##VIDEO ID:ej9AljdP3VQ## week can good evening everyone Welcome to our Board of Education policy committee meeting tonight I will call the meeting to order and um just State who we have here we have alela Movic Dr Anne Williams in the audience Evelyn bevans Brian lyol we have board member sukur um superintendent Dr Suzanne Johnson board president Melissa Owens Chief legal officer board secretary Trisha Olen myself and board member Don Martin so the first item on our agenda are board policy updates and so I will turn it over to Trisha osen Chief legal officer to review the following policies with the policy committee thank you so much uh tonight I bring forward uh press uh issue 117 for the board's consideration uh there are uh quite a number of uh board policy revisions but I do wish to let the board know that um quite a number of them include very minor updates and changes to footnotes or updates according to legislation so we may through move through some of them quickly um but I'm happy to take questions as we move through the first board first board policy update we have is two colon 105 addressing the ethics and gift ban uh the change that I'd like to highlight for the board is that there is um language in item two that addresses a broader um prohibition for board members than what is required by Statute the statute would have that board members are not intentionally able to misappropriate District resources or property and this board policy would go further in that it spells out that board members or employees are not able to use District property or resource in connection with any political activity and we anticipated and are making an administrative recommendation that the board move forward with the word use rather than the statute which would permit misappropriating okay um if we move on the next board policy up for the board tonight is two colon 110 which addresses qualification terms and duties of board officers the primary change that happens in this board policy is including an abbreviation Oma for the open meetings act um the remainder addresses footnote updates moving forward with board policy two Colin 120 board member development uh this board policy has been updated to also include the Oma abbreviation that I mentioned in the previous board policy in addition this policy addresses changes that happened through legislation regarding School Board member training including that there is now training required regarding student outcomes additional emphasis on student behavior and training on the subject of trauma responsive environment um trauma responsive learning environments rather overall there's been an emphasis in legislation on um ensuring that board members have additional professional development and the changes in that uh board press policy are in line with those uh legislative uh changes the next board policy for the board to consider is two colon 140 uh which addresses Communications to and from the board uh there are simply footnote clarifications that are offer offered uh for the board and there's nothing substantively that is changing in the policy itself can I interrupt yes um can we acknowledge uh Veronica Nolan board member is online yes yes thank you no no worries and moving forward to board policy for colon10 which is a policy addressing fiscal and business management uh there is no substantive change uh in this board policy this is mostly a procedural update uh for the board policy footnotes um next we move on to board policy for colon 30 which addresses Revenue Investments this change is in connection with Public Act 10388 which allows the Board of Education to have Investments of public funds in instruments not listed in the public funds act um I did consult with our um our Administration specifically Dr Williams uh to make sure that uh we are in line and understand the implications of this um the changes that are being recommended by press are um Allowed by Statute and fall in line with statute uh requirements uh in speaking with her we did have discussions about the fact that our firms um that we use to invest on our behalf do comply with the requirements of the school code so this would allow them to potentially utilize other investment opportunities and options uh that had not previously available and because of the way that our investment firms invest on our behalf we do anticipate that they may wish to explore this if not utilize this because they have a tendency to want Diversified options for the board given our size and our investment opportunities um I've about exhausted my information on that and if there's any more I'm happy to turn it over to Dr Williams right then moving on to board policy 4 for colon 40 which addresses incurring debt there are footnote changes uh that were done to reorganize the footnotes um and to add additional information regarding Public Act 103 591 uh regarding uh the board's ability to borrow money and issue bonds mostly there has been a reorganization of the footnotes however moving forward to board policy for colon 60 which addresses purchases and contracts the footnotes and the legal citations in the footnotes were updated to address uh a simple change that was made in legislation to numbering of legislation moving forward to board policy for colon 150 this section addresses facility management and building programs there are a number of changes that are being recommended mostly two footnotes but I do want to highlight what those changes are for the board um you will see that there have been URL updates to correct broken links throughout there's also changes that are made according to statute for example uh 103 591 addresses that uh a referendum is not required for property building purchases or construction if funds are paid with um certain funds um that has been addressed according according to statute and that is um added as a footnote uh for the board to consider there's also an additional footnote to address Public Act 103 d8 uh which addresses the costs for board approval for building Renovations have changed according to statute they previously were uh requiring board authorization for any amount over $122,500 and now there's board authorization for amount over $17,500 there's also a change to address uh Public Act 103 518 which now according to code permits uh the opportunity for um multi-occupancy restrooms that are all gender or designated for use by any person and that is a change that happened outside of the school code but obviously does impact school's abilities uh to design for those options then we move forward to board policy for colon 160 which addresses the Environmental Quality of buildings and grounds there's no substantive changes made to this board policy there are footnotes that address changes uh due to Public Act 103736 which addresses that ISB must compile resources regarding air quality in school buildings then we move forward to board policy 4 colon 170 uh which which addresses a public act that made changes to how schools address aeds or automated uh defibrillators the Public Act is 103119 and it says that uh schools must have an AED in attendance centers and where there are extracurriculars uh activities on school grounds moving on to board policy for colon 190 in the footnotes to this board policy there are URL updates to fix broken URLs there's also language and citation updates throughout but no substantive changes and I regret I did not read the title of this board policy which is targeted School violence prevention programs moving forward to board policy five colon 10 which addresses equal employment opportunity non-discrimination and minority recruitment uh throughout this press update you will see that there are changes in how our anti-discrimination policies are read this uh change in this uh policy addresses how reproductive Health and Family responsibilities are uh discussed in this board policy that is made in other sections and so you will hear me repeat that in the future also to keep in mind for the future you will see changes in anti-discrimination policies to address military status as well moving forward to board policy 5 colon2 which addresses workplace harassment prohibited in line with the bill that or the policy I just read this also addresses anti-discrimination changes to address reproductive Health decisions and family responsibilities no other substantive changes are made can I ask a quick question you may so I know in this one it does reference Title 9 and I did see it come through today that there the 2024 Title Nine has been I'm not going to say overturned but whatever is going on in the courts would we expect to see some of these policies then come back in a short amount of time as things get worked through yes there is a case um that comes out of one of our sister circuits um the case is titled Tennessee versus uh uh the federal government Cardona and um what it um it is a case heralding from Kentucky and um what the case has done is it has vacated the 2024 regulations that were um put out by the Biden Administration and because they are vacated um Nationwide there is a reversion to the 2020 Rags um what the 2020 Rags primarily did was address changes in procedure um there weren't very many substantive changes that were made and so we're reverting back to a different procedural way of addressing how Title 9 is um played out in um the school context um and an employment context um and uh luckily for us in the state of Illinois not much is changing from a substantive standpoint we rely quite a lot on Illinois Law when we look at students anti-discrimination rights so those have not changed um moving forward to board policy five colon 30 addressing hiring process and criteria um this change does address um additional updates made according to statute um one of the changes I do want to highlight has to do with a footnote addressing um changes that were made in Illinois due to Public Act 103 879 which uh addresses that employ ERS are not required to use the federal ever verify system uh this school district does in fact use the ever verify system for employment moving forward to board policy five colon 35 which addresses compliance with the fair labor standards act there are updated citations made in this uh board policy and an update to a footnote to address the fair labor standards Act definition of Sal salary basis previously the salary amount was included and the update now just specifies that uh to qualify for um under the salary basis terms which is used to determine uh whether or not you qualify for overtime now it simply says that it's an amount to be specified in regulations so that way this provision won't have to keep changing if there are additional changes in the future and I'm going to turn back very briefly to more fully answer your question board member Martin um I realize now that I just explained the court case but I didn't explain whether or not I anticipate additional changes will be coming down the line and the answer to your question is yes I do anticipate that there may be additional changes that come down um in board policy because they address the procedure for how we handle Title 9 um but I don't anticipate that they will be substantive changes as a followup to that if theed government decides something can they overrule Illinois though uh certainly the supremacy clause the federal government would be able to overrule Illinois there are um so if there is something that is directly in conflict with the federal government um that that would be something that we would potentially look at the the interesting thing here is we would be looking at whether or not there is truly Something In conflict or whether or not the state has the right to Grant citizen with more rights um than are granted by the federal government I would not interpret that as being in conflict with the federal government okay good point thank you uh then we turn to board policy five colon 90 which addresses the abused and neglected child Reporting Act um and requirements under that act uh this policy has been substantively changed to remove language that uh is no longer required due to public act 103 624 previously there was a requirement that staff followup with DCFS on written reports within 48 hours but that is removed I believe that was due to an inability for uh or it was impracticable to get information on those reports um and so that was made a legislative change moving forward to board policy 5 colon 120 which addresses employee ethics code of professional conduct and conflict of interest um there has been a change in um how we refer to school counselors which were previously called guidance counselors and so that change has been reflected in this board policy and throughout this press issue you'll hear me speak about this um at least one other time there's also a change made to address um the ethics of uh the code of ethics for Illinois Educators and the GIF ban act um here there is a change to permit um institu institutions of higher education to provide lodging and travel to uh school counselors um as part of uh their job without violating the gift ban act moving forward to board policy 5on 125 addressing personal technology and social media usage there are just very basic updates to this to keep in line with the times there's no longer a reference to Twitter um and there's additional um social media entities that are added um and additional technology that is added to this policy such as smart watches and we move forward to board policy 5 colon 150 which addresses personal record Personnel records rather uh the footnotes address um that there that Personnel records can be requested two times a year according to Public Act 103 727 and um that's the primary change that is made here and only through footnotes no other substantive changes moving forward to board policy 5 colon 230 which addresses maintaining student discipline uh for many many many years uh the state of Illinois has not had a law on the books prohibiting corporal punishment uh this past year the legislature did finally pass um a piece of legislation Pro prohibiting corporal punishment in all circumstances but this board has had a policy on the books for many years prior to my joining the district even uh prohibiting corporal punishment so this is not a change for um u46 but this is a change potentially for other school districts in the State Board policy 6 colon 20 addresses the school year calendar and day um and there's simply footnote updates throughout this uh policy um one that emphasizes that Regional Offices of Education have to validate e-learning plans annually if a school board chooses to authorize school um e-learning plans and we do not have an e-learning plan authorized uh and u46 board policy 6 colon 60 addresses curriculum content there's multiple curricular updates that I want to highlight for the Board of Education uh the first is that driver education is now uh required to have worker safety zone information provided in the driver ed curriculum the health education curriculum now has a requirement uh to change a language to address personal health habits instead of um language that described developing A sound mind and a healthy body there is an additional curriculum update to address CTE in grades 6 through 12 um including explicit at reference to Career El exploration rather and Pathways programs I do want to note that the board could choose to opt out of the CTE in 6 through 12 but our administrative recommendation in line with what I believe the board has been accepting is to include that CTE so I don't anticipate that that's something that the board will make a change on but certainly we're making an administrative recommendation to include that and then I do also want to point out that there is um additional curriculum that is now required on education about conservation of natural resources and then in 2026 there will be a requirement for instruction on climate change moving on to board policy uh six colon 65 which addresses students social and emotional development there are updates to Broken URLs in the footnotes and an update according to uh legislation Public Act 103 764 allows schools to teach relaxation techniques in physical education or social emotional learning but that is not a requirement it is an optional um portion of instruction moving forward to board policy 6 colon 135 which is addresses The Accelerated placement program I did have some good uh discussion with my colleague um Lela movich on this item as well um the changes that are made to board policy address when students can be Advanced to um the next accelerated or the next inline cours workk when they meet or exceed standards um presently we do have a current practice of enrolling students in the next rigorous course when they meet or exceed standards they can opt out if they choose uh we don't typically give notice of the um acceleration to the next rigorous course we typically uh provide that as an option for a student so for example if the student was in a regular class they would be um moved to the next rigorous course in honors if they were previously in an honors class they would be moved to the next rigorous course in AP um and so this uh change would still permit us to continue our practice um we do provide uh you know the opportunity for parents to withdraw um but I do want to note that the change in board policy would have written notification when their child is eligible for enrollment in accelerated courses um and the way that we do that in practice is by simply moving them to the next um elevated course and then they would have the option to move out so will we be doing the written notification or will we begin doing that then okay that okay that's okay and then I sorry question on the item number five it's all in green yes so the waiver of course completion requirement so that is is that referring to things like our PE waivers or are we waving other types of graduate requirements so the interesting Nuance with um item number five is that it allows for the board to look at when a student has demonstrated Mastery or competency we still do and I will rely on my colleague here but please uh I'll try at first um we still do um Carnegie units of credit and so we are standards-based and we have the ability to review when students meet standards but we do not Implement Competency Based um review of student learning and so at this point in time because of how we are structured we do not interpret that this change which is allowable is something that we would currently be implementing because of how the board currently reviews our students um progress we do the standards based and the Carnegie based instruction we do not do Competency Based review of student learning well I want so the Illinois State Board of Education several years ago launched a pilot for a company Competency Based transcript we were not part of that pilot so that's that's where we we won't typically issue credits for competency um in an area because we don't have a system to do that for our just the way we operate in terms of the Carnegie units and needing a certain number of credits to to graduate and then what the graduation require are is this something so this is new but is this something that we can look at using um if needed for students to fulfill foreign language requirements I was thinking that yeah like as that rolls out like that's the new graduation thing that we've been it's definitely we'd have to like do some more research and do some work around that but yeah we can definitely look into it I know you know the resolution to adopt the Seal of by literacy to meet the requirements is kind of like a form of this and so that is also something that we can maybe assemble a team and and look and see further yeah I mean if they don't if this state doesn't pass any Bill to let the still biliteracy be recognized and that might be an option for us so thank you can I ask a question so so just to clarify this isn't something that we're doing in practice right now no so given that is it I'm I'm just wondering if because if somebody were were to read this it they don't know right if if somebody outside of those of us sitting in this room were to read this policy they wouldn't know that we don't do this in practice is there some Lang clarifying language that we can put in there that like the board has the option to the board has the option or the or that it I mean it's I I understand that that we're we're taking this language from press plus correct and and press plus took the language almost directly from statute subsection a-20 of uh the statute reads um in subsection two almost word for word what press has implemented um so I'm wondering if we could put like as a as a preface to this the board may choose to offer a waiver of a course completion requirement just because it's something that we're not actually doing presently and we wouldn't have to change the policy then in the event that we you know are able to do something like that like for the foreign language requirement okay I'm just I'm a little Leary about putting something in there that makes it sound like we are actually doing something when we're not the other option here would be um there's nothing in the statute itself I know I just read a a small section of it to to you or I referenced a small section of it to you but there's nothing in the statute itself that requires that this be an element that the board adopt and so because it is an optional provision um we could choose to Omit that section entirely and only implement it if and when the board does move in that direction so we could app to bring it back at another time for the board to review that's right so just section five then that's correct okay like based on the the question of potential research or inquiry into if and when and what what that would be about we could we could bring that forward back to the board at another time then question if we do that but the district just decides that you know we want to notify parents written can just do that or do we have to go back to this policy and so the wonderful way uh that we are recommending that we update this policy is that the written notification would be addressed in subsection two and that would move forward we would just not include subsection five addressing the waiver of course completion requirements okay thank you in that instance so if what I'm hearing the board um is correct and please correct me if I'm wrong I will bring when we move forward for a vote on these board policy items I will bring forward a draft policy that does not include subsection 5 do you well I mean I'll defer to the the the committee chairs on this but yeah I I would be inclined to leave it out at this point since as as Melissa pointed out people do read our policies when they want to accomplish something and we could have this you know I would agree with that until we're more firm on how that's going to move forward for number five I could see someone doing that this year preparation for graduation or something yeah my kid is competent in this area right right they shouldn't have it yeah I agree yeah I'm on board okay great I'll make that note for when we bring It Forward for a vote Veronica did you have any comments on this I agree with what you just said about leaving it out thank you great then we'll move forward to board policy 6 col and 270 which addresses this uh change I mentioned a moment ago about uh school counselors who no are no longer referred to as guidance counselors and then we move on to board policy 6 colon 340 addressing student testing and assessment there's no substantive change in this board policy itself there are updates to footnotes to address Public Act 10324 which describes that student test profile information may be available to institutions of higher education according to law moving forward to board policy 7 colon 10 equal educational opportunities there are changes made to this board policy um in line with anti-discrimination changes that I've referenced earlier this evening um including addressing repr productive health and Military status in um the board policy making sure that we there's no permitted discrimination on those elements moving forward to board policy 7on 100 addressing Health eye and dental examinations immunizations and exclusion of students there was a statutory change to remove the requirement that a school district provided information to students regarding men aacle vaccines and I don't know that I pronounced that correctly um but that is no longer required according to um the uh control of uh commun what was previously communicable diseases which is now control of notifiable diseases and conditions code then we have an update to board policy 7 colon 160 addressing student appearances there are additional changes made uh to this policy to address updating um uh protections to hairstyles associated with protected categories and those are made in line with the jet Hawkins act then we move forward to board policy 7 colon 180 addressing the prevention of in response to bullying intimidation and harassment this is another section that has been updated regarding anti-discrimination provisions and we are updating this policy to address that the term sexual harassment is now phrased as sexual discrimination in the policy moving forward to board policy 7 Cole and 200 suspension procedures there is no substantive update to this board policy it has however been reformatted moving forward to board policy 7 colon 340 there's updates made to this uh to address Public Act 103 624 deleting the requirement to confirm the written report of uh made to DCFS that I mentioned in earlier board policy and it also addresses expungement of a DCFS file uh per the Illinois school student records Act then we move on to board policy 8 colon 10 connection with the community uh which addresses changes made to this board policy that are in line uh with just language updates and also in line with a Supreme Court case Lind key V freed um that Supreme Court case addressed changes um that uh multiple um public officials attempted to make to their social media profiles the public officials had uh been in communication with members of the public through the social media profile and we're holding the accounts out as both personal and at times Public Accounts and how they public officials posted to those accounts with the Supreme Court unanimous decision uh came down with last year um in the case of linky versus freed and Oak Connor Ratliff versus Gardner uh we kind of view these pair of cases together is that when a public official holds themsel out and possesses actual authority to speak on behalf of the board that individual cannot then Block members of the public from that account but they would have to not only hold themselves out as the authority but also have the actual authority to speak on behalf of the board the changes that are made to this board policy then address that the official spokesperson of the board in those instances will be the board president and that that individual will have the authority to communicate on behalf of the board to news media and the community and that statements will be authorized by the Board of Education um when they are made in that context and that individuals who have personal accounts and who speak on issues of public importance are recommended to State um that comments are made personally on their personal social media accounts but that is a recommendation that's included in in this board policy question so is that that recommendation for um for board members to to add that personal disclaimer is that understood to be with every post generated or is that understood to be somewhere in the on the page itself or the The Heading or or somewhere that's visible uh that's a great question uh I think that that is one that I am interpreting it it would be when the statement is made um I would um expect that there might be things that are not official um statements um not official board Communications um that members may wish to to still want to to put out into the public through their social media platforms um and when those statements are made that is when I would recommend that the board member consider um and remember the language that's being recommended here is that it's an encouragement to identify the statement as a personal opinion and in this case we're are we're referring to personal accounts and personal Pages like so if a board member has a board member Facebook page then if they make a personal statement and they're not the um official spokesperson then with that post they should also do it in that instance as well what as opposed to your personal Facebook page right if account if board members have a board member account or public officials have a a public account and they are um writing on the account regarding board um business the recommendation is that that account is the one that would include this encouraged statement okay thank you for the clarification y if board members have personal accounts that they use for personal um business personal Family Social contact I I do not uh believe that there is a requirement at least there's no requirement according to the Supreme court case um that there be any sort of flag or um public statement notifying as such I think the difficulty comes when someone is holding themselves out as if it were a public account um accepting you know large or or all of the um individuals that attempt to connect with someone um holding themselves out in the public form rather than in a personal form those are the accounts that I I would think would fall in line um with the Supreme Court case and that we recommend uh a public official or board member consider making a statement about thank you so I just want clarification because it says news conferences interviews we get we get calls from newspapers looking for statements so is the intent then that when we get calls we are no longer making any type of comments and we're always deferring I don't believe that is required board members are permitted to have personal opinions um however you um according to how the board of education is structured by law and according to how this board has chosen to operate by its bylaws one board member does not speak for the board unless authorized by the board president and here this policy would have the board president be the official spokesperson for the board and so this is meant to be a clarification of when the statement is more of an official board policy um I'm sorry an official board statement rather um we expect that board members individually can always exercise their rights to speak for themselves but we would recommend that you not hold yourself out as speaking for the [Music] board I am I'm just uncomfortable yeah as a as an additional point of clarification when when we're making the delineation between you know the the the public pages that that people may [Music] um may have out on on on a social media platform and then they're more personal private is there a does that personal private hinge on whether or not that personal page is actually made to be private because there is the option to have a personal page and and yet not have that you know be private and have that be open to the public that has not been an element that I've read about in case law um and so I believe that that is still an area where there isn't settled case precedent on that I I think that could potentially be an element that someone could look at to help determine if an account is personal or private but I don't view there being any requirement that a board member make all of their accounts private to specify that they are private I think it's in the nature of how you post and how you treat the account that is the overarching criteria we would look at okay does it also address we have for example Facebook pages u46 uncensored whatever they call it there's another one unofficially or u46 unofficial or I don't board members including myself have occasionally posted they're usually just to provide information usually a link to something would that be a case again where we should identify ourselves as this is my personal opinion not the board opinion I think that would be encouraged according this board policy but again it's an encouragement it's not a requirement okay okay thank you my final question as board president currently um do I still then have the ability so say I'm on on a more public page and offer information or offer link as a clarifying informational do I have the option of declaring that being as a community member as a personal recommendation go to this website or am I always going to be looked at as as the the the source of of official information I think the distinction is that when a board president is communicating on behalf of the board that the distinction should be made in that communication that it is an official communication made on behalf of the board I I would strongly recommend that that be the case when there's official business being conducted I would also recommend that board members consider this encouraged personal statement whenever you're writing on a subject of public importance on your personal page but that is not a requirement okay I know I'm I'm repeating myself and dancing around slightly ask question just so that I'm clear um because I do have a Facebook page and usually I just use it to share information as a board member and that might go to Sue's point if I'm just sharing hey the next unite u46 meeting is this even though Facebook has removed those shares um when they allow them I don't need to make a it wouldn't necessarily be encouraged to make this is my personal statement because I'm sharing it directly from the District page or I don't think that that would be an area that would run a foul of a problem um where it would potentially be a difficulty is if on a seemingly what what someone might interpret as a a public post if you were to post every time there's a meeting and someone comes to rely on that and then you block that person from your page then that might be a difficulty if someone did not have another way to access information right or to get the information of of the schedule luckily that is not the the problem that we will face here we always post public information about meetings and schedules and like you said if what you're doing is copying and pasting from a district site that is the ultimate source of information for someone so I would expect that that would not necessarily be a problem for us and u46 okay thank you lots of fun to discuss on that one and then last we do have a recommendation from Administration regarding a board policy board policy uh for colon 140 came before the board somewhat recently um regarding updates that were recommended by press in conversation with Administration after those board updates moved forward we did have an occasion to have discussion about the issue of when students are assessed signs for intentional misuse intentional vandalism intentional damage or intentional destruction of school property and in those instances the administration is recommending that the board consider that even if a student meets eligibility criteria for a waiver that when there is intentional misuse vandalism damage or destruction of school property amounting to over $500 that there be the opportunity for the Board of Education to not simply require that that uh fine be waved but allow Administration to review that on a case-by casee basis and potentially assess the fine for those instances the conversation did focus a lot on what an appropriate threshold amount would be for intentional misuse vandalism damage or destruction and we looked to the institutional vandalism uh provision of the criminal code which also has a $500 threshold institutional vandalism is vandalism that is assessed in a criminal context for when there's damage to churches schools other public buildings of importance and we felt it was um appropriate to be in line with what we might look to in a criminal context now this obviously is not um utilizing uh criminal standard we are not suggesting that we would take someone uh to law enforcement but that we would have the opportunity to assess those fines for intentional um abuse of school property okay do we have any sense of how often this would occur every year um we do not I do want to um highlight that there have been a few occurrences I think the board will likely remember um there have been a few Tick Tock challenges for example if you remember when there was a soap dispenser occurrence um where we quickly amassed thousands of dollars of damage in our building um and we think it's important when then there are those very clear intentional instances that we still be permitted the opportunity to determine if a fee is appropriate and that concludes uh the information I have for the board of education on press update 117 and a recommendation for um a change recommended by Administration to board policy for col one 40 Miss Martin um so I wanted to go back to five col 125 quickly yes but I think my question is probably covered elsewhere in policy okay so social media and it you know we list you know not limited to but we list a variety of them yes so it appears as though Tik Tok is going to be banned like relatively soon so I am going to assume that elsewhere in policy we would address we address using apps and software that is not legally supported and that would be like if somebody was using Tik Tock within our buildings or on school devices once it's banned that that would be that that somehow is covered in a different policy that make sense it does it does my understanding and I know that Mr Wolf is somewhere in the room my understanding of of what happens when a site becomes illegal is that it will not be able to be accessed by us devices um and so it won't necessarily be in the context of what we can or cannot do on our Network or what can or cannot happen in our school grounds is that it will not be able to be accessed in the United States that's my understanding and if I if I can also just currently um if we're made aware that students are accessing sites that they should not be accessing because they have some magical route VPN around right um those we we also follow up um with students in those Manns uh in alignment with our student code of conduct okay so what that becomes is that one we do have to be made aware and we're not always made aware but when we find out that that has occurred then it becomes a student code of conduct uh issue and we work with the the student um if it you know certainly if it if it's occurring on a regular basis in a location we work with the site we work with the household as well but we proceed in in that in that vein you to the best of our abilities I I only ask one because the Tic Tac ban is big deal I keep hearing about it but also ironically I just got hit wrongly for having a VPN on my home network I don't actually have one Netflix was just having a bad day um but I do know including students use VPN to access materials and things that would not normally be accessible in our country so and I would assume staff there are staff that know how to also right people do it even just to get like Netflix Japanese right I there's just ways to do it so that's why I didn't know if we had laid out policy do you know what I mean with all the kind of weird the the other piece is the extensive process that we go through with our with our soapa act um anytime that we bring a resource to you I know it's an extensive uh review to make sure that they're we're going to close as many of those doors as possible so many times there are resources that are brought forward and we identify that they actually cannot be secure um and they allow right those opportunities for students or other people to access information Andor additional resources that are not appropriate for for students so we we we do our best to stay up to um certainly up to practice on that and if it's a repeated situation we'll proceed with the student Cod of conduct thank you any other questions or comments okay the next item on our agenda is public comments do we have any public comments uh we do not have any public comments hey thank you and with that I will thank everyone for attending and adjourn the meeting thank you