Okay, the time is 6:31 and we're going to start the work session. And first up we have Falcon High School new JR G J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JR OTC course proposal archery. Good evening everyone. Sher, principal
of Falcon High School. Uh just a quick quick uh brief explanation here. Uh the purposes of these courses are to grow uh our JOTC program. Uh we have a very successful program um with a lot of great spirit and we want to help
students find out more about JOTC with this program. One uh point of note is um by law um you know part of ourou uh with the space force is that these courses in order to access our instructors um they
have to be members of the JOTC program. And so we're hoping that these uh courses entice students to join. Um and uh what these are, they're part of the leadership development requirements, LDRs they're called. And I'm going to
allow Major Wise to speak a little bit more about this program and some of the other LDRs and the great things that our uh Space Force program does. >> Thank you, sir. Again, my name is uh Tony Wise, a retired major, United States Air Force. Um, and I am the
senior aerospace science instructor at uh, Falcon High School. Um, the LDRs that he speaks of is we offer many different things and they're typically the afterchool type things that we do with our cadetses. Um, what we want to try to do here is incorporate an LDR
actually as a classroom instruction. um and then bring that in and then actually offer it to um our cadetses where we're doing archery and we're going to be doing flight sim and we'll talk about that a little bit later. But with that in mind, it'll increase the um the
visibility of the core um and it'll actually um allow us to advertise it a little bit more. That's our goal is to grow the core. >> Director Levier, right? So I thought Mr. O Connor said that it would it's only
available to ROC students because of the instructors, but your description says it's open to all students whether they're enrolled in ROC or not. >> Uh correct. So um part of what happened there as we wrote this course description um we were in uh government
lockdown and we were not able to receive guidance um from Space Force uh command in terms of how we could approach this course. So that is an amendment we'll need to make and that's why I made that special note uh that it is uh limited to
uh JOTC students. So we will edit that um if approved ahead of the next if approved to move forward. >> I was say yeahirect before we vote on it. Right. >> Director Schmidt, >> first of all I want to say thank you for your service. I'm an Air Force brat,
too. So >> nice. >> Not quite as far up but still there. Um, I really like your focus on safety. I kind of looked over your learning objectives and your um, syllabus and all. My daughter, my granddaughter Isabelle,
uh, fourth grade, she was at the little school in the woods and she showed me some of the archery they were doing there and it was just fantastic. So, I'm really looking forward to having that come and be a part of D49. >> I think it's a great move. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. Thank you for that. Director Hy. >> So, as I'm looking at the um course description, I see that uh we're going to be able to count this for half a um credit for elective credit. Um considering the athletic requirement um
would it not be appropriate to um make it eligible for a PE credit? >> I mean, I I believe it's possible. We we have not considered that at this time because it's strictly routing through uh JOTC. >> And and can I add something to that? The
the um the drill that we do actually counts towards some of the some of the cadets getting PE credit as well. So I don't know if you double it up or not. >> Yes, sir. >> Director Dola.
>> Yes. I like this uh course proposal and uh I would have liked to have thought I was really good at archery but I couldn't hit anything with my with the t or couldn't hit anything but um um my niece was in archery and so she was very much a part of archery and going through
all the trainings and things like that. So I appreciate having this opportunity for our students. >> Thank you. We look forward to it. >> Does the student board have any questions about the archery course proposal? Okay, director Leight,
>> just one other side comment. If you find students who are in the course who are um really interested in it, know there's also an active El Paso County for each shooting sports program where they can choose to then also compete. Um and so
you can link up with the volunteer volunteers through the extension office and they can connect them if they find a passion in it that would also give them a secondary outlet um for demonstrating those skills. >> So I participated in archery with my son
and I think this course proposal is right on target. Okay. I know grown. >> Okay. Okay. So it looks like so if there are no objections, this will be moved forward.
Okay, next up we have another JR OTC course proposal for a flight simulator course. >> Uh thank you and I'll speak again. Um all of the things that applied to archery are the same uh for this course.
It is an LDR course. Um but also obviously a focus on the flight simulator. And so, uh, Mr. Lopez is here to speak to that specifically. >> Good evening. Uh, Ben Lopez. Um, like Major Wise said, the intent of this is
to get more exposure for JOTC as a whole, give, um, cadets or future cadets more options to, uh, experience something like flight. Um, this is kind of the ground level getting into a flight simulator. Um, but we're teaching
them all the basics that they would learn at flight school from ground taxi to getting airborne, entering um, rectangular patterns, overhead patterns. Um, and they actually have a test out that we currently test with our uh, AS3
students, our third-year students. Um, we run them through the same course and uh, they test out at the end. So there is a uh, start and a culmination of it. Um but the biggest thing about this is it also prepares them for uh third-year
students or juniors are eligible for to apply for a scholarship at Flight Academy. Um we had one student three years ago that was chosen. So their summer of junior year uh they were given $26,000. They were sent to flight school. So they essentially graduated with their high school diploma,
associates degree, and their pilot's license. Director Schmidt, >> I'm curious, is this just a computer program or is there a simulator, an actual simulator? And where is that located if so? >> So, we internally through fundraising uh
did a tech refresh on all of our computers. Last year, we bought nine new desktop computers. Um, so it is a uh computer program, but it's also a flight simulator that they can practically fly around. Um, and that's where we're going to run them through the very basics of
what a flight sim is, how to operate it, and then getting them to the airborne piece. >> Director Hy. >> Yeah. And I've played that game. In fact, I was visiting with a friend. He booted it up, uh, got the plane into the air, and my mission, and I was pretty
close to successful, was to crash it into my own house. But I I found my house. But, you know, it's really hard to identify before you get to uh close enough that you're Anyway, um I will say I ended up serving in the military. I did six years in the Navy, but that was
not on my radar when I was a high school student. And um you know, archery, you know, that's pretty interesting, pretty cool. I don't know if that would have encouraged me to um join the JOTC, though. This I would have absolutely jumped on. So, um I think you you're on
to something here. >> Thank you, >> Director Dvola. >> Uh my husband would have definitely done this. He was in JROTC and uh he has flown a plane by being
with somebody else and they let him fly the plane for a little bit while they're in the sky. But yeah, he would have totally jumped on that. That would have been awesome. >> So yes, I approve. Thank you. >> Personally, I think as part of our due diligence, you should take the entire
board through the flight simulator. But keep in mind, I may have gotten the bug from trying the heavy equipment simulator out at the Falcon Legacy campus, which was groovy. Um, and then earlier today I was talking with the
former board president, John Graham, who actually flew in helicopters, and he said when he was in the flight simulator, he also crashed and burned, Mike, so you are not alone. >> I did it on purpose. >> Oh, okay. That's what they always say later on. Um, so Destiny, do you have
any questions about the flight simulator or the course? >> No. Oh, no. I think it's a really good idea. Um, a lot of kids and I know Banning doesn't have a JROTC program or anything to do with the Air Force or any
sort of military. So, I know a lot of our students would love to do that, but if we did have a JRTC program, like I bet there would be a lot of kids, but >> we don't. So, >> so banning is starting to branch out now. We actually have two banning uh cheerleaders that are part of the JROTC
program. Uh, one of which is the >> Oh, >> yes. I would Can I Am I allowed to like spread the news? >> Absolutely. >> Okay, that sounds amazing. >> Invite is over. We'll we'll come out and talk. >> Okay, thank you. I love it. I think we have the second edition at my
house of Microsoft Soft Flight Simulator from when my husband was training. He he he has his private and instrument rating and um flew 130s as a nav, but I we I believe I still have the floppy disc, the little disc it was that he ran it
off of to help with his additional training sitting in a cupboard somewhere that he still won't let me get rid of. So, it's kind of it makes me feel incredibly old that it's the 40th anniversary edition. I'm just saying. >> So, I have a question for Isabelle. Isabelle, do you know what a floppy disc
is? I don't know what a floppy disc is. >> You know, I just had a hunch that was going to be the answer. >> Destiny, do you know? Okay. Well, next time I come to student board, I'll have to bring a floppy disc with me just so
you could see what we were talking about tonight. Isabelle, what do you think about this course proposal? >> Uh, kind of like what Destiny said is banning we don't like have our own Jerotc program, but like Even when I first started high school, like I really
really wanted to like get into JOTC, but I didn't know like how to do that really, like how like start on that. But now that I'm in my last year of high school, like I'm happy to see that there's more programs and at other schools and that they're doing more than
just a class for it. So, I really like this idea. >> Thank you so much. And if there are no objections, this will be moved forward. >> Miss Thompson, may I make just a quick observation? Remember that anytime you
approve a course, you approve it for all of our schools. And although I know you're not trying to recruit for programs at other schools, um because they, you know, every program wants to be the strongest program. Um if one of our other JOTC programs wanted to then adopt this course, of course, we'd
collaborate and of course your approval would extend to those programs as well. Are there any objections? Okay. Next, we are on to item 1.3. New choir course proposal. Tenor
bass select choir. >> There will be no singing in this proposal. And uh I'm I'm here to uh present uh this course. This is uh a continuation of uh courses that we wanted to add uh last year as well, but it's a different
vocal group. And so the select choir is then intended to be our most advanced group. Um but for that vocal range of tenor bass and um just because we have the course in our course handbook, we offer it. If we don't have enough
interest, um we won't run it. However, being able to offer it just as allows us to continue to grow that program. Um, we are very fortunate at Falcon High School to have a highly regarded program. Uh, for the second year in a row, we'll be performing at the Colorado Music
Educators Association with a different group. Um, and so we're super proud of them and this just helps us advance that program um, and continue to grow interest in choir. We have students flocking to that program. It's really fun.
Director Hy. So, >> I'm really excited to see that you guys have grown so rapidly. Um, there's all kinds of science that talks about how uh music education um helps develop the brain and just makes the students
superstars in all the other domains as well. And um you know typically I have found that um the male voices um you know you you just get lower participation um and I think if you have something there that can really let those boys shine and they hear that
they're going to they're going to be excited about it and we're going to get even more growth in there. So I I love this >> student board. Do you have any thoughts? Director Dvola, I approve. To touch on um something that Director
Hy um mentioned as far as brain development, many of us have gone to the 3.75 dinners and the one or desserts out in Falcon where you're just trying to fatten us all up, you know. Um, but the one thing I've noticed is most of the
high achieving students were involved with ROC choir, some type of a sport, their church youth group, they have a lot of different activities that they get involved with that they speak about at the 3.75 dinners. So, I do agree that
that music helps to develop different parts of your brain as does drama, as does other extracurricular activities. So, I approve as well. Um if there are no objections this will move forward. Okay. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> And now we are on to item 1.4 2526 preliminary first quarter financials. Good evening board. There'll be no singing in this one either. Uh,
this one's going to be pretty quick, pretty straightforward. First quarter is very early. There's not a lot to to note um this early. Uh oh. Should I repair this? Okay.
Okay. So, I just want to remind everybody that this is based on unodudited fund balances for the beginning fund balances um as we are still finalizing our audit. Okay, so this is following the same
format that I brought to you guys for the first time at the last um quarterly presentation for our preliminary fourth quarter for last year. Um so this is very similar. We have added a uh extra column for the first quarter actuals so
that you can see that in comparison to the year-to- dates. Um, otherwise this is very much in line with what I brought last time. Um, I do want to clarify, and this is actually something that I plan to change between this time and next time. Um, but the very far right column
of the percent of budget, um, the way this particular one is built and the last one as well, it does a percent of the total revenue and fund balance. So, um, this particular number that I'm kind of highlighting over right there, the 1919 920, and I think that kind of skews
it a little bit. Um, moving forward, I think for more clarity, I plan to change those percentages to be each line item so it's a little clearer. Um, but just kind of to explain what that means. Um, we're very high right now on our state revenue because this also includes our
charter charter revenues before they get passed on. We capture the transfer and the fund transfers in another section. Any questions in comparison around our revenues? Overall, they're they're pretty well on track. Okay.
And then this is our segment on salary and benefits. Um and so we are really on track here. If you not notice the percent of budget all the way down, we're right in line with about the first quarter of of dollar amounts. We have
some that fluctuate a little over 25%, some that are just under, but overall at the bottom, our total average is 24.92. That is spot-on for 25% through the year. Any questions on salaries and benefits?
>> Not a question, but I'd like to make an observation. In past years, we have struggled to get to full employment, which has created a vacancy dividend. And that vacancy dividend, while not massive, has been significant. But we
are doing so much better a job of both recruiting and retaining and filling those vacancies. that being this close to to 25% at this point in the year means we don't have that other mild buffer that we have we have appreciated in years past that you've seen in you
saw it a year ago and you've seen it in previous years in this presentation. So it's a good thing that we're filling our positions but from the business office perspective it means we run closer to the line. >> Thank you. that also correlates with the risk that I've brought forward a few
times here that we are inching closer and closer. Um, I'll probably bring that forward again when we bring you the amended budget because I would recommend that we probably stop um having that buffer and truly budget at 100%. But
that's more to come, some foreshadowing. Any questions around the salaries and benefits portion? All right. So, on to the next slide here. This is basically everything else that's an expense. This is our um
outside of fund B balance transfers. Um this is everything else. And this is where we're trending high. To some degree, it's normal for a school district to trend high on purchase services and supplies because you expect to purchase things for the use for the
year. So your expenses are earlier in the year. So to some degree that's normal. Um but we are trending a little bit high. You'll notice on everything um in purchase services the top category we're at 57.89%.
So that's that's a little higher than I would like to see. Um but we'll keep plugging along at this point and see where we land. We also have some amended items to bring for the budget and see how that shifts everything going forward. Any questions on this
particular slide? This is really the only slide that has any kind of cautionary information on it at this point. Okay. And this particular slide also shows all of the fund transfers. So where we
subsidize any of our funds also when we transfer money to charter schools. So this is right on track. Also the subtotal at the bottom there we're averaging 24.26%. So we're spot on there. There are a couple of our funds that we haven't made
any transfers yet. Um and we usually do those only at the end of the year if it's necessary. Any questions on this particular slide? And now we're on to the budget to actual comparisons for every individual
um fund. We did add beginning fund balance like we discussed last time. Um in kind of looking through these I would recommend it. It looks a little deceiving. In theory, we should be able to take fund balance and either add or
subtract the surplus or deficit and get where we're at, but it's leaving out actual fund transfers when we subsidize. So, I still think this needs a little bit more work. Um, and so we'll keep working on that to make sure it's as
accurate of a as a of a summary as possible. Um but for now the main things here um there's really nothing everything's below um what we expect other than our
revenues in general fund which is good and our state grants are definitely higher than we've budgeted but that's typically because we don't know what revenues we're getting until the grant is officially awarded. Um otherwise we're right in the ballpark of
everything else. Any questions on this particular slide? Okay, another one of these summaries. This is fund 16 through 21. Um, of note here now that we've got the fund balances on here. Um, some things that
you guys will hear about shifting when we get to the amended budget. Just kind of foreshadowing again so you guys hear it more than once. um the special grants fund that's been saved for central office um spend there. So we're kind of shifting
some some expenses there. Um our insurance fund is our risk. That one's 18 is our risk benefit. Uh we plan to at the close of this year to collapse that fund and fund 17 to reduce some of our
funds that we have that are too we don't need all the breakouts that we have. um preschool under fund 19. That one has a zero beginning balance because we had to make sure that was zeroed out for the year with a subsidy. Um nutrition
services, you guys know they contributed towards our general fund. They have a very healthy fund balance and they're doing really well this year. Any questions on this particular slide? Okay, this next group, there's not anything of
great note on this particular one other than base 49. We also had to um subsidize 27 and 25 for both base 49 and transportation to get them to zero. Um so they have no fund bal beginning fund
balance. Um the federal grants fund in 22 has to zero. Um we are not able to carry any fund balance there. Any questions around these funds 23 and 25 are all student activity.
Okay, last one. I know it's dry. I lost my mouse. Okay, last one. Um, we don't use fund 31 currently unless we went for a bond. So, we still keep it open in case we ever
did go for a general obligation bond. Our COP repayment, uh, that's very large right now because we haven't made our payments yet, but our first ones will come out in December. um capital reserve building fund. That is just one of our capital that and fund
49. The both 43 and 49 are capital projects um funds. And then health insurance is fund 64. And because we did have a few claims that actually got paid in the new year, uh we didn't actually
zero that fund out. There is actually a small little fund balance. It's not very much, but there is a little bit. I know we've talked about that health insurance um fund has a slight little balance in there. Any questions on these?
Any questions overall? Director Schmidt, I'm wondering, do we have any cuts in spending planned this year? >> Um we're working on developing those currently as we speak. We've been meeting with uh our cabinet and with
Peter to come up with ideas on how we can make the appropriate cuts that are needed. Yep. Director Dvola, I just want to reiterate again how much I appreciate you and all the hard work
you've done to help it simp help simplify for the public's consumption. and um I'm really glad that you are here and a part of D49. So, thank you. >> Thank you. I'm glad to be here, too. >> Awesome.
>> Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, next we are on to item 1.5 and I believe we're going to allow Director elect Holly Withers to join us
by phone. head here. Okay. Uh, school district directors elected shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. A director shall take office no later than 15 days following
the date on which the school district receives the official abstract votes pursuant to section 1-10-102 Colorado Revised Statute. Per policy BDA, the incumbent board president administers the oath of office to the
newly elected directors of the or at the organizational meeting on or before December 5th, 2025. Once the newly elected director takes the oath of office, he or she is a seated board member and the term of his
or her predecessor ends. Following the swearing in of the newly elected board members, the following officers in order shall be elected or appointed. President, vice president, secretary, and treasurer. The incumbent president of the board shall
preside until a successor is elected at which time the successor will assume the chair. Nominations for each office shall be made from the floor, and voting shall be by roll call. Following the election of the officers, the board shall appoint the staff members who will fill the
office of secretary to the board and assistant treasurer, which I don't think we have assistant treasurers, do we? >> Yeah, that's officially what Rebecca is. >> Huh. >> Rebecca is officially your assistant treasure. >> Okay. >> So, technically your CFO and then
Lynette is the assistant to the the secretary because they're actually the people who do all of the technical stuff. >> Okay. Relevant data and expected outcomes. Designated election office official receives the official abstract of votes and notifies candidates.
Special BOE meeting administer the oath of office and hold organizational meeting confidentiality affidavit are signed. The board now currently I wanted to make sure that Miss Withers will be available. The board holds a special meeting honor before December 5th, 2025
to swear in newly elected board directors and to elect board officers. This meeting will take place on December 4th before the regular meeting and we need a consensus for that date. Currently, it is scheduled for 5:00 p.m.
And so I wanted to make sure that Miss Withers is available during that time. date. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, we need a consensus for that date. Oh, Director Schmidt, do you have a question?
>> I do. I'm just wondering. Last time we did this, it was a secret ballot. Is there a reason we're doing roll call instead? Is that a new law? Uh why is it different? >> You know, I think it's an option. Last time we had more than one candidate and
so they were doing um the the paper ballots but it really isn't required to do a paper ballot. So we can do a roll call. So policy says shall be by roll call or secret ballot. So I think at the time at that meeting those seated the
dis can request it be by secret ballot instead of roll call our board policy allows both. Thank you, director. Hy. >> Yes. So, the the current schedule would
have Holly um swearing in and then immediately participating in her first um public meeting. Um and it would be an action meeting, right? And so I think that that is a lot. Um you're you're talking about up until she signed all the affidavit, she doesn't have access
to um you know any executive information. um she hasn't really had an opportunity to talk to the um the uh administr you know the admin staff and get you know her questions answered etc.
So when we when I took office, um I was sworn in on December 3rd. Um that was a Wednesday. CASBY began the next day, which was great because I could get, you know, some valuable training and come in a little bit more comfortable. Now this
year, CASBY was moved to the second week of December, right? And so in order to deconlict with CASBY, we moved our meeting our regular meeting up. I would like to suggest we move we correct that in the other direction. So I I've you know we keep December 4th as a swearing
in special meeting. Get ourselves organized. Go to CASBY 11 through the 11th through 13th. And then on December 18th, which is still uh a full workday before um winter break begins, I would
propose that we move that that business meeting to that date. Well, it's not a business meeting on December 4th. It's a regular meeting. I don't know. But just just any action items that are going to be on that date. I don't think there is any executive
content at this time that would apply to that. Um, so I think we had actually moved the date and chosen December 4th to get that done before CASBY. While I admit the training is good, I don't think there will be any executive
content or anything she couldn't review in board docs prior to that. Director Dvola, I could be wrong, but I believe I came in on an action on a action item as well, an action meeting when I was sworn in because I remember voting my first
meeting. And so I I just had to make sure I was prepared by looking on board docs and making sure I had my ducks in a row before I got here. So, because I've experienced that myself, yes, it can be very daunting. My first meeting was very daunting, but um we can do it.
>> And I don't remember it was four years ago, but I'll trust your memory on that. We had three new board members. We were sworn in and we did vote I think that night. >> So, so do I have a consensus for that date for >> So, may I make a suggestion then? Can we
ensure that there is nothing that hasn't already been um a that hasn't already been fully discussed on any of our meetings put on that December 4th agenda for action? >> Yeah. >> Um and b that nothing requiring executive content can be an action item
on that night. Yeah, we just did agenda setting and >> and and may I also in interject, I am meeting with Miss Withers on the 1st, December one and so um I would be very
comfortable walking through any specific questions and I'm sure she could get me even get me those questions in advance. So I appreciate the sensitivity. Um but we have managed it and I'll I'll do my part to manage it. >> Okay. Can I get a consensus on that date?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. And we have a consensus on that. >> Okay. We are on to 1.6 six and this is board member code of conduct and I just
thought it would be a good time to go through this as kind of a refresher and I kind of wanted to highlight and I have some notes here number 10, number 12 and number 15. Hang on just one second here. Although all of it is good for a review
and So, I'm going to read the ones that I kind of wanted to highlight, but any other concerns I'm I'm open to hearing from the board. Um, number 10, not make any derogatory comments of any individual, district employee, or board director in any medium, social media,
email, print, publications, etc. Formal discussion of employee performance is allowed provided it is in the context of formal evaluation of employees who report directly to the board of education and that confidentiality of
personnel issues are not violated. Note the board has two employees the superintendent and the board senior executive assistant. Proper use of executive session should be evoke evoked if personnel issues are involved or
legal advice is sought for clarification. Um number 12 take no individual private action that will compromise the board of education, administration or district by respecting the one voice concept of
board governance upon majority vote or consensus. In other words, once a decision is made by the board of education, individual board directors will respect the decision and move forward with mutual respect for one another.
And number 15, not task district employees nor apply undue pressure or threats to achieve personal goals. The board of education should only give action through the superintendent and subsequently the
superintendent will decide how and to whom the actions will be assigned. Board of Education directors consent that direction or tasking comes only as a result of a majority vote or consensus during an appropriately
notified and held public meeting with a proper quorum present in accordance with the one voice concept of governing boards. So is there any thoughts or discussion on the code of conduct?
Okay, so that was just a reminder. It's a good idea to review the code of conduct from time to time. And next up, we have proposed revisions to policy JICDE.
Director Schmidt, you have 10 minutes to do a presentation on the proposed changes. >> Thank you. Um D49 revised JICDE 10 years ago in 2016
based on documents that were created at the federal level between 2011 and 2014. These documents were never law but rather guidance in the form of a dear colleague letter and subsequently the creation
of many documents. Um the supportive school discipline initiative, school discipline guidance package, guiding principles, a resource for improving school climate and discipline and a couple of appendencies
appendices and others. The Department of Justice and the Department of Education in 2018 withdrew and rescended the dear colleague letter and the statements of policy and guidance reflected in the documents mentioned above. They were
partially reinstated in 2023 and then fully revoked in 2025. This progression of events needs to be considered. What we currently have is based on old revised and revoked guidance. This combined with research over the
past 10 years in bullying situations shows that we need to update our policy. The intent in pro proposing these revisions is to reflect those findings. The intent is not necessarily to remove restorative practices from the district,
but rather to clarify when it is appropriate to use. The CDE bullying publication does not recommend the use of restorative practices in bullying incidents. CDE says that research indicates that this
type of peer mediation may even increase rates of bullying. There is also an imbalance of power in bullying incidents and that imbalance can play out even when adults are present. The CDE has a list of bullying prevention approaches
to avoid and one of the four specifically says do not use peer mediation. State statute says that schools may use other approaches to discipline as long as they minimize exposure to criminal and juvenile justice systems. Districts
have discretion to determine the specifics of their bullying prevention policies and supports. In addition, we should not oblige our staff to use only one type of disciplinary framework. Over the past 10 years, new disciplinary frameworks have
been created that can be used in bullying situations. So, I have revisions here. Did you want to go through those one by one? I was actually going to ask the board um if we want to go ahead and go through
the proposed changes one by one, which I think would be the best way to do it rather than just trying to take it as a whole. and also to have the rationale for each one. Director Hy. >> Yeah. Um I stated this the first time
through and so I can save a lot of time. Um the the guidance that was provided in the dear colleague letter was guidance and we can choose to follow it or we can choose not to. And it really it comes down to evaluating whether it's it's valuable guidance to us or not. and the
district decided that it was and they've aligned an entire district's policies and practices and training around this particular guidance. And um I still feel
like we tinker with that at our own risk that this should not be coming from us. This should be coming from the experts who can come to us and tell us this is what's working and this is what isn't. um we can have a lot of unintended consequences
um in messing with this and um we could expose ourselves to some um legal jeopardy as a result of that. So that's all I have to say on the topic. >> Director Levir Wright, I just um wanted to address a couple of historical inaccuracies. This was not as a result
of a dear colleague letter that was general. Um, in fact, adopting this in part became was because of a DOJ finding against our district prior to that and a settlement that we made with the DOJ at the time. Um, that then resulted in us
re-evaluating a whole bunch of our disciplinary matrix at the time. uh and also then looking at um working with our military connected families and students and well as well and actually our first
DODA grant was awarded to us based on um implementing best practices with restorative practices and helping us to do that. And it's also part of why we were recognized by MSE, the military um child co ed education coalition. And we
were recognized nationally for doing it well and as an example of of um to others of how to implement something that actually significantly impacted our disciplinary um protocols and reduced
issues within our schools. Also, peer mediation is not is no peer mediation is something completely different than restorative practices. As someone who's had a child who's been through the disciplinary matrix, both as someone
who's been a target and as someone who has been um corrected and needed discipline. Um restorative pure mediation is a separate process where students mediate things between students. That's the definition of peer.
Um, in the situations that my family has personally been involved in, they have never had peer mediation. It has been administrative mediation with permission of families involved. And so when we hear a description in a journal of well,
how pure mediation is not helpful, this is not pure mediation isn't the process the district is referring to in this. And so we have to be careful about conflating those terms which is why I preferred and had requested that we have some administrative guidance on this um
when we did this before um because I think some of that is really important for the board as a whole to understand before we look at changing things. But I wanted to ensure that those pieces at least were there because this isn't um David Moore was involved in negotiating
that with other board members at the time when we had to address that from two decades ago. From what I see too though, some of these are word changes or they're updating a sentence structure. Um when
uh Dr. L man did send us over how it came about. It did reference actually the dear colleague letter in that um the and I do agree um that we have to use a little bit of caution because we have 18 other policies that reference
restorative practices. So we have to make sure that when that happens that how does that impact other policies? But I think it is prudent to look at changing some of the words or changing the direction which will not necessarily change the intent or the overall
structure. But I also agree that you have to watch out for potential liability because you want a consistent application across the board. So I would like to get input as we go through. But we did have a board consensus. Um,
director Schmidt asked if she'd go through this and we did have a board consensus. So, I think it's worthwhile to look at the changes and hear the reasons for the changes. So, students, what we're talking about is the bullying policy and how to apply the bullying policy and
the consequences. And so that's why I think we should look at the different lines and try to to briefly go through each one to see is this something that would impact the overall structure or could we use a little refresh on some of
the words in here or not? So Director Schmidt, you want to start with the first one? >> Okay. So the first propos >> Excuse me, Miss Thompson. I I'm interrupting because you alluded to administrative uh input or oversight. I can provide that if you would like that now or if you'd like that later. I can
provide that. I just wanted to make sure you know that Dr. Le Man and I have have discussed this and prepared some materials. So I can do that before or after or not at all. >> I think it would actually be beneficial before, but I'll Does the board agree to hear some of the updates when what they looked at? Okay.
>> So I'm a little nervous about this because I I actually I'm going to disagree with both directors that spoke on this. Um, peer mediation is a standard practice in restorative practices. It's it's one of the clear established. It's not one that
we use, but it is part of the the universe that we would call restorative practices. Um, in the specific document that Director Schmidt referenced where it says that peer mediation should not be used in incidences of bullying, that
paragraph ends with this statement. To be clear, restorative practices have shown the ability to reduce bullying by proactively developing relationships, encouraging a positive school climate, and dealing with conflict.
However, mediation in bullying situations should be avoided. And so in our analysis, because this is a bullying policy and because restorative practices is is a subject of attention, um we would administratively we would agree that a prohibition against using peer
mediation in response to bullying is very appropriate and we would we would endorse that recommended adjustment in language. But we would also agree administratively that other restorative practices like circles and adult
facilitated mediation which which director liver was referring to those have become essential to how we manage school culture and behavior. Um, we did not presume to go line by line on Director Schmidt's uh, recommended
changes, but many of them are 100% the board's prerogative. And so, administrative uh, frankly, our opinion is not as important as what you direct us to do. And so, as you now go through them line by line, if you if you ask me, I'll respond. But
otherwise, I'll generally keep my mouth shut because there's not really anything in here that would violate principle as much as it is a preference for language or a preference for priorities within the policy. So, I just wanted you to
have that um that perspective. Uh we will certainly take take the tasking and and move forward. But I did want you to know that we believe restorative practices as D49 has implemented them have been significant in improving
school culture and reducing exclusionary discipline and even incidences of of peer violence. So as I said the intent is not necessarily to remove restorative practices from the district but rather to clarify when it is appropriate to
use. The first proposed revision is the title I would delete and the proposed the proposed title is bullying prevention and education. So, we would delete restorative interventions and add
education. All school districts in Colorado are required to have what the state calls a bullying prevention and education policy as part of their safe school plan. That's how the state says it. Bullying prevention and education. The CDE
publishes the bullying prevention and education best practice guidance document relating to the state statute. It was revised in February 2025. They call the model policy bullying prevention and education.
Our policy has two conflicting titles. At the top it is being called bullying prevention and restorative interventions. But in the description area seven lines down it is called bullying prevention and education. The titles in our policies should match each
other the statutes and the CDE publication so that there is no confusion as to what it is. Director Dvola. >> Yeah, Director Schmidt, I think that was really well laid out and I I'd have to agree.
Is there any other discussion about the title change? And students, you're welcome to participate in this one because you know what kind of havoc bullying can create in a school environment. So, if you ever have anything, just raise your hand or say, "What do you
think?" I'm fine with the title change. >> Same. It's cosmetic. >> Okay. So, do we have a Deb, would you like to call for consensus on each item then to see if we have a consensus? So, it sounds like
there's no objection to the title change. Okay, go on to the next one, please. >> So, do I have consensus on the first one? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Statement of purpose
sentence one. So this is has a couple sentences in it. So the first sentence add safe and delete climate and add environment. So the proposed first sentence is the board of education supports a safe and secure school
environment conducive to learning to teaching and learning that is free from threat harassment and any type of bullying behavior. Adding the word safe echoes the statute which prioritizes the safe school plan. Changing climate to
environment matches our documents which support good learning environments. Reducing bullying yields good learning environments. Do I have a consensus? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
Sentence two in statement of purpose. delete promote consistency of approach and to and delete create a climate and add establish an environment. The proposed second sentence is the purpose
of this policy is to help establish an environment in which all types of bullying behavior are regarded as unacceptable. Consistency of approach in the original sentence suggests using only one disciplinary approach, restorative interventions, which the CDE says
shouldn't be used in bullying incidents. It's no secret that in America we have behavior issues in our schools. School experts tell us that not every student learns the same way and that learning is not a one-sizefits-all proposition, and they are correct. I would suggest that
discipline is also part of learning and not every student responds to a one-sizefits-all disciplinary framework. If we use only one approach to discipline, we are not using other tools that could be effective for different students. Again, the CDE bullion
publication does not recommend the use of p restorative practices in bullying incidents and that using them can actually increase rates of bullying. Lastly, state statute says that we can use other approaches to discipline as long as we minimize exposure to the
criminal and juvenile justice systems. CRS 2232109.12A Roman numeral 2B. We should also remember that restorative practices have customarily been voluntary. Do I have a consensus on that one? I
have a actually a comment on that because I had actually written out the word consistency because and this is something where I would like our legal council to weigh in. Um I think not having a consistency of approach could
open up the district to certain issues because if you can demonstrate a consistent approach first of all not every disciplinary infraction is the same. there are age appropriate consequences depending on what's been
done. But I do think that we need a consistent approach to avoid did you treat this situation differently than you would of another one. So that's where I wanted some input on consistency.
>> Brad Miller speaking. I actually agree and took heed of Mike Kyle's comments earlier. it it just the the idea of um being able to have sort of universal approaches. I've I've watched this in the context of other districts where
certain schools don't have the same sort of process and and it can create some um you know disruption or upheaval. So consistency is a great word to have in here and a great approach to continue. But I understand that this is again
mostly just uh you know the preemptive language. So I'm not that concerned. >> Superintendent Hills and I would add we already have a lot of things. The the language of consistency
is not code or intended to be synonymous with restorative approaches or restorative interventions or restorative practices. It's not um we expel. Expel is not a restorative. On the return, we do something that's restorative, but
expulsion is not a restorative practice. Um and and I want to just correct again on the record, the Colorado Bullying Prevention Document does not say don't use restorative practices with bullying. It says don't use peer mediation. It slices it down to one of the
subpractices. And so I just would ask us to be to be accurate about that. I' I've corrected that a couple of times now. It doesn't disallow or discourage restorative practices. It specifically disallows and discourages pure mediation, which we don't do. And so
whether we use this language or not, I I actually agree with these these changes. You could say something like is is to promote a consistent approach that establishes an environment. Something like that would be would be fine. Um,
but it is it is our expectation that all of our disciplinary actions are defensible and consistent across schools and well just across school. We'll say >> I think it's smart personally to have the promote consistency of approach and
then you could cross out the create a climate and put establish of an environment but pro promote consistency of approach sends a very clear message that the approach whether within a school or between schools in a district this size um is consistent and that can
manage that can matter when you pull data because you can have an administrator in one building who's very consistent within his building and someone in another building who's very consistent in theirs. And because the demographics are different, all of a sudden it looks like you have a problem
of differential application of rules that really you have two different people applying rules and that opens the district up to risk. And I've sat in situations where we've seen that before. And so I think it's smart to have that
those those words in there. When we get to talking about restorative practices, how about instead of arguing about those two words, we just say PDA peer mediation will not be used.
Um but director Dola, >> director. >> Yeah. And apart from the legal um issues too, there's just a basic question of child psychology, right? where consistency in rules and expectations
and discipline are just very important to you know help the students understand um you know their boundaries and it just when there is inconsistent approach then the students never know what to expect
and they start acting out in ways that they ordinarily would not. And so um just in order to keep our schools safe and and um productive, we want to maintain that consistent approach. >> Director Schmidt,
>> so I'm wondering um promoting consistency of approach. This is a bullying policy and we're not supposed to be using restorative practices, which is peer mediation. Um can we
possibly change? Can we possibly consistency of approach make it be in regards to making sure we don't use that in bullying because it's a bullying policy we're talking about. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I'm a little unclear. Director Dvola. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong, Director Schmidt, but um the the peer mediation piece is the one that you're concerned about. So, making sure that we take that piece out of the rest of the policy. Is
that your main concern? The peer mediation and the restorative practices, which are the same thing. It peer mediation is one type of restorative practice. Um, if we want to promote the consistency of approach saying that we will not use RP
or pure mediation, I'm fine with that. >> Okay. Now, I'm a little unclear because we're not talking about eliminating restorative practices. I think the concern was peer mediation. One thing the student board taught me when we were
discussing last year the cell phone policy is they told me that different teachers applied the cell phone policy differently. So they really didn't know what to expect. So once again, that's why I'm pushing to have, you know, if we have some type of consistent approach to
discipline and how we treat treat bullying, I want a Banning Lewis student who knows these are the rules and they transfer over to S Creek High School to know there's of course that's a charter school, so that may not be the best example, but to know that when they go
from Falcon to S Creek or Vistar Ridge, that there is a consistent approach in how it's handled. So that was the point I was making. Director Dvola, >> um, back to the the um line item that
we're discussing. I think it sounds like we had a consensus for um to leave in, promote consistency of approach, but then take out and replace establish an environment. Is that the consensus we've got? Because
I'm saying yes to that one too. I mean, >> sure. >> Yep. Yes. No. >> And then we can we can um go through the peer mediation problem as we go through the rest.
>> Okay. And director Dvola, would you share that amended sentence just so we're clear? It sounds like we had >> Yes. So we removed um nope, sorry. We kept promote consistency of approach
and we removed create a climate and added establish an environment. Do you want me to read it as amended? >> Yes, please. >> The purpose of this policy is to promote consistency of approach and to help establish an environment in which all types of bullying are regarded as
unacceptable. >> Okay. Do we have consensus on that? I will change and say yes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Yep. >> Thank you for helping us clarify that. >> Okay. Under definitions,
the proposed sentence is bullying is prohibited against any student for any reason, including but not limited to any such behavior that is in conflict with policy AC, non-discrimination, equal opportunity. So this doesn't change the
definition. It just shortens it to referring to the policy AC as we've done with other policies in u this year. >> Director Hy. >> So I'd just like to point out that there
are some items in this that are not in policy AC. For example, uh directed toward a student on the basis of their academic performance is not in uh AC. Um, so and I've previously stated this. I'm not in favor of shortening um the
language um because I want if a student is reading this policy or a you know handbook that is based on it, I want them to be able to see that these are the things that um that they should be cognizant of. >> Director Liby right and there's actually
multiple things on height on weight on body size are listed in there. those aren't protected classes under ACA. So, shorting it to ACA doesn't cover those pieces. But the other piece on that is that I think the one policy where I think it would be important to
explicitly have them listed out is this one because in conversations I've had previously with principles sometimes um some of the things that get posted online as bullying actually don't fit the definition of bullying. And so when
we have it clearly defined and laid out, it helps have that conversation with parents when um when there's claims of bullying where really that is it doesn't fit the classification of bullying, it's something else, right? Um and so having
it explicitly laid out, so this is where parents are looking, this is the paragraph you're showing students. I think that's helpful in those conversations when administrators are addressing situations occurring in school and whether it is something that
bullying rules apply to or if it comes under some other issue. Um so for that reason I think in this area it is important or preferable to have them explicitly spelled out. And one thing that I'll say on this which is kind of interesting that the
student board might find interesting is before protected classes would change and they they will still change hairstyle. Hairstyle is now a form of expression and a protected class military status
where people being and this is if you go to Colorado civil rights protection. I'm not sure if military is federal, but it is in the Colorado state statutes that you cannot discriminate if you're renting an apartment to someone because they're active duty military. So, there's a lot of deviation. But one
thing I didn't notice until it was brought up just now, some of these go beyond protected classes to include academic performance, body type, and so I don't see a problem with listing because not only are they referencing
protected classes, but they're going beyond protected classes with areas of bullying where people might be bullied. I know my son was bullied for his weight. My daughter was bullied because she was burned when she was 2 years old. She had scar tissue on her arms. There's
areas that may not be defined as a protected class at the state or federal level, but on the types of bullying that you've observed, have you observed where people are made fun of for body type or other issues that you've ever seen?
>> Um, definitely I have. And now that I'm at Banning, it's a little bit different. I don't know if it's just because it's a charter school and like the the way that they go about things might be different. Um, but I did go to Sky View, so I was
in the district for middle school. And I also had like I dealt with bullying and I saw bullying a lot there. And anytime it was tried like it was going to like be mediated or whenever there was a
fight there would be like counselors and they would try to get the students to sit down and talk about it and like talk through it. Things like that didn't help though. So I guess for
the bullying um it's students nowadays, I feel like they'll do it for anything. And I saw that a lot more at Sky View rather than I see at Banning. But it goes both ways. It's all over
now. So, >> what do you think, Destiny? Um, I can kind of relate to Izzy because I ca I went to Falcon High School my freshman year and I left because of bullying. Um, and that's why I go to
banning now. But I do think that oh goodness I don't know how to put it in words but um, like how you said how it comes from both ways and how it is handled is has changed a lot. So, I don't know if that
has an effect on what fights or bullying are like now, but I mean at banning that we don't really have a whole lot of fights, so I can't say much on it, so I don't really know.
>> You guys are great spokespeople for Betting Lewis Preparatory Academy. Uh, Superintendent Hilts, >> I'm normally in favor of of trimming and I I actually initially I think I was supportive of reducing this just to the reference to policy AC, but I think good
discussion here that there are things not covered there. It does say for any reason including but not limited to. However, I would ask the board to consider a adding in I I would actually recommend you keep the red striketh through section
and and keep the green added suggestion, but I would add I would suggest you add one more because the number one pattern for bullying isn't here and I' I'd love to have it in our in our policy. Do you know what it is?
The number one precipitating event for bullying is something relational. You like someone that I like or you don't like someone that is in my set or there's a lot and and this is why the social media the social part of it is so potent. Um and it's not all public
social media. It can be private text groups, chat groups, um subtweets or subtexts that refer to people without using their name, but everybody knows who they're talking about. So, relational status, you'll notice in the federal guidelines that it refers to
marital status. That doesn't help the mo the majority of our students. We don't have a lot of married folks in our enrollment. Um, but we do have some, but but relational status is often a precipitating condition. And I I would appreciate it
if the board called that out because and I would even appreciate it if you keep the red section, make it the first one on the basis of their relationships, then proceed on weight, height, etc. >> Director Schmidt. So there is another
part of um some of the changes in here that does address whether bullying is physical, verbal, or relational. Um, if you were to put it in here. So, you're saying keep the red
and also add the other. Um, I'm still I'm still, you know, cut it down. Cut it down to the I like the proposed sentence. What do we have consensus on? Do we have consensus on the proposed sentence or No.
>> No. >> No. >> No. I think I'm in favor of um what was suggested of adding the relational status and I totally understand why we want to have all those other things
listed. Would there be a way for us to shorten the protected classes one and put that in to put say in conflict with policy AC non-discrimination the ones that are listed there? Would that be an option to keep the ones that are not
listed, but then um the ones that are listed in that policy we would take out? Any thoughts? >> Director Levier, right? I think if you're going to have it as a tool for administrators to
be able to point to when they're having discussions with parents and students, um, having them have to pull up another policy to show them the other paragraph is not helpful. So, for that reason, I think leave everything explicit and listed because I don't want to get in a
debate with a parent over whether or not this is a protect is included in the list and have to go find another policy. this is succinct and all in one place and we don't have to look anywhere else when we're facilitating those conversations. That's my individual.
Director Hy, did you have your >> Yeah. And um yeah, is it is it possible? Absolutely. But um for all the reasons Marie so well articulated um I uh I I don't I don't favor it.
>> So, we're going to leave that one alone. Um, let's move on to prevention and intervention. >> I think we had an addition in there, too. And we have to get a consensus. >> I I give consensus to the addition. >> Same. >> Agree.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Prevention and intervention. Here we go. Uh, first sentence, add and published. The proposed first sentence is, "The superintendent will develop and publish a comprehensive program to
address bullying at all school levels and will ensure that the program is consistently applied across all students and staff. The superintendent, in my opinion, needs to publish his comprehensive program so staff have clear guidance on managing these
situations. Publishing the comprehensive program also delivers transparency of information to parents and the public on how bullying is handled in the district. >> Well, I think this policy is published
under our policy. So, were you looking about beyond being listed as a policy? >> Yeah, because there's several references to the superintendent will develop a comprehensive program. Well, what is that program,
>> Superintendent Hilts? >> That program essentially runs through our school leadership, which runs through our own leadership, and it is both the discipline matrix, which includes prohibitions about bullying, but it's also largely our commitment to
restorative practices, to PBIS, which is positive behavior interventions and support. It's also our commitment to things like the Renaissance program. So the the comprehensive program um once published and I I don't I don't object to being transparent about it or being
or being public about it. Uh I would I would be careful though about writing something that's obsolete the day you write it because there will be new training or there will be a new a new element of it. Um, if if the board were to task, what are the guidelines or the
general principles by which we prevent and educate students about bullying, I'm very very comfortable doing that. And and should you direct me to go more detailed, I'll salute smartly because it is absolutely your prerogative to make that direction. Um, I don't know that I
would put a tasking in a policy, but you can get that effect by directing me to say, "Hey, we want to see a presentation and we want to see a document or a poster or a or a handbook." Uh, those things already exist, but they're they're more they
live and breathe at the zone and especially at the school level in our current model. Director Schmidt. >> So, if it's not in policy, how do parents know what it is? How does the public know what it is? They're they're not necessarily
in all the zones, in all the schools. >> No, the primary >> It's got to be I think it should be in policy. >> I understand. Respectfully, every parent and student is signing annually a parent student handbook. The handbook explicitly talks about our anti-bullying
practices which I believe constitute our comprehensive program. Um, but I'll take the board's direction. I just I I think this is a um this is asking us to do something that we already do, but to do it more explicitly and discreetly and and I
don't I don't mind that tasking. I'm just not sure that that tasking should live in policy. It could equally live in just a direction to the superintendent. >> Again, where's the publication? >> Well, we approve the handbook.
The board approves the handbook. >> Annually, you approve a document called way points, which is our code of conduct for for students, which is where we have most of our anti-bullying um content. that also had the um pairing
down of policy ad non-discrimination equal opportunity and we passed that. So um I guess it's hit and miss. Do I do we have um consensus to change this or not? Can I I
I have a concern on saying publish a comprehensive program. >> That's very different than um >> providing the overarching guidelines of what our programs are and knowing how different programs are based
on age level and zone because I've had kids attend schools in three zones now too. um all of which have been valid approaches and all of which have been consistent with the overarching principles. Putting a sentence in where it says, "Publish a comprehensive program," I think can imply to the
community that this is going to be a comprehensive detailed. Here's everything we do in a classroom every day to do this. And that level maintaining that level of detail and having it accurate and
reflective of what's actually happening in our schools becomes next to impossible. And so I don't like the end publish part. I think there could be a separate tasking of having a presentation or a separate document that gives a guideline of what those overarching principles are and that
might serve the purpose without creating something that creates an expectation for a level of detail that would be not possible to continually um maintain and have it be accurate um and then be used to beat some poor principal up later
because in here it said this but really that was this school and not that school. That's my individual concern. >> Director Devo, so it sounds to me like ha having the words a comprehensive program might be the issue and instead have the superintendent will develop uh
the overarching principles to address bullying at a school level. What do you think about that? Anybody? >> I was going to say the same thing. instead of the comprehensive program published guidelines for a pro for the bullying program.
>> For what it's worth, I would welcome that. >> Director Ohio, >> and I would just like to add that we already do that um as you said in in way points. So, um I don't know that adding the the requirement and publish I think
it just creates confusion and um expectations that we don't intend to meet. So um it's we do expect there to be a comprehensive program but we do not expect that it is you know fully documented.
>> So what is the proposed revision then? >> What about a separate idea of having a - r that creates the document the guideline document that attaches to the policy.
I think it's more transparent if it's just right up front, but it it would be attached to the policy. So, because publish doesn't say where it's going to be published, right? It's not then a a a 500page addendum to the policy. But if it's a - R and we
task Peter with creating a - R that provides the guidelines used in district 49 to address bullying. Does that fit both purposes without then implying that we're expecting him to keep this giant
um because you can imagine being a classroom teacher and having them come in and say but it says right here and then you're like whoa whoa whoa that actually is for you know grade two not grade 10 or vice versa. Is that a compromise idea that would work for everyone? And Peter, does that
make sense to you? >> Yes, >> Director Schmidt. >> So, the proposed sentence would then change to the superintendent will develop and publish in a R guidelines
for the oh to address bullying at all school levels and will ensure that the program is consistently applied across all students and staff. >> I think my proposal would be the superintendent will develop a comprehensive program to address
bullying at all school levels and will ensure the program is consistently applied across all students and staff. This program will be aimed towards accomplishing and then actually before that sentence. So then it would say guidelines for that program are contained in -ash R.
Then the program will be aimed towards accomplishing the following goals. >> So you wanted a dash r, but you don't want a dash r. >> I do want a dash r. I don't want the implication to be that we're publishing the comprehensive program that people
then use as a line by line bible to attack classroom teachers and principles because really the only thing >> he proposed to publish in a-r guidelines to address bullying >> I think the saying that he has a kind that we will have a comprehensive
program is an important part of the policy having a p that's the difference But director Dvola, >> I don't know if it's the superintendent who's developing the con comprehensive
program though. It sounds like that's something that's happening at school school levels, etc. Zone levels. It's under your direction, but >> but you don't get to task anybody but me. So if you want to put it in an administrative tasking, it has to say superintendent, >> right? And then he gets to delegate.
>> Okay. I was just I was trying to make it easier for you, Peter. Um, so we don't want the overarching principles then. We just want to keep the comprehensive program and then add the dash R. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Right. But you can explicitly refer to the dash R as a second as a a middle
sentence. Right. Then it says the guidelines for this program are contained in -ash R. >> Then the Dash R is connected to the policy. >> Could you read the whole sentence, please? >> Sure. I'll read the paragraph. So the
superintendent will develop a comprehensive program to address bullying at all school levels and will ensure that the program is consistently applied across all students and staff. The guidelines for this program are contained in the title of the policy -
R. >> The program will be aimed towards accomplishing the following goals. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Let's go on to the next one. >> Goal number one. Okay. So, this is
adding a new bullet point. So, the proposed new bullet point is to notify and include parents because it has been shown that one of the most significant factors associated with reducing bullying is the inclusion of parents
specific support. Now, this is an added goal to highlight parental support. Page nine of the CD bullying document says there was a comprehensive study in 2011 that reviewed bullying prevention in an
attempt to determine the effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs. Results from the study found that one of the most significant factors associated with reducing bullying in schools was the inclusion of parent specific supports. If parents are one of the most
significant factors according to the CDE, then shouldn't we be including parents in our policy? >> Director Hy, >> and I note that that takes a different connotation than the second sentence, but um it seems to me that we've already
addressed that um right there in in what has now become number two to send a clear message to parents. So we have we have identified parents as the first people who um who need to be aware of this.
>> The only thing I was going to bring up on this one is where it was struck and community members and I saw a note. >> We're still on. >> Oh, we're still on one. Okay, I'll get to that. This is meant to include parent specific supports because the CDE says that
parents are um how did they put that? One of the most significant factors. So this is a new bullet point. This is not number two at all. Number two is still in there. This is a brand new bullet point coming first saying parents need
to be notified because they are the most significant factor in reducing bullying. >> Yeah. And I'm just saying it seems redundant. >> Director Dvola. >> Um I think part of um
part of the thing that wants that I think we're wanting to add is that we want to provide parent specific support. So, um I'm not sure that bullet point necessarily says that. Um so to notify
and include parents and provide parent specific support. Well, I we have to I be careful how many words we add because parents have to be open to what you're offering. So, um,
and that's probably part of the problem with bullying sometimes is the parents aren't necessarily open to what you're offering as supports. Um, >> true. But we're still going to offer it to them whether they take it or not. >> Well, Destiny and Isabelle, I know the one thing I did not want to happen to
me, now I'm not saying I ever did anything wrong. >> I did not want my parents notified, especially my mother. So that's just a thought. What do you think about the idea of parent specific supports if a kid is involved with bullying?
>> I think this is something that should actually like the student should have a say in what they want more like because some students maybe they just want to give it some grace and do it on their own for a little bit and then like me
like I did not want my mom to be notified and if I was either bullying or being bullied. I wouldn't want my mom to be notified right away. I would want to like handle it on my own, handle it at school and then go home and tell her
myself when I'm ready. So, I agree. I just think the thing with like letting students tell your parents is that can we always like trust the students to tell their parents on their own. So, I do think the school has to like step in at some
on some level just to make sure that the parents know. But I do agree. >> Peter, do you have guidance on at what point we're doing that? Because I think I know in the situation with my child, I was notified. Um, so I'm assuming and he
was the one being targeted in that situation, but I'm assuming it depends on the level and where it's reached. And I don't have a problem with the sentence actually, but I'm I'm thinking there's a whole part of the process that we're not aware of that is in terms of parent
notification that we have. >> As a basic rule, and I won't I won't presume that we're consistent. were perfectly consistent. But as a basic rule, if an event has happened where we've had to enter a formal record, and generally that means if we've put a if
we have made a note in power school that this was a behavioral event, we're talking to the parents and we're talking to the parents of uh the recipient of the misconduct and the conductor of the misconduct. And respectfully to our students, um we cannot honorably do what
you would want us to do. We cannot keep secrets from your parents if you're engaged in misconduct. And we really can't keep secrets from your parents if you've been the victim of misconduct. And that that often that makes things hard for you. But we have a we have an
organizational obligation to respect the trust that they've put in us. And so there's there's no situation where I could I could advocate for reducing parental notification. However, the verb in this sentence is problematic. We don't provide parental supports. parents
provide. We can foster them, invite them, recruit them, nurture them, pick a different verb. But the the fact is, and unfortunately we experience this a lot, um there is a growing phenomenon
where parents decline to support the school's actions related to either misconduct or receiving misconduct. uh and they they operate in ways independent of what the school has done. >> Director Schmidt.
>> So again, one of the most significant factors associated with reducing bullying in schools was the inclusion of parent specific supports. You're including parents in our policy. We should include
parents. I agree with you, Peter. How would you change that sentence? So we we have to we notify and include. So >> I I would replace the word provide with invite >> invite because not all parents will
cooperate with parents specific supports. >> So I think offering the option >> okay so wait a minute here's our sentence. The sentence is to notify and include parents because it has been shown that one of the most significant factors associated with reducing bullying is the inclusion of parent
specific sport. You want to say to notify and to invite parents to be included. Is that what you're saying? Or how would you change that sentence to reflect your concern? >> I think if we're going to use that form, you could replace the word inclusion with invitation.
I I can't I cannot guarantee that I can include parent parent specific support. I can invite it and sometimes a parent says, "Well, hey, help us as a family system deal with our child who engaged in this bad behavior or help us as a
family system support our child who was the recipient of this misconduct." And both of those would be responsive to our invitation of parent specific support. Director Schmidt. So I like to notify
and invite because it has been shown because it has been shown that the inclusion that doesn't mean you're guaranteeing inclusion. It's saying it's been shown that the inclusion of parent specific supports is one of the most significant factors. So I would say to
notify and invite. >> Can we just change the word parents there to say to notify and invite parental support, because it has been shown >> parents or guardians? Yes, that's fine. >> Right. We use parents and and anytime there isn't a parent in the picture and
a guardian steps in, we we consider those. I think invite parent support actually is what this is that makes that that's far better far less wonkier. >> Parent support. >> Yeah. To notify and invite parent support because you're notifying the parents and then you're inviting them to be supportive.
>> Yes, >> I concur. I concur. It sounds like we have a consensus on that. >> I got I just got to make it grammatically correct. >> All right. to notify parents and invite their support because
>> to notify and invite parents support because >> you don't notify parent support, you notify parents and invite their support. >> Got it. So we have consensus on that. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Goal number two, which used to be
goal number one. So I would delete one of the parent references and delete community members. So the proposed sentence would be to send a clear message to parents, staff and students that bullying and
retaliation against a student who reports bullying will not be tolerated. So deleting the second reference to parents is just grammar. Um the term community members is nebulous. Which community members? This
should be defined. We could define the term in the definitions portions of the policy if the board wants to, but staff, parents, and the public need full disclosure on what the term community member means.
Um, we've got nonprofits, youth resiliency organizations, and partnering with lo licensed counselors or therapists are encouraged in Colorado, but they're not mandated. We have local discretion to determine the specifics of our bullying policies and support.
Parents should be referred to outside organizations and encouraged to use these resources. Families should be given several opportunities to access these resources. >> Okay. Aren't we still on number two where we were talking about two? So
that's why when she's I have a >> Okay. Yeah. Director Levier, right? You've been waiting to add something. >> Can I finish? >> Okay. Um anyway, these member or or these community organizations, I'm trying to put in there everything that I thought
you all might might want to have in there and and tell you why I think why I think um so families should be given several opportunities to access these resources. These organizations are neither on our payroll nor part of our school team. The
district has no control of their methods and that could open us up to litigation. We cannot just force community organizations and agencies on parents. We can refer them to community organizations and agencies, but parents have the final choice whether to use
them or not. So that is why it is proposed to delete community members. Director Levier, right? So I think there's a conflation because this says to send a clear message. So, this is literally not inviting anybody in to be
a part of the process, but saying we're sending a clear message, and if anybody has to deal with the Facebook groups that follow schools, um I literally had to confront someone who described something that happened to my kid inaccurately that was not bullying. um
on Facebook who was dealing with a rumor and spreading a rumor that sped kids were being bullied at Falcon Middle and they were referring to something that happened to my son which was not a bullying situation and they had all the details wrong. Um and so in what we're saying here is not that we're inviting
any organization in or allowing anybody. It's only saying we're sending a message and I think community member in that context and in that sentence means our overall community and we have lots of reasons that we want that message sent
to our community too. Both in terms of those conflations and because quite frankly we've seen on Facebook community members not connected to our school bully kids. Um, and so and you know out in Falcon some people get on there and
confront them right back. Um, but none of that is fun and and I think that that that piece is important. Um, so I think we should leave those words there because it's literally only saying we're sending a message that we don't tolerate this, not that we're inviting anyone in to be a part of it. That's my
interpretation as one person. >> Director Hy. >> Yeah, we only have authority over D49. So our schools and um what happens inside of them. So um whatever is going on with these outside organizations is is entirely their business and we don't
legislate that. Um but we do have a number of community members who we rely on for direct support, right? We have volunteers coming into our schools. We reach out to them for um you know funding whether you know MLO or a bond or something like that. They vote us
into office. And so I think it's very important that we send a message to everybody, not just parents, staff, and students, but to everybody that we touch that we as an organization do not tolerate bullying. >> Superintendent Hills,
>> we are required to have community members on SAX and DAX. Um, that's statutory. But why don't we just say parents, staff, students, and other stakeholders, this is purely communicative. We're just sending a message of non-tolerance. So if you just if you just um accept the striketh
through and add parents comma staff comma and stu students comma and other stakeholders that bullying and retaliation then then it's very consistent with other messaging and and practices.
>> I like that. I concur. I agree. >> Agree. >> Yep. >> Okay. Goal number three. which used to be goal number two. That's just a grammar changing included to includes. >> Sure.
>> Okay. I agree. Let's go to the next one. >> Okay. All right. So, goal number four was adding publish again. Um, we discussed that. So, that one's kind of moot, but I would delete
confrontation of and add mediation with. So, let's see. It would read the proposed sentence would read to implement procedures for immediate intervention
and investigation and mediate with students engaged in bullying behavior. I suggest you delete number four and and direct me to include it as the statement of purpose for the Dash R.
This is really regulatory or procedural and then >> and then that's where it gets published. >> Director Hy. So, the only problem I have with that is that mediation is a specific tool and I don't know if that's um always the tool that you want to be
using in all cases. >> Director Schmidt, >> so do we want confrontation instead of mediation? I think if we're following Peter's advice, we strike for and we let him come up with the best wording for the statement of purpose in the
regulation. And I can guarantee you that mediation will be one of a menu of practices, not the only one called out. >> I think that's good just because it does mention mediation. I'd rather see that in a dash R.
>> I'm okay with it being in the dash R. >> Well, then I think we already have consensus, don't we? >> Yep. >> Goal number five, which used to be goal number four. um delete re-education and negative
add change the behavior of students engaged in bullying behaviors and add applying appropriate graduated consequences. So the proposed sentence is to initiate efforts to change the behavior of students engaged in bullying
behaviors through education on acceptable behaviors, engaging in discussions, providing counseling, and applying appropriate appropriate graduated consequences. So on this one, we would all like to change the behavior of bullying
students. We also want to educate our students, not re-educate our students. Public schools are not re-education camps. The CDE bullying document recommends that consequences for bullying follow a
graduated range of sanctions, both supportive and punitive. The graduated range should include the severity of the incident, the students history of problematic behavior, the developmental age of the students involved, the motivation of the problem
behavior, and the availability of support, which is all on page 15. I have to agree. I I don't like the phrase re-educate because that historically does bring up to my mind a re-education camp. And so I'm okay with
that change if there's no objection to it. >> I'm I'm good with that. >> I'm fine with it. >> I'm good. >> Okay, let's go to the next one. Can we just strike the middle bullying? I'm sorry, the middle behaviors. I don't
think we need it three times. Um just engaged in bullying. students engaged in bullying through education on because we we call it behaviors before and we call it behaviors after. >> True. >> Good point. >> Yes.
>> Okay. The next >> goal. >> Goal six. Delete and community members again. Okay. So, the proposed sentence is to foster a productive partnership with parents, staff, and students in order to help maintain a bullying free
environment. again of the community members is nebulous. Which community members are we talking about? This should be defined. Um and again, staff, parents, and the public really should have full disclosure on what the term community
members means. Director, right? You had your hand up first. >> Just change it to stakeholders like we did on the other ones >> and then it's consistent. >> Director Hy, >> that's what I was going to say. >> I concur. >> I agree. to foster a productive
partnership with parents, staff, students, and stakeholders in order to maintain a bullying-free environment. I concur >> except please say productive partnerships. Strike the article just to foster productive partnerships plural.
That was the whole point of the state of the district. We need lots of partnerships. partnerships to foster productive partnerships with parents, staff, students, and stakeholders in order to maintain a bullying free environment. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Goal number seven. This is another added bullet point which says to identify the four roles in bullying. Students who bully, students who are targeted, students who are both
bullied and targeted, and students who witness bullying, also known as bystanders. This is another added bullet point for student protection. Page five of the CD bullying document lines out these four roles. It's important that we educate
our students in these roles so we can help them recognize and navigate these situations. Director Levier, right? >> My question is should that be in the -ash R as part of the program? It seems that it would be belong there.
>> What do you think, Superintendent Hilts? >> Yeah, I would move seven to the dash R and then I have a comment about eight even though it doesn't have any corrections. Do we have consensus to move that to the dash R? Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Yes. And I don't think we need Lori because we have four. >> Well, if we had three. >> May I speak to number eight, please? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> We also want to support students who bully. So I would just say to support students
who bully comma who are targeted by bullying and who are bystanders to bullying. There are each one of those conditions is traumatizing for a child. >> Well, this was just out of the CDE things. That doesn't mean we have to use exactly theirs. So
you would add after who witnessed bullying you would add and bullied students. >> No I I would I would phrase it I would phrase it this way >> to support students who bully
who are targeted by bullying and who witness bullying through a layered continuum of supports. I think that's appropriate policy level language. >> I like it. I like it. >> Agreed. >> I agree.
>> So, goal number nine, the sentence structure is better. There's no change in the message. The proposed sentence is to help all students develop support networks, social skills, and confidence. >> Yes. Yes. >> I'm fine with it. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Goal number 10, delete. This includes intentional efforts to promote positive relationships between staff and students as well as students. Add and promote positive relationships with others. So the proposed statement is to
support positive school climate efforts that clearly define, teach, and reinforce pro-social behavior and promote positive relationships with others. >> I like it. >> Yes, >> I'm good. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just not sure if it goes there or the dash R, but I'm okay either
way. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Goal 11. First sentence, add and type and being seen. So, the proposed first sentence is to designate a team of persons at each school who
advise the school administration on the severity, frequency, and type of bullying being seen. That way we know what type of bullying, whether it's physical, verbal, or relational. >> Sure. >> Yes. Instead of being seen, would we say
occurring? >> I think that's worthwhile because they don't always see it, but they might hear about it. So might change. So to designate a team of persons at each school who advise the school administration on the severity,
frequency and type of bullying that is occurring or just occurring >> occurring >> occurring. I like that is occurring because bullying occurring I don't know it sounds weird to me. >> I like that is occurring better also.
Anybody? >> I'm agnostic on that. >> We need three people with consensus on that. >> Anyone else want to say that is that's a >> grammar police at that end. Which way
reads better? >> And type of bullying that is occurring. Yes. No. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Done. Okay. Goal 11. Second sentence. Add and parents. delete members of
bullying prevention or youth resiliency community organizations. So the proposed second sentence is the team of persons at the school may include but not but need not be limited to school resource officers, social
workers, school psychologists, health professionals, mental health professionals, counselors, teachers, administrators, and parents. Again, parents should be on the list because they reduce bullying the most.
The nonprofit youth resiliency organizations and all of those are encouraged in Colorado. Still not mandate, still not mandated. And we have local discretion to determine the specifics of our bullying
policies. These organizations are neither on our payroll, unless I'm mistaken, nor part of our internal school team. The district has no control of their methods and this could open us up to litigation should something go ary again
use of outside community organizations and agencies is the parents choice. The only thing I'm curious about is it's it's striking to include students in the development creation and delivery of bullying prevention efforts is developmentally appropriate.
>> That's a different that's number two. >> Okay. So, we're just working on the second sentence, not the number two in the red. >> Am I too far? Okay. >> Yeah, you're you're getting pretty fast. I know we want to get done. We want to get done. Okay. >> I think director um or Thompson was
actually talking about the strikethrough of the last students in 11 in 11. Yes. So not not saying that students so basically when with the striketh through it says that students would not be a
part of that team of persons who would advise the school administration >> and I was just thinking of the SWAT program and I just was thinking that it's good to get student input on that. So I was just curious about the
striketh through. >> Yes. I I'll just observe that number 11, the the first number 11 in bigger con bigger text, it says that this is a team who advise and we're not going to be sued because we listen to somebody's advice. Period. All of our advisory
committees have things that you know may be bad ideas or good ideas. So, as long as it's an advisory uh team, we're we're still 100% responsible for what we choose to do. and and so I don't object to this
strikethrough. If there was a member of a youth resiliency community organization that had value to add, they would almost certainly fit in any one of these other categories or multiple of them. Um, but let me give a a specific
example. We invited we we intentionally invited pastors to our state of the district because we know that partnerships with churches, many of whom are hosted in our our schools, those can be pro-social and positive. I wouldn't list pastors here, but if there were a
pastor that came um and wanted to be part of an advisory team, I'd welcome them. Director Dvola, I don't think it's necessary for us to list it here because I think you're right. Uh, Superintendent Health, um, if
someone was invited, they could fit in the category. >> Um, >> it doesn't matter because it says need not be limited to. So, you can put whoever else in addition you want on. So, if those words are making people be apoplelectic, >> whatever. >> I still would bring back in students,
though. I'm in favor of striking through the members of bullying prevention or youth resiliency community organizations just because it's very lengthy. Um and then add back in students >> director >> agree.
>> That's fine with me. >> Okay. So in the red section that Lori was ready to get to, which is great because we want to get done. Um the red number number one delete the entire sentences. How many surveys are we going
to do? We cannot objectively base our bullying policy on student impressions. One student's impression may be more or less dramatic than another student's impression. Impressions are solely opinions, not evidence-based facts. And
we should base our policy on evidence, not impressions. Director Hy. >> So yeah, any one student um report is going to be subjective, but taken in aggregate over an entire school, they
can take a picture of at the very least student perception and we should know how our students feel in their schools with relation to safety and and bullying as a part of that. Um, I don't know how we're going to get to that if we don't
ask them. >> Director Dvilla, so my concern here is, um, with surveying students, there is a tendency to actually give
students the impression that bullying is occurring more. The more you survey somebody about something, that actually implants the idea in their head. Um, so I do have a concern with surveys. I think we take care of that because we already have our our culture and climate
survey that we send out to students and one of the questions about is about school safety um as well as how they feel welcomed into the school and I think that could cover what we want to receive in in in this plus students believe that everything is bullying and
so um they this actually might promote them believing that bullying is something other than what bullying actually is defined as um because someone tattling on you is not bullying. So um >> is it?
>> No. So we I don't I want to be really careful with surveys. Um >> director so yeah that's what I have to say. >> Director Li right >> I don't think this is saying we're specifically sending a survey that's just about bolding. I think this is
explicitly a part of our culture and climate surveys that we currently do with students. So, um, I think it's important to to recognize that we need the student pulse,
whether that needs to be stated here or it ends up in the regulation as a part of the way in which we gather the data. Um, maybe it's better off to be in the regulation because it's a part of how we collect the data. Um, and I see Peter nodding emphatically.
>> Banish it to the regulation. Director Schmidt. >> So, I agree. We do need to define where the survey is coming from. So, I would be fine with banishing it to the regulation.
>> And just so the community knows, one thing that another thing that District 49 is very good at is we actually post the surveys we do online. So, anyone can look up what surveys we do. So just as a point of information,
>> do we have right? >> Oh, >> and we're just doing the number one, not the number two yet. I'm Yeah. So we're moving number one to regulation. I I agree with that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. So number one, delete the the sentence, make it a dash r, and make
sure you say where the survey is coming from. Okay. Number two, I would also delete that entire sentence. Developing, creating, and delivering bullying prevention is a task of adults. I understand the desire to include
students in the process because students are very smart. But why are students being given an adult task to create rules and intervene which may possibly end up hurting them in the long run? Let's say they want to help students.
they they decide students should place themselves in right in the middle of bullying situations whether it's from afar or right in the middle of it. I don't know why we would encourage students to do that because they could be put in a very violent or another
situation. We shouldn't be putting kids >> at great w great risk there there is um that that's not part of a safe school. I mean >> this is not the task of students. Director Dvola. >> Um, yes, I agree. And we put we put the
students back in the designating the team of persons at each school. I think that covers the advice piece that students can be involved in some of the processes, but I don't think developing, creating, and delivering necessarily is for for students.
Although they can um after the creation and the development they can like at a school assembly talk about it or deliver the message piece. >> Director Leight,
this is about the proactive the way I read this. So bullying prevention to me is not bullying intervention. Bullying prevention is the proactive things you do to help build the climate and culture that develops the relationships to reduce bullying. And I think student
being involved, it says include, it doesn't say require them to, but if they're included in the pieces that they're ready for as they're developmentally appropriate, I think that's a huge plus. Um and if you look at the middle school and high school that that's what um the studentto
student program does the um web and link crew are all things and the students are key in developing and creating and delivering those programs especially studentto student as an example because nobody knows what the military kids need coming in better than the military kids
and for that reason I think that should stay. It's not about intervention it's about prevention. Director Dvola. >> All right, that makes more sense. And I I have some clarification on that. Um would that be better in the -ash R or should we keep it in here?
>> Superintendent Hilt. >> Um I would recommend we keep it here. I would recommend 11 sub 2 become a new item 12. And I would further recommend you rephrase it slightly to say to invite student input
into the development creation end. So that's not necessarily participation, but it it could be in the right setting, but their input is invaluable starting in kindergarten. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, if that's going to be number 12, we got one more goal. I think I think that's it. Yay. So, that would be goal number 13. Sure is a lot. Um
so add and appro age age appropriate strategies delete that includes but is not limited to is age appropriate evidence-based social and emotional learning as well as information very confusing. So the proposed sentence is
to provide character building and age appropriate strategies for students on the recognition and prevention of bullying behaviors. Our obligation is to provide strategies on the recognition and prevention of bullying behaviors at our age
appropriate. As per state statute, a district can choose other approaches as long as we minimize student exposure to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Students should have access to many approaches to this behavior because not all kids respond to the same thing.
It doesn't always have to be social and emotional. Am I on the wrong page? That doesn't sound right. >> That's right. >> Are you finished? Yes. Thank you. Uh, director, right? >> So, my suggestion would be maybe this
goes into the regulation as well because it's talking about how we address it. thoughts. Superintendent Hilts >> regul this is really given that we're developing a Dash R. This really should be the purview of the VA Dash R. So the
whole piece of how we're doing it would be in how he's developing the guidelines for the programming. And so I think it should be in the regulation and then he'll come back to us with what that looks like. >> So do we have consensus to make this part of the dash R?
>> No. Yes. >> Yes. >> Well, we're going to have to wait for Thompson to come back cuz I'm a no on that one, too. I think we should definitely take out um that sentence with the um and add in
the age appropriate strategies um to provide character building and age appropriate strategies for students on the recognition and prevention of bullying behaviors. I think it's good to include it here. We can still add more details about what that looks like in the -ash R, but I think it should be on
this policy. So, I guess we'll wait for Thompson to come back. Do we want to pause on that one and go to the next one? So, under reporting, delete a victim, add targeted by a bully
and add parent. So the proposed sentence is any student who believes they have been targeted by bullying and or other behaviors in this policy or who has witnessed such bullying and or other prohibited behaviors is strongly
encouraged to immediately report it to a parent, school administrator, counselor or teacher. I find that victim is negative. Someone targeted by bullying is more representative of what took place. Also, parents should be on the list of suggested people students may
report bullying to director. Well, you're back. But hilts hilts. Hey, I just promoted you. So, hy, >> he works for us. You just demoted me.
>> But you get lots of pay. >> So, I'm good with the language change on victim. Um I am concerned about the addition of parent there because this is an or statement. So we're saying that the the student should rep it to one of
these and these are are the examples. And the problem is if the parent is the first one to learn about it, then that means the that the the school staff has had no opportunity to address it before an angry parent comes to them. I would really love especially because it's
happening in our schools. We want to be able to address it quickly and efficiently. I would really rather the first report be to an administrator. >> Director Levir, right? >> Well, and I think it goes a step beyond that because when we're talking about
reporting, we're talking about a report that creates something for the district to act on. And a parent can't create a report for the district to act on by the student. Someone can't create a report for the district to act on by telling a parent. In order for the district to
have action, then it has to be reported to a district employee. And that's really what we mean about reporting because reporting creates an obligation on the district to deal with it. That's my read of that. And that's why I don't think parent is where we put that. We're
emphasizing parent involvement all over the place, but here we're talking about how do we report it so that it gets addressed. and parents don't have that power in the school system. They then have to report it. They're then the one reporting it to the school rather than
director Schmidt. I read it that the students are strongly encouraged to immediately report it to so that means I would include a parent and an administrator, a counselor or
teacher. It is not a matter of paperwork. It is a matter of a student. We're talking about a student reporting it to someone and I think a parent should be in there. >> Director Hy. >> So, as we discussed earlier, um whenever
there's a report of um bullying that's received by um you know, one of our staff and they have to take action on it, they will report it to the parent. So, it's going to be an and. >> This statement is an or where we don't want Please let each person speak when
it >> we don't want the student to go home, report it to the parent, and then the and then the parent reports it to the school and the school has no idea of anything that has occurred. Director Schmidt,
any student who believes they've been targeted by bullying go forward is strongly encouraged to immediately report it to And it should be a parent should be stupid. Deb, what if we said school
administrator, counselor or teacher in addition to their parent? >> That changes it from an or to an and which is exactly my concern. >> Director Dvola. >> Uh yes, I agree with that. Um, I also
think for for the reporting piece, we should also have something in here that if a if a parent believes their child has been a t uh a target of bullying that they should be encouraged to immediately report it to the administration.
Shouldn't we add a sentence in there about parents also reporting, not just to student? Because I I can tell you from personal experience, almost every single one of bullying reports that happen is from a parent because the child goes home and tells
their parent and their parent tells the school. Most bullying incidences I've been involved in has always come from a parent. >> Any ideas, suggestions? >> I like that idea. Um because you're right, it usually is parents coming in
because their kid has reported it to them. Um, so first of all, let's get back to the first thing and get the sentence right. So immediately report it to a school administrator, counselor, or teacher.
>> In addition, >> in addition. Okay, thank you. In addition to a parent, then we need a sentence or I believe I agree with you on that. I believe we need a sentence on what parents are
supposed to do to report an incident. >> Would that be part of the dash par or not, Peter? As far as the parents reporting to the school, >> it it'd be appropriate to put it here and you could say any parent who believes their child has been targeted
by bullying is strongly encouraged to immediately report it to a school administrator, counselor, or teacher. Good. >> Yes. >> Sure. >> I'm fine with it.
>> Why why I embrace that is because they reported to Facebook >> and we would rather hear it from the parent so that we can clarify when this happened, who was involved, because we're tracking stuff on a daily basis that comes to us obliquely and it just
makes it harder to understand what actually happened. That's why I wanted to include that in here to make sure that the parents are encouraged to this is the right avenue to report it. So we have consensus on all of that. Yes. Okay. Investigating and responding.
We have a first sentence again. Add published which we've already discussed. So that's going away. Delete and or other behaviors prohibited by this policy. And that should go away too because I put that in by mistake. So
that's all moot. None of that happens. Second sentence add administrative and. So the proposed second sentence is procedures will include to the extent appropriate as determined by the investigator and designated administrator and in
accordance with applicable law, administrative and local schoolboard policy and procedures. notification to parents of the results of bullying investigations and their right to appeal investigator findings to the district.
So the point here is parents and staff and the public need to know if a policy is considered an administrative policy or procedure or if it's considered a board policy or procedure. That is why
administrative an is added in there. Do we have any input from the chief administrator? >> It may be that in some districts there are two kinds of policies, but in district 49 there are board policies and
there are accompanying regulations. And I think this invites confusion and it also invites by implication we can dispute administrative policies because they're not board policies. It denigrates the
leadership of administrators. I would prefer to um not attempt to create this this distinction. Um, director Dvola, I have a question, clarifying question then. Um,
I may be misunderstanding, but I did believe that we do have like a differentiation between what is considered board policy and what is administrative policy when it comes to like our policy handbook and our or not
handbook but the whole >> board docs. We >> there's I would suggest policies I would suggest we have three layers. We have board policy. We have board adopted which now can be administratively proposed but the board still has to be
adopted on a first read. So we have board approved policy, we have board approved regulation and occasionally exhibit E, but I I'll lump the dashes together. And then we have practices. An example is we may have a policy or regulation related to student
eligibility for co-curriculars and our practice is to pull grades every Friday. That's a practice. It's not a policy anywhere. And could somebody come along and say, "I don't like that you pulled grades every Friday. pull it every other Friday uh because it's impacting my
child or or or so we we do sometimes have disputes about the practice of implementing and you simply cannot enumerate all of the practices that are required to regulate the district. So, I would actually take this entire section
beginning with the word investigating in boldface as a title and continuing all the way down through the word district in that paragraph and banish it all to the dash R because it is procedural and that's where procedures live is in the
dash R. >> Director Schmidt, >> it does say procedures will include. So, I'm going to have to agree with the - R part of it, but I would What? I'm sorry. I'm giving you a lot. We're
giving you a lot of work. Um, so you're saying the board creates policies in D49. So it's board policy, board approved R. And then what was the third one? >> Well, no, we we actually use the term
practices. >> Practice, >> right? The practices are how they implement the proceed the policy that you've adopted. But those practices Okay. So, do we have consensus to yes move it to the dash with all those things in mind?
>> To the dash R for Peter to work on how it float what it needs to be in. >> Okay. Is ad published? We that's moot support and referrals. Goal number one add educate students who bully to
understand the impact that bullying has on others and the graduated consequences of bullying behavior. Delete change the behavior of students engaged in bullying behavior. Delete support targets of bullying in ways that avoid increasing
their likelihood of discipline. So the proposed sentence is initiate effort efforts to educate students who bully to understand the impact that bullying behav behavior has on others and the graduated consequences of bullying
behavior. So we should want students who bully to understand the impact that b that their bullying has on others and what the graduated consequences of bullying are. I'm going to refer again to the CDA bullying document page 15 which says
that schools need to follow a graduated range of sanctions and support both supportive and punitive. Changing behavior was addressed in bullet point five of the prevention and intervention section. So changing behavior in this
sentence is repetitive. Supporting targets to avoid increasing their likeliness of discipline is addressed in the following new bullet point number two. So it is unnecessary here as well. >> Director Levier Wright.
>> So this these are goals. So I don't think the goal should be to initiate efforts to educate students who are bully. I think the goal is to change the ba is to change the bullying behavior. >> Right? But that's addressed in bullet point five of prevention and
intervention. So either I I still think supports the goal of supports and referrals are three-fold to change the behavior of the bully, right? To so I I still think you want that as a goal. If you're saying these are the goals of our supports and
referrals, one of the goals it's the goal isn't to to educate. The goal is to change the behavior, right? the tool that you use to try to change the behavior is the efforts in education. That's one aspect of it. The other
aspect is is then do supports and referrals go into the dashr because they become the procedural piece or do they stay here? Director Davola, >> do you have an answer? But >> if it's very high level, it's
appropriate to keep it in the policy. >> Uh I tend to agree with uh director Levier Wright that the goal is to change the behavior. However, I would like to have the initiate efforts to educate students who bully to understand the
impact of bullying. Um, I would love to include that in this policy, but maybe put it in a different spot. So, the question is where would we want to include it? I would probably say under our prevention and intervention list of
13 things that we'd like. We could make it number 14. Director Schmidt, >> again it was um changing behavior was addressed already in prevention and intervention. Um
supporting targets to avoid the likely likelihood of speak supporting targets to avoid increasing their likelihood of discipline is addressed again in another part. So they should want to they we should we
should educate them to understand um that's a goal educating students who bully to understand the impact of their bullying. That's a goal. Director Hy. So, I'm hearing what you're saying about the um that's already been mentioned in
the prevention and intervention section, and now I am openly wondering what this supports and referrals section is even for. Um I think we've already kind of covered it everything here and I would
support just eliminating that whole section. >> We need to have supports for our students. And nobody's saying we don't have to, but um I mean that would be more of a of an implementation topic and so that
would be appropriate to be in a dash R. >> Well, supports and referrals can be prevention and intervention. So I think that's kind of your point. But are there specific subtitles in required in the policy when we have the bullying policy by the state
or by So when they say we have to have the poly bullying policy, are there explicit things they say we have to state in it? And is that where these bold headings came from? I don't know the history of the original policy because I don't know that we have um the custodian of the
policy. Oh, she is back there. Is she? Yeah, she still is. She might be able to answer that is that there are explicit aspects that are required in bullying policies, particularly pursuant to a law that passed a year and a half ago. and I don't know the details to to answer your
question adequately. >> Okay. So we don't know whether we can remove supports and referrals as a whole subtopic or not until we know the answer to that question. Um so we need to know that before we can change that piece. Um then the second
point would be though that educating statement I think that education effort should be a part of the dash R because that's part of what you're doing. The goal effort is the behavior effort as one person if that makes sense. It makes
sense to me. >> So the question is do we want to have that as the these are the three main goals of this whole policy as a summary or do we just want to take it out? Well, I thought it would be nice to have the supporting this the students who are
targeted by bullying in ways that avoid increasing their likelihood of discipline and supporting bystanders and as Mr. Hilts suggested supporting the kids that actually bully. >> We actually have that in eight above. So, we can take the whole section out because our sentence that we did on
number eight >> was to support bully, right? That that that is this the supports and referrals is your bullet. So, I think you can cut that whole section. >> I'm good with that. I'm good with that, too.
>> I'm good. >> Okay. >> Do we need the last paragraph? >> We're on the last one. Okay. So, in the last paragraph on the first sentence, add graduated consequences.
The proposed sentence is a student who engages in any act of bullying, retaliation, and/or behaviors prohibited by this policy is subject to appropriate graduated consequences, disciplinary action, including
suspension, expulsion, and or referral to law enforcement authorities. So the CD bullying document again says that schools need to follow a graduated range of sanctions and supports both supportive and punitive and then it goes through the severity the student's
history developmental age motivation and behavior all that stuff. So yeah I have one comment on adding those words. My only concern is if parent says you but you've already jumped to the
suspension on this and it says you have to give me a graduated consequence. Um and sometimes they might not have been punished for bullying yet, but what they did was so bad they need to be suspended or they need to be up for expulsion. So I would be concerned in adding those
words that it could unnecessarily restrain us when something has happened that's serious enough. >> Director Hy Yeah, I think we already have a policy of um or practice of um issuing graduated consequences as
appropriate and that would be appropriate disciplinary action. So I I don't see that the the the addition um adds value. >> Yeah, I was just thinking just for an example, if a student brings a handgun to school, there's no graduated
consequences in that case. So I think depending on the issue itself, I don't know that we need to have that in there because then we could have someone who would like the graduated consequence. Director Dvola and we already had the graduated
consequence addressed up in the beginning part here and this is the disciplinary action piece of this policy. Um, and I have to agree that we don't want to confuse parents or make a a loophole um that we don't want. So, I would not
be in favor of um adding that that section. Do we have consensus on not adding that section? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. And then the last ones we have already discussed and figured out. Um,
>> so I believe >> we are done on this. >> There would be no changes to >> Oh, you know what? We had one when you were in the restroom that we needed your help on consensus. >> That's absolutely right. We have to ask Thompson. >> Do we remember what that was? >> All right, Director President Thompson,
we had a mute point because it was two against two on Somebody help me. Which one was it? >> I know I didn't make a note. >> Was it the old number 11?
>> It was 11. Okay, it was 11. Uh to provide character building and age appropriate strategies for students. And then we uh propose striking out that includes but is not limited to uh is age appropriate evidence-based social
emotional learning as well as information. Um yeah, that's 11. It's it's the old 11 on the recognition and prevention of bullying behaviors. The debate was whether or not we wanted to pull that from this and put it into the -ash R.
Um, and my whole thing was that I believe it should be stated here, but then um gone into more detail in the DA in the -ash R with that sentence or with the red lining removed. >> My only question is is why remove age
appropriate? >> Um, it wasn't removed. It was added in green at the beginning. So it says to provide character building and age appropriate strategies for students on the recognition and prevention of bullying behaviors um would be the sentence that we would keep in this part
of the policy and then in the R it would go into more detail about what that looks like. Um I wanted it in both places. So we were two and two. >> We were two and two. Yes. on putting this whole piece into the -ash R and
removing it from the policy or keeping it in the policy and adding into it the dash R. >> Yeah, I would think that this would be fine in the -ash R. >> Okay, then you have your consensus. >> Okay. And if there are no objections as
amended, we will get a copy of it as amended. I don't know if that means that Mr. Miller is also going to provide some additional information or if we need it for the revisions you had talked about on the law that was passed within the past year and a half if there's anything that would need to be added to this or
not. >> Yeah, I'm not expecting to have to add anything, but I will double check if there was something removed inadvertently that needed to remain and I doubt that frankly. So if there is no objection we will get the modified agreed upon revisions and this will be
moved forward for action. Okay. Okay. Now we are on to proposed policy JICDA. Thankfully there's not as much in this one. Yay. So, one of the sidebars,
my comment was no surprise that I am not a fan of RP because in many cases it causes an imbalance of power and students are made to feel that they have to participate in an intervention that is voluntary. We need to know what this restorative discipline matrix looks
like. So, that was my comment. It was not necessarily shown that way in in the past. Let me explain why I feel this way. It has become a popular practice in schools and prisons to use restorative justice practices. Restorative practices
were also used in indigenous clans. It is referred to as restorative justice restorative practices RP or peer mediation. I will use RP. From what I understand, RP places a
person who caused a harm with a person who was harmed in a meeting with adult mediators or other peers or in very rare cases a whole class or community. The intent is to compel the person who
harmed to apologize the p to the person whom they harmed. The person who was harmed in turn is compelled to accept the apology thus restoring the relationship. Apologize, accept, restore.
Problem is that not all behaviors reach the same level. Not all apologies are genuine and not everyone is ready to forgive quite so quickly. RP is okay in instances where the behavior is not perceived to be severe.
However, RP is not appropriate in every s situation. As we have seen, it's not good with bullion. In addition, not every adult is good at using RP and would most likely benefit by being able to use different approaches.
Our current policy states that RP is not a panacea for everyone's disruptive behaviors. So, I'm wondering why RP is highlighted in the policy in the first place and no other approaches are mentioned. If we are to mention RP, then we should mention that there are also
other approaches that the statute says we can use. There are tons out there that we could use to empower our staff. These could also be suggested for parents for use at home. Our staff needs to use what works for them in their classroom so things are less likely to
progress in a higher level. Let's give our staff more tools in the toolbox. So the first proposed revision in the first paragraph of the section titled students in third grade and
higher grade levels sentence three add or other approaches may be used to address student misconduct as per CRS 2232109.1 2A Roman number Roman numeral 2B.
The proposed sentence would read, "Restorative interventions may be used in conjunction with the restorative discipline matrix consequences to allow students to verbalize the harm they caused as a mechanism to mitigate future behavior
or other approaches may be used to address student misconduct as per the statute. Now, this was taken directly from state statute, and the public needs to know that other approaches can be used according to
statute other than just restorative interventions. D49's policy should reflect that. Again, it's no secret that in America, we have behavior issues in our schools. School experts tell us that not every student learns the same way and that learning is
not a one-sizefits-all proposition, and they are correct. Discipline is also a part of learning and not every student responds to a one-sizefits-all disciplinary framework either. If we use only one approach to discipline, we are not using other tools that could be
effective for different students and staff. Again, the CDA policy doesn't recommend it in bullying incidences. That should be probably said in the code of conduct too, but I didn't put a
revision to offer that director. >> So the first sentence that you wanted to redline says restorative and interventions may be used. It does not say must be used. And then in some of the other older text here, it says
restorative practices are not a panacea for every student's disruptive behavior, but should be considered strongly when addressing student conduct and discipline incidents. So what it is saying is there are other tools that we are going to employ but we are going to
prefer restorative interventions when they are appropriate. Director Levier Wright >> and this is the part where Peter you explicitly said we were discussing earlier. Can you discuss how this has impacted our discipline over time in the
district and the incidents that we've had um you made a comment earlier about it so I wanted to kind of bring that back that point back. >> Does that mean >> Thompson do you want me to respond to that now? Okay. Um,
one of the things that has been really valuable about the board's adoption of of restorative practices as an approach is that it sets an expectation. It has specifically impacted how we hire. It has impacted how we evaluate adults performance.
Certainly, it's impacted students. And there are schools I don't I don't have a list of of these data available. Uh but there are schools that report dramatic reductions in referrals from instituting things like morning circles where students simply check in with each other
kind of reestablish that we're we're all part of uh you know we're we're team Dvola here in fifth grade and and what do we do in team Dvola? take care of each other and what so right but um there's there's great
insight from the capturing kids hearts uh work of which comes out of the flipping group that everything you do is either taught or tolerated and so if you teach students to advocate for themselves not to tolerate um misconduct
against peers by themselves etc you you get a more pro-social culture. There is no question that this approach has improved. I know we're we're hearing concerns about middle school bullying, for example. Um
I very rarely quote this statistic, but but one of the most catastrophic outcomes of bullying is student suicide. And we have been uniquely blessed in this district that that has not been as
prominent as we have seen it in other districts right here in our region. I credit a lot of that to restorative practices. Um it is not the only approach that we use. I want to be very clear about that. U but one of the contrasts
with restorative which means we're restoring you to right standard in the right standing in the community. We're saying you're square with the house again. Okay. The contrasting approach or a contrasting approach is punitive or exclusionary.
And those are not the only other approaches, but we still do punitive and exclusionary consequences. They are not disallowed in district 49.
But by resolution and by practice, our district prefers to attempt to bring students back into right standing with the community where the misconduct happened. Um I I categorically reject
this characterization that people are either compelled to apologize or compelled to accept the apology. That does not happen in district 49. So I will make no attempt to defend it.
um director Levier Wright and I as a parent who's had multiple kids both be on both ends in various disciplinary actions that has been my experience as a family member who's had children go through it and and it's in the situations that
we've experienced it's been a both and it's not well we did this little thing and so there's no no other consequence for your behavior there are consequences for the choices made and the opportunity for everyone to move forward from it,
which makes the difference between whether that kid reintegrates well or reintegrates poorly after they've blown it. Um, and so it's I've individually experienced it as done well, but I think
it's important to not undo what has moved us forward and what has brought us recognition for those changes in the past. And I think also when we start listing all kinds of extra things,
that isn't necessarily helpful either. We do have a disciplinary matrix that has a whole set of consequences that apply based on severity of behavior. But when we get into listing more and more and more things individually in it, you're again tying their hands in a way
that I don't think is helpful and isn't really all inclusive. So it also implies that somehow this is the only consequences that can be given. So I think it's better I think in this type of policy less is less is more. You're better off not getting so specific that
it makes it easier for people to challenge the consequences their children are given. Director Dvola. Yeah, I don't I just Yeah, the restorative discipline matrix. I'm not sure where that's located. Do we have
that published or in policy somewhere for us to reference? It's not in policy but but we have made it available um and we we use it as a part of our as part of our training and we also use it to manage um just our our consistency
across our different you know both across our zones and schools but also across our different levels. Um it isn't secret you know I I I talk about documents in three three layers. There are things that are appropriately confidential or or or secret or private appropriately. There are things that are
public, which I would consider our matrix a public document. And then there are things that are published, which means we push it out or broadcast it to a larger audience. And not all things are appropriate for for being pushed out and published, but they are still part of
our public governance or administration. And this is this is an example of that. So that's something you could share with board members individually to show them kind of how the discipline works to help better frame it for folks. Does that make sense? >> You know, one comment I wanted to make
here is is that we need to differentiate. There's a difference between restorative justice and restorative practices. The reference to restorative practices affects 18 other policies where it is intertwined with it. So it's like to me I just think of
the phrase throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Also just as a side note um in my church we have something called a covenant of harmony and it's based on Matthew 18 15-17 and Proverbs 6-19
that talks about reaching restoration. How to heal something that has been a problem. How to bring them back into community. And I think the goal should always be when a student is out of line to find a way to restore that student as part of the classroom. Now, that doesn't
mean everybody's going to like a restorative circle or some of the other things that are are done there, but this is not the only thing that we have. So to do a wide brush that all restorative practices are bad, that to me is is is maybe a bit
too far in that if already Superintendent Hills has said that there are other things that are used. So it's not one sizefits all fits all. So, I think before we do this one, it might be beneficial if Superintendent Hilts was
to provide that matrix just for board review or Superintendent Hilts, I see your hand. >> So, I'm going to give you an example. I've got the document open and I'll share it with you. Um, but as an example, under the the misconduct identified as bullying, threatening,
harassment, for our youngest learners, some of the options are a restorative conference, a restorative circle, a day of detention, uh, a formal restorative practices conference with a two-day detention or a three day suspension if
violence against another student is involved. That is an appropriate range of consequences. And as you um as some of you observed in in an earlier conversation, you can tell if a student is is contrite and and taking
responsibility or if they are defiant. And and that's what adults are supposed to do is make those judgments and then have a range of responses. Um as the students get older, restorative conference is an option. in school suspension, out of school suspension, 3
to 10 day suspension, possible expulsion. And here we're only talking about intermediate age students in grades three through five. So that's just two examples of what we already have in our policy specifically around bullying. Um I will I will make sure
that we get this shared with you as a uh as a viewable document. Um but our matrix is 23 pages long. This is something that we have spent enormous thought to calibrate not only to calibrate among adults across schools
and zones but to really calibrate a proportionate response to the kind of misconduct. Um I I'm I'm very proud of this matrix. I think it has brought great consistency and clarity. Uh, and I I want us to be super careful about
inviting school leaders in particular to be improvisational about the kinds of consequences because that is exactly when we get in trouble. >> Director Schmidt, so y'all are making this too complex. First of all, we have to start
somewhere, okay? Nobody's trying to take away restorative practices here. No one is trying to take away restorative practices which are also called restorative justice. The question is are we going to add the
fact that the state statute says that we can also use other approaches to address student misconduct. >> That's the question here. We >> we do. >> Isn't that the bottom paragraph? >> No, it would be nice to No, it is
sentence Sentence three in the first paragraph of the section titled students in third grade and higher grade levels. >> Director Nola, >> so sorry. I didn't know you were not done.
Please be patient. >> I'm sorry. I'm I'm really not. Everybody's talking. I'm holding this forever. Um go ahead and talk with Dvola and come back to me then. Director Dvola.
>> Yes. Uh, Superintendent Hills, can you explain what a restorative circle is? >> Yeah. Commonly, a restorative circle would be appropriate in a condition where maybe there had been misconduct of
one or more students that impacted a much larger group. And and an example of that is you might have a student who um becomes disregulated, loses composure, throws something, throws things, and and as part of their learning, they may want
to apologize to their class. That would be an appropriate use of a restorative circle. Um a restorative circle could also be, hey, I noticed yesterday there were um you know, there were several conflicts that happened on the playground. Let's sit down and talk
about why did we end up in conflict? Well, I wanted that equipment or I wanted to be on that team or I didn't want to play that game. I wanted to play this game. Okay. So, how the purpose of the circle would primarily be learning, but it's a way of of bringing things
above the surface that might be active below the surface. Take what is implicit and make it explicit. And that's how particularly younger learners need to learn. Um, we can quote Pia at each other, educational psychologists,
but when they're when they're still concrete thinkers, they need those examples and those explicit conversations. And it is not, you'll all understand what I'm about to allude to. There are times when students are punished and they don't really know
why. That does not improve behavior. It just makes them sneakier. And so we try to make these things explicit so that they are learning opportunities. Is that a sufficient answer? I have a
feeling practitioners because I don't run a lot of restorative circles. Um but I don't work directly with a lot of of of learners in that kind of environment. I think professionals in our buildings who do those would have even more nuanced and and rich answers to your
questions. >> Director Dvola. Well, I uh as a teacher, I've I've done those things with my own students. I never called them restorative practices ever,
but those are things that I've done because it's just good practice. And Director Schmidt, just to let you know, I do see when you raise the flag, but there are also other directors who have their hands up, and I hadn't had a chance to give any of my thoughts either. So, I just want you to know I am
not ignoring the flag. I am looking at all the different hands up and trying to give everyone an opportunity to have input. So, right now I see the flag going back and forth. So, I'm assuming you want >> nerves. >> Okay. I just wanted to make I just wanted you to know trying to poke you
with it. >> Yeah, I do see it and I know sometimes you get a little impatient but you don't see what I see which is where director hy or leverite or dvola or myself want to add to the discussion. And so I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you
when you have that up. So where are we in the discussion on this? Again, nobody's trying to get rid of restorative practices. We are adding, it is proposed to add what the state
statute says. And I do not understand where the problem is with that. Staff, parents, and the public should know what the full law says which said or other approaches may be used to address student misconduct.
Again, as long as you're not, you know, taking them to criminal justice or there's sexual things involved, general just bad behavior. There's other approaches and I know other teachers use other approaches. They don't always use restorative justice.
But parents don't know that. The public doesn't know that. And we need to let them know that other approaches may be used. >> Director H. >> So to repeat that says that restorative practices may
be used that they are not a panacea. And then if you go to the bottom parag if you go to the bottom paragraph you will find that >> we're not there yet. Um, can we let each person speak individually, please? >> If you go to the bottom paragraph, you'll see that much of the language that you want to add about indicating
that restorative practices are not the only thing we're doing is already present. So, I >> I I I don't support any of the changes to this um top paragraph. I think that the the original version is superior.
>> Director Levier, you're right. So I would be okay with adding the sentence or other approaches may be used if absolutely everything else in the paragraph is left alone. Add that sentence but everything because that doesn't really I don't think that
materially changes it. It doesn't change anything in terms of the expectation for the matrix that you use. Correct Peter if that sentence is added. >> Correct. In fact, I think that the restorative practices matrix or the discipline matrix also alludes to other
non restorative >> so I think if literally that's the only change the sentence about restorative practice if all of the other words stay as exactly what they already were in policy and simply that only thing is added I'm okay with that >> no >> in that for that paragraph that's what
I'm okay with as one board member director Dvola So, I'm in favor of adding or other approaches may be used to address student conduct. So, I would I would pref or misconduct. It says conduct. I think we should probably put misconduct
there. Um um >> however well I do I do believe though there there is I understand the reasons why it may or may not we may or may not
want to list out all the other options. Um, I believe all of those other options, if I'm not mistaken, I hope those options are on our discipline matrix because a lot of those options I would almost guarantee are going to be somewhere on that. You said how many
pages was it? 23 pages. There's got to be the talking about the severity of the incident um to making a making amends, destruction of property, how you would go about
doing those things. I could be wrong, but Superintendent Hilts, do you have any input onto that? I would support there's a section that begins restorative interventions eg circles right that is a commented section I
wasn't sure if that was intended to be a strikethrough or not I would prefer that be left in there um it's the right language for how we have successfully created consistency I don't mind the addition of or other approaches may be
used to address as per CRS period. Um, >> that's the only thing we're discussing right now. >> I think I >> That's the only sentence we're discussing right now. >> No, they were talking about the other additions. Are they already contained within the discipline matrix, the other
green additions? >> Because that determines whether or not we will have consensus on that one phrase according to director Levier Wright, which is why we are discussing the other pieces because her consensus is going to come with that entire
paragraph. Um, so I think we have to discuss that whole thing. Um, I also want to make sure that we instead of saying should be considered strongly,
um, would be but should be considered when addressing student conduct, take out the word strongly. That's how I feel about it. I would say may be considered when addressing. So, I would take out should and strongly.
I expect teachers and administrators to consider restorative practices. It is the approach this district has approved. It is embedded in multiple policies. And so we we don't say that teachers may consider using best practices for instruction. We say you should use best
practices for instruction. We shouldn't say that you may consider using what this district has determined is best practices for addressing this conduct. We say you should. And so I I I don't think that the uh the additions or deletions
enhance this, but I understand the the uh reference to the statutory content. And so I I wouldn't object to that. the other uh the other revisions I would I would disagree with, but not as much as a matter of principle, as a matter of
preference. And and so I respect the board um the board's prerogative to to make these edits. I don't think any of them are are completely a violation. But I do think that if if you have a policy that says this is the approach we prefer, you don't then reverse yourself
by saying use it if you feel like it. You say you should use the approach that we we prefer. We've determined that it's a best practice. >> Director Schmidt, >> we're going to hang on to a 10-year-old policy
based off of stuff that's been revoked. Director Dvola. Okay. question. Do we have anywhere because I do know that um here let me just read it. Other appropriate consequences that may be considered would need to address the
following. The severity of the incident, previously reported and found founded incidences, the developmental level of the student, the motivation of the behavior, and the availability of family and school support. I know for a fact that is in the CDE document. Do we have
any reference to that piece? Because I think that is a very important piece to note when we are determining res which restorative practices we're going to implement >> and administrators would consider all of those things. But if you want us to make
a matrix that covers all of these and their interdependencies, um that document is going to be incredibly unwieldy. And so of course we always consider the severity of the incident. That's the
whole point of the discipline matrix having multiple entries. Of course, we consider previously reported and founded incidents because our discipline matrix already refers to whether it's a first or second or repeated offense. These are things that are already part of our
practice. They're embedded in our matrix. Um, to me what this does is it creates a checklist of accusations that can be used to challenge assigned
consequences. And I don't know why why we would set up our administrators that way. Director Hy.
>> So we have a what 230 odd old constitution that's working pretty well for us. Um so um if this policy is 10 years old and it is delivering the the results that we
desire um I'm very comfortable with it. So, the proposed language changes would essentially deemphasize the thing that the district has chosen to emphasize. We want to utilize restorative practices as a best practice
whenever appropriate and we don't want to start telling our um administrators to to deemphasize that. That that that is not our goal here. Director Schmidt, >> no one's deemphasizing anything here.
This all should be in policy. It shouldn't be in a matrix anywhere. It should be in policy so people know how our bullying policy works. Director Dvola.
Yeah, I know that we know we do these things, but again, I'd like to have it in writing somewhere that we do have this um because it is it is part of that document of considerations, severity, the previously reported. I
know we say that we go through these things, but I think it's important to have it actually in a in policy so that parents and school administrators know that these things are taken into consideration when doing these consequences. Um, and not just we're saying yes, we do
these things, but it is clearly spelled out, especially since this this is wording taken directly from the CDE policies or not policies, but the that oh, it is a policy. Look at that.
>> It says bullion prevention and education best practices and model policy. So, they have a model policy in there, too. And then once again we get into policy versus practices. And so my only
question is is it worthy of looking at the discipline matrix before we modify this policy? >> No, >> I don't need to see it. Then the question becomes, do you want those items listed out or to see if
they're contained in the matrix? So Marie had proposed a um language for this paragraph that she can um sign off on. I can join her and say, you know, including the language
about uh or other approaches using CRS um is also acceptable to me. Can we do a consensus on that? Because it feels like we're going in circles. >> We are. >> And I think Director Dvola had said misconduct to change conduct to misconduct. >> Yes,
>> I'm comfortable with that. >> Yes. >> Director Li, you're right. You look like you want to add something because I do think Okay. >> No, I said it. Student conduct can be bad or good. The word conduct includes both. So, if you want to put miss in front of it to make yourself
re-emphasize that part, that's 100% fine. But the word conduct means the same thing either way because it can be either good or bad. I think the statute says misconduct. So, we were doing these sentence by sentence and then we started doing the whole paragraph. So, now we have the
first sentence done. So I'm going to move to the first paragraph of third through higher grade sentence four deleting should and strongly and adding may. The proposed sentence is restorative practices are not a panacea
for every student's disruptive behavior but may be considered when addressing student conduct and discipline incidents. Do we have a consensus or not? >> No. >> No. >> No. First paragraph of third through higher
grades talking about adding two sentences. The proposed sentences are other appropriate consequences that may be considered would need to address the following. The severity of the incident, the motivation of the behavior, and the
availability of family and school support. To make amends, the consequences should be related to the type of incident that occurred. And an example would be for the destruction of property students would need to work to pay for or repair what was damaged or
destroyed. Comments? Director Dvola. So I'm in favor of keeping the first sentence but taking out the second because the second has um implications for being misconstrued. For example, um for the destruction of
pro property, it says students would need to it it might be uh the prerogative to have a different disciplinary action for that. So, I'm not sure I would want to include that sentence in there. Um but other appropriate consequences that may be
considered um I would put would need to address the following. I would include that sentence, take out the other. >> I agree. Director Hy, >> I would take out them both.
>> I'm a no on both. So, what's tough for me on this one is whether or not these levels are already addressed. And so I understand the argument is to have them in policy, but my question is is from what I'm hearing is they are
already addressed the severity and also the frequency of it. So I'm going to lean towards removing it. So the next one is first paragraph of third through higher grades sentence seven
add and any bystandards and delete avoiding the temptation to overfocus on the intended consequences for the student who caused harm. The proposed sentence is the principal or designate should address the support needs of the harmed party parties and any bystanders.
We just addressed this in JICDE. Some students are very sensitive to the things they see. When it is clear that a bystander who witnessed bullying is having trouble coping with their feelings about it, it is important to make sure they also receive any support they may need. That should be reflected
in policy. >> Director H. >> Yeah. The only problem I have with that is that it directs our staff to seek out bystanders who um may or may not be harmed. And um so I I would prefer not
to state that explicitly, but I would certainly expect our administrators to um to be sensitive to that and do so as necessary. >> Director Levir, right? So there's two parts of that. There was also a section struck. I want
>> I'm in favor of only the original words. And the whole point of the restorative practices like the circles is that the bystanders when there's an event that has bystanders um that's part of the restorative like when you had an incident in a classroom where someone threw something and
affected everyone in the room. The restorative circle process was a part of addressing that. But regardless, this is about the consequences of the individual's conduct rather than what we're doing for everyone else. And so I stand by the I don't want any other
changes to that paragraph. So I'm a no. Director Dola. >> Uh yes, I think the bystanders should also be addressed. Um because it's not just harmed parties, it's bystanders as well. Um the principal it says they should address the support needs of the
harmed parties and any bystanders. Um I I think that should stay. And then um taking out the avoiding the temptation to over focus on the intended unintended consequences for the student who caused harm. I'm not sure that's necessary.
>> So you're saying that that sentence should remain or should be removed? >> Should be removed. Okay. And I don't think that that change necessarily directs the principal to seek out bystanders. I think that's something they would just know. And so I'm okay
with the revisions. So the proposed sentence is the principle or designate should address the support needs of the harm party parties and any bystanders. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> No.
Okay, jump to bullet point 27. Add violation of the board's cell phone policy. I think we'll all agree on that. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Last paragraph of third grade
through higher grades which is after the bullet points. Sentence two, delete restorative, add supportive. The proposed sentence is following any period of suspension or expulsion, the principal or design will
ensure that a supportive approach is employed to reintegrate students into the school envi environment. Instead of using only restorative approaches, >> point of order, we skipped over an edit
to bullet point 24. Those were just comments. Those were not suggestions for edit. >> So, okay. So, when I see something that's red, I think that it's suggested for striketh through. So, you're Okay. Sorry. So, we want to offer students a
supportive approach to reintegrating students into the school environment. We don't have to only use restorative approaches. And it to say to say that Restorative, you're cutting everything else out.
Supportive includes everything. And I know our staff does everything they can to help these kids reintegrate. And it doesn't have to be restorative for them to do it. Director Hy. So, we heard from Superintendent Hiltz
just a little while ago that um that when a student returns from expulsion, restorative approaches are very much a part of the plan. Am I mischaracterizing that? >> No, you're characterizing it and I can I can request a clarification that might
kind of settle this quickly. Can I have one example of a supportive approach that would not be restorative? welcoming me. Welcoming the child to the classroom >> is restorative. >> That's well it's also supportive.
>> I understand that we don't have a policy that says we use supportive approaches. We have a policy that says we use restorative approaches. I I understand the >> or other approaches. >> Other approaches are not identified as
best practices. We have to operate in the in the policy environment and it's not 10 years old. We revise it all the time. We've continued to use it, train to it, implement it, evaluate on it. And so this is this is pulling out a
word that means something in our work that has been beneficial in our work. taking out something substantive, replacing it with something in this in this instance at least essentially meaningless.
Unless I could hear an example of a supportive action that is nonrestorative, I can't even conceive of that. Um, but unless I hear that, I I would pretty strongly oppose this. Director Dola,
>> I think I think part of the issue is um thinking that restorative and restorative practices are somehow always intertwined. Um the word restorative means to restore to um
to the classroom or to the environment or to the people that are around them. I don't think it's saying that they will ensure restorative practices in order to employ or integrate. This is just the word restorative like the vocabulary word that means to bring them back to
the classroom because I don't see this the word restorative practices or restorative interventions or things like that. It just says a restorative approach. To me, that's just an adjective that describes the word approach. >> Director H. So I disagree with that
characterization. I think that they are specifically calling for use of restorative practices as they are um trained in etc. But you've got to focus on the fact that this is for the specific situation where a student is returning
from suspension or expulsion. So the punitive phase has already ended. they have, you know, experienced the the negative consequences and now we are trying to restore them to good standing in the um in the community. That's
that's the approach. That's the goal. And um you know, again, we're not talking about the applicability of other situations because or other punishments because those other punishments have already been um have already been administered.
>> Director Dola So before restorative practices was a nuance or a thing that was happening um schools were using restorative approaches approaches way before that term was even existed. So this is to me
just means that we're restoring the student back into the classroom into the learning environment after being um having consequences or punishment um that fit that fit the crime. Right? So restoring them back into that classroom environment does not mean that we're
going to quote unquote go through the restorative justice framework. But that's my own interpretation. >> I have to agree with Director Dvola's description of an adjective and the goal is to restore the student to the
classroom. So I'm in favor of keeping it the way it was. Director Schmidt. Well, it seems like restorative and supportive are the same thing according to what Mr. Hilt said, but
I will I tend to agree that you're trying to restore a student to the classroom. So, do we have a consensus to keep that the way it read before? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Go on to the next one. >> Okay. Very last one. Yeah. Hey. Yay. Last paragraph of third through higher grades, which is after the bullet points. Sentence number three, delete social emotional.
The proposed sentence is the student, parents, and or guardians should conference to discuss behavioral expectations codified in a signed behavior contract. And the student should also be made aware of support resources. Any harmed parties should
also be made aware of a student's return. Again, the original sentence limit limits us to only one resource, social and emotional. There are multiple reintegration options that exist. Family partnerships, individualized
reintegration plans, check-in, checkout, catchup plans, graduated or partial day return schedules, and more. All have shown evidence of effectiveness. There is no single pathway except our commitment to choosing what works best
for the student who is reintegrating. We need our policy to reflect that there are many support resources for reintegration and that we as a district are flexible in using what works best for each individual student. By saying
support resources as opposed to social emotional resources, we show that we are not rigidly using only one support, but are open to other supports as long as they work within statute.
Director Hy. >> So, I'm agnostic to this change one way or the other, but I just want to point out that all of the resources that you just listed off were examples of social andor emotional support resources. >> Director Dvola,
I would have to disagree with uh Director Hy's uh classification of all the things that were listed. Um I am in favor of striking the social emotional um for the reasons that were put forth by director. And I have no problem with having that
struck. So then if there are no objections, we will move that forward for action. And now we are on to proposed revisions to policy BEDH and BEDB. Um, I want to get into this one just a bit because there's
additional information and I know that director Levier Wright was on the phone. There was a little bit of trouble hearing. One thing we talked about that didn't make it into policy behind which we had discussed at the same time. And so we have some cost updates about
we're talking about using the Raptor system to scan into the room like we do at our schools. And so Lynette checked into the pricing on this and a scanner would be $750. The other thing that was discussed was
also making available right now we have a 24-hour time period for signing up for public forum which actually exceeds some of our neighboring districts but there was a desire to also have the public signin option available and just to be
aware that we might need to pay overtime to an executive assistant to have them here to do that public sign and in process because it's been a little bit of a difficulty. I think that Lynette can agree to this where she's trying to
take care of 10 things at once and being there for a sign in that's not currently happening. So for the last three months, nobody has come to sign up in person unless it was after the meeting started or after a time limit. So the only
question is is does the board want to pay overtime to have an executive assistant out of our budget sit there? My only thought was we needed to know about that expenditure before we move this forward. And so I just wanted to
know if there's any comments on that. Director Schmidt, well I have a question. So we're talking about not using Raptor because it's way too expensive. So, how do sign up and check in take place then? >> No, we're talking about using Raptor to
scan everyone in as they come in. Right now, we use Raptor for check-in for public comments, I think. Or do we? We don't. Okay. So, we have a check-in policy. We had discussed using the raptor system to be consistent with our schools where people would scan an ID as
they came into the room. So the security team would know who is in the room and they seemed kind of favorable to that. I think the security team, I hate to speak for them, but we would also need to get input from security because once again, the Raptor sign in is not
part of policy BEDH as it's currently written, but we had to discuss that at the same time. >> Can you pull that up? I thought it was in there. >> Um, that's okay though. I mean, if you're saying it's not in there. So, you're talking that we're going to spend
$700 on a Raptor system just for here. >> 750. $750 for the scanner, >> for one scanner. And one scanner on a crowded night won't be enough. I can guarantee you because it's not enough when you go to a school event. If you go
to a play or a day when the lunches are and all of that stuff, the schools and the Raptor system reads your ID quicker if you're already in the system. But even if as a parent you're already in the system, when they're trying to get a hundred people scanned,
it turns into a problem. Um, and they may have multiple scanners, but one scanner won't be enough on a busy night to start us on time. >> Yeah. >> Um, so you might want to think about whether
you want that written in policy that says we will do it. It's proposed. It's not >> in the current policy. You might want to think about whether you want that as a requirement in a policy when the implementation is may not be near as easy as you think
it's going to be. >> Director Dvola. >> All right. So, just to clarify, we would still need one raptor for people to check in. Are we still planning on doing that or are we going to cancel all that out? >> Okay. how we're doing it.
>> So the proposal is like not using Raptor at all for anything. >> So currently it's not in BEDH. There just was a consensus to move that forward, but we didn't know any of the costs. So if we table that for now, which I think we should till we get more
information because we are also going to check into the security team helping out and getting their input on it. The other part was paying overtime for an executive assistant to be there to sign people in in person. And let's go ahead and go with Director
Hy. >> Yeah. Um so the the purpose of having somebody to uh check in people who haven't um signed on online was basically just to give another um option um specifically for
people who just you know choose not to use uh digital devices right so um I had a conversation with one of our stakeholders uh after a meeting where she had some wonderful feedback to offer us and like why didn't you tell us well I don't do computers
And so, you know, thinking of that situation, um, I don't think we need to staff that, uh, because we're how many people are we really talking about that would even utilize that, right? Most people are going to use the digital option when it's available to them. We're talking about some very few
exceptions. So, one of the things we could do is we could simply leave a signup sheet on the um on the table. somebody can fill that out and then after everybody else has already been checked in, we can go grab the thing and
then add on any people if there are any. I I really think that we we don't need to overthink it. Well, and keep in mind we also have the option for people who are not tech-savvy or incapable or don't use computers, they can call Lynette for
during business hours, the day before and the day of for assistance with signing up. And so I >> just up to the day of the meeting. >> So we have those options,
>> but the time the time period closes at 3. that they can still collect. >> Director Schmidt, >> so how much is the assistant for I guess you'd have to pay them an hour. That would be fair, right? How much is
that compared to the 750 for the Raptor? >> It would be overtime. And so my question is is would you like more information on that before we move it forward? Director Dvola. Um I don't think it's necessary for us to have have someone staffed to
do that just like Director Hy said. And um Lynette also just mentioned that if someone wanted to just come up and say, "Hey, I hadn't had an opportunity to do that before 6:15," she might be able to just add them into the system. And
that's onesies and twoozies. Um, the only thing I don't want to do is open Pandora's box by putting a signup sheet out in the back and then people think, "Oh, well, I didn't have an opportunity to do online. Let me just sign up on this paper really quick." And then all of a sudden, we have five people instead
of one. So, I don't want to open Pandora's box on that one. Um, I'm I'm cool with us not putting the Raptor system into the policy. Um, and I'm also cool with us not having a staffed person to do what we can have them do, right?
>> And just more information, I guess the problems that were related to Donna is people were taking pictures of the signup sheet and um, so there were some problems about the signup sheet just being out
there. And so just a little bit of food for thought cuz one other thing this is just a proposal. Um this could be moved forward to the next board as well to discuss this rather than you know just look just to know what some of the
issues are in the past and to get more information. So director Dvola did you have your hand up? >> Yes. Well this will be a decision that's made by the new board but um um just to fill you guys in because I know you guys were were talking. We talked about the
Pandora's box of leaving a signup sheet. We wouldn't want to leave a signup sheet because then people will think, "Oh, I don't actually have to sign up online. I can just do it here." So, we don't want that to happen. We would want them to just come find you, etc. If they needed support, like onesies and twzies. Cool.
Okay. Director Schmidt, did you have something you wanted to add there? >> Well, I I agree with what Gemma Lynn was saying. We don't want that Pandora's box. I used to think that was a good way to go, but I did not know people were taking pictures of that. So, that is not good. Um, as far as the raptor thing, I
could take it or leave it. So, I'll move I'm ready to move it forward with either it in or out. Well, the only thought I have and then I'll get to director Hy is I think we should move the community to start utilizing the sign the signup
system. It's used successfully in district 11 and district 20. And so we always want to allow the community an opportunity to speak, but we already have a longer time in our proposed policy than either of those districts do. So I would prefer to move the
community into learning how to sign up electronically and not having the in-person the night of because the problems we had in the past was not just the picture taken. I remember people lining up out the door and it did create a bottleneck and problems and even some
incidents that were happening outside of that door. So I think if we move to the electronic sign in it's just a little bit more effective. And the only other thing I wanted to say is because the way it's currently written it's also stating
that the second public forum is open to any topic not on the agenda. I know we had discussed that there will be people who will sign up to speak to an agenda item and that was actually the purpose to take it from 30 to 40 minutes if we had a hot button topic we could get
people to speak on the agenda. Um, and they were saying, you know, some of the discussion was free speech, but once again, I feel this could be addressed, and this is what I wanted specifically director Wright's input on that if they should do that, that we could remind
them if you'd like to speak about this, we can move you to the second public session. We are not prohibiting any free speech rights, but we are trying to get them to speak right before we vote on those agenda items and then they will still have an opportunity to speak about
whatever they want to speak about in the second session. Director Levir, right? Looks like you were going to say something. Know which piece at this point, but um because there's lots of pieces to address there. So, we'd need, you know, I hear no, it's not
legal. Yes, it is. I think the only person who can tell that that us is the attorney. But I think the whole key is consistency. So if you designate that the first section because it is a limited open forum, we can say what things you can speak on. At special meetings, you're only allowed to talk
about what's on the agenda. If you talk about something that's not on the agenda, you don't get it's over. Um but I know that there's been all kinds of craziness around that. Um, so the question becomes, if we put it in there and there's a consistency of I'm sorry,
that's not on uh you you've you've you've you've veered into an area that's not currently on your agenda, so I'm going to need to stop you. Um, you're more than welcome to complete what you'd like to say at our second open forum. Is that legally defensible if it's applied
consistently? That's the question. So, this is an area where I want to be careful about not giving legal advice at that level that I need to um for you to fully unwind this, but this policy as drafted is legal to adopt, but there are
some nuances that I would maybe want to advise you with an email or something and I can give you >> So, would it make more sense for us to have an exec session where everyone on the board understands those pieces before we adopt anything regarding open forum
communication so that everybody on the board understands the parameters. Would that make sense or not make sense? And then I still had something else. >> I'm willing to provide that. I would be up to you to decide if it makes sense. >> Um and then um the other thing I wanted
to say just on the whole well they can just find Lynette in onesies and twzies. My concern with that is you create people who are in the know and who are not in the know. And that's a consistency problem. So you either have
to have and consistency is what gets you in trouble for application of anything at the board level. So from my individual perspective, you either have to have a set process whereby if someone didn't get signed up online, they can
sign up. That is a known and publicized process or you don't do it. It's one of the two things. Um and I would lean to the don't do it. there's, you know, there's ways for you to get signed up online by contacting ahead of time and
doing it um rather than creating a duality that then leads to misinterpretation that then leads to um claims of, well, you let this one, but you didn't let me. Was it on viewpoint or was it because they just knew somebody who knew what the rules were?
That creates a a a vaguess that I think is problematic. But that's my one person opinion. Well, and the reason why I brought these up is if you look at sub paragraph C during the second public comment session before, but if you want to look that over, Jamie Lynn, what did
Dvola, what did you want to add? Um well I believe we talked about it at Nauseium the last session with um the um when we discussed that we didn't want to limit that first section just to agenda items because of the potential of people
um skewing it and then starting to talk about what they actually wanted to talk about even though it to in order to speak in that first session. So I think that we should just leave it the way that it is right now and not add that back in. Um the second thing to note is
I agree with uh director liver right that we need to make sure we have our our um process consistent. Um I still wish we could make it clear that if they are having problems and they don't know how to sign up that we can
help them with that before the meeting starts. But that's my own personal opinion >> and just once again to be clear what that's why I reached out actually to another district that's using it and what they do is when the person signs up to speak on an agenda item and they
start speaking on someone else that they are told please stop right now we're doing conversation on agenda items and we're going to move you to the second session and so they still have the opportunity to speak on whatever they speak about what they want to speak
about and knowing that yes, they they may have signed up maybe intentionally or not. Um, but I still want to hear about from the community about action items during that time. That's why we expanded the time when Director Schmidt
and I were working on this policies that the first session would be for agenda items and the second session was for whatever you wanted. Director Schmidt, >> I'm of the belief that no matter what the sign up procedure is,
when somebody signs up, we have given them a forum to speak and they should say whatever they want to say as long as it's not, you know, fire or cussing at us or stuff like that. >> Director Hy,
>> also first come, first serve. Sorry. So yeah, as far as the speaking to the agenda items, what I feel like that we're doing unintentionally there is creating friction between ourselves and the community. We're we're setting
ourselves up for a confrontation that I don't think is necessary. Um and so I I just think it's it's kind of counterproductive in that way. Um one thing I hadn't been able to talk about yet is the the notion of the Raptor
system. So yeah, $750 per device. If we had the necessity of, you know, two devices in order to check in everybody, that would be two. It's $1,500 we're looking at. But we're looking at that as a onetime cost. We do
have funds in the um board budget to be able to cover that. So the only thing is whether that is worthwhile to do and I would want to hear directly from our safety and security folks as far as why do they recommend that or do they not
recommend that? Um but uh certainly if the if the concerns are good, if the concerns are valid, um let's go ahead and and make that happen. We we certainly can. >> And for the director director Levier Wright ed and director Dvola remember we used to actually prioritize agenda
items. They were given priority speaking because that's the community's opportunity to speak on what the board will be voting on. Director Dvola, >> and I didn't like it the whole time. Okay, can we move on now?
>> Well, then the question becomes is do we want to move this forward as is or I think it still needs some more work as far as the sign up procedure and that's what we were discussing. So, Director Leight.
>> So, which piece are we on at this point? Because there's a lot of side pieces going on. I'm assuming no matter what, we're removing seven. I would like to receive the legal advice from our attorney that he wants to give us in a privileged email or an executive session
when it comes to limited public forms. So I would like to obtain that advice. So my recommendation is that we table this move it forward as a discussion item after we have received that information and also look at a way to
look at the signup policy and how to make it in a way that will work. Director Schmidt, >> I don't really want to table it. We need a date. We've been waiting on this policy a long time. Actually, I just said that we would move it forward as a
discussion item and we would work on it after we receive legal advice. So, that would be December 4th as a discussion item. Director Hy. >> So, this brings us back to a conversation we had earlier where um director elect Withers would have not
had access to that legal advice when we have our discussion on December 4th. She well she can't because she hasn't signed the confidentialities yet. So he can't communicate her he there isn't privilege attached until she's sworn in and signed those confidentialities.
So right so well and I think that's okay. Um if we if we put it on the January meeting that gives everyone enough time to get all of the information. I don't think we're under a level of pressure. I don't think there's anything that had to be addressed
pressure-wise that has to be in place between December and January unless I'm aware of something legally. Am I right to move this to January as a discussion item? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> This doesn't seem like an a decision I should make. >> Okay. Last here we have policy and procedure review. Were there any questions? Then the meeting is adjourned at 10:10 p.m.