Where's that? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the October 23rd, 2025 board of education special meeting. The time is 8 is 6:35 p.m. and I am calling this meeting to order. Can I get a roll call? Dvala >> here.
>> Hyle >> here. >> Levier Wright >> here. >> Schmidt >> here. >> Thompson >> here. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? >> I move to approve the agenda.
>> Second. Any discussion? Okay. Can I get a vote? >> Davala. >> I. >> Hy. >> Hi. >> Livia Wright. >> Hi. Schmidt >> I >> Thompson >> I and that passes.
Can I get a motion for action item 2.1? >> I move to approve the resolution for the COP refunding. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Can I get a vote? >> Davala >> I. >> Hyle. >> Hi.
>> Le Wright. >> Hi. >> Schmidt. I >> Thompson. >> I And that passes. Can I get a motion for action item 2.2? >> I move to approve the revised policies in the policy and procedure review.
>> Second. >> Any discussion? Okay. Can I get a vote? >> Dvala. >> I. >> Hyel. >> Hi. >> Le Wright. >> Hi. Schmidt >> I >> Thompson >> I and that motion passes. We are on to
discussion item 3.1 new course request HSED GED courses for online expulsion program. Dr. Lemon. >> Good evening board. Dr. Nancy Lemon, deputy I'm talking. It's not on. Is it on?
>> Okay. Sorry. Great. Caught this all on camera, too. Good evening, Bora. Dr. Dr. Nancy Lamont, deputy superintendent and executive director for individualized education. Um you have before you a file that lists some um courses that we're looking to offer through our online
expulsion program. Um, we find that when we uh have students who may be late in their junior year or senior year, many of them would like to go ahead and get their GED um and move on um either to uh pursue a career in the military or to
pursue a career a job they may already have or other community course colleges courses. So, this would allow us to offer those um courses specifically for their HSED, GED, which is high school equivalency diploma um or the old GED.
Um and it's offered through our egeneuity, the online platform. These would not be taught in um classrooms. Again, they are only offered on our online platform, but they have to be a part of our course catalog that the board approves in order for us to offer
them to a select few. Um, some parents request it, some students request it. Again, just based upon the circumstances that they would like to be able to pursue their GED, be done, and move on. Um, we also, and I should have mentioned this in the cover sheet, so my
apologies. We also have some students that end up in the same situation who are in our alternate ed online program due to receiving a charge of crime of violence or unlawful sexual behavior. they are also moved to our online program while they are pending adjudication of their charges. Also in
that situation some students have asked can I just get my GED um so that I can again manage the legal issues that they are facing um and not consider going back into a traditional brickandmortar um classroom following the adjudication
of their charges. So these are two uh four courses that we would offer through egeneuity only for our online program only. What questions can I answer for you? >> Director Schmidt. Um yeah, when I was looking it over this
afternoon, I was wondering what are test topics? So um so the test topics would be the you take a preliminary um uh C GED test to see
where you are placed as far as do you need to know more about math reasoning? Do you need to know about more about reading graphs? So so those would be based upon the test topics that are going to be covered in the GED. So if you have a certain area where you are deficient, those would be the topics
that are covered in this course. It is really geared towards what specificities you need or specifics you need for um being successful in taking the GED or HSED. Sorry, it's been renamed. >> And I was wondering too um the ELA
social studies and science um they're referred to a little bit different as far as reading for meaning. What's the difference between those >> in the reading for meaning versus oh in social? So again, the GED is really
testing for comprehension. Can you read for the meaning of the passage? Um do you understand what the passage is telling you? Can you respond to questions regarding this passage? So it's for comprehension. So reading for meaning would be reading for comprehension. And again, it's specifically geared towards what you
need to do on the HSED exam. So, ELA, uh, social studies or science, it's all kind of the same, >> right? You're reading for content. You're reading for comprehension. Can you understand what this passage is telling you? >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Students, do you have any questions about this? Okay. Murray, >> we can just make sure it's position. That would be awesome. I don't um because it was cutting out, I wasn't
sure if this was answered. I'm assuming kids who are enrolling in this would be taking the GED test rather than completing graduation requirements and getting >> correct. So what we are trying to do is we are trying to decrease the number of
dropouts. So when we have students that have completed their high school requirements, they either are um graduated with the diploma, they're a completer, or they're a dropout. And we have this would allow us to code them as completers as opposed to dropouts for
again our students who are expelled or our students who may be on alternate ed that just go, I'm out of here. I'm done. I'm not doing anything. um they would not take the test with us. Those testing sites are down in D11. Um at Mitchell, I believe is where it's offered. Um but
they can take a pre-EST through Egeneuity. We can Egeneuity would help us learn where they need to improve their skills in order to pass the GED. And then these courses is where they would be assigned in order to again increase their skills in order to pass
the GED. um they would remain expelled or on alternate ed through the school um or through the district but they would have their GED and can be they would be coded as a completer and can move on with whatever uh their journey takes them in life. Um because really uh we have there we
all know teenagers or are aware of some who made some pretty bad choices in the middle and then when they start to straighten it out can't find a path back um and start to feel like it's too late. And this provides that path back for
kids who've dropped the ball and are trying to climb their way back. Um, it lets them see an opportunity um to change course and to get back on track because the reality is if it was going to take them until 21 to get their diploma, they're probably not staying.
This gives them the path to get some of that skill set and then be able to qualify into getting other training outside of high school. And so I think it's a great opportunity to provide those students um that ramp and and that that path to becoming successful adults.
So I'm fully in favor of it and Egeneuity is a great platform. I know Spring Studio used it with my son when he was at middle school and it worked wonders for him. I just also want to say that for the students who are currently expelled, we are finding great success with our online program with the way
we're running it right now. The position you approved last year, um it is going swimmingly well. Um we actually have some great activity and contact with those students for October one will be funded for those students. Um because of again the engagement that they've had,
but there are one or two that I'm done. Um I I'm ready to just get my GED and move on with life. So as I mentioned in the cover sheet, it's very few but the online expulsion program alternate ed program is going amazingly well. I am we are extremely pleased by the
participation parents engagement. So >> well I think it is awesome. If there are no objections this will be moved forward. >> Thank you. >> Okay we are on to 3.2 star math performance up update.
I I haven't said anything, so I appreciate that. Christina Tieran, coordinator of math performance. Good evening, members of the board. Um, so I'm here to talk to you about StarMath. I That says EOI. I I raced through the
the year, I guess, so I apologize. I was just sitting next to Yuki and I said I think that said EOY shucks. I apologize. Please forgive me for that. We're going to start by talking about um proficiency. And when we're talking about proficiency, we're talking about
our students that are meeting or exceeding um on STAR math and that will correlate um to um what will happen in the spring as far as uh SEMASS as well
as PSAT and SAT. Right now, this slide tells us um our STAR math proficiency for grades 1 through 11. I put on here last year um as well as this fall um 25 26. Our star
participation rate this year was approximately 96%. Thank you to Kathleen and her team. I don't know how she she does that with uh such a large number of students. Uh if
we reflect all the way back to uh 2122, our proficiency rate was at 31.6. We're still not increasing in the leaps and bounds that would be my dream. Um
but we are increasing. When we start to look at the data in aggregate, we can see that our um middle school math is notably lower than our other grades. So I appreciate
um the strategic objective for middle school achievement. Um it is where it's needed. We need kids students to be high school ready. We need them to be motivated and willing to achieve at high levels at high school and then beyond.
Um so thank you again for keeping that as a strategic objective. My hope would be is that it's not a oneandone is that it is a multi-year objective. when we look at uh fall 24 25 as well as
25 26 specifically if we were to look at the cohort of grade 7 um for 2425 and then look at them 25 26 they would be eighth graders uh so what I see when I'm
looking at that is that what they have learned in seventh grade they are retaining um and uh they're retaining when they're tested here in the fall. So again, when we're looking at this aggregate, um we
we know that it is not as strong as we want it to be at the middle school. We have all of Falcon Middle School and all of Horizon Middle School as part of our mission DNA grant. And from our most
recent attendance last week, I think our secondary um teachers that were in attendance with us can see that this grant and this professional development that they are a part of is so very
important in making the shift within their classroom. The next slide points out who is involved within our mission DNA grant. Last time or with our last grant when I
presented I would pull the data apart looking at different populations such as our military population, our total population. But with this grant we are talking about all students.
all students, any teacher that is part of mission DNA will make an impact on any student that is within their classroom. So when we're looking at the first bar that we have there, we have um
322 students that are affected by the professional development um that is being given in grades three through five. And then we also have another cohort of what we call seasoned teachers
that is they have finished mission DNA grant. They have already finished three years of training and now they're back for more uh with Dr. Julie Dixon and Dr. Thomas Cena Adams and that is 377
students. That may be fluid and fluctuate as we are in a military community. And then our 6 through 12 um we have um just over 3,600 students that are affected by that. So just I wanted to
explain that because this is the first time we're looking at the data like that. Normally it's military um versus total population our math updates. Uh so right now with our mission DNA 2.0 know we have
approximately 110 teachers, leaders, coaches that are involved uh grades 3 through 12 and also this is affecting just over 4,300 students. We are creating a secondary reference library.
We just started that with the help of Greg over here. Um he was in our classrooms videoing our teachers at uh Horizon Middle School so that we can show other teachers the exact instructional moves that are going to
make a difference within a classroom. We started out the year with our affirmation walks at the secondary level. That was something that we stole really from um one of our trips at um NCSM. and that is we're visiting every
single secondary classroom and only sharing positive things that we see within that classroom. We hang that poster on the board um or at the front of the classroom for the teachers to see and then we will ask students what makes
their classroom a special classroom. And that really is the secret sauce right there because once their students start to say what makes their teacher special, that really hits home for some teachers. And we actually had um some of the classrooms we saw teachers had their
posters from last year. So they they really enjoyed that and we'll continue to do that. We just got back from our NCSM NCTM trip to Atlanta, Georgia, Georgia. We did not take 45 people this year. We took 11. That was all that we
had capacity and money to do this year. Um on July 31st, uh we had our um district professional development for 6 through eight math teachers and there's just a quote from uh the AHA system.
Thank you for your time. Okay, any questions from the students? Okay, Director Schmidt, I'm just wondering, it looks like you've got some really nice growth with these seasoned teachers you were talking
about, and I'm just wondering what else can the board do to help this because it's pretty awesome. So I think that when I'm just going to go back to that to that graph the these seasoned
teachers are um they have seen the shift within their own classrooms and they're back for more. So now we're sending these students to our middle school and we need those teachers to be
ready for the teacher the students that are coming along. So we need all teachers to be ready to make these instructional moves within their classroom. So having all secondary teachers involved would be a dream come
true. That isn't currently the case, but that would be a dream come true. We have um along with all of the professional development that is happening, it there
is re research that shows it takes 49 professional development hours for a teacher to make shifts within their classroom that will make measurable growth for student achievement. So coupled with mission DNA, we also need
coaches. We need our coaches that can help and impact on a daily basis. So I know for myself and my team, we were reduced by one coach this year. We have extra title
money. We have just recently hired somebody. But again, if when that title money runs out, that coach is going to be gone. So that impact that daily impact that boots on the ground is so very important. It is the champion that
the teachers need in their corner to support them and more than just the content. Director Dvola, um all of this actually really excites me. Um so thank you again for all the
hard work that you do. I I would love to help with promoting middle school teachers to be a part of this. I don't know if there's like a secret sauce to helping middle school
teachers see the need for it. Um but maybe we can like tap into that. Um and then I just wanted to echo what you said about coaches. It's so effective. Um, this is my second year as a an instructional coach and my first
year I wasn't quite sure what I what I was doing. So, I I helped people, but this year I really know what I'm doing and I've actually seen significant growth from people that I've sidebyside coached with. Um, so yes, coaching is
super important important. And I just wanted a little bit more clarification. I found that really interesting. I saw it in Jam Lynn nodding. You said 49 hours of professional development to make a shift in their classroom. You mean to begin to
see the results of what they're doing? >> Yes. >> And so it's it's taking 49 hours of PD and then things begin to kind of gel >> generally speaking. That's what research shows. So that 49 hours can part of it can be mission DNA, but the biggest
impact could be a coach side by side is what what Jamie just gave us an Jamie Lynn just gave us an example of as well. That really is the biggest impact that we potentially could have. >> Student board, do you have any insight
into coaching or learning new ways to teach math? For me, I wish I did. I happen to have not taken like a specific math course in quite a bit just because I took them all earlier on. So, I I can think of how
different methods might apply to other subjects, but not specifically math. I just it's important to understand that different students will learn differently. I mean, I'm an example given that I'm not even taking further math courses because I've completed pretty much all those credits. So, it'll
really vary a lot. All right, Emma, do you have any thoughts on this? Okay, Deb. So, it would probably really be helpful if we were to do the same middle school
um objective, strategic objective again. Would that be helpful? >> That's what I was trying to say. Yeah, >> got it. Can do. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And thank you for such good implementation of that strategic plan as well. >> Okay, we are on to 3.3 primary literacy update. >> Uh good evening members of the board. Uh my name is Yuki Rockwell. I'm the
interim coordinator of literacy performance. And today um we have an opportunity to look at the primary literacy update. Um and so I'm excited to be able to share some of the the results over the over the past couple of years. So um I always like to root our
work really in our goal. And so one of the things we've talked about over the last uh couple of years is really supporting our K3 students because we know those foundational skills are so critical in uh future success for students from third grade and beyond. Um
so one of our goals just around dibbles is is um ensuring that 80% or more of our students are proficient as measured by that particular assessment. Um, a secondary goal as we as we start to look at like the effectiveness of that work is we should begin to see that move into
other grade levels. And so, you know, we set a goal for third through fifth grade is to really see 85% of students are proficient as measured measured by dibbles 8th or we start to see some of the uh the indicators of being able to achieve that. So, a student may may
achieve 96% reading accuracy because we know when you become an accurate rereader, it impacts so many other things. And we'd also love to see a 50% reduction of students performing well below benchmark. Um, it becomes harder to do as students get older, but we know it's very it is possible. We do move a
lot of students and so um really having just that goal helps to really uh keep our focus on doing what we do. So the first kind of graphic that we have here on the screen comes from the
comparing populations measure. And so I always like to start with this simply because it kind of gives you a snapshot of where we are at the start of this year um compared to um where students were at the end of last year. And so um you can see that we're actually uh
starting in a slightly more favorable favorable position this year. I think a lot of that is the result of some of the work that happened last year. um and we'll be able to take a look at that. Um but you can see that in the previous year from beginning year to end of the year um across K3 uh district operated
and and three of our charter schools we went from 29% of students at risk to reducing that number to 12%. In previous years, um one of the reports that Amplify puts out is kind of a a graphic on the national user base
comparison. And so it's kind of an opportunity to look at how the district is performing versus um that national level data. And so you can see um what we have represented here is on the top you have um just the national movement K3 um for the past two years. And then
below we have our district level data. So you can see over the last two years we've made some significant gains. We've reduced um the number of students who are performing well below. Um, I think in, you know, recent memory, these are probably,
um, some of the highest scores at K3 that we've seen in in a while. So, it's really good to see. I know we've put a lot of of of work into this and so it's great to be able to see that. This is another slide just with a historical trend is um typically you
we've we've shown more years but one of the things that I did is in 2223 we actually shifted um we previously used um a cadence reading as our as our um interim assessment and in 2223 we
shifted to Dibbles 8. And the truth is both assessments really do are a good barometer for uh students who are at risk. But the thing is um they're not kind of an apples to apples comparison. And so now that we have a couple years um I wanted to just really showcase that
transition. And so that's why you only see those two years is because this is a true comparison of that interim assessment. And you can see that um in our first two years, you know, we started at the end of the year, we finished with 73% of K3 students who were at and above um we have hit 77% and
we're right on the um right on the doorstep of really um aiming for that 80% because we know that when we can close the gaps in K3, um we can set students up for future success. Um, the next three slides just kind of tie into that second goal because again
what we want to see is we want to see that K3 work really transition and move into the work that we're doing um in older grade levels because um those foundational skills are critical for what we all know why reading is so important. It impacts every every facet
of life. Um so um this is just kind of a snapshot. What you're going to see on these slides is the students at a grade level who are starting the beginning of the year who are at and above. Um it has the percentage of students who are at risk performing at well below. And then
the accuracy um just shows um how many students are proficient with with that rate um for those specific grade levels because we know when you become an accurate reader that feeds into your rate at which you read but it also impacts comprehension. you you know you
fall below 96% if you remove 10% of words from a passage even as adults we would struggle to be able to make meaning of that text. Um so this is just um where our fourth graders are currently performing here at the start of the year with those same
metrics. And then we have our fifth grade group as well. And then, you know, a couple of the other pieces that we've added to this is just that star early literacy. Um, and so we have kindergarten proficiency and
first grade proficiency rates. And so those rates um for the fall of 2025 are posted here uh with 55% and 60% of kindergarten and first graders um currently um performing in that proficiency range. Um kindergarten, just
as a reminder, does not have a growth score because they only have taken the test one time. So there's nothing to compare it to. Um but at at a middle of the year we will be able to calculate um how students are performing based on growth as well.
And then this is another interesting snapshot and again I hope that you know our work in K3 will continue we'll continue to see these results increase as well. Um but this is just uh current fall performance for dibbles 8. The middle column just represents um the
students who were performing at the fluency rate and then we have the uh fallstar reading scores side by side. So you can see that there is a pretty strong correlation of you know those foundational skills really do impact um you know measures of comprehension and
so we want to make sure that we're continuing to really um work towards increasing um those foundational skills so that students can access um meaning from text. And then the final slide um you know as as the board has really kind of um you
know just set those strategic objectives I wanted to include um a slide that just really focuses on middle school. So again it shows the same two criteria of of where students are entering um at fall proficiency and also include their grow scores as well. um uh as this is
something that really our end goal we know there's a huge shift as you get older is you can read the words but there's a lot more to reading when it comes to comprehension. So how are we really leveraging opportunities um to really help students be able to navigate that shift and it starts much earlier
than middle school but again the complexity of text increases and it doesn't stop. So, and then just as far as some literacy updates, um you know, 10 years ago, I think when I first came to the district, uh was the first time that primary
literacy meetings uh were created as an opportunity to really build leadership. Um this year, I think there's a great opportunity to really kind of refine those processes. Um, initially it was really about building knowledge, really figuring out like what where do our
priorities need to be? Now we're really focusing focusing in on alignment. Um, you know, making sure that the the steps we're putting in place, we're really actually putting it to test to find out like is this work having the impact that we want. Um, so you know, I'm focusing
th that time um to really make sure that alignment from district level meetings to building level meetings to school level meetings um are really aligned to a school's strategic objectives as they've analyzed their data. So super excited about that. Um we have Strive uh
consulting happening in middle school and that process has already been um it's been phenomenal. Um I've already we we are doing some work around instructional frameworks and really uh focusing our attention um on small moves to really make big impact when it comes
to reading instruction. And then with the finals, you know, strategic objective just um I've listed out some of the the different measures that different zones are implementing around making sure that we're really improving writing achievement across the district. So, you know, when we're thinking about
writing across curriculum, each zone has some different models and things they're implementing, and this represents just a small amount of the work that those zones are doing. And um are there any questions for me at this time? Director Hy,
>> I just wanted to thank you for presenting that because um there are some folks who like to look at our CAMASS scores and say outrageous things like that means that uh x percentage of our students can't read.
And this right here is literally the the literacy measure. And so you're showing us that, you know, at the end of the last year, 77% of our um K through three students were at or above um benchmark. So um just wanted to point that out to
our community um because sometimes they're uh encountering some misinformation. Here's here's the real scoop. So thank you for presenting that. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. We're going to go with Director Schmidt and then we'll go to Unikos. Okay. >> Okay. I am curious, is strive an
acronym? And if it is, what does it stand for? >> You know, I don't know the acronym of that. I I'll have to look it up. I'm sorry. I don't know that off the top of my head. >> That's fine. I don't know how you remember five letters or six letters, whatever it is. Um, and
can we repeat this strategic objective for you guys, too? Should we do this for you guys again? >> Yeah, I absolutely. I think I think that would be great. I mean, I think the work that we've done has really we we've shown some progress. I think there's still room, you know, there's tremendous
opportunities for growth still. Um, but I I think having our um our attention focused on the things that really move things for students and help them become proficient readers is important. So, absolutely. >> Okay, we're going to go to Nikos and then Marie has a question. So, go ahead,
Nikos. >> I guess first off, I'll take a stab at what strive might mean. I thought of super terrific, really inventive, verifiable education. Uh I can't confirm that, but it sounds like it could be good enough. Uh I also wanted to specifically note kind of the benefit with that increasing median growth
because six was at 51, 7th at 53, and eighth at 54. And I think that that's definitely important to note because it shows that that foundation is established and continuing to be built upon as well. like they're continuing to get more understanding growth rather
than less, which I know for some people it's difficult because they miss those foundational bits and then they just fall behind from there, but that's not happening here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, are you going to get Marie on?
>> Marie, you're on. So my question was on that kindergarten beginning of year data because that's getting higher and higher and we've had changes in preschool. Are we tracking whether or not um they were enrolled in a preschool program whether our district
or not and how that's correlating to their beginning of year scores at all? >> That's a great question and um I think I I don't know the specific answer to that question. Um, I'd have to stock talk to Stacy. Um, I know there is a process
that's that's in place. Um, you know, they do tr uh they do track um students who enroll through preschool. I think that's a great opportunity for her and I to connect to build some, you know, opportunities to really collaborate around that. I think that's a great suggestion, but um off the top of my
head, I do not know if um that information is available. >> You know, I just wanted to make a comment. I've heard multiple wonderful things about you. just so you know. Um, but uh you hit the nail on the head with the foundation because when you look at
history, geography, social studies, if you've got the good foundation of reading skills, it will track over to so many important subjects to include math. And so I want to thank you for all the hard work you've put into our students. Does anyone else have any other
questions or comments? Oh, Director Dvola, >> thank you for everything that you do. It's amazing. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Two comments. Strive is not an acronym. >> It's a business name. So, own owned by
Debbie Hunacher. And uh the acronym BOI must mean bring on Yuki. >> Well, thank you guys for your time today. I appreciate that. >> Okay. I like that one. Okay, we are now on to draft one of
JBAA-R regulating access to sex segregated facilities. >> Uh, >> and by the way, real quick, do you want to wait for Mr. Farmer? I know he's going to be here any minute or you think it's >> uh I am I am comfortable jumping in. Um,
>> speak of >> I was going to say speak of the devil, but that's not a way to introduce your legal counsel. Speak of the angel. >> The night is young. >> So, um,
drafting this regulation is one of the more, uh, complex things that I've gotten to do in 35 37 years in education. And it's because almost everything that we have to contemplate with this regulation is either new
ground or it is subject to conditions that simply haven't existed before. And so what you have in this regulation is incredibly unusual. I know I've never presented one like this
before. Um but as I as I talked with some of you with our our superintendent cultural leadership advisory council with some students not the full student board um what I quickly realized was that we tend to think about the
implementation of policy JBA along a spectrum of intensity or severity or strictness. And so uh I tried to draft a regulation that gave the board options. There are options that are more
structured. Um those provide a little bit more uh control of the of the implementation. There are options that are much less structured uh and they provide less control. And then there are
some that are in the middle. And as as we go through these uh and I don't intend to read them to you, but as we go through them, um I will let you know that where there is an asterisk, which I believe there is an asterisk on on four of the five, uh that asterisk represents
um a degree of administrative consensus, not always unanimous consensus, but consensus that of the three options, the one that makes the most sense is this. where we did not have any discernable consensus was on number five having to do with accommodations. And so, um, what
I would like to do is is just kind of introduce the five variables and then give the board the opportunity to to draw me in. And so the way we framed this is not it's not
exactly written in this policy, but the way we framed it was through a set of questions. So section one is designed to answer this question. Does my biology match this facility?
That's the question that we're trying to answer. And so who answers that question matters. how they answer that, whether they know to even ask that. Those are all regulation kinds of items, implementation kinds of items. So, question one, is there a match?
Does the biology of the bathroom user match the facility, the designation of the facility? Wow, I didn't mean to do that. Section two answers the question, who may and by what protocols may they
report a suspected violation? And there are more strict ways and more uh open flexible ways and something that's somewhat balanced. Section three, who may investigate
alleged violations and by what protocols may they investigate and again a range of possibilities for the board to consider. We will not take this regulation forward for action with three options. My challenge to the board is to select an option out of each of the
sections and then we'll consolidate. Section four. If it is determined that a violation has happened, what consequences might be assigned? Pretty straightforward. Question five.
If an individual requests an accommodation, how might we accommodate their need for an alternate uh bathroom facility? And so in each case you can see that there are options and I would like to
simply make myself available to respond. I'm sure Mr. Farmer would be able to respond. Uh I will I will tell you though this is radically complicated because we're talking about at least
five distinct populations. District 49 students, District 49 workforce, guests in District 49 schools, adults who are visiting from outside of district 49, and students who are
visiting from outside of district 49. We have to treat every one of those populations differently. So, we're trying to write one universal regulation and that's very challenging. It's very complicated. And so I discharge to the board responsibility to debate, discuss,
clarify, and select options or perhaps propose new options. >> So on number five, that's where there was no consensus reached as far as which one would be the best choice to recommend. >> That is correct.
Because when I look at them, I look at especially for visitors that C makes the most sense to have some accommodation available when we have people who are visiting our schools. Nikos, >> yeah, I actually had thoughts personally
specifically on section 5C. I something that came to mind immediately if that were the option is what what exactly does freely use mean? Does this mean that there are private accommodations that are always accessible or does
freely mean you have to go and still access a key or something to use these facilities? Because if this is a single private stall situation that can be freely used and locked and things, then that would go to issues that had been previously addressed concerning safety
in such an environment. And I'm assuming by family style that that's one that might have both a urinal, a toilet, a diaper changing station, something like that. >> That's a correct assumption. Yeah. Okay. We don't have very many like that. Uh and the challenge with section five is
that we have a lot of evening events in settings that only have sexspecific communal restrooms available. Think about a football facility. Unless we bring in something like portaotties,
all bathrooms are communal and all bathrooms would be uh designated by sex. >> Director Schmidt. >> Um I lean towards structured option. Um but I do worry about
the staff restrooms. We need to minimize staff restrooms because staffs and students can't be together. So when you're using a staff restroom, is that only for the students who request it or do staff still use it?
>> In the structured option, that's hot. in the structured option 5A the single access or or yeah single stall often that's called
that that's often the configuration of a staff restroom um would be available to individuals who have permission to use it which could be D49 students or D49 guests during the school day or staff
members so it wouldn't be exclusive for any one of those populations on a serial basis throughout the day, but it would be exclusive at the moment that an individual uh is using it. >> Okay, Marie.
>> So, my preference would be the balanced option. Um I think that that's what essentially has been happening for the past 12 years um since the masses decision where students were able to
request accommodation and I think having the counselor as an option instead of just the building administrator is helpful. Um, there may also be other reasons we've discussed about um, in the past for people um, wanting to use a
single stall bathroom. I think that the balanced option also lets that be considered rather than making this just about gender identity. Um, but I think that gives the buildings the best flexibility to look at it. You're still requesting it as an accommodation for
access. Um, I'm concerned about the C option because so for example, if you're teaching at the high school, there's one staff bathroom in a hallway for eight teachers who have to pee on their three-minut break. Um, and that's the
only single stall bathroom in that wing and student. So, we don't want that to be accessed and the teachers aren't going to access the multistall bathroom because they're not going to go in the bathroom that the students are using generally um for a variety of reasons.
Uh so, I think opening it to the variable is going to cause an issue for our teachers to be able to actually adequately pee. Um to be frank, uh but we have been allowing the balanced option. I personally know students who
were able to access those bathrooms whose teachers were aware to let them use the key. Um, and that has been working for 12 years. So, it seems to be to me to balance um to really continue with what was already working in terms
of that component of it. >> And I believe that also aligns with the I can't think of the House bill number, but Director Dola. Yeah. Um, so I'm leaning towards more the balance option. However, I think we
should tweak it a little bit. So, um, because it says individuals may request reasonable accommodations through the building administrator or counselor. I would think that we would want it to be one person so that the building administrator is aware of that and and
not just solely a counselor making that decision and the principal or the building administrator not knowing that that choice has been made. Um, and then also it says requests may be made confident confident I can't read that
word confidentially. Thank you. Without supporting documentation um uh we would want to make sure that parents know about the request and that parents approve their reasonable accommodation. So somewhere in that phrase we need to say individuals with
parent approval or individuals with the notification of parents may request reasonable accommodation. We have to make sure that parents are aware of those accommodations as well. >> Nikos, >> I was also thinking that B seems to be
the generally well balanced option given its name but definitely modified slightly as it was said. I think that there is issue with the contrast between an administrator versus a counselor and it's just interesting the clause at the end may be made confidentially. I feel
like kind of a mix between options A and B an intermediate between those could be primarily following B's balance of requesting the administration not administration accommodation without advanced prior administrative approval just for efficiency in things such as
events. But I definitely do also believe that with that balanced option, it would be beneficial to include documentation, whether that's from a parent to approve or from the school to notify the parent and also just to notify between counselors and administrators that this
is happening and that these particular individuals are approved at these times. >> Director Hy. >> Yes. So, um, in my heart of hearts, I prefer the variable option because I think that we're talking about a basic
biological function and we're talking about the health of our students and putting up barriers in between, you know, students and being able to, you know, use the bathroom is creating um, you know, serious concerns for them. I spoke with one parent whose child is
attempting to use the single-user bathroom in their school and the finding that the door is locked and nobody's available to unlock it. When they do find um somebody who can unlock it and they ask for the key, they get asked very intrusive questions and as a result
that student is avoiding all fluids and trying not to use the bathroom during the entire school day. That's a problem. Um, but I also recognize that the variable option also opens us up to a different issue, which is that, um, if
you have free use of a, you know, of a lockable bathroom, you're going to have some students who use as as an opportunity to do things that they should not be doing behind locked doors. So, um, it seems like the balanced option is probably the most workable. I
really don't think that we need to be probing our students for um you know asking them uncomfortable questions in order to use a bathroom. If they want to use that bathroom, we should just you know go ahead and allow that. >> Superintendent Health. >> So let me clarify this is the discussion
you're having is part of partly kind of recapitulates the discussion the cabinet had. there are some logistical challenges and there are some we have some caution about um broad availability of lockable single stall. So, one one
possible technical solution um that I considered, rejected, and then adopted again in my mind at least is what I call the airplane laboratory model where and we have some of these already in the district. Um where the bathroom
has an unlocked handle that has a green indicator vacant. When you go in and lock it, it turns red. So that means we would have a single occupancy bathroom that is normally unlocked, therefore available without a key, but we would have to sign that
bathroom very carefully and say this is exclusively for staff use or those with a prior permission. We don't have to say why they have prior permission. We can just generally say now those extra those locks, they're cool and we like them because you're not rattling the door on
somebody in the bathroom. those locks are not inexpensive. And so I rejected this idea because we got 300 of those bathrooms around the district, but we don't have 300 instances of people requesting accommodations. In fact, we might not have a dozen. And so we could
reasonably purchase enough of those locking mechanisms to provide them in instances where we have a request for accommodations. I think this actually strengthens the B option and is the
result of some good dialogue with with uh our logistics teams as well as our administrative teams on the cabinet. >> And then I have a question since we are just now working on this policy um it's not being implemented in any way in any of our schools. So I would pass on to
that family that it's nothing they need to worry about until we >> complete this. Director Schmidt. >> Well, this is their lived reality today even before that policy goes into force. >> Director Schmidt. So, it's sounding like the balanced option is where everybody's kind of leaning. So, I'm going to go
with that and and agree with uh Director Dvala about it just being the build building administrator and not a counselor because I think with as important as this subject is, it should be a building administrator. It should
be a principal. Um, I do like the idea of the little locks. We could move those around a little bit if need be. >> Um, and I do think parents need to be in there somewhere along the line. I don't know if that's what's considered
supporting documentation in this. >> Well, because it's a negative without supporting documentation. Um this is intentionally a contrast to other dialogue that we've had including around
policy the JBAA proper policy um where we talked about um potentially requiring documentation of of sexual identity or documentation of need for accommodation.
Uh and in this B we're essentially saying that we trust the requesttor that it is a good faith request. >> Well, and I think director Levier Wright said it correctly that it's not always about gender identity. There are other people who can have a need for privacy.
Nikos, you had your hand up first. The issue that I could see with those locks with the the turning the airplane bathroom locks is one it's a highly fluid thing. So at this time we could
buy locks for currently existing requests but then the very next day there could be five more. And I know if I was working within the building I wouldn't be like okay I got to go around oh there's a new lock I got installed today and one the next day and one the next day. And the other issue that does
lie with that is that it still is providing the opportunity for students to access a lockable room which just has other issues that go along with that. So it does. So two things. One, the
accommodation sky is not falling. Your your example is hyperbole. It's not accurate. There won't be five new requests. And it's not that we know this. We know this from at least 13 years of managing it. It's a very low frequency event. And so, um, creating
the option for accommodation does not reasonably mean that it will explode and it will have many dozens of of requests, but we'll have some. And my my prior concern, I use this metaphor that you don't put you don't take down a fence till you know why it was put up. There are reasons we don't generally
give students access to lockable spaces. But we do give students access to lockable spaces under limited conditions and including we have given students keys to staff restrooms and health room restrooms. Um as director Olivia Wright
pointed out, we've actually been managing this really well for a dozen years. And so while there are ways that individuals might ab not just students, individuals might abuse access to a lockable door,
it's a good doctrine when you're trying to provide accommodations to create the right condition and then manage the exceptions. And so it is reasonable, for example, if we were deciding where to put that airport lock
in a school, I would prefer to put it in a hallway that has a reasonably good interior camera already installed. So that if we ended up having to investigate who went into that restroom, we could pretty readily identify, oh, that was a person who had prior
authorization. That was a staff member, that was an adult guest that we invite. Oh, that was a student that we know doesn't have permission and they walked right past the sign that said you're not permitted in here. And then we we have a disciplinary response to that.
>> The other thing that I was thinking of is in life you can always run into an emergency situation where the structured plan may not work. So I think to have some type of a emergency exception might be worthwhile.
Director Dvola, >> we agree, but you don't want to put that in your regulation. You want to you want to trust good administrators will make good faith decisions. >> Director Dvola. >> Well, I just know from having students currently in my building who who are
required to use the health office restrooms because of behavioral issues. um we would want to make sure that we have um we're not going to limit it um by saying like the documentation or things like that. However, I do believe
that parents need to be notified. So, that's got to be in there somewhere. Um of of hey, your um student is requesting to use this for this reason. Um do you say yes or no and why etc. So, um,
whether that's for behavioral or not, because we have students that are in our building who are required to, but that's after having a conversation with parents and letting them know, hey, it would be best if your child uses this because of this behavior issue and parents are
aware that they're using the office facility. So, it it would be a relatively simple logistical administration to require that student requests for accommodations either be approved by the parent or or the parent be noticed. That that would
be reasonable. Um, Lynette, are you tracking these notes? I'm not taking notes. Okay. Um, I appreciate that. I I think I have enough clarity from the board um to select option B to
incorporate some degree of parent notification for student requests for accommodations to retain that it doesn't that we'll make good faith assessments without documentation and to create a single path of request
with the building administrator. Right? I think those are the four. >> Yes. >> All on B. And I'm happy to to reddraft section five. That is 20% of the way home. >> Do we want to start with one and go
down? >> You beat me to that comment. >> Is there any pizza left? I could go get pizza while you guys sort this out. Emma, >> so for this policy, would it only be
during school hours for all five groups that you talked about? No, it would it would there would be time and place constraints.
And so it would absolutely include what we would normally call school hours, sort of from when workforce staff arrive to when they are leaving. And it would include the time during the day when we have classes that we kind of think of as the school day. But it would also
include after school when our students are working with our workforce in our building where our board has set this expectation. So if somebody were there at 4:30, it would not be all bets are off.
The JBAA carriage has turned into a pumpkin and we don't have to worry about No, it would still apply. Where it gets literally impossible is when we have an evening event with members of the community, students from other districts or or guests that are invited. We simply have
no way of enforcing, investigating, or consequencing outside of the school day. And the school day sort of extended into co-curricular into the afternoon, early evening. >> Okay. So, on to number one.
Um, I do like the balanced option and I'd like to hear some feedback. Director Schmidt. >> Well, it looks like the structured option and the balanced option start exactly the same. Well, all three of them do, don't they? Um, I would prefer
for administrators to verify birth biology and cameras. I don't know. I'm weird about cameras. I'm not big on cameras. Um, but you got to look at it somehow. like you said, maybe in a very busy um
hallway, but I'm I'm more leaning toward the structure option. Um it just seems like I just don't want the honor system because I know teenagers. I've had them and I have grandchildren that are teenagers and not necessarily
always honorable. Mikos. >> Uh, first before I note on section one, jumping back a little bit, perhaps some language somewhere within the policy noting along the language of like sanctioned time of district building
usage is where it applies because I feel like that is it in there. Am I blind? >> Well, if it if it wasn't in there, just to make sure it's clear that it includes those kind of gray area times, otherwise that's going to cause issues, I'm sure.
As for section one, I have concerns definitely part of it within the structured option particularly with the ending sentence administrators will verify birth biology and use cameras and things. I assume that verification is based on birth certificate.
Okay. Cuz other otherwise I that would definitely not be good. And I assume that the intent behind it as well was cameras externally from the restroom like in those hallways. Would that include the implementation of newer cameras like
directly on doorways if it's not there or is this just where it applies cameras in the hallway? Hopefully. Director Ohio. >> So, um I just I prefer the balanced option here. Um just a little concerned
about the all facilities um because um you know being male or female obviously we would want to be able to label neutral ones as well. Uh so I just wanted to to throw that out there. But I really really hate the idea of asking
one of our um security staff or something to become a bathroom monitor. I think that we have bigger security issues going on throughout the school. We want to make sure that they're keeping an eye on everything and um we this isn't such a big issue that they
need to be monitor, you know, paying close attention to that. Our schools are small communities. Everybody knows everybody and so if there is a violation we would expect to receive a report and um so I don't think that we need to be
dedicating people to spend hours on this. I think what it would be a soulless job that nobody would want and we would probably lose employees. >> Director Dvola. Um, so to kind of help answer Nikos's question, um, I'm pretty
positive that there's already cameras, um, for ba like the monitoring of the bathrooms because most of the incidences that occur that are behavioral problems happen in the bathrooms. And so, um, that's like the one place that the camera really is. Um, however, I also
agree I don't think we should have direct observation and monitoring. I don't think that's a good use of anyone's time. Um, I do like the balanced option. However, for the administrators who rely on the honor system, I would actually say administrators administrators will
verify birth biology uh using original birth certificate or uh some sort of evidence from when they registered at into the district um instead of just the honor system. My only thought with that is we're
getting on to a kind of the next phase which is infractions. And so I think that's kind of covered where if they didn't honor the honor system that will be covered in the next one. But that's just my thoughts. Nikos, >> the issue with that is that if option A
was chosen in its entirety, not option A, option B, is that administrators will rely on our system and selfre and self-regulation, but will not engage in verification, which I feel like with that particular language would kind of go against any infractionary
instances. I also did have one clarifying question which goes across a lot of it. What exactly does signage clarifying entail? Is that like the generic pictographic depiction of like male, female, or additional?
>> If a if I may clarify and respond, we probably have enough enough things for me to respond to to to jump in for a moment. Um, one, there there is never and will never be a camera inside a restroom. There are limited cameras outside restrooms. Our current
installation would not provide enough visibility to actively monitor. So if we chose an option or or expected active monitoring, if we were counting on cameras, we we would have to purchase and install uh cameras. It would be very
expensive. Um but there is there is never I just want to make sure we're saying on the record, no cameras are are in bathrooms ever. um in terms of the the idea of of verifying
or not verifying. Um if you do not verify, you will be in a more passive or reactive mode to potential violations. If you do verify, you are in a proactive mode. I will tell you why as cabinet we
thought this was this system uh balance option B without monitoring or verification. The reason that we thought that was the preferred option is because we know that incredibly high percentages of our
students and workforce will not require any monitoring or verification and it is intrusive to monitor and verify. And so we are we are seeking a measure O of preserving dignity and reducing
intrusive verification and monitoring acknowledging that that might at least initially result in more violations, but then we have a plan to respond to that. So that that I'm speaking on behalf of the cabinet. I may not be getting every single member of the cabinet's
perspective exactly right, but we we certainly oppose the idea of asking our staff to monitor people or or to observe people. And yet we recognized that option C was super toothless and didn't
really accomplish the purpose of JBAA. So that's why we landed on direct on >> director li right. Yeah, I think that option B, balanced option is the best and realistically uh you need the additional information
on signage because in every other place in the state of Colorado, the expectation is different because of what Colorado state law is. So, if we're expecting something different than what every other place that someone who is
transgender may access in the entire state of Colorado, they deserve fair warning. Um, and that's what that signage does is let them know what that designation is so that you're not ending up with an inadvertent violation of the policy. Um,
and I, you know, I I think the honor system and self-regulation is also the better way to go. Again, we've had 13 years of experience of this being handled fairly well and so I think our building leaders already are aware and so obviously our the students in terms
of um what the situation is. So I think that provides your your best option for moving forward. So, I'll just say very quickly, yes, we would need textbased signs. And if the board were to choose several of these options, reference signs. So, if the
board were to choose an option that references signs, then we would give you proposed language of those signs, actually mock them up and show you what they would look like. >> Emma, and then Director Schmidt. Um, I'm just curious, are other
districts already doing this or are we kind of trailblazing on this? Okay. Director Schmidt, >> if the board is heading towards the balanced option, I would also say we need to verify birth biology with a
birth certificate with the administrators originally and then you know the kid needs to go where he needs to go or she needs to go or he she needs to go or they need to go already on file when students register.
So, I'm not sure we're going through and looking like you basically pull up their student profile and it says it I had to submit birth certificates for every single one of my kids when I registered them. Director Dvola.
>> So I think I'm a I'm I'm thinking through this and I think there might be some issues or problems with what you were saying um that would the verifying go like where how
would we verify unless there is a violation? Right? So, we're not going to go and say, "You're assigned to that bathroom. You're assigned to this." Like, we're not going to do that with every single kid. Is that kind of what I'm hearing? >> And and we're not going to hand out wristbands and we're not correct or
passes. >> I'm just I'm thinking if we already have their original birth certificate, it would be fairly easy to say, "Hey, that was a violation. We have the birth certificate that shows that you're
this." Right? So that would come on the other end with the enforcement piece. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um because yeah, I I don't know how Yeah, cuz I don't want to go and be like we're verifying every single student's birth biology. So that would
be very time consuming. So I understand the rationale for why we wouldn't want that. At the same time, we want to make sure we are verifying um that if there are ones that are using the wrong facility that we would um be able to do so.
>> Director Schmidt, I don't look at it so much as getting someone in trouble per se. I look at it as a person is asking for accommodation. We need to verify their birth biology and give them that accommodation. That's how I'm seeing
this. Can I say something director Dvola? >> Um so uh this is not with the accommodation piece. So this is just in general this is how we're going to label the facilities.
This is how administrators are going to rely on on what system in order to verify it right versus number five. So if we wanted to put something in number four, number five,
that would be the accommodations piece because number five is the accommodation piece. >> So section one, all options, the word facilities implies common facilities, not the single-use
facilities. So all all community facilities should be labeled male or female. the single stall or single use would continue to be essentially neutral. Um but that's not the language we use. We would use staff or by
permission. >> Director Hy. >> Yeah. Um so the balanced option is basically saying that we're going to put up the signage. We're going to expect that our students use the correct bathroom and we're not going to actively monitor the the ver verification piece
of it comes when there are um reported violations and that's covered with other >> sections of this. So we could get to that when we get there. >> It's covered in section two. >> So what I'm hearing is that we're leaning towards the balanced option.
>> Okay. I see more head nods than headshakes. So we're going to section two reporting of suspected violations and the cabinet is recommending the structured off option. >> Correct. >> Director Schmidt.
The only thing I would change is that the reports can be submitted by any individual including guests who directly observe or receive that credible information. I agree with the rest of it, but it
shouldn't just be only district employees because they might not have seen it. Maybe uh a parent saw it or a student from another school saw it. Well, that wouldn't be the case, but a student saw it. Um I think any
individual should be able to report. Director Hut. >> So I read this as saying that um the district employee can report but that is based on receiving credible information. So that receipt of credible information
could come from anybody in our buildings. Um, but I understand too that um in our um SKEAC conversations that we wanted to make sure that nobody was going to be able to use like an anonymous reporting tool simply because you can get you know false reports um
you know we we've seen honest um you know misgendering in this building. Um but also um you know with students it could be something where they're um attempting to you know bully or whatever. So, we want to make sure that um you know, we're talking to somebody
who has a genuine um you know, concern before we start uh investigating. >> Nikos. >> Yeah, I was just going to pretty much say the same. definitely in opposition of option B, the balanced one here, because I definitely think that the
benefits that can lie and anonymity in a reporting system don't really outweigh the negatives that come with the usage of systems for mass scale bullying. And particularly in our current world with technology, I know probably 15 people
who would know how to code a bot that instantly like spams an online system at least and that could be used maliciously. So I would definitely say option A, the structured one here would be generally applicable. And kind of
going with what Director Schmidt said, that ver that credible information does still allow for non- staff members to make reports to an extent, but only with credibility. >> Director Schmidt. >> Well, okay. So, now I'm questioning when
it says reports may be submitted, are we talking about written reports? Are these written reports? this would become part of our code of conduct for workforce and students. So when we believe we have a conduct
violation, we document that. We report that. And I'll be really blunt. I only trust district employees and frankly only only trained district employees to handle that regulatory nitroglycerin with the
appropriate care. Um, I am going to take five minutes and go disenroll Nikos from his computer science course. And >> so >> when I return, I'd like I'd like to explain why we were so emphatic about this. We know that individuals can still
use safe to tell to provide us information. And I'm going to give you an example of something. You heard me say pretty emphatically, we will never put a camera in a bathroom or a locker room. That does not mean that we have never reviewed camera or video evidence
from a bathroom or a locker room. We have had submissions via safe to tell where someone took an image. We would never authorize that. We would never initiate that. But if we get a picture of somebody being beat up, using an illicit drug, engaging in a harassment
or or or violation of some kind, if we get it and we can see that it is credible, then we are obligated to move forward on that. But that obligation does not attach to an anonymous individual, to a student. It attaches to licensed employees of the district. And
so if we consider this a disciplinary violation, the proper people to make reports about disciplinary violations are school employees, not I would draw that circle fairly small. And I would caution the board. This is
the place where you are most likely to get a complaint potentially a legal process um is by misadministration of the reporting process. Second, the very close second is the investigation process. But this one, this one um gives
me some gives me great pause. >> I know. Um but you had actually had your hand up and director Levier Wright is waiting as well. So if director Schmidt's okay, I'm going to go to director Dola and then director Levier Wright. Um
so I understand what you're saying. I still think there needs to be some clarification that staff, students, parents or guardians still can submit a report or a concern that then would be
reviewed by the district employees to see if it was credible. I don't know if that's in there. I mean it says it says by district employees who directly observe or receive credible information but the receiving credible
information doesn't say that it can be from any source. >> Okay. >> Did Tim want to >> I raised my hand. Um yeah you hit on something I I I had to read this a few times because I had the same I don't know that the word report is the right
term. term. It should almost be like complaint or like formal report or formal complaint because then it says from any credible source. Well, wouldn't that credible source be a report from a student or a visitor or it it makes it sound like uh somebody could violate our
bathroom policy and be witnessed by 10 students and unless somehow an employee was involved in that and the students went and told an employee, hey, whatever, it's a boy in the girl's bathroom, whatever. That they would say, well, I didn't see it. So, we can't file
a report. Sure, they could, right? >> Like to me, it should say like formal report can only be filed by staff or a complaint can only be filed by staff. But anybody can report and say, "Hey, I saw this thing." Right? >> So, we're using the word report three
times in the paragraph and two different ways. Um, in the third sentence, it could reasonably changed be changed to anonymous allegations will not be accepted. But report is the language we
use when we put something into power school if it's a student or into our disciplinary system if it's a workforce member. So, it's the right terminology in the second sentence for sure. Reports shall be filed in writing directly to the building principal or senior
administrator. That's that middle. I'll stand pretty hard on the middle sentence. Um, I could I could accept that. Um, maybe something like, forgive me, I'm exting here, reports may be submitted
only after a district employee substantiates by direct observation or receipt of credible information an allegation about a violation, something like that. Um, as I said, anyone can make an
allegation, anybody can make a claim, but just because somebody made an anonymous claim, that shouldn't land in power school. That shouldn't land in a disciplinary record. It should only land there after it has been vetted by a
district employee. specifically it it should land there under the authority of an administrator who is licensed to deal with these kinds of we have some training as administrators on on how to maintain confidentiality and how to investigate. I will tell you as we get
to number three section three there's some real quicksand around investigation. I I would be really concerned that this not that we not cast a wide net of who might be a reporting party.
>> Director Liv, you're right. >> I think your structured option is the best personally as well. Um, you're you're going to be playing with fire, especially with middle schoolers
and high schoolers who can be very very unkind to kids who are just physically developing differently. um the late bloomers or the early bloomers or the you know um kids who
don't look cisgender even though they are cisgender already have been you know targets historically and this just if you're not careful about how you're handling reporting they're getting hauled into office continuously to ask
you know whether they use the right bathroom and that gets a little bit ridiculous. Um, I I just I think that that structured option is going to make it so that really only true genuine concerns are the ones that come forward. Um, again, we've been navigating it for
12 years and it hasn't been a significant issue and so this isn't something where you're going to have people continuously reporting things. Um, and in general, your staff are more aware of
the students who may be in that position in the first place. Um, so employees may be more aware of a student's status than anybody else, what their true status is, or um, what's happening because that sometimes is communicated confidentially during those processes. Um, so they'd be more aware
of of whether something even sounds credible or makes sense given who they're talking about. I just think that's your safest option. >> Director Schmidt. >> So, I'm going to bounce off Mr. Miller or Mr. Farmer, I'm sorry, excuse me. Um,
how would an individual report an incident that they saw? I I'll just say quickly after your response, I think that that term report means something to you and to your system that maybe it doesn't mean to
like the common person. Like it's something more formalized. In my mind, a report is a student telling a teacher, hey, this thing happened. That's a report. But this is saying that only employees can report. But I think your answer was it's something that goes into
the SIS is a report and so it's like a definitional confusion. >> So you might agree with me Mr. Farmer. I think we need to be extremely careful about one careful about what constitutes a report because a report that has any
kind of formality obligates us to something. And I'm, as I said, I'm very concerned about having a wide net about who can who can create that obligation. So if if a malicious individual, and it does not have to be students here, but
if a malicious individual makes an allegation, I want the principal to consider whether that is a credible allegation. And so I I've I've put some revised language on screen and it's not really appropriate of me to work work smith words word
smmith this in in the sense of this meeting. If what the board wants is the structured option task me to reddraft the structured option to clarify the the multiple uses of the word report. Um
maybe you could use the word allegation. Um, but what we don't want is we don't want malicious or third-hand report need to be known and they need to
be accountable. >> What about somebody who really saw something? What do they do? >> They tell a district employee. >> Then that needs to be in there.
>> I'm sorry. It's the fifth and sixth words. 1 2 3 four five six seventh and eighth words of the first sentence. A dis. They tell that's a credible allegation. I was just in the bathroom and there was a person in there opposite
their biology. That is a credible allegation. Emma, you had your hand up a while ago. I was just going to ask um do locker rooms fall under JBA or JBAA. >> Yes,
>> because locker rooms almost always have a bathroom facility. >> Nikos, >> I I would think that a solution to kind of the problem at hand concerning reports would just be the addition of the word official. No. Official reports may be submitted only by district employees who directly observe or
receive credible information about a violation. Official reports shall be filed in writing directly to the building principal or senior administrator within 24 hours. Then maybe external allegations will be reviewed by staff for verification of
credibility. >> That is it allow for >> I concur. >> Are we in Chrome? We'll we'll have it on this on the stream recording. Um I I will strongly advise you not to create
conditions where external because that what that means is you are inviting secondhand reports. I have to agree with that because it could be I heard from Cheryl and then I go home and I tell my mother and so I think you have to have more of a direct
a direct one. Director Dvola. So then why don't we say firsthand reports instead of saying external we could say firsthand re firsthand and maybe not use the re word reports because apparently that that means
something different but um firsthand complaints or something. >> Yeah, I I said external allegations kind of with that wording to eliminate anonymous from being there. So that way there has to be a name behind it which I think would support that verification of
the credibility. So it' be something like first like external firsthand allegations the word I use. >> Here's the problem with that and I'm going to encourage the board president to to move us off of number
two because you need to task me not to give you C or B and to work on A. >> I think that's reason. problem with only requiring firsthand is what happens when an elementary child goes home and tells their parent, "This is what I saw. I want that parent to that's secondhand."
And it is up to a building administrator to determine the credibility of that report. >> That's what we're saying. That's exactly what we're saying. It would be reviewed by the for credibility and then it wouldn't go into a written report until it was viewed reviewed for
credibility. So please task me with revising A. I I think A says what you're saying. >> Yes. And I think that you've heard enough of the discussion that we can task you to revise number A. >> Okay. >> Okay. So if we go to section three,
investigations and right now >> doesn't get easier. >> Okay. of the structured option. The principal or senior administrator will conduct all investigations using best practice protocols for sensitive investigations of misconduct related to
human sexuality. The investigator shall document all interviews and evidence. Director Schmidt. Okay. Where are the best practice protocols for sensitive investigations
of misconduct found? This would require training. They are found primarily in the domain of law enforcement forensic investigations because there are ways to corrupt the
credibility of the reporting party. If you ask questions the wrong way or in the wrong sequence, there are ways to elicit both false reports and suppress reports that could be true. And I am
strongly opposed to asking a principal or senior administrator to wing it. >> Director, >> so there are best practices. We would have to access them and train to them. And the primary place we would start is
with law enforcement professionals. Um but there are insights from uh psychology. There are insights from people who work with um trafficked or assaulted individuals and
we would want to follow th those protocols. >> Director Ohio. >> So I favor the structured option. Um my question is um when we talk about principal or senior administrator given what you just talked about with the um
with the uh investigative process, would we not want to allow those um building administrators who have one on hand to um delegate that to the SRO? The SRO would not accept that delegation
because they are obligated to represent the law enforcement perspective. There are questions that we can ask that they cannot ask. For example, we're not required to Miranda. There are certain times when we can search and they cannot. So, this is a
school policy, not a criminal statute. So, it's it's properly placed with the principal or the senior administrator. >> Okay. Thank you. Um the um the the the tricky part for this one is going to be how on earth you're going to investigate
um anybody other than a student. if they're a student, they're enrolled, they their birth certificate was checked, it's in our student information system, and it's pretty much just what is the what did the birth certificate say and do we have, you know, video evidence of them going into that
bathroom or credible reports that they went into that bathroom. It's a pretty cut and dry um investigation for adults, for guests, for anybody else. Good luck. Director Liv, you're right.
>> I think the So, yeah, I'm here. I'm so I'm guessing or my understanding would be when we talk about investigations, we're talking about involving students, not um or employees, but not people who
are guests because um we don't really have much. we can do authoritatively with someone other than a student or an employee. >> May I respond to that? >> So when you develop these kinds of um
trailblazing regulations for conditions that have not been experienced yet, it is helpful to create future scenarios to stress test your regulation. So we did some of that. We created scenarios. I can understand where there might be scenarios
where we might want to investigate the conduct of a guest. But then, as you can see in the note at the beginning of section four, we might make a finding and and not be able to assign consequences.
>> So, I I would that note that says impossible to identify, potentially verify, that note is placed in section four for a reason. It could have been placed prior to section three, but it isn't because there are
there are conditions that could involve guests, including minor guests to the district that would we would have to investigate. And so we can't exclude them from investigation, but I think we must
exclude them from consequences. Nikos, >> I'm unsure of the legality of this. So maybe Mr. Farmy has a response, but I'm not sure of the legality of the grounds that the district has to trespass someone. So is it not possible for us to
trespass a guest if we have a level of credibility and that's kind of pending investigation which they could assist in with the provision of things like their birth certificate or do do certain grounds have to be met to trespass someone?
There are certain grounds that do the microphone. >> There are certain grounds, but it is doable. And I would think that violation of a policy of this magnitude would reach those grounds. Uh yeah, with with that in mind, I'm effectively saying it could be and this
kind of goes into section four depending on consequences, but I'm just saying the issue could be circumvented in terms of guests through that because obviously students, we mentioned previously that we have access to their birth certificates, but I'm saying if we feel
it gets to a point where we would even need to investigate a guest, then at that point they would be trespassed until that investigation concludes. loots and part of that investigation could be them providing a birth certificate to prove their innocence and
be untranspassed if that's a thing. Okay, so it sounds like for three we're unstructured option section four consequences for violations and it looks like there was a disclaimer put right up front due to the impossibility of
identifying and potentially verifying the birth biology of all possible guests at school events, competitions, etc. The scope of consequences must necessarily be limited to events during the school day at which students and staff are
known and guests present identification. Therefore, administrators are not reasonable responsible to regulate policy JBA at events that are open to the general public. And it looks like the cabinet recommended the balanced
option B on this one. >> That is correct. So, >> did we finish three? >> It sounded like what? >> Yeah. Oh, director Dola, did you want to talk about three structured options?
>> Yeah, I didn't I didn't weigh in on that one. Um, so I guess I have a question on why it says misconduct related to human sexuality in the structured option, but in the balanced option, it doesn't
include that wording at all. And then then the third one, it just says verify biological sex. or no attempts will be made. But I don't see anything in here that says they will verify anything.
I think it's covered under sensitive investigations of misconduct related to human sexuality. Okay. I just I I would want to know what those protocols are and how we would verify it. >> I think that's the one who's just saying law enforcement protocols for the
investigation portion. But can we see them? >> You certainly don't want to embed them in your regulation because they will change frequently. >> No, thank you. >> And there is there is an art in science to these
kinds of highly delicate, sensitive investigations. And so, as a simple example, you would not normally have a man conduct an investigation with a girl, and you would not normally have a woman
conduct an investigation with a boy. You would not normally cross those identities as one protocol. You would also not normally do those privately. There would probably be two adults. Those are examples of protocols. Dr.
Lamond would have a bunch more. Um, they exist. I don't want to put them in and spell them out. If you would like me to, I I can provide some additional background before you take action. If you if you do take action. But the main
point here is if we're going to do this very delicate thing, we had better do it right. And this puts us on the hook. We have to know what is the right way to do the right thing for the right reason.
>> I agree. Yes. I would like to have some of that background information. Okay. Just email to us or it doesn't need to be >> Dr. Lamont, you can help me craft and draft and and share. Dr. Lamond is nodding for those >> Thank you.
>> listening on the podcast. >> Okay. We are on then to section four consequences for violations. And I read the disclaimer. If you could look at the balanced option. >> I like the structured option. >> Director Hy.
>> Yes. So, this is one where we need to be careful because the more restrictive we are, the more punitive we are, the um the more damages we're going to create in a potential lawsuit. Um so, um I would stay far away from the
structured option. Um, I guess we the balanced option just only makes sense under the context that this is a this is a board policy and so we expect compliance and um continued non-compliance would
be reasonable to treat as any other policy violation. Nikos, >> I generally agree with most of the language in the balanced option. Particularly for students, I think it's important to have that more lax initial punishment and suspension seems kind of
excessive in the event that perhaps they were unaware and a written warning means that it's not really going to affect them much long term. The only thing which I would say maybe should be changed is that for staff violators maybe rather than an informal conversation, maybe it's a formal
conversation because with staff the expectance is more so than students that they understand policies that have been implemented districtwide. So maybe slightly elevated in terms of staff.
>> Director Schmidt, we didn't pass this bill to be lenient. would pass this bill to immediately keep biologic biologically based restrooms. If we don't do that and we're too
lenient, this could result in something far more worse. Director Levier Wright, >> I think your balanced option is the one you probably need to go with. There is no way I would be okay with putting this
on expulsion behavior. Um, expulsion is for things like bringing a firearm to school. This is not the same thing. Nowhere near the same thing. And expulsion is denying children an education. And so we better
think carefully before we add something to our our repertoire of things that we expel kids for. um because that that term we we expel kids when they are truly pro creating a situation that's
dangerous for other students. Um and and I don't we haven't had that in in 12 years. We haven't had that dangerous situation created by someone peeing in 12 years. So there's no way that should even be in consideration. the balanced
option because of the policy that passed I think is the one that probably is the best. Even suspension makes me a little nervous because we're denying education when we suspend. >> Director Dvola. >> Uh well, first of all, expulsion would
be for repeated or defiant behavior. That is a totally different category. Um and so I am for the structured option. Um I believe that we would want to uh for the first offense for students make that detention. So be beginning with
detention then susp suspension then repeated or defiant behavior may result in expulsion. Um I agree we created this policy to make sure boys are in boys bathrooms and girls are in girls bathrooms and there's not that
crossover. we need to make sure we're enforcing it and you can't do that if you're too lenient. Um, and it's going to be very clear with our signage on our doors of whether or not they are are in compliance with this policy. Um, so
that's where I stand on that. This is very important for the safety of all of our students and it's it is a safety issue if we are are allowing this to happen. And the reason why I think Oh, go ahead, Superintendent Hilt. >> So, I want to I want to make one
clarification on the record. Neither suspension nor expulsion deny students educational opportunity. We are in fact mandated to provide educational opportunities for students, but it they are forms of exclusionary discipline and
the magnitude of that disciplinary consequence is absolutely elevated. I mean, the most severe thing we can do is a 365day expulsion. So, um, Director Levier writes correct about the the magnitude. Um, but since a couple of
board directors, uh, said that we we deny education, we do not deny education. Um, we are required in fact to continue to provide it. The the challenge that I would invite the board to consider is that
there are almost no disciplinary there are almost no forms of misconduct if they don't involve like a personal assault or personal violence. So what we would call a people crime there almost there's almost nothing that would jump
immediately to detention or suspension. We would normally clarify immediately for the student and since many humans use bathroom facilities multiple times a day, they would have opportunities to immediately demonstrate compliance or
immediately demonstrate defiance and then we would be able to escalate. So, I would advocate and I I believe the cabinet would advocate that it's more consistent with comparable kinds of offenses to start with a warning that does go into power school that does
require us to contact parents and then escalate from there. But where you where you start and from where you escalate is probably a board decision, but I just want you to know where the administration would recommend we start. Emma,
>> I think what I'm still like hung up on is like when do these violation like when can you violate these terms? Because let's say I'm at the school after 2:40. 2:40 is when my school hour ends, right? I'm there for theater,
let's say, but there's a volleyball game happening as well at the same time. That would mean that JBAA wouldn't be in place for the volleyball game because it would be um guests and parents and all of those
people. But the students in theater, they would be expected to continue to follow the JBAA standards. But how do you track that? H yeah. How how is that um like communicated? Because what if a report was put on me be or you know
another student saying that they were in the wrong restroom when by somebody who was at the volleyball game. >> I think you're making an argument that the first offense should result in a written warning. Um but I there is no good answer because
schools often host both structured and unstructured events simultaneously. So if you say that students, staff and identified guests are always
subject to policy JBA, but guests are never subject, then we've created a different legal problem of differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, and we may as well just staple the legal filing to the back of
that of that communication. We have to play some defense in advance here because we could easily create conditions that that create expensive liability. Well, >> the reason I I am leaning towards the balanced option is that also in my
opinion will cover students that might be coming into our schools who aren't familiar with the policies. Um, and so did that seems like a normal disciplinary procedure to start with a written notice and then to escalate the consequences if the behavior is
defiantly repeated. And so to have some type of a a warning system I think is good. Now I have a bunch of hands up so I'm going to go down the line. Director Schmidt. Okay. So it says administrators will
impose progressive discipline beginning with suspension in structured option. Maybe that needs to be defined differently. I don't know. What say you? >> I think first before we word smith
anything we have to see where we're going to land. That's just a thought. So, I heard a lot about how dangerous it is for somebody to use the wrong bathroom. But I think we have to be very clear that if somebody is going into a bathroom regardless of their gender and
they are doing things that are endangering people, we already have existing policy and law that covers those situations. So for this policy, we're simply talking about somebody who goes into the bathroom, goes into the
stall, locks the stall, uses the toilet, comes back out, washes their hands, and leaves. That is the situation that we are talking about here. And I do not see the danger that requires us to immediately go to suspend or expel. >> Director Dvola.
>> All right. So if we go with the the balanced option, I would what what would happen though if they continually repeat repeat repeat and there our only last option is to shortterm suspend.
So this happens now and then where the what I will call the original violation might be cheating on a test and we say stop cheating and the student cheats again on the test. We would essentially
transition from the original violation to insubordination and defiance of proper authority, interference with the there are grounds for expulsion even for repeated defiance, but it's not the original. You're not expelling over
cheating. You're expelling over persistent defiant disruption of the school environment by cheating. cheating is not a great example, but the escalation transitions into what on the employee side would be called insubordination and on the student side
we typically call that defiance. >> Okay. So then I would want to add in or short-term suspension for repeated violations um which may result in expulsion for defiant behavior or something along those lines. something to end with.
Repeated and defiant be behavior may result in re expulsion after short-term suspension for repeated violations. >> So, if the board consensus is starting to swirl, and I acknowledge it's not clear yet that it is, but if it's starting to swirl around B, it wouldn't be hard to present that language for
future board discussion, but I would ask that we delete the final sentence because it's sort of obviated by the note. We just had it in there because it felt balanced. And and if the board accepts the note, then the final
sentence is is moot. I used a legal term there, Mr. Farmer. You can >> Director Schmidt, how many repeated violations? How many? >> I wouldn't place that in regulation.
Well, if you have repeated violation, anybody could take that and think whatever they want to think with that. However, they could think 10's okay. I don't think one is okay. >> Okay. >> Repeated is similar to the word
multiple. Two is multiple, two is repeated. 20 is multiple. 20 is repeated. >> Nikos, we're leaving it open. Correct me if I'm wrong, Director Schmidt, but your primary argument for the structured option seems to be that
you feel it is necessary to make sure that there is a high level of enforcement for this policy because it was implemented for that reason. I think that that is still present in the balanced option because that's still immediate action which is documented. A
written warning is in power school. it was mentioned and that's why I was suggesting that the language be converted to a formal conversation because it still shows that there is documentation and consequence when these infractions against the policy are made while still lying allowing for a level
of lenience in the case of things like mistakes or misunderstanding without immediately escalating to higher punishment. >> Emma, >> I think this also brings us back to the fact that we're creating a policy for a very wide variety of people. This isn't
just focused on like students and so we have to have a little bit of lenience just because like there's so much fluctuation in who this covers. Director Dvola um if we go with the balance option
which I still am for the structured option but it sounds like it's going that direction. Um I would be um I think Nikos is right. We need to change that from informal to formal conversation for staff. No feedback from the superintendent or
from legal counsel on that one. >> I'm just observing that there isn't doesn't seem to be any objection to that. So, I'm happy to to write that into a revision and then if there is uh if if three or more members of the board don't agree with that addition, they're
welcome to strike through um by suggesting an amendment on the action item. >> Director Hy. So, I'll go ahead and register an objection to that simply because um you know, when we bring staff in, we have an expectation that they um
uh follow all of our um policies, but I don't think we expect that they have read every single one of them on day one. And so, I can understand a especially a guest teacher. Um there are some guest teachers that teach in multiple districts and may have difficulty keeping track of which
district they're in and which uh policies are in force. So I would prefer that first contact would be informal, although I would give the administrators the option to go straight to the formal
if that person should have known better. >> Director Dvola, >> uh, and that's why there's going to be very clear signage on the restroom doors. >> Okay. So it sounds like we are going then with the balanced option based on
what I'm hearing. No. Okay. Structured. >> Mhm. >> Structured is my vote. I guess my consensus >> balanced. >> Structured. >> Balanced.
>> Balanced. Then I think we are done with what we needed to discuss to come up with the final version. >> We did it. >> It only took us an hour. >> And now because we haven't had enough
fun, we are going to go on to 3.5 proposed revisions to beh. And so I've seen a lot of the notes that have been added to this. And just to make it more fun, I would like to also interject something I meant
to add at the end because it's been brought up and and I understand it. Um I would like when it comes to security >> which >> oh be dhed the redacted or the proposed
>> the proposed um to have the streamlined hang on the proposed at towards the bottom to add in streamlined across the district as far as security. People have expressed concerns. We have students
here. I actually happen to also like the idea of feeling safe. So, at our schools, we use the Raptor system, the Raptor check-in system where they scan an ID when they come into the room and a label is printed with their name on it. Um, I would like to add that in to this
towards the bottom that we align with the schools to have a Raptor system check-in for our board meetings. Um, I think it's good for security to know who is in the room in case there is any problems later on. So, that was another
revision on top of the other ones that we will discuss. And I already see a hand up. Director Dvola, >> um, do we already have like an available system for that? Like we already have it purchased and everything and is ready to
go. Okay. So then yes, I concur. >> Director Hy. >> Yeah. As far as the Raptor system, we had them come to present to us specifically for this, and that was one of the the initiatives we were pursuing when uh we um did the online sign up.
We've got the the tablets over there. Um let's let's get it done. >> Director Schmidt, did I see your hand up? Yes. I don't have a problem with the Raptor system, per se. I do have a problem thinking that we can use the Raptor system to check in, but
nobody can sign up at the door. I mean, what what are we going to go through these one by one? >> That's what we should do as we're looking at this revision. >> So, I don't have a problem with the raptor system.
>> Marie, go ahead. >> So, I'm confused. Are you saying to Raptor check absolutely everyone who walks into the meeting or only the people speaking? >> Everyone. >> Okay. So, you know that that's not a So,
that means you're scanning. So, when we have 80 people show up, um, your meeting's going to have to start significantly later because they're going to have to scan 80 IDs because that's how that system works is they put that ID in and it scans it. And
when we were talking about 10 or 15 people who were speaking, them being scanned before they had to before they had the chance to speak for verification wasn't something that was going to become timelimiting for allowing people to observe the meeting. But raptor
checking everyone who walks in the room absolutely will um create problems with people access coming in to access um because of the amount of time it takes per scan. I'm I get scanned every time I walk into Falcon High School as
as a volunteer and so and it takes time. So those you know if you have a lot of people show up um I think you're going to run into a problem if you're requiring that. >> How long does it take you to check in at school Murray? Just with the scan
>> it takes a couple. It can take a couple minutes depending. Director Ohio. >> Yeah, I've been through that process, too. And it usually takes a couple minutes, but I think because we're talking about having somebody standing by >> at the desk,
>> so because we're talking about having somebody standing by at the desk um as they come in um and that's their entire focus. When I come into one of the buildings, um they're they're multitasking. Um, so they've so it's a less efficient process. Um, and then I
also want to point out too, if we have 80 guests for a meeting, we have a lot of them that are uh showing up early. And so, you know, it's we've got we should have most of them checked in by the time the meeting is ready to start. And if we don't have them checked in,
they're probably right outside the door and they can still hear us as we begin. And we're, you know, we're starting with things like the pledge of allegiance and approving the agenda and those those aren't necessarily things that the the public needs to be fully seated in order to appreciate.
>> Director Dvola, >> um, yeah, we would only have one, right? Just one. So, we don't have a second one that would be available for us to do two if in that case. Like for example, if we know it's a hot topic issue, we're
expecting a high volume of people. Would it be okay to have two or is that not even an option? >> It is an option. It has some licensing costs and it's possible. I don't know the technology platform well enough to know if you
could bring one from a school for use at the meeting or not. Um that's outside my operational level of information. >> I just know um most of our meetings are very low attended. So I don't think
that's going to be an option or it's going to be a problem unless it's a hot button topic. >> And then before we get to Nikos, Director Levier writes wanted to say something. >> Yeah. Um, so I think before you look at that, I I
think that we should get some feedback offline on timing issues. Um, having because I know that the schools run into issues when there are things like school parties, kindergarten graduations,
school functions during the school day where large numbers of people are coming or larger numbers of people are coming than just the individual visitors. um that's not something that I want to fully expand upon in an open meeting um
but where everybody can then analyze but I think that we should get some feedback from administration about that process and what things look like um when you have a good number of people uh before we look at adding that
>> Nikos. >> Yeah, I was pretty much just going to make the same notes that director Dola had. I feel it's fairly reasonable to assume that the board and building staff can make an assumption on which meetings are going to be highly attended because they know the topics on that agenda. So
they know pretty much when there's going to be one of those big crowd days. And generally there's there's not too many people, and I'm gesturing to the audience here, where it's not going to create a big enough issue in terms of timing to overweigh the benefit to
security. >> And I think um Lynette just mentioned that an additional scanning unit would run about $200 unless we could borrow one from a school. But I think it's reasonable to get a little bit of additional feedback before
we vote on anything that's finalized in this one. Um to get feedback from security and administration um just to see if this is doable. So it looks like the first change is just
session was added 40 minute session. And part of the thought process behind this just so you know when when I was meeting with director Schmidt and getting input from other school districts is that the first speaking session would be limited to action items
or things on the agenda for that evening. Um, I had received some emails. They were concerned about some of the things the students were hearing. What we're trying to do is hear from our community prior to taking action. And for all
other non-specific items, they would be in the second public session. And I see Director Schmidt has her hand up. Well, there's several things in this paragraph. Um, the first one was the signup computer will be available for
individuals at the beginning of the schoolboard meeting. That's crossed out. I would like to comment on that. I'm still of the belief that some people need in-person sign up. We have a computer for checkin, possibly one for Raptor. Now, why don't we have time to
check people in? I mean, we can to sign people up. Um, how's that work? I mean, you can do two other things, but you can't do this one thing to help people sign up. So, that's my two cents on that. As far as the 40minut session, I'm good with that. And as far as the
inserting the word session, I'm also good with that. Okay. We had I had actually checked with Len on this and she is available to help people who have difficulty signing up, but we have not had any in-person signups for a while. Is that correct? And so if we do the 3pm
to 3 pm, that is actually more lenient than similarsized districts have done. It's more lenient than the one at district 11 or district 20, which are the two most similarsized districts. Director Hy.
>> So I actually had a conversation with one of our constituents who was a frequent flyer at um public comment. Um, she was sharing a an anecdote that was related to that night's business and I said, "We should have heard that. How come you didn't
speak at public comment?" And it's because she got here too late and there was no opportunity to um sign in manually and um and she doesn't do computers. So um online sign up is not an option for her. So, um I agree that
if we are going to have the Raptor system up front and we're going to have somebody manning that, then there's already some somebody there stationed to be able to assist somebody with signing up for um uh public comment
last minute. So, I would be in favor of that. >> Just one note to add to that real quick. Um Lynette is available during those times to manually put someone in. So, we do have a backup option for someone who's not tech-savvy or doesn't do
computers. All they have to do is pick up the phone. Director Devoli, you had your hand up. Yeah. So, I know there's complicating factors with having both the sign up here as well as online.
Um, but I'm in favor of ma making sure that anyone who walks in the door of a board meeting who wants to talk to the board has access to be able to talk to the board. >> So, by the way, I think they do through
email and calls as well. >> Well, that's I know, but emails and calls is one thing. Being able to speak at that microphone and talk to us in a public space is another another thing. So, um yeah, I think we should be able to
accommodate um people if they if they so desire. Now, I'm okay with them being like being put in the second session, for example. So, um if they come in, they're not prepared, they don't know how to sign up, we could say, "No worries. We're going to slide you in as
the last slot in the second session or the last slot of the first session if the se the slots are not full. I was just checking with Lynette because see the problem we ran into last time which she was scrambling and that's why we do have to have a hard cut off for check-in and last time it was a little
bit more lenient and we missed someone who had signed up online and who had checked in. They did everything right and so that's what we're trying to avoid. So that's why we discussed that the the hard check-in is 6:15. But if
we're okay with letting someone sign up in person and going into the second section, I think that would be a reasonable accommodation. And then as much as possible to communicate to the community that 300 p.m. to 300 p.m. with
um online or with a human to a system gives a lot of different options. So, if we do that, they would have to go into the second session if they did not sign up prior to 3 p.m. So, it sounds like what I'm hearing is that we want the
option for someone to sign up in person. The only thing we need to do is a hard cut off of 6:15 because she has to sort the first batch of the people who signed up. Director Schmidt, >> agreed. Okay. So, everyone is on board with that
change then it sounds like. Okay. And then we have the differential of um the first section of speakers will be speaking about agenda items. Um I think there was some discussion and the idea
of sorting it eight and eight is not a hard and fast one. That's if we have a lot of signups to speak on a specific topic that the board could hear eight pro and eight con con to kind of get an idea of what the community feeling is.
Now, if we don't have if we have like 10 pro or 10 con, that wouldn't apply. Director Schmidt. >> Okay. Regarding that sentence, I believe we should be giving deference to the D49
students because they're minors. Um, the rest of us are adults though and we can take our turns fairly and I don't think we're there yet though. >> We're still we're still on the paragraph above the bullet points. So, uh,
>> yeah, that's where I am. I thought >> that would be under C in reference to D49 students. stats number. >> Oh, it also says it in here and priority to D49 students. >> Yeah, I think it is >> specific agenda items and priority to
D49 students. I am good with D49 students. >> Sorry, >> going ahead and speaking first. >> Director. >> Director. So the previous draft of this gave um just the five first five slots priority
for students, teachers, and parents. And um given that our um our teachers can't necessarily be sticking around till 10 p.m. for a second session because they have papers to grade and need to be in classrooms the next day and um because
our parents need to get their kids home and um and ready to go for the school the next day. I think that's entirely appropriate and I disagree with deprioritizing two of our most senior stakeholder groups.
>> Director Devola. >> Um well, going back to um speakers who are speaking on agenda items, um I don't think that we should limit limit that. I saw something in
here that says it's it's they can only speak to agenda items. No, they should be able to speak to whatever items that they want to speak to. Um, and it should be in the order of when they sign up. So, first first
priority uh and as to whether we should do the 10 for or 10 against. We we had an issue with that the last time we had it because some people thought they were for the issue but they were actually against the policy and then they were
against the issue but they were for the policy and they flipped them and so uh I don't think we should limit it at all and just go in the order that they they arrive. Director Schmidt. Well, I agree to that, but I also know
that people want to speak before we vote. Um, but we can't tell them what to talk about. We're giving them a forum to speak and they need to speak about whatever they want to speak about as long as it's not,
you know, disgusting and raw and weird. >> Director Hy. >> Yeah, I agree. Plus, we um we did that at one point the previous board um tried to make to prioritize people who were speaking to an agenda item. And what we kept seeing over and over again is
people either didn't understand what they were putting and so they selected an agenda item and then didn't speak to it or they were being deliberately misleading in order to be able to give themselves an early night. So I don't see that that's productive. >> I was just going to say that I concur
with everything you just said because we saw we saw it play out. They they jipped the system so there's no reason to to do that. Yeah, the only thought process was is part of the purpose to speaking to the board is on items that we're going to be
discussing that night and to hear their voice heard. We've had a couple of recent meetings where people spoke in the second session and they were like, "Well, you've already decided." And so I think trying to prioritize knowing that there are going to be people who are disingenuous, knowing that there will be
times when they might check something just to make sure they speak in the first one. What I would like to see is that they are focused on the business of the board and that the second section is set aside for people who want to talk about whatever they want to talk about.
So it's really to try to keep it more focused for what we're doing. Director Levir Wright, did you want to add anything to that? But yeah, so I think that we should prioritize that first session for things that are on the agenda item that are an
agenda item whether it's action or discussion. Um and your section G I think would give you um when it says when a speaker's comments are non-compliant with the expectations of this policy. So if someone stands up and says, "I'm speaking to this thing." They
say one sentence and then actually don't speak to that. I think you can say, "I'm sorry, that's a violation of the policy. We'd be happy to have you speak during the sess second session and cut them off." I think Gives you that option. Um maybe I'm wrong, but that would be my
interpretation of it. But I think then that would be I I think it would be more appropriate given especially the types of comments we've gotten where there's literally nothing to do with the meeting and anything that we're doing and they've taken up one of the first spots and then we had people that genuinely
wanted to speak to something we were doing who didn't get to speak till after we had voted or discussed it. Um I think we should still give that a chance especially if we give you the power to say hey you're not compliant. Um, you're welcome to speak at the second session, but you can't we're we're cutting you
off right now. >> Nikos, >> in my experience personally, typically the public comment does not really even get close to exceeding the 40minut each session marker. And I would think that making that uh
what's the focusing more on people who have concerns directly related to board agenda for that meeting. That's the only place place where that should be prioritized. If there are so many that it would go beyond the 40 minutes. Beyond that, I think it should just be
based on how you've signed up. >> Director Schmidt, >> I'm going to stick with we're giving them public forum. They need to say whatever they want to say. Um
gosh, I just lost my train of thought. Come back to me, will you? >> Director Hy. >> Yeah. So, I've actually been on the other side of that um scenario you just described where I was here to speak to an agenda item that was an action item
and that it was already resolved uh in the f by the time I got to speak in the second session. But I think that we need to point out too that we have already given ourselves something of a mitigation in this update because nobody
has spoken about it yet. But there is a change that it went the first session went from 30 minutes to 40. So now we have instead of 15 speakers we have 20. So that at least ameliorates the situation. And I I still feel like I I
don't want to get into the business of trying to police what people are trying to say. And it's it's just going to create conflict for us with the community. And that's that's why I I I shy away from I totally appreciate the idea of getting people speaking on the
agenda items. It's just that the practicality of it is problematic. >> Director Dola. Yeah, I agree with Nikos and Director Hy that we don't want to be the one policing or cutting people off in the middle of their public comment. That's just it's not it doesn't feel
good. It doesn't look good. I just we shouldn't do that. Also, 40 minutes. That's a great extension. Um so I I would say let's let's go line by line because I think we're going to be here all night if we don't go let's start at
the first one. 40 minutes. Are we in agreement? Consensus. Go. Right. Can we do that? >> Yes, >> I think it's a good very good idea. And and like I said, just so you know, when when I was working with Director Schmidt on this one, what we discussed, we had discussed a variety of things, but we
would like to try to get it focused on agenda items. We know that we cannot force people to behave. Um, and also it it's just far more productive. So, we're increasing the amount of time where they
could speak prior to an agenda item and they get to listen to our reports and the superintendent updates. And so, it's not right at the beginning of the meeting. It's just before those items, which I've seen over time, and they have the right to do that, too. I call them
hit and run. They show up for public forum. They'll they'll say what they have to say, and they leave the meeting. But, it would be nice for them to learn a little bit more about the district. Okay. So, what do you want to go on to next then, Jamie Lynn? Under your efficiency program, >> do we have consensus for 40 minutes?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we added the word session. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Then the next one, uh, change to with >> Were we good with that? >> I don't know.
>> What is changing to width? >> I have no idea, but somebody wrote change to width. You're reading the comment. Let's just read the uh the red line. >> Oh, the first se first section will be for speakers who are speaking on
specific agenda items and priority to D49 students. The second session will be for those who wish to speak on a general topic not on the agenda. Do we have consensus for that? I'm a no on that one. I don't think we should specify an agenda item. I don't think we should
specify an agenda item and I don't think we should take away the priority slots for parents and staff. >> I think we probably shouldn't specify agenda items again because we're giving them a form to speak. They can say what they want to
say. I do believe D49 students come first. And regarding the five slots, all of us are stressed for time. All of us are stakeholders. I did not realize there is a hierarchy of
stakeholders in D49. There are 40 minute cheat sheets chess session. That's 20 people. I think we have an equal we should all have an equal slot to speak. Just just to note the reason that was put into place is the people who are most affected by the
determinations we make here are the students, the parents and the staff. And so that's why originally those they're adults too. >> Well, I know but I'm talking about let me finish please. So the the thought was the people most impacted by our
decisions that one section which is 25% is restricted for that 75% for everything else. >> No slots. >> Slots. I'm okay with the priority for the the students
>> and I lean towards the first five out of 20 slots being for students, parents, and staff. Director Levir, right? >> Marie, >> I can't hear anything. So, I've heard like I hear two words and then nothing
and then two words and then nothing. So I have no idea what was just discussed to be able to get feedback on. >> The question is do you prefer that we have priority speaking just for the students or that five out of 20 slots are for students, parents and staff?
>> Me excuse me that isn't even in this red line. >> I'm fine with it just being students >> and moving it forward the way it's written currently. Okay, on that on paragraph C. >> So director Livier Wright says students only. So we have a quorum. Okay.
Oh, next. Sorry, I thought I forgot I was doing this. Uh, the second section. Oh, we already did that. Oh, wait. We didn't talk about that yet. The specific agenda items versus the second session being for general topic. Do we have consensus? >> I think we did kind of talk about it
that it was leaning towards agenda items, but then Yeah. So Maria, what we're discussing is that we are going to request the public in the first session speak on agenda items knowing they may or may not stick to that. So the discussion is do we want to try
to prioritize the first speaking se session for agenda items knowing that it may not be rigorously enforced and the second session for general topics? >> No. on the specific agenda items
and the second session they can say whatever they want to say they want can talk about whatever they want to talk about. >> Did Marie hear that question? >> Yeah, I think so. I think that we should prioritize the first for things that we're actually going to have at the be
discussing at the meeting and the second for things that are not related to our meeting. I think that's a better use of everyone's time as well. Um, and I think it actually would solve a whole set of problems in terms of who hears what. Um,
but I I do think that that's the better approach if we're going to have the two sections dividing the two sections that way. Nikos, >> I feel it's reasonable to make the loose request that that the first bit is for
things that are immediately relevant to that that day's meeting, but that enforcing that probably shouldn't be. But I feel if we're making the request, if you have an urgent thing concerning things that will be voted upon, it should at least be a general standard that that's what we request because I
feel that people will logically determine, okay, my thing could probably wait till the end. I'll allow the people who have more urgent things to talk first. Director Hy, >> I wish I had your confidence in people, but people tend to be a little bit
selfish and they will um make this Yeah, I I agree in principle. I would love it if we could get everybody prioritized by what they want to talk about, but as I said, I find it's going to be um difficult to police and it's just going
to engender bad on both sides. So, I would just rather not pick this fight. >> Um, just so you know, like for instance, if you look at what I read at the beginning, you know, keep your comments respectful. Most people abide by that,
but then you'll have those who don't. So, to make the request for the agenda items knowing that it's going to be violated, we're not going to be policing it, so to speak. We're going to make the request because it does impact the operations and what the board is doing
that night. So, we are asking the public, hey, we would like to hear your thoughts on what we're doing tonight or what we're discussing tonight and we're going to know upfront that it may not be honored. Director Dvola, did you want to add anything to that?
>> Yeah, I I don't have consensus to have that as specific agenda items. So, I think it should just be in order of whoever signs up and they should be able to speak. >> Nikos, >> I just wanted to note at the if that request was made, it could at least
mitigate. Obviously, not everyone's going to listen because not everybody's uh too nice, but at least some people who are making those decisions on when to speak in good faith will abide by that, which will reduce the tendency even of people who are doing that
unwillingly because not all people are going to consider. If I'm talking about this issue external to that board meeting, it might affect people who have more urgent things. So, it'll at least bring that awareness. >> Well, and keep in mind that we've also increased the load on Lynette because before Lynette could sort those who have
signed up for agenda items and have that done and she'll have more time for the second session. So, we also have to look at how it impacts other people. So instead of saying even specific agenda items we prefer, we could change the language there. But I still think it's
worth encouraging. Director Dvol, I think you had yours up first and then Director Schmidt. Well, the the issue that I've I've seen with that though is that people like look to see what agenda item is and they they don't understand
what their agenda item is. Like I've had people come up to me and be like, "I didn't even know it was called JBA. I had no idea what that was." Or um they're not quite clear on what that means. Or they just click a random
button. Um oh, that's the agenda item that I'm going for. Um, and so making a request is one thing, but this is not just making a request of, hey, um, make if you are here to speak on an agenda item, uh, please line up first. That's
not what we're saying. We're saying, um, Lynette is going to sort you based on what you just clicked. And it's not really a request anymore. It's a you were assigned a position because of what you entered into a computer. So that's a little bit
different, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Director Hy, >> and I'd just like to point out, too, that um you know, because I I totally agree with you that the the people with the best of intentions were are going to be honest and they're going to say,
"Yes, this isn't really pressing information. I just need to speak to the board about something that's unrelated to what's on the the agenda." But we're going to have other people who do that too, who aren't uh as goodnatured. And so what this
would end up doing is allow the over representation of jerks in the first half. >> Director Schmidt, I'm going to give consensus like Jamie Lynn did. No specific agenda item. First to sign up, first to speak. We can't
tell them what to talk about. >> Okay. Okay. Well, it sounds like we have then a consensus on that and the placement will also be in with the alignment of when we go to agenda that it's before the action and discussion items.
>> I'm sorry. What's the consensus? >> Oh, okay. >> I thought Mike said that he was okay with not restricting it to agenda items. It's okay. >> And then first come, first serve on the rest. Right. >> Except for D49 students.
>> Except for D49 students. >> All right. Next item is at the discretion of the board president. Public comment may be closed and reopened at a later time or date to be announced. It says there was comments here. An
entire board vote as it takes away rights of people to speak. um disagree with this things like that. I guess everyone can talk to whatever you want to talk to with. Um for me personally, I think um it should be a
board vote. I'm cool with a 3 to2 vote on whether or not we want to close and reopen at a later time. Um that's where I stand on that. >> Which item number is that? Uh, >> that's the last line of the second
paragraph. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I don't even know if we need that line in there. >> Make sure you're speaking into the mic. >> Can't hear you. >> Do we need that line in there when we will have a first and a second public
session? >> We're on the discretion of the board president. That's what I'm talking about. That's the line I'm not sure we need in there. Um, Director Schmidt, so if we're going to have public comment closed and reopened at a later date or
time to be announced, I would say no. The entire board has to vote for it. I think it should be four votes instead of three because you're taking away First Amendment protections after we've given
them a public forum yet again. Um, so that's what my consensus would be to have an entire board vote with a 3 to2 or a 4 to one. Director Hy, >> I'm curious to know who put that in
there and what the rationale was because um my um understanding of this was I I I I thought that was put in there just as a way to manage a meeting that is getting unruly, but we already have a
process to handle that. If uh the if uh things are getting out of hand, we suspend the meeting and and we leave the room until um order has been restored. So, uh, I don't I don't know what purpose this serves. So, I'd love to hear the explanation.
>> Director Dvola. >> Yeah, I think we should just take it out because because the undue interruption, we would follow that process for that person which may include >> um taking a recess.
>> Do we need to put that? >> No, I think we have uh three people who are agreeing to strike that sentence. >> Yes. >> How about Marie? Marie, >> Marie, do you want to strike that sentence?
>> Um, so I think you've got to have some type of discretion for the board president. I don't know. I think it should be the full board for full closure, but the board president still needs to have the power to be able to interrupt a speaker accord when they're breaking the policy.
Um, just right. So, and I can't tell which piece of this is. So, if we're talking about completely closing open com public comment and not not allowing anyone to speak, I think that should be full board. So, if that's what that sentence is about, I would agree to strike it. As
long as somewhere else in here we're giving that um as long as we're giving the president the ability to stop individual speakers if they are so they have to be able to call the speaker out if they're breaking policy. Someone has to be able to have
that discretion and that should be the board chair. >> Yeah. And >> it's not practical to have that be the board as a body. >> Yeah. We're going to get to G in just a bit. And just to be clear, I've been actually working with legal counsel and with our security team uh to figure out
the way forward because um that one can be a little sticky. So that's going to be when we get to G. Okay. So the next we've got the red line. We've already talked about um some of C
and the only thing I don't think we covered was just uh we have the 40 minute time limit. >> Excuse me. M >> and we're not going to try to sort those into the 8 and 8 >> point of information. Please >> go ahead. >> Did we scratch that last sentence at the
>> There was a consensus to scratch it. >> Okay. Thank you. I did not understand that. Thank you. So, as far as dividing the speakers, if we're not going to be having that rigorously enforced to just agenda items, I don't think we need that in there. Director Hy.
>> Yeah, I think we already talked about the uh first five for the students and um we've since we've stripped the rest of it, I think that section C can just go away. >> I concur. All righty. Um
I don't think we should have the five slots. Are we still putting the five five slots in? >> Um, no. We just have the difference to the students. So, I guess if there's 10 students, they get 10 slots. >> Okay. So, then I agree with Mike as far
as I'm sorry, director Hy as far as um just taking number C out or letter C out >> except for the part about students will be allowed to speak first. >> Correct. But that's already >> that's already in the second paragraph.
>> Gotcha. And then it's also in C. Okay. >> We can take it out. >> All righty. And then if we go to the next highlighted section, only speakers who have signed up to deliver comments may do so. Regardless if they are speaking on behalf of themselves or another person, no unregistered speakers
may step in to deliver public comments should a registered speaker be unable to attend a board meeting. And I agree with that. You shouldn't be able to send in a sinode deburiac. Is there any dispute on that one? >> I would give consensus on that.
Consensus. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The community may submit written comments to the board through our online form. However, those comments will not be made publicly available and that is how we have been doing it. Um so the next highlighted section it
looks like it's in I um speakers are announced are encouraged >> wait did we did we have consensus on F first >> we did >> I give consensus did everybody else
>> I nodded >> uh yes >> okay so the next change it's just talking um speakers are encouraged to exercise their speech rights responsibly. Speakers who make defamatory remarks may be subject to
legal action. And that one, I wouldn't mind if Mr. Farmer weighed in on that one. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess if your question is, you know, if you make a defamatory remark, can somebody file a legal complaint against you? answer would be
yes. >> Director Schmidt, it seems very threatening. Why are we threatening our guests? I mean, yes, it's true that you're subject to legal action if you say garbage, but
this seems very threatening to me and I want to hear from our people. >> Director Hy. So, I think we all understand that defamation is um is illegal and you can be held civily liable for it. But I also think that it
is at least worth just putting that reminder in front of people. But I also want to point out too that this policy is not being read by everybody who's going to come speak to us. So it's not directly in front of them. The one thing that they will hear is the the the spiel
that we give them before. Um, so if it's determined that it's necessary to put it in that, then they would hear it. If we um don't edit that, then they won't hear it. Director Dvola. So I'm reading this as this would be
speakers who make defamatory remarks against employees. >> Correct. >> Does that need to be clear in there? Because if they make defamatory remarks about board members, that's different than an employee.
Does that need to be clear? >> Uh, potentially. What I typically advise boards when it comes to this is uh the reality is if if I'm a parent or I'm a community member and I have a specific allegation against an employee or some other party, uh the pullpit at the
public forum is actually the wrong venue because it's just an opportunity for the board to listen to you. You really should be going to the grievance process. Um and you know that's a more formalized process, right? like the accused party gets an opportunity to respond, all of those sorts of things.
So, I guess at the end of the day, you're welcome to come and make your claim and complaint sort of at public forum. I would say it's inappropriate, but it's also going to be very unfruitful for you because it's not the venue to get your problem resolved. >> So, I I think it's and and even to
Director Schmidt, I think the intent is it's a reminder, right? It's almost like a courtesy like, "Hey, just here's a reminder, right? Don't be defamatory. Uh, you know, don't make specific allegations against specific individuals. Um, not only could it potentially lead to defamation claims,
but it's also just going to be very unproductive for you. Right? Here's a copy of our grievance policy. This is going to be a much more effective way for you to get your issue resolved than to to come to the pulpit at public forum. >> Director Ohio. >> Yeah. And so, when it comes to our
employees, just as Mr. farmer pointed out, we specifically ask our um public speakers to not um you know make mention of any you know if they have uh criticisms they should be about the board superintendent but also even
though we are public figures and we are subject to public criticism there is a big difference between criticism and defamation and we are protected from defamation just as everybody else is >> director Schmidt.
>> Can we stop that sentence at speakers are encouraged to exercise their speech rights responsibly? Period. >> I don't mind having teeth in there, especially if they want to go after our staff.
I think having that reminder in there is going to be I think it's important because speakers who who do make defamatory remarks against our staff and the the school um school employees is it's true they're love they are subject
to legal action. So I think we should leave that in there. I my whole question was does it need to be clear that that means just employees because that whole paragraph is about school operations programs and
employees. It doesn't say anything about board members in there at all. >> Yeah, I think that's usually covered in the introduction, but I would say employees and students that we have an obligation to protect our students. So, um I think if we just say defamatory
remarks may be subject to legal action and then cut it off, find a way to cut it off. >> I don't give consensus to that. >> I would leave it in. >> I would leave it in. And I would leave it in. Director Levier Wright,
if you heard it. >> I um I heard parts of it and I think we're talking about m um remarks maybe the defamatory remarks may be subject to legal action. My understanding and reading that was about um everybody except the superintendent and board
members. Um the standard for defamation or slander is way higher for us as public figures. So people get away with a lot more. Um, but we do I think that's reminder that if you're that that it's not okay to come in and slam an
individual teacher or talk about an individual person um other than those of us who are in our elected position, I think is a nice reminder and that's more of how I take it because we're not necessarily even the ones taking who have the legal action, right? It's our
employee could have the action, the students family could have action. um ultimately. So, you're really just reminding people that that their words could have consequences. >> Do real quick and then we can wrap this one up.
>> I I just kind of am agreeing with parts of both sides. I think it's important to include the fact that there's consequence for making defamatory comments, but I also agree that the particular language of it does seem a bit threatening. It's like legal action. And I've been sitting over here trying to ponder of a way to word it more
kindly, but I think it's important to have it, but maybe find a way to word it in a manner that's slightly better. >> Yeah, softly. >> Is there any way to soften it, Mr. >> Please be aware that you could get your
butt sued? Speakers are >> speakers are reminded that defamatory remarks may subject them to legal action or something like that. >> And we could definitely work that into the intro. Speakers are reminded and then keep it this way because I was just
hearing that people aren't reading the policy. But at least it's there and I don't mind it having some teeth to it. Um if we go on to the agenda then that one um as far as BED is simpler because that one is just moving public comment
and the one I'm seeing right here on the agenda format looks like it's in the same spot where it should be between six and seven. That was the proposed revision to be
where the first public comment section will come after the updates and right before action items. Yeah. So number three would become number six. Is that what you're saying?
Yes. I'm good with that. Me too. >> I'm good with that. But I think we really ought to be talking to our community because this is who they who this affects um before we arbitrarily make this change. But um it's a just a
discussion item now and we can hear back from them um before we vote on it. >> Yep. And we will have public comment before we vote on this one. So, the goal and the intent of this one was to move up public comment to just before the
action items. And it does give them the opportunity to hear the superintendent update, the student board of representative update, the board update, and so they at least get kind of a better picture of the community and the school district because there's a lot of
people who come in here with incorrect information. And so, that was the purpose of moving that one. So, I think we can move it forward and then we'll hear the public's comments on that at the next meeting. Okay. Um, >> can you speak on that one? >> Yes, please.
Um, so my question on that one is this that there have been times when I think every single one of us at some point has corrected some of that misinformation that occurs in public comment um by using the time we're granted under your
our board updates. Um I know I have I know Lori has done it either there or as president Peter has done it as superintendent. So, if we move public comment after we've given our update, we lose that opportunity to be able to
make a statement that kind of counteracts some of the vitrial that we've heard. Um, so I would think maybe we put it between five and six instead or something. I that that's my one concern with moving it is you're taking
away the opportunity um without because we don't have an opportunity to speak afterwards and we don't normally directly address things but we each have when there's been something that's really obviously
inappropriate or um misleading or providing incorrect data or information. Director Schmidt, >> I think if we put it if we put superintendent put it after number six,
you know, after superintendent student representatives board is we're being proactive is what I'm trying to say. We're being ahead of it. Goodness, that was just a mess. Anyway, we're being proactive. I would I
would go ahead and move it like I said before, director. So Marie makes a wonderful point and um I think we could mitigate that and achieve both um objectives if we
add a response at the end of public comment. Just a board response and just go, you know, any any board member who would like to speak uh regarding um any of the content or of course give the superintendent that opportunity as well. Just one quick go around and then we
move on with the meeting. But we have a board that likes to speak so much. Mike, Director Devola, >> you get ugly. >> Well, if what if we did like maybe a 30 second or like a one minute everybody does that turn. I think actually that would benefit us because a lot of people
who come to public comment don't get to hear any of our responses to anything. So, I'm okay with like saying you have 45 seconds, go or 30 seconds. So, what I'm hearing is to go ahead and
move it up to a different section, but then to add into this section right here, uh maybe just a slot for board response, but I would want it to be very quick and concise, unlike anything else that's happened tonight. So,
>> I would say no. We talked too much. >> Quick and concise. 30 seconds to one minute. What do you think, Director Olivia? Right. I >> can't do it. Um, I'm trying to respond. I just had a kid walk in too. Um,
I guess my thing there I I like it the other way. And I like it the other way because the majority of the time we're not responding where if we add the category of response, we're getting people to expect that we will respond when our general approach is to not
respond unless there's been something that's been really over the top. Um, and so I I think the I think the way we've been handling it would be better than that way, if that makes sense. Just because when we if we
add a line that says response, then when people come to speak, they're expecting a response. And our our general approach is to not respond to those public comments unless there's been something that that really crossed the line or
that was full of misinformation that needed to be corrected. Um, and that's part of why I prefer it the other way. >> Quick and concise. Nikos, >> a possible solution could be rather than having the full board respond, it could be representative. So it could be purely
Miss Thompson or purely Mr. Hilts because I feel that then if there's any big misinformation, it could still be addressed without expecting full board response. >> Director Hy. >> So I once again Marie raises a great
point. Um I don't want it to become an expectation and an inducement to respond. I think that we as a board should agree that our best practice is to not respond, but if we heard something that we felt requires a response, that gives us an opportunity
to do that. >> Superintendent Hilts, would you like to have any input on this one since your name has been brought up? Quick and concise, please. I don't think it matters because if somebody said something that needed correction, I have no problem
raising my hand and asking for a point of information and saying a speaker in open forum said that we've begun launching rockets uh from Sky View to Vista and I just want to let everybody know we're launching balloons from Sky View to Right. I I would do that if I
thought it was material and needed correction. You've heard me correct even board members on on occasion when that like I did tonight when I said we actually do provide education for students who are expelled and suspended. So I think we already have a mechanism
which is just the judgment of board members and the superintendent. So I don't think the order is preventing or empowering response to public comment. I think you put it where it makes the most sense. I I personally have advocated in
the past and I and I continue to advocate that it makes sense that open forum be closer to the action items because it informs the board's decisions. Uh I've said this in another setting, but I'll repeat it here.
It's more important that the board is an effective decision society than that is it is an effective debating society. People will little remember the debate and they will long remember the decision. And so I think getting the
best possible decisions, the most informed decisions would be my priority. >> Director Dvola, I h want to voice that I want to move public comment from
3 to six. Leave it there and then just use point of information if need be. >> I agree. >> I agree. Mike says yes. >> Mike says yes. >> Okay. So, I couldn't hear what was said
for about the last >> That's okay. We're just What we have a consensus for so far is to move it from three to six and then the superintendent can correct anything that's super incorrect. >> Anyone can but
>> point of information. Okay, if we go on now to >> point of information, >> sorry, we have a button that says redact. Are we doing anything with that tonight or is that just
>> say >> what? Say it. >> What she said? >> Yeah. What did you just say? We're going to redact the old policy B. >> Ah, redact the old policy beh and and move forward the new one for
action and also the revisions to be DB. Thank you. And now we're on to 3.6. >> Yay. And then Superintendent Hilts, I think you wanted to make a comment on this one
for JICD bullying and restorative. Oh, I think the the primary comment I wanted to make is that in um 2016, specifically on April 14th of 2016, the board formally explicitly
adopted restorative practices as our model for discipline. And when I did a search in Board Docs for the word restorative, which really only shows up in the context of of misconduct and restoration from said
misconduct, um there are 18 different policies and regulations that embed restorative language. And so, uh I would encourage the board, um not to peacemeal edit restorative out of out of individual policies. If there is board
consensus that restorative practices is the wrong approach, we should have that big public discussion in front of the big public um but not have it piece by piece. >> And the one thought I'd have is because like I said, I understood the concerns with some of the language. When I see
re-educate, I think of China. Um but I think it would be worthwhile because I have heard concerns about restorative practices. Um, what I think would be good is if we here's the suggestion I'm going to make that we have a pres a
presentation as to how restorative practices are used in our district and we'll be able to get some more information as to how they are used and after that presentation then this is something that could be revisited because it would impact that some of the
changes would impact multiple policies. >> You haven't even heard what I have to say. You haven't even heard what I have to say. >> I'm sorry, Director Schmidt. >> You haven't even heard what I have to say. >> I know I'm I'm making a suggestion that
I wanted to discuss as well, but if you would like to go ahead and launch into a full >> Okay, I will. Um, with all due respect, I was given consensus by the board to work on JIC JDE
and JIC DA. We have to start somewhere. So, I would like to present all the work that I have done over many months and I appreciate that. Just so you know, we had one other working copy that just had a few changes. So, the one with all of
the additional changes was just uploaded and because I'm just letting you know that it could impact other policies. So, I was just suggesting to get more information so we could do that. But if you would like to do a presentation, I just ask that you be very efficient.
Well, I was going to go through every one of these changes like we just did with BEDH and BED because we put all three of these big policies on one agenda. So, I would like to go through these one
by one. Okay, please do. Okay, we're going to start out with the title. The title should read, "Bullying, prevention, and education. All school districts in Colorado have been required to have what statute calls a bullying
prevention and education policy as part of their safe school plan. Our policy name should reflect that. Currently, the JICD bullying policy is 9 years old and is based on an 11-year-old dear colleague letter that Mr. Heltz
mentioned and toolbox that were never law and have since been revoked twice. In addition, the CDE publishes the Colorado, this is big, Colorado bullying prevention and education best practices and model policy, which I will refer to
as CBP EBP. That was last dated last updated in February 2025. It does not include restorative interventions in its title, nor should we. In addition, we do not we do need to
remember that CRS 2232109.12A Roman numeral 2B states that we do not have to use restorative practices at all. We could choose to use other approaches as long as we minimize student exposure to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Also, our
policy JICDA, which is one of the ones you discussed, is also up for discussion tonight. Specifically, JICDA says that restorative interventions are not a panacea for every every discipline
incident. Bullying is one such incident or the use of restorative justice interventions have found been found to be problematic. According to the CBP EBP document, restorative justice practices in bullying situations should be
avoided. Restorative interventions should not be part of our policy. That is found on page 12 of the CBP EBP document. >> Okay. Just a point of order. You're referencing a lot of documents that we don't have access to that we weren't
that weren't uploaded as an attachment to this. So you >> Yes, I gave some of them to Lynette. I gave her that CBP EBP >> month ago. Well, two months ago, >> two months ago. >> Two months ago. Okay. Because what I'm hearing, tell me if I'm hearing
correctly, you want to eliminate restorative practices >> out of the title. Yes. For many reasons. >> So, are you just talking about out of the title or out of the district? That is >> out of the title. >> Okay. And then you had mentioned going line by
line, but once again you're referencing documents that you may have given one to Lynette two months ago. It's just hard. I did not may >> we don't have the context because we weren't given those documents. >> I did upload those. Okay. Um
so I guess do we have consensus on this or not? I guess we don't. Do we? >> No. What I'd like to do is get more information and I'd also like to hear from the administration how it can impact other policies. I think that's a judicious request. Well, we did this
with BEDH last year, two years ago, because I brought it up then and now all of a sudden we're doing BEDH. Are you just trying to hold me back here or what's the deal? >> Absolutely not. Beedh, you were aware that we were trying the Raptor system. We had problems with the initial
check-in. We were waiting for that and that was one we were working on during that time, but we were waiting for that information. I'm not trying to hold anyone back. I want to do things correctly. >> Okay. Again, I was I was tasked with going over these policies and that's
what I've done. >> Okay. Then go through it line by line, please, when you reference outside bullying policy thing here. So, that I did upload. um we all have the book to look at CRS 2232 you know that big old
number that says we don't have to use them we can use them or we can use other approaches that's later so one by one just like we did with the last policy do we have consensus to
remove intervent and interventions from the title director Dvola So I don't I before I give consensus on this, I am confused a little bit about about
your goal because I believe what I'm hearing is that we we don't want to have to use restorative practices in the district. >> No, I just want to res remove that wording from the title. >> So how does the removing of the wording
of the title lines up with the CBP. Yeah. EBP. >> Okay. So, this is an issue >> and the way the state of Colorado says it. >> Okay. So, this is an issue of aligning our wording to what the state of Colorado is saying.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Now that I understand that, yes, I would want to um put bullying prevention and education and strikeout and restorative uh interventions. So, I have consent. >> Director.
So, I'll be really brief on this one. Um, I don't give consensus to make any changes to this whatsoever. The reason is because this is an important policy that is implemented by a lot of people and it's very important and we are not the experts. We are all perfectly
qualified to talk about public comment because we participate in it. Um, but um, you know, the executive director of individualized education is the owner of this policy. She's responsible for overseeing its implementation and
training people to um follow it, etc., etc. And any adjustments to this policy should be coming to us through her. >> Can I respond? >> Go ahead, Director Schmidt. >> I did go to Mrs. Lamond.
She told me to go to Brad or Peter. I went to Brad. We went through it. He didn't have any problem with a lot of what I had. He had some problems with some of what I had. I went through it with another board member and this is what I came up with. With all due respect, consensus, you guys gave me
consensus to work on this. >> Director Livier, right? >> I really think that um we need more people involved in this. I agree that we need to hear from Nancy, but I also really think that given a lot
of the tenor of conversation that I've heard around the wording, not just of this, but in other places, I think it would be important for the full board to have a presentation on what the district means by restorative practices, what that program looks like.
It is not what you're thinking of in terms of jail things. I actually spoke at open forum about this as a parent um when I wasn't on the board and it was a discussion item on the prior board. It's the only time I was gabbled and it's because I repeated the um the explicit
phrasing that was used against my child on the playground um that included an explicit and a an exploitative and a racial slur. And I used an example of how restorative practices was used so that those two middle schoolers could handle being around one another again
with respect. Um, and there are places in which it works well and places in which it doesn't. And um I think before we start diving into each piece that we really should have a better understanding as a group of what that is
and how it's been used and the way in which it's impacted things like suspension and expulsion rates. Um so certainly it's not perfect and it isn't appropriate in all circumstances, but that's why we have highly trained
administrators who who do that work. Um it's not our work. It's theirs and it's a tool in their toolbox. But I think we should get a better understanding of how this works before we start pulling apart all of these pieces. Can I respond?
>> Well, real quick, I just wanted to make a comment because you say I was trying to hold you back. I'm the one who put it on the agenda. Now, let me finish, please. Believe it or not, I have the right to speak as well. You referenced a lot of other documents that I don't have
context to. So what I would like to do is get more context from that. And I would like I know we had since Friday to add comments, but because of the number of changes that are in here, I think it is worthwhile for the entire board to
have input in a work session, especially one where Marie can hear. And so I know you don't like this, but this is my thoughts. So you may respond to that. That was what I'm suggesting. >> Okay. So, most of my changes in here are are wording, more wording than mostly
anything. Um, including parents and some of the things that are in this document that I did upload. Um, and I'm not trying to get rid of restorative practices. I'm trying to let people know that the state law says we
can use restorative practices or other approaches and that could impact other policies. That's the point I'm trying to make and get more clarification on. >> Okay. So, how do we do this? It we have to do this publicly. How do we do this?
When do we do this? if not now. >> One option we have is in November we had cancelled a work session because there were no items on it. But we could restore the work session in November to go through specifically this policy and
get the other attachments with it. I don't give consensus to that, but I'm sure the rest of the board will. >> What was the question? >> The discussion of whether or not we want to go through this tonight or if we want to get the attachments that are being
referenced and move this to a November work session. >> Move it. Director Dvola. I just I know that this was a lot of work and we were tasked it was a tasking by the board in order to
review and re uh revise. Um, so I think that if there had been more clarification on when this was going to be presented that maybe those documents would have been able to be presented better, it
sounds like that did not get uploaded. Um, even though it was sent because those are that those documentations are not in here and I had the benefit of actually having the documentation as we were reviewing this and I think it
would be fair to have everyone have that opportunity to see the documentation for the CDE bullying and prevention policy because there is a lot of things that are not corresponding with this policy that is in there. Um, and that was the
um intent of revising this to make it more align with what is in the Colorado guidelines. And just to be clear on something, I didn't hear until yesterday that it could impact other policies.
That was new information I received yesterday. So, I'm in favor of moving it so we have complete information and full board input because even when we task people to do it, the entire board could weigh in on those. And I would like to hear on whether or not it could impact
other policies. Director Dvola. So, it sounds like not rem if we're not removing restorative practices, then I guess my question is what other policies would this impact? If we're not we're not actually saying you can't use
restorative practices in the district. It's just saying you have more than just this option to use. >> Superintendent Hilts, would you like to have any comments on that? >> Sorry, Marie. I just put a cough drop in
my mouth so I might mumble. Um the it has never been our board's priority to align with either CDE's language no note policies JBJ JBAA that has not been
a a priority before. Uh I'm not sure in fact I am sure that the board's established position should be controlling until the board changes its established position. Um, there are there are changes in here that I think are are reasonable and make kind of
grammatical sense or make logical sense, but there are also changes in here that that sort of perpetuate a an initial perspective which I think is disclosed right away. Um, I believe it's disclosed
in the in the comments on uh CDA, GICDA. Um, Director Schmidt does not generally support restorative practices. that and that's a perfectly appropriate position because you said in your note that you're not a fan of RP.
I'm referencing JCDA, but but but regardless, it it's okay to have a difference of opinion about that, but I'm the superintendent of the policies that are currently approved. And so those 18 policies and regulations all all have a all have a common
foundation. and it's the resolution of approval adopted on April 14th in 2016. It would be inappropriate of me to unilaterally resend the board's will. Now, if this board rewrites the board's will as it is
as is the board's prerogative, then it would not be inappropriate. And so, I think this is a great first serve. Um, it appears that this is a topic where where members of the board would like additional information. You'd like to
know how have restorative practices gone? What have been the impacts on referrals and suspensions and exclusions uh from the classroom? Uh we can generate some of those reports for you um over a 10-year period, but we also
have not had um I have not administratively reviewed the the CDE document and done kind of a crosswalk between the CD document and our own policy. I think a lot of the comments in here are preferences and if the board concurs with the preferences
then the board should adopt them and if the board doesn't concur then the board should reject them. Um but if I'm hearing that the board wants more information before deciding whether they agree or concur we will do our best from the administrative side to provide more information.
>> Director Dvola. Yeah, I think I would want to have uh input from the administration on which parts of the red lining would potentially be in conflict with other policies. Um and then having a discussion about
because there are a lot of good changes in here like a a lot a lot of good input and I want those to be able to be discussed and not just throw everything out because of two words, right? So um I would want to have clarification from so
I would like to direct the administration to go through and make sure that you have clarification on this would be in conflict with this because or um so that we have that that input. So for our next meeting, we can have a
good robust discussion and we can go through line by line everything that's on here to say yes, we have consensus for it or no, we're going to strike it out once all of us have all the information. So we'll want the C the CDE information. We'll want the
administration input and then we can go from there >> and and state statute. Yeah. And that would also if if Director Schmidt is open to it, we could actually have you do a presentation of those other documents. I know you were trying to do that tonight, but we don't have it all.
I'm actually trying to give you the opportunity, but you don't seem to like that, so that's okay. It was a thought. >> Okay. I just want to address one thing. And currently this JICD policy is based on an 11-year-old
no a 9-year-old document that is based on rescended information. So the original resolution isn't even valid anymore. Okay. So, am I hearing a consensus to
move it to a November work session and to get more information on those documents? >> Yes. >> Yes. So that we would have one more discussion before we have a vote. >> Yes. And Marie's Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. So, if we could move on to JICDA. I think there was just one thing that was a statutory requirement in this change and this is where by way it does mention restorative practices but I think and
I'm not seeing it now it was the one about conduct on or off school property which I'm trying to Mhm. >> Number 24, I think, is what you're looking at. >> Number 24.
>> Yes. >> And so, actually, what it says here is further explanation. Um, how is the school responsible for students off school property? Are we talking about when they are at home or are we talking about when they are on field trips and school activities should be made clear?
And I don't know there's Oh, Dr. Lemon, >> I just want to clarify and I'm sure Mr. Miller could also clarify that is specifically from CRS. It is one of the reasons that a school is um el or able to expel a student. And so that language behav behavior on or off school property
that is detrimental to the welfare, safety or morals of other students or school personnel including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the student exhibiting the behavior or to one or more other students is directly from CRS. That is one of the reasons we can expel.
It's one of the causes number 24. I'm just responding to that. Pardon me. >> I'm sorry. Um on my copy. I do not have that on my copy. >> It's a comment. >> You don't have what? >> I don't have the comments.
>> No, >> the comment states this needs further explanation. So I was explaining that it's along with some of the other reasons that we can expel. There are reason >> I'm not thinking I was trying to take out on or off school property.
>> That's this one right here. >> Right. But I don't >> So is there >> Oh, it wasn't it wasn't that that's not your comment. That's not Was that the original or is that the one that I worked on? >> Because on the one I worked on I did not
have the on or off school property in it. I'm pretty upset. >> I'm pretty upset. I don't know that we want to go forward with this one tonight either. >> Do you want to move this one then to the November work session as well, Deb?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Can I mention something? >> Did I answer your question, Director Thompson? >> Huh? >> Did I answer your question? >> Yeah, that was a specific question about that one. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And um just to be to be clear, we
actually had an issue of that recently. >> We've had we've had multiple issues. >> Yes. Of vandalizing parks and things and making sure that we have some some way to um discipline students who are caught doing vandalism to public parks.
>> Students brandishing weapons, posting those photos, creating um a concern, safety concern. Well, if if I can add briefly on that too because I we encounter this unfortunately very frequently, but I I think the legislature has left it
intentionally somewhat ambiguous, right? They haven't drawn this bright line because it's hard to anticipate it's hard to anticipate all of the various types of conduct that might be the school might have an interest in addressing. Uh particularly in like the
school violence context, right? There are things that students might engage in completely unrelated to school and off school property, but that can have a really uh detrimental impact to the school environment. Um the legislature, I think two years ago, um took up a bill
to try and be more specific around this topic um that they ultimately didn't pass. And part of the reason that it didn't pass is because there was a tragic shooting in Denver public schools at the exact time that the legislature was considering that bill. Uh had that bill and that version passed, uh it
would further handicap schools and their ability to address it was essentially a situation where a student had engaged in um criminal conduct off campus that uh spilled onto campus. Um and so anyway, I
think long way of saying that I think it's intentionally ambiguous to extend full discretion to schools and school districts to make that determination as to what crosses the line. Okay. So these are now um proposed revisions to JICD and proposed policy
JICDA are going to be covered at a November work session. And so the last we're on to is 3.8 which is policy and procedure reviews. Um the first one has no changes. Then
JFABB-R has minor edits. Foreign exchange students on a J1 visit visa are not subject to tuition. JFAB minor edits update contact information for liaison. JFAB-R
students in foster care no changes and J LC minor edits added parents and guardians. So we just have minor edits on the policy and procedure review. Director Dvola.
>> Uh, yes. So, I um would actually like to um offer a potential change to policy JLC. Uh JLC does have to do with the vaccination opportunities or what we
call vaccine vans or having um uh like boo at the flu or things like that. Um, >> we don't have that anymore. >> Property. True. But it it says right here if the district provides opportunities on school property for
administration of emergency youth authorization vaccinations. Uh, okay. So that's not boo at the flu, but that would be for any emergency use. The students, parents or guardian shall be physically present. I don't think we
need to have any opportunities to have vaccinations on school property, period. So, I would like to be able to add that in and take out the the wording saying that we should have those opportunities, the potential opportunity to have those on
school property. any discussion on that? >> I don't really have a problem with it being removed. Um, just because before even when they used to do boot of the flu, um, there weren't as many places
for im emergency use vaccinations. Um, I don't know if there's any issue with taking out that vaccination opportunities on that one. >> Director Schmidt,
>> I think if vaccinations are concerned, we should be looking at if someone wants to change it, we should be looking at that pretty hard. Director Hy. >> So this is very specific to emergency use authorization vaccinations. So
that's like there is an outbreak and public health officials have determined that um you know we need to um get our students vaccinated. A great example of that would be like there there have been all these measles outbreaks, but um I I
know that this language specifically speaks to the COVID um outbreak, right? So, and all this is saying is that if there is a vaccination opportunity, then the parent must be physically present
and and provide identity. I think if we strike this then that my interpretation I'd love to hear admin weigh in on this would be that um if we strike it then we are no longer requiring parent identification for emergency use
vaccinations uh if they are being offered on our school c campuses. Mr. Hilts, >> that's my understanding of the proposed strike through as well. It would be if the board wants to say we may never use
uh EUAs which we we had that discussion during COVID. Um this isn't the policy to do it. We would have to do it in another place. This regulates essentially how we would provide and ensures that we would have parental notification and positive
identification. Um so I I I think I think your understanding of that is correct. Um I'm not familiar with the policy but let me let me come back and look at it. may be re cross referenced below. Um,
>> say again, Nancy, Dr. Wman. >> So, so there isn't a there isn't a um a partner to JLC. Um, and again, Director Hy is correct. This was added during the um pandemic um when emergency youth
authorization became in uh available. um we were doing it as part of the boot of the flu and the board determined that emergency youth authorizations would require a parent. Um so again, if there were to be another reason that an emergency youth a use authorization
vaccination were to be available, this would already be present to say we're not going to do it for any of our students without a parent or guardian present. So >> director Devola and then I'll want to add one comment to that. >> Okay. First to clarify, I meant strike
out and change, not strike out comp like everything and leave nothing there. >> Um, okay. I would I would strike that out and put in that the district would not provide any opportunities for vaccinations at all on our school campuses. So, that would be needed to be
done um in their doctor's offices um things like that. That's just my thing. And then um I do know that >> I'm I'm sorry. Um, so I'm still confused. So you would get rid of the entire first sentence that if the district provides opportunities on school prop property, you're basically
saying the district would never provide opportunities on school property. >> Correct. For vaccinations, period. So there there would not like for example, we don't do the blue boo at the flu, but I don't know if we have that in policy saying we're not doing boo at the flu anymore anymore. I think that was just a
decision that was made, but that's not in policy. >> Correct. So I want it in policy that we're not doing with the flu, we're not doing vaccinations. Those are medical things that need to be done at medical facilities, not something that schools are responsible for.
>> So I would um and Mr. Hilts, you might know whenever we do uh sports physicals at the schools when sometimes those are provided. Um, is that ever a part of I I don't know if that I I would have to
find out from the ads if whenever they do large sports physicals when it's something that is provided because parents can't get to and maybe somebody has many athletics. >> I'm not aware that vaccinations are ever a part of sports physicals. Okay. >> Um, we we chewed this meat pretty hard
during COVID. Um and one of the conclusions that we came to is that it is it is parent supportive to provide opportunities for students to get vaccinations. Um and and the board was
unwilling to com to do what what director Dvo is is uh advocating for. The board was unwilling to completely disallow all vaccination opportunities. Um, and I believe at the time we still uh operated a clinic at Falcon Elementary. >> Correct.
>> Um, but the board's decision that's reflected here is that they were drawing a line that differentiated emergency use authorization vaccinations from conventional vaccinations. So, in
theory, as a service to parents, the district through its health professionals might decide to do boo to the flu. The flu vaccine is not an EUA vaccination and there are parents, this is not speculation, we have empirical
data, there are parents who appreciated and took advantage of that opportunity and so it would be somewhat in opposition to the manifest empirical history of parents choosing school-based vaccinations to eliminate
that that option. It's a valid recommendation, but the reason the board didn't adopt that is because we had evidence that parents appreciated that option, but not for the EUA vaccinations for what I will call standard vaccinations.
>> You know, I just wanted to add something back to the discussion we had back then. I was opposed to vaccine mandates. I was also opposed to us removing opportunities that parents and teachers might want. And so what the middle ground was is if it involved anyone
under the age of 18 that their parents had to be present. So then I just was remembering that when when Superintendent Hilts was talking, the concern was two adverse reactions. So if we have someone who is under 18 and back then, just for some context, there were
students in Douglas County that were supposed to get a permission slip. they went on to a vaccine van and they were preparing to give them a shot without a signed permission slip and so that is why the determination was made back then that if the student is under 18 that
their parents had to be present. So we knew that we did have the authorization for that whether it's a flu shot or anything else. Um but if we believe in parental rights if they want that opportunity do we remove it? So, Director Dola,
>> uh, my whole argument is that that's that's not the role of a school. That's my whole argument. Um, and this is a new board, which is why I'm bringing it back up because there might be a different consensus than we had when we were a different board. So, that's why I'm
bringing this discussion back up. That's just my two cents. Director Schmidt. So, that was I'm sorry I kind of came in late. I was a little upset. Um, that was kind of my question. Is this even in our purview? Are we supposed to be giving
vaccinations? Is that the school's job or is that the parents job? >> Yeah, we don't do it. They they it would be an outside health agency that would be doing it. Director Hunt, >> but that's the same thing. >> So, that was exactly what I was about to bring up is that D49 is not giving
vaccinations. We are allowing health agencies to bring a portable um uh clinic or whatever other facilities they to our facilities where they are then available to our students and our
staff and our parents if they so choose to use them. It still comes down to parental rights, parental choice. Um, but I am not in favor of taking away opportunities for people to look after their health.
>> Director Levir, right? >> Used Bu at the flu with all of my children um all the time at Falcon High and my husband even came to get it. I am still in favor of allowing the health department to park their van on our property and give families those opportunities.
And I just want to be clear, we haven't done that in probably three years, four. We have not done any type between all of the Safeways and the Walgreens and the um other locations. We have not we've provided information to parents about
there are facilities where you can receive vaccinations, but we have not brought any outside providers onto any school property in the last four years to provide that. Director Nola, >> and I appreciate that so much more than
you know. I just wanted to make sure we had it in policy, but it looks like I don't have consensus to make any changes. So, we will go ahead and just leave it the way it is and we will move for move forward. >> I'm with you. >> Okay. >> If if I may just make You're going to
hear the phrase from me quite a bit as it relates to budget and other things. Is it missionritical? Um, this is not mission critical for district 49, but there are some things that we do and in in fact athletic physicals are probably the best example. We don't have
to do that. We don't have to host fast nights. We're not a financial provider. So, we're going to be making some decisions board between between the board administration. We're going to be cutting back some things that are valued, that are appreciated, that earn you some
kudos, but are not missionritical. And so those may not be prohibited, but they may be intentionally paused or abandoned because we don't have the resources to support them. And this might be a good example.
We didn't have the, I'll say, social resource to support ongoing vaccinations. And so we just chose not to do something. We didn't have to choose not to do it, but that made administrative sense and it continues to make administrative sense. There's no I'm not aware of any uh initiative to
reestablish boot of the flu or or other vaccination programs. >> Director Dvola, that's a good point. And I just want to say it was worth a shot. Pun intended. >> Yeah. Superintendent Hilt said, "Good
job." Oh my gosh, we are getting punchy now. Okay. And the rest are information items. So, we are adjourned at 10:13 p.m. strong.