been a shift obviously from some of the salaries that we budgeted to to contracted services over
the years and this is just recognizing it as a balance out but overall the total reduction in expenditures is 7.7 million in the middle of the area where we talk about the operating surplus and deficit. Originally we had that 25 million operating
surplus or deficit um that is then offset by our strategic investment of 9.4 million. Our original target for that deficit the 15.6 million was reduced then by the 7 and a.5 million. At this point in time you can see our
deficit is 5.8 million. That is the amount that we've reduced it to. That will um go against our unassigned fund balance. We knew that there was going to be some deficit this year that we when you put off the budget reductions into a third phase that we were carrying some
of that. So, as we move to the next slide, this is where all of our um each assigned fund balance, each restricted fund balance um as they're budgeted. That top line is the unassigned um part of the
phase 2 budget cuts was eliminating the strategic investment in um in next year and then moving that amount that is set aside back into the unassigned fund. So, you can see that 5.15 million in that
area. Um, we're projected again at 66.2 95 million for our unassigned or 11.7% at the end of this year. It's hard to see with Jeff there. Um, you can our actual operating balance is just so the difference between our
revenues and expenditures in each area. Um as you can see the area of our strategic investments and the assigns the 225,000 is the project lead the way that we budget each year. Um the strategic investments of the 8 million that's where that 5.15 million is this
year and that also includes textbooks that we had budgeted and then you have capital infrastructure that is spending down at 970,000. As you go further down, you'll see just minor um spend down of fund balance or uh a slight increase like in the capital
of 76,000. So again, our overall operating balance is 15.3 million with the majority of that being within our strategic investment accounts at one time area. Are there any questions on the general fund before I move on to the community
service fund? Our community service fund um has a a small adjustment in the revenue side of $24,000 or 0.1%. Uh they're looking at $200,000 increase
in our investment earnings. $92,000 decrease in school readiness revenue primarily due to a lower ECSE chargeback projection. uh $75,000 decrease in the Adventures Plus premium pay. That had been estimated a little higher thinking it
would grow, but it's pretty static the amount that they received for that premium pay. QC comp revenue adjusting down compared to last year of 22,000. Um a $13,000 decrease in our homeschool non-public aid due to lower pupil count in that program. And then 22,000
decrease in community program revenue. That's primarily um the revenue base due to lower um enrollment in those programs. On the expenditure side, there's a $54,000 decrease or 1.6%.
Um they are also seeing a decrease in pay payroll benefits um with less insurance contributions or elections of 164,000. Uh Q comp decrease in expenditures based on last year of 22,000. $95,000 decrease in early learning
programs um due to some vacant positions and some less tenured staff. $84,000 decrease in our adult basic ed expenditures. Again, primarily due to some vacant positions and less tenure staff. a $75,000 decrease in the premium
pay, which was the offset on the expenditure side now of the revenue, and a $65,000 decrease in other community school programs that are primarily driven by transportation model change. One more slide.
In addition to that, there's $30,000 decrease in the community education central services. Um that was change in their capital outlay plans and a $16,000 decrease in the enrollment driven homeschool non-public school expense. That's the expense side of their revenue
decrease. And then the 46,000 adventures plus non-payroll expenditures um increase where they are supporting some strategic recruiting and professional development. So on their amendment summary, it shows by their program based the increases and
decreases in the program. You can see for the most part they're offsetting the revenues and the expenditures. Um within each program except for in your other community programs you see a revenue increase of 184,000 but their expenditures are reducing by 51,000.
Their fund balance remains pretty stable at 10.7 million. as we look at it in within the community and fund there very stable program sitting right around that 34% and that
is a pretty common fund balance for a primarily feebased program. So as we look at again the projected um and proposed amendment for the 2526 budget is that increase of 1.97 million primarily in the general fund for the
pupil unit increase. A decrease of 8.2 2 million on the expenditure side and that is primarily also in the general fund and primarily um driven by the reduction that we had based on prior expenses and then our um decreased access to health
insurance. So at this point in time I will open it up to any comments or questions. >> Thank you board members. Any questions for Miss Vargas? Director Odette, >> I don't have any questions, but I have some comments. And I've made these comments pretty similar before about
this budget and about budgets previously, but I didn't vote for this budget when it passed originally. And I'm not going to vote for the amendment under essentially the same grounds, which are uh that our budgeting process continues to lack a degree of transparency that would be required for
a board member who wants to do a good job of evaluating not just the facts and figures of the budgets themselves, but how the money is being spent. and especially in the context of uh we had community feedback tonight that there
are folks who just want the board to put a referendum on the ballot um and uh because because we feel the pinch of of cuts to the budget. But as a board member, what I've been asking for is the
ability to in public review in great detail how we're spending our money. Not like this where we just see hundreds of millions of dollars on a page but you know on a position by position basis uh how do we spend the money so that when
people come and say what could be more important than social workers that we might have a chance of ask of answering that question and till now we've not had adequate opportunity to do it. I proposed ways to do it that are workable. They're used all over in government funding, so they are
possible. And and yet we continue uh not to do it, not to provide persons such as myself the opportunity to at the level of detail that I've asked for, review the budget, understand the budget, comprehend where the money is going,
what we're using it for, whether it's effective or not. And so I hope that through the next cycle we might get to a place where we have an opportunity to view something like that, but until now we haven't. So I'm going to continue to vote no on budgets until we do. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Other comments, questions? Director Ero. >> Yes. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Langenfeld. I'd like to echo what Director Adet just said about the lack of transparency. I likewise cannot give an explanation to
anybody as to why we keep this over that or why we have to cut this versus that. Maybe a very high level explanation, but I not one that I have complete confidence in because as director stated and I completely agree, the level of transparency is kind of just not there.
And so the the question has come up many times. What would it take to go out for a referendum? So I just want to kind of touch on this again for the sake of all the commenters tonight and the public in general. Um, first off, I've offered many times to go out for a referendum provided we do what has been is
described as zerobased budgeting to which uh many many concerns and complaints have come up about about that process. But the general idea is that essentially what director Adet described, you just go through each line item and ask why you're spending it and just verify that we do want to spend it
that way. And certainly there are some line items you can't get rid of, like we can't just question the bus contract, for example, that's going to stay no matter how we feel about it. That's totally fine. You can still do zerobased budgeting and acknowledge that we're not going to touch the buses. It's really easy to do actually. So, the fact I want
to speak to this the fact that the board thus far has not agreed to do that. Again, I've said this before in light of the fact that we live in the state of Minnesota, which is fraud capital USA at this point. I don't think there is any fraud taking place in the Okanabin
district. But at an absolute minimum, when we are drowning in that in the state of Minnesota, you'd think it would behoove the leadership of this district to say, "Yeah, maybe we should double check publicly for the public to understand how it is that we're spending our money just for good measure, just
because of the context we live in, and just to build trust with the public. But we have not opted to do that. And so if we're not going to verify that the money that we have is being spent well, then I'm not going to go and ask the public for more money to spend it on I'm not even sure what at this point. I guess
social workers would be one of the things. And so to show you that my concerns about the money being spent well are not ungrounded, we actually have almost proof of that kind of in the complaints that came up tonight because if you actually follow the paper trail
back, you know, re at the most recent budget cuts finally and fully we are done with what is described as the esser funds. It's essentially the COVID relief money. And so at the time before I was on the board, before the board was split in whatever way that it is split, um, in
the board's wisdom at that time, they thought it made sense to spend onetime money on reoccurring expenses. Should go without saying why that's a bad idea, but that's what the board thought was a good idea at the time. And so if that is the logic that was being
used to make financial decisions in the district, that is why I question how we spend the rest of the money that we have because I have proof that the logic being used before I was here was poor logic to say the least. And so I'm more than happy to
go out for a referendum provided we go to the people of the Inocanaban district and show them line item by line item or bucket by bucket that the money they're being spent or the money they've given us is being spent well and why that is. And honestly the state of Minnesota would do very well to do the same thing.
But of course they're not going to because that's how the government works. So again I'm going to state this so there's absolutely no doubt. provided we do zerobased budgeting, I am more than happy to go out for a referendum pro assuming it shows that we do in fact need the money. And I do not interpret
as well-intentioned anybody who says no to that because that is transparency. Like that is just basic transparency. If you're saying no to basic transparency for the public, I don't know how you can have good intentions. >> Comments? Director Duchaine. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, so my experience interacting with the budget uh here at Anoka Henipin has been very different than the two uh experiences that have just been shared. We have multiple public comment uh sections of
these meetings throughout the year. We have proposed budgets. We have the actual budget discussions. We have these amendment discussions. We have the tax levy discussions where we go through the budget in detail propos you know coming up to property tax uh proposal information. I I lose count how many
times we bring public facing information about the budget. Um in response to some of the questions that that have been raised at the table tonight. I know that our finance department has created an extensive uh detailed presentation that
we did have available at all of our meetings uh this last cycle for our budget decisions which had the specific buckets that that you referenced outlined what's being spent, what's restricted, what's unrestricted. Uh in
addition to that public-f facing document, all of us have access to endless spreadsheets and pieces of information as well as time from our finance department to go through line by line individually
at at any depth that we so wish to do. Uh and and that has been offered my entire time on the board for the last four years plus three months. Uh I think that it is our duty and responsibility
as board members to use those resources that are available to us to increase our own understanding and our own ability to understand this complex this it is it is complex. The budget is complex but it is not outside of our
ability to understand it and it is shared in such a way with our public um that is transparent. It is hard to understand, but it is transparent and it is obvious that there is great care given to share any information with us
on the board and the public whenever those questions come up. I think um another point that's important is that there are forensic audits audits of our district. Every single year we have glowing audit reports of the financial
uh practices inside of this district and the continued um ask for a trade and if you do this we'll do this. Um that's that is not in the best interest of our students of our community of our staff
to to put the decisions in in such a a binary term. uh there's no common definition of what is meant by the line by line, the bucket by bucket. You can even see here we're having, you know, difficulty knowing exactly what somebody means by that. And it's also a very
inefficient use of our time and and energy as a district when we have very clear restricted funding sources, very clear pieces of information about what we're spending on staffing, what we're spending on buildings, what we're spending on transportation. Um, it it's
not a mystery. It's all there for people to see on our on our website, in our board materials from all of our past meetings. Um, I I think that, uh, us doing our homework and coming prepared to these meetings, having done a lot of
discussions if we needed that, asking questions if we had them ahead of the meetings, um, is is really the bare minimum we should be we should be putting into this. And that said, I appreciate our amended budget presentations. I think that they
demonstrate a level of transparity in understanding of our financial situation. Um, that should give our our public great confidence. It is true that the cost of operating a school district is increasing. The cost of operating our
own family lives and budgets are increasing. The cost of operating cities and counties is increasing. Cities and counties are able to raise their taxes as needed to pay for those costs. School districts are not. I think that's a common misconception.
We are not able to raise property taxes because school costs more to offer to students. We always have to ask the public or ask the state legislature or the federal government to provide us more funding to continue to offer the same things that we had been providing
the prior years. Um that that is a fact of school finance. >> Thank you. Director Simon, I see you up there. And do you have any comments or questions at all at this time?
Um, it's difficult when you're virtual, so I wasn't going to, but I'll try and see. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, I just I couldn't tell if you had your hand up or not, so I thought I'd ask. >> Yeah. No, I I'll just make a comment. I think in my experience at least um
echoes a little bit of what Casey just said that um at least I've always looked at as a board member. I I look into it myself. So, um, I've been able to justify, you know, whether it's zerobased budgeting
or justifying every dollar that's spent and how it's spent. I think board members should do that work. Um, and should be able to explain that to the public and that's what I've done and that's what I'm doing currently. Um, so
I think that is something that all of us should do >> and I think that we have the resources to be able to do it. Thank you. >> Thank you. As as I personally have cut and participated in budgets for many
many many years, I think one of the things that I as I've listened to all the comments coming in and concerns and questions, it feels like um what's not clear is what is our budget strategy?
are we and and quite frankly a budget as you well know especially a budget of this size there are different kinds of budget strategies for different budgets um there's incremental budgeting there's zerobased budgeting there's needsbased
budgeting and so um I you know I know I I read an email communication um from Michelle Vargas um when someone had asked to just understand those different kinds of strategies really is perhaps
what's getting conflated in what we're looking at. That's where if I understand what kind of budget strategy is being used and you can do hybrid budgeting, I I've seen that many times and used it many times. Um, I think that that that
lends itself to a little more clarity for individuals who want to say, you know, see how this budget works because quite frankly, there are areas where people actually have been using some sort of variation. We don't have shared
definitions, but of zerobased budgeting. So, you know, I think about department budgets. I know that my experience um in that area has often been zerobased budgeting. Um then I also know that there is need-based budgeting based on our priorities. So um I put that out
there for consideration because I I I just keep hearing it and people saying do you oppose it? Do you you know which budgeting strategy do you oppose? And it's like you have to look at each one for each budget um to say which one is works best and it may be a combination
of a couple but what that does is helps helps really understand how things got where they are. Um that's that's been my experience. So um so I've looked into that as well, but I think it's one of those um important conversations that
maybe we could have at some point in time at least to have a shared understanding of the different strategies that people are talking about. So any other comments? Yes, director. >> Um I would also like to add very um well
done presentation. Thank you, Miss Vargas. Um, nothing I have said or I'm saying is reflection on you or your work. You do a great job every time. So, thank you for that. Also, thank you to the rest of the board for the conversation. I just like to follow up on some of the thoughts. Um, so, Director Desane, you had mentioned this idea of forensic audits. I agree there's
no fraud in the district and that's really all those audits are showing is as if we're breaking any kind of laws. So, there's really no concern there. Those do a good job and they don't really speak to the points I'm getting at. Um, you also said it was an inefficient use of our time. That may be the case. I I actually probably agree
with you. It would take a lot of time, but it's also our job and I'm more than happy to spend that time. And that also is not saying that we don't want our district admin to do their job and like like set up all of the buckets and all of the presentations. We absolutely want
that, but it is our job to finally and fully verify what they do and kind of go through every line item. So, it's maybe a waste of time, but it is our job and I'm more than happy to spend that time. Um, in my experience, um, the way the budget cuts have gone is typically we don't we
start from the top and work our way down. Meaning, we've only really been given options that the superintendent has brought forward. And yeah, there's been some discussion around those options, but ultimately when you're given say options one, two, ABC or 1 2 3 like you don't know what other things
could be cut because they're not being presented to you as options. And through discussion, we found a few things here and there, but it still is it greatly restricts what we're even able to see in the first place. And then you guys also mentioned this idea about asking questions. I think asking questions is
great. I try to ask a lot of questions, but the problem again and sadly in my experience, it does not guarantee fully contextually whole answers. I don't think anyone's lying, but it it doesn't guarantee that we get all the context even if I try to ask all the right questions. And the real key is it
doesn't ensure that every dollar is being spent well. Only building from the ground up where every dollar has to be justified from the get-go, that does guarantee that the money is being spent well. So, I can ask a million questions until I'm blue in the face. It's not really going to change anything at the
end of the day. And then we also discussed this idea of, you know, how state the state can raise taxes and we're subject to the voters and that we have to go out to ask for them and that's not fair. Again, I agree with you. That's not fair. It is also one of the greatest strengths of the public school district that we actually have to
ask the voters when we want to increase their taxes as opposed to just doing it. And honestly, if the state and the federal government were subject to the same rules, this country would be so much better off. So, just throwing that out there. We are the model to follow after, not the thing to change is how I
would view that. And then again, I just kind of two final thoughts. I can't explain what I'm not allowed to see. And again, I don't think anyone's lying to me. I'll never go that far. But it if you just take the restricted fund funding for example, it who even knows
how many ways we could spend the funding. And I I I don't have the ability to even ask the right questions because of how many rules and strings there are attached. Again, I can try and I've I've figured out some of it, but just because I can ask those questions and get some answers, again, it doesn't mean we're going to act on it and it
doesn't mean anything's going to change. And again, it doesn't mean I'm getting all the context anyways. And then again, I just want to reiterate this because this is the proof of what I'm saying about zerobased budgeting. Doesn't matter what you think about the current process. Previous boards in
their wisdom and no offense but or lack thereof chose to spend one-time money on reoccurring expenses and then we're crying about it now that the money ran out. That is a reaction I would expect from I would expect from my children, not from the quote experts who made
these decisions in the first place. And so if that is the logic that we used in the past, you can understand why I'm very skeptical of the logic being used now to make budgeting decisions now because I'm not convinced that that way of thinking has changed. >> Other questions, comments?
Okay. Thank you, Miss Vargas. Um, >> this will be brought back then on the April 27th board meeting for a vote. >> Okay. We don't have an emotion for that. >> No, it's just this is just the first read. It'll be brought back.
>> First read. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Now, now we are to Our next agenda item is item 8B, preliminary FY27, general fund budget. And welcome again,
Miss Vargas. >> Thank you. This is just a large um high overview of where we are at now for the projected budget for fiscal year 27. Um, this is a we are in the middle of a legislative session, so it is a
non-funding year, but there are always sometimes some tweaks and stuff that are going on. So, we're still following it very closely. Um, we certified the levy in December that funds fiscal year 27. We did our enrollment projections, which
is what our funding formulas were using to base again for our projected pupil units. Those are also used for staffing. So any staffing adjustments um based on changes um as we're looking at the February forecast that just came out um
there it was $1.3 billion higher for revenue. Um so we are looking at a $3.7 billion surplus for the current bianium. So the current year and next year um it is still a $3.6 billion structural
deficit for 2829. So basically, if they did nothing to change anything rolling forward, you would use all of that surplus and then it would be like you can't one time as we talked about using one time do one-time funding to to
ongoing. Um so that's where that's at right now. So there are some talk about um reductions that are out in the future that could affect the next bianium. Um timeline for the 27 budget continues then with our we're doing the middle of staffing from February on through May.
It actually goes all the way up into September as students arrive and we make changes um that you're still looking at stuff but the heavy part of it is now through May. Um March and April we are working on department and site budgets. So those are being rolled out um and
being built um right now. This is a preliminary preview right now. I'll be back again with more details as we things continue to change. Um, and then May 18th, I will be back with all funds. So, we'll look at all funds on the 18th
and then back again on the 22nd to approve it within the statutory timelines. The revenue assumptions that are being used for the 27 budget include a $10.9 million increase in revenue. Um, the CPI is now set in place each year in
February. So, that amount came out um from MD in February stating that the CPI being used for next year is 2.69%. That's a $22 increase on our basic formula and that adds um that will
increase our formula from 76 our 27683 from 7481. The next item is the $4.4 million compensatory aid decrease. So, the hold harmless has expired. That is something that is still in play at the legislature right now um back and forth. But by
going to just the automatic direct certifications, we lose revenue. We are a district that has um what we'll call the paper applications or it's still online or on paper. We have I think over 3,000 applications that would count in
that area. So we are a loser of that compensatory aid. Um so right now the amount that I have is a reduction of 4.4 4 million in there. Um 7.5 million increase in our special education revenue that is a reimbursement based
formula. So that is um based on projected expenditures this year uh drive next year. So that there's always that increase. Um the cross subsidy percentage is going up from 044%
um to or 44% to 50% next year. So, that is another increase that's causing that um the 7.5 million. We do have the 1.8 million decrease in tax levy and that's based on the one we adopted in December and if you'll remember that was
primarily due to prior year adjustments for estimated higher estimated pupil units in previous years. There is a $2.3 million increase in the English learner aid and that's due to a $547 increase on that formula. That's a very large increase that they're starting to
um ramp up. So that is going from $1,228 and uh our English learner pupil unit to 1775. There's also the first year of the English learner cross subsidy 2.6 million. We've talked about it because we had that transfer in order to create
the cross subsidy in last year. That last year it's based on two years prior. So our cross subsidy last year is what generates next year that $2.6 million amount. Um so that is at the first year of that. Well, now that we'll have more
English learner revenue, our cross subsidy is lower. So that transfer is going to go down by 3.7 million. On the expenditure side, we're looking at $5.6 million increase in net expenditures. Overall, we're looking at
19.1 million increase for compensation assuming two and a half percent on our salaries, TRA, PER, FICA, work comp, and Minnesota paid leave. So, those are all calculations on salary. 5% increase on our health, dental, life, and long-term
disability. There is a $2.6 million onetime teacher payments that were negotiated. That's included in the contract or in the the estimates. And then we have about $500,000 for staffing ratio FTE ads. So um that's just based
on ratio our students. We had projected lower students last for the current year and so we are slightly probably understaffed and then we add them back next year based on the ratio. Um there's the 1.1 million increase for those secondary coaches that are being added that will come out of compensatory
funding will hit the fund balance. um the 8.1 million decrease for the phase three budget cuts, 2.6 million increase on services. So that's in the areas of utilities. We almost always see an increase in our utilities area. The transportation contract has a 5%
increase in year two. There's the $4 million decrease. That's that English learner cross subsidy. So we're decreasing it on the revenue side and the expenditure side. And then we have the 5.15 million reduction of those one-time strategic investment positions.
So, as we look at it, just again, this is just the big overview of where we're at now. We're looking at um operating deficit of 9.97 million. Strategic investments next year are 4.275. um we're trending down in our capital
infrastructure and that so it's it's not as high um at the 9.4 million and then you'll see that our adjusted operating deficit is 5.7 million. The majority of that is all in compensatory in the fund balance. So there's that plan to use
that builtup fund balance in there um with what we have in that compensatory. We're not cutting that and reducing any of those expenditures at this time. and using the fund balance to continue it even though the revenue is going down. So our unassigned
amount that we've closed that gap of that um the structural deficit in our fund our our budget is really hitting the unassigned by $100,000 for fiscal year 27 at this point in time.
So we are projected to have 11.7% um operating fund balance. The things that are still kind of in play at this point in time is whether or not the compensatory current law the potential harmless hold harmless
changes. Could we get more money back? Um the one time between terms unemployment funding is expected to be fully spent in 27. I'm not sure what that means and where it's at. We'll know more as we close 26. Um but our
unemployment is 2 and a half to $3 million annually for that between terms. Right now we have that um expected to be there. The revenue is in there to match that. Minnesota paid family leave rate adjustment. Is that something that could
go up? It's right now in statute of a maximum of 1.2%. We're at 888% where we share it 5050. So there's that's another unknown. um our investment earnings that's my I budget at 4.6 6 million. That's if we stay
around 3%. >> We were years ago we were at 0.1% and made $300,000 on 150 million. So that is something that could take a D. I thought it would actually by now and it hasn't. So
>> um we've stayed at over 3% this year so far. Um but that could tank at any time. It's just something that is something we don't have control on. our our budget for our investment earnings is 4.6 million annually. The other item that we have is still the health insurance
internal service fund deficit and something that if is something that is done either through rates or through a transfer from the general fund as the the primary funer of the internal service fund. Those are things still to
determine um if there the deficit in the internal service fund is really a deficit of those operating funds until it is made up either and we we're looking at it being made up somewhat by rates this year but we're
not necessarily seeing that um and what the plan is going forward. Um so those are the things that I think are still budget considerations that are still out there. We'll continue to watch the legis legislative session um and then watching trends that we have this year.
So that is just kind of a high overview of where we're at for fiscal year 27. And again um we'll have more detailed presentations as we get further down the road. >> Thank you so much. Any comments or questions or concerns?
appreciate all of your hard work and that of your team bringing this forward for us to hit our heads around and the community as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next agenda item is labor relations
and benefits. It's item 9A to authorize the 2025 2027 education support professionals master agreement. And I'd like to welcome Dr. Jennifer Cherry, our chief human resource officer.
>> Thank you, co-chair Langenfeld, members of the board, and Superintendent McIntyre. Pleased to be here this evening to announce that our education support professionals who are represented by In Noah Henipin Education Minnesota have ratified a new two-year agreement with the effective dates July
1, 2025 through June 30, 2027. Thank you to the members of the employee team and the district bargaining team for their work in negotiating an updated employment contract. The tenative agreement reached include step movement both years of the contract as well as
salary schedule improvements in year one. This includes a 52 cents per hour increase for early childhood screeners and $1 an hour increase for community school programmers. In the second year of the contract, this
includes a 53 cents per hour um increase for our early childhood screeners and $1.50 per hour for our programmers. It also includes medical insurance contributions increased $40 for single
coverage and $75 for those with family coverage each month in year 1, as well as an additional $95 per month for those with single coverage and $255 per month for those with family coverage
in year two. In addition, the dental insurance contribution increased $5 per month in the second year of the contract. In total, this compensation package includes a 10.84% increase or $49,000 in new money, and
the contract equals uh just over $900,000 over the course of the two years of the contract. The proposed agreement is uh presented in appendix R of your packet. And uh at this time I'm seeking approval of the contract as
presented. >> Thank you. Board members, are there any questions for our presenter? >> If not, before us is the authorization of the 2025 2027 education support
professionals master agreement as presented. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve this master agreement. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Director Arco, is there a second? >> Second. >> With a second from Director Duchaine, is
there any discussion? >> Hearing none, the acting clerk will call the role, please. >> Aette votes I. Duchaine >> I. >> Arco >> I. >> Simon >> I. >> Langanfeld >> I. With five in favor and zero opposed,
the motion is approved. Thank you. And thank you to all of your team as well. >> Thank you, board. The next item on our agenda is 9B, authorized medical insurance plan design. And I once again, I'd like to
welcome Dr. Jennifer Cherry, our chief human resources officer, and Todd Mensik, director of labor relations and benefits. Welcome. >> Thank you again, board um co-chair Langenfeld, members of the board, and Superintendent McIntyre. This evening,
we're providing an additional medical insurance update and also a recommendation for approval of plan design changes. Uh as uh you have heard uh several times in the last uh month and a half, our team has been working
hard at uh looking at various ways um that we could uh make some plan design changes to mitigate the increasing costs of uh premiums. And tonight we are presenting uh the culmination of of that
work and a recommendation for you. All right. Good evening, uh, Chair Langenfeld, Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board. Uh, to to start with, I'll just give an overview of our plan. So, we are a self-funded district. Uh, currently, our our budget is about
$85 million in our internal service fund uh, for health insurance. Third, our our Medicica is who we use as our third party administrator. Um, and what that basically means being self-funded is rather than going to Medicica to buy insurance, we ask Medata Medicica to
operate our insurance plan, but we pay our own claims and set our own rates based on uh the projected claims that are going to come in. Uh, we currently have two plan designs. Uh, one is a co-pay plan, which we've had for for many, many years. And then we have three
plans that include an 8020 plan design, which has a a $1,500 deductible for singles and 3,000 for families, after which they they have a 8020 um cost share between the district and the employee. Um like I said earlier, our
rates are set at a level to generate enough revenue to pay claims and administer our our insurance programs. And those premium costs are shared between the employer and the employees uh based on what we have negotiated in our working agreement language.
The this next slide shows uh our our trend uh over the last two years. Uh and the red line on this graph shows a 10% uh annual increase. Uh and 10% is considered a very high claims increase
to sustain over three years. Uh if you look at at the graph, you can see in 2023 uh and we have to kind of set rates based on claims through February. In February 2024, we were coming off 10 of 12 months below that 10% claim level and
we set rate increases of about 7%. And then it really blew up in the 2425 plan year. um which led to us setting uh 22% increases uh for for this current 2526 plan year. Uh but you can see from the
chart that the the trend continues to increase beyond that 10%. Uh and so we we're looking at insurance increases again. Now we have three more months of data to look at. We get quarterly data from from Medicica with about a month
delay. Um, so we should be getting the data through February this week. Uh, and our at the next board meeting, the next planning session, we'll be able to give more specific um, rate increases for you to look at. Um, but we did want to share
the slide just to show that we we uh are still seeing a high trend. We're looking at uh, continuing to see increases that are above average um, for health insurance next year. Uh with that, uh even before knowing how, um things were
going to run this year, uh the insurance committee really started last spring, uh considering possible plan design changes to help u mitigate that 22% increase last year. Uh and the biggest thing we looked at was considering removing GLP1
coverage for weight loss. Ultimately the the committee couldn't come to an agreement on uh eliminating uh GLP GLP ones. Had we fully eliminated it, it would have been about a 3 and a half to 4% difference in premiums. Uh but we we
had committed that this year we were going to come back and we were going to look at options to reduce costs uh for our plans moving forward. So uh starting in September in the insurance committee, we began looking at insurance plan design considerations. Um, we
reviewed uh enrollment and budget update uh in October and we saw that we had people moving off of our plan uh to to some extent at that point. Um we we've had quite a few members uh move. We we've had about uh on our plan there's
about 10,000 I'm sorry a thousand people and I'm sorry 10,000 people and we've seen like 900 come off. So some of those are family members, some are subscribers. Um but we have seen um pretty significant migration. We have found that the those who've migrated off
and those who are on the plan right now don't have significantly different experience at this time. So the concern that you're getting your healthiest people leaving uh has not been realized to this uh to this point. Um, we had a a
health pan performance review by Medicica in December. And then in January, we issued an employee survey um as well as kind of reviewing the insurance uh request for proposal where we chose to use Medic as our third party administrator. That employee survey
showed that about 80% of members said that they would prefer to have lower premiums with the chance of higher out-of-pocket costs to vice versa. Um so that kind of gave us an understanding that we should move forward looking at
potential plan design ch changes. Um in February we really focused on that third party administrator selection. Um but then in March we offered another employee survey which uh just came out a couple weeks ago and with it came a video um that I recorded that took about
10 minutes and explained the different high deductible health plan designs we were considering. Um so in that survey first we uh we looked at um we had to do a little bit of education on high deductible health
plans and we're going to have to do quite a bit more going forward if the board approves our recommendation. Um but the IRS sets limits uh uh based on maximum deductibles and out-of- pocket costs for highdeductible health plans. Um, like all our plans, high deductible
health plans need to cover preventative care before the deductible is met. So, there are a lot of people with high deductible health plans that only do go to for their preventative visit every year and don't have any additional out-of- pocket costs. Um, but if they do, um, there needs to be a minimum
deductible of 1,700 for single and 3,400 for family. So, our deductibles were a little bit lower than that and needed to be increased in order for them to be considered high deductible. Um and then the other thing is prescription drugs um need to be included within the
deductible on a high deductible plan. And we had always had our prescription drugs carved off carved out and not applying to that deductible. And the reason for that it really is is twofold. Um you know one is just to reduce that
cost but also it's to um encourage consumerism. Uh oftentimes the the a prescription at one pharmacy might cost several times what the exact same prescription at another pharmacy costs. Uh and if you just have a $10 co-pay or
a $25 co-pay, you're not necessarily looking at those costs and doing that that comparison shopping. Um the big advantage of a high deductible health plan besides premiums generally being lower um is that employers and
employees can contribute to a health savings account. So with our current plans, we contribute to a health reimbursement arrangement, which is is an account the district can contribute to, but the employee can't. And our employees are ra allowed to uh to
contribute to healthc care um to to flexible spending accounts, but those flexible spending accounts are use it or lose it beyond the first $550 um each year. Uh so every year we do have employees who put 2 or 3,000 in
their flexible spending agre arrangement um because they just want to make sure they have enough in there to cover their expenses and they end up losing some of that at the at the end of the year because it's use it or lose it where uh the the big advantage of the HSA is that
money is yours. It's in your account. You can invest it and it can continue to grow into retirement and it can in retirement you can even um take money out as taxable in income or you can use it. It's triple tax advantaged. It goes in taxree. It grows taxree um and then
you can use it for healthcare expenses taxree. All right. So with that our in in our latest uh survey we we had people consider three options. So, one was our current 8020 plan design, um, which you
can see there was basically a $1,500 single deductible, 3,000 family, and then people moved to 20% co- insurance until they hit their out-of- pocket maximums with we looked at two high deductible options. So, the first one is
based on the PEEP tier 2 um amount in their HSA compatible P plan. It's also used by the state employees group insurance program, CGIP. Uh and so you can see it has a a slightly higher in network deductible um for single-end family. It also has a
higher out-ofpocket maximum. One thing not shown on this slide, there's also a higher embedded deductible in the family plan on this. Um it's 5250 um rather where currently our embedded deductibles are always the same as our
single deductibles. Uh and then once you pay that deductible, you can see there's a variety of co-pays, which um oftentimes those co-pays are actually less than the 25% co- insurance. Um so they might look big, you know, the outpatient of 400, but a lot of times if
you go um you know to get outpatient surgery, it will be more than $1,600. So those uh those co-ayments are often less than the 25% co insurance. Uh and then there's also prescription drug pay uh
co-ayments that apply after the uh after the um deductible's been met. The third plan we looked at um and actually there's a typo here had a bigger savings. So at the very top you can see how much less the increase would need to
be if we chose one of these other plans. Um and that's the simplest uh of the three. It just had a straight 3,400 single in network deductible and 68 800 out of um family deductible and those deductibles were the same as the out-of-
pocket maximum. So the the all of the co-pays and co- insurance don't really apply. Um so those ones on prescription drugs should actually say not apply uh as well as those because you'll hit that 3,400 and then the plan pan plan pays everything. Uh so with the survey uh we
we provided a little bit of more information so employees could could gauge the cost of these options. If you want to move to the next slide. Um and so generally if you look at this you can see our current 8020 plan design. Um first you can see each of these three
lines on this line chart start at a slightly different level because of the additional premium cost. So the 8020 plan's the most expensive. So, we're including the difference between that and the other two plans um where the line starts. But you can see on all of
them you the line goes up dollar for dollar with your expenses uh you know as you're paying that deductible. Then once the deductibles hit on the first high deductible plan or the 8020 plan, the line goes diagonally as you're you're
hitting that co insurance where you're paying 20% or 25% and the district's playing paying the rest. And then the the second plan you can see instead of having that diagonal, it just flattens out because there it doesn't have that
intermediate step. Once you get to the um out-of- pocket maximum, it just moves over. Uh but the the point here is if you look at how they they uh coincide, they they interact, you can see that the high deductible plans will tend to
benefit employees who have very low usage and it'll tend to benefit people who have very high usage. um and it will tend to cost a little bit more um you know for those people in the $2500 to $7,500 range. And again uh this doesn't
include every element of the plans. It's a model showing sort of how the plan basically works. So um the co-ayments uh for prescription drugs applying before the deductibles on the 8020 aren't shown here. the embedded deductible for the
family plans not showing any of those uh co-ayments that come out to less than 25% aren't shown on here. Uh but it it gives you an idea of sort of the the basic idea that you're going to benefit if you're a low user or a high user and
there's a little more risk for people in the middle. The next slide shows the same thing but for family plans. And so again, you see the same basic um structure there where where the high deductible plans will will tend to be less expensive overall for people with
low and high claims um and and potentially higher for people with moderate claims. So moving on to the the results of the survey, uh after sending the survey out and we had uh well over a thousand responses, I I forget it was 1300 some
responses. Um, a majority preferred moving to a high deductible health plan. So, we had quite a few that said they still preferred the 8020. Um, but a majority, 56% preferred moving to a high deductible plan. And of those who chose a high deductible plan, the majority pro
propo preferred um the first high deductible plan, the the one that mirrored PEEP uh and was a little less risky. Um, another thing that we would note is we we looked at employee groups and we looked at current plans. And
generally speaking, the less expensive plan someone was currently on, the more likely they were to support a high deductible health plan and the lower uh and so with that um and then also those who weren't enrolled were more likely to choose a high deductible health plan. Um
so the the committee shared this concern um with people who are really looking for affordable premiums and and providing an opportunity for that. Uh with that uh we had we actually met on March 3rd 1 just to talk about um
plan designs and what we were going to do and and how the survey might look. Uh and then we met again for over two hours on March 18th um to really look through the results of the survey and make a recommendation. Um at that meeting we had nine of our bargaining units present
um and each bargaining unit caucus separately um to to talk about what they thought was acceptable in terms of plan design changes and and so there was really rich discussion going on throughout. Um and like I said, it was a long discussion where we finally did
come on come to a consensus. Um and so some wanted the high deductible too. In the end, um everyone agreed that they that we can accept the high deductible plan option one. Um the the slightly less risky one um when it comes to
out-of- pocket costs. Uh the committee also considered limiting GLP1s for weight loss. Uh so we had asked a question on the survey um specific to GLP1s for weight class and limiting the to the highest plan. So um from previous
discussions it was clear the committee wasn't interested in completely eliminating GLP1 drugs. Uh and so we did ask this question and and there was interest in applying GLP1s just to the highest cost plan and leaving them off
the other plans. Uh but the the cost savings was only about 1% and the committee all all determined that they thought that wasn't enough to justify taking the option away from people um who were seeking the lower plans. So the
the consensus of the group in the end was to move to that high deductible plan one which would reduce premiums by 3.9% on those plans um and not make a change to GP1's. So, with that, uh, our recommendation
for the board tonight, um, for approval is to convert all three of our our, uh, 8020 plans, um, to, uh, high deductible health plans with that same plan design. Um, just a little note, so our our first
plan choice has a broad open access network, no deductibles, a very high premium, and we we didn't propose changing that choice plan. That's our highest aggregate value plan and we didn't really want into to go into the discussions we'd need to go into to try
and get rid of that. We we wanted to maintain the highest aggregate value for people who valued that. Um and that's something that needs to be negotiated um with all of our bargaining groups. Um and then in the committee um through this discussion like I said we got
consensus of every group group there that they were okay with moving the 8020 plans to the high deductible plan. And so we have one using that broad open access network and then we have two narrower networks. Um elect uses a lot of um health partners and Alina clinics
and Vantage Plus uses primarily M Health Fairview. Um so they're they're I I call them narrow but they're pretty broad broad networks actually and you can get any service you want from any of these uh these networks. And so we have employees, you know, who will switch
doctors in order to move to narrow networks. And we have new employees, you know, who are have never been to the they're, you know, they were on their parents insurance and they just moved to the north metro. And so why wouldn't they start with the least expensive plan and start from the beginning with the
doctors in that network? Um, with that, are there any questions about the Well, let's talk about next steps and then go to questions. Um, so tonight we're we're asking you to authorize the the health insurance plan designs and
then next month, uh, we'll come to you with information about insurance rates. As I mentioned earlier, we need three more months of data to make sure we're we're making an informed decision. We don't want to mistakenly set them too low like we did last time, even though
we we did wait. Uh, it it's they still uh uh increased more than we'd expected. Um and then uh once uh insurance rates are set um we'll go through the process of uh an education campaign for our
employees to learn about the high deductible plans and the um and the healthcare savings accounts um and so that they can make informed decisions during open enrollment which occurs uh you right the first week in June. Uh and
then September 1st is the beginning of the new plan year with the new uh with the the new school year. >> All right. Do we have any questions? >> Questions for our presenters. >> Thank you very much for the presentation
and uh for doing all the work in that committee to try to come up with a just a really good plan that can best satisfy the needs of everyone in the district. Um, so I wish I would have asked this beforehand to give you time to maybe crunch some numbers. You might not have an answer and that's totally fine. But,
um, given this new plan, theoretically, if this would have been in place last year, um, how much would it have lowered the premium increase? I believe it was 22%. 21 22%.
>> Yeah, it's 3.9% lower. >> Yeah. So instead of 22 it would have been like 18. >> Okay. Okay. So it would have lowered it by 3. Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. >> Okay. Director Simon.
>> Yeah. Thank thanks Michelle. Um Todd. So I know on this presentation it talks about the new recommended one is 3.9% lower. And the last presentation you did you talked about with the um increased usage. I know you want to wait to set
rates until we have the latest information, but with the increased usage, it looks like there's going to be an increase. So, I just want to make sure the public and employees don't believe when you say it's 3.9% lower, that does not mean 3% 9 lower than what employees are currently paying. Is that
correct? Can you go into detail on that real quick? >> That is correct. I should have said an increase of the difference in the increase is 3.9%. Um but yeah, we we will have increases in rates regardless of which of these options we chose. The question is just
how much the increase will be. >> Other questions, comments? I had the opportunity to participate in these insurance meetings and I have the the the significance of their shared
responsibility to bring forward an option that maybe not all agreed on but they were able to come to consensus. I think the overall feeling however is that it still isn't where we need or want it to be and I don't think any of us would disagree with that. I mean,
this will improve the circumstance, but I think that the other part of the conversation was trying to figure out how to address um the the the gap in the fisc or the the financial piece there in
terms of the the the um tell me what the name of it is the you know what I'm talking about the >> the four no the four million that is sitting out there that has to be filled in in the fund balance or whatever. It's >> Yeah, the fund balance. >> It's the fund balance. So, there's
another name, but it's not there in my head right now. >> Reserve. >> Reserve. That's it. So, so that discussion, how do we fill that? Can we do 2%? I mean, people were really working hard to try to come up with different options. Um, I think that
quite frankly I I sat in that meeting and was so very impressed with the level of knowledge for the different plans and the depth and experience that these folks are really committed to doing the best um for their groups and really
having asking really tough questions of our third party AON folks and really wanting to make uh the best decisions we possibly can with the current reality. we still are at a place in a space as you saw the the graph that Todd shared
um that we have high high more well above what most people are experiencing and I think that's a really important part of this um conversation. I I don't know I'm hopeful. I'm really hopeful but
I did not get the sense that that we were there yet so to speak to see them decline like typically you had in the past. So, a lot of hard work um has gone into this and I think that having having an another option with lower premiums
was something that most folks really wanted and there was robust discussion even to understand that perhaps using the high deductible plan would be almost a benefit to some who didn't even recognize that the 8020 plan they might
have been paying more for and not getting the same level of benefit. So, lots to learn. Key will be, as you noted, educating everyone so they know exactly what plan works best for themselves and their families. I mean, I
think that's really important. So, appreciate all of your work on this. Okay, >> go ahead, director. >> Um, so just to follow up that, sorry, I totally missed that about the 3.9% and then the 5.5. Um but so just reflecting
on this idea that were this plan in place last year, they still would have had an let's call it an 18% increase to their premiums. >> I still think they would be bringing out the pitchforks if this happened. I don't think that it's nobody's fault. I'm just acknowledging like that's not a big
enough difference >> I think to really materially impact the outcome. It's a good difference, but it's it's still what is it 2x the national average? Like that. >> Yeah. So my fear now is that even with this better plan in place or perhaps
more affordable that the next premium increase if nothing if it if the trajectory just continues as it was then we're staring down the barrel of another 18% increase in which case I would along with all the teachers and staff I would likely be pretty upset. Um that being
said this is just an FYI for everybody. um you could have discussions until you're blue in the face about what to do about this, but at the end of the day, the costs as it's been explained to the board um of the insurance is just what the claims in the district are. Correct. >> And so we just we're just paying
whatever the the claims are. There is simply nothing we can do about that as a board. We have zero control over that other than what's in the plan. And so it's it's just to acknowledge that like there's really it's terrible to say this, but it seems like there's no
solution for and it it isn't obvious to me that the district has the money. Well, maybe if we did zerobased budgeting, we could find if it does, but it from my standpoint, it seems like the money isn't there to cover to like keep covering that big of an increase, but I don't know. It just it seems like we're
in a bind. So, just throwing that out there for what it is. Um yeah, >> thank you. Any other questions, comments? Board members. Um hearing none, if before us is the authorization of the
medical insurance plan design is presented. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve the medical insurance plan design. >> Is there a motion? >> Thank you, Director Adet. Is there a second? >> Second >> with a second from Director Arco. Any
more discussion hearing? None. The acting clerk will call the role, please. >> Adette votes I. Dashaine >> I. >> Arco >> I. >> Simon >> I. >> Langanfeld >> five. I I with five in favor and uh zero
opposed. The motion is approved. Thank you. >> Thank you both. >> Thank you. >> So we're nearing our last agenda item. It's item 10, board correspondence and communication. Members, this is your opportunity to share happenings in your community, report on committee
assignments or other items of interest. Does anyone have anything to share? Yes, Director Duchain. Thank you, Cochair Langenfeld. Um, I just have a few committee assignments to report on and then a few updates. The first one is the
community education advisory committee. Uh we had a great uh meeting and discussion and actually you heard from one of our student representatives who sits on that community education advisory committee today um asking about uh possibility of student representation
at the board table. This is something I've brought up before and I continue to be interested in. So, I'd love to engage in a conversation with the rest of the board at at some point in the future about how that might look uh and if others share share that interest in getting our traditional high schools and
our uh two other high schools uh some some voice in in our board meetings. Uh the other one to report on is the Northwest Suburban Integration District. Just an update for the group that um that entity will be doing a search for a new executive director. So, that's um
ongoing right now. And then uh I had the opportunity for two really fun events. Um Oxbow Creek had their arts and academic expo and the talent of the students at that was just incredible to see. There were all forms of of art
performance-based visual quilting. Uh there were all forms of technological science experiments, computer games. I I mean, you name it, a student has spent time working on a project and demonstrating it to their community and it was incredible to be a part of of
their evening celebrating all of that talent. Um, and I was grateful to get to see everybody there. That's all. >> Very good. Any others? >> Yes, director.
>> Thank you, Coach Phil. So, I want to try something. I don't know if this will work, but I'm going to give it a shot. Um, I have reserved the meeting room space at the Johnsville Library or rather I've attempted to reserve it on sat this Saturday from
9:00 to 9:45 just for the sake of having like essentially like it's just an opportunity for residents, parents, community members to visit, ask questions, just have a conversation. So, it's not a formal meeting. It's just an informal time to connect. Um I it's it
just came to my realization that your typical like state representative, they have an office, they've got office hours, you can visit them. I don't think that's really the case for board members. So this is kind of my attempt to do that. But that being said, um the way it works, this is just a
technicality. You have to submit the request to reserve the room. I have not received a confirmation yet. So I don't know if I'll if they'll confirm it or not. I don't know why they'd say no, but so I'm tentatively planning on doing that. Feel free to stop by, have a conversation. I'll post something on my social media um just to confirm but
otherwise that is my tentative plan for now. So if you want to chat come visit on Saturday. >> Thank you for sharing. Uh obviously I gave my update for the insurance committee discussion and um I I'm not there yet but I do have on my agenda
this week um the opportunity to go review the social studies uh curriculum that's here as well and take a peek at those. So, and I know we were all invited to do that. So, I'd recommend that. And finally, I was at the last week I was at the Consortium of State
School Board um association meet or school boards and um was able to spend some time really looking for conference breakout sessions about um what what we could do to support ourselves together
as a board and uh came up with Phil Gore. I don't know if you recall that we spent some time with him. He had an excellent um presentation and he's written a book that's coming out um soon called Confession of a School Board Member, What Every Superintendent Needs
to Know. And it's really focused in on the importance of making sure um that the board works collectively together and partnership and a lot of communication and respect and those kinds of things were discussed and it it was really powerful in that thinking and
reflecting on on how we function and what we can do uh to work together. So I know Phil is still out there and and often connects and and he does owe us some opportunities. So, um, looking forward as we reflect in terms of what
we need going forward, uh, to bring be bring him back when he's available as well. So, that's all I have. Anything else for the good of us? All right, that is our next or our last agenda item for this particular meeting
is item 11 and that is to adjurnn. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Thank you, director Daine. Do I have a second? Second. >> Thank you, Director Ero. All those in favor, please say I.
>> I. >> Do we need it? >> I don't know. It doesn't say that on my list. >> I do. I need to take >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Any opposed? Say no. With five in favor and zero opposed, we
are adjourned. And at this time, the current time is 8:42. We will take a a break right now uh for five minutes and then we'll start the special board meeting. Thank you so much. He was here. He was just here.
>> Well, I'm going to invite him. Do I have to do this? Thank you. I'd like to call to order the um special school board meeting for superintendent succession planning at this time. And we have um director Simon
participating remotely. We have an agenda. Um I need I'm looking for I would assume we need a motion to approve the agenda >> for this special meeting. Here it is.
So moved. Thank you, Director Duchaine. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. With two um from director Arco with a second. Uh noted all those then we probably should take the role. >> Yep. >> Uh director Audet
>> Audet votes I. Desaine >> I. >> Arco >> I. >> Simon >> I. >> Langenfeld >> I with five in favor and zero opposed. We are journ. We are not adjourned. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> It's quick. Uh the current time at this
time as we begin this meeting is 8:50 and our purpose again is succession planning for our superintendent. As we begin and think about I just want to ground us a little bit. The most important jobs of school board include improving student achievement and
setting district policy as well as hiring and evaluating the superintendent. And as we all know, Superintendent McIntyre has announced that he will not seek a new contract with the Noah Henipin schools after his contract expires on June 30th to 2026.
So with the acknowledgement of Superintendent McIntyre's announcement as members of the In Noa Henipin Board of Education, we first noted our appreciation to Superintendent McIntyre for his service to In Noah Henipin Schools. And we also noted our
commitment as a board to working with him in partnership and the school district senior leadership team to ensure a smooth and successful transition as we determine and plan the timeline for identifying a future leader of the school district which will be
effective July 1st, 2026. So tonight, we're here to take those next steps forward as a board to ensure a strong transition and leadership plan in advance of the 2026 27 school year. This will be our first conversation
regarding the superintendent succession planning. We actually have um 14 weeks or 69 work days, six currently scheduled board meetings and work sessions to complete this process from start to finish. And so as we think tonight and
think about in our the first discussion, I think what is important is to reflect on as we talk through this, what is most important to you in this process. I know that uh people have shared with me the
words transparency, things like stakeholder input, guidance, clear communication, uh clear selection criteria, and so on, and a broad candidate pool are things that I've heard it while I've been out gathering information.
At this time, I'd like to invite to the board table are for our purposes of our discussion, Dr. Jennifer Cherry, chief human resource officer. And I know I've also had conversation and invite um uh our legal counsel Tim Paul Matier. As we
recall um Jennifer sent us before she um was able to get away for a moment uh just an overview of some things for our consideration and I'd like to talk um with just highlight what those were and then we'll talk more deeply in each of
those areas. In our current reality um we have um a a timeline that I just re I just shared but it it will be an accelerating schedule accelerated schedule. In addition to that, um we'll talk this evening about um will this be
an internal process or will be an external search firm and then also talk about the importance of developing the candidate leadership profile as we proceed and then deeper discussion around interim full search combination
and there and so forth. So, I invite um and then community engagement were the areas that Jennifer highlighted for us. Um and so I invite you to talk more deeply about those areas with your expertise. I know we gathered some other information, but it very much aligns
with what you shared. It just is a broader understanding as well. And our goal, I believe, is to get some some framework to make some step forward steps forward tonight. So, I'll start with that and then we can have some deeper conversation for the different
things we have to make some decisions about. >> Excellent. Thank you, uh, Co-chair Langenfeld, members of the board. Um, there are some really important decisions that, um, need to be made in a very short time frame. Uh, just some
context around this. A typical superintendent search full search is is approximately five to six months in in time frame from start to finish. Um that type of time frame allows for stakeholder engagement in development of
that leadership profile. Um input on um what the community in the district is is looking for in their next leader. Uh it also includes um identification of an executive search firm that the board would choose to use
uh to assist with that search. Um and then uh time for uh thorough search, a very broad search in order to gain your um widest pool of of candidates to consider. Um and then also it would
include additional stakeholder involvement throughout the process um at the the board's direction or decision um guided by that executive search firm on how to conduct the interview process, the selection process and the interview
process uh as well as the time that would be needed to uh negotiate a contract with that final candidate and have that announcement made to the community and have a little bit of time uh to transition uh before the um
outgoing uh superintendent uh completes their term and have that in place by July 1. So, a typical um a typical thorough search uh really begins in the winter and um around that December time frame in order to have someone in place
uh by July. Knowing that we have uh about a 100 days in front of us, uh really 69 work days before we need to have our next superintendent hired, uh we know that we won't be able to to um uh meet all of those things with a
typical search. And that really is the first decision board that you need to make is what type of search are you interested in at this time? uh you um really need to be considering the difference between an interim um versus
uh a permanent search. And once you make that decision, it really does carry over to the other the other items such as um if a search firm is used, what type of search firm um are you most interested in working with? what kind of uh
stakeholder involvement is desired based on the time frame that we have in front of us. Um but really it lands with that that first decision uh of what type of superintendent are you looking for at this time.
I think this is our opportunity then to I know that people have been reflecting uh quite a bit on this and I'd be interested in having a conversation with all of us to to share this because I do think it's vitally important that we we
make that decision tonight if we can at least build some consensus around it. Who would like to start? Which decision >> just are are we going to at this point in time with the 69 days
interim or or full search. I think just if I could offer one of the things that um you said that ve is very important with an with a reduced timeline you have to determine what and this kind of factors in into the
priorities. um it it can reduce it would reduce the engagement of the community in the process. I I believe that would be probably the biggest area that you would have to um look at carefully.
>> Correct. Uh if I may, uh co-chair Langenfeld, that is one of the the largest considerations in an interim appointment and then um pushing a a fullscale search out uh into next year. And that's where the board is is really
making a selection process twice. Um but the um the runway for that permanent hire allows for additional stakeholder engagement. >> Okay. Yeah. Director. >> Yeah. So I guess I think I know the
answer to this question but I'll ask it anyway. I mean there there wouldn't I can appreciate the the the timeline. Of course, I've been through it before. Um, it wasn't the most efficient timeline, though. So, um, it took a long time. I
don't know if it needed to take a long time. Um, so I think my question is just would there be anything and I don't believe there maybe it's a statement. I don't believe there would be anything from preventing us from attempting to go forward with a with a search for a for a
permanent position. um and re review the applicants and make a decision based upon that if we want to proceed or not or perhaps even do some interviews and make a decision if we want to hire or not and and um you know
we don't know what applicant pool we'll get it we're a it's a high-profile position so it's likely to gain uh to get some interest and um you know a chance to just evaluate what we get um maybe it's like you go into it with the
intent of looking to hire a permanent position. But one of the things I I didn't really appreciate about how it worked before was you went to this whole process and then there were these candidates and those were the candidates and the the the feeling was you're to select one of the candidates and um if I
I just think I I don't know if that was really the case or not, but that was kind of how it felt. Um, and uh, it's that's different than any hiring I've ever done in my life where um, you're able to review your candidates and sometimes you find the person right away and sometimes you don't and if you
don't, you keep looking. >> So, I think it's a long way of saying that I think we should do a full search for uh, a permanent superintendent. Um but we should allow ourselves the
space to at some point pivot and name interim if we must and and then you know consider taking and making an extended you know however long it takes. >> Thank you. Yes. Director Duchaine. One question before we kind of make a
decision that I think might help us is what would our transition time period like our ideal transition time period look like? So, for example, if we wanted this person that's coming in to have um
two weeks with with Corey before Corey's last last day, two months, you know, like if if we could sort of maybe land on what we think the ideal transition timeline might look like. um that might help inform us if we if we have the
space to put a posting out, hold uh interview or like do do a review of resumeumés, do interviews and and look for a permanent person and then at like what point would we have to pivot to talking about an interim, you know, like how close do we get to that transition
time period? And then do we still think it's possible to to take, you know, one of the many approaches we've we've heard about that are available to us >> Yeah. Director, I'm sorry. >> So I guess yeah, we should build that in, right? I think just I like the um
idea of kind of play it by ear so to speak. I'm not overtly committed to either path. It like if you were to show me the ideal candidate tomorrow and we went through all of the necessary formalities and gave the public, you know, a
reasonable amount of time. I don't know why we wouldn't hire a said candidate in say a month or something. I don't know. So, it it just to me it depends on who steps forward, who we interview. Um, but yeah, I could I would like to find a
full like a permanent position as quickly as possible. An interim to me is only if needed, but certainly it's a it's an option. I'm not opposed to it at all. So, um, but yeah, couple weeks with Corey or whatever that I mean, you tell me what you think the ideal timeline is.
I I guess I have no strong opinion on that. I mean, I guess I would I'd look to our cabinet if if they're so willing to share any thoughts having having been through this before if there is a set amount of time. You know, I think I
think we had at least a month uh the last two times of crossover time with the new candidate uh and the outgoing. Um I I don't know if you have any perspective that you would offer on that. I I have personal perspectives
um and and two different two different spaces and ways. Um I think it really depends. I think in in all reality it really depends on the candidate. Some candidates who you hire
would would like to have not to be that other person and they they don't want to walk in that they don't want to transition that way. Um I had three hours. Okay. I've also seen it where the
transition was a half a year, six months. And so I really think it's dependent on the experience of the person coming in and um where they where they want to begin and start. I mean, I think that the piece around it
transitionwise really really matters in terms of just the individual. I think it can work both ways. Um to your point though, um I think it's better to have a plan um and have a
transition amount of time to be able to at least have someone understand the district and and experience in the district as well. and it and to the team out there too to be able to ground them in the work that they are doing as well.
So, uh, Director Simon, >> thanks. Um, I I agree with um, Zach, like if if we found the right person right away, the timing, at least for me, doesn't matter as much. I don't know if he said it
exactly like that, but I'll say that for me. Um, one thing that I've been, you know, talking to a lot of folks, a lot of current soups and previous soups and retired soups and about the timing that I think is that I've heard is more of a
concern and you never know until until you do it right. But it's more of a concern, I think, for our candidate pool. The timing is where we are right now. And if we go into it with, hey, we
we might hire a permanent if we like someone, um, that may just limit people to apply and it may limit people to apply with the timing right now. You know, putting if there are current soup, putting their current district in a position of um, resigning pretty late.
That is a that is something I've heard. Um, and just with people want stepping forward. So I think my biggest concern about a permanent search right now is the candidate pool we would um we would
get and posing it as you know if we get the right person we'll hire a permanent otherwise we'll pivot. I think that may limit our pool also. So that would probably be my biggest concern and why I would lean towards an interim
um initially and going through a better process uh a more traditional process where we are more likely to get a wider pool of people >> when you say more like oh sorry can go ahead sorry we're kind of more in a I
guess a discussion so but >> uh when you say more more likely I Guess I I don't know how to ground that. I'm not saying you're you're wrong. I just don't I don't know if we know that. That's kind of what I'm trying to say is um we can make it we can make it as big
of a thing as we want to, but um at some point I mean people are already aware that the position is open. So if there are people who are interested, yeah, it's perhaps not the perfect scenario where you know a person retires after 30 years and everybody knew it was going to
happen. So, you know, everybody's ready to go. We don't have that kind of timeline, but I I feel like it's hard to, at least for me, it's hard to uh it's hard to say that the candidate pool that I know what the candidate pool will
be. You just kind of have to see what applications you get. And I and I may be um maybe not understanding something about the the idea of saying we're only going to hire somebody if we find the right person. To me, that's always like I I guess I've never really hired
anybody any other way. So, I don't I don't mean to handicap the process in any way by saying that. I just think that I'm saying it would be great to see what's out there. You never know the situation. A person that, you know, you might say miraculously the whole board just is like, "Wow, that's the person."
Um, if they happen to apply and and we got there, awesome. And if that doesn't happen for all of the reasons said, um, which, you know, I agree could also be the scenario, then then I think you you you name a an interim and and then we
just kind of regroup on the process and by then certainly people will know because we'll be able to put out the the long timeline and that gives everybody all of the flexibility they need in terms of planning out their career and whatever. So, I don't know. I I suspect we might not perfectly align on that,
but I'm just gonna say that for whatever it's worth. >> Director Duchain, >> I wonder I wonder if we if we kind of flip that and knowing that we have this short timeline and knowing just kind of
generally the industry of superintendent and the um obligations that they feel to their current positions and their current districts and the timeline that we're looking at here. If if we if we just flip that and we say we're going out for an interim with the option of if it's
the right person then it turns into the permanent in that moment. So that way we're not I I don't know like that way we just we don't have to like stop and restart a new thing if we decide we didn't find the right person with a permanent search. We just start we're going for an interim. We'll look at the
candidates we get and that with we'll we'll take the option that it could become permanent if if the board aligns on on that person calling on myself. >> No, no, I think those are important um discussion points. I think one of the
things is that um I I I know that I I've been told there are superintendents who who would be interested but they would like to come next considered next year. They would wouldn't maybe come this
time. I also know of a a hire that that it was a full hire um and did this process of what director Adet suggested and they ended up getting a robust pool of candidates um and I I can tell you
the district um as well. Um but they were able to to hire um and with the intention of if we didn't we would go to an to an interim um with the interim coming in if we did that flipped it to
an interim. I think one of the important parts then would be that that person basically and that's happened um I can tell you that happened I believe in Rochester um where the interim came in and and was
a candidate um there was an interim just recently in Edina who came in for a year as an interim and now is a permanent um so that happens as well um and you can get some very good candidates that Okay.
So, yes. Oh, Jeff. And then >> thanks. Um I think a consideration too in this is um if we go whenever we decide to go for a permanent do we do a search firm which has been recommended
by some because if you do a you know if you do a search firm for a potential permanent and then not hire one. Do you continue another search and pay the search firm again to do another search the next year? So that's a consideration on an interim. you could potentially do
an internal um whether it's an internal interim or an external interim do that an internal process without additional dollars. So I don't know if that's a consideration for folks or not. Um when I was talking
about the timeline and what what our pool might be um I wasn't basing it on just my own feelings. I was basing it on the calls I made. I made like six calls to current um and retired superintendent and asked them their opinion of this and that's
the feedback I got. So whether that proves out to be I agree, I don't know. It's just based upon the the research I did with folks who've been in this position. >> Yes, director. >> Thanks. Uh I guess I just wanted to thank you for bringing up that that
point you raised. Um because I do think that's a a definite reality and you know when you when you go out and you look anytime you hire um you sometimes you have an idea in your mind of like who the person is going to be or needs to be. You know u we'd all like to hire
every time I hire I'd like to hire like the smartest person I've ever met who is way better than me and knows my job better than I do and and um and sometimes I find that person and sometimes I don't. But sometimes that person ends up not being the person I
thought at first. So I like that. Um just in that, you know, you could go out, find somebody as an interim uh who maybe has has great potential, they just perhaps um don't have all the experience or whatever that you thought you might be interested in and um and
they may work out. So, I guess I'm trying to keep an open mind however we get there. And I realize that um it's kind of a hard this this first question is kind of difficult, but um I definitely believe strongly through all
my years of hiring many people that um it it never works the same way every time. Everyone is it's a unique process. So, I don't think anything is a mustd do this or a must not do that. Um, you could probably look and say there are
some some if you if you had if you had a a way to draw it up perfectly, maybe this is what you would do. We're not in a perfect situation. So, I think you just have to try to come up with the best >> uh best thing here. It'd be great to hire. It would be great not to spend all
our time hiring an interim and then have to go through that process again. Uh that's probably the biggest downside I see to that to not at least trying to find the permanent is you co we went through it. It was almost the same amount of effort frankly to find the interim as it was to find the permanent.
So that's why I guess I'm probably a little biased toward at least trying to see what's out there. But >> yeah, >> unless the interim is the one >> for the next year and then you you'd be all set. You know, I think that there's
there's I I look at the wisdom of of what we have to do and the current reality around not only the timeline but the the needs of the district in terms of trust and how we can build that. Um,
you know, I think that the the opportunity for the robust pool is very important, but I also think that we need strong stability um sooner than later. Um, and I think it
can go both ways. Um, I think that for me personally, I know that both can work if if if we have the right guidance and support. I am I'm of the mindset that um
depending on the firm and I I I believe it's very important and this this is uh what I've been thinking a lot about is having a firm. There's just so many different nuances that they've experienced that they can bring to the table to talk more specifically
um about the best way to do what we're trying to do. whether it be an interim that could potentially be the future superintendent, whether it be the future superintendent right now. But I think from a realistic piece, um, for me
personally, having having tried to to bring us together on a lot of things, um, it takes it takes a lot of time and it's runway time is what I call it. So, I I keep leaning toward if we could get
the the superintendent um candidate here that would want to work hard and and start to lift the district up and build that trust and build those relationships. Um um as an interim, there are a lot of
people hungry to go. Um that works. I know that I was an associate superintendent who was hired in June, >> May full surge in and and into in July
and had three hours of transition time and we did just fine because I had the people that are sitting behind you. Um, and that person would have that as well. So strong team members but I but I think
we have to come to a decision really. So the question is where are we right now? Yes. Um okay I don't know who went I you you go director. >> So I think uh board members bring
different experiences which are helpful for this process. So, like director Edat was saying, he's hired probably hired many people. Um, Director Simon's been here for a while, so he's kind of gone through this experience before and he maybe understands it from a superintendent's
perspective better than some of us do. You were a superintendent. Um, so my position, I'm kind of the the outside eye, so to speak. I I don't have any of these experiences that you guys have. But here's what I do know. And so I'll just kind of say it candidly. It's just kind of my gut take on the whole
situation. Um the superintendent position, if the contract is just equal, will make around $300,000 a year and it's the largest school district in Minnesota. And so just given those two facts,
knowing nothing else, I would be stunned if say we put out a job opening and we didn't get people lining up out the door for that job, people from out of state trying to get the job. I think you will understand we have other superintendents who might not switch roles because they might be leaving like a place of
security. That makes sense. But to me, the idea that we wouldn't have a large pool of qualified applicants given that criteria or given those incentives is seems unlikely to me. I I I don't know why people wouldn't apply for that job.
So, I'm not as concerned about not having good candidates. I think we will have plenty. I think we'll have too many good candidates. It's kind of my take. So, I Yeah, take that for what it is, I guess. >> Okay. So you're you're supporting a full
search to begin with? >> Yeah. I Yeah, I think it it makes sense to me because I know we have a somewhat compressed timeline, but when you remove the piece of will we get qualified applicants? I think we will for all the
reasons I just stated. So why not? I guess why not do a full search? >> Okay, director. >> I'm sorry. Sorry, I meant to say something earlier just in terms of the candidate pool. Um, but I I don't know how many licensed um super or people
with lensure we we have already in the district, but um I did I did want to say that at least in my mind the candidate could be internal as well. So, um, some of the conversation related to transition and other things, um, it
would be much less of a problem if if, uh, if we had somebody internally who wanted to take on the challenge as well. So, >> I would expect we might. >> Director Simon, were you Oh, okay. I
think we need to just go and figure out where people are at. I'm going to do a a test, right? A litmus test here. Where are you? I think you're clear, but >> yeah, I I would I'd like to do a a full search for a permanent replacement. >> Okay.
Um, I think building on Director Adet's comment, um, my my preference would be for us to actually see if if we have somebody internal that is interested that the board could align on and um, we
might be able to save ourselves a lot of heartache and time and cost uh, if if that person exists. Um, if that's not if that's not something that works out, then I I do still think based on uh
experience uh and conversations that it it would be more prudent and in a better interest of our district to do interim and then permanent and and and I would be open to interim with possibility of permanent if that candidate pool is what we want it to be. Um but I I'd prefer to
start that way. Director Simon. >> Yeah, I um I'll concur with um Matt and Casey about an internal uh if we had one that's interested and the board could get around. I mean, I think that would be I think it would be great, right?
They would they would know our system, know what needs to be improved, and already have a head start on those relationships. Um so I'm fine with that. I'm not sure how you take that step. If you just hope that they will apply as you go out for a search or what have you
or if we do some internal checking into that. Um but um but yeah, I it it makes sense to me with and I can only base it on what I've what I've heard and the research I've done whether whether it's right or
wrong. It's right from the perspectives that I heard from at least is that um an interim is probably the best choice at this time. But just like everyone said, I'm perfectly open and would be completely open if we get an applicant
that we do an interim search and and I would think that that search should be for someone who wants it permanently, but it's an interim position. And if the if the board sees a person there that says, "This person's great. Why would we make them interim?" Um, I'm perfectly
open to making them permanent. >> So, yes, you tell me what you think you heard. >> Um, >> that's what >> I would just like to add a little bit of context based on what I'm hearing um from the board directors. um some some considerations with a an internal uh
candidate and what might that look like for the board to consider who might be a viable candidate. Uh it really starts with what is the board looking for in a superintendent? Is it just primarily an individual who holds the appropriate
license and is prepared to do that job? Um, I've heard a couple of um mentions about the ideal candidate. Um, and I would imagine that various board members will have different ideas about what the ideal candidate looks like. Uh, so so I
think that that probably u warrants some additional discussion as it relates to what does this leadership profile look like before we even get to the um uh posting of a position. We need a real good idea of what it is that we are are
posting for. Uh is it a an interim? Is it a uh permanent hire? And a permanent hire. When I say permanent, I really mean the typical three-year contract. Um but an interim can be a one-year contract, a two-year contract. It it
doesn't necessarily mean a a one-year only. It could be six months. Uh it's just with the typical hiring cycle, July 1 is when um typically a superintendent would start. So anybody who's an existing sitting superintendent, there
aren't a whole lot out there that are willing to leave their current positions um and break their contract. So that that's just a consideration. Uh the other uh consideration there is going back. We're going to mix uh some
of these conversations, but um the need for a search firm and what does a search firm actually do for the board in this process. Um it it really is the board's direction to that search form as to what you would like them to do for you. Um,
so I I I know uh Director Adet, you had mentioned uh that uh it sounded like you would have liked to have been more involved in the screening and selection process rather than just presented uh a a panel of perhaps what the finalists
were. And what that tells me is perhaps the last search firm that we utilized in the services we engaged in with that firm um uh we wanted them to do that job. So, some of the benefits of a search firm is they have a very broad
network. So, it's not just those um uh that are actively looking for an open position that are going to apply to a posting that's offered, but it's the um active recruitment. Um, it's also likely
to uh widen that pool to more of a national scale than just who's available and lives here currently within within the metro area and might be interested in taking on this position. Um the other the other thing to consider uh as it
relates to the search firm um beyond just that greater reach and the ability to recruit additional candidates, it's also guiding the board through the um the process development of that leadership profile. So to help the board
come to um consensus or agreement of what the ideal candidate looks like uh developing that leadership profile that's then part of that posting um guiding the board on a variety of different ways to engage uh various
stakeholders in in the process. So that's something that you haven't talked about yet in that timeline. Um but how a superintendent search differs from perhaps some other types of hires. Um it often includes multiple rounds of
interviews. Um it includes uh site visits uh of the district because we know uh superintendent um are are um looking for their best fit as well. So they want to ensure that
they are selecting a district where it fits their needs and um uh so it's often uh multiple rounds of of interviews um beyond what perhaps you've seen if you've watched superintendent interviews
um from other districts. uh the part that gets publicized and the part that comes before the board. There is a lot of work and a lot of stakeholders that are engaged um beyond or before it actually gets to the the board deliberations
um at the table here. Um the other thing about a search firm and what candidates might be looking for there is some asurances for confidentiality. So oftent times sitting superintendent
um are are hesitant to put their name in the hat until that they know that it's it's really a viable opening. Um so uh a little bit less likely to to just respond to a a posting or a cold call.
Um and uh that that idea of more confidentiality because they often are not applying directly to the school district. they're they're um submitting their application package uh to to that search firm.
Um you also had talked a little bit about uh the fees. I would say that that is a a large consideration that the board needs to make if you use a search firm for uh an interim appointment. uh
that that really is is saying that you want to go beyond just uh looking for who's currently an internal uh option, but you want to expand that search more broadly to both internal and external candidates. And then uh finally,
probably one of the the largest considerations uh for the utilization of a search firm, it's the negotiation uh uh process with the finalist that is selected by the board in their contract negotiations.
So um uh typically the board would not want uh someone like me who is the employee of the superintendent to negotiate the superintendent contract. you would want a third party in um to do that.
>> Yes, very cool. >> Um thank you for kind of laying out the the map of everything we need. Just a thought for board members. I think we should agree on a like a framework of a path before we have in-depth
conversations on what we want to see in the superintendent. if that makes sense because otherwise >> we'll be here till >> 4 in the morning. So >> yeah well and that would be that would be the guidance. So as as as
we've been talking and thinking and what I'm hearing if we were to do an interim that would include internal and external through a search firm. we'd have a
broader pool, a much deeper understanding of process and we may or may not um have a person who comes for a year. We may have an internal candidate who we keep, you know, and move forward.
That's a possibility and and we have to come around consensus to one way or the other. Are we going to do full full uh search and then see what happens and then go interim if we need to or or want
to? Um I think those are those are that's where I'm at is I'm trying to get a sense so we can reach consensus on on a shared shared uh plan here. Yeah. Go ahead.
Um, well, we've kind of all laid out our position, so I guess I don't know where you where your where your head is at. >> For me personally, I am a person of possibility
and I can see a clear path to either way in terms of I I believe we need to go internal external. I believe we need to search firm. Quite frankly, I think that um the guidance matters in terms of how
we get where we want to be. I think that um while clearly the capacity um or the capability sits before us, they are direct reports to whoever comes into this role, which makes it um less than
desirable for because they're hiring their own boss kind of so to speak. And that isn't usually considered a good idea um to be part of that. It's a it's a little like you said, you wouldn't negotiate that contract for your
supervisor. Um so so I am definitely uh a person on board for the search firm. I'm definitely on board to go internal external and I'm also supportive um me personally knowing experience um that
there's there's two things to consider and and the the pool it's what we do with it. The pool of candidates and how we move forward. The confidentiality piece will be vitally important if we go a full search because we could have
superintendent who would like to be part of the process, but they're not going to come into the process unless they can pretty much go through different screenings without coming before the full board until it's pretty sure they're the one. Does that make sense?
So, those are those are the kinds of considerations that have to be put out there. Um I I the the time frame concerns me. I'll be really honest. It it it really does just because of of the process pieces
like we need we have a lot of discussion. We typically need to get where to get a consensus piece. Um and so it and it's not a vote. It's it's what can we move forward with. I believe
there's there's I I I believe there's a possibility of finding a superintendent. I do. I mean, if you ask me what I believe, that's what I believe. And it could be very well internal. It could be very well regional. It could be
national. But I do believe that that's available. The question that that concerns me is how are we going to make that happen? And are we as a board willing to work collectively together
to to do that? Because that's going to take, you know, different groups and committees. So to do that, so that's the only thing holding me back is is can we move forward collectively together? Are we going to spend how much time trying to find a search firm? Because we can't.
We have to go. So does that make sense? That's okay, Jeff. Yeah, I I lowered my hand. Um I was I was gonna I thought I I thought I heard maybe a first step, but then what you said, Michelle, I think made it not. So,
I'll just say it. I I don't think it's applicable now, but maybe it'll be conversation. It sounded like there might have been enough folks behind taking a we might need a little bit more time to come up with like a a full path.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but it sounded like there might have been enough folks to say um let's look at our internal whether that's an internal interim or an internal permanent and we wouldn't I don't think we would have to
do that first step with a search firm and we could at least take a first step to see what we have internally and then come back together and come up with what the next step is whether it's a full search or an interim search with the search uh firm. But Michelle, what you
said might have discounted that, but I thought I had heard that, but maybe not now. >> Yeah, director. Yeah, I I might be wrong, but it feels like to me you the internal should just be part of the process because like for this all the
reasons you said before of everybody being in the know who is and who isn't applying versus just let people apply, put them through the search firm process and you know if they're internal we know them so that's great. um still interview
them of course but um if they're external we wouldn't and the other thing you mentioned what I said what I said about how how it worked last time which by the way is not I don't intend that to be a statement
about the quality of the candidates at all that we looked at last time um I just didn't even know there would have been another way but I think there is another way which the biggest thing for me is the board should be able to have a look
at the at the at the resumes. And I don't know exactly how we could we could work that out later how we're going to decide which ones we want to bring forward or not. Um certainly doesn't have to be, you know, it probably doesn't have to be a super high bar. Is there anybody interested? Is there a couple people interested? Something like
that, but it would just be good to have been able to do that um the last time if we could have. So that that for me if we could use a firm and I feel like that should be a priority for us is that we're going to be able to have some input into you know
what we see. >> Jeff >> um yeah Matt I completely agree with you. The search firm that we used last time and I don't think I even knew this until it was um just like you until we
finally got the candidates. We did not see everyone who applied. They they brought to get they brought forward the candidates that fit our profile, right? That they recommended. I completely agree with you. We should not go with the search firm that does that. Again, we should go with the search firm that
we see everyone who comes forward. So, I'm in complete agreement with you on that. I at the last time we did that process, I complained um about that at the time, too. So, I completely agree with you. just to be I don't know how
clear I was or or whatever my I know it's not a vote but my position is the reason I meanted mentioned internal first at least in my head was I think we should do an interim because of the timing I think we have a
lot of work to do our board has a lot of work to do on that leadership profile that Jennifer talked about I think it's going to take us some time for our board to get to what that is. So my preference would be the first step of seeing what
we have internally to see if we could have an interim. Hopefully that interim would also want to apply when we do a full search and then we do a full search. It could be our interim if we have it. You know, we go six months and we say we can stop our search. We have
our person. Um it might not be that. we might want to see the whole thing. But that's kind of where I'm at right now is the first step of internal, see if we have someone the board can get around for an interim. If not, we expand that to an interim uh broader search.
So just I I agree with that and I would ask the concept of like looking at all the resumes does that make those candidate if the whole board sees all the resumes does that make those public or would that would we still be able to do that with confidentiality until we
arrived at a smaller list that would then become public? you would need to um have an agreement with the search firm as to what the process looks like. >> I have a >> yes
legal counsel. >> I was just going to answer the question with respect to reviewing um applications um that that the review of the application wouldn't be something that would need to be public. That would be done something that would be done individually by board members. there's a process I assume that
a that a search firm could have to um have uh a ranking perhaps of of uh of the various uh applicants. So I think that that I imagine that that's the case. I if I can add one thing here too and I think Dr. Cherry uh stated this
well in providing some initial advice to the to the board or at least some perspective on this. Um there's nothing in the statute that talks about interm superintendent. It talks about three-year maximums on contracts, right? And so when you talk about a permanent hire, you're talking about offering a
contract for three years. So that's a that's a that's the that's the commitment that that this board would enter into if it was talking about a permanent when when we're using that term. And the use of of one year um you know would would obviously indicate uh
some some flexibility in terms of the board in terms of its decision- making. Um so interm is used I think largely to talk about you know filling the gap uh holding the line so to speak. Uh but there is no nothing in statute that says
um interm. So one year is maybe in lie of interm. >> Okay. >> Yes. So, it sounds like, correct me if I'm wrong, if we do affirm, all applications are public.
>> No, no, >> no, they're not. They're not. What actually becomes public under the statute is when someone is a finalist for the position. Uh um and so um a lot of boards and search firms will kind of try to manage the process to to maintain
that uh that confidentiality for lack of a better term until the until the final determination deliberation of the board. And I think there are a lot of creative processes. The the thing that that is very much front and mind here is that everything that you do in terms of a a
hiring decision is um the final decision is going to be public. And that's that's what makes all of this a little bit awkward, right? Because um you know, Dr. Cherry and her team can look at a pool of applicants and make various determinations and even offer a position and then it'll be subject perhaps to
board approval. But um all of that can happen in a way that that most of us are accustomed to looking for for a job um can kind of at least recognize that we're not just going to be in the newspaper. And so that does have a an impact when you think about um someone
applying for a job and thinking about it. Um it just is going to be part of it's going to impact the pool of candidates. It's going to impact the mindset in terms of people applying. >> Um thank you for that explanation. I would still again kind of being the I
don't know least experienced board member with regards to all this. I would still be interested to just see who applies because I have like director Edit was saying, I have no frame of reference. For all we know, we'll get plenty of internal and external candidates. So, I personally would like
to go that route. I think it would help me to better understand what this would be like. So, >> for just to clarify for the three-year position, >> yeah, for the three-year. >> Okay. instead we'll call it the one year or
the three-year that that's helpful. So all right and I think we know and you're the same. Would that be describe what you're thinking or >> Yes, I think I think it does. Oh, there
we go. Um although I I I thought that some of the things you were saying which I think were pretty much the same. Yeah, the the things I'm saying are pretty much the same, but I I want I think it's a really important thing that we have a shared
commitment to doing this collaboratively and collectively to get there. And that's my great concern is that we can't spend a lot of time um going deeply into into um who we want
for for um let's say the search firm. if we can't agree and spend and you know can't come to an agreement in a pretty short I mean we're talking now kind of thing. So that's my concern just is the timeline and and that's the commitment
piece in a Go ahead. >> Did I I think if I think pretty much everybody agrees to want to use an external firm, right? >> I I >> I thought I thought I heard that. >> I I believe that's the case if we did
not just do the step one. I think that that director Simon's uh put on the table is internal only. We'll look at who has a license here and then we'll make a decision if we want to hire that person. I'm not sure if that was
permanent or an interim. I think that >> would that be accurate? One year. Is that what the thinking is? And then maybe they would expand. And Casey, I think you were be behind that same that same effort. I just keep going back to
flipping it in my head and that's the piece is I still would like to go out broader. Yeah, I would like to do that. So, the question is can we get behind a one-year position um both internal and external with a search firm? >> Yeah, I think so. So, could could I just
say something that it was about the internals? >> I just wanted to put it out for consideration. So, it's like if if we review the internal applicants and we just decide with kind of I'm gonna say I guess without a formal interview that like that doesn't feel like the best way
to do it to me, you know, versus versus say invite everybody to the process, use the external firm. I I I I get I get your point on why that would be good, but and when I say it just doesn't feel like the best thing. It's just that like
if a person wants to apply, why not why not let them go through some part of the interview process right along with the other people you would evaluate and then it's I don't know it just it just gives people who you might not already know because we don't I know I don't know I
don't even know who has a license in our district. So I'm going to just take for granted there's at least one of them I don't know so would love to see. >> So I guess I'm not opposed to that. to what you're saying about that, Mr. Simon. It's just I'm trying to think of
a way to bring everybody in and the best way I could think of is to invite everybody to apply through a firm >> through a firm internal and external >> interim. uh in the interim I'm like I'm yes
>> one year >> I I guess but I don't see any reason why upon reviewing the candidates we couldn't also still say we we don't see so so like that's a way I think I can get there is to say >> everybody okay everybody in the whole stratosphere knows we're we're trying to
find a three-year >> uh we're we but we're going to entertain that one year because we just think that it might take longer but then in the middle of that process there wouldn't be anything precluding us to say actually >> here we are.
>> Would that be accurate? There would >> I can't think of any reason why you couldn't do that. >> Would there be >> Yeah, you might not get everybody that that would have wanted to apply in doing so, but in a way like who cares? You found your person. You found the person you think you want, so you're you're sort of done. I don't know how to make
that >> operationalize that, but go ahead. That's >> the typical path in in that scenario is that um the people who are applying to that interim position are applying for a one-year position, right? That you might get some additional um individuals who
are really interested in just getting the job in a noa henipin and wanting to continue. Um but your pool really is going to be focused on a one-year commitment. Um, and so you typically would hire them under that contract for
a one year, but it's a trial period for both them and and for us. Um, and uh and then you may decide as a board that you uh would like to move forward with an appointment after that one-year commitment is concluded rather than
running another search. And you might make that decision a few months down the road. You may not need to wait the whole year. >> Yes. >> So what's the path then? What are we doing?
So, it sounds like we have a majority of members sitting at the table today that are open to and interested in hiring a firm, doing a search for a one-year contract. And then once we have that person in, we
can continue our discussions as a board on whether that person gets extended a longer offer, whether we continue to go into a full search for the next round. I think that's respectful of both the interests we're hearing at the table today and the the industry process of
superintendents. Like we we would we would open ourselves up to an even broader pool of candidates, I think, doing it that way because we'd get those that are interested in the one year and maybe the longer and we'd let those superintendents that wouldn't want to leave their contract at this kind of bad timing the the longer search so that
they'd have a longer runway to demonstrate their interest. Yeah. >> I just wanted to something that's different from uh like what you just described than what we did before. I think when we did it before we I don't know if we limited it, but we
definitely kind of indicated we really only looking for the one-year person last time. And I think one difference in what you're saying now is that's just where we are. But we're we're open to >> different things in that, you know, that >> Yeah, I definitely think it's in the
marketing of the position. Yeah, certainly they do too. >> And it's unique. Typically, it's not done that way. But yet, people have gotten some pretty great superintendents out of their intra position that came to the table and
quite frankly it could be right here. So, >> so Michelle, do you need to like since we all are sort of Yes. Yes. >> Aligning around a firm. Is that something we'll do right now in the discussion? Will you and Linda poll us afterwards? Like what what are what are
you thinking for that? >> I think it would be important. I I'm I'm thinking we should know right now because there isn't a lot of time to poll people. That's what I'm saying. this is we have to go and I I would be
happy to partner with someone to um and I I don't know who partners with me but I I've talked to a couple firms. Jennifer gave us links. I've been out looking around. Somebody just emailed I guess probably all of us and wants to be our friend. Um, but I I think we just
really want uh someone that the board feels comfortable with and can provide the guidance and work in partnership um with our with our internal team. So anyway, Jeeoff. >> Yeah. Um I I this isn't a formal vote,
so I would just say I think it's important to get Linda's point of view also before we make a final. I mean, it can be a general here at this table, but m please make sure she's in alignment with what everyone said. I think it's important for every board member to have
a voice in this discussion. >> I I agree. Yeah, I've talked to her this morning, but I I will follow up with her as well, but I would guess we're pretty aligned based on what I know. So, um,
and so back to the if we unless there's objection, I can follow up with her on that as well. Um, for, uh, search firm and if Yes, >> finish it up. >> Oh, I was just saying if if we can get
consensus around Linda and myself working together to bring some search firms to the table. I mean, we almost need to do it like right now. Does that make sense? Yeah. >> So then my understanding of the path forward is this. Correct me if I'm
wrong. Seems well and of course we have to confirm with Linda. >> Absolutely. >> Vote later, but >> yeah. Thank you. Thank you Jeff for bringing that >> just that the general idea leaving this board meeting is we want to go with a firm and so the firm I guess will be decided later. You can give
recommendations whatever. I I don't see how that could be decided like at this minute. Um but we'll go with a firm and then the position will be opened up as an interim but with the possibility of
being uh well one year with the possibility of being a three-year just depending. >> Does that sound correct? >> Yeah, I think she had it right. It's just it's just the marketing of it like that is what it is. You know what I
mean? It's not really like a like we're we're offering a one-year contract right now based on the tight timeline between the end of the school year and the start of the next. And I think people who are in the game, you could certainly confirm it for us that that makes sense to people and they they
get what we're doing. And um for sure if you're uh a person who's willing to take a one year who would like a three-year, one great way to get to the three-year would be to take the one year. So I feel pretty confident in that approach. Um, >> so,
>> okay, I will. So, my next step will be to follow up with Linda tomorrow and share this with her and make sure that she's on board um with this and then um I'll follow up with you and then we will
have to uh search for him. Yes, Jeff, go ahead. Yeah, I would also you may have I may have cut you off and you may have been going to say this, but I'd make a recommendation or a suggestion that the co-chairs ping the board members to get
that leadership um profile, if you will. We'll have to have that immediately. And I know the search firm helps with that, too, but it might be good to be proactive on that and ask board members kind of give you a list of what they're looking for, see if we can come to
consensus on that. Yeah, I appreciate that and I Linda had mentioned that actually to me as well. Um, so great minds are thinking alike. So, so that'll be I'll put that down too. Thank you for doing that and bring that to attention
though as well. So, are we pretty much set here then? So, yes, search firm interim but market it as a possibility of Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, just maybe maybe it's a process uh
point, but it it makes sense to obviously, you know, collectively sitting down and agreeing what the what search firm it would be. Does it make a lot of sense? Um it's a professional services contract. We're not subject to certain nicities in terms of contracting
laws. However, um you know, we have an obligation to do due diligence. So, I would I would suggest that perhaps uh it's and if I can just make a suggestion, the co-chairs uh could could approach uh these search firms, get um some information on those,
maybe make an initial recommendation. We would come back and actually would have to pass on a contract in a board meeting and we could probably do that on a consent agenda. I don't know if or special meeting. I mean, we can we can uh we could do either. Go ahead. I I
would actually advocate for making a decision prior to our next board meeting and enlisting a search firm in the very near term in order for us to really be able to to have a window of opportunities to actually have
applicants apply. I I would recommend that we allow for a 30-day window for that just the application process. That brings us to really April 1 of when we have to have this posted. Um, and so to
wait until our next board meeting is >> is fair. So then the only the only thing being the approval of the contract which we would we'd want that approval. I assume we could have a special meeting on short notice to to approve the contract. We could even do it largely
virtual. So, I mean, if the if the I hear what um um Dr. Cherry is saying, it makes sense to me, but we would just need to approve it through the board. >> Just for clarity purposes, then though, um we can gather that
information. Um there would be um typically an interview process with a with a number of firms, right? Yes. What are you thinking? to accelerate >> because of the amount that we're um
considering here. There is there's not a need for an RFP. It is consultation services, right? So, that formality of of interviewing various firms, it's not necessary. >> Um the board can really select the firm that's going to meet your needs um the
best. uh we can we can help you with that by providing information about various firms what they can offer and and um what the difference is um but uh based on the accelerated timeline again
I I I wouldn't recommend going through that more formal process for >> okay so do it less formal yeah >> so then we gather the information for the search firms um and then just >> and then uh I would I would advocate or recommend that the board co-chairs are
really working and and pinging other board members to ensure that there's support. >> Got it. >> Um for the the the proposal with the the recommended firm >> and then something that we would televise and do. I'm just clarifying. Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. We can do that. >> And that probably should be done now. >> Now. >> Yep. >> Yeah. All right. See what we can do.
Okay. I think at this point, do we have enough information to start this path forward? >> I I think I also heard um that uh the board co-chairs would would uh have a process in place to identify uh criteria
for that leadership profile and be able to ping all the other board members. >> Yes. Yeah. and gather those forward. And that needs to be done probably immediately yesterday, too. So, we'll get on that as well. >> Okay. I appreciate that and appreciate
all of your help. Um, and board members, um, kind of start working that work. Here we go. And we got to go. So, anyway, at this time, is there anything else? And just just a couple of considerations the board um needs to be
aware of is uh likely some additional uh special meetings that'll need to be called uh within the month of of um uh May in order to address those uh the interviews and then also um in the search firm will help guide through this
but um the involvement again of various stakeholders if if the board wants to provide some additional input and how they see that selection this both the screening and selection process going. Um and then the the desire for any kind
of additional stakeholder input in the selection process would be important for the board to discuss and come to some agreements on that doesn't have to be done tonight but um as we get further along in the process >> and I know that um because of confidentiality there there are
different communities that have used panels they'll have two board members and some internal staff um screen >> um and and provide that support um because then it it you can keep
confidential names u for people and go through that screening process before it goes public in front of a full board. I know some did committees but we're not doing committees. So anyway, are we good then
for the moment? >> Anything else? Thank you so much for your patience and all this work tonight. I appreciate everyone. So, I think we have to adjourn. I just have to find the right note paper here.
>> I'm ready to make the motion. >> You would like to make the motion? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Thank you, uh, Director Adet. Uh, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Director Daine. With a second. All those could you call the role, please?
>> That votes I. Desaine >> I >> Arco >> I >> Simon >> I >> Langenfeld >> I with five in favor and zero opposed we are adjourned the time is 103 thank you everyone
Heat. Heat.