We're good. >> Okay. I'd like to call this meeting of the family school committee um April 6, 2026 to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. >> Okay, Katrina, could you please you read the mission and vision?
>> Sure. The fun with public schools creates worldclass student learning experiences. Our Clippers are empowered to pursue their goals with curiosity, integrity, and resiliency. Clippers are creative, inquisitive, and engaged learners who participate in their community as socially responsible
citizens. Clippers effectively communicate and solve problems that impact the world around them. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll um open our meeting or the first item on the agenda will be public comment. Public comment will be limited
to 10 minutes. You see that it is shortened tonight because we have a shorter meeting. Um members of the public are welcome to speak during public comment. Comments comments will be limited to 2 minutes in length. Due to the open meeting law, the
committee cannot respond to or act on public comment. Additional comments and feedback can be submitted by email to a school committee at poundmouth.k12. us. So is there anybody? Oh yes, I have
the list here. This is Megan recording statement. >> You ready? >> I'm ready. >> All right. Meganly carriage shop road. Um I haven't prepared something tonight. Um so I'm just going to speak. So I appreciate the timer. Um I am the
petitioner for article 25 which is on your agenda tonight and you have had no presentation. You have had no discussion and you have not asked the petitioner to come and present or speak about the article. I have asked the chair to speak at this
meeting and per and do a presentation as I did at all the precinct meetings. Um and I was denied uh that right that you should have. So, you're coming into this to act on something that you do not have all of the information about. You're not
given a presentation, and you're probably going to get a biased presentation, which I have seen over and over again after attending almost a year of meetings in this committee. So, I'm going to give you a very brief
one minute presentation of article 25. It's for the town to accept Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, sections 83 through 86. What acceptance does do, it protects the educational access and stability. It
reduces legal risk for our town. It reinforces civil rights for our students. It aligns with language used by the majority of districts in Massachusetts. There are 400. Seven of them no longer have JICA language. You
are one of seven because you voted to remove it. What it does not do, it does not eliminate dress codes. It does not take away your authority as a school committee. And it was noted by the superintendent in a recorded meeting
that you needed to accept chapter 71 section 83 or you should take JICL. So now I'm asking for you to accept it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Megan. >> Right on the nose with no preparation.
Good job. >> Okay. Um I should have read the recording statement. It wasn't. Okay. Um >> it's a technicality that I should read. I don't see anybody, but I will read it. This meeting of the found school committee is being recorded in
accordance with Massachusetts meeting law. Anyone who wishes to make an audio or video recording of this meeting must f first notify the chair. Please raise your hand, make your presence known if you intend to record the meeting. Okay, no one's doing that. Okay, so the next
item on the agenda will be a review of the superintendent's goals progress. I'm bringing this Okay. So, uh as I go through this and we are limited on time tonight, um most of these uh slides have been presented before. So, I'm going to um concentrate
on the evidence slides um that you received in the packet this week. So um this uh so goal one is to provide oversight, direction and support for student learning um through the student
achievement data analysis, MTSS and IST analysis and the development of school specific objectives for student advancement. There were um five uh standards that became the focus indicators for this um
this goal. Um uh number one was to review and analyze um specific uh data. Uh to meet monthly with the director of teaching and learning um and the director of student services to review the MTSS and IST process and then to meet with each
principal to determine uh individual um school objectives for student learning. Um all of this has u been done. Uh as far as the third one, uh the individual school objectives as often happens um they became um times four times or times
seven in um the the steps we were taking um based on um the review of the data and meeting with principles. So the evidence um we enhanced the IST and um TSS process through those u monthly meetings uh and the review of um the
practices in the schools. We invested in um the high quality instructional material uh ELA program uh K to6 which is the EL education and there was more professional development this year and including coaching and uh supports for
teachers and support for leadership. Um we are we've just began the process for highquality instructional material uh program at this preschool level. uh we've emphasized the importance of ongoing collaboration at all levels and
between um all groups. Um just as an example of um something we've enhanced this year that's um you know in addition to um enhancing all the collaboration between all the groups uh are the EL teachers and the uh reading specialist.
So that's um been a positive um move of increasing uh the collaboration. One more step um focus professional learning on new curricula uh shifting the pedigogy uh and the use of um tools for personalization and intervention. Um we
encourage um participation in state leadership teams. Uh we have several of our department heads that are on um uh state level teams. So it's a it's an exchange of information at the state level between districts um also getting
uh support from outside um vendors as well as um that the state has selected and um the state uh individuals uh leading and then initiated revision of master schedules for optimal time on learning. Uh that was one of the u most important um steps
that we've made this year uh for our um four elementary schools in Morris Pond. Goal two um was improve um communication with staff by increasing information sharing and opportunities for feedback and collaboration.
uh there are three standards that uh are uh become the focus indicators u and sometimes those are in the evaluation form I should say that it's actually indicated as focus indicators they are referring to the standards um
when that so just interchangeable as far as the um the valuation is standards are referring to all of them focus indicators are the um the specific standards um purple
of the key action steps. Um increase uh periodic emails to um uh by bi-weekly emails to staff. Um increasing the walkthroughs um from two times a month to three to four times a month. Offer first of uh two onetoone sessions and uh
with the superintendent. Um this has been an ongoing practice of mine um is that um staff can meet with me at certain times. So we did one across the year. We've increased from uh to two, one in the fall and then one in the spring and then one in the spring that
they're scheduled. Oh, sorry. What did I do? Um, sorry about that. Um, attend fall staff meetings. Um, we always attend to um some some of the staff meetings of the year were be very intentional to three staff meetings and we're scheduling them as such. We um
completed the fall. Um, we also added a volunteer midyear staff meeting and then the uh the and those have happened. Um, but I also have um spring uh staff meetings uh scheduled and this is um time for the staff to to share have
discussions. the mid mid uh year volunteer staff was um the suggestion by the staff that um it could be a smaller group where um those that have something they can say may feel more comfortable in a small group opposed to the the large staff meetings. Um so that's that
was um why the the midyear was a voluntary staffing and um provide bi-weekly um uh survey questions um to monitor the implementation of new communication strategies for other topics that we um are wanting feedback
on. hang the other. Sorry. Okay. So, evidence um ascent a minimum of 38 communications and approximately 31 weeks. Um average walkthroughs across the schools uh or 3.5 per month. Um it breaks down differently um by school. Um
met with 38 sorry 28 staff members across the seven schools during the 1:1 sessions in the fall. Attended at least one staff meeting at every school. And I say that because some staff meet some staff I've actually gone at request. I've been back more often, but uh I did complete at least the ones I said I was
going to do. Um plus more. Held one volunteer staff meeting at each school in the winter and offered staff um five different surveys. Um uh not also surveys were getting good response. Um so I ended up sending about 14 uh reminders on that. Goal three,
monitor and communicate finance and policy changes at the federal and state level and take appropriate action as needed. There are four standards uh as focus indicators on this goal. Um and the key action steps was to monitor financial changes at the federal
level. U monitor key state legislation affecting the schools and develop policy as needed. Um communicate updates and changes um to the appropriate stakeholders as appropriate and involve stakeholder input as needed.
Um we I provided um 16 financial updates and eight legislative and policy updates over seven um school committee meetings this fall. And goal four, develop an implementation plan for the vision of navigating the future together. There are four um focus
indicators or four standards that were identified as focus indicators. Um key action steps oversee process for the potential Lawrence school renovation. uh pending decision with Lawrence um school grade configuration develop a two to fouryear process plan
uh for uh terminating the changes and the reason why it was just a process plan. It was basically saying what we will do if a decision had been made um was because um if it's hard it's hard to actually say what the plan is until you know exactly
all the the specifics on that. um develop a plan for expanding preK um pending decision for an early learning center. Develop a pro again a process plan for moving attendance boundary lines across the elementary schools. Um when I had made this a goal and went
from instead of merging schools um as looking at uh the entire um uh bound uh attendance boundary lines again pending the decision and then communicate uh status and plans to stakeholders. And one more um change remember these were
all done in um September set in September. So the first one says oversee process for the potential Lawrence school was before we knew whether we were invited into the MSBA process. So that's how the the goal was written uh as far as September. The evidence um uh
supervised the MSBA process uh timelines and required documents. Um although the school committee had not yet made a decision about the learn school grade configuration, I've provided information through numerous pre presentations to assist in making the decision. Um although I maintain the early learning
center is what's best for our community, I created a plan for expanding preschool to two schools. Um although the school committee has not made a decision to date about the early learning center, I also provided options to help uh make the decision um easier um when when that
time comes. And I do know that we, you know, had stated that we're making decisions kind of one taking one at a time. Um, and I I do want to give a shout out to the the committee that you've made a lot of decisions and, you know, this is this was a proposal with
lots of decisions. We made the decision um that we were going to renovate Lawrence School um that that the renovation was going to be a three grade um configuration and that we were taking Morris Pond offline. And so within this process, you have made a lot. I just want to give a shout out to the school
committee on that. And then the um communicated information about the Lawrence school grade configuration um and etc. We've taken all those um up. So thank you and I hope that everyone signs up for a onetoone session with me to
discuss the um evaluation and I look forward to talking to each one of you. >> It took the words right out of my mouth. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, no. I was I want to reiterate that I encourage you all to make an appointment. Sharon
is ever on top of things like that for us and we'll set up the document where you can just It's a Google doc, Sharon. Right. And they just fill it in. Yeah. So >> and Lori um always will make time after work or
>> you know it doesn't have to just be normal business hours. So >> that's right. >> You have plenty of time to do that. Okay, the next Oh, I'm sorry. I made a statement. Is Kel start with you. Any questions? >> Um, no. I was just, of course, I'm
having trouble getting it to work. I was just trying to get into um Actually, I guess I do have a question now because I can't get this to work. I was trying to open the um evidence that you had sent, but for some
reason, I don't know if I'm doing it wrong. I don't know if anybody else has. >> Why don't I help you with that offline? the Okay. The um because it looks like these are supposed to open a new page. The summary, it looks like a summary and each thing is supposed to open a new page. >> I have opened all of them and they work.
>> They do. Okay, then it's me. Ignore me. It's my own personal technical issue. I'll sort it out. >> I have trouble, too. >> Okay. Well, I'll help we'll figure that was my own issue. We just, you know, we're living on time. I just uh Nope. It was just if there was a document. It
sounds like there was one. So, yeah, >> Melissa, >> thank you. Um, when were the 14 survey reminders sent out? I don't know if I missed it in your um document for the staff. >> Yeah, it's in there. I can show you. >> Okay. >> Margaret,
>> no, I just had trouble opening on them, too. Also, >> okay. Um, the Mike or Sue, did you have any questions? >> I'm all set. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah, I I had one. Um the and I
don't know if if this is even a legitimate question or not, but those five surveys without getting the survey data, can we get a heading of what the surveys were? >> Uh if I didn't make that clear, I will I will for um for everybody. >> Yeah. And I don't I don't want to get
into the weeds with the data and all that stuff. Just an idea of what the title of the surveys was. >> Okay. I'm sorry if I if I didn't make that clear. I'm sorry. I'll do that. Okay. Um I'll reiterate if you have any questions, you think of things later,
please um contact Lori. Okay. Next item on the agenda is a presentation on the summitative evaluation process. >> Okay. So um we have it. >> Yeah, it's right there.
>> Okay. So we're we're moving to the overview which is we are now at the summitative evaluation process. Circular just circular. Okay. Um, so each school committee member prepares an end of end of cycle substantive evaluation report.
It is due on April 24th. It is an assessment of the superintendent's progress on goals, performance on each of the standards and overall rating on the performances of the performance. Okay.
How to complete the cycle. Okay. So on the first page clearly you go back to the first page after you have completed the performance goals. Okay. So uh that's the way the phone is. However
we do one and then we go back to it. Okay. I don't know if there are any questions about that. Um summitive um that you see student learning goals, professional goals. Okay. And as that means you you
do the other forms first and then you go back to that and then moving on to the summitative guidance. The summitative guidance document will be created using this outline is agreed upon at the start of the meeting. The summit evaluation report is created by consolidating each
school committee members single summitive evaluations based on the preponderance of individual ratings. Prop per preponderance is defined as a mode of the data set. Ratings other than proficient must be accompanied justif
accompanied and justified by a comment that acts as an explanation. Comments on the individual evaluation should be relevant to 25 26 goals, action steps and m and benchmarks as approved by the school committee. Similar content
comments listed by more than one individual member will be included in the summitative narrative. The evaluations of individual members who have not fully participated in the insight in midcycles process and offer formative feedback will be weighted less
than other evaluations. There will be no ratings of needs improvement in the 25 summitative or during the mid. There were no ratings of needs improvement in the 25 summitive or during the midcycle 2526.
Therefore, according to Desessie, there can be no ratings of unsatisfactory in the summitative. >> More information about >> Can you say that part one more time again, please? >> Sure. >> Thank you. Since there were no
Since there were no ratings of needs improvement in the 25 summitive or during the new cycle 2526. Therefore, according to Desessie, there can be no ratings of unsatisfactory in the summer. >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's more information can be found in desi in the MHCS document. And if there are any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Um Terry, are we doing questions now or else?
>> Um as soon as Margaret's done. >> Oh, okay. Uh uh the evidence for completion of summitive evaluations. A summitative report is created by consolidating each school committee member's single summitive evaluations. This is done based on the preponderance of individual
ratings not merely as an average of the ratings. Preponderance is defined as a mode of the data set. Outliers are of course taken into consideration as well as written comments uh comments relevant and waiting. Additional considerations
the evaluations of individual members who have not fully participated in midcycle process and offered formative feedback will be weighted less than other evaluations. Ratings in any and all categories, goals, standards, and indicators other than proficient must be accompanied and
justified by a comment that acts as an explanation. Not doing so will result in the rating being weighted less than any other members ratings. Comments on the individual evaluation should be relevant to the 2526 goals, action steps, and
benchmarks as approved by the school committee. Similar comments listed by more than one individual member that are relevant to the 2526 goals, action steps, and benchmarks will be included in the summative narrative. Comments may
be combined to reflect the overall sentiment of multiple members. All comments from the individual evaluations will not be reflected in the sumative. Individual members whose comments are not indicated in the final document have the opportunity to read their comments
at the public discussion of the summitative as is described in the guidance for DESIE. Ratings of unsatisfactory can only be given when performance has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement in the summitive form 2025
or performance is consistently below the standard or both. Ratings that do not follow this guidance will be weighted less. No, there were no ratings of needs improvement in the 25 summitive or during the midcycle 2526.
Therefore, there can be no ratings of unsatisfactory in the 2526. Overall ratings on goals standing shall be calculated the same as the individual indicators using all members ratings, not by an average of the individual
scores. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we started with Kelly, so we'll start with Margaret, but it's a technicality. Margaret. Okay. Just to start you Katrina, did you have a question? >> Um, I have a question about the last
part that you were just reading there, Margaret, which is about um the guidance from Desi with unsatisfactory. Um so the note here my first question has to do with the note um which seems to contradict what's directly above it
where it says um that you can do needs improvement if there was or if there was needs improvement before then you can do unsatisfactory or and then there are two other options for why you could do that. But then the note says there can be no ratings of unsatisfactory at all which
contradicts this piece above saying it needs improvement previously or the performance is consistently below. So that's confusing to me. Maybe someone has an explanation. And then additionally about that paragraph um
is the reference to needs improvement in the 2025 summitive or during the midcycle referring to individual indicators getting that rating or is it referring to the summitive at the very end the last rating for each evaluation?
Does anyone have an explanation for that? I'm not clear what you're >> so when you go through the evaluation um each indicator for each standard you can rate and if you rate some of those as needs improvement but then at the end you say proficient are we saying that
last one is because I had said proficient and needs improvement both on indicators but my final score last year was proficient. So are you saying that there was no needs improvement for any final tabulation for evaluations or no needs improvement whatsoever because the
that's not true. >> Do you know what I'm saying? >> There was no needs improvement in the summative. >> Right. So does that mean it was not referred to at all or that the final scoring for each evaluation? What are we referring to there?
>> The final scoring, right? >> Yeah. I mean I read it I think you did that last year. >> Yeah. I um if it's if it references in the summitive that's the final document that we vote on. So it would have to be in the final document that we vote on as
a group. >> So it's not for individual members evaluations. >> Right. That's how I read it >> because the summitive is the one we vote on. >> Um okay. And that so maybe you have the answer Kelly for my previous question which was that we have three ways in
which a person might rate things unsatisfactory. One is there was previously a needs improvement or performance is consistently below or both and then below that the note contradicts that. >> Yeah I I guess because your point is
that the performance is consistently below like what does that actually mean right? like >> well no I'm saying it says there's three ways that you might end up with unsatisfactory here but then the note says that we can't do it all >> and I'm not saying that I want to do that I'm just >> but I see what you mean and I think you
know I would for next year I'm if you're on evaluation I think that this could use some cleaning up in the language because that phrase or performance is consistently below the standard or both doesn't really they could use some
explanation you know so that that was I I think could be probably clearer. Um and then my my final question is um I don't recall seeing this in September October when we were going over this at the beginning of the year when we voted. And so if we didn't I don't write I
don't remember seeing it in the presentation and I looked for it and um I was able to find the original presentation and this was not in it. So if we didn't vote on this, does that mean that we are not following this guidance?
No, I I can address that. You know, um the document we are using is the same document that has been used in the process for two previous years. This is the third year. Um uh the superintendent subcommittee did not make any changes to it when they met
in October and therefore this document in reality is really is really for the sake of the person who's going to do the counting. And so it was really for that person, not necessarily for the whole committee. However, because I believe in
transparency, I wanted everyone on the committee to see the document before so that they would understand how it was done. >> Okay. >> I mean, it was included last year at this stage as well. And I can't remember if last year we had voted on this specific document, but it looks well, I guess the reason I'm asking that is
because it refers to the midcycle 202526, which in September October when we voted had not occurred yet. So the document has changed since September October. Yeah, this has been updated, right? This part I guess with the new dates
>> dates were >> so if we does it I mean I feel like um the process in the past was to vote on things and then use the guidance that we voted on and it doesn't seem like we did that this year and that's why I'm bringing it up. Well, this document at
the October meeting there was no discussion about changing this document. >> But it wasn't >> I'm saying it was not in the presentation though. >> No, no, because in fact, as I said, this document was really for the person really intended for the person who will know how to do the eval how to do the
whatever. Uh and there were no changes. Anything that was presented to us was about how the evaluation was going to be done this year. uh any changes, you know, like the goals of a change, whatever. That's what what was presented. >> So, this document doesn't need to be
voted on is what you're saying. >> If in fact if in fact the subcommittee had at their meeting said they were going to make changes, then it should have been brought to the committee and said they were going to make changes to it. Yes, >> I I understand that. So, I just we vote every year on the operating protocols
for ourselves. We change them if we want to. Sometimes we don't change them. This seems like kind of the operating protocols for the um evaluation subcommittee. So, does the subcommittee need to vote on this? Is there some process for adopting these on an annual basis?
>> Um maybe we're getting far a field from what's here. Um, could I suggest that if you want clarification on your questions that you contact um the any member of the evaluation subcommittee who has
ironed these out um and you have like 3 weeks before the evaluation is actually due. So if you have specific questions other than what's presented here, if you could contact the some member of the committee, that's what they're supposed
to do is iron out um you know, I just want to make one more point. I was very clear that this document should be given to everybody at the school committee meeting because I do believe in transparency and since there were no changes in this document, I wanted
everyone to see it so they would understand how the calculations will be done. It usually only goes to the person who is going to do the uh eval do the counting but I wanted everyone and in light of transparency do you have a
>> I just was maybe hopeful trying to help Katrina a little uh the committee voted on this a few years ago this specific document that I feel like we're getting stuck in the weeds with a little bit uh specifically for the evaluation
subcommittee people that are not on the evaluation valuation subcommittee. Um, let me back that up. The evaluation subcommittee, if they wanted to do changes, they would have had to have brought it to us last fall. They did not
bring us any changes. So, the document remains because a previous, you know, committee a few years ago voted these voted this document in as the final document for the tallies and that's how it it showed up. >> Does that make sense to you?
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Melissa, >> I mean um >> I have no questions. >> Okay. >> Um well, I am on the evaluation subcommittee and um this document was never discussed nor was it brought to
the school committee and I don't have um issues with many of the bullet points. However, the first one, the evaluation of individual members who have not fully participated in the midcycle process and offered formative feedback will be
weighted less than other evaluations. Um, that is objectionable to me because I did I I first of all, it's subjective what does not fully participate in the mid cycle process means. Um, but if it
means meeting privately with the superintendent, I did not avail myself of that opportunity because um, and I don't begrudge others that did because I think that we are still working through some confusion on the process. But our policy CBI, evaluation of the
superintendent, says all school committee discussions and deliberations related to the superintendent's performance evaluation shall be conducted in open session in accordance with open meeting law. So I I followed that and I did not um think that it was
uh appropriate for me to meet privately to discuss that. I had the opportunity to ask my questions at a meeting. So I do not um agree that um my evaluation should be weighted any less than any
other committee members. And so that is highly objectionable to me. And um I um I expect that my evaluation will be weighted equally to other committee members. >> Thank you. >> You know what? See, we're getting into
these individual things. So, I'm going to stop it right now. Um I'll let Chris if he wants to say anything. Um, but if you have an it's because it's filling out your own individual one and you have questions about how these um general
things could impact your own individual. I recommend that you ask general questions. Do not show your evaluation to the person you're asking the questions for. That's important that you keep you just say I want some general um questions. Um so I'm going to say that
we we won't we'll stop with the individual questions now. Okay. >> I think I will >> important information. >> All of the documents were sent to the committee subcommittee. So, everyone had access to these documents. You chaired
that subcommittee meeting. So, if you wanted to change it, you could have changed it at that time. >> We never discussed this, Margaret. Never. >> Oh, yes, you did. Okay. See that? We don't want We will uh iron those things out. Um Okay. To be honest with you, I was surprised by the weighted comment,
too. Um and but anyway and they just an over people may wonder well why are these people discussing a document and changes because desi gives you some basics and they say you know you can the word preponderance is a crazy word um
who can even say it let alone define it. So, um it's up to the committee like some somebody may say if three people say it, some people may say if two people say it, it'll be in the final document. But those are all little specific things that um will be
clarified to each individual person and also at the end usually the person who has completed and tallied everything gives an explanation at the time too. Right. >> And so >> Terry, I haven't got to speak yet if I
could. Oh, Mike, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That was an oversight. I didn't I didn't catch the >> No, you're fine. Um to your last comment, I'm glad you made me wait because your last comment last year when we approved the evaluation, there was no comments had at the meeting. I take my
time writing my comments and the past two cycles, whoever was on the evaluation committee, whoever did the last thing did not include my comments at all. So it is very disheartening when you spend
time writing comments and they're totally deleted and then at the public meeting there is no discussion. I remember last year I I did say something because the public h has the right to
see all these individual evaluations. And then the other thing I will say about this new document that I'm just seeing three days ago, I don't agree with any of it and I didn't agree with at the time because all it's doing is it deletes the voices of minority members
on this committee. It's been doing it for years. I don't like it. There is no definition of how much someone's vote is weighted. This is all just madeup stuff. And I would like to see anything from Desi that says anything about the needs
improvement unsatisfactory because we can't just get dropped a thing. When we voted on that and I voted against it years ago, it was not me meant to be a a thing that we do forever. That was a a a moving piece and
we were supposed to revisit it every year. So if we didn't look at this document September, October, that doesn't say that it should automatically get pushed in there. And I am concerned that we're just getting this um now because it was not presented earlier.
And that's my two cents. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do you want to ask Sue if she has anything? Do you want to ask >> Sue? Did you want to say anything? >> No, I'm all second. >> Okay. All right. So, I reiterate strongly if you have individual questions, Mike's comments or Katrina's
or mine or Glenda's talk to the people on the committee. Okay. >> And the score, >> there is a m to speak to Mike right there that any member could can really speak at the uh meeting of the evaluation uh their comments that were
not recorded. It's right here in this document. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is that the docu is that the document that we just got today or other document? I'm confused. >> I am so glad that I asked for transparency. Well, I would say that trans, if I
could, Terry, because we're going back and forth now, which is not Robert's rules, but transparency would be get that document back in September, October, not 3 days before um chair. >> Okay, we Okay, I agree with you that, Mike. Okay,
>> thank you. >> All right. Okay. Um, I'm sorry to squaltch things, but we have a other things we have to do. If if this needs to come back for a little public um um comment presentation,
we'll do that. Okay. >> But at the last meeting, you said at this point in the in the evaluation, we should not be changing anything. And if we want to change this >> Okay, Margaret. Okay. >> You need to say something. >> All right. Glendas.
>> No, I think Chris wants >> Oh, I'm sorry, Chris. >> No, no, that's fine. So, as the person who's going to be doing this the initial pass of the summit, my concern is that it is very ambiguous and it is very subjective. So,
you know, I I think my my feeling is who you know, in terms of reaching out to each individual subcommittee member, you'll probably get three different answers for the same question. And that's my concern. And in terms of whose responsibility is it to
determine who whose opinions should be weighted less? Are you going to leave that up to the decision of one member of this committee when I'm supposed to represent the committee as a whole? So, you know, I
have concerns about about kind of that process and and I know it's it's you know, I've served on the evaluation subcommittee before and I think it was more just kind of um how to explain it just kind of accepted norms and I think
now we're getting into you know and I think probably properly so more the details of how this should be done so that it can be consistent and not dependent on who happens to be the person doing the summitive. So, you know, I don't know if it's really if I'm
offering any any kind of solution, but it's more just a concern for relying on the the you know, kind of the judgment, the bias of an individual school committee member to determine
each individual member's um kind of uh weight in terms of their evaluation. Okay. If indeed this needs more public comment, we will do it. Okay. Um I'm looking at things. Um Lori, do we
need to act on all all these policies tonight? >> Let's see how can we put those off. >> Let's see how many we can get done. >> Well, we have Let's look at what else we have to do. >> Let's look at what else we have to do. >> Kelly Margaret is concerned he didn't have a comment. No, >> you don't have a comment. Okay. Just
want to make sure we had an opportunity. All right. Um, okay. We have to do the article 25. We have Let's Let's do that one. That one's next on the agenda. Okay. So, the there
is a um agenda item to act to support or not support article 25. So, is there a motion? >> Do you have anything you want to say? You want me to start with a statement or >> Yeah, why don't you start with a statement?
>> Um, okay. So, um, I prepared I just want everyone to know that I prepared a presentation for town meeting uh, tonight. The presentation includes the information that I provided to you on March 21st. Um, and it also includes the language of the warrant book by the select board. Um, I think there's just a couple things that we should keep in
mind. Um there are already laws in place uh we adhere to for freedom of expression and therefore 83 is unnecessary. There are laws in place that are direct conflict with uh section 84 that prohibits the schools to discipline students outside of uh school
related activities. Um we uh and we keep in mind these are just secondary um policies for secondary schools. Um we should not allow the courts to determine if Lawrence is a secondary school. That should be a school committee decision and uh we are already in discussions
about the status of Lawrence uh once renovated and um the select board narrative states um policies and other decisions are best made by the local elected officials meaning the school committee states the school committee um in matters relating to schools and I do
concur with um that statement that the school committee should be making the decisions about schools. >> Okay. So that was um commentary. Is there a motion on this um agenda item? >> I would like to make a motion to
indefinitely postpone this agenda item. I don't know if anybody wants to second that, but >> I'll second that. >> The 11th does okay with a second. Can I explain why? >> Um >> Okay. So, we have to >> we have more things on the agenda. This is an 11th hour um thing that we're
doing without any guidance from legal counsel. We have not had a chance to discuss it. The town meeting is starting in an hour and if we wanted to let town meeting members know our view, we should have done it sooner in my opinion so that they had a chance to ask questions um and formulate their views prior to
the meeting. It's just um I think it's irresponsible to render a vote and give an opinion on something that we're not well informed on right before the meeting where the town meeting members are going to have their vote influenced by whatever we decide. Um, so I would
make a motion to indefinitely postpone this agenda item. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, can I make a comment? I don't Margaret, I'm sorry. Do we do it before we take the vote? >> No, make your comment. >> Okay. My comment is um I don't think
it's fair to for you to assume that I am not well informed about this. I don't think you can make that blanket statement. That's all I would say. Um, so that's my comment. All right. So, any other comments, Chris? >> More of a question. Um, did we get any
legal opinion on this? What was >> in in addition to, you know, months? Um, we um the the March 21st letter was legal opinion. >> That that entire letter was >> Did that legal opinion go to each town
meeting member from all precincts? >> We are just No, I know. It was a question asked by a town meeting member and then you gave an answer to one person or to all town meeting members. I just am wondering >> to one the person that asked me a question.
>> How many members uh who are town meeting members attended their district meeting? >> Glad I did because then we did hear >> we did hear the presentation. >> I'm telling you, but I did not I was not able to attend the precinct meeting. Um,
>> okay. We got out of order here. Um, >> okay. I just wanted to make sure people started talking without me. I mean, we did that so I didn't have to recognize them. So, >> if you don't want to indefinitely postpone it, vote against it and we'll continue with the conversation. >> Okay. See, are there any other comments?
Okay. So, let's take a vote. Um, all those in favor of >> Yeah, let me say what I'm going to say first, please. Thank you. >> All those Um, no. Okay. Um, all those in favor of
indefinite postponement, okay, please say yes and we'll do a roll. Yes, no, or however you're going to vote. Um, so we'll start with Mike. >> Halen. Yes. >> Sue, I need clarification.
The indefinite postponement, isn't that what the selectman had voted? indefinite postponement of the article. >> Yes. >> Yes. But I think that's this is >> okay. >> But this is this is what this vote >> this is for us to vote >> to verify the selectman's indefinite
post. >> No no >> to not vote >> to not not support or support the amendment. >> It's to not take a vote. >> It's to not take a vote. >> Okay. Um,
>> no. >> Okay, then we'll go around. Kelly >> Welch, no. >> Uh, lumping. Yes. >> Cohen, yes. >> Mad. I wait. Meliss uh, no. >> Um, Nevin, yes. >> No.
>> And Maduras, no. So, did somebody count those? >> I did. >> Yeah. >> The nos have it. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, then I'll make a motion that we don't support article 25. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Are there comments? We'll start in
the middle. Katrina. >> What? >> I mean, I'm sorry. >> That's all right. >> I'm sorry, but when people interrupt me and I have to rethink again. >> No, that's totally fine. Um, I would have liked to have supported the superintendent's recommendation. Um, but
I just don't feel like I am um well enough informed about this. Uh, and I would have liked to for us to have had discussion. I think especially when we're voting on something that impacts students civil rights, um I just want to be very clear about what I'm voting on
and so I just don't feel like I have enough information to make informed decisions. >> Okay. So Melissa, >> uh thank you. I actually do have a comment on this. Uh I've done uh research on my own as I do for all town meeting articles as well as school
committee articles. I certainly don't always expect to be spoonfed in the packet or previous packets or letters or emails. So, I am quite confident in uh my vote this evening as well as my attention to this matter and have
educated myself as best I can on this. >> Um I can I ask the superintendent a quick question? Um I I vote I will vote to support um I will vote against the motion. Um but I had heard the superintendent saying that um something
about this would make it so that we are not in charge that the courts would decide whether or not Lawrence is secondary school. >> It's a potent it's a potential I mean my job is to make sure that I'm foreseeing any potential um issues in the future and that that is definitely one that's um a concern.
>> Um so I did not read that interpretation in the email that you had sent. So um it was interesting to learn that. Thank you. >> Okay. So, your vote just to >> Are we voting right now? >> Yes. >> Oh, I am against the motion. Okay,
Margaret, >> I'm going to vote for the motion, but I also want to say that Mari the town Mari town lawyer spoke at the at our precinct meeting and she said quite clearly that um there's only one district in the
whole state of Massachusetts that supports this >> adopted adopt would be beneficial to for us to hear have time as a committee to hear that um at at one of our meetings. Okay. Um, did everybody vote?
>> No. >> No. No. >> I did not vote. >> Okay. Sue. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mike. >> Um, I think I have I just heard that uh Margaret said that the lawyer went to
the precinct meeting, but we never got any lawyer at our meetings to ask questions to. And I have one other question about the courts dictating what Lawrence is. What is Lawrence now? because have we designated that anything?
>> So, um um Mike, there's really the school committee hasn't except on time on learning and Desi has determined that they're um a secondary with time on learning, but they're a middle school um as far as accountability and um their
profile. >> All right. I'm I don't I'm I'm not voting in favor of this. I don't know if I'm going to abstain or vote no because without having the chance to talk to a lawyer and kind of get into this stuff and this being a real last minute thing,
I don't think it's right I don't think it's right for us to vote in this at all. But um I I'm not I am not going to vote for this if uh I'll I'll abstain. >> Okay. So, did everybody vote? >> So,
okay. I'm sorry, Kelly. Um, I felt like the the information that we got on the 27, 2nd, 21st, whatever it was, it answered all my questions almost. I think I had one followup that I followed up with uh with Lori about to get
answered. So, I'm perfectly comfortable. I feel well informed on it and um I vote in support or I vote for my motion, which is to not support. >> Um I I think I missed that email. element unfortunately. So I do not feel
informed enough um to vote. So I will abstain. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm abstaining. I don't know if I my vote was clear. I was just making a comment the first time through, but I'm abstaining. >> Okay. >> To be clear, I am voting yes. I don't think I it was cleared. I didn't write
that down for myself. >> Okay. And I'm voting in support of Kelly's motion. >> And Sue, >> Sue voted yes. Sorry, I'm mistake. Sorry. Y sorry.
>> I'm missing one. >> 5 531. >> So, one, two, three, four, five. That's the other one. Okay. Got it. >> Okay. >> It's 531. >> All right. So, we're going to skip over the policies, guys, because it's really
>> we um >> but we do I know and we are late. Um the calendars are really important. Okay. >> And the other Now, I don't know if you want to do them or if we can always call another meeting >> and we question >> Terry. This is Susan. Um I'm going to
have to sign off so um sorry guys, but it's >> okay. >> See you next time. Bye. >> Thank you. >> Bye. So, >> I won't enjoy. Let's let's do the calendars. >> Okay. >> All right. C can I just ask a quick question? Yeah. This the the revised
Morse pond. >> Yeah, >> that's probably more timely than anything. That's what I was starting. I don't know. >> That's what I was. >> Do we need to >> That's um due by the 17th and we don't we do not have a meeting between now and the 17th of um April. So,
>> can we maybe we we're going to have to have a a short meeting to go all we can't zoom through all of these things and maybe I don't know if I'm allowed to send maybe we can iron out a little bit more evaluation and if we if need be okay but um one thing I really want to
do is the um this is time sensitive to the um uh survey okay I want to tell everybody I'm taking we are not going to act on at at the present time and this is not a unraled decision. The officers and I met before we made a decision but
we're not saying we're not doing it but we're not doing it at this time. Okay. So everybody knows that I guess is there a motion to adjurnn and can I be clear we will bring back these things we'll have to have a another meeting. We have to do right by all this important business. >> I'm going to make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Mike >> he >> Sue's not there. Okay. Margaret. Yes. >> Nevin. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> King. Yes. Okay.