Will just be a few more minutes. Thank you. That's it. Actually, Actually, we could go ahead and get started. We'll take care of some admin things. Thank you. Are people walking around now? Are we gonna get can we go ahead and get started, folks? Okay. We're gonna go ahead and convene the governance committee meeting on January 6 at 05:37. Thanks for your patience in starting. The, we are all here.
Happy New Year, everyone. The first order of business is to approve the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Agenda item 1.02. Mr. Frisch is, moved, Doctor. Anderson seconds. All in favor? That is unanimous for the motion minutes. Motion of the minutes. Okay. Alright. Today, we are gonna get through, three buckets of work. One is, to work on capital improvement program or facilities related policies that have little or no change. Then we'll move on to ones that might require a bit more discussion and have change.
And then we're gonna look at some human resources related policies. So let's dive in. We're in agenda item 1.03. The first policy is policy fourteen sixty, religion. And we do have on our board docs the redlined version. Doctor Anderson, I see you wanna be recognized. Go ahead. Yes. Thank you. What I would like to recommend, and this is not an edit that is substantial to the content, but rather to, the grammar. I think the philosophy laden, and I'd like to propose omitting the first part of
the philosophy that says the school board affirms their position that I'd like to begin that section with the Fairfax County School Board shall be neutral in respect to religious beliefs and shall not engage in any activity that disparages or advocates religion. Mister Frisch? Thanks. I think this raises a question of I'm not sure why we have the philosophy section of our policies, generally speaking. They should speak the policies themselves should speak for themselves. As I've been crafting some of these, I'm like, why am I writing this?
And so, I would also say that the suggested change would be stepping away from the format of all of the other philosophies that have been included. So I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but if we're looking for uniformity, that would be not uniform. And that's may I I also think that as I'm reading these, just kind of refreshing my memory, they're all kind of inconsistent. So not all of them start with affirming. And I I don't necessarily think that they all need to start with affirming. I think we need to have a philosophy because that speaks to the values. But some of them are a little bit wonkier than others, and I don't think
we lose anything by removing that first component. So I and thank you, mister Frisch, for your work on these philosophies. Just a reminder, you know, we have talked about philosophy, purpose, vision. The goal here is to at least this is a better step forward. We're getting the purpose of the board's, you know, values down. So I would say without objection, striking, the school board affirms their position that and just begin the philosophy with the Fairfax County School Board shall be neutral, etcetera. So starting leaving with the the the case.
Leave the the there. So and then if that needs to be adjusted in other policies just like we did previously, we can go ahead and do that by agreement. So so is anyone ready to make a doctor Anderson has a motion to move this to wait. Hold on. Let's do that. A motion. Yes. Yes. I will make a motion to move policy fourteen sixty point three to the full board. Oh, okay. The governance committee will send policy fourteen sixty, religion that's what it's called.
Okay. Religion, literally. As revised to the full board for adoption. The second? And mister Frisch will second. Any further comment, doctor Ederson? Oh. Woah. There it is. Uh-oh. Is that way to get that. It's like Pass me yours. Well, I'll just have to do this. I'll just have to do this. The meeting just got real short. Okay. Doctor doctor Anderson servo. Oh. You. Oh, what what is happening? I wasn't sure if there was a floor in there. Thank you. I thought it was a floor. Thank you, deputy clerk, Brown. Doctor Anderson, do you have anything more you'd like to share?
No. That's it. Okay. Doctor mister Frisch. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, that is unanimous. Way to go. That was about five minutes. Okay. Next, we have, policy twenty two zero one, compulsory attendance requirements. Doctor Anderson. I'd like to make a motion to move this forward if we're able to omit the first part and start this with the Fairfax County School Board shall adhere to following the Virginia code requirements regarding compulsory school attendance. And then I do have a question.
So I'm just gonna wait for the clerk to capture that in notes. While right. To oh, go ahead. Sure. The Fairfax County School Board, again, trying to be consistent with what was in the previous one, shall adhere to following the Virginia code requirements dot .dot. Any anyone else for some comments? I do wanna say that although we just approved that religion policy, the religion policy under its section well, it's misnumbered. Yikes. So in the religion policy, the summary does not state that the philosophy was included,
whereas in this one, it does state that the summary is included. So that is something one of those administrative things that I think we I will ask if we can give, access, you know, flexibility to the clerk. We have that language that we can vote on at the end to make those similarities. Right? So we want to be sure that summaries have changed since last publication. We could just say without objection and just add it. Sure. I I think and I'm trying to write down the stock language here. So, like, that one was the school board, affirms. Anyway okay.
Anything else about this one? Yeah. I I had a question on twenty two zero one regarding parents or guardians whose child will not have reached his or her sixth birthday. Is this just speaking to doctor E that they can hold their children out they can hold their children home? Mhmm. Yes. K. Right. And I guess the question that raised for me is and I don't know whether this is the right place to do that, and it may not, and please confirm that with me. We have a policy that you have to be five by September 30 to enter kindergarten, but there's no policy well, there's no code.
There's no Virginia code that says you have to be six in order to attend first grade. Should that be in here? Where does that live? I'm guessing it might not live. I don't know if that was my best first statement. Sounds wonderful. You should record a song. Yes. I probably should. In part because children might transfer in who've been in kindergarten in a state that may have allowed an exception. So if there are five and seven eights, we wouldn't hold them out of first grade if they've already completed kindergarten satisfactorily.
Right. And I guess I'm asking where does that live? Like, could that live here? Like, we would add something about first grade here. That's what I'm asking. Like, for kids who are and, you know, I have the example in my house. My daughter was at a private kindergarten and then well, private day school, preschool. They They decided to move her to kindergarten, and my thought is, well, when you go to public school, we'll just push you back, which we never did do because she's tall and etcetera etcetera. But when she started first grade, she was five, and she wasn't going to be
six for many, many, many more months. Which I think we're fine with if she's done kindergarten. Right. But do we need I guess the question is, do we need to say that somewhere? And if it's not here, does that live someplace else? Because that is a question that I've been asked before. I don't think we need to because it reduces our flexibility. I think saying that you have to be five to do kindergarten is reasonable. And then but we do have children that transfer in. No. Very good. Thank you. One other thing I will add is I think it would be more accurate regarding
the summary of changes since last publication, say, sincereview because that's actually the title of the date below and publication just seems kinda random because we're not publishers. So I would just ask, for agreement in that without objection. I think there's no objection. Okay. Is there any, action to, move this policy twenty two zero one forward? Anyone wanna make a motion? Oh, you made it. Yes. Oh, that was your first comment. Right. Did you well, sorry. Did you wanna make a second comment? No? Okay. The second.
Oh, got it. Okay. So doctor Anderson had moved and spoken to it, and doctor Frisch mister Frisch was, seconding. Any other comments? Nope? Alright. All in favor of sending that the governance committee send policy twenty two zero one compulsory attendance requirements as revised to the full board for adoption. And that is unanimous for everyone. Thank you. Okay. Next policy, forty four twenty five, lactation support programming. Doctor Anderson. I'm going to start with my question. The language in blue says that we shall provide, accommodations until the child is one.
Why so specific? Is it is this a legal requirement that only until the child is one? And who's checking that birth date? Shouldn't it be as a parent is requiring it that we provide it? Seems to be kinda judgy. I agree with the latter statement. I just wonder if that's within the statute, but I'll ask John to look that up. So while he looks that up, I have another thought in terms of the beginning of this philosophy. The Fairfax County School Board recognizes, that's where I would start, and then take out
everything else, recognizes the well documented health advantages. So that's how I'd like it to be worded, but I'm also questioning that recognition. This is and I know this is our values and this is our beliefs, but is this the territory we really wanna be weighing in? I I I just some people think, you know, breastfeeding is best. Some people do not think that. I I I don't want, as a board member, to do anything besides what is required by the law, and I I don't wanna get to that space where we're saying this is well documented and it is good. What if I'm a staff member reading this and I choose to not breastfeed?
Oh, but the judge the board is judging me because it's well documented as per their words. I just wonder if we could take a more neutral stance on the introduction. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Did did we write that? Well, I'm We also philosophy. But Before you decide to do that, others might wanna comment on doctor Reed's. I mean, doctor Anderson's statement. So Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Miss Lady. Well, I mean, you know, I don't know that we need a philosophy for all of these, but we were trying to create consistency and this is the direction that it seemed like the momentum was was was taking us.
I do think it's a section we spend a lot of time wordsmithing. I'm fine to have one, and I I I think I agree. Anything in there that could be misinterpreted as leaning towards a belief in something versus people who may not believe in it, we can make it more benign. So I'd be comfortable with editing it. Thank you. Mister Frisch. So I'm okay with the first part that speaks to the science behind the belief. I agree on the arbitrary age usage being struck, and would support, Well, I mean,
here's the question. Right? Because this is not just a philosophy. Right? This is laying out that there will be reasonable breaks for staff. I presume this can apply to students as well. Yeah? Yes. And, by the way, we did confirm that it's a must have age of one. And so there may be a reason that there's an age limit on when they want to allow children to be brought to school.
Right? And so maybe there's a better way of articulating that. And it seems that, like, the reason they may have put the age limit on there is because, the child might be least disruptive if the child was older. I'm not sure. But the child is not present if you breastfeed your pumping. Well, let's before we debate it, let's, mister First, did you have more to add? No. It does seem more prescriptive than the other philosophies. This it is. It's in the code of Virginia until the age of one. And I I will add I mean, we could become more liberal than that, but
that is the code of Virginia. Well, and just, as facilitator, I just wanna mention before I, call on our next member, I just sent around the memo that was given to us previously, and so it does reference the state code. It doesn't say that that's what the state code says, but, that might be helpful for you all to take a look at again. I know I just did. Miss, Saint John Cunning. So I I agree with well, I know we're going to the code. Doesn't mean we have to stick to the code. We could expand it if we wanted to. But I do think that this justification that we're putting here is because we recognize
that this is important. That's why we're allowing it to happen because what ends up happening sometimes and there will be resentment. Why does she get a break and I don't? Well, because if we didn't think that this was valuable based on science, then why are we affording a break for people to take time off and go take a break? And that that's just the one of the things that I wanna say that this affirms the fact that we are making this decision based on scientific evidence.
It and it doesn't judge whether you decide not to. I mean, some people can breastfeed, some people can't. Some people choose to, some people choose not to. I don't think the judgment is there. I think the judgment goes more to workplace and why we're allowing this to happen within the workplace. If that makes sense. So, I think that that's why I would want that to still be there. And then if we want to change the date the age, again, that's gonna go back to, like, do you are some people going to feel that it's that there are some individuals that are being abusive of that those breaks versus not?
Like, if I mean, like, I would have breastfed my kids till five if they would've I mean, I love breastfeeding. So but some people would not. Not that a lot of it to me. I'm sorry. I'm no. I'm just saying that there are some people that will breastfeed their children for a long time. Yeah. Yeah. Which is why I thought this Do you know what I'm saying? And there's some people, there's six months I'm done, you know. So So I I'm trying to be sensitive to the person that is using the service and also the staff members that are watching the person use the service, if
that makes sense. So in the interest of time, I wanna just point out a few things. One of them is that this concept of acknowledging something because it's something that some might people might need, it makes me think of our policy around, rooms for prayer and meditation. I would like to look at that and see what do we what's the commonality. Right? Like, we can compare. The other thing, though, unfortunately, as I'm looking at the format of these things, I first wanna say we've come a long way. We've done a lot of work with these policies, but not a single one of these three is formatted the same.
This one says purpose, then it says number two, summary of changes, then it says philosophy. The other versions have philosophy section. This one has a goal section. The previous one had requirements. The previous one had a policy statement. We're gonna need the superintendent and the clerk's help to point these things out and help us rectify. Now I do have a suggested format. I'd have to pull it back up. I thought we discussed this at the end of the previous year, miss lady. I don't recall. But either I get that we don't wanna adopt something outright and have to change everything.
But at least as we review things, we've gotta be looking at the formats because it's it's it's a problem. And this one, I mean, doesn't even make sense. It's one two d three. I mean, we need to be presented with right things. So what I'd like to do is, set this one aside because I don't want us to get hung up on this. We have other things that we have put off. So I'd like to put this aside and we could determine what to do with it at the end of the meeting if that is amenable to everyone. Is that okay without objection?
Okay. Thank you, everyone. Miss Marin, I do wanna note that my office is working with the superintendent's office on coming up with, formatting suggestions. So that is working on a template that can be used moving forward as we start making changes to policies. That that's not new news. We've discussed that last year, and I have an example. But at the very least, if we don't have it adopted, please don't give the board three documents with three different formats. Make your best recommendation to us. Okay? Okay. The next one, facility is, +1.
Let's pull this up here. Okay. Alright. So we're gonna start with 8561, Would you like to speak, doctor Harrison? I'd like to move it forward to the school board for consideration. I know you have language, but Is there a second to that, mister Frisch? Doctor Anderson would like to speak? Mister Frisch? I think we should. Yeah. And we'll try to write it as we go. Sure.
Let me make a note of that as well. Okay. Let me so we're going to be, uniform in how we capture the summary of changes. Okay. Yes. Any other comment on this one? Yeah. Also, miss Leidy. Thank you. Sorry. I I'm trying to find it in my binder. But, I just I I I have a question about when a school is over capacity and we have an an ongoing lease with a childcare center who's in a school like that and where trailers have been put on the property.
And I've had, in one of my particular schools, constituents upset that their kids are moved to a trailer. Having said that, I ran on advocacy for preschool for all. So I don't I don't want to give up space. I'm just asking the question. I don't know if that that that's not in the policy anywhere. Yes. Thank you, doctor Anderson. It says classroom space as is available. So I guess I just need to follow-up on the accuracy of and the fidelity with which that's being done. Okay. Thank you.
Are there other comments on this? We have a motion to move it forward. So it looks like we can oh, okay. So, it sounds like we have another question, doctor Anderson? No. I was just hoping to hear what doctor Reid's response was to miss Lady's question because we have similar things where trailers are being added in order to do this accommodation. Like, how are we working around being, adhering to this fa to this policy when
we are putting in preschool programming? Because otherwise, if we're not doing that, why bother have it? I guess I'll have to go back and check whether it's a preschool of ours or a SAC class or I'm not sure what we're talking about. Okay. It says county preschool. So we're seeing that as different from our Well, let's, well Mr. Frisch, did you wanna add if that's okay, doctor? Yeah. I think sometimes, like, specificity matters, right? So, like, trailers are classrooms. We may not think that they're as good a classroom as a classroom in a
in a physical school building, but we use them as classrooms. And so, I take the point and have students in the school that miss lady is thinking about, and it's an issue that should be addressed. But if there are trailers at a school or modulars at a school and they're being used for for, daycare, preschool, etcetera, it's because we have the classroom space for it. However, we define classrooms. Modulars are classrooms. Trailers are classrooms.
School buildings have classrooms. So, I would not want to tie the hands, of staff on whether those services can be offered outright, in the entire county if there are not, available classrooms in, the school building. Because you can think about margins. Right? Like, what what is that to say, like, if the student population already pushes the capacity into trailers or modulars, but they could do they could have space for pre
k and and day care in in the extra space that's not being used, but they're still gonna be in there in those, in those trailers or or modulars regardless of whether there's daycare or preschool, then it just gets really hard to, put down rules that can apply neatly to everything. I think if the board wanted to have something along the lines of, what the
priorities are, like, is there a prioritization of the used space? I think that's probably something that would be would merit further discussion. That's it. Okay. So this is getting really interesting because I haven't looked at this in this with this lens since we really dug into the facility joint facility committee and also the athletic council work. And this really has me thinking about our rooms that are used for SAC and the cost it takes to run them and the use. And it also makes me think just as a matter of reviewing the remainder of
these policies, maybe we should just go through and familiarize ourself with the the, the topics that we're gonna go through because there might be these other connections. But one of the policies, it's not on this list, but it is the community use policy. And as I've reviewed that policy and considered bringing forth changes, this childcare piece could go right into that. And so do we need a separate policy about childcare if it should be in the community use policy? Because if we if this policy is to be about FCPS's childcare spaces, that's one
thing. But it currently talks about other community uses. And we already have a policy that does that, not very clearly. But if we're trying to make things as strong as we can focused, I kinda wanna put a pause in this and say, okay, because there's a lot of stuff we're still trying to figure out with that. So, miss St. John Conning, I guess, then mister Frisch? Yeah, I you just kind of got my brain thinking in a different way. I think what's important to realize is finding the balance because particularly in certain areas,
mine in particular, some of those programs, the SAC program, the childcare programs, are essential for our families. And they because they are in the school, those professionals work with the teachers. And so, by de facto, they kind of become like an extra even though they're being operated by the county, the employees are working with teachers and they're helping kids. They're kind of tutoring them. They're kind of working hand in hand with them. That's kind of, unseen benefit that that we see happening for our kids.
And that is also a benefit for our parents that they know that their kids are in a safe space, they're with their friends, they're with, you know, so many times it's the SAC person that is telling the parent when they're picking them up, this is what happened in class, this was their homework, this is how I helped them with it. I think, you know, we have to be familiar with what's happening down in the ground, you know, with with these kids, and with these programs, and see that they are in a lot of ways, they are true partners with us. And it's a benefit of the space issue.
It's like six in one hand, half a dozen in the other type of situation because it does benefit our kids and it does benefit our parents. Doctor Anderson, not mister Krishnan. I hear what you're saying about community use. And since that is still yet to be determined, I would be very comfortable in moving forward with this. But as we are looking through the community use, if it makes sense to fold it in, let's go ahead and fold it in at that time. There's nothing that means we we have no restrictions on how many times we could review a policy. We just have so many of them that we don't get a chance to do
that on a frequently enough basis. But we could go move this forward today, and it gets voted upon. And in three months, we fold it in the community use, and we sunset it. I I I don't think we need to pick and choose. I think this could move forward until it is no longer, applicable. I'm with you. Like, 90% of the way there, but where I got tripped up was that it says that the host school principal shall be the responsibility of the endorsing agency. And I'm not sure if that's saying that the principal has to be accountable for this because, again, I see a lot of, at the number four responsibilities, the coordination
of the activities with the host principal shall be the responsible of the endorsing agency, which I guess would be us. What I I want to avoid is putting anything more on principles than they're already doing. And I see how things happen currently where there's a lot of expectations about community use put on the principles and what they're supposed to be doing. So are we clear that that's not what this is saying? Mister Frisch, your thoughts? Whatever it says, we aren't putting more on, this is currently on.
Right? Because it's not underlined in red. So it's currently the policy. So there's essentially no changes to this policy. Really. Right? Oh, it was added. It's not in red, but shouldn't it be in red? The school board that's new language. Correct? The school board recognizes the operation of childcare centers as an important community service? Because if that is the only change, sure. I can I can look with that? Let's just take a second. Mhmm. Miss Maron? Yes, doctor Reed. I, I think principals want to have a say in this, right, because it's at their site in their building.
So I anyhow. So I think Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Just as long as we're protecting against more. Yes, ma'am. Miss Brown? On the old policy, the language is the same. It's it's not that philosophy was added. It's the the childcare services was renamed philosophy, so I'm happy to change that language if that's what you want. No. But that statement, the school board recognizes is there in the original policy. They were ahead of their time. Okay. Shall we, anyone wanna move then to move this forward? Anybody new wanna move it? Mister Frisch, do you wanna move it?
What? Marcia? Right here? Yes. You can move it. Okay. Miss St. John Cunning oh, let me read the motion. My apologies. Let me get the script up. Thanks. We got it. Okay. Thank you. We already have a motion on the table with doctor Anderson moving Oh, did you already and mister Frasci. My apologies. Still there. Okay. Also ahead of our time. Okay. Great. So, the motion is up there. All in favor to move this policy forward? That's unanimous. Wonderful. And I did also resend you the whole link to all of those background materials, colleagues, in case you want that handy.
Okay. The next one, maintenance of physical facilities, $85.60. So we have added a philosophy section. Mister Frisch, does your hang up. Nope. Doctor Anderson? I'm hoping that we could without objection. Instead of having those two sections, which are four and five, as office of facilities management and then a separate for the school principal, that we could change number four to responsibilities and have those two be two paragraphs underneath it, and then we won't need a section five.
I'm not asking to change any language, just the a a a title of the role the school principal, that doesn't really align with anything else that we're doing. But we have many roles and responsibilities. So if we have responsibilities, you know, trust policy, that's always where I go because there was something for everybody. So responsibilities would be number four, and then those two would be paragraphs underneath that. Yeah. I don't object to that. So just in the terms of our formatting that we wanna do, so, like, a Roman numeral four. Now, again, it now, again, in the previous ones, it's been different.
Right? We've had the number two be the philosophy section and the number three be the summary. So, again, we're gonna give, without objection, the clerks the ability to make it all consistent, the order of intro, the purpose, philosophy, summary of changes, and now we're changing this particular one to responsibilities. Maybe we'll do that in others. But okay. Clerks, let me know when you are good to move forward. K. So doctor Anderson has we got responsibilities that will be spell checked.
And then, is the office of facilities management still the correct name? That is the current name. Should it be changed to, excuse me, to chief instead of director? Well, that's what I'm oh. Under the supervision of the chief? In the first sentence. Yes. Yes. Instead of director. You're right, miss lady. Under the supervision of the director, mister Gordon, would you mind reciting your title for us so we have it right here since you're here? Chief of facility services and capital planning. And is office of facilities management still the overall office?
Right? Or do we I don't have my org chart down. It is right. It is right? Okay. Thank you, mister Frish. Did you have something more, mister Frish? Oh, mister Frish has more. Okay. So as I've been working my way through the government's manual, I'm finding all kinds of things that we used to call it this way. Mhmm. I worry about creating future problems in policies by identifying The exact we talked we did talk about this. You're right. We were gonna just put superintendent every time. Yes. We talked about this. That is it. The superintendent designee Perfect. Is the catchall. And then that way, if, a future superintendent in, like, in, like, 2040 Yes.
2050, decides that they're going to change how they structure things, we don't have to change every policy. So, mister Frisch, you're reminding me. I think what I'd like to what I'd like to offer the committee is soon after this meeting, sending the list that I compiled through last year and I think beginning of this year with all these kinds of things, and then maybe we could actually agree on them. Maybe carve out, like, ten minutes at the next meeting if it becomes I like that idea. I like that. Okay. Let me just write that down on my Although I will say it is fun
to find names of offices that haven't been in the name of that office since, like, 1983 or whatever. So it's like a it's like, yeah, it's like a treasure hunt. I found the word tape recorder recently. Tape recorder. Yeah. I'm pretty sure we say his or her, but that's one of those things also. So let me pull up that thing again without objection giving the clerk's authority to or flexibility to change their to his or her or somehow make it gender neutral some other way. Well, Just to be clear, we wouldn't be putting the department name here either, would we? No. No. Yes. It would be. Superintendent or user name.
So delete everything before under. Yeah. Great. It could also just be their designee. But Yeah. That's but I think we'd had that discussion, and we were trying to make it standard. So that be there. Even though it's singular, superintendent. I know. So that But his or her I know. Is not inclusive. I'm with you. And so let's let me share what I've collected as we've said before. Right? And then let's make a decision. I agree with you, mister Frish. And then so also strike the office of facilities management in the second sentence. Right? The superintendent shall be, you know, or is charged or shall be shall and may
you know how that goes. Shall be charged with how about just developing? Can we cut out charge with the responsibility? Charge with developing maintenance. Is that okay? In the second paragraph, to remove the office of facilities Is it screen. It's just removing the, not just, but it is removing office of OFM, which is also in the last line on this page as well. And then do we want to be dictating here what the school principal does and what the custodians do since that's pretty operational?
I don't think we need to. So thoughts on that? Are we striking that language too that is very specific? The last should be the superintendent or Provides oversight. Or designee. Same as the second reference in the in the paragraph above. Actually, I have a question. When we say the superintendent, is it like a royal we like? Do you read that in our policies if it just said the superintendent? Is your designee implicit? Or do you like having a clear line between things that the board is expecting you personally to do versus things that they're saying that you should delegate given that
we've, on a macro sense, given you ability to designate it to delegate everything? When I see superintendent, I I know, I'll be held accountable. Whoever I put in charge of it, which is true. So how about just the superintendent? We don't have to put or designee. Again, word economy. Right? I like it. Capital? I think we should capitalize it. Okay. So I will note that down in one of those formatting things. Okay. Doctor. Frish, are you all good? Doctor Anderson? I'm sorry. I just I was looking. Can we be consistent in the in the semantics with the first paragraph to say
that the superintendent shall be responsible for safeguarding the public interest, the public investments, yada yada yada instead of all of those words under the supervision of the super I mean, that's a given. Yeah. Who else will be supervising that? So the superintendent shall shall safeguard or be responsible. It's just something like that. That shall safeguard. How about that? The public's investment. Public facility assets. Right? I like using that term, public facility assets.
That's what we've been using more. There you go. Yeah. That that works. And then in the second paragraph just let me know when you're ready. Instead of the school print not quite a Wouldn't we delete all of the other things after that up to by insuring? I'm sorry. I can't really see what she's got going on there. It says Publix facility assets. I think that would be inclusive of school physical facilities, grounds, and equipment. I'm agnostic over that, but that's fine. The the phrase that's been being used when we're doing the CIP work is to
safeguard Safeguard. Public school facility assets. Gotcha. Oh, and so that's been the phrase we were trying to be more consistent with. Public school facility assets. Would that be inclusive of physic I'm sorry. Grounds and equipment? Yes. Or It's all the things. Two. Okay. It's all the things. So not Sure. Not the just not just Okay. Just public school facility assets. Alright. And then well, I was just making a statement. We'll vote on it. But And then with the second paragraph, instead of the school principals since we're should
it be that the superintendent shall, provide oversight, you know, dot dot dot. And then in the regulations, she can specify that this is gonna be a principal responsibility. But Just say thumbs up. Just say yes. Say again. There you go. All of the above. Is that all for now? I I will say I'm happy to approve this today to get it moving, but I think I'm gonna bring some language at the dais to add something akin to what we've been talking about with the joint facility committee, which is recognition that our schools are used for more than instruction because it it's coming to constantly on us
that we have to maintain it. And our dollars and our instructional dollars are going more and more to maintenance. So, would that be part of the philosophy? I I don't know, but I can't do it right now. So I'd rather bring it to the full board, at that time. So shall we, oh, mister Fisher? It may be language that's reused in the what is it? '85 I just had it. Might be. Never mind.
It's not an important point. I can't find it. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. Great. So it looks like we're good. This is pretty basic. And, so the school principal part is stricken out. It's hard to see. And then just do please spell check responsibilities up there. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Do we wanna do that, doctor Reed? Yes. So so you don't want it named a school principal when it's their facility? K. I mean, I I definitely think it's the responsibility of the principal to do that
for their facility. Here's here's what we get into with policy. Right? Like, if the board really wants it to be the principals, then they should tell the superintendent that we really want it to be the principals. Otherwise, a future superintendent who may not agree with the current superintendent that it should be the principals could decide that somebody else gets to do it. Alternatively, the board could update its policy if that happens. So, you know, I'm comfortable with how it is. Sorry. I have no objections if you wanna leave it as a school principal because I thought we could cover that in the regulations.
Because at the end of the day, that's who's gonna do it. And I think the regulation needs to speak to some of the issues that when people are not routinely walking in the building, especially in summer, that they need to be. Right? I mean, we got, 200 facilities. So I that's why I'd rather say, the school principal. And I don't know if we wanna say oversight of the physical facility or you can say oversight of the I mean, we we have other facilities that don't have a principle in them. Right. So is it The superintendent.
I agree. I'm I'm thinking out loud. Right? Because we definitely have facilities that don't have a principal. So maybe just in regulation, it it will work. So Yeah. And I think, again, getting away from physical facility and more towards that public school facility assets because that has been all all encompassing to a building like, you know, even Gatehouse. I think also the logic then applies to removing the sentence about the custodians. There could be something in the future where different schools are cleaned differently. You know?
And, again, it is one group of employees, and that also, I wonder, is collective bargaining implications. Like Well, it is interesting because they don't say anything about your building supervisor. Exactly. They they reference custodians. Again, I I'm comfortable with that word to come out and just be if it needs to be part of regulation, be part of regulation. I I'm really pleased with where this is headed, and I think as we do more of the facility work and then maybe go around these policies, it'll get even better. So okay. So are we ready to move this? Not quite because Okay. Changed to Use the public school facility assets a second time kind of screws with the verbiage
that follows. To ensure okay. Take out its? It might work if it just was asset. Sure. I I don't know. Shall provide oversight of the public school facility asset to ensure its cleanliness and ensure it It's also not always just buildings. It's fields. It's parking lots. So that's why that public school facility asset free is is something we're trying to use all the time. Then this should be shall provide oversight of the public school facility assets to ensure cleanliness. Safety, access that is accessible.
I mean, this is opening a can of worms, but yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'll say I think the problem is that this policy is clearly this part of the policy, at least, is clearly about it was written for a school building. And so what we're now trying to do is drive a comprehensive all of our assets up onto the language that was defined for a school building. So What do you what do you say if we pause and go to the next one and see? Because I'm just wondering if all of these have this element.
Like, are we gonna have to come back and, like, I can I can commit to working after this to try and bring a next round with edits that weave these things together because you're right, mister Frisch? I mean, the title is maintenance of facility a physical facility is, Well, parking lot is a physical facility on building, but there also I just wanna say, miss Brown, our, deputy clerk and I had worked through trying to understand where things were in
their cycle of being reviewed. This one in environmental stewardship have been redlined. The rest had not been are they redlined now? Shit. Okay. Do people wanna hammer this out or do we want to move on a little bit? I think that there's a world of difference between making a couple changes here and there to something at the in a meeting and being able to say, like, clearly, this paragraph needs some work. If we could identify what we'd like the paragraph to do, staff can change that
and bring it back for the next meeting. And I think what I've heard thus far in the conversation around that final paragraph is that we want a paragraph that speaks to the superintendent's responsibility to provide oversight of our public school facility assets, and then what that oversight includes. It could include, to include but not limited to cleanliness, blah blah blah blah blah. A list the whole litany of the types of things that they'd be responsible for,
knowing that most of the time we're talking about schools, but there's a lot of other things that happen, in the school division as well. Knowing all that, they bring us back the paragraph, and it's much closer and probably saves us a lot more time than wordsmithing something entirely new. Alright. What do others think? Shall we set this aside for right now? Do and mister Frisch did just give some clear direction. Miss, Saint John Cunning? No. I I'm actually I I agree with mister Frisch just by reading this, and I actually sideboard with, Miss Lady, just because of the specific wording and trying to figure
out where policy ends and where regulations begin, because some of this wording, like, I know how the principal doesn't generate the work order, somebody else does. You know, the custodians, the building supervisor, and then the way we've divided it is for school building as and saying the school principal shall but, you know, we have buildings, that like Virginia Hills, there's not school principals, but there is somebody there that's in charge of the building. So I do think that we should send it back with that kind of direction for clarity if we're going to make it more encompassing for all assets versus just
school buildings that are being used as schools. Bolton Woods. We, we have so many, like, of several in my region, Virginia Hills, that are used as lease center. So, superintendent Reed, do you feel you have the notes needed to update the policy as such? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm sorry. Just one more thing because we might be able to give this guidance as well. Where it says maintenance of, excuse me, physical facilities, collectively, I think we're on the same page of using the new language when we're talking about it.
So it should be public school Facility asset. Public school facility assets there. Maintenance of public school facility assets. And then, because we've changed, this section to not need to iterate out responsibilities since we're putting them all under the superintendent, that section needs a new title other than responsibilities, which could be, responsibility for maintenance or something like that.
But just know that it doesn't make sense to put responsibilities for one person, you know, so k. Maybe come back with some ideas there. Okay. So we will leave that one be for now and heading back to the superintendent. The next one up is eighty five fifty two environmental stewardship. I love this one. Yeah. This looks like a lot because there's strikethrough and underline. Mister Frisch, would you like to speak a bit about it? I know you spent some time on it. Yeah. So, in 2021, the board finished year three years of work on the joint environmental
task force with the Board of Supervisors when both the Board of Supervisors and the school board adopted the recommendations of the joint environmental task force, which included board members, community members, students, a whole bunch of people. And we worked on it was me and miss Tolan, and before that, it had been Dahlia and or excuse me, supervisor Palcic and, Pat Hines from Hunter Mill, and I believe that and and miss Corbett Sanders from Mount Vernon.
And we worked on the recommendations, which were into various categories, including energy conservation, transportation, facilities, and so on, waste, recycling. And so what resulted was what became the joy the jet directives. And so the policy did not speak to those things even though the board adopted it, and, that's why we find ourselves here. Okay. So we used together a lot of stuff. Doctor Anderson? Yes.
I'm gonna jump into this if that's okay. Hopefully, trying to chunk it by page. On the first page, purpose summary is fine. Philosophy, this is one of the first ones that we're looking at that says FCPS. All of the others have said the FCPS school board. So I suggest that we make that change, that the school board because this is the school board's document to, to the division. So the school board the Fairfax County School Board is dedicated to so that's one,
that I'd like to offer. Should I pause here? I agree and also take out the, we commit because that's not the same person's voice. So making that. Okay. Thank you. Just let me know when to move on. It got really hot in here. There's a lot of heat coming in here right now. We're having thermostat issues. And I'm always cold. If Rob is hot, then it must be hot. Okay. So let's so, philosophy seems okay. And then so we'll go to the definition. Philosophy's okay. And then the back page oh, shoot.
I completely missed definition. I don't have a thought on that, but I'm gonna go to where I have thoughts, the responsibilities. And I know we this was raised a few years ago when the JET committee concluded its work, and it was adopted by FCPS. So therefore by the by the board. So therefore, it's the board's work. I am not sure if I see the utility of kinda having this history lesson here, not under responsibilities. It should be who's responsible for what, and this does not convey that, as far
as I'm concerned. It just speaks to the history upon which the jet was founded and how it came to be. The board already adopted those recommendations, so it's irrelevant to me. I I would also take a turn to say that, it captures the genesis behind it. But should it be under responsibilities? That's the question. Maybe it's more under purpose. Let me get back to the formatting that we And a lot of other places. But responsibilities, I'm looking for somebody is going to be, it's gonna be their duty
to complete this thing. The way that we just had that long discussion about the the school buildings and the physical assets, you're going to be responsible for a particular thing. There's no more responsibility to the jet because it no longer exists. That task force is dead. So that's one. And then my other question is regarding the next three sections that speak to carbon neutrality, green globes, I guess those two sections. I'm wondering, both of these are, activities to get to a better environmental place.
Should they be captured under one heading that has those two as two separate activities? So that's a wondering. So I'll pause here. Mister Frisch, did you wanna comment? Yeah. I agree on the JET information being under responsibilities being off, but it could be, something like context or, the, you know, the school board's charge or something like that,
other than responsibilities. In terms of, items six and, seven, I'm fine with them being separated out because they're independent things. As is number eight and number nine and number 10, they're all independent things that have specifics that we're asking the superintendent and company to drive towards. But I I do think that, the JET information is helpful. If it does get struck, then we're gonna have to change the way that it's
used throughout the document because we use the JET, because it's used in parentheses the first time. We use JET throughout for the rest of the document. But I would, you know, be in favor of changing the heading for number five to, historical context. Doctor Hasson, do you have more comments? Yeah. I I mean, I appreciate what the jet did, but we don't really offer historical
context in these documents per se. I I think it's okay to let it go. Because even the language that we have here, it's not even the jet provides a formal collaboration and alignment. It's not providing anything right now. It's no longer a functioning committee. I think it's perfectly okay because we have the judge show up in so many other places up to when all of the, all of their recommendations were adopted. I don't think it lives in the policy per se. So I actually I don't know if we I don't see the utility at all
for that kind of history lesson here. Okay. Doctors, that concludes your comments for now? Yeah. Or Yeah. Okay. Miss St. John Cunning. So for me first of all, I don't think it should be responsibilities. I agree with this, this, but for me this informs what comes down below it. I know what you're saying, like the jet doesn't exist, but what this policy is saying that as we move forward with, you know, you go down to the other points, carbon neutrality, everything, that what we want to be looking at is we want
to be looking at how we can reach these goals, of environmental sustainability which is, you know, transportation, capital improvement, recycling. It kind of gives you the big umbrella and then we get a little bit more specific. So, to me, it's informational for someone that's reading this and looking at it. It's kind of giving an overall direction, and then we get into the specifics of the specifics of the Green Globes carbon neutrality, classroom environment.
I find it valuable. I'm just putting my 2¢ and saying that that helps me understand and it's giving a direction. And Thank you. I'll go ahead and take another turn. So I suggest that under philosophy, we add a sentence that says, you know, this policy is driven by the JET work that concluded in this year and is embedded throughout the document. With the full name so that people know. Exactly. And then perhaps we remove JET because as you I mean, you always say, right,
it's our goals. That's not the directive. It's like it just is what it is. So that's my suggestion is the work is driven by the work of, you know, or is guided or is you know, that's fine. Could this work is driven by the adopted recommendations of the joint environmental task force, parenthesis, JET, which concluded its work in July 2021. Yeah. We could even did we have a vote, a formal vote? We did. Yeah. So we could cite that this way people? It was, it's dated in the in July 21. Okay.
Great. I think that would be really great. The other thing is I like that this policy has all the topics in it, but it's really about facilities management. And so when it gets to talking about, transportation and, school based environmental action, as much as I love that stuff, it's not really here that it should be, and workforce development as well. Now, alternatively, I actually am really interested in updating our instructional policy, our curriculum, whatever the policy is, to add more of that in.
So I'm okay to include it for now because I'd rather have it than not, but it's, it's not exactly on point. But so I welcome your thoughts. So I guess I am proposing that that summary of JET go into that philosophy section, and then I am asking for and then we remove we change responsibilities. It's gotta be something more about the superintendent will do this, or we don't have
one responsibility section, but that content has to go away. And then, I'm okay with I I ask for your input on whether to keep all those different sections. And then also then second question is, do we just remove the reference to the JET for the rest of the policy? So, mister Frisch and then doctor Anderson. So I support the change made for the philosophy in eliminating responsibilities because it no longer serves a purpose in the policy there. In terms of the other things that are iterated throughout, I think we keep those
until we change elsewhere. And, you know, part of the reason that these things are in there is because, previously, the departments were one, right, facilities and transportation. And I think for ease of use, the policy is called sustainability and environmental stewardship, so they've included other things that relate to environmental stewardship. And that's always gonna be the rub as a policymaker is, okay. Well, if something is environmental stewardship, do we now need five policies? Because everything has a piece of it. And if that's the case, do we wanna amend five policies every time we have
a change? So we can decide that it is appropriate to include these things in this policy because it is more over overarching. But, again, this is one of those policies that is far more detailed than the typical policy as well. When they are very detailed is when they could easily be broken up into pieces for different policies, but those pieces wouldn't live alone either. They'd likely end up in other other policies. So it gets complicated really quickly, and it doesn't have to necessarily. Okay. Thank you. I have but doctor Anderson first.
Yes. Very quickly, I think under you know, I still go back to what I shared a little bit earlier. I think these can be grouped a little bit differently, and I was starting to do that and I didn't have enough time. Carbon neutrality, green globes, building and classroom environment, indoor quality, those transportation, water management, grounds and landscaping practices, watershed management, get to green. Those are very different activities or different things, components than workforce development, than purchasing, and
performance measures. As they are listed, they come across as kind of listing that are of the same thing, so I'd like for that consideration. Under carb carbon neutrality, the first sentence that starts with FCPS is committed to the overarching goal of being carbon neutral. One, I I think our commitments have been living under philosophy, and I definitely support what you've provided in terms of moving all that jet language under under philosophy.
And I I don't think we need to have JET here. Again, JET goal the JET goals no longer exist. Once FCPS adopted it, once the school board adopted it, we have school board goals that were based upon JET, but JET no longer exists. So I think we need to remove JET from here and also consider the commitment moving under philosophy, but I'm not that's not a hill to die on. I I guess I'm trying to find the language that speaks to what is it
that we're going to accomplish or require. And that starts with, you know, to supplement to have measures to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, and then what it means. Should we have a definition section? That's also a wondering because some of these are kind of a little bit more technical than others. I I would love to have a definition section that speaks about carbon neutrality rather than having it be embedded in the body of direction to the superintendent. I I'll just stop here. So can I make a recommendation?
It would be such a huge thing to be able to pass this policy. Like, it's been two years in the making, and it it would just be, like, next level. You know? So I'm wondering this. Can we move forward with the changes we talked about, the change of the philosophy to recognize JET, keeping JET in there for now, move it to the board, and we're gonna be talking about the CIP. We can adjust this policy at the dais. It's a great time to do that work, but can we get it out of this committee so that it can be in consideration and see the light of day?
And I also do just wanna say we have forty five minutes left. I do wanna be sure we get to the HR policies because our chief has been sitting here. So, so I don't know if I he was sitting here. He's just went out. But, so I don't know if I can't make the motion, but I would make the motion to move this policy with the change. Miss Madam, I just wanna note that I recommend we change the summary of changes to this, policy has been changed in its entirety, which is what we normally do when we have such big changes.
Good. Yeah. That would be I agree with that. Yes, mister Frisch? So, what we did with that objection, the change in the philosophy. So the motion, mister Frisch, is that motion. Can I second it? I'll second it. Unless chair. I don't know. Do you wanna speak? I already have. Anyone else? Let's pass the policy. All in favor? Oh, four in favor. Opposed? Go green. Yay. I'm gonna call Elaine. Okay. Alright. Just one second here. So, colleagues, just to do a time check here, we're doing great. So we have got four more CIP policies.
Okay? And we have a few HR policies. Does anyone have top of mind the HR policies, things that they definitely wanna talk about? My understanding is that they were pretty straightforward. So do we maybe just and I know, mister Solomon is headed back here, but do we just wanna take a few minutes, switch gears, go to HR? Because I wouldn't want to have had him oh, it's my party. Okay. So without objection, if we could just switch gears, look over the items in agenda item one point o five. Oh, there's a lot.
Okay. Madam deputy clerk, can you remind us, actually, can you remind us which of the HR policies we've already looked at? And I see if you look on BoardDoc's, colleagues, it'll say the versions with Carl's edits which were about philosophy. Isn't that correct? Okay. So, mister Solomon, we're just looking over those policies to see to remind ourselves what we've seen before because we wouldn't want you have to have been here in Bain all night. So so let's just take a few minutes and get our bearings.
And but we did look at some of these at a committee prior though. A committee meeting prior, didn't we? We did. Yeah. So all seven have been reviewed at a prior governance committee. Correct? Because mister Fresh. Yeah. Yeah. Mister Frisch brought up, so all seven have edits from mister Frisch. Mister Frisch brought up the edits and said, does everyone agree with these? And we bring them back to a later meeting and and and put them through. And everyone said, yes. And so that's why they're here. Right. So the bulk of these so, again, we wanted to be sure at some point
in the past that all of these held up with the collective bargaining now in place. And I think we had questions about why some were being addressed and others. Let me take a look. Forty one twenty is up. So I would propose that we go through each of the versions that have Carl's philosophy edits as well as they have edits of other things. There I just saw one that had quite a few because we had asked about why some policies call it operational policies. We do also wanna be sure that we're not referencing the chief. As we had already discussed tonight, we're just gonna talk about the superintendent in our
policies. So those will have to be done. Thank you. Okay. So we're gonna start. Sure. Okay. So, doctor, so we'll start with 4120. Right, doctor Edson? Yes? Yep. 4120. Under philosophy, I'd like to add the Fairfax County School Board recognizes that. Again, trying to be consistent with the language of the others. That's it. And then I'm happy to move it. Okay. And, mister Fresh? I'm okay with that. So can we just sure. So can we just articulate, exactly what we expect will be changed?
So we are articulating that one second. So for the HR policies, removal of reference to any staff other well, any designee. So it will just reference the superintendent. If there's any cleanup to the philosophy language that says it is the statement of the it will be changed to the Fairfax County School Board shall adhere, recognizes, believes, and I will send that stock starter language as well. Okay. Of course, the formatting and the order is checked.
Other things that we would give the clerks the flexibility? The order. I did. Yes. I did just say that. Yes. The order of the section is checked. And if there is a discrepancy, so let's say we give this approval now and the clerks have a question, how do we wanna we actually have a governance committee meeting coming up very fairly soon, but hopefully, that would only happen, like, one. Yeah. '20. It's the twentieth. We have a January 20. January 20. Okay. You can reach out to me, but, like, am I I don't know that I'm empowered to make a substantive decision.
You know? What we can do is these will be on new business for 01/08. So we can put them on new business for 01/08. If we have any questions, we can ask at the top of 01/20 so that they are and have them ready for consent or action for 01/22. That way, we can keep the trains moving if that works. That's okay with me. So are there any, other particular comments specific to a And again, I for me, I want to just reiterate, I wanna be sure that nothing in here was contrary
to collective bargaining. So there are some things in here that still surprise me, but, you know, just procedures for suspension or under forty two seventy in terms of their topic, not what's in them, but just that but I'm okay with it. It's been vetted as I I think it gets back to that question of, you
know, do we have to say it directly, you know, who's the designee or not? Like, I don't know. It's just kind of in that area, but it's I am clear about it. Okay. I'm just looking through them one more time. 4411. So, like, for instance, in forty four eleven, it says general duties, so that would have to match up with responsibilities. I just wanna make that. Oh, I do have a question Yeah. Go ahead. For forty four eleven. Under protections, mister Foster, should we have any references to the collective bargaining under protections
for forty four eleven? Yeah. Do you do you have it in front of you? Your eyes are better than mine because I couldn't see her back there. Yeah. Distance is good for me. That's up close. It's a problem. We all have our troubles. I definitely move the document further along, please? Thank you. It says on request, the on request, the school board shall make available legal counsel to advise employees of his or her rights and obligations. I I'm just wondering, like, does collective bargaining live here? And if so, how? Right. I I think that, you know, this document, stands on a on its own.
I I would not recommend that we start cross referencing the collective bargaining agreement, and I think it's fine as is. One second. Okay. Mister Frisch? Correct. If I'm wrong, mister Foster, but the collective bargaining agreement has language about being in compliance with school board policy and regulations. So that gives us a catchall. I think where, we'd have to worry about policy is anything that undermines, the ability of of employees related to their bargaining. So, things about discipline or whatnot, our our policy.
And if they wanted, they could try and bargain changes, and the superintendent would come to us as part of the collective bargaining process and say they would like to bargain for a change to this policy as part of their agreement and then the board would have to, you know, update the policy if that ended up being something that was included in the policy. Thank you, mister Frisch. Good reminder. Miss St. John Cunning. So I don't have a problem with this because this is very specific to us as a school system being responsible to job related assault and battery against an employee.
I mean, it's, that's what it's talking about. It's not talking about other us providing legal counsel for other things. It's very specific to, like, providing that, like, workplace if they get assaulted in something in our school system, I don't know how this I mean, I'm sure it fits somewhere into collective bargaining, but this is us taking some ownership of that. Is is that correct? Like, I don't know. I'm just I don't understand the legalese about it, but it's kind of like saying that if you're a teacher and, you know, somebody comes and which I have seen,
somebody comes and pops you, that they're they're we're gonna provide them legal counsel and they have to press charges against assault and bat because it's very specific to a job related assault and battery. Yes. It it is very specific. So I I agree. I guess, I mean, clearly, we've all been here long enough to know that when something happens, we tend to dump it into the policy. Is this something that we need to be this specific? Because there are other things that could happen to employees besides assault and battery for which we should be supporting them. I guess, mister Fossa, I'm looking to you to share why is this here.
Is there a code that is specific to assault and battery? Because there are other circumstances that we would need to provide the same support and assistance. I don't know the reason why. I mean, if there's a specific incident from years ago that prompted the the policy, I just don't know, sitting here. I was gonna pull up the Virginia code section to see if there's any reference in there. Because this is speaking to something I was talking with doctor Reed about this morning. If an employee is, is under what's that?
It's in my email. Yay. You. But if an employee is, is being, part of a lawsuit in the regular course of their duties, then they're protected, which is what's on the back page here, which I wish I had remembered that that was here. I don't know. This just seems very specific, and maybe there's other circumstances we could be broadening this language to cover. Mister First, did you have or I don't know. Yes. So the the the Virginia code section does authorize as the policy provides for, legal
fees to be paid. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So I it there is a certainly a Virginia code basis for what's outlined in the policy. But not necessarily speaking to assault and battery protections. The Virginia code section is broader. It's broader. Should we and should we have broader language? Because there could be some other things that are happening to employees beyond assault and battery for which we need to provide protection as this is labeled. Right. It it it that really is a decision for the board in the, updating of
its policy. I think the code provides the board the ability to do that. Whether you wanna do that is up to you. I mean, I kinda think we should. Do we have any VSBA language here to consider? I don't think we do for this one. I mean, I'd like to what the Virginia code says? He says it's broader. I don't know. Can you read what the code says, miss, Saint John Cunning just asked? Yeah. When you were saying it was broad If an employee of a school board is arrested, indicted, or otherwise prosecuted on any charge arising out of any act committed in the discharge of his duties as such employee and such charge is subsequently dismissed or
a verdict of not guilty is rendered or if an employee, of a school board has made a defendant in any civil action arising out of his actions and connections with his duties as such employee, the school board may pay the legal fees and expenses of such employee. So that speaks to what's on the back page. It doesn't speak to the assault and battery specifically. I I is this something that we wanna consider not having because it is so specific? Or to just have language that we shall make available legal counsel? Like, under what are the circumstances would we provide legal counsel if an employee is
in some sort of, circumstance in the course of their duties? I just think we need to be closer to the code language. I think I would agree with being closer to the code language. I also like providing protections and writing to the staff. So is it clear what language we could put in now or does that need to be developed? Would have to be developed? What remind me what number that is, please? Four eleven. For the board's consideration, one thing I would share is if you're considering broadening that language, remember the scope is narrow right now, so I might advise costing out what it would look like to expand the scope. I don't wanna expand it.
I just wanna make it a little bit more high level because, mister Solomon, perhaps you're aware or perhaps you know this is very specific as miss Sandra Cunningham talked about with assault and battery. Like, those will not be the only two things for which we provide protections to staff. There could be some other circumstance. Do we have to be that narrow? That's a good question. So as mister Foster shared, the code is broader and allows school systems to be broader. However, I I would advise taking a look at it and considering the financial implications
of doing so. So you're saying it's cheaper to just do assault and battery? I'm saying that it's in addition to the cost, it's also a good idea to look at the division's risk tolerance and make a decision from there. And the protections that we're providing is legal counsel. So if you could juxtapose that with what's on the back page with mister which mister Foster just talked about regarding, in their regular course of duty that we can provide, legal counsel and reimbursement. I don't know if you said reimbursements in what you read from the code.
That could be anything outside of assault and battery. So we already have to as per code, even though it may be more costly to us. Mister Foster, doesn't the code say may? And this says shall It says may. So I will note that, that the policy says shall and the code says may. So I guess I'd like to better understand why should why must we provide supports on adult on adult on a soft and battery, but may everywhere else?
And then I'll stop monopolizing. I'm not aware of any Virginia code requirement that mandates a school board to, provide legal counsel to advise an employee of his rights and obligations with respect I mean, I'm just reading from the policy. I'm not seeing anything in the Virginia code that mandates that. As the clerk noted, it's a may not a shall. Correct? Mister Frisch. Alright. I'm gonna try and make sense of the conversation we just had. Mister Foster, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you all are saying is that the state says, here are the many things that you may cover.
And we looked at that and we said, of those things that we may cover, we will cover this one. So we shall cover this one. And so we are, in doing that, saving ourselves of the potential litigation expense or risk, as mister Solomon described it, of all of the other things that were in the May category in the state code. Is that correct? Yes. Does that make sense, doctor Anderson? Yes. Alright.
So state code says, here are the many things that you may cover. We look at that list, and we've said, we will cover or we shall cover this one. In doing so, we are only taking on the risk, the cost, of this one thing. And we are therefore saying we will not take on the risk or cost of all of the other things that the state says that we can take on. That's why we say shall and they say may at the state level. If we wanted to cover all of the many things or four of the many
things that the state code says that we can but are not required to cover, to mister Solomon's point, he's advising that we simply have a good understanding of what the risk threshold change means potentially from a financial perspective. So if I allow you to destroy one record from my collection, there's a value to that one record. If I allow you to destroy my entire collection, there's a bigger value to what I've lost. So we just, I think the idea is if we expand it beyond or if
we say may, or follow the state language to a t and say shall do all these things, then we're taking on a bigger risk financially. And mister Solomon is advising that if we do that, we should know what that risk is before we do it. I imagine when the initial school board developed this policy, they were saying, we are comfortable taking on the risk of this one type of thing that we will cover if an employee needs that coverage. And we, in essence, are not comfortable taking on the risk of all of these
other things. Thank you. Just one more thing, mister Foster. Where it says here that the board shall make available legal counsel to advise, would that be up to representation in court, or I will sit with you and give you a consultation and you go forward and do whatever you need to? It it doesn't say up to and and including, you know, representing the employee in court. It talks about, advising of rights and obligations.
And so I think in light of the express language that's there, I think a reasonable interpretation would be that it is for the purposes of advising, but could be read to not require representation in court. Okay. So if it's advising, that means you'll just pretty it's a consultation. It's a conversation. Correct. I am uncomfortable with this. Thank you, though. Miss St. John Cunningham. And I don't know if anybody here would know the answer to this. Like, in terms of collective bargaining, like, I I'm thinking if I'm an employee and
something happens, like, if I would go to my union to help them help me with whatever is happening, like this happened, you know, I was working at a school, you know, maybe it was maybe it was a student, maybe it was another employee that did this to me. Like, is and I don't know if anybody in here has the answer with collective bargaining if the union provides the support. Is this like a double support type of thing? I I don't know. Is Steph writing an answer? Or So and good evening, everyone.
I I would say that this is a situation where, the employee could go to the union, may not necessarily go to the union, but, always has the ability. All employees, regardless of their membership status with the union, are covered, by the protections of the union. So they could go to the union, but they wouldn't necessarily have to. Miss Lady, did you wanna just for clarification, that's different from pre collective bargaining unit
agreement. Because before we had the agreement, you had to be a member of the it wasn't a union. Well, we didn't have a CBA. Right? We didn't have the CBA. And I think that for our previous associations, that was always a way for them to build their membership was to offer some type of insurance coverage, while at the same time, Fairfax County would also offer that same kind of protection. But, I know that at the time, it was the associations used it as a
way to highlight additional insurance. And it was wasn't only the teacher associations, but the principal associations and administrators did this provided the same coverages additional coverages. But now there's a CBA. If someone's not a member of the union, they they would still be represented be because of the CBA? But if they chose to go to the union, they would have the ability to to have some kind of coverage. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, doctor Anderson, did you have another question? Quick follow-up question to what was said.
We have and I heard what you said, mister Smith. If I'm a teacher, I'm not in the union because the teachers are in a union group, I will get the same coverage. What if I am a an employee that is not part of a group that is represented? What protections are provided to those kinds of employees? I I'm I'm just asking, mister Smith. So So the only employees who aren't covered are our hourly employees. So hourly employees outside of no benefits. Those employees with no benefits, all, employees who have benefits are covered by, a union
here in Fairfax County. So the second p the part on the second page of this document that says if an employee is engaged in the course of their duty and something occurs, those individuals will not be part of any coverage of any protections. Correct. An hourly employee. And as it states here, though, on request, the school board shall make available that counsel if if requested. But if an hourly employee requests it, they they they will get a no?
From the union? No. From us. No. I I guess I'm asking from us because of that second part. I just wanna do a time check here. Is there something that is very specific that you could ask to be delivered to you or to us, for this policy? And can we move on the other policies either without this one or we'll take a vote on an ombuds for all of them? And then, again, it can be always addressed at the dais.
So, doctor Hester, did you have any question you wanted to get to put on? Or my questions. I just I'm not sure if they're being answered, and I don't wanna hold up any more time because I've asked a lot of questions on this. Okay. Well, well, thank you. So do we wanna do an ombuds, not ombuds, ombuds. Not ombuds. Omnibus on all of these HR policies to send them forward? Is there objection to doing all of these HR policies? K. There's objection. So we'll do them I wonder if with all but forty four eleven?
Okay. So we're gonna do an omnibus for all policies except for forty four eleven. Sure. Let's get let's get this together. That's okay. Once the clerks have some language, we will move forward. If you are waiting, if you wanted to take a look at the four remaining policies under one point o four, are there any that are short that you think you could approve if you're waiting with nothing else to do? I'm sorry. I've seen while we're waiting for the clerk, back to agenda item one point o four, the CIP changes, those policy related changes of the four remaining that we haven't
discussed this evening, are there any that are sort of quick to be able to do? Maybe not. K. Let me take a look. 3 20, you said. Okay. Way to go, clerk team. Okay. So there is a motion on the board. It's for action item one point o five, HR related policies. Would anyone like to make a motion? Miss Saint John Cunning will move the motion. A second? Mister Frisch? Miss Tanjane Cunning, would you like to speak to the motion? No? Mister Frisch? No. All in favor of the governance committee moving all of the HR related policies except policy forty four eleven, operational employee applications and rights, together as an omnibus motion as
revised to the full board for adoption. All in favor? We have a unanimous vote for yes for that action. Okay. And then we will vote separately for policy forty four eleven, support employee obligations and rights. Is there a motion to move that if mister Frisch? A second? I can second it. Mister Frisch, any comments? I have no comments. Any other comments? Okay. So, the motion that the governance committee sends policy forty four eleven, support employee obligations and rights, is revised to the full board for adoption.
All in favor? We have mister Frisch, miss Laney, miss Jean Sean Cunning, and myself. Opposed? Doctor Anderson. Okay. Well done, guys. Well done, folks, gals, people. Okay. So I got twelve minutes. Thank you, mister Solomon and mister Foster. Okay. Long time coming. Woo hoo. Okay. Looping back to agenda item I'm sorry. Doctor Anderson, what number was it again? Tell me. 8320. Doctor Anderson suggests that eighty three twenty is perhaps fairly innocuous.
Eighty three twenty. Is it not innocuous? Oh, eighty three twenty. So it's been revised to add a philosophy and responsibility statement. As a reminder, we've collectively pre accepted the formatting and stylistic changes. Are we okay with the philosophy? It it starts a different way, but Oh, that's gonna be okay. So with that formatting. Okay. So is there a motion to move policy 80 320? Like, okay. Miss, Jean John Cunning. 8320. Second? I can second it? Or you second it, miss Lady?
Okay. Great. Miss, Saint John Cunning would like to speak to your motion? Miss Lady? Mister Frisch, did you have something? I think this is really exciting. That's all I'm gonna say. Alright. I'm gonna call the question, all those in favor of the motion to send policy 8320, site and building acquisition wait. Site building acquisition wait a minute. Eighty three twenty. Correct? Yes. Because we do have an eighty two thirty. Now I get it, miss Brown. Okay. 8320, site and building acquisition to the board for consideration.
All those in favor, we are unanimous here to move policy eighty three twenty, site and building acquisition. K? Alright. Any other ones you think that we could do? Leasing for school facilities? 80 eighty two thirty. Are you being serious? Yeah. 80 okay. Eighty two thirty. In essence, the only thing that we need to fix in this are things that we've already said stylistically would be changed. Yes. Mhmm. School design. Right. So it would remove number five. And, again, I have captured all those and I will send them once I can just do a final read through. Superintendent reference.
I mean, we've all Mhmm. Yep. I also do think that once we get all these through, right, our intentions had always been let's get these approved and then we could look at them again holistically, especially for this one knowing that we had done the procurement one recently. Like, it feeds into this one. So okay. Is there a motion to send policy 8230 forward? Mister Frisch sends the motion. This is for 8230 school design. Mister Frisch moves. Is there a second? Doctor Anderson, would either of you like to speak to your motion? No. Okay. So we have the motion to send policy eighty two thirty school design, as revised
to the full board for adoption. All in favor? It's unanimous. Okay. Oh my gosh. This might be a record. Okay. Leasing, we have 84108310. Let's take a quick look. Mister Frisch. Which one? Eighty four ten. It looks like more redlining, but it it really isn't a substantive matter. The one that caught my eye was no. This is not the one that I was thinking of, but this one is similar. It's they're basically just removing superfluous, text and tightening up language here and there.
I don't see a need to delete this one at all other than the stylistic changes we've been talking about. Thank you. Doctor Anderson? Just a quick question. Should I be viewing this differently if it's in blue versus red? No. Oh. Okay. I will I will say again, the community use policy does have implications to this. So, again, it will be nice to have this cleaned up for that. Any other comments on eighty four ten? No. Do I have a motion to send this forward? Mister Frisch moves to move policy, eighty four ten forward to the school board to
second. Miss Lady? Any comments from the motion makers? No? Any comments from other members? Mister Frisch moved and miss Lady seconded. All those in favor of sending eighty four ten leasing for school facilities to the board? We got a unanimous. Eighty three ten? Let's try. Eighty three ten, site planning and development. Mister Frisch. Alright. So the only thing that sticks out in this one is under landscaping, and, that, we're removing the PTA, local garden clubs, etcetera, etcetera. But I I have heard from, various principals about things that have been unintentionally destroyed.
Like, there were, like, some kids gardening activities that were kind of plowed over, so I get that. And that's not to say that these groups are not being invited, and there are many volunteers that help the kids with, their school gardens. So it's not to say that they're not engaged in the school community anymore. I think it's just being a little bit more specific about what's allowed and what's not. Other than that, the only other big substantive substantive change is that, we're adding that they've changed the acreage for middle and high, and added the senior high or combined
school. Everything else, either points to the guidelines, or, adds the philosophy. So I'm fine with it. Okay. Doctor Pearson. Yes. And this is speaking about size. So would it be a good assumption, I guess, mister Smith, I'm not sure if you have this information, doctor Reed, that when sites such as Bailey's Upper that do not meet the acreage requirement, that it would go through this, waiver process to the board itself.
Because Bailey's Upper is not 4.5 acres. Right. Mhmm. Alright. Approve the school. Yeah. You do approve that we do a school. I'm sorry. Which paragraph are you referring to? Paragraph that speaks to size number four. Five. New five. Well, the oh, okay. Yes. New five. It says b it's got that basic acreage. Any requests for waiver or requirement minimum size shall be approved by the school board. So we're approving living outside of what's provided here.
Okay. Thank you. I will say as much as I wanna have a full set of all these things done on our agenda, there's a few things in here. Again, looking with the facility lens, like landscaping, the new sea talks about artificial turf will be installed on stadium fields wherever possible. And this is a big sticking point, for community use, and there's a budgetary aspect. And I know there's other options the superintendent's looking into. I also wonder if landscaping what we're really talking about is the planning of the landscaping, not the upkeep of it, which is what mister Frisch was really talking about
that once it's installed, ensuring that staff know not to, you know, take things out that are so, I don't know. I I need more than three minutes to kind of think this one over, but I'm also okay to send it forward and work on it for the CIP discussion. Those are my hesitations. Mister Frist, did you have a comment? Yeah. I can envision if there's a need for a change around first of all, the the term artificial turf does not is agnostic to the type of artificial turf.
Right? So thankfully. Because I think since we've been on the board, we've gone through two iterations of the types of things that we value. So I think that provides a lot of flexibility to staff around what is used. I think the point there is, even with the expense, upkeep of athletic facilities on nonartificial turf can be quite expensive. And that's one of the it's also not necessarily as safe. So it's one of the reasons that we do artificial turf. So I agree with you that if this was being prescriptive to the type of turf for example, we've replaced many of the football stadium turfs with basically professional grade
used by the NFL, as part of that pilot. If we were saying that is what you must use, I would probably want something a little bit more broad, but it's pretty broad. It's just saying that we will use artificial. Thank you for that. Mary Rose, did you have any comments? No? Miss miss Saint John Cunning? And and just specifically to the artificial turf, I just wanna add that that's an equity issue. I remember there was a time when, you know, on my side of the county there were several fields that didn't have artificial turfs and the football team really felt
less than and other team members would make fun of them as less than. I am not a football player. I don't know what is better to play on, but I do know how the community and the students felt about that. So, to me, it becomes an equity issue that it should be, you know, throughout our entire division, it should be the same because those kids, like, they would be called in the huddle Westpoor for not having artificial turf. So we can't have kids feeling that way. Okay. Doctor Anderson.
Given what was just said, this does not speak to that equity because this says artificial turf will be artificial turf will be installed on stadium fields wherever possible, which will continue what you've just talked about. Should it be the expectation? Again, I'm just for a while. I think that Right. But this says wherever possible. If all of them are done, should we be striking wherever possible? Yeah. Is it our basic expectation? Then if it is, we need to strike that. I'll just say that goes to there is a debate about that, I think, from from what I understand from facilities.
But do you wanna speak in 07:29? So just checking in. Maybe we can go a few more minutes if you wanna try and nip this, but Types of I think they're trying to be economical in their verbiage because there are lots of types of athletic fields. It's not just football fields. Right? So It says stadium fields. So those would not be, you know, your regular playground fields. Stadium fields would be, to me, speaking where you're playing your football Soccer, lacrosse.
That's where it's played. It's played on the football field. On that. But there's yeah. Is there, Gordon, what does stadium field mean to you? I would look at it and to include all fields. I would practice fields as well. I mean, it says stadium. If you wanna be prescriptive and say stadium, fine. I I I would look at it from a aspect of, practice, but we're not we don't have, artificial turf on all of our practice fields as well. Right? So I I just would like to offer this is one of those examples I
think mister Frish, you pointed out. So this was last reviewed in 2013, which was also when the turf allocation agreement was was last reviewed that is starting to be under review now. So, again, I do wonder, just given the hour, should we just put this aside for now and come back? I know. We're still competitive. I have one suggestion that might fix it. Alright. Because we're being more prescriptive with the word stadium, I think we get max flexibility by taking out the word stadium because now it's then saying all fields wherever possible. And that could include stadiums.
It could also include there are other facilities that have turf fields that are not part of the stadium. But that doesn't resolve resolve the issue. The issue is, are we going to put, artificial turf in some places and not in others? But we have policies that do address that. We have an overreaching equity policy. So it's not wherever possible. It's that is our expectation. I think where I would like to have the delineation is that it's on the main fields and not necessarily in the practice fields. And I don't even know if that matters because the reason why we're doing this is for a, health issue.
And, yes, I know we've said before grass is best, but some of these are really good. I I I don't know if that resolves the the question that I have. Because what I don't want it to be is wherever possible, and it's possible in these places and not possible in these places, meaning not types of field, but where the schools are located. Well, that's what I'm getting is we have an equity policy that would say that that is in violation. A a choice made like that would not be in in alignment with our equity policy. So then do we need the language that says we're not possible? Of two reasons. One, some sports you wouldn't do this to.
And number two, there might be a physical limitation. For example, when we talk about net zero schools, not every school can be truly net zero because it might not be able to have a thermal well or some other kind of physical limitation. So they have to have some We're one away. Do we want to We're one away. Do we want to modify the, remove the word stadium?
Again, we can work on this and bring the change to the board. Right? We're so close, so I'm gonna go for it. Let's I make a motion to to strike the word stadium and adopt the motion. I'll second that motion. I so it's it's not rushed. We've been trying to do this for two years. We I mean, we and and the CIP is coming up, so this is such a great time to be rethinking this over. So, so mister Frisch has moved that that the word stadium be struck from whatever
section that is Right. And that the board committee send policy, eighty three ten site planning and development as revised to the full board for adoption. So let's make sure that that motion is accurate. Right. But this one, we mister Fish made one more motion to remove the word stadium, which is not part of the so do we want to agree is there objection to removing stadium with that objection? Doctor Anderson, do you object to that, to removing the word stadium? I don't have any objections to that. Okay. So without objection, we will remove the word stadium.
You don't need to put in motion. Thank you. Madam clerk. Yes. I don't know. Okay. Motion did you make the motion? Mister Frisch made it, and who seconded it? I did. The governance committee the governance committee sends policy eighty three ten, site planning and development as revised, to the full board for adoption. Moved by mister Frisch, seconded by me. No comments. All those in favor? Mister Frisch, myself, miss Lady, miss Saint John Cunning. Those opposed? Doctor Anderson. So it moves forward to the board for one. And with that oh. Miss Maron, really quickly, I just wanna note based on what you're saying with the
CIPs, it sounds like for the CIP policies, we should reserve, since the CIP, I believe, is on action for 02/12. So for the CIP policies, it seems like we should put those on action for or consent for 02/12 since that would be all of the conversation, or do you still want it all on 01/22 based on the comments I'm hearing? We just want clarity. That is one clarity question. I think the governance chair should work with the chair and vice chair to schedule appropriately. It gives you time to actually think it through. Sure. My choice would be before we do CIP so that it's hammered out and done
before we actually engage in the actual vote. Having these, if there is gonna be debate on the same night as CIP, is only asking for a late meeting. Yeah. I I see both sides, but it's gonna come down to, I think, a practicality thing too. Okay. So I will work with our chair and vice chair to schedule. Just real quick for our next governance committee meeting. We've heard a lot from our public about the calendar being problematic, or just wondering how they can provide input. And the board also has talked about it. So I'm sorry? So we were gonna talk about that.
That was something we could, talk about. And, also, AI, the superintendent, has an AI policy, that she would like to bring in draft, very timely. And then the third thing gosh. I can't remember now. There was a third thing. Just one second. We're meeting again on January 20, so very full. Thank you everybody for agreeing to move the timing of these meetings, by the way. Yes. And, oh, and we had a policy from October 14 that was, agenda item three point o five sixty eight sixty about broadcasting curricula and extracurricular events.
So that would bring us, like, up to speed with everything we've discussed so far, and then we could go back to that list we looked at, I think, in June when when miss Liddy was chair of the committee and then get the next slew of things. Okay? So we'll confirm the agenda. Please continue to give input, but we'll turn that around. So go governance. Alright. We are adjourned at 07:37PM. Thank you. Alright.