LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay, we're ready to start. Hey everyone, it is 6:30pm and we’re ready to start. WITHERS: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: All right, so we'll start our work session tonight. And our first item is declaring April the Month of the Military Child. And our presenter is Miss Chappelle. CHAPELLE: Okay. Hello, everyone. My name is Kelly Chappelle, and I am the district military student and family liaison for our district 49. This is Abigail Hahn.
She is our Schriever, school liaison. I am here to request that the board members, recognize April as the month of the military child. So why is this important? April is nationally recognized as a Month of the Military Child. Being a military child is not something a child signs up to be, nor is it something they fully understand during the time their parents are serving. Nevertheless, their lives are impacted and shaped in meaningful ways due to their connection with their service member in the armed forces. Kids who are military connected quietly show their remarkable resilience.
They endure. They adapt. They continue to move forward. So while in our schools, in our care, we want to help them bloom while we have them, which for some active duty families like mine may only be for a short time. Our district prides itself on the ability to build firm foundations and be a welcoming landing place for all families, but especially our military families. While stationed here in Colorado Springs. I work with families coming from all over the world, and their main concern is, is my child going to be safe and supported in your district, in your schools? The answer is yes.
Across all three zones, we have teachers, counselors, administrators, and staff participating in various trainings to learn about the military, interstate compact laws, deployment cycles in other areas of military culture. We have family, military, family, life counselors in some of our schools and work with our local bases to keep our families covered and connected. This is how we as a community will launch our students while supporting our service members to remain mission ready. So with this, I would ask you to declare Month of the Military Child, this April, for the year of 2026.
Questions or comments? LA VERE WRIGHT: Mike HEIL: Yeah. So just a quick comment. One of the biggest things that they look at in child psychology is predictability and stability, right. That contributes to the well-being of, especially the younger children. And the military lifestyle is not very conducive to that. They can have a duty station as short as six months to, you know, four years. And so that's a lot of movement.
That's a lot of change, that's a lot of instability. And then when you talk about how that affects their education, there's so many CHAPELLE: Yes. HEIL: You know, inconsistencies among the different states, you know, different curriculum, different practices. And, it can be really disruptive. And so that is why it is so important for our schools and our school district to recognize those challenges and support those students in every way possible. CHAPELLE: Thank you. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes, Lori.
THOMPSON: I was just going to share that roughly three quarters of all my clients are active duty or retired military. And, they have the ones that I have sold places to in district 49. They’ve talked about how seamless a lot of it has been. It's always tough for kids to leave their best friends and the home they've gotten to know. But because we do have such a nice chunk of the military population here, they're not the only new kid in class. And that's always tough. I mean, that can be tough changing grades. But when they meet other kids who are going through the same thing,
I think it really fosters that inclusive environment. So I think we do a really good job, and I'm always grateful to have this come up. LA VERE WRIGHT: So I can speak from personal experience because my children were military connected kids for a good chunk of their education. While they were here, and their father deployed to war multiple times. Well, and his school here, he finished his career at Petersen, so we were able to stay. But, district 49, many of our districts surrounding us have a large military population, but D49 is a place that need
a concerted effort for a long time in getting student to student programs that are set up specifically to help kids connect when they come in. We also have plenty of military connected and prior military connected spouses who work within our schools. And I know for my children, it was some of those teachers who very specifically did things. One of them, because she knew, the time difference was so huge that my son could never speak to his dad. Made a point of making sure my husband could send things to her,
and my son could send something back during the school day, as my husband was coming off shift. And so there was she made a conscious effort to make sure I stayed connected to the classroom, watching kids know who to support and when in the way we celebrate Veterans Day in D49 also ties into that. I have personally seen and watched my own children react and support one another when they were honoring veterans and recognizing, you know, some of those kids knew whose mom or dad was deployed at the time and could then be there to support them as well. And I think
when they're celebrating the veterans, those kids also see that connection for their family and see the things also as their parents need to come home. Not the same having some form of a disability and needing additional services. Seeing that honored and respected and specifically in our community also makes a difference. I think out in Falcon, can we still do the Seven for Sartor every year? Sergeant Major Sartor was killed in action. His children were one of them was actually in my son's class at Bennett. And one of my daughters was in middle school was in, in another one of their classes. And the whole community came.
And for a lot of military families, when something like that happens, they lose their support system because some of those families are living in our community and we're building a support system within our community here. They didn't lose that. They lost their dad. They lost a lot. But the support system in the Falcon family still surrounded them, and that meant that they didn't end up relocating. They stayed here and stayed in our community and stayed connected. And some of his kids have since graduated from Falcon High and the Falcon community
still comes and stands with their family. And I think that dedication, supports all of them. Well, and so I'm really grateful that as a community, we continue that to see that continued for the other families who are connected and the kids, you know, I have family members with me. So thank you for all of your work. I know this is a, dedicated position that that we put in place to do that support what we're seeing. We see the benefit in spades in terms of the stability of those kids. And support and resilience that they're developing because of your programs and because of the work you do with the bases.
So thank you. And so I think we're ready to move this forward. WITHERS: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: All right. So we'll move that forward for next month’s vote. And I'm sure you'll send us what, you know if there's any special events that we have I know there's gonna be a resource fair and some things going on. HILTS: I do want to mention on April 7th, the state will have their annual, announcement, the presentation about Purple Star schools. And, I would anticipate there will be some district 49 schools who are not yet designated that will be designated because of the great work and collaboration. But I can't be public about that at this point. LA VERE WRIGHT: Not until we do it.
HILTS: But, but that is, that is coming up here. LA VERE WRIGHT: Thank you. CHAPELLE: Thank you. LA VERE WRIGHT: And we are now ready for the superintendent evaluation process update. ANDERSON: Good evening. Board. Late today, I asked, Mrs. DePaul to add this, PowerPoint for our, slide deck for our discussion tonight. So we'll get into the, the two, other attachments that have been that have been in the packet already, but I thought this would might be helpful to guide our discussion tonight.
So we are continuing the conversation that the board had at the annual planning summit about the superintendent evaluation. And, we walked away from that and, and worked on two things and one. And before getting into both of those. But, during the course of that, discussion at the planning summit, you, you expressed some of the things that you'd like to see in the two do, some of the ways you'd like to make that work. So, my hope is that you're going to see some of that coming together and taking shape and that you can provide some direction about what we do next.
The superintendent evaluation. I want to point out that we are not overhauling the evaluation system. We already have I think a very strong system. Our process. And that goes much further than I think many superintendent evaluation processes do at this point, we want to in our work on this, the process strength and clarity, consistency and insight. So you're gaining more there's more consistency as you're working through the process together. I finally that they're designed to support not,
take the place of board judgement and in your, you know, your role as the evaluator. So the superintendent so the first thing I'd like to take a look at is, is, an evaluation evaluation rubric. And this is, probably the, I would say is a, an improvement of something that already exists, versus something new that we'll talk about in a second, second, portion. So the purpose of this rubric will be to define performance expectations clearly and up front.
You know, you're expecting the superintendent knows what is expected by the board, and then create some shared language for the evaluation. We think I think the benefit of some of that is going to be consistency when you come to the table and a consensus process, which is very challenging. It might get you, you know, a, a big head start, from, from what you had to work through this year. We think it would support fair and defensible evaluations. And then finally, it, it focuses the discussion on, on performance, and the use of evidence,
to support performance ratings. So I'm going to first, I don't know if I'm going to see if I can link to I have a hyperlink, but it doesn't look like that’s going to work. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, it doesn't really work. ANDERSON: So in the however it might get. ANDERSON: Yeah. And I don't it's going to help. Oh I would like to get oh there we go I think I'm going to get there. NANCARROW: Okay. ANDERSON: Okay. First there's two items really close together. This one okay. So this is should open up the rubric.
So note that this is a. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah that we didn't see. THOMPSON: Yeah we couldn't we couldn't click on. The links were not live. DEPAUL: No there's a link under. So it's outside of the presentation. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. But on this I don’t see it. ANDERSON: So you're seeing this for the first time. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. Because when I go in, I see I see your cover sheet and I see the PowerPoint, but I don't see anything else. Yeah. So we don't have that. THOMPSON: Yeah I tried to put it under the links earlier and it wasn’t working. ANDERSON: Yeah. There are two.
LA VERE WRIGHT: Diligent Is a nightmare. And so we're blaming this on Diligent. ANDERSON: Okay. HEIL: We are diligently against it. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. Because the new platform is not always great at letting you add things correctly. And sometimes when people approve things, we found out you accidentally when you click on it, end up removing it. Yeah. In your approval process. So I no longer click on Anything other than approve, because I caught it right away. And I was like, hey, I think I just deleted something. And so there's a whole set of weird things that happen depending on who's looking at your stuff and what device you're looking at it at and stuff.
So I'm sure we can blame this on Diligent. But yeah, this is the first time any of us have seen this, which means it'll probably take us a little longer. HEIL: So I did see it. And then I went back in there and I didn't see it anymore. Yeah, it was here. LA VERE WRIGHT: So it disappeared. HEIL: Yeah. Just to learn. LA VERE WRIGHT: Except it is there. HEIL: Yeah. I just got to it through the through Diligent. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. So where is it? How are you getting it? HEIL: You are way smarter than we are. THOMPSON: Yeah, yeah. That's not hard. HEIL: That's why you get paid better than we do. LA VERE WRIGHT: This is the PowerPoint. DEPAUL: Okay? LA VERE WRIGHT: This. DEPAUL: Are you signed in?
LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, I was, yeah. I followed the link. Yeah. DEPAUL: No, you are signed in. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, I'm signed in. And literally I have these two clips. See. Lori. Same thing. What he has in Diligent. We don't have in Diligent. DEPAUL: That's where you can show access to everything. I have access to it. LA VERE WRIGHT: So she has access. You have access. THOMPSON: No, it would be great though they can set that on just so we can see. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Exactly. If there's a way we can.
Well if you, we can even get us I mean I can't. Yeah I can sort of read that because my eyes are not good enough to. I'm sorry. Yeah. It's. And I wasn't logged in until I came in, so. ANDERSON: Okay. We're having fun. LA VERE WRIGHT: I'm going to try to read it now DEPAUL: Here. There. THOMPSON: Okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: So. All right, so now what do we have to do? DEPAUL: It's the view you guys are looking at it. So go to Home I'm gonna go to this.
Click on the meeting. It's here. Click on superintendent evaluation right there. And then it's in here okay. Oh this one okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: And it's like okay. Yeah. So that is also it appears in the view. All right. Now we have it on our screens. HEIL: All right. So from Home to what? LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. Well not that Home. Home in Diligent. So open your Diligent back up. Your Diligent window. Go Home in there. DEPAUL: And then it's on the side.
HEIL: And then I got there from here. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Oh, I don’t. I go in through the link she sends me. LA VERE WRIGHT: Ok so you have to help him find it because he did something weird to his screens. So that's why, if you're not logged into your account, too. So sorry, I can't. We all have a chance to read it right now. HEIL: Every one of us gets to it a different way. So that also. DEPAUL: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: I just follow her link every time. Okay? Okay. And then I don't have to try and figure it. Okay? THOMPSON: Okay. Yeah. DEPAUL: Okay. They all have access now. LA VERE WRIGHT: I like how this is HEIL: Because I got there from the calendar.
DEPAUL: Yes LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. HEIL: What was the link that you hit to get me there? DEPAUL: So it's the the actual meeting. HEIL: Okay. DEPAUL: That because you look at it publicly, right. Yeah. So it's that, okay. And then you scroll to it to the item. Yeah. And it's right there. ANDERSON: And interesting that you get it. You see this? It's this and it looks like it just this is the header. It's actually two documents. HILTS: It is two documents. HEIL: That's the listening session. So, not sure why it’s showing that. Oh, it's mislabeled I thought this was about the listening section.
DEPAUL: No, it says draft. HEIL: Okay. So I had it. DEPAUL: Yeah. You did have it. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah okay. So now we're. DEPAUL: Now everybody's on the same page. Yeah. Go ahead Paul. LA VERE WRIGHT: Someday. This will become less painful. ANDERSON: So would you prefer to take some time to look at this or should we. LA VERE WRIGHT: Why don't we take a couple of minutes for everyone to read it and then. Okay, so I've gone through 2 or 3 of them already, but. I really like this. And I like it with five instead of four.
HEIL: I like it with five instead of four, but I think there's probably going to be some fine tuning on the definitions, because that's a new, that's a new breakdown that we have. Right. And so when I look like at leadership and I read that in a the exceeds and the distinguished, I, I don't really see the difference. I mean, they're both exceeding expectations, but I can clearly see where, four is different from a five by reading those.
So I think we could do some fine tuning. ANDERSON: By reading the, in the leadership descriptions. HEIL: Yeah. And we in the box there. Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: See, to me, distinguished means lives it right versus you're promoting it. You're referring it to all the time. You're you're using things to promote it that this is personifies as you absolutely live it. It's a difference okay. THOMPSON: I like it. It weighs heavier on objective rather than subjective for the purposes of the evaluation with some of the statements that it makes.
LA VERE WRIGHT: I think it gives you very explicit definitions to apply. So part of what we struggled with. And so folks are listening, the way our evaluation process works is we meet in executive session and we have to come to 4 to 5 agreeing on the rating and then on what the comment is about the reading. And, you know, most people want an evaluation. It's one evaluator evaluating one person and what they think goes down in that goes pretty quick. When you have five people with different perspectives
coming to where you can get four of the five to agree. And part of where we got stuck in part was what what do we mean by leadership? Well, you know, and then it's like, well this is what the definition says. But I think it still means this. And I think where if we're using a rubric like this and says this is explicitly what we're evaluating in this category, I think that makes it it drives the conversation better because it gives us a common language and a common standard to use, rather than our own perception of what
excellence is versus needs versus this poor performance. HILTS: May I speak to this, please? LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. HILTS: And I participated in drafting some of the language. And I used to train on rubrics a lot. No, rubric is good the first use because you don't yet have, exemplary anchors. And so if this were a rubric for a piece of writing, after we use it a couple of times, we would have samples of writing that anchor the rubric. And so you could look at this and let's just pick strategy.
You might say you might evaluate your superintendent, and, and say, this is what we saw this year. This behavior, this initiative or this. And we think that meets expectations. And so that anchors that cell. LA VERE WRIGHT: Right. HILTS: In a different year, you might say, boy, this was even better. And that would anchor one of the the future cells. And so I hope that this document outlives all of us. And that it's being used and refined. But the, the way you make it really clear
is you take it out of what is currently abstract and kind of descriptive, and you anchor it with real examples, and then it then it gets very clear. What is the difference between exceeds and distinguished? I will tell you in my mind, and this may not be your thought about it at all, but in my mind, a distinguished rating means that this this superintendent is is a is a role model for other superintendents. And I think you can exceed without being a role model. And to me, role model is this person, at least in this area
is is someone that others should look to. And that's how I try to write for. I mean, I didn't write, I didn't author it, I edited it. LA VERE WRIGHT: Right. HILTS: But that was my mindset. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. I mean, the biggest piece for us is for the first round is having that consistent definition in a language. Because that was the struggle, the two years that we used this last, this tool that was a part of the struggle, I think probably over an hour of that time probably would not have been
necessary if we had had the common language. What do you think Holly? WITHERS: Well, I was going to ask, Peter. Do you think, like, when you are doing more self eval, that this new rubric would make it easier for you to fine tune what, like how you conduct yourself, like just in general? Because that was our issue, is that I felt like there were some rubrics we were looking at that were five, some that were four. And then reading your examples that we kind of were getting lost in the weeds. So like, if we're all on the same trajectory,
I'm asking you as a Superintendent who will eventually have To do this, do you feel like this makes it easier for you to communicate? Okay. HILTS: I just I'll be really specific. I'm looking at the knowledge management strand right now, am I? I could absolutely I could, I could have given you examples that justified that I was meeting expectations. And so maybe that would be I meet with every principal. We go through their school performance framework. That is an example of of using measures consistently and purposefully.
Then I might have said, and I asked those principles to create annual strategic plans that would improve, that would set specific goals. And, and I and I could have said, so that's where I think I'm exceeding expectations. It's really hard for me to think of a superintendent trying to justify that they're distinguished that that would be for me, that would just feel like. WITHERS: It's like no room for improvement. HILTS: Yeah, that's how it would feel. Yeah.
Arrogant I think. That to me, that would be of course the board's call for did that. But that to me these cells would have given me more, more clarity. Because I've never used this tool. You didn't have this tool. So I just gave you a list of activities that I thought matched up with the different. Even that was a new process. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, it was more like kind of a little bit like we used to do in the old one, but. And Lori. THOMPSON: Well, and to be fair, like, for instance, Holly was barely sworn in when she was thrown into this process, which is kind of tough because you're not having one on one, you're not getting the behind
the scenes kind of prep work, and that'll happen every other year. But one thing to note is, Superintendent Hilts consistently rated himself lower than what other people were rating him in most of the areas. So I can understand when you're trying to be when you're evaluating yourself or giving your own input. And yet, for the most part, the other scores came in higher than what he was getting himself. So I like I like the idea that this is broken down more. It's beneficial. HILTS: It’s more objective.
LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Although we have the timing issues, a process improvement that will be fixed. So that won't happen again, where a new board member has to evaluate someone within weeks. Yeah. I know evaluations will be completed before someone is sworn in before December every year, because if we get the data in September, so there's no reason to not have it done. That was one of the process improvements as well. We used to have a timeline and policy that made that happen when we had the three chief officers, and that didn't just kind of went by the wayside. HEIL: It got vague about it. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. And so that vagueness is going away.
Okay. So any improvements anyone sees on this right now or do we want to work with it as it's written this year? And then, once we've been able to go through an experience using the rubric, look at whether we need to be. THOMPSON: Yeah. If there’s improvement. LA VERE WRIGHT: What do you guys think? What do you think Holly? WITHERS: I think we should utilize it as is. We’ll see what comes of it next year. LA VERE WRIGHT: And student board, did you guys have any questions or comments on the rubric? BARR: I think the color coding is wonderful. LA VERE WRIGHT: Reminds me a little of the ones we used to use to grade chem labs back in the day when we had the categories
and we'd have it, we give the kids the rubrics ahead of time on their projects, and they knew exactly. And I remember kids saying why I want. I only care that I at least get a C. And so they mark what they needed a C for and that's what they would get done. And then you'd have a kid who wanted the A and they would go and mark what they had to have for the A before they handed it in. ANDERSON: And all the colors align with our performance dash boards. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Okay. HEIL: So now we have a light blue. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. So now we have that consensus to move this piece, to use this piece for this, this evaluative cycle.
THOMPSON:Yes WITHERS: Yes. HEIL: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: All right. And then the next part Paul. ANDERSON: I don't oh. HILTS: It's right next to it. It looks like one. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. But it's not. Yeah I got it to pull up this placement which is also obnoxious. Like I want it to be intuitive not like search for things. ANDERSON: So this you're also seeing for the first time I think. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. HILTS: I have seen this. ANDERSON: And this may you know I may just be able to walk through this. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Because it's similar to what we talked about.
ANDERSON: Yeah. So we, that we kind of provided an overview of this approach at the, the planning summit. And focusing on the purpose, though I think it does. It is an opportunity for you to get firsthand, insights from, leaders in your organization. And in particular, you know, we're we're recommending, as you, as the board starts this process, that that interaction would be with, members of the cabinet and other senior leaders. And, I think one of the things that, we'll we'll think about the timing, assuming that
if you do want to move forward with this element, adding this element, think about the right timing, because I think, as we talked through previous and previous evaluations, the role of the multi rater survey, where does that fit into the overall process. And and I know that at times someone you might read a comment and sort of grab on to that one comment, even though there's lots and lots of data. And so this would be kind of an opportunity to, to engage, you know, to probe on that with some leaders or to either to validate or to invalidate
that, that singular comment that's coming through in a multi rater. So it can enrich what you're, what you're getting in, I think in the multi rater survey basic concept is that you'd be around the table. But so I think we said in one setting would be there'd be two, two board members, a pair of board members. And then in another, another meeting, it would be one board member potentially. And then with a group of leaders around the table, if we decided to structure. LA VERE WRIGHT: We’d have to do two, two and one or only 2 or 2 and have one position not.
ANDERSON: Not participate. Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because we can't do it in groups of three without it being a public meeting. HEIL: And if you have one person who's in one group and in, in another group with, you know, used to. LA VERE WRIGHT: It has to be different senior leaders. Right. So two board members meet with 4 to 6 persistence and next two working groups with meet with a different 4 to 6. Yeah. And then if the third group meets and it's yet a different 4 to 6 and none of the people can overlap because otherwise you created an illegal meeting. And, you know, Peter would be probably like, I just care that you get the information.
I'm not worried about that. But someday there'll be someone who said they held an illegal meeting when they were doing my evaluation. So we have to make sure we have the technical component. Right if we're going to try this. HEIL: Especially if they didn't like their evaluation. HILTS: Small caveat. You could have three people meet as an executive session. This is legitimate executive session content. So you do have an option. But I'm not advocating for that. It's just. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. HILTS: You do have that as an option. LA VERE WRIGHT: And that kind of gets weird too, because then three decision makers are there, but two aren't. So that could also create dynamic problems
when you're then doing the evaluation later. HEIL: Yeah. I think if we were going to do it as an executive session, it should be all five of us. LA VERE WRIGHT: And that gets weirder. HEILS: And yeah, that's even weirder. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. Okay. Because Peter can use. So and Peter again is someone who wants the feedback so that his personality would not fight that. But we have to think about not the person but the role and what your pieces would be later. So we want to set it up for best practice from the beginning, and to set it up so that we don't run into any of those legal snags from
the beginning. Yeah. All right. So go ahead Paul, I'm sorry. ANDERSON: A proposed approach is this in the table. And then, table in the middle, Setting some ground rules. And then really take to having a fairly open ended approach. And so that could be, you know, some prompts that are prepared, for you to use, either you develop or there might be themes that you want to, to probe. So you have, maybe a common couple of themes that you would take to all of the 2 or 3 sessions,
and then have a open ended for that group. What whatever seems to be on their mind. And there's some sample, some sample prompts there or topics, so and then finally with the end in these, it is really interesting. You've probably, I'm sure you've heard Peter describe the VLT meetings, but there are, there can be meetings where 2 or 3 really are just permitted to, to kind of dominate. And the participants around the table know that they're permitting that. And, some would prefer to remain silent, but in other cases pretty balanced.
And in a group in a group like this with senior leaders, you, you might want to get something from everyone at some point. So using and closing that just gets each person an opportunity to share that last word or phrase. HEIL: Yeah. I think since we're meeting with leaders, I don't think we're going to have a whole lot of people afraid to speak up. Yeah. ANDERSON: And then, you know, a point about the event, the cycle, the timing of this, where does this fit in? And I, I propose it here in early October. But really, I think you might want to have the multi rater report before.
I'm not sure that, you know, you'll have prior year multi rater feedback that but that's a year old at that point. So we would yeah. If you, if it was important to have that in hand, that multi rater report, we would need to shift to the the timing. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well because that's I this is so do we do it in September instead of August. Just because August is so crazy for everybody because it's the beginnig of school. ANDERSON: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because I think you'd want. I'm trying to think of how you generate the prompts and whether that is something where we have a week where we're able to
look at them all. Team leader survey and we send suggestions. Each board member sends in a suggestion for 1 or 2 things, and then you build a list from that. Like that process of of what specific things are we going to be hearing? And so maybe each board member can suggest something and you see if there's a coalescing thing and there might be something Peter says, hey, you know. Himself quite frequently as well. So. HEIL: Yeah, I think that the, the timing does need to come
after we've had an opportunity to review the multi rater because, you know, that's been their opportunity to submit anonymous, individual comments. And when as we start reading all that, as you mentioned before, sometimes things jump out at us that could then feed into a prompt or a question that we want to ask the panel, and get everybody to, to weigh in on. So, yeah, that so that needs to be a predecessor. LA VERE WRIGHT: So then my other question then is when we say October superintendent report, are we looking at
are we doing that at the regular meeting in October. Is that too tight. Because he's not presenting necessarily on although he does present on the multi rater. So is that too tight for the multi rater for him. Peter? HILTS: Well It's not too tight. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because I would think if, if we had that presentation at the October regular, there's two reasons to do it that way. One the regular meeting is always more visible. So if Peter's presenting his portion of it, to me, having that at the regular voting meeting
is more visible to the community than if we're doing it in a work session. But then we hear that as well, and then we get before the end of October. We make sure we've had our listening sessions so we can generate our questions even from that. If it's at beginning of October. And then, and then before Thanksgiving break, we have to have our, our executive session to do our evaluation. HEIL: So am I hearing you correctly that you were asking to reverse the order of the second and third bullet? LA VERE WRIGHT:
Maybe HEIL: I would support that. LA VERE WRIGHT: When we can be generating just off of what we're reading. HEIL: We would go into the listening session with that much more information. ANDERSON: Do you? Well, yeah. Do you want to have Peter's own analysis of that. LA VERE WRIGHT: Right. ANDERSON: Or or just the report itself as of LA VERE WRIGHT: Right. This is the report. And it's also what is other quantitative. So what do you guys think? WITHERS: Agreed to switch them. LA VERE WRIGHT: If we switch them does that create a problem in terms of October break and vacations with people.
Given that it's administrators and not like most administrators, I don't. I think there's still, there's not vacation time for them, their vacation for summer. But are there people that create an availability issue? HILTS: Maybe my my my worry is different. I mean, I'm not I'm not an intimidating character, but some people are still intimidated by that. I mean, it's just the reality of the position. I wonder if having me do a public presentation first. LA VERE WRIGHT: Sets it too much? HILTS: Frames it for the for the those respondents in a way
that is just going to be awkward. LA VERE WRIGHT: I think that's fair. So maybe we leave it the way you're suggesting it then. So then you're presenting at October work session then. HILTS: And that's me. I have heard stories of prior superintendents that might actually have or had an intimidating superintendent, perhaps. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, and I think it's all perception. Right? Sometimes it's how you read someone's personality or how you read how you communicate. Some people don't do great with direct communication. Some people do. HILTS: There's actually, it. LA VERE WRIGHT: Turns that into something different. HILTS: I think if you have the meeting first, you have an advantage.
And the advantage would be you. You will develop a perception and it'll be an informed position. Then you'll hear your superintendent present on their insights and observations. When you've got a strong triangulation, does this leader know themselves? Do they understand how their how their leadership is received? That's really that's a big part of why that cater for this is because if a superintendent has a blind spot, it's almost always going to be in how their leadership is perceived by the people that they're, you know, assuming trust them or respect and whatever.
The earlier you can detect any any discrepancy, the better. LA VERE WRIGHT: And really the evaluation, the consensus review is when we're when we make the formal evaluation, when we write the formal evaluation. So in December are we just acknowledging that. Right. Because like this year we didn't do a separate vote. We made sure it got sent to Peter. It's different than in than the process where we didn't have to come up with a consensus, where everybody just sent their comments. And then we did an executive session with the superintendent. But we didn't have any conversation as a board with you.
And so, this time and I don't think we did last time, or did we the last two the under this new cycle, I think we just wrote it and he got a copy. HEIL: I think we discussed it in a public meeting. But yeah, that's the closest we came to what you're suggesting. THOMPSON: I think we had one, Peter, where you presented first and then we left for the executive session portion. LA VERE WRIGHT: That was a prior board. HILTS: I think that's possible. I know that in most of the years that I've been here, and most of them was as chief officer,
I asked that you present in public and we did. And so there wasn't much it wasn't really a discussion. It was a here's how we evaluated, you know, but it was a it was a public disclosure. I think we'll tune this up. I was not aware that the evaluation document had been shared with me, that that wasn't, that wasn't an effective way of communicating, because I think, I think the evaluation was available to me for maybe six weeks. And that tells you that I wasn't anxious, put it right.
But it's good to have a more formal, disclosure of the, of the board's evaluation. And I think there's a reason the law says that that is that that evaluation is available to the public. I think it ought to be done publicly. That's just been my personal. LA VERE WRIGHT: So we can essentially have it as an action item at the December regular meeting. Because then when you do your, when you do swearing in and all of that stuff, you can make sure the current board votes on those action items before you swear in the new board.
And I think there's ways to do that. THOMPSON: When we had the three chief officers, there was the option to do the public presentation or in private because there was a request for them to do it publicly, sometimes from some of one of the chief officers once they requested the public. But I think the more transparency the better. HEIL: So I think that there is a case to be made for having once we've arrived at our evaluation and executive session to discuss it with the superintendent,
because that is, you know, personnel matters, right? But then it's, then when we present it to the public, so it's still becomes public, but at least we've had an opportunity for dialog and feedback in a confidential way, because, you know, if you have a superintendent who needs to improve, you can identify those things. You know, in a in a more proper manner. LA VERE WRIGHT: We used to do that on the same night. So the evaluation cycle. But that was when we didn't have to come to a four person consensus.
HILTS: So this is one where I'll, I'll keep my firm, my firm feet planted. You cannot require that that be an executive session. I, I have the leverage I can require and and the reason there's a reason I do that. And there have been a couple of boards where it was necessary to hold you accountable. Yeah. And this is your this is your public evaluation of your public servant. My conviction is that should be done publicly. Because it, it holds the board accountable. But I understand what you're saying. And, and it is absolutely legal to do it here. So you can say if the superintendent accepts it as an executive session.
But as soon as the superintendent says no on the subject, I want it public and it has to be public. LA VERE WRIGHT: And that I believe is true for any personnel issue. Actually. Any personnel issue we have to have, we have to offer it. And other than superintendent, because superintendent can be public by our demand as well. But for any personnel issue, for any person who brings it to the board, they can say they want it in public and you then have to do it in public instead of executive session that's their right as an employee. ANDERSON: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: And I don't have a problem with that because really, in the end, you're just presenting it so we can look at,
we can go through it once and see how the timing works and see how because we don't want to create eight zillion meetings on this either. Extra meetings that you're trying to then do to then also make sure we're meeting the timing so that we're not walking into having someone because you could potentially, have a board that only two people actually work with you for an entire year. Okay. The superintendent, if you don't time it correctly, which is why we worked really hard. You could you could make sure we had that worked out. HILTS: You could also do something that I think captures a bit of what Mike is suggesting there is a place to be sensitive and maybe have a
we'll say an arrogant superintendent or whatever you got to say, sayto me private. You still might want to commission your board president or another individual board member and say, why don't you talk on one? And why don't you be a little more direct there? Then we would want you or why don't you bring up names in that conversation that we wouldn't be able to bring in? But there is still a mechanism to get gritty with the superintendent. But just not as a, not as a part of the public conversation. And, it it is sometimes unclear to me who speaks for the board
who might want on ones because you give me different feedback. You give me different flavors of the same evaluation. I’m rolling with that. That different leader might, might be paralyzed by that. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yet it's still far more unified than HILTS: Here here. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because literally everybody just used to put their number down, write their comment, and you get a chart like this. But that was better than what was originally there, which was like the iterations we have. Really, you know. HILTS: What you all are building is far superior. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah.
So, yeah, I, we can watch the timing piece because we can also get some of that feedback in one on one. Or if we see that we go through this this year and the consensus isn't taking three hours, like almost. Right. Wasn't it somewhere around that? Because we have clear definitions and clear things we're considering and clear evidence. Right. Then it's reasonable to have Peter come in at the end of that because we've got our consensus and say, okay, you know, we can share this with you privately. Now and also have it at the public meeting in December,
or make that session technically public, but people are probably going to show up. And invite him in and be like, okay, here's what we've come up with. What questions do you have or whatever? We can look at that piece. Does that help? ANDERSON: Totally. Yeah, this is great. So, I think the next step that, I hadn't outlined, but, is coming to mind is, is policy CBI. Yeah. So I think we ought to begin to work on drafting, some edits to that that include making, be much more specific
about the calendar, and then incorporating some other elements into that. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, I'm looking at what we mean. There'll be things that you'll flag that we might still have to use this year, but we'll be able to use next year in some of the, the objective component that gets automatically generated. That part of his his score. Yeah. It's like we're not. Baldrige will be there still technically this year, but this that valuation for Baldrige is this we're evaluating this academic year in September. But after this year, that has to be changed
because we won't be applying, Okay. Any other questions for Paul on this? BARR: I think I kind of understand this, but what is the multi rater? Okay. ANDERSON: Sure. So a multi rater certain service, a survey that's administered given to varying groups of evaluators. So if you think about in the case of the superintendent's evaluation, we asked a group of principals building principals to score this survey.
And they were they are a group, a rating group. And then there's the group that reports directly to Mr. Hilts, of the cabinet. They are a group. And so and then, there are other employees in the district to complete the survey as well. And they make up another group. So what, what type of, evaluation or the type of feedback I think that this gives is a view from all these different perspectives. So if someone who works directly reports directly to the superintendent
will certainly have a different experience or with his leadership, than someone who is a building principal or someone who works in our, in our facilities department. So it's an opportunity to him for him to see and for the board to see how, groups in the organization with different perspectives and interactions with the superintendent, feel about his leadership. BARR: Thank you LA VERE WRIGHT: And any other questions? Okay. Thank you for working so hard on this.
We’ll move it forward to the next steps. ANDERSON: Thank you LA VERE WRIGHT: So next we're on to our legislative update for financial impact. And I know some of this is going to be very repetitive. Yet at the same time I think we do have to keep it in the community's viewpoint. I'm almost like, dang, we need to get these on the regulars instead because more people watch those. But I know it's continuing to change too. BROOKS: Yes it is. And we’re still trying to figure out where it’s going to land. LA VERE WRIGHT: We won't know until five days before we have to pace the budget probably.
THOMPSON: They did not give you a crystal ball when they onboarded you? BROOKS: You know, I don't think I've ever had one that works. I wish I if I did, I I'd be much more successful in my role. And that's the guessing game, right. So we did we did get an update both from CDE and I also received an update from Amy Atwood, our lobbyist late Sunday. I said Friday earlier, but, it was Sunday evening. And so this is kind of a, a mix of both perspectives
to kind of give you, overview. So as of right now, they're currently expecting an inflation rate to remain at 2.3%, which is is pretty much on par with what is expected. They are anticipating some reduced tax revenue at the state level because of several, several different factors. But because of that reduced revenue possibility, we are seeing very different forecasts. So we have two different groups that have done an economic forecast this year.
The the more traditional one is a Legislative Council staff. So that is the one that is, nonpartisan people that get together to do an economic forecast for the Joint Budget Committee for the legislature. And traditionally, that's the one that I've seen the budget build off of. The governor's office has also done one. I don't know if they used to do one or not, but this is the first time I've really seen this one. And it's the State Planning and Budgeting Office or OSPD. And so they have also done their own economic forecast. And we're going to talk a little bit
about some of those differences here in a minute. So the Legislative Council staff forecast is showing a projection of a $1.47 billion shortfall for 2627, which is really big. And that includes them planning to use or keeping the emergency reserve at 15%. So they would use, utilize, a portion of the emergency reserve at the state line or state level. And then it the Legislative Council also anticipates that the pause to the new School Finance Act would be triggered.
So, that has to do with it. School funding growth slows enough to trigger that pause or not. That's one of the main differences we'll talk about here in minute. And they only calculate their economic forecast based on current law. Nothing that is proposed, nothing new, nothing from the governor's office of the new ideas. So that is a big piece of why the shortfall is so large. LA VERE WRIGHT: May I ask a question. BROOKS: Absolutely. LA VERE WRIGHT: So that means then, that the Medicaid cuts they're talking about are not already accounted for, right?
BROOKS: That is correct. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. HILTS: Nothing. BROOKS: Yeah. HILTS: This is the status quo. BROOKS: That is correct. So this is based on 100% status quo. It would also because everything that they're proposing cutting has to still go through the legislative process to make those changes. So that's why it's completely off of current law. Okay. Okay. And then the governor's office, their budgeting forecast only shows a $21 million shortfall, which is a huge difference. They will be using they will plan to use
a larger percent of the emergency reserve. And they do not see that there will be any trigger for pausing the new school finance implementation. So, that means we would get an additional 15%, of the new School Finance Act implementation in the new year. There are a lot of ideas that have been brought forward. One is selling the, Pinnacle Insurance sale. It's been kind of talked about on and off this whole legislative season, doing fund transfers or sweeps and then lowering the reserve, potentially even more than what is listed here.
And the joint Budget Committee chose this particular forecast to base their budget on. LA VERE WRIGHT: So the question again, sorry. BROOKS: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: Did they is been did they include the cuts the governor then already suggested when they did this like the Medicaid ones. And so because I know there was a huge piece that was getting balanced off of LTSS. BROOKS: So they are doing a portion of them. Yes. Not everything the governor is suggesting, but and we're going to also talk about here in a minute there, like certain things that the governor
is suggesting don't really kick in in this next fiscal year. They will be future fiscal years. So some of them that are suggested they can wait to make the decision on this. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. BROOKS: Okay. And basically what does this look like for the future. So the more optimistic forecast means that is a higher risk for us as a firm in your decision. So, out of Amy's email, there's one particular piece that I kind of want to specifically draw attention to for this, this part and two of the six Joint Budget Committee,
members really pushed to keep this a more conservative kind of budget planning. But the four outvoted the two. And so they are willing to, prefer email. It could lead to difficult midyear cuts and potential clawbacks. And so they chose to make midyear adjustments if needed. So that being said, that's that's just where I'm going to be a little more cautious, right in, in what we're anticipating, because a mid-year rescission would be devastating.
So we're going to make sure that we're just going to be prepared for that just in case and do as best we can. With what we can't really predict. We don't have a crystal ball, but we will we will be cautious. And I mean, if a good piece of the things that are suggested get passed, there is a chance that we'll meet somewhere in the middle. So there is a chance that it will be more optimistic. We don't know until more gets to the legislature. Some things of note. The specific owners, the specific ownership tax change
that we've talked about, a couple different times. Even if that does move forward, it definitely will not take place in the 26-27 school year. It will be 27-28. And they plan to phase it in and they move forward. So it would not be, all at once change. They are changing the averaging piece, which doesn't really affect us, but I wanted to make sure you guys were informed, and they will be changing and phasing that in over the next two years. Budget stabilization factor is still I would probably change highly likely to it's it's
highly possible. I don't know that it's likely they're really, really trying to, not have Governor Polis go out on a budget stabilization, reinstatement. And so I think they're prioritizing as many things as they can to make sure that that doesn't happen. I would actually say that it's more likely we have a mid-year rescission than a budget stabilization factor. LA VERE WRIGHT: because at least then, you know. BROOKS: Yeah. But again, it's all a guessing game and how everything plays out
in the legislature. So, the long bill is the introduction is is due on March 30th. So we will have at least the initial idea of the starting point. Once that gets introduced on March 30th. All right. Any questions. LA VERE WRIGHT: So if they're passing the new School Finance Act, there were some things in that that were going to hurt us. So does that as a district. Is that going to help us at all or not. BROOKS: So. It wouldn't the overall with the formula breaks through.
It's positive net for us. So. HILTS: Mild. BROOKS: Mild, yes so but so the the pausing for us is not a huge sway either way the thing really it boils down to we have done most of the things that we can do at this point, barring any the budget stabilization factor or rescission or the things that are going to get us to have to pay attention and be more cautious more than we have already planned, that are really the two things.
Otherwise we can weather in the storm and then we'll have to kind of see how it how it plays out. For if a budget stabilization factor or a mid-year rescission comes through. Yes. THOMPSON: When you receive the legislative update. But still, my mind is just blown. There's a substantial difference between 1.47 billion and 21,000,000. Did the legislative update give any kind of justification for that. Why the the disparity. BROOKS: So a lot of it has to do with the different, suggestions that have been made.
But some of that piece mean just my, my notes here. HILTS: While you're finding your notes, it’s highly political. BROOKS: Yes. HILTS: It is, it is disingenuous to say 1.47 billion because nobody thinks that we're walking forward with a status quo environment. So that's a little bit gamesmanship. BROOKS: That is accurate. HILTS: And and so that's a political analysis. It's not a financial analysis. On the other hand, the, the governor's office
folding in every possible advantage and $200 million more in revenue estimate. BROOKS: 300. HILTS: 300. BROOKS: 300 million higher. HILTS: Bigger revenue estimate. BROOKS: Yes that’s the biggest piece of it. HILTS: I think this has always happened. BROOKS: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: It's just we’re paying attention. HILTS: I think this is just much more visible because that's how people land on this topic, will impact how they might campaign or vote on the measures that Mr. Heil has mentioned that I have mentioned. And so always presume
ulterior motives and you will be right most of the time. BROOKS: Absolutely. HILTS: End of my political analysis. BROOKS: No, but I think you're spot on. And I also think that it will land somewhere in the middle. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, because of the Governor’s saying “But look, if you just did everything I'm already telling you to do and followed my plan,” you know. That's right. So and yet some of us are like, but really. Sure. Make it even harder. All right. Does anybody have any other questions? HEIL: So just one comment. I liked how you use the phrase weather the storm, because if we can get through
next budget year, there are some measures coming forward. As Peter mentioned, as I've mentioned in previous meetings, that can, you know, go a long way to fixing this problem. BROOKS: Totally agree. LA VERE WRIGHT: Any other questions? Anything. Thank you. BROOKS: Thank you. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. And so our last item is, update and discussion. And so we had seven people apply, the board has had those packets for a little bit now.
So I was reading the 40 FEF applications this week. So that's, that's my, my next thing because we're, we're voting on those tomorrow. So we now have to figure out the interview process. And so I wanted to kind of open that discussion. I have, thought of two different ways we could approach it. One is a more traditional interview process where you bring one person in at a time for a specific set of minutes with your specific set of questions. But remember, this has to be done in a public meeting.
So what that means is the first person comes in and A you can't tell the other six they can't be in because it's a public meeting. You could request it, but you can't make them not. And even if they sit out in the hall, you don't know if someone's texting them the questions anyway. So there's a difference in advantage, depending on where you put people in that process. And there really is no way to control for that. So, but that's one, one approach. And you could do that over one meeting or two with seven people. You're obviously taking a pretty long time.
Another option that I thought about was looking at it, the format being more like, the student board of Representatives forum, candidate forum, where all seven people are present at the same time. We still have a set set of questions. And, you know, 6 or 7 questions maybe so that it's one where you start, you start question one. We go to one person one, and then everyone would answer, then question two, start with person two and then have a round robin all the way through.
There's advantages and disadvantages there obviously as well. But it's, it's another way of looking at it. This kind of direct comparison, but also then, everybody's getting the same information at the same time. So that kind of component advantage or perceived advantage or disadvantage based on interview order. Then doesn't exist. And so first question is what format do you guys think we want to use? Mike. HEIL: So I had thought about the first one that you, created and how we would
be able to level the playing field as far as it being a public meeting. I think that since it will be available to them later on via YouTube and stuff like that, I think we could, you know, especially because it's in the public interest that they have, these media, these interviews be separate. I think we would be able to have them in another room and ask for their phones. LA VERE WRIGHT: We can’t. I already asked the lawyer. HEIL: Okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: So
we can't restrict someone from the public from being in a public meeting. HEIL: Even if they're the subject of it? LA VERE WRIGHT: Correct. So. Yeah. HILTS: You can neutralize the advantage by giving them all the questions in advance. LA VERE WRIGHT: Correct. So that's the other option. HILTS: Individual individual interview. And that means that presumably you're not interviewing their ability to extemporize as you're interviewing their, their positions and their, their work. In which case advance knowledge doesn't. LA VERE WRIGHT: Right. Right. That's the other option. And then it's how much advance notice how much do you want to give to everybody an hour ahead?
Do you want to you know, those pieces. Lori? THOMPSON: I like the idea of a forum process because I think it's better to compare and contrast. So I would lean more towards the forum process, and I like the fact that you would alternate the start point because you never want to have the same person first. And so by alternating the start point, I think you get more of an ability to think on their feet and to to compare and contrast for the public. LA VERE WRIGHT: Holly, what do you think? WITHERS: I agree, the forum just seems like the best case scenario because, it's just completely fair. Equal.
And then we also get student representative input and participation. I think that makes it more of like a public meeting feel too. So then you also see how comfortable they are getting in front of everybody, you know. LA VERE WRIGHT: And we're sitting in a row. They're sitting in a row. WITHERS: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: Facing each other, sitting next to each other, and the people are watching you. WITHERS: Keep them clamy. LA VERE WRIGHT: I mean, we can be in rows like this. And then people like, I don't have to think about the space. THOMPSON: Dress like characters in the Spanish Inquisition or something You know, just to LA VERE WRIGHT: What do you think? HEIL: There, there is an advantage to, we could still give them
the questions early and then, have the, forum. The reason being, we prepare for our meetings. You know, we study up. So I think that, rather than putting people on the spotlight, I don't know if that's it's helpful. WITHERS: My issue with doing it in a non forum way. Is that, like, won't you guys feel burnt out? Like that’s kind of my concern. THOMPSON: Repetition. WITHERS: Is that by the time you're at the seventh person, you're just like I don't care. You know because to give people like adequate amount
like a one on one interview, you need what 30 minutes to an hour maybe. THOMPSON: Well we're going to, we're going to narrow down the questions. WITHERS: Well right then do you want to like, do you. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, you'd end up doing when we had that many the very first time we had to go through the whole process. I've had to go through three of them. This would be my fourth one. I'm very sad that I have to do a fourth. I hate them. I think they're I think elections are always better. But, we had like nine maybe, and we did it over 2 or 3 meetings and we met.
Yeah. It was miserable. And and, you know, the two people who then refused to actually help appoint, showed up to all of those. We didn't show not meet anybody to your point about this one. That's why I really hate appointments, but, but that was, you know, that's you're looking at that type of thing, and that makes it really, really hard to get done. Vivian. BARR: I think also how you would choose who would be interviewed, in the question like interview format. Obviously, I imagine you’d randomize it.
But, I think if you do it in a public forum, it does give the public more of a sense will be like, wow, obviously, you know, an election is ideal. This is an important to the public, at least some sense of understanding who you then choose and why you would choose that person, because they can see in real time what that person's answers is. And also, I think Max can speak more to this because he was like, the candidate forum. It can be difficult sometimes as well
with candidates responding to questions with the answers that they have to the question and not going off of rails a little bit. You know, that that was something so rather than anything that needs to be worked on. But just as I'm sure you're all aware of this. THOMPSON: She was referencing the format, but this time the students wouldn't be running it. BARR: Yeah, right. Well, what is a heads up to you. A direction you don't really need. THOMPSON: No, it’s good feedback. BARR: Answers that they, people tend to want to say what they want to say and not answer the questions.
LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, and, but that's informative too. So, THOMPSON: I had another question too, because each of the candidates submitted references, I thought it would be worthwhile to come up with a couple of questions to email out to their, their, to the people that they listed as professional or personal references and to kind of standardize some of the questions. Just send out just to get that input from the people they put down. LA VERE WRIGHT: So, Brad said, because it's not an employment
position, that individual board members, if they would like to have conversations with the references that were submitted, can have individual conversations, however they would like, that there is no violation on any of that. So if individual board members would like to ask a question or kind of, contact, a reference to individual board members can do that. THOMPSON: So you don't like the idea of a standard set of questions? LA VERE WRIGHT: I think if individuals have questions, if the conversation might be more informative rather than having something, and when you're sending those out and then having them send them back,
those become CORA requestable. And that shifts what people might say as well if, if they and, and I think you best be honest with the person who's answering the questions and let them know, because it's a board communication about a potential board member that, it becomes highly difficult for us to shield any of that. And so I think for people's personal privacy and for getting actually direct and honest answers, if folks are interested in and specific questions with references,
the lawyer said, because it's not an employee and it's not a hiring process, and it's perfectly fine for individual board members to contact any references they would like. But obviously then you can't. That's for your knowledge. THOMPSON: You don’t want to share it with the rest of the board or you could be in violation. LA VERE WRIGHT: Correct. Because you're right. Exactly. So each person kind of does their own check on what their concerns are or what their questions are, and individuals. So that's that component. So right now it sounds like we have are you okay with doing the the forum piece. HEIL: Sure.
LA VERE WRIGHT: So we've got first thing we have is yes, we're going to do kind of forum version. THOMPSON: And will the names become public now to of who has applied. Because I know at this point they're not public. LA VERE WRIGHT: We can I figure when we set up the forum and publish the meeting, we can get that list. Because then it would be part of the agenda and everything. HILTS: Excuse me. Related. THOMPSON: Seven applicants for the vacancy. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. THOMPSON: Okay, so they're not technically candidates. They are applicants. To fill a vacancy for candidates. Could be a viable word, too. HILTS: You may have already
addressed this with Brad. Are the applications public record now? LA VERE WRIGHT: I will ask him I don't know. HILTS: I think they are. I think you typically would publish them and LA VERE WRIGHT: I'll ask him positions would do you. Yeah. Okay. Brad question. And we can do that simply by posting them on the website and say, here's the applicants. But let me verify with Brad. THOMPSON: With the exception of the references, I don't think that should be necessarily published. I'll ask Brad. Yeah. What?
Because quite frankly, that may all be CORA requestable anyway. HILTS: I think it is, none of that has any privilege. If it’s CORA requestable then it doesn't matter, you don't. Okay. Because you're not you're you're not applying for a job. THOMPSON: I was just thinking it's personal phone numbers and email addresses. But that would be. HILTS: That is reasonable redaction. Yeah. THOMPSON: Okay. HILTS: Names probably not so much. THOMPSON: Because I could just see community members making those phone calls and emails and that would get a little weird. WITHERS: I have I have a question for Lanette. WITHERS: Did we verify that?
Yes. Oh, okay. That all applicant actually live in. DEPAUL: Yeah. WITHERS: Just verifying. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. She did. Okay. So the first thing is we've agreed to the forum format. Now the question is number of questions. I don't think you want a ton. HEIL: I'm thinking since we have seven applicants and we're going to go round robin starting, I think if we land on seven questions, that would be great. And I'm even starting to think that we might do it in a way where each board member submits a question, the superintendent submits a question.
Maybe we'll let the students select 1 or 2 questions. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, that's what I was going to ask next because that was my suggestion. Yes. VEGA: I was just going to ask if you're planning on trying to have each board member ask a question because I know with the candidate forum we had different students ask different questions, and so they kind of rotated out different people to ask those questions. And maybe you can choose like a specific like topic or kind of something that's more specific to your job or role? Something that kind of helps guide your question. HEIL: Well, I think if we follow this method that I just gave you, the person who authored the question could be the one who asks it.
HILTS: Yeah, I should not be asking questions/ LA VERE WRIGHGT: So Peter shouldn't be asking a question. HILTS: Give the students two. THOMPSON: Well, and that's that's two is like I said, if we have that. LA VERE WRIGHT: Then only gives us six. HEIL: Yeah. THOMPSON: We could still have the input from the superintendent and students, but they wouldn't necessarily be the ones who ask the question. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well so the question is who generates the questions? THOMPSON: Are we going to have a Google form on that too. LA VERE WRIGHT: So I think we can submit them to Lanette and she can correct them. And I think we have to make it super fancy. I thought it made sense for each of us to submit.
Each board member submits at least one. So one if we do one each there two from the student board and one from the office of superintendent. That gives you seven questions. BARR: Yeah. If you say if you allow us to submit more than two questions, and I believe our next meeting is April 2nd. So I don't know. Yeah. When you will need them. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, it'll be well after April 2nd because we have to coordinate 11 people’s schedules to be able to find the time and day that works for 11 people. BARR: I was gonna say we could have it to you by April 2nd.
LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, if you guys, you can have a conversation. Oh. LA VERE WRIGHT: What are other people's thoughts on that? THOMPSON: I see a face over there. HILTS: I’m just awaiting direction. LA VERE WRIGHT: What do you think, Holly? WITHERS: I mean, I was are we giving these questions to Lanette that? So they. Are they going to the applicants or is this the so that. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, that's the next question. So first let's figure out how we're deciding what the questions are. WITHERS: I was going to say like why don't we 1 to 3.
And then maybe during that time we can pull them out randomly. I don't know, like when we do the forum or is that just too WITHERS: That gets chaotic. Well, that gets complicated too, because then what if when we're randomly drawing one person, none of their questions are drawn. WITHERS: Okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: You know what I mean? And so and I thought if everybody took a little bit of time to kind of go through the applications, they could think of, what's one important question that I have about this? The issue would then be, what if we end up with two of the same one?
Lanette could tell us, yes, we have two of the same, you know, when do you need to submit something different. THOMPSON: As far as the candidates. So I think if we get it to them, maybe not too far in advance, because I'd like to see the spontaneity and adaptability, but, maybe the day of the forum or something where it's not. LA VERE WRIGHT: So first let's figure out how we're generating the question. Yes, let's work it through at one step at a time so we don't get lost in our own details. THOMPSON: Because I thought it was one from each board member, than two from student board and one from the office of superintendent. LA VERE WRIGHT: That's what I'm asking.
Do we have a consensus on that? THOMPSON: Well, we already have a superintendent saying, please leave me out of this. LA VERE WRIGHT: He doesn't want to ask a question, but that's different than submitting a question, right? So and if you think differently, let me know. But I think I'm from this person's perspective okay. A little bit different. So and then because each, each perspective is going to think of something different. Do you know what I mean? So do we think that that's the way to generate our seven questions. THOMPSON: Yes okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. So then we can then get them to Lanette, who can collate it. Yeah. So well and we have a when our due date has to be.
Perfect. THOMPSON: It has to be the 60 day time frame. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, what we're talking about when we get the questions to her. So let's take it one step at a time so that we're not conflating things. Some of that, how wide that timeline is in part depends on when we can get everybody together. But, I'm thinking at least a week. So let's we can pause on what date we have to have the questions by, because I think we can give ourselves some time because we're highly unlikely to get scheduled next week with 11 people schedules.
So I would think we certainly have till the end of next week, if not a little bit longer, before we have to have those questions. So. Suggestion on that. I think. BARR: When that date it is decided to put someone inform Ms. Stuart so that way we can make sure the student board is informed. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well, because I well, you guys meet April 2nd and then when again? BARR: May 7th. LA VERE WRIGHT: So it will you're going to need to determine what your questions
are at your April 2nd meeting, because we will be having this forum and hopefully a little before your May meeting. That would be the goal. Just because of what our timelines are, we want to try and get all of this done within 60. As long as we all agree Marie's not doing anything until we've done all of that. And then the 60 day isn't that big of a deal anyway. But, I'd rather not even have anyone try to suggest it, so I'd rather make sure we have all everything ready for that. So what about April 6th?
Because a due date for the questions. So. Because that gives everybody two weekends. Although you know, the weekend, the fourth is Easter weekend, but for folks who have Monday through Friday jobs, they've got two weekends for people whose weekends are the crazy part. And during the week is easier, you've got a full week of school before, they're due. For those of us who then like to have a fe does that timeline help at all, Holly or not? WITHERS: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. It's not just, you know. Yes. Now we're to my three days of quiet next week.
Let me tell you. WITHERS: It's the two hours at the end of the day. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah, well, she gets it. Yeah. And I get three days that a kid is in a program. And then Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. I have a very quiet house. So, those are my hours to get everything done. Okay, so we're going to have our questions due by April 6th. So. When? So next question is do we want candidates to have the questions ahead of time or not.
Opinions. Going ahead okay. WITHERS: I don't think they should have the specific questions. I think if they have like a general idea, because I do kind of like I like the idea of seeing people think on their feet. But if we're general, like. THOMPSON: Okay, because we didn't get questions. WITHERS: No, we did not. THOMPSON: As candidates, we did not get them. LA VERE WRIGHT: Correct. WITHERS: You know, like what the the what are you hoping to bring to the board? Like just something. General.
So they can have maybe some answers thought out that they could apply to certain questions? I don't know, I don't know. HEIL: So I would like to suggest that we make that a question by question decision, because if there is a I, I've got one in mind right now that I would think if I, if I'm going to make that my submission, I want people to really spend some time with it. I want them to sit with it. I want them to, you know, maybe do some research, and come to me prepared with a well-thought-out answer. But there are other ones that you might think, you know what?
I want a spontaneous answer to this. And so I, I, I, I support a mixture of those. WITHERS: Yeah. LA VERE WRIGHT: So maybe we could have the person who writes the question designate whether it's an advanced question or. WITHERS: Yes. Yes, BARR: I wanted to ask I know that you're moving in sequential order. Max and I were talking thinking that the obviously each board member will have to get their perspective on the question, but I do believe that, you know, if you're going to ask something about money, Oh, we were thinking about our our two questions.
Specific being about students. You always do ask the student board, or give us a candidate just in reference to you just knowing if that's okay with you and our questions being student focused. LA VERE WRIGHT: Absolutely. BARR: For reference, when you're making your questions that our questions for will most definitely have something to do with students. If that's okay? Well, know that's 100% okay. The two, your you're in charge of your two questions. BARR: Yes. LA VERE WRIGHT: And
the whole point of the student board is to bring student perspective. And so I would expect that the questions be about the things that you're doing that your you’re focused on. A student focus. THOMPSON: It may be judicious that if a board member does not want their question out in advance, that that's kind of held back even from the board just for. LA VERE WRIGHT: That's why Lanette is the person collecting them, not any of us, because Lanette isn't going to then share them with all of us know unless she's explicitly directed to and I don't plan on directing that. THOMPSON: I, I think that's reasonable. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because if they're shared to us, they then become CORA requestable.
HEIL: Although, she may have to reach out to us if somebody has got a duplicate or something. LA VERE WRIGHT: Right, but that's a little bit right. But then it'll be like, hey, you submitted a someone else already submitted. So whoever submitted their question last is the one who has to redo it. So if you're an early submitter, you're not going to have to rewrite a second question. If you're a late submitter, you might be too, too bad. So sad. Think of your second best question. That then sets a whole process. So Lanette only has one person to contact and because it's gone to her, we're not entering into the hey that was in board communication in there for, you know, like I really don't feel like having to loop
in the lawyer on the questions to try to prevent them from being. THOMPSON: But it's not a bad idea. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yes. BARR: In that case, since student board will be meeting on the second and can definitely get you questions by then, could we perhaps present two questions to you that we would want to ask? But do you see the off chance that one of the board members. THOMPSON: Have your backup one? BARR: Yeah. Can we submit three? But say we would like these two. LA VERE WRIGHGT: Well, but your two are coming. I guarantee before any of us. BARR: Okay. LA VERE WRIGHT: Because yours are going to be the student focused and, two board members are going to know what your questions are because they’re at the meetings.
BARR: Okay, I wasn't sure. LA VERE WRIGHT: So, yeah, Mike and I will be the ones out of the loop. Because we're not on the student board, but we're not. We don't attend those meetings. HEIL: And going back to your first question, I would say don't anticipate what somebody else might be asking. I think ultimately, you guys, you're going to come to a collective decision on what are the two things that you would like to hear about, from, from these people. And then just as Marie said, we will if you if you guys end up coming up with a duplicate, we will we will change our question.
So yeah. BARR: I was just asking, could it may be more difficult to get us all back in one room. HEIL: And that's exactly why it should be up to the individual board member to change their question. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. THOMPSON: You can keep your secret. LA VERE WERIGHT: All right. Okay, so those are due by April 6th. So then the next piece. So then for the questions that they're getting in advance, how much advance are we giving them? HEIL: I think that comes down to a question of when can we then meet.
So if we have the questions April 6th, we could share them as early as April 6th. So then they've got from then until whenever we have that meeting that they would be able to to review those questions. LA VERE WRIGHT: I'm okay with that because I was thinking because if you make it to time limited, it completely depends on what the person's, day life is like. You know, if if you say, well, we're going to give you, you know, we're sending them out the morning. Well, if you work from 9 to 5, you come until six, you never get a chance to look at it.
But someone who does the kind of work I do and works mainly on the weekends is like, oh, well, hey I get to spend the whole day. So it's probably more fair if you're going to give it in advance that you're giving it to work. HEIL: I would, I would, I would want at least a week's lead time. But I don't know what our timeline is that when we need to to have that. Because that next piece that's going to come after the forum is we've got to get through seven applicants, and I don't know whether I want to make that process look like as far as do we want to, you know, multi-tier it, you know, eliminate some and focus on it as a group.
LA VERE WRIGHT: All of that has to be done at a public meeting anyway. Right. I don't think you want multiple more multiple rounds of interviews is not feasible. Okay. I'm not I don't think you're going to get more. I tried to find I was like, is there any way we can submit top three? And then and nope, there is literally Brad and I went through trying to figure out if there was any way to try and cushion it in a way, and there isn't. So what will end up happening is we'll have the forum
and then we will have a date already set where, where the four of us can be there, where we then determine who to appoint. But we can set that date once we know the forum, because Lanette's going to have to get everyone's availability for the next three weeks or whatever, including Saturday. I'm assuming we're going to do Monday. Ask people Monday through Saturday. What is your availability, candidates in US? Because when you're trying to coordinate 11 people or 12 people, because when it has to be to be there to, it's going to get complicated.
And then from that, you know, the what data that we then need to do, an appointment is okay, we all want a couple of days to just think about what we heard, and then we come back and then we go through the motion process and role. I have Brad write something up about, okay, here's a nice process piece on that. But, it essentially means we come in and people start making motions. It's about time we do it. And that part’s stinky. There's just no nice way. I tried, I was like, but, you know, and. THOMPSON: I do think it's a good idea to submit this question.
So for Lanette, just to do a CCC to Brad, just to protect the confidentiality. LA VERE WRIGHT: I guess we can do that. Yes. BARR: I had a question in since it’s a Public Forum. Is it okay if Student Board members come? LA VERE WRIGHGT: Oh, absolutely. It's a public meeting. So it's like any other board meeting. THOMPSON: And we’ll have students at the diais. BARR: Oh LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. THOMPSON: But they but they can also be in the audience. BARR: Oh yeah. Good to know. LA VERE WRIGHT: Okay. So does all of our timeline right now make sense.
The last piece of it we can't set until Lanette is able to find everyone's availability and just, you know, warning it may end up being on a Saturday because it may be the only way to make it work. I don't know. WITHERS: Would the last component. be like, how many minutes we're giving them for answers? LA VERE WRIGHT: So that's the question too is do we want a time limit? Do you want no time limit? Do you want do you want the person who writes the question to suggest a time limit on their question? There's advantages and disadvantages to each.
Right. So I feel like, well, everyone has three minutes. Everyone has the same time. If it's an open ended time, that also gives you a different piece of information about people. So. Just saying. Like. So, you know, it's up to you all. BARR: It may be best to have a time limit because it is seven questions and seven candidates. HEIL: Yeah. THOMPSON: I think three minutes is reasonable to answer a question. WITHERS: I think the laugh was so honest. You know.
Okay. HILTS: Well I thought the phrasing was very delicate. That gives you a different set of information. LA VERE WRIGHT: Yeah. I think, you know, I have some phrases I use at home. You know. THOMPSON: I can't get it in. So more time keeper. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well then the question then becomes THOMPSON: more cowbell. LA VERE WRIGHT:I think it really depends on the question with that timeline. That should be, I think, saying three minutes for every question. When Mike has suggested he's thinking of an in-depth question where you might want someone to have thought about it, that might be longer than three minutes. So maybe the person who writes the question also suggests what the what
their time frame is for their question. HEIL: Could open ended be an option for the timing on a specific question? LA VERE WRIGHT: I'm okay with that. If everyone else is. If you want to designate. THOMPSON: Any on this question? LA VERE WRIGHT: Well that’s it, right? It's your questions and so you decide on your question. What do you think the appropriate time frame is. BARR: The Student Board will default to you on what you think the appropriate time frame is for our questions, because we might be. I imagine that our next meeting we have other things to discuss, but obviously the questions will be the forefront.
All that would talk to the other students, but I don't imagine there be any opposition to allowing the board members to pick the time of the questions, because we might not have time to get to it. THOMPSON: Well, that’s the advantage of being here tonight, you can come up with like sample questions to discuss with the student board. LA VERE WRIGHT: Well you also have questions you've used before too. So yeah, you do. You know what those times are. So you know we can do that. Okay. So does that seem like a fair guideline on all this at this point? Yes. Anything else we need to talk about on this for right now? THOMPSON:
Obstacle courses. LA VERE WRIGHT:All right, then, I believe we're done. For the night, folks.