##VIDEO ID:geTPrlcpsu0## e e e e e uh we're going to go ahead and call to order today is Tuesday February 4th 2025 the time is about 3:47 I will now call the policy committee meeting to order Miss Kennedy or Miss Kenny is there quum present yes all right uh please stand for the pledge I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for okay is there a motion to approve the agenda move thank you is there a second second all right uh any discussion discussion discussion all right all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed all right motion passes all right our first piece is the review of policies REM reminding that when we review a policy we look at the entire policy um so we are looking at uh policy 537 uh is there a motion to approve sending policy 537 to the school board to be rescinded so this is this is a little bit of a different motion so um so is there a a motion to approve sending policy 537 to the school board to be rescinded so moved all right thank you is there a second second all right uh discussion so I will speak on this one so po policy 537 is not an msba policy um it is a policy that was created by FBO Public Schools I want to say probably about eight is years ago um the schools were struggling with a lot of uh issues around uh school expectations and behavior and so this was drawn up um I don't believe it was ever really meant to be policy because the vast majority of the pieces that are in here are one outdated um and two should not be policy but actually should be practice um and if you look at this and you go in I want to say you get all the way into and a lot of the pieces in here are already in other policies but if you get into starting on page 17 is where the actual handbook student expectation grids begin these are not the grids that we continue to use today these have not been updated um we now follow msba student handbooks at our different levels so having this as policy uh is problematic at best uh because it just doesn't work that way handbooks are meant to be procedural that follow policies not to be policy thems any further discussion any further discussion hearing none uh all those in favor of uh sending policy 537 to the school board to be rescinded signify by saying I'm I I opposed all right motion passes that was our only review of policies we now get into the revision of policies and is there a motion to approve sending policy 418 drug-free workplace drug-free school to the school board move thank you Tara is there a second second thank you discussion for 418 I believe this one is come up a few different times already and they've added another piece I think regarding the minent registry program yeah so on page 48-3 they added a section D um it says and I'll just read it for transparency purposes it says the school district may not refuse to enroll or otherwise penalize a patient or person enrolled in the Minnesota patient registry program as a pupil solely based on the patient or person is enrolled in the registry program unless failing to do so would violate federal law or regulations or cause the school to lose a monetary or license related benefit under federal law or regulations says note the 2024 Minnesota Legislature amended this law to add this protection any further discussion any further discussion hearing none all in favor of sending policy 418 uh drug free and workplace and drug- free school to the school board signify by saying I I opposed okay um is there a motion to approve sending policy 515 protection and privacy of pupil records to the school board so moved thank you Nate is there a second second all right thank you Mr JNS uh discussion I want to feel like this one has also come before us yes it is there's only one change right is is the only change on page two yep yes it's nice having those red lines so that you can was it on page oh yeah they took off addresses I think that's a good idea okay so I'm just skimming through it to make sure that is the only change or revision I guess I should say goodness yes I made it to page 37 okay so yes um so I just wanted to make sure this is the only change so this was I met with our attorneys um I want to say about a month ago um and they one of the pieces that they wanted to make sure they actually said that there's a discrepancy between mba's policy and what state statute says um so they are they have directed uh schools that have reached out to them to strike out address telephone listing um and also strike out it in it also includes the name address and telephone number of the students's parents from this policy right um and then they had added in parents electronic email add address so that it was distinguished between parents and students uh discussion I think that's a good idea any further discussion all right hearing none uh all in favor of of sending policy 515 protection and privacy of pupil records to the school board uh signify by saying I I I opposed all right is there a motion to approve sending policy 519 interviews of students by outside agencies to the school board so mov thank you Wendy is there a second second thank you Tara uh discussion uh looking at this the revision starts uh at the bottom of the first page it says when it is possible and the report alleges substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse the and it goes on to say interview may take place outside the presence of the alleged offender and may take place prior to any interviews of the alleged offender uh and it says this change is found in Minnesota statute section 260 e22 so it sounds like they're just kind of um cleaning up some of the language to make sure it follows the statute any further discussion any further discussion all right hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed all right motion passes making good time here people um all those in favor or excuse me is there a motion to approve sending policy 522 Title 9 sex non-discrimination policy grievance procedure and process to the school board so move thank you Nick is there a second second all right thank you uh discussion I'm going to look here to see what the revision is I feel like this one has also come before us here just recently um it actually appears that the only change is on page 18 the date and it is just a date change we're reverting that oh because we're reverting that I'm sorry yes so we are reverting back to the the 2020 Title 9 policies versus the 2020 four Title 9 policies okay so this would have been a policy that was on the books with us in the past all right federal policy any further discussion any further discussion all right hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed all right motion passes all right um looking here this just goes with that is that correct this is just the information sheet for that got it right all right is there a motion to approve sending policy 614 student district testing plan and procedure to the school board so moved thank you Nate is there a second second thank you Nick discussion I'm looking to see what the revision is the end last page 16 page 16 so the only change that is on here is the removal of section six uh taking away the retaliation prohibited why did they do that um let me see here real quick because I I think it should be put in there that's my only problem to 2024 Minnesota legisl yeah and so why are we taking it out it says it's a good thing it says this protection is not part of the testing procedure itself retali provision somewhere else isn't that part of whistleblowing protection so you be ret retaliated if you are yeah and I think it should stay in there then right but you know because in 2024 the Minnesota Legislature enacted this provision well why are we taking it out then um I think it should stay on there that's my opinion just for like a whistleblower protection not that you know or is it covered it will happen in our district but I think just in general it's a good thing to have is it it is covered it says that it's covered under section 181 932 but yeah but is it so does say here uh the notes that we have the notes that we have from I'm just looking through here the notes that we have from msba says substan substantive change school boards May exercise their discretion in determining whether to take the recommended action so because the word may is used we do not have to so we do not have to put this in but we could we do not have to take this out it currently is but we could I think we should take msba is saying remove it it but they're saying that we may Minnesota State Statute 18132 an employer shall not discharge discipline allies interfere with threaten restrain course or otherwise retaliate or discriminate against an employee or the employees compensation terms conditions location prives of employment because and then there's different things so it currently is in and if it were to come out would we then reference the Minnesota statute that protects the employee so the statute that Miss Steves just read seems to be more vague in nature where this statement seems to be more specific towards uh technical interruptions with ad with uh administering assessments so it just I think it it it gets a little bit more specific about that um I believe it does still fall under that same piece um so I it's more specific about protecting the employee it's more specific about protecting the employee yes so I will say I am comfortable leaving it in and not taking it out but I mean does anybody have any objection to that so I just as a former District assessment coordinator in another District I'm reading this and I'm just thinking there's a lot of procedural things when it comes to disruptions or technical interruptions that's the Dax responsibility so I guess I'm not in and we always tell staff like as a building principal now too I always tell staff if any of these things were to happen let me know and I will work with our district assessment coordinator to make sure these things are reported so to me I I'm fine leaving it in there I just don't see the necessity of it because this is a part of a dak's role in The District anyway and a building administrator's role if you have testing in your building but I can go I don't I'm fine with it in there I just don't see it being necessary okay but any other discussion any other discussion all right so understand that a an I vote a yes vote means remove it a no vote means keep it in all right I just want to make sure we understand that so all in favor uh signify by saying I opposed say Nay Nay Nay Nay okay all right so we will not recommend to the school board this will go to the school board but the recommendation from this committee is that they will leave that in there they will not remove it corre okay all right Miss Kenny you got that board members because you'll need to report on that I won't be here okay all right good news is we got 35 minutes to go through this last policy and we're going to is there a motion to approve sending policy 721 uniform Grant guidance policy regarding federal revenue sources to the school board move thank you Tara is there a second second I I'll give that one to Wendy um discussion I think they added the veterans right yeah on page five I think that's a good move anything we can do for our veterans I guess I think there was something else too though cyber security is on page eight right so it says uh just in transparency it's uh they added section c which is cyber security is the title says the school district must take re reasonable cyber cyber security and other measures to safeguard one personally identifi identifiable information two information that the federal agency or pass through entity designates as sensitive excuse me and three other information that the school district considers sensitive and is consistent with applicable federal state local and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality and there's some statutes there I think they added a word on the bottom of nine they added yes well they said should a line and took out B in compliance yeah they took they removed B in compliance and put changed it with a line then on page 10 it says the school district must comply with the added the United States con Constitution um few grammatical things that don't change any of the meetings dollar amount clarification yeah 10,000 that was up on page two or three I believe wasn't there something about Minnesota yes on page three Federal government's increase to the dollar cap for small purchases Minnesota law limits cap to 17 MH so yeah so we need to move it to 175 instead of 250,000 okay on page 15 they added mandatory disclosures um says the school district must promptly disclose whenever in connection with the federal award including any activities or Sub sub Awards thereunder it has credible evidence of the commission of a violation of Federal Criminal law involving fraud conflict of interest um bribery or gr gratuiti violations found in 18 US state code or a violation of the Civil false claims act 31 US state code and then there's more that it goes on to say can I just ask a clarifying question um most of the grants I've applied for in my professional life have these disclosures when you acknowledge and apply you sign is this just extra I think this is to cover in case there's a grant that does not have that it is covered under this okay is my understanding any further discussion any further discussion all right hearing none all those in P in favor signify by saying I I opposed all right motion passes at this time we have no new policies our next meeting is March 4th 2025 at 3:45 p.m. uh is there a motion to adjourn the meeting so move all right thank you is there a second of course of course Wendy seconds that all in favor I I opposed all right we are adjourned