Call this policy subcommittee meeting to order. Friday, January 30th, 2026, 5:00 pm. Can we get a roll call? >> Mr. Das >> here. >> Miss Riley >> here. Miss Stewart >> here. >> To the flag.
>> There. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any
person may make an audio or video recording of this public [snorts] meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and
permissible. Before we begin, I just want to um quickly just say I'm very excited to really get started on policy subcommittee. I believe we have um a great team that we're going to be working with. And um just so everyone's
aware, we are live streaming this meeting today. This is the second live stream meeting of the year. And just uh Mr. Kabra let us know if there's any issues with the stream. But again, thank you to your team for getting this up and running. Okay. Believe we have citizens input. We have those um in email form.
>> Yes. >> First we have Nelson Vasquez to send Sunset Hill um fratinization policies. >> I am voicing my opinion on record today in support of an official fratonization policy. Supporting a fratonization
policy in schools is essential to uphold ethical standards, professional integrity, and the overall welfare of the school community. Such policies clearly define acceptable boundaries between students and staff, preventing any situations that could lead to
favoritism, undue influence, and misconduct. By maintaining these boundaries, schools reinforce a culture of trust, fairness, and respect, ensuring that all students have equal opportunities to learn and thrive in a safe and impartial environment. Nelson
Vasquez, 210 Sunset Hill. >> Thank you. Taylor Perry, 105 Aberdine Street, Fall River. >> [clears throat] >> I am speaking today as a parent who is deeply concerned about student safety and professional boundaries within our schools. Every child deserves a deserves
to feel safe, respected, and protected in their learning environment. I strongly support a clear fratonization policy that prohibits inappropriate relationships where there is a power imbalance between staff and students and between staff and supervisors. These are
situations that create risk, exploitation, and harm. Policies must make these boundaries explicit. At the same time, this policy should not interfere with normal interactions between students or between teachers and
colleagues. Collaboration, mentorship, and day-to-day professional relationships are essential to a healthy school environment. What we are asking for is clarity around what is unacceptable, not restricting ordinary human interaction. A written policy is
preventive and punitive. It protects students, guide staff, and ensures fairness and consistency. Clear boundaries reduce confusion, discourage inappropriate behavior, and create a culture where concerns can be raised safely and addressed promptly. From a
district standpoint, this policy also demonstrates that student safety and accountability are top priorities. Written, enforcable standards ensure transparency, fairness, and public trust. As parents, we should not have to rely on informal procedures or
assumptions that common sense will always prevail. When exceptions are not clearly written into policy, it creates confusion, inconsistency, and risk, especially for students who may not feel empowered to speak up. >> Thank you. U moving on to section three,
discussion items 3-1, a discussion timeline of revising policy manual, procedures from administration on updating the policy manual once the school committee votes on changes. So we'll start with the first section timeline of revising policy manual. Um
superintendent what is the administration's position on how in in total the um policy manual should be visited? >> So we we've we've had this discussion um in the past. I really my position is
that when we look at these they really need to be looked at um by section especially because there hasn't been a policy review um in a very long time. I think we review policy when like when something comes up and so in my opinion
I think we need to look at it section by section. Um you and I had spoken a couple of weeks ago about the fact that in changing one policy, you really need to take a look across other policies and see where there are implications and certainly that'll come up a little bit later um in in this discussion today. So
I would just propose that we look at them by section. >> Um yeah, >> thank you. Um the members have anything wish to add? >> So Mr. Riley, >> just knowing some sections are meteor than other sections, we we might want to
chunk them out. so that we can have time in the meeting to really talk about them. So, I'm wondering if Deb can kind of lay out the year and divy them up and tell us what makes sense. So, if a section has a lot of policies, maybe we split that one in half and some other
sections are smaller. But, I agree they should at least be all looked at. Even if some of them remain unchanged, it might just be like we've reviewed, it's updated, and we could kind of mark it as tagged. But like as we were looking at the just the section for today, I was like, "Okay, [laughter] there are a lot
of these." So to be thorough enough to really give them the time they need, we might want to break up some of those sections. But I think it also means that we probably need >> more of a regular monthly schedule for policy so that we have the time to review these
>> and and prepare for those meetings. I don't think quarterly will get us to all [laughter] that. So >> I I am in um full agreement. So um after this meeting we can um within the next week we can work with the clerk giving our schedule and getting on a um on a normal monthly basis. I fully agree with
that. >> Um so and I and just going on based off of um I agree we need to visit these sections by sessions. I understand some have more chunks than others in terms of reviewing. I do also know there are some
policies that our priority and some that should be tackled sooner rather than later. I know um there was a discussion around um discuss visiting some of our financial policies that can obviously hold off. So when that comes up we can we can table that into next month. Um
we'll have a discussion on that when that comes up. in terms of and this is my position one as one member is um with policy section B which has to do with school committee governance um there is um I have strong opinions and ideas um
that I presented in the backup that I believe the subcommittee could could visit today and we can discuss that next if it's the will of the subcommittee um um M Stewart do you have any >> um so on the section second part of this
discussion item. Um, and I know Superintendent and I had a brief conversation about this is um, we've the policy manual that is currently up there. I don't believe it's that's on the website. I don't believe from from
conversations I've had with other members that that's the most updated that it's supposed to be because of um, sometimes the school committee makes policy changes on the fly. Sometimes there are changes that I don't believe are um currently listed in the policy
manual. Could you just um briefly just explain to the subcommittee what the procedures are? If the school committee makes a vote to change any policy or add a section, what's how does that get placed into the manual? >> So the the I don't know the word I'm looking
for on paper. Um I would say that the procedure is there's a change made. um Miss Cabraw would make note of that change and prepare like the whether it's the new policy or a revised policy date it updated on you know approved on
whatever it is um and then shares it with our um tech folks so that it can get put on the website. What I realized um in conversations over the last couple of weeks is that there isn't a clean way
to insert it into the policy manual. So there was I think uh a prior practice would be um printing out having uh the entire PDF of the policy manual printed take physically take pages out insert
new ones and then um and then upload it again. But I don't I don't think that's necessary because you you we can edit PDFs, we can remove P, we can do it electronically. So I spoke to people earlier this week, late last week, I
can't remember at this point about needing to do that because the default um has been to not remove or not insert into the policy manual, but we have links that sit outside the policy manual. It's also confusing because some
of those are policies and some of those are procedures and they're not identified as such. So we, you know, we talked this week about that cleanup. I think some of the and and you could um talk here a little bit too, Scott, is with moving over to new website, new um
opportunities and requirements around um accessibility requirements. I think it's not it's no longer going to live on the website as is because we need in how it does live is going to be a lot cleaner in terms of inserting new policy or
revising policy. But do you want to say a little bit more about that? >> Moving forward, every policy is going to have to have its own link because everything moving forward will have to be ADA compliant. So they'll have to be alternate text. Um and we've started the process. However, we haven't gotten to
that piece because we've been trying to work up to it. So now, if you look at policy BAA, that's going to have to be taken into Adobe, it's going to have to be made ADA compliant. They'll have to be alternate text. BAA will have its own
link. So, when you go to the policy page, you click on BAA, it brings it up. It'll be ADA compliant. So, we really do have to restructure everything, which means in the future, if school committee or anyone makes a change to BAA and it's voted on, it'll be much quicker to pull
that down and upload the new one. >> What's the timeline looking on completing that process? >> Um, I'm this is no small feat um because we have to do the whole um you know, the whole website. Um, and the thing that gets me is the federal government gives a school district of our size, which is
very big, until April of this year. But a smaller school district like Westport, our neighbor, they have until next June to get it done. So, we're at a crunch. Um, I'm looking at I've already spoken to the superintendent looking at some vendor help to get us there. um because
myself and um Miss Sardina are working on it, but the size of the website, especially with the policy piece and a lot of the uh school committee stuff, um we're going to need some vendor help. The one piece that is a plus moving to Diligent, a lot of the policies will
live in Diligent now as well. So when you go to the public facing school committee site, all the policies will be on Diligent. So they'll be built ADA compliant and then I can copy and paste them into and Diligent is doing that piece for us. So that part is helpful
and then it'll just be copying and pasting. So I can't give you a definitive timeline. I can tell you it has to be done by April with the federal government. >> So but Scott isn't there um but the diligent piece there's a public facing element to it. So if we're building out
the we're building it out there, why wouldn't that be the only place it lives? It can be and and that's just something that in the past it's lived on the school committee page but also live >> there be a link on the school committee page that takes you to the public facing Absolutely. Okay. >> Yes. And we can talk about that in the
tech subcommittee meeting in this policy subcommittee meeting moving forward how we want to structure it but diligent be that that drive to get us there. I think it'll clean up the process. >> I I understand um and I don't want this is my my last remarks. I don't think
this is um necessar obviously those things need to be done but I don't think this is necessarily an issue on your part. I think there's processes that need to go in place so the committee can even know internally what the policies are as well. I think the ADA is something that's important
needs to be done but that's a separate issue than just having an updated policy manual even even just internally. So, um I don't know if any of the members have [snorts] >> No, that mean I understand what you're saying, but I think that it's going to take a little bit more time to just [clears throat] put it in. >> So, we just got to give him
>> It's very clunky on the current website. So yes, >> the individual links will make it much >> not just ADA accessible just accessible because right now you're clicking on a whole manual and having to >> kind of scroll through that you think might be.
>> Um last thing I'll add on that subject is um I realized when I went to diligent you go to the policy manual it brings you to board docs. So we still have board docs. >> So we still have board docs. We're in the final phases right now of the remaining sync. So when we built out
diligent we built it out so that the new committee could start using it January 1 moving forward with your new meetings. Now we still do have quite a bit of data that lived in board docs. We have to make the two talk. I have the first call with the group of engineers this
Thursday and they'll begin to start the sync. So you'll actually start to see when you log into Diligent more stuff start to populate and that should actually turn around within three to four weeks. It should be a real quick process. So, you're going to start to see more information on diligent when
you get there because board docs will actually go away um in March. So, March 1, Board Docs won't be there. So, that gives us basically February to get that data into the system. >> Thank you. Um seeing no further questions, we'll move on to 3-2, which
is a review and vote to refer policy section B. Um just reference this is a lot of this has to do with the operations of the school committee. Um I did send an email to the comm to the subcommittee outlining some um three
different policies my position that should be reviewed um first before we go through the entire one. Um but again if um there's any question or guidance on which way we should go. Okay. >> Um can we go to section BBA?
And just for the record, this is um notes that I placed in the in the green. This isn't the official policy. So just um we there also should have been the backup for the original policy as well, but I'm sure the committee has that. Um
so I'll start since I was the individual who proposed the changes in there. Um, it's important and the only change that I believe should be clarified is under personnel matters. It's no secret school
committee doesn't have direct authority and I'm sure the new members learned um in their MASC training to directly hire, fire, or discipline individuals. However, we do oversee the superintendent and it's important that we are able to review decisions
specifically made by the superintendent, which is why I included the language in there. And that's all I have. I actually wish to add one more part to this, not even just for the oversight of the superintendent. We are a policym body as well. So it's important to have
effective data in a secure setting to make the best policies in my opinion as well as for data collection or appraising the effectiveness of policies on the book. Any questions? Seeing none. >> Well, I have a question.
>> Sure. >> So what does it mean to review personnel decisions? So if you are to make a decision or whoever the superintendent is makes a decision in terms of personnel, it should be subject to review of the
committee in um a protected sub protected place such as an executive session or in the review of attorney side in that regard. >> Right. I'm asking what that would consist of the review. So I sign off on every letter you know I sign every
letter of hire. So, does that mean you would have an opportunity to review every hire in the district? >> Believe the committee would have the right to review decisions. Um, I guess if it was an issue that would be raised, I as one member wouldn't want to
review every single decision that was made, but more if there's um if there's more of a question in regards to >> and so to what end? >> That's the committee that would be the committee's decision. So, are you thinking like I'm just
thinking of a wild example. I'm not picking anything specific. I'm just saying. So, are you thinking because I'm trying to get some context around this. So, you're thinking like >> we're about to hire a a HR director. So, let's say over the next year we go through three HR directors. So, now we
want to review those personnel decisions as part of evaluating the superintendent based on like the best hiring practice. like I'm I'm just trying to get at what is the nuts and bolts of what we want this to mean. >> Sure. If the committee receives a a complaint regarding um a decision that
was made regarding a staff member and um superintendent makes a decision on that and it's and it comes up to um is under scrutiny by a complaint. There should be guard rails in place that the committee can review a decision by the superintendent
that is in a safe area. Obviously, we shouldn't be giving out personnel info in the public. It's not our duty to hire, fire, or discipline any individuals. We oversee the superintendent. So, that was the um
the the process. But I think HR is a little different than just like a teacher or you know a par or somebody to me we are do have more >> I'm just wondering what's in >> if there's some language from the superintendent eval connected to
personnel that would make this more appropriate versus broadly being around personnel >> think that there is can't remember >> yeah because I think this is really broad so if we can narrow it >> maybe something tighter to the rubric
brick that more connected. >> I was thinking I guess because this is vague in terms of reviewing personnel decisions and I think in my mind you I was thinking about because of the hiring like even though um I hire and fire blah
blah blah like I was thinking it had to do with the hiring process that you would review hires but you're talking about being able to review any decision I make. I'm going to put a person out on leave. you if you wanted to you would request to review that decision.
>> Sure. More personally, if um uh and I and I'll be completely straightforward. If there was more of a decision to keep an employee versus and that employee and based off the facts shouldn't be employed by the district. Won't go into detail. That's
more something I I personally would like to review. >> But is that something that we're not reviewing that decision? are reviewing the superintendent. I'm not like I guess I I want to be careful that we don't step into personnel matters because that
is the purview of of the superintendent. So when we review the superintendent, we can take her decisions into consideration. So we can say, gee, we don't like, you know, the decision that was made to hire this one, fire this one, suspend this one, what we can use
those matters to decide on the superintendent, but we can't change or alter those things. You know what I mean? >> Fully agree. >> Okay. So, I'm just trying to think of how we can like word this so that it's more around
>> that's a part and I'm sure there's language in the superintendent's evaluation that we can use. So, can >> we could we could if I can make a suggestion we could um table this allow the superintendent to come back with the information you you asked for. >> Happy to look to I'm sure there's
something in the Aval that we could pull up that would just to be more specific. I don't want I don't want staff to think we're going to start dipping into personnel matters because that's not the intent of >> the language that's here is like we'll be able to >> like we could question those things and
I don't want that to be the case. It's more on we're going to use them when we when we evaluate. >> Yeah. So can we do that? Can we look at some something from the avowal language that might fit better into that so it's not so broad? >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> Okay. I I mean I guess I would also say
though when it lives in the evaluation system >> I don't know that it has to live in policy. So I think that's where >> that's true for half of these policies. They live in the wall already. So [laughter] >> we still put them in. >> All true. >> Yeah. [clears throat]
>> We can um and if you don't have an answer tag then we can we can hold that. >> It feels like there would be something in here but the the stuff about the human resources really doesn't apply to this. I think I have to say that I am concerned >> I I I just am concerned about the the
tightness of the language, the reach into the personnel. I know we've had some discussions about, you know, potentially if a person on the committee doesn't like a hire, doesn't like someone that we've hired,
like this understanding like, well, I may not have purview over that, but we do have purview over the budget, so we could just cut the position, right? That is >> I don't think that's what this says. >> No, but that is a discussion that's been
had. And so I will say that it does worry me um whether there's any kind of language related to um district personnel um being put into policy. I think that's a >> well I think as long as it's tied to the
superintendent. I mean you're the only one we can't fire. >> That's [laughter] it. So I think that's what we have to tie it to. That's why I think it fits better under something from the superintendent >> about and and one more point as well I did not think of as well that should be re we can definitely come back to this
at a future meeting um we do h we have an attorney >> and maybe discussion around um wherever we decide to go in the future and I know there's um some positions but specifically our attorney as well um and
that's something I like looking at MASC guidance I didn't include it in here but that's something we could look that in terms of would you have the do we have the ability to hire or fire our attorney as well or review? >> Yeah, we do. That's in this it's right in this policy. >> But we have the other one I had a
question about in this policy is it says we don't directly supervise the administrative assistant to the school committee. Does Deb have other duties other than the school committee? I'm sorry I'm asking Deb like she's not here but in my district they report directly to the school committee. So,
I'm just curious about like is your job bigger than just super just secretary to the school committee? >> No, I don't I think I don't mean I don't know when it was I don't know how many years ago, but at some point the committee voted right to have got
>> the um when I yeah in in 2018 when I came on it was yeah >> superintendent. I think those are the three positions that it's the administrative assistant to the school committee farring she doesn't have responsibilities within the district and the attorney can report directly to the
school committee. >> So that's something we could look at. But that's that was the only one that I that I was wondering about that was in there. But sometimes the administrative assistant has more than one job, not just this one. So >> um last thing I'll add in that as well.
But I think it's um also important to know our attorney to the school committee. Does he does there need to be authorization for the attorney to help the administration with anything as well? >> I think that's in one of our other policies this list. Yeah.
>> Uh Mr. Monus, >> um I just want to add just to be um at least updated or notified about these issues or these decisions that you're making. Let us know what's going on at least. of um what's happening throughout
the district that you know what I mean give us a heads up of >> Thank you. And and I agree. I think um it does look like the notification in general is um inconsistent in terms of what the school committee is notified
and it shouldn't be on a case and case on case basis. It should be an arbitrary um system. I'm not sure that's something that needs to be in policy or something that we can just administratively work out. However, that's something you raised a valid point.
Um, for the sake of moving the the meeting forward is u we'll move on to a second item which is um BBAA. I think it's like one or two below this one. Ours is one.
Thank you. So this is the school committee member authority and um so the school committee is something that should be considered in our in our procedures. We sign off on financial
batches. It's important that we make well-informed [snorts] decisions when signing off on those. So just added some language to the top in terms at the bottom and um and this somewhat mirrors the city council's powers as well not
exactly to a te however it has the ability for school committee members the vice chair or three members of the committee to call for a special meeting if need be. It's important. I'm of the position we should not allow one individual who we
did not elect to be our chair to completely have total control over the meeting and total control over the agenda. So the language that is in here would allow for more collective
um oversight over the over the agenda and over the meeting. I'll go to review. Can you give me an example? Because I'm I think I'm just a little confused on what that would mean. So, if if the
three of us wanted to have a meeting, but the mayor doesn't want to add that onto the agenda, we can say, "Let's have a meeting." >> Yes. I think you would have to have a quorum. I think it would have to be four. I don't think you can do three >> city. We could pull up the city charter.
The city believe three members of the city council can call for a special meeting. That's just a call for the meeting to have to have said meeting. You would need um any you would need a quorum. Of course, >> this is just more of >> if there's an urgent matter and there's
a disagreement on whether there should be a special meeting or not, it just allows either the vice chair with one member or um who the vice chair who obviously we elect to representatives or any three members. Um but if there's discussion over the three members, we could we could definitely raise that as
well if if you would like it to be four. I just feel like if there's not a quorum, >> like are we really going to call a meeting? Because then you might not have a quorum at the meeting if the quorum doesn't agree. >> So I don't disagree with the idea of it.
Like if if we feel like there's a need for a special meeting and at least a minimum of a quorum say we should have the meeting then I that makes sense to me. I'm not sure. I'm just thinking like what if there's an issue the vice chair and one member want to have a meeting but then we just say okay we're not going to go. then it feels like you're
kind of >> there's no point to this language unless there's a quorum of us saying we want to have a special meeting. Does that make sense? >> It does. [cough] One question I would have if we allow just the chair to be able to call a special meeting, should we be arbitrary with that and say it
needs the chair needs four members any four members can call a special meeting or >> Well, I think the chair always has I I I'm just going by experience. The chair always has emergency information before we do. So the chair might know we need a special meeting before we know we need a
special meeting. So I feel like we still have to allow the chair to call a special meeting because they especially since our chair is the mayor, he would definitely have knowledge of some emergency or something before we would. So I think we I think we need to allow the chair to call a special meeting. But
I think if it's not the chair calling it, we should have at least a quorum. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a situation where people someone three people are calling for a meeting and then no one shows up. And so that that feels like a disrespectful venue versus
we're setting ourselves up for something that could look inappropriate versus if there's a quorum, we know that there's at least that many members who who think this is important enough to meet about. >> Sure. No, [snorts] I I I agree with you. So the chair and four members of the school committee,
>> a quorum, you could say the chair or a quorum of the school committee could call for a special meeting. >> Okay, I I agree with that. Um second item attached to this is um relative to um adding an item. There's
actually a few um adding an item to the agenda. This is something [snorts] that has been an issue in the past. some school member of the committee asked for an item to go on the agenda and it's not allowed and it's something that is pertinent [snorts] as it's been a
constant issue over the last two years. Um I'm sure the other members of the committee would support that position. Um, it should, my position is any, if any two members wish to have an item on
an agenda for a meeting, it should be it should be honored. And I think that's something that should be in policy. >> My worry is our agendas are always hefty. >> Sure. >> If if all of a sudden I come in and say, I want to add four more things to that agenda and I get you to say yes with me, we're going to [snorts] be there till
midnight. So, can we why can't we have that discussion for it to go on to the next one? Why does it have to go on that one? That's my only worry is we're already hefty. So, >> and then if we want to do that, we could vote on it and you'd always, you know what I mean? So, if you said, I'd like to talk about
>> what kind of water we have in our meeting, you know, on the next agenda, and we all vote yes, then it has to be on the next agenda versus >> correct. >> Do we have a process by which not just members of the committee, but by someone
can submit an agenda item request? I mean I think the I think they can be submitted. I don't know but we don't have like a formal process. There's not like a if you'd like this agenda request. Okay. >> So that's something we could visit in the future. Um so it looks like just
from the discussion um chair vice chair I mean chair and quorum of the committee can call a special meeting and we'll forego that second part. [snorts] Um and just I sort of tweaked up in the duties um tweaked up some of the language like for example town. We're
not town we are >> a city. Um and um I took off on section four um discussion of and the reason I took that se that wording off is um around dominating the
committee because that could be misruded in my opinion because if you have two members not I'm not saying there should be an issue this with this committee but in the past if you have one or two members who contribute to the conversation and no one else does that could be looked at
as domin dominating the discussion. So I don't want that to be used against those members for helping. So I don't think that's something that needs to be within policy. You should never dominate a conversation to begin with. And um
in number nine, there would be if we ever received like a complaint about the superintendent, our attorney, we would need to investigate. Um so that's what investigate when necessary was the language for. So this is school committee member
authority. We don't have the authority to investigate >> even the superintendent. >> Well, but that's not what this says. So this just says to refer question and complaints to the proper school authorities, which is what we should do. If someone emails us and says, "I have a complaint about this principal, this
teacher," we send it to the superintendent and she, if it's a principal, she handles it. If it's a teacher, she sends it to the principal. the principal manages it. So that's not our role and I just feel like this is very that's this section is under our
duties and it's not our duty to investigate. [snorts] So I I don't think that belongs there. >> Okay. Um are we able to edit? We can't edit this live. >> Yeah. >> Um
so we >> So I'm sorry. Can I ask a process question? So, does this go do we do two reads at the school committee? So, does do we bring a draft to the full school committee for any editing or and then vote on a final draft in the >> That's the way it should be. I believe
there's policy in there that dictates how policies get brought forward. >> That's how I do them. That's I'm only asking because I'm trying to understand like cuz you're asking can we edit this live but we can't but could we edit it before it goes to the school? >> It has not always been consistent. But yes, that's the way the process should be. Yes.
>> Yes. Of course. >> No. If something is recommended out of school committee for editing, it gets >> from here from policy subcommittee >> as a first read. >> You can send it as a first read. >> We can we we have no it hasn't been arbitrary. >> Well, we bring it as a first read. If
it's if we bring it as a first read sometimes it people have said at the table, no need, we'll we'll approve it tonight. I I I'm don't believe every policy that has come before the school committee since I've been on has been brought as a
first read. Some have, >> some haven't. >> I think it might be the difference between and we could look it might be the difference between it being a new policy or a revision. that might be. Um, [snorts] but I I think bringing these as a first
read, I think that makes sense >> in case the other members want to add some more information or edits to it. So um can I with everything being said here for this policy BBA believe um it would be appropriate make
a motion to refer to with the edits recommend recommended by the by the subcommittee >> for first read >> for a first read. >> Yes. So move >> but wait a question but the section we still have to go through from the beginning that we had with her that you guys are going to look into.
>> So we're just talking about this one BBA. Yeah. And I'm sorry, Deborah, are you getting these edits that we're just spitting out back here? Okay. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Second. Um, we'll just do a voice vote. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes.
>> Who made the motion? I'm sorry. >> I did. Sorry. >> Second by Mr. Stewart. >> Um, last one for this to review today would be um I sent it as a actually a second is the school committee officers policy. um
should be in the backup. I don't believe it would be connected to there. Um >> oh, it was I added it in here cuz you just sent the whole section and I know you had made notes on it, so I didn't know there was specific ones that you wanted to deal with.
>> It's BDB. >> Yes, that's okay. It's there. Yeah, >> it's right in front. What your suggestion is is right in front. >> Yes. Oh, yes, Scott. Um, yes. So, that's the school comm that's the the section of all that and above is um a revised.
>> That's what his his reision his proposal was. >> So, do you want to see the revised? >> That's what his proposal. >> You want to see the original and then go back to the revised? Where do you >> how would the committee like to We can We can review the original and then
go through the it does have lines through it because this is my personal draft. However, that is the So in the revised um two sections and I'll just quickly editorialize two sections that were um addressed were the
one being the public sp spokesperson of the committee. We as a school committee we elect a vice chair to be our representative to represent us and the chair position is almost what's the word I'm looking for?
um not ceremonial, however, it's um exeicial and there have been times in my opinion throughout the year where there have been statements about the schools that [snorts] were ill advised and so it's my position
that the vice chair of the school committee should be the spokesperson for the school committee and secondly has to do with placing some guard rails in the meetings since I've been on the
committee at times [clears throat] have been inefficient and not all of the policies or the procedures or the rules of order have been [snorts] followed by the chair. So there needs to be guard rails in
place for the committee to take action if that ever happens. And so that I updated the duties of the vice chairperson and those are really the um two main changes that were made. If there is ever a
[snorts] situation where whoever the chair is ever acts out of line, there needs to be a situation where the committee as a whole can act. And um I stand strong behind that. I'm just trying to go back and forth and see exactly what you took out and what you put in. It's just a lot and it's
just hard to understand how >> certain things were taken out and how certain things were put back in. >> This one I drafted um a few months ago, so I apologize. This is one I um plan on wanting to introduce. The two that I that I can really recall
changing were were the what what I just editorialized. Um don't believe there really much more um are of any changes. [snorts] >> So if you scroll up a little please Scott to number seven. So I think number seven there is completely different than
looks like one two three four five six are except for the subcommittee one it just says appoint members to subcommittee subject to approval by the school committee so that that's an addition but I I mean I think that's
still the chair appoints and we just all say yes or no which obviously like no one had an issue at the last meeting or we would have brought it up. Um, call special meetings and number seven it says the approval of the agenda by the chair shall be ceremonial. I I don't I
don't know what that means because the chair and the superintendent [snorts] >> kind of they're the original architects of the agenda. So, they build the agenda and then if we add anything, it should be added. You know, like you just said, if we wanted to add something, we can
ask them to add. can always ask in advance. If the chair says we we can't add it because we already have 20 things on here and we say let's add it to the next one. I think that's our way of getting something on the agenda. But I I actually I'm wondering what the charter says about that because typically the
chair is the one who sets the agenda. So I don't think we can say it's ceremonial and then I unanimous consent. >> I don't think we can say unanimous because then anyone could block an agenda item. I could just say no. It's not unanimous because I'm going to vote
no. So, I think we want to be careful about that because I mean I feel like you don't have to have that there if we're going to vote for agenda items. You know, I think you already addressed some of this. I think you're trying to fix problems that have existed through
some of this, but I think some of it is going to be addressed. >> Fair point. by the nature of the committee versus you having to change all of these. So, what's the original number seven? I'm sorry. I have to toggle between this one and the original.
>> And I apolog I I um did not mean to omit mentioning that as well. >> It's okay. Be responsible for the orderly conduct of all committee meetings. Well, there's a good idea. We could have that on there. So I think I think your number seven doesn't have to be there anymore based
on what we just agreed upon in the other policy. So we could leave seven as it was. >> Oh wait, but number six says it. So did you omit another number >> cuz number six says be responsible. >> Scott, are you are you indiligent? So
you can't put that side by side. >> Okay. [laughter] scroll down and just like a so sign the instruments consult with the >> we have draft on ours and he has original outcome. We can just look >> Oh, there you go. Yeah, keep that one up. >> Keep that one up. We're going to look at draft on us. >> Perfect.
>> Special. >> Number four, appoint the subcommittee. We got that. Number five, >> it's the 6B public spokesperson. >> So, >> I see I don't I I'm tell I don't >> I don't agree with that. I'm going to
tell you that. >> You don't agree with Do you agree that the chair should be the spokesperson? >> I do. I do too. I I mean, again, he's the knower of the information that we don't have. So, I think as the mayor, he has to be the spokesperson. It's the way
our school committee is designed, right? It's not like this everywhere because like for example, [clears throat] my chair is elected by the members, but here our mayor is the chair. So, I feel like he is the spokesperson period. Even if we didn't want him to be, he is by
nature of his role as the mayor spokes. That's not to say if he's in the middle of an emergency, this crazy storm we just had, and let's say something was happening in the schools, he might say to the vice chair, Kevin, I need you to be the spokesperson on this because I'm dealing with this city emergency. So, I
think the chair can delegate the vice chair to be the spokesperson, but otherwise, I I agree with Chanel. I think it I think it has to be the mayor. >> Unfortunately, he's the chair. >> The chair is the chair. It doesn't matter if I was the chair would still be
me because it's the mayor. It has to be whoever the chair is. But >> yeah, I think she's right. >> And I respect the the the will of the subcommittee. I I will just state I I I'm just being fingers crossed very hopeful. >> I know.
>> Um we're represented well this year. Um, >> okay. So, Deb, I think we're keeping one through seven the same except for number four. Appoint members to subcommittee subject to approval by the school committee. I
think that makes sense. >> Yes. >> I mean, because if I would have gotten facilities, I would have been like, wait, I don't know anything about this. I mean, >> as much as I have to know, I know, but I don't know it well enough to feel confident on that committee. So, I think that's important that the committee has
some say in some way to be able to voice an opinion over something. So, I like that addition, but I think the rest should stay the same as what you have there. Unless you want to add be um where is the language about the one that
that says he's the voice that one >> the spokesperson. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. believe that's um seven >> six. >> Oh, six. Sorry. >> So, unless you want to add to Well, it says is specifically delegated to others. So, I think that's already in
there. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think maybe just change the one on subcommittees. Now, what else was did you need to change? Did you want to change any of these other >> on the bottom? The vi the vice chair's duties. >> Vice chair's duties.
>> So, in Robert's rules. >> Yep. And >> can you scroll down a little bit >> there? My my position there needs to be safeguards in place if there's ever a situation where meetings go out of line. Um, and I'm not saying it'll be from this school committee or these members,
but if there is an open question whether there's an open question to allowing something to go on the agenda, if um there's the will of the committee, if what I'm going to say is if the will of the full committee is ever disregarded,
>> which may or may hopefully does not happen, however, there should be safeguards in place to either empower our vice chair to run the rest of the meeting or um be a way to enforce the rules, the the policy. So,
the language I placed in there under the duties of the vice chair um I believe would accomplish that. It's some it safeguards. It's something that hopefully never needs to be used, but should be in [snorts] there just in case. And I think it also sends the message we want orderly meetings and to
do the right thing this year. Um, >> no question. >> I'm trying to just look at the difference. >> So, what's different? Number three is different. >> I would look at the vice chair's duties on the on on the um the the drafted. I added the language. There's no um
deleted. [clears throat] >> Sorry, Scott. Can you scroll the other way? >> Deleted. >> It's the bottom right there. That's what was the original. >> Yeah. >> And then he added this, >> which the second part you added is right from Robert's rules, right? There's an
issue with the chair, the vice chair. >> It's from It's not directly quoted from Robert's rules, but it it was based off of Robert's rules. Yes. >> [snorts] >> And we're taking out the section two which is Yeah. I think it's fine. I'm fine with it.
I'll >> entertain a motion to approve as amended by the subcommittee for a first read to the full committee. Motion to refer. I amend. >> So move. >> Motion made. Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Motion passes.
>> Deb, are you good with those? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, for the sake of time, we could revisit the BBA at the next meeting when we get more information. So, can I entertain a motion to table until we get the information from the superintendent? >> Yep. So, moved. >> Second. All those in favor say I. I. All
those opposed. Motion pass. >> BBA [snorts] table. >> Mo motion BBA was tabled. >> Um motba >> BBA and the school committee officer policies were refer um referred as
amended. for a policy section D. Um that should be since we don't have our CFO here, we should table that. Just one quick question. um the the financial manager
if um in the future if there's um or we can work out a schedule, but if there if there needs to be um if if if our CFO isn't able to make it to the next meeting, maybe we could consider the financial manager. Madam superintendent,
is that a possibility? >> I would prefer to have the CFO here. >> I feel like for some of them, we might want the CFO. Maybe we could I like how you had some edits. So I had some too. Maybe if we create a draft in word so
we're not in diligent we could send it to >> that we could share with Kevin so he could put his feedback on it too. That way we would kind of know where he stands and if there are some he has no issues with those would be easy ones we could bring forward. the superintendent could just you know keep us on track with those and then others he might have
feedback that we could put into but that way we don't have to worry about you know I don't want to overburden what he's doing especially right now in the middle of budget season so >> okay no very well um motion to table entertain a motion to table motion so
made second all those in favor I I >> opposed table section 3-4 is a discussion and vote to refer the district handbook. Um, superintendent, my understanding that is
we um recently had this reviewed by outside counsel to go over any legal issues. >> Yes. >> And uh I did go through the the handbook. Um the only question
I would have is um in reviewing policies around um attorney did we um the school committee and attorneys did we re did we we didn't authorize um review of this by we the school committee didn't [snorts] authorize review by the attorney correct
>> no you did not >> um [clears throat] members have any questions >> I just have some things I caught in the draft while you're while it's still draft for you. >> Um, [cough] [clears throat] number one, Mr. Lai's name is the reference in a few places, so you'll have to change that. Um,
>> I'm sorry because some of these might be just things you haven't gotten to yet, but in different places, principal, superintendent, school committee are caps, then they're not caps. So, just clean them of that. Um, there's some references on page 44 to headmastered, which is not we can get rid of that. And
then um 59 and 60. I don't know if you meant to strike through some of these. So is this your just are is this coming to us cleaned up more when it comes to full school committee or is this the version you're going to bring to the >> So So the um I would say like
nonsubstantive changes we will will be cleaned up. >> Okay. >> Before then. >> Then I'll save some some of these comments are stuff like that that you will clean up as you go. There were some spacing issues on um page nine. And then my only question is there's one line
tagged in there around students not using AI, but >> I could not find an AI policy anywhere. So, do we not yet have an AI policy? >> So, that's something we should put on our list to consider to start working towards. I bet you have some ideas for
that. Um, so I just since it was in there I was like, "Oh, since you're addressing it in the handbook, we should probably have a a policy that goes with it." Um, and I just have only one substantive thing that maybe we could
just address here is um on page 107. Make sure I got the right page. It's up on the screen. >> Oh, excellent. I'm sorry. Could you make that a little larger? Thank you. >> All right. Number four.
It says strip search of suit students only with super. Can we just say never? >> It's literally a never. >> I I [laughter] know. But on there on there it says without the prior authorization of the superintendent of schools. Can let's just say never. There will just never be that will never be a
thing. So I I just would feel better if we took it out like I hear you. You would say never but you know I just let's just say there will never be one never mind without there'll be no prior. So shall ever conduct a strip search of a student period. >> We don't need the without the prior
authorization of the superintendent. >> I think that was the only substantive thing I found in there. >> We can make that when we make the motion. We'll make that motion to refer as amended. language. [clears throat] >> Perfect. >> And then continue going where we had it
used to say youngsters and it said students take all the youngsters. >> Yeah. I'm surprised it wasn't caught more as we went through. I don't know why. >> Well, I think sometimes after if you've looked at it 10,000 times, it starts to all look the same. So >> that's why I asked someone else to um
[cough and clears throat] definitely some things can get cleaned up that are not substantive. others might get once we go through and we just accept all of the our recommendations that we have in there. That's when we'll do like a final clean up and spacing and formatting and all that stuff. But >> perfect.
>> Um Sure. >> And it does go as a first read. >> This goes as a first read. Yeah. I >> believe by policy these all should all go as first reads regardless. >> Well, this is a handbook, right? Not policy. >> Yeah. I think it gets um [snorts] it's
difficult because this is um you know it's a large document. Um certainly people want to have time. I >> thought that if it wasn't going as a first read that I would want to send this out like now just share it out that way people could sit with it. Um most of
the changes a lot of the changes [snorts] do have to do with like formatting and and the compliance ADA compliance piece making that you know making it accessible and then um just reorganizing because we end up duplicating like the whole code of conduct but we just linked
to the code of conduct. So it some of it was that and then obviously there are some language changes um with changes in the law put in the cover. I think it hadn't been reviewed by an attorney in a really long time. So >> sure. Um and just um if we're going to
review, so this doesn't change school committee policy. This is updating current policies as they are >> the dis like the handbook just captures district policy. So the so there is this consideration where where there are some
um language changes that have that sometimes it's because this handbook didn't catch up. people didn't people didn't update the handbook when there was a language change in the policy when um whether it has to do with discrimination in which groups are included or not. I think sometimes the
changes were made and sometimes they weren't. So this has been updated to reflect where the like laws regulations some of it being um kind of user choice in terms of the words that are used. But we we then have to go back to some
policy potentially like we still have to do a little bit of cross reference. For that reason, I'm not opposed to like a first read and then bringing it back in March because I do still think we have some of that cross referencing to do. Okay. >> The one thing I would ask is um like
until this gets approved, current policy stands. So there I I just need to get some direction on kind of the um re I don't want to say like rebranding, but potentially the handbook that sits
out there as 2425. >> It's I I'm not sure if we're better served if we call that the 2526 just so it's branded that way and crystal clear like that's what we're doing until this one gets approved or we just rest on it because it's a
carryover. It was approved in 24 25 for 24 and 35 and we're we're resting on that until we get the new carryover. >> Oh no, go ahead. >> I just say it's carry over. I think it's a carryover. >> So my question is so we currently have with that being said, we have policies
from 5 10 15 years ago that are currently have language that's illegal that should be addressed soon. >> Right. But not in the handbook, >> right? But in general, just from based off of that, because the handbook was updated because we have policies that
have language that is illegal. That's what I was getting at. >> No, I think what has happened is we have pol we there might have been policy updates, [snorts] small language changes, whatever it was, but it wasn't caught in the handbook. It
it didn't get updated in that way. Um, and in having the our attorney take a look at it, there was in my opinion a better cross referencing. We do it every year. People get assigned to different sections of the handbook and ask like to make sure that piece gets updated. And
um, as people were doing that, people were finding more and more and we just didn't want to miss anything. And so when I inquired and found out it actually hadn't been updated, hadn't been reviewed by an attorney in as long as it has been, I ask that, you know, we do that.
>> Okay. Um, any questions? Um, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to refer to the full committee as a first read. >> Yes. You want first as a first read >> as um amended amended with the suggestions of the subcommittee.
>> Motion so made second. All those in favor I I. All those opposed. Motion passes. >> Okay. Um item 3-5 is a discussion and vote to refer um fratization policy. Um superintendent, I see you sent us a a
memorandum on this like a one pager. Would you like to explain? >> I did. So um back in 2023, November of 2023, there was a fratization policy that was brought to the committee and at that time um attorney Assad responded
and advised and and I'll and I can read here from the um from the memos just so that everybody can hear it. Um during the meeting, legal council advised the committee on an alternative approach recommending the adoption of a fraternization advisory rather than a
formal policy at that time. >> Why is that? >> I I'm not positive. [laughter] I'm not positive. Um but I think it captures a lot of the the same. But at that time it was just attorney Assad's
opinion that we adopt an advisory. >> And it's your opinion today that we keep an advisory. >> It's my opinion that I wanted to kind of offer some background to folks um who and I don't have all the history but I know that that's what happened at that
time. So that's why we don't have a policy and we do have an advisory. But I believe in the backup the um Did you include the backup to show what the advisory was and what the >> I did. >> Okay. >> It's the >> This is the advisory but not the
[clears throat] packet. >> No, not Tom's. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay. Um so, yep. So, that's where we are. So, I apologize. I was I was talking as if you had both. But >> my my my question would be in preparing
this memorandum, you would have to have gone back to get like a back like a background take on what when this happened like when attorney [snorts] Assad made you did you speak with attorney Assad on this? >> Uh yeah, because we had to um I didn't
have a copy of the advisory. >> It was shared at the meeting. Um I wasn't at the table. I didn't have a copy of the advisory but I knew that it existed so I asked you know we we requested a copy of the advisory >> and but attorney Assad isn't here to
explain why >> we can't he suggested we should not have a policy >> in 23 but we do we know that >> was that for some reason in 23 and maybe now it's >> but that was a suggestion that wasn't a >> right so are we I guess that's are we
saying we want to move it forward as a policy and we if attorney Assad has an issue, then he can tell us what it is after the meeting again >> because I'd rather it be >> and he could and he could offer that counsel >> before the meeting as well. So, I get some clarification on that.
>> Um, and also would need to get you >> the um would also need to get to you the policy as it um as it was first [cough] recommended. >> Okay. So when we um when we spoke about
it, so it's up on our board um as one of the policies to revisit because it comes up from time to time at a meeting. Someone will say, "Well, we've asked for a fratmization policy." So we put it up on the board as something that we needed to visit um and Mr. um Das saw it on our
board and said, "Okay, >> we do want to revisit this." So I was trying to bring back up here. you know, here's what was suggested back in 2023. Here's the advisory from um Attorney Assad so that people >> So, we're missing the policy recommendation. >> This was and just to add um it wasn't I
did I did see it on the board and um it did jog my memory. I did plan on bringing this at forward regardless because I believe this was referred by the former committee. Um and this is something that um I believe um many
committee members um wish to have a policy. >> Yeah, it does. It it comes up which is why um [cough] on the board. >> I think it's good practice. We should have one. Mhm. >> So, um, with that being said, I'll make a motion that we, >> [cough] >> um, [clears throat] recommend to the
superintendent to bring forward a fratization policy at the full meeting and we're provided with all the backup from 2023. >> Do you want to do that before we see it at subcommittee or do you want us to see it at our next subcommittee first before we bring it?
>> Um, >> I think it would be good practice for us to see it first and then send it to them. That way we try to address any issues or concerns. So if you have a draft policy, we'll bring it to our next meeting. Meanwhile, we can make sure Attorney Assad isn't opposed
>> to it because we don't want to bring it to the full. We don't want to waste our time and then go to full subcommittee and him say no, there should be an advisory. So I think we should see it at our next meeting. Um but I do want to point out just since we're um streaming, a fratinization policy is about staff
and staff. There are other policies that are about students and staff. So fraternization is staff with staff. So I just want to make that clear for the public's purpose. Um but this is about the adults. There should never mind that there should never be relationships the other way. That's a different policy
that that would handle that fratinization is about the adults staff with staff. >> Thank you for um clarifying that, Mr. Riley. My my position is that there's something we should visit both if we're going to um and we can put that on the agenda. We
visit fratization staff and staff and we also visit the policies around staff and students to make sure it's strong because that's been a um question that I've had other members have had as [snorts] well. >> Yeah, that's fine. I just I just since I heard some of the public comment, I just wanted to clarify that when we talk
about fratinization, that's staff with >> staff. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to table and to the next meeting and we get the um appropriate backup. >> Yes. >> For both. Yes. >> Yes. >> Motion made second.
>> Um all those in favor? I I All those opposed? Motion passes. >> Um >> can I just add one thing? >> Sure. I would just add that it might be helpful as background information if we can get um the clip of that um school
committee meeting when attorney Assad spoke about it publicly and gave the rationale for why an advisory >> in the minutes. Yeah. >> Um [clears throat] >> 3-6 is um a discussion and vote to refer policy GE GB. um just want to actually
just really have a discussion, not necessarily a vote to refer, just want to get the committee's um feedback on this policy. I will say as a member of um grievance subcommittee without going into detail um this policy has been a point of contention because of its
vagueness. I don't know if um or if the administration has a position of whether this should be um looked at further or this should be further expanded upon. I think the um I would say that the the
[snorts] value of language that's vague is that you know it broadly covers some things that we would look to say like yep this fits and just the more I'm not saying it couldn't be more specific but the more specific it gets it leaves things out and then there's no way to
apply the policy to conduct. So we would just be careful about the the how the narrowness. >> Is there a staff code of conduct in their contract? >> They have a code of conduct. >> No. >> Okay.
>> Shouldn't they have a code of cond? >> I'm just ask some do include it. That's why I'm just I didn't know if ours did. I'm just asking. >> That's what I'm saying. >> That's a negotiations conversation, not a policy. >> Contract is a different beast, right? Um
but having, you know, but policy is different. >> Sure. I just want to reiterate for the for subcommittee this policy in term in terms of grievances has been a point of contention. I don't know if you would
agree or disagree. >> I was actually going to ask for a a vague a vague example because I I I can't recall something. >> I don't know if I'm at I I could say I know a perfect example. I don't know if I can say it publicly name a person's position or anything
like that. staff have been that staff have been disciplined under this staff conduct which um the committee disagreed that they should have been disciplined under that policy >> but it's our policy so we have to agree under under whatever it is right so it's
our policy so if we as a committee determine that they violate this policy then they violated the policy if we as a committee say they didn't then they didn't that's kind of how the policy works Fair point. Do you do you believe do either you believe this should be
visited further or should we leave as is? >> I don't have a strong >> I think I agree it needs to stay a little bit more broad because once you put it too much then it's >> Yeah, I think it's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think it's fine. >> I'll entertain a motion to grant leave to withdraw. >> You want So do we want to update these as we do? So I I'm just saying since
we've reviewed it, we agreed it's fine as is. Do we want to update it as reviewed November? November. Sorry, [laughter] I'm rushing us. January of 20, you know, January 20 or February by the time we meet, February of 2026 as a review date so we know we looked at it already. Sounds like a good
>> So then we're not Yeah. So as we look at these, even if we don't change them, I think we should mark them as reviewed. >> I agree. >> Just so we can track which ones we've done and which ones we haven't done. >> Great practice. >> So it wouldn't go to full committee. >> No, >> it
so typically I'm sorry I'm just going to be a pain in the butt about this. When it's for review, it just goes in consent. Like nothing's changed. It's been reviewed and accepted as is. So, it can go in the consent agenda and the full committee will know it's been reviewed and nothing's been changed. And
they can if someone wants to pull it from consent and say, "I don't like this. Can we consider a change?" They could do that. But otherwise, they know that we reviewed it. We kept it the same and we're just marking it as reviewed. So, I would say it should go to the full committee and it could go in the consent agenda because there's no change. And
I'm I'm happy when we have our meeting to explain that that we'll be bringing anything that's reviewed but not changed will be in consent for them so they know we saw it. >> Do do we have agenda? Do we have a consent agenda? >> No. >> But what it can do is when you when you
speak on it, it could just be had. >> So speak it could just be >> and um when I um when I report out to the to the sub, >> you can say exactly which one that we reviewed and which one said yes to. >> Okay. >> Do it that way. Perfect. >> Um So I'll still entertain I'll still entertain a motion to refer.
>> Sure. So move. >> Motion made. Second. All those in favor? I >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. >> Um so we're go coming up. So 3-7 is a um discussion and vote to refer a social networking policy.
Superintendent if you wish to. Um >> Sure. So, we have a a policy that is um this is the one titled social networking websites, right? >> Y, >> right? And so, this is our this is our current policy and it was approved in um
June of 23 definitely um needs some work uh because in my opinion it really isn't explicit enough. It feels it does actually feel like more of an advisory of a know that what you put online people can see it. Be careful on
Facebook, you know, who you're friends with and things like that. There is some language in here um that you >> suggests maybe that people aren't friends on Facebook, you know, you're not friends with students and things like that, but there's nothing in here
that says do not do not do not do not. And um I think that just like you know you mentioned um the the staff conduct, it's hard to hold people to what I think we understand as an expectation that we're not texting kids at night and things like that. U but we don't have a
policy that said that you absolutely do not do it. Or we might have language in one place that suggests you shouldn't and then we have languages in another place that says yeah like you probably shouldn't do that. It's not in the people's best interest. How about just no? Yeah. So that's um >> that's within the public
>> what we're trying to do with um [clears throat] yeah >> I do too. Yeah, I didn't have any comments on this one. >> You know, I agree. I think it's very strong and I'm glad it's being brought forward. My my one question would be and based off of um
information I reviewed if um a staff would this cover if um a staff member goes um on a trip overseas and they use a Tik Tok and they're posting um embarrassing photos with of the students on their Tik Tok. Would that be covered
under this policy? You would say >> on a personal Tik Tok? >> Yes. Um, >> believe I sent you the Tik Tok >> pictures of students. I thought it said >> well it says improper fratonization with students using social media. So Tik Tok is social media
>> and then this allows the superintendent to say this is improper fratization and here's the Tik Tok. So I think this probably does cover you >> and then I look at you know then I look at this this language and I don't know
you know the best which again feels more like an advisory the best way to eliminate risks associated with a staff member's use of personal social media with students is to avoid it right >> um that comes you know that >> exists alongside teachers may not friend
or follow current students on social media but I think what you're asking about is can I post pictures of students on my personal social media. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And necessarily um unflattering photos as well, >> but it shouldn't matter. We shouldn't post any pictures of
>> Oh, I I totally agree. >> Right. >> Unfortunately, it does happen. >> Um just want to make sure it's covered under our this policy. And and last question on it. If um if a staff member has inappropriate photos up there and is currently up there, we pass the policy
and that that remains up on there even if it's passed before the policy. Would that be subject to disciplinary >> hypothetically under the polic? It wasn't a policy then,
>> but they just told to take it down. >> Okay. [snorts] By the way, I think what you said is covered in number um six here and any conduct communication whether or not is inappropriate and oppress undermines a staffman. But it also [snorts] says compromises or harm
students. So I think if you're posting something that's embarrassing for student, [snorts] you're harming them. I think it fits. I think this covers just about everything. >> Can can we move the mass reference to the end if you want to keep it? It's like weirdly in the middle. Um, so I can
it's just that that's the MASC policy and then that but I can clean that up for you. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> Is this specifically from MASC or do we do our own tweaks? >> So the tweaks are underneath where you see MASC. This is their policy
>> and then from here down for River Public Schools. >> That's all our own verbiage. >> Okay. Very well. I'll entertain a motion to refer to the full committee. So move some. >> All those in favor say I. I. All those
opposed. >> Motion carries. Uh last item on the agenda and this is just a discussion item and I only um added this just to have quick discussion on this. Um and I speak to a member or two about this is
um and human resource policy. And my only question would be we have um it's kind of the timeline around hiring [snorts] staff. Um I believe we've been having from what I
hear some issues in um the the timeline of getting staff on boarding. If um I don't know if there something we need to tweak up in policy or I don't know how this should be addressed or if you agree that there been some onboarding delays. I think so.
I think a couple of things. I think that we do have onboarding delays that don't feel avoidable on our end because some of them legitimately have to do with the time um lapse with fingerprinting or um Corey checks or whatever. The Corey is not so much, but a lot of it I think has
to do with fingerprinting. I think sometimes um we may have some things that are reported as like oh it's taking so long but it's the difference of you know we make a phone call someone doesn't call call us back for two days
reference checks very often take a very long time um because the person that you're trying to reach doesn't really have a stake in it and and you know it's not a high priority for them to call back to give the reference and so I
think we we run into delays there. Um I don't feel as if it's this systemic issue, but the issues do arise without a doubt. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just want to bring it up for discussion. Um I didn't really >> I don't know if we need a policy or if
it's something that could nothing we could do at the committee level to assist in >> so not through policy. I think for us it'll be more of a really identifying like all of the
barriers and identifying which ones are on our end because sometimes they are. But if if if along the way like there all these other delays and then we add a two or three day delay and then someone's out sick and they don't it oh my goodness, you know, now where it's
taking a week longer than it should have and that has an impact certainly on a candidate who is looking for jobs everywhere. So I I can see where that can be problematic. >> Questions or anything? All right, this is discussion. So no action is needed.
So, wrapping up, we move to um item four, new business. Um any new business? Um just a quick question. I think this arguably is um policy related. Um I've seen some I understand there's currently
a parking ban and um I know some institutions are opening up their parking spaces. I don't know what the policies are on that. I don't know something we could cons that could possibly be considered for families out there who um who are having a hard time parking and um getting around the city
due to the snow. Something we're considering or could consider. >> It really hasn't this is the first time of any kind of request um that I'm hearing. It seems like you're making I'm assuming you're making a request that we would allow people to park in our lots. Is that the
>> just an inquiry? [snorts] >> Yeah. We did that, you know, um at the time of the storm that was some of our lots were advertised. >> I didn't know that. Okay. >> So, the Morton um lots and >> one other I can't remember. Yeah.
>> Um, so we did open some of our lots and we just asked that people are not >> we needed them um cleared by I think it was like Monday at 5:00 because we needed to be able to plow all of those lots and make sure they were ready for parking on Tuesday which we didn't end
up needing. But um we did have people park in our lots just not um not a ton. >> You don't have a lot of them. >> No. No, they're not. And and I it's an interesting thing because in some um you know for some of our schools more people
have um maybe more people have garages or or or they have driveways or whatever it is so they're not using our lots. Um so they're not all conveniently located. When we think about the places in the city that um where we're having the most congestion with traffic and things like
that around Visa, around Green, around LNO, um Varis and and Green don't have lots. So, we couldn't help in those neighborhoods that actually need it. [snorts] >> I think that becomes part of the problem. >> Thank you. Last question. um is if um
and this is a strife policy. If um if we have individuals parking in our lots, is it um do we do we tow like if for an extended amount of time? Um do we just leave it? Do we what's this? You don't have to get this answer right now. I know I'm putting on the spot. We can
just find out if it's something what's like the process around that. >> Yeah, I get that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um wish to thank everyone. I think this was a very good first productive meeting. I know it's a Friday, so I hope everyone enjoys it. Mr. Monus, thank you for joining us as our school committee guest. All right,
I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion made, second. All those in favor? I. Thank you, everyone.