Okay. >> All right. Okay. Goody. We got Rosley. Perfect. All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the policy subcommittee meeting. It is June 9th, 2026. We're going to go ahead and start the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Um, roll call, >> Miss Feliciano. Or do you just want me to >> No, I can do it. >> Okay. Mr. Fave, >> go ahead. >> Miss Lefave. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Go ahead. >> Present. I thought you said it's okay. >> Mr. Michaelelsson, >> present. >> And Miss Tenzy Williams, >> present. >> Okay, great. I'll rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge alce to the flag of the United
States of America, to the republic for it stand for it stands. One nation >> under God, >> under God, >> indivisible, >> indivisible, >> with liberty, >> with liberty, >> and justice for all >> for all. >> Great. >> Sorry everyone, this was very short
notice. Um, there was an internet outage and obviously we weren't able to meet in person as we would not be able to access any of our items that we needed for this discussion. So with that being said, I just got nice little notice here to
read. On March 29th, 2025, Governor Mar Healey signed into law bodies to age 62 as amended by S2506, which contains the final form of the bill entitled an act relative to extending certain CO 19
measures adopted during the state of emergency act of interest to all governmental public bodies in Massachusetts. The act extends until June 2027. the authority for meetings of p multiple member bodies to be held in entirely remote or hybrid
format. All public bodies may hold fully remote or hybrid meetings without the physical presence of a quorum of the public body as long as adequate alternative means of public access is also provided. Please note that pursuant to mass general laws chapter 3A
section 20 I'm hereby informing all in attendees that a video and audio recording is being made of the meeting. Now, with that being said, before we get into the actual agenda item, I know we do have some individuals who did come
that are attending that do have um some comments um towards what we're going to be speaking about tonight. So, if there's no objection, if we could have a public comment for those members to speak. >> Is there a motion?
>> Make a motion to public comment. We got a motion by Mr. Michaelelsson. Is that seconded by you, Mim? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yes, I >> All right. I I guess we have to do the roll call for the vote because we're on
Zoom even or would we just say >> yes? >> Yeah. I think we needed I think we need to do a roll call. >> Okay. Miss Feliciano, Mr. Fave. >> Yes. Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> And Miss Sensei Williams.
>> Yes. >> Great. Okay. So, motion passes. So, um I do see one, two, three individuals. Not sure if there's anybody else that's in the attendee section that would like to
speak, but please um raise your hand if that's So, so I'm going to start off real first as first as I see it down my screen. It would be Mr. Sheen. I can't see raised hands if they're not
a panelist for some reason. I I do know that Mr. Mulliff is >> the only one that's that I would think has public. >> I can see I can see >> Oh, I see I see raised hands now. Sorry.
>> I was not raising my hands. >> Talking to myself over here right now. I just knew that I believe I remember recall that you had um comment. Um but if you don't, I'll put you right back and I'll take Mr.
McAuliff. >> You can put me You can put me right back. >> Sounds like planned. So, we'll take Mr. McCulliff. >> Okay. Okay. Hold on. Good evening, Chair Lefave. I'm here. >> Great. If you could just um say your
name, address, and go ahead. >> Sure. Joel McAuliff, 192 Mountain View Street, Chabe, Massachusetts. here tonight in my personal capacity and as an employee of of HPS. I want to first by thanking the committee and school
committee uh for considering changes to the employee handbook uh into existing uh school committee policy with regards to parental leave. It's not something that um I've thought a lot about uh in my life. Uh but as my wife and I are blessed to be expecting in September, uh
it's something that I've taken a deep dive in over the last uh couple of months and several weeks. I was pleased to be able to submit a letter both electronically and by mail to members of the school committee that outlines the specifics uh of my concerns of this
policy going forward. Uh and uh as a a member of the Chabe City Council and my wife a member of the Chabe School Committee, just want to name that I have great respect for the committee process as an opportunity to take feedback from our school leaders and district leaders
and department heads um and take that feedback as well as feedback from others uh to craft the policy that's best for the community that we serve and that sends us to represent these public bodies. The two main issues that I have
with the the policy is uh first it's a great step in the right direction but I think it doesn't meet the moment in terms of what is actually available to employees particularly on the FMLA side of things. An employee can get up to 60
days of FMLA for child bonding dur uh during the parental leave time period or for uh care of a loved one. uh this policy limits the use of any sick time to 30 days during that period. Uh I
would ask that the committee consider uh allowing the use of benefits uh for the for those full 60 days to allow our employees to be able to use them. Uh as well as uh going beyond sick time. Uh
narrowing this to just sick time being what employees being able to use uh doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. I know it's some of the language that was uh pulled from the HTA contract. Uh HTA members don't have, for example, uh vacation time like 12-month
employees. So there is some distinction there in my opinion. I think it's important that we let our employees utilize whatever acred benefits uh that they have. As part of that as well, there are the two parts of school committee policy that is existing uh
that says employees should not go into unpaid status until uh they have exhausted use of their acred benefits. That is existing school committee policy. I know that the district has been oper operating under receiverhip
measures for uh over the last decade and so this may be new to the district in terms of how uh to uh put in process making sure that we adhere to school committee policy um that's all I know from my personal life um and know that
um when when it comes to local control how important that is that we adhere to existing policy or make changes to policy. So, I'll end with just a gratefulness to everybody involved for bringing this forward. It is a huge step in the right direction. I just hope that
the subcommittee and school committee a whole takes in some of the things um that I've presented for it. I'd ask that that letter be entered into the record uh as submission of formal comment. Um and uh I know this isn't the time, but if there's ever an opportunity to answer any questions or provide additional
feedback, I'd welcome that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, with that being said, is there anybody else who has anything that any comments um that they would like to present before we start into
the agenda items? Please note that there will not be any ability to ask questions other unless you are on the panel. Um so not sure if there's anybody else that
wants to speak now. Raise your hands. Okay. So, um, if there is no objection, I'd like to take item two, the proposed updates to policies, and have attorney Makavoy um,
come and speak or not really come, just move on over into the screen um, to discuss the proposed updates to some policies and elimination of other policies. U Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Uh Mr. Sodto's got his hands up.
>> Oh, Mr. Sodto. >> Yeah, it's uh Mr. Makavoy, uh Miss Nica Smith, and Mr. Steven Mogel are the three that would be talking. So, I don't know if the you need to >> Oh, okay. >> if the motion needs to read that way.
>> All right. For So, for that motion, so it would be for item two. So it would be those three people presenting. Um is there no objection? Is there any objection? >> Okay. Um so great. Let's go ahead and take up item
>> um Stephen Miguel Makavoy and what was the third one? >> Nica Smith. >> Naya Smith. Thanks. We'll take up item two which is proposed updates to policies AC J K A J I CFB and when we're
talking about them if you can just also name the title of it. Um and then elimination of ACA AC and JIC K. So I'm going to go ahead and pass it to Mr. Sodto who will then he knows
who's speaking on which. Yeah. So, I have here with me uh Miss Nica Smith and Mr. Steven Moguel who have worked closely with um our attorney Matt Makavoy. Um some of
these changes had been proposed to the uh last year and just haven't necessarily made it to the full policy list. So, uh, after review of the student handbook this year, um, our our
attorney realized that there were some changes that needed to be made to a few policies in the, um, in the student handbook, a student and family handbook. Um, we created a link in the agenda that has all of the policies that were
implemented and the recommendations uh, from our attorney here. Uh so I will hand it over to our team of Matt Makavoy, Nasha Smith and Stephen Moguel and and they could explain um you know
the the the proposed changes. >> Okay. So um I just so we're going to need motions for each one. So we're not going to try to group these. Um, so if we're going to do AC right
now, then let's we'll talk about AC, right? >> Make a motion. >> Then let us make the motion, what we're going to do with it, what's the plan, and then we move on to the next one. Okay. >> Move. >> All right.
>> Second. >> No, we're good. It's just uh I'm just ex explaining how we're going to >> and so so are we we're through this we're going to approve these to be fed to to the school committee to then get their first reading.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Right. >> No motion needed right now. Miss Tensley Williams. We're going to go ahead and and start with which one, Mr. Sodto. >> Okay. Thank you. We will start right at the top with uh
policy AC. >> Mr. Makavoy, you want to give some context on >> the proposed changes? >> Absolutely. Thank you for having me here tonight. Um we are recommending some changes to your existing policy AC,
which is your overall non-discrimination policy within the district. uh to to kind of ensure that you have accurately captured all protected classes uh in that non-discrimination policy and have current and appropriate language and
also have a specific provision uh for the development of uh specific grievance procedures related to any claims of discrimination or discriminatory harassment uh that may be brought in accordance with policy AC. So what we've
done is provided you with a revised draft of policy AC uh as well as the set of aligned procedures which don't need to be adopted by the committee specifically um but we um we do provide them just uh
so that people have a full understanding of what procedures are involved. Our rationale behind not having the committee adopt the specific grievance procedures as committee policies is that you know the district does need to be able to modify these procedures subject
to court decisions or the nullification of regulations such as has occurred with the Title 9 regulations um regarding responding to allegations of sexual harassment over the past four years where we had one set of federal
regulations then a new set come in and then a court suddenly invalidating the new set. So it's resulting was resulting in constant changes to the grievance procedural requirements. Um so we do recommend that you adopt that the district adopt the grievance procedures
as administrative procedures. Uh but the draft revised policy AC does specifically uh authorize and direct the superintendent to ensure that there are appropriate grievance procedures for any claims uh which may be brought uh of
discrimination or discriminatory harassment. Okay. So before anything um is there a motion to approve the draft form to send to the school committee the
full committee um the nondis file AC non-discrimination and harassment. So moved. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Well, who did the So moved? I thought
that was you, Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Miss, please. >> Oh, okay. My apologies. You sounded very low there. Okay, so it's approved by Miss Tensley Williams, seconded by Mr. Michaelelsson. Any discussion,
>> Mr. Michaelelsson? So, I'm curious uh who the the administrator that serves as the compliance officer is in the strat form. >> It's uh Miss Nica Smith. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there anybody else? Miss Tensley
Williams, do you have anything? >> Uh no. >> Okay. So, I do have a few questions on that one. [snorts] Um, so when I'm going through this and I'm going paragraph by paragraph, at the beginning paragraph, we have a lot of
things. We have things that are kind of highlighted. So you've got the pregnancy that's that's included in there. >> Y >> um, as an overall general, right? Because pregnancy and anything related to it. Um, you have the active military veteran status and then we've included
any protected what was removed from there is the immigration status, right? But if we go >> from that paragraph uh and we simply remove that from that paragraph because to some degree because this is a this first paragraph and particularly the
first sentence is a catch-all sentence which pertains to any student, parent, employee or members of the general public. you do discriminate with regard to your hiring practices based upon immigration status because people do have to be, you know, legally eligible
to work within the United States in order for you to hire them. So to, you know, not to to include the immigration status in that section would not be appropriate. uh we have we have replaced it down at the bottom of the third
paragraph however to clarify that no student shall be excluded from admission to a district school or in obtaining the advantages, privileges or courses of study of such public school on the basis of immigration or citizenship status which is consistent with the law. But we just get concerned about an individual
applying for a job um being denied the job because they don't have a valid green card and then citing our our own policy indicating that we're discriminating in our employment activities with regard to immigration status. >> Okay. So then let's look at paragraph
three. >> Yep. >> We we did include pregnancy up on paragraph one. Why would we not include it in Oh, it should be included there. I I I apologize for that. So, what we were doing there was the the pregnancy
related conditions, pregnancy status, that is language kind of from the 2024 title 9 regulations which have now been invalidated that was added to the the regulations at that time. So we are simply recommending that you just include an overall reference to
pregnancy which would frankly in my opinion encompass pregnancy related conditions in pregnancy related status. um but just removing the specific uh additional terms that were part of the regulations which have now been
invalidated by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas as well as the US Department of Education. But I so I would recommend that pregnancy remain in there but just remove pregnancy related condition and pregnancy status.
>> Okay. So I know I see that it was added in there but what I so if I think it was Nica Smith if you can just remove what you just typed. Um so this document has to go in the way that it that that you're presenting it and then the
subcommittee will come and then present what you have. But then also then it'll show an amendment on our part where then we would add in the pregnancy section under paragraph three and present that
to the whole committee for a first reading. Um so let me just write this here at pregnancy to third paragraph. Um I think I have it all. Well, I do see
where all the other amendments are. Okay, great. Those those are basically my questions. I don't have anybody else have anything further. >> Um, Mr. F. >> Go ahead.
>> I have a question now. Is this involving legal immigr immigration? Honey, I'm I'm a little bit confused. Attorney Makavoy, do you would you like to respond to that one? >> Well, we just I mean it does it does
address uh you know title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination on the basis of national origin. Um we're not in any way kind of restricting the protections provided to individuals under federal law. Uh we're
just clarifying by the removal of uh immigration status from the first section uh from the first paragraph uh that you know we we do discriminate to some degree on the basis of immigration status in our hiring practices.
But we've added >> to compensate that we are very clearly stating at the bottom of paragraph three that students may not be denied admission or denied services on the basis of their immigration or citizenship status which is consistent
with current United States Supreme Court case law. >> Okay, great. Um, you know what? I just noticed something. So I if I recall correctly on the other ones that we have a recommendation to eliminate um I believe there was we were also waiting
to like update it with like who's going to be assigned or whatever. Here it just it's just the general term that the superintendent shall designate at least one administrator to serve as the compliance officer for the district's non-discrimination policies.
So I'm going to ask Mr. Sodto how how would people know who that designated person would be. >> Mr. Makavoy, you want to >> I can absolutely answer that question. So, the in our we're constantly updating
and reviewing the the grievance procedures, be they the title nine or the civil standard civil rights grievance procedures. The procedures specifically provide contact the identify and provide contact information for the district civil rights grievance
officer. It's also printed in the student handbooks because we are required to do that as well. We we wouldn't recommend including a specific ident uh individual within a school committee policy because you know if if Miss Smith was to take another position,
you don't want to have to reconvene your >> school committee and amend your policies. >> Perfect. So, I'm going to put in a motion um uh to amend um this policy and in the third
paragraph add pregnancy uh right after gender gender identity. So, it would read I'm not even going to say the whole thing. It's just going to read and courses with study as such public school on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, yada yada yada. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, roll call >> on the amendment >> on the amendment. Yeah. >> Yes. Oh, sorry.
>> Sorry, typing it. Um, Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes. and [clears throat] Miss Sassy Williams. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. So, the amendment passes now on the motion, right? I believe it.
>> Go ahead, >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes. >> And Miss Williams? >> Yes. >> Great. So, motion passes. All right. What's our next policy? >> Physical restraint.
>> Um I'm sorry. I see um Miss Nica Smith. Yes. Do you have a question for us? >> Apologies. I was trying to raise my hand earlier. I just and I know that you you all just voted. Uh the second to last paragraph, Mr. Makavoy, I just wanted to note it says pregnancy related
conditions and pregnancy status there again. Um do we need to eliminate the related conditions and status there? >> Yep. >> Apologies if that means you need to revote. >> And I did not notice that one. I am so sorry. So I am going to go ahead and
amend the amended. [laughter] We're going to get to five amendments before we move to the next policy. Okay. So here's the amendment to the amended motion to the amend amendment. Um and it would be to strike out
um just strike out pregnancy related conditions and pregnancy status. >> Correct. So >> that it only just reads pregnancy then it'll be disability. And that's the fourth paragraph, right? >> That's my motion. Is there a second?
>> Uh, so is a motion to reconsider and make an amendment to that? >> Yeah, that's true. Motion to reconsider because we did already take the full vote. Um, so motion to reconsider.
>> Second. >> Okay, go ahead. Um, Miss Feliciano, I'll do the roll call. on mute. I'm talking to myself. U Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Mr. F. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Uh Miss Tensey Williams. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Motion passes. Now the amendment. Um on the amendment to strike out pregnancy related conditions and pregnancy status. So >> move. Is there a >> second? Second.
Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. [laughter] >> Mave. >> Yes. >> And Miss Senzy Williams. >> Yes. >> Great. Motion passes. All right. Next. Next. Um policy. >> Physical restraint policy. Existing
policy. JKA. We have we have provided you with an entire new physical restraint policy. The uh Massachusetts restraint regulations were significantly updated last spring by the uh Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Those new regulations go into effect on August 17, 2026. All districts are required to have a current policy in place by that time. um your existing policy JKAA um does not at all comply with the new
regulatory requirements. It does not contain the correct language. Um so we have provided you with a new policy uh that our office has developed during an extended period of time um which is fully compliant with the
requirements of uh the new regulations. And just I would would just make one note um in in the subcommittee's consideration of this policy so that everyone understands it. Um you know the the use of the term seclusion appears
much more frequently in this revised policy and that is because of the regulatory changes. Um the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has uh revised the regulations to um
specifically address what constitutes seclusion of a student and to limit the circumstances under which it can be administered. And that needs to be reflected in the in the committee's policy. Okay. Do I have a motion to accept? Um I
how would I even So >> because it's like totally rewritten basically. >> It is a new entirely new. >> Yeah, it's totally entirely new but it still falls under the same policy. So I Okay. So take the proposed policy. It's
a complete policy change but um to take up the policy change on what policy is this one? J >> JKA >> JK what? >> J Kaa.
>> JKAA. Is there a motion to approve the policy change? >> I'll make it a po motion to uh approve JKAA. Send a full >> second that. >> Second that. Okay. Is there any
discussion? Okay. Um I just have a a question. Um when it comes to physical restraints because I see here that we have um it talks about procedures and processes
but it doesn't really talk about the procedure for the actual act. So when you're a physical restraint, >> the district is required, it's it's much like a non-discrimination policy, which is the district is required to have an overall policy prohibiting the use of
mechanical restraint, medication restraint, physical restraint inconsistent with the regulatory requirements, um prone restraint except as consistent with regulatory requirements, and seclusion except as consistent with regulatory requirements.
You you under the regulations have an entirely separate obligation to have a detailed set of administrative procedures to be implemented within the district which describe the circumstances under which restraints
used. Um the necessary preliminary intervention strategies to avoid the use of restraint as well as this identifying the specific types of restraints including physical holds which can be used within the school setting.
um in accordance with the overall district policy and regulatory requirements. So that all that language is in the procedures as far as you know basket hold standing hold basket hold things like that >> and who's going to be present and who's
going to assess length of time all that would be in the procedures >> all in the procedures >> so and Mr. We have those procedures, correct? >> Yes, they're linked to the agenda in that same document. There's
three columns or there's four columns in the uh what's on the agenda. The first column is the name of the policy. The second is it current, third is proposed, and then the fourth is the aligned procedures. I only have three columns, so I must be
missing something. But >> I'm looking at it now and there's four. So I'm highlighting. I mean, you want me to share screen real quick? >> Oh, okay. I see what you're talking about. Okay, now I see because you're talking about the actual policy. Okay, I
wasn't looking at that. >> There's policy name, there's current policy, proposed policy, and aligned procedures. and the aligned procedures end up going into the family and student handbook.
>> Okay. Um I'm sorry. Just if you guys can just give me one moment as I So this would technically be like a separate thing. So Mr. Sodto, would this be like the procedures
would we be looking at procedures? >> It's not I think uh Mr. Makavoy mentioned that usually procedures aren't part of the policies, but the policy does require the superintendent to develop p uh procedures to align to the policy. And
that's what you know that's what we had. You you don't necessarily vote on these procedures, but it's available for you to see and um will be in the final student handbook that you guys review.
Usually the we usually do it sometime in August, but we're trying to get it done at the June 22nd meeting [clears throat] this year. >> So, Attorney Mack Boy, um would we be able as school
school committee members um to like review, make comment, and recommend changes if need be to the procedure? or would that be outside of our scope? >> I mean, I I think if you you know, as as
the hiring authority of the superintendent, if you designate the superintendent to put these procedures together, um the superintendent would, you know, certainly be open to uh feedback relative to the procedures if there is concern. >> Okay.
>> But the I I will just add that the procedures are very very much in compliance with the new regulatory requirements. So I would I would >> Mr. Michaelelsson I know you have a question. >> Yeah. So so the way I'm reading this is
that the policy document becomes a reference that points to superintendent creating procedures that will then end up in the handbook, right? Which we are going to approve on June 22nd. and the procedures
that are in the handbook will be more flexible with reference to actual implementation actions but also within the confines of the law and the policy as written >> right and and I would just say you know not flexible with regard to
implementation for purposes of district staff um but I would say flexible in terms of the district's ability to modify the procedures as they may be directed to uh by the department of elementary and secondary education over
the forthcoming like years and months because the department is still, you know, on the on the restraint provisions, the new changes, you know, they still haven't even kind of fleshed out their position on some of these issues. And you know, going back again
using the the Title 9 sexual harassment grievance procedures as an example, that you know, you you can have numerous interpretation changes or even court rulings on on legal regulatory requirements um in the course of a given
year. And for the district to not be able to modify its proced, you know, the actual procedures to implement a policy to comply with those directives of the department of ed or potentially a court uh without going through an entire school committee policy and procedure
process or policy process is is is very difficult. Yeah, >> it would leave you out of compliance for you know the period of time until you all have kind of gone through this [snorts] you know subcommittee process first read second read final committee
vote. >> Yes. So the feature here the feature here is to allow the the the uh adaptive policy level at district level to to do what needs to be done based on court rulings changing >> and and also if we find that something's
not working that you know some interventions we've lagged in the procedures are proving not to be effective you know you can have the professional staff who are you know actually overseeing the implementation of the restraint of restraints within the district be able to modify those
procedures based upon, you know, best professional practices. >> Okay. >> I have a question. Um, >> is there anything else, Mr. Michaelelsson? >> Oh, that that that answers my question. >> Miss Tensley Williams, I was going to get to you. I was just asking Mr.
Michaelelsson if he was done. >> He's done. Go ahead, Miss Tensley Williams. Um, now this is going to be in the family student handbook, right? >> Correct. >> Not in the Okay, cuz I'm looking at both
of them right now, but Okay, thank you. >> Oh, we we we are required to share our procedures with employees as well. >> Oh, okay. >> That is mandated under the regulations. >> All righty. Thank you.
All right. Now I that's that's exactly what I was looking is that section in regards to the restraint, the length of time, and who's going to do the assessment of a of the student. So um I have a concern at the fact that it shows that it's a staff member. Um where is
our clinical nurses that should be there assessing and being present during a physical restraint? There there there's not a requirement under the regs that a nurse be present during all physical restraints. If a student is evidencing uh medical distress in the course of a
restraint, the restraint is immediately terminated and a nurse is is brought called to the scene. Um but you know often times you know physical restraint is an emergency procedure of last resort that a staff member may have to
implement to protect the safety of the the the remain the students in the area. and to delay it pending the availability of a nurse in all cases would potentially create a danger within the school setting. I mean we are only
restraining kids who are um you know presenting an imminent threat of physical assault or serious physical harm to another in the moment. >> Right? I'm I'm not arguing the fact that um that when it's needed at the given
moment, first off, it's going to be someone who's trained in doing it to my assumption. >> Um number two is um they're not walking around with a thermometer to check their >> their temperature. Um,
and all I'm asking is once a restraint is put in place, I think then like in my personal opinion as a psychiatric nurse is getting a nurse to come to the location to monitor and do the assessment piece
of it. I mean, that's how I look at it in my world of psych. um versus just having anybody determine whether a child is actually in distress or what even assessing the
after effects when we're looking at injuries >> the that that respons oh I'm sorry to answer your question that responsibility as far as assessing the after effect things like that of the restraint on the student that that is
for that is under the regulations delegated specifically to the principal under the regulatory requirements and under the procedures and under the regulations. Staff who are administering the restraint do have to have received training in in restraint and are
required to diligently and constantly monitor the students physical and mental well-being in the course of the restraint. And if again if the student is evidencing any sign of physical distress um we are to terminate the restraint and uh immediately have a
school nurse come to the building. But you know you you to be honest with you your your school buildings aren't staffed by psychiatric nurses. >> They don't have to be a psychiatric nurse. It could be a even a >> but a school nurse is not necessarily qualified to to assess the student's
mental health status. Um that's a serious question. I would beg to differ, but you know what? We'll leave it at that. Um, >> I know Miss Tensley Williams, go ahead. >> Um, since the student is not a criminal,
uh, there are no handcuffs involved, right? >> Oh, no. That would be that would be a mechanical restraint. That would be a device, a mechanical device limiting a student's freedom of movement. And the policy and procedures strictly prohibit that. That is an absolute
the concern about that. Um they're not criminals and they should not have handcuffs >> on them. So thank you sir. >> No absolutely not. And and even beyond like something like handcuffs, you know, using something like a rift in chair solely for the purpose of restraining a
student who's disregulated. That would also be a mechanical restraint that's prohibited under the law. >> Okay, good. Thank you. Um, Nica Smith, I know that you had your hand raised. I don't know if you had it.
>> I was just going to say that it is pretty standard that school nurses do respond. Um, they are part of our restraint review teams. Um, so there they're more often than not in almost all circumstances, there is an
assessment completed um by by the nurse post restraint as part of our internal procedures. Although that it the regs don't call for that um and they're not, you know, listed in that particular document, but it is very common for
nurses to be um called upon. >> Okay. Thank you. So, the motion is to um accept and approve the current policy change to JKAA. There was a motion. It was seconded. Is
there any further discussion? I >> think I'd like to amend this. Um, >> okay, Mr. Michaelelsson, go ahead. Where would the amendment be? The specific amendment I'm thinking of the the bottom line up front from the CMR is that
solution seclusion in um physical restraint may never be used as a means of discipline or punishment. So in the paragraph under the bullet points right >> um I'm looking for it right under the
bullet points. under the bullet points paragraph following right that paragraph is the meat of the CMR right that that's the the bottom line up front when I look at the CMR and 4603 for the use of restraint that is the the bottom line up
front right and then it goes through to to describe the the the uh the regulation surrounding it what I'd like to see from my perspective is
I'd like to see that paragraph moved up above uh the sup the superintendent will develop procedures identifying right because that that is the baseline of all of this right is I'd like to see
that paragraph above the bullet points >> wait hold on so it would have to be be beforehand before the superintendent will develop. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. So,
>> so right under after the physical restraint paragraph. >> Yes. >> Then that >> Yes. >> Resort. Okay. I only want to see. Okay.
Is there a second? >> Second. >> So the amendment's going to be to move move that paragraph that entire paragraph. So then all that's going to read after all those
bullets is going to be these procedures will be reviewed annually that stuff and then nothing in this policy or that stuff. Correct Mr. Michaelelsson because we're moving that entire paragraph
and putting it right after the physical restraint paragraph. >> Uh that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion and a second to amend.
Any further discussion? Roll call. >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. Miss Lefabe, >> yes. >> Miss Tenzy Williams, >> yes. >> All right. Now, on the on the mo on the
on the motion, >> on the amended motion, >> on the amended motion. >> Yep. Uh, Mr. Michaelelsson, >> yes. >> Miss Lefave, >> yes. >> And Miss Sandy Williamson, >> yes. >> Okay, great. Motion passes. Great. And
place below physical restraint paragraph. All right. The next one is >> bullying. J I CFB >> J ICFB. >> Mr. Mackoy,
>> we're making this recommendation simply because you all your your existing policy JICFB is in a very much older version of the Mass Association of School Committee sample policy. Um you it doesn't have the correct definitions
in it. Um, we're recommending that you simply replace it with the more current version of the MASC policy that MASC has suggested that districts utilize. >> I'm going to be honest, I bet you this was going to be coming up. It was just
hadn't come up yet, but because we've got a because we have been working with MASC since 202 if I'm not mistaken. No, 24 into 25 when we were working in the transition
planning and we hired MASC to redo all of the policies. Um, we just haven't brought them forth, but this is just going to make it much quicker. >> So, is there a motion to accept the
changes to policy JICFB as presented? >> So, move. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Oh, I'm sorry. Before that, any discussion?
Any questions? >> Okay. >> I have one, but I'm not sure if it's >> Go ahead, Miss Tensley Williams. >> Um, I hope I'm not running ahead, but I just have a question. 603 C CMR 46
that each staff member will be trained annually regarding the school's procedure of physical restraint and seclusion. >> Rosalie, we passed that policy. We already finished that policy. We're on a new one. >> All right. Okay. I'm looking at the wrong thing, but that's okay. I'm just I
was jumping in. Okay. No problem. No worries. We're on bullying prevention. JICF. Okay. JF got that one. Do you have any questions on that one? >> Um, no, thank you.
>> All righty. So, with that being said, there's no questions. Um, all those in favor, Miss >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Uhhuh. >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes. >> And Miss Tensey Williams? >> Yes. >> Great. Motion passes. So, that'll be
presented to the full school committee on the 22nd as presented. All right. Next item on the agenda is um the proposed eliminations. Um we could take them as a package um
and I'll have attorney Makavoy because technically they're all reflective of what we had already approved in the first one. So attorney Makavoy, if you like to talk about the three that are
recommended for removal. So, so kind of going in order here. Um, policy ACA is, you know, I I frankly I in my legal opinion, we can abs you could leave that policy in place. Um, it doesn't directly
conflict with any existing policy. It's it's a specific non-discrimination on the basis of sex policy. you know, I would argue that it's already covered under policy A because policy AC does prohibit discrimination and harassment
on the basis of sex. Um, having said that, I I will say that, you know, there there can be a a a an issue as far as kind of the public optics goes. If you were to eliminate ACA, it's not really a
necessary policy, but again, unlike the two I'm about to mention to you, it doesn't directly conflict or impose any obligations or requirements that are, you know, in conflict with otherwise appropriate policies. So, you know, we
are I I do recommend that it it be removed again because it's somewhat redundant, but you know, it's not imperative that it be removed policy ACA. And you know I would just suggest that you know people people can sometimes consider whether you know if
it doesn't conflict with a policy should we remove it because will members of the public feel that by removing policy ACA we're somehow less committed to uh preventing discrimination on the basis of sex? You know, and I did notice that next to
it over here to the right, we have that AC-R was also included, but I don't see it here. Um, you see where it says eliminate policies, AC-R, ACA, ACAB,
JICK. So, unfortunately, we can't do the AC-R. Um, I would have to look back at what was recommended back last year. Um, and we were still waiting for it to move forward and
possibly we could bring it up ourselves at the next meeting as a a first reading or approval to to eliminate. Um, but here tonight we can't talk about it because we didn't even provide it on as
an attachment for people to see it. >> I I would suggest to you that that much like ACA, ACR is again, you know, it's a redundant policy because your new policy AC specifically requires us to develop grievance procedures to address claims
of discriminatory harassment and discrimination. Um but again much like ACA I the way your existing ACR policy is I I I don't see it as directly conflicting with you know requirements
uh imposed on us under the law that we are complying with through the the other policy changes. So again with ACA and ACR I wouldn't see it as being absolute you know unless you are you know very focused on eliminating all redundancies
at this stage you know I wouldn't see ACA and ACR as being something that you need to immediately remove because I don't see them as as conflicting with existing policies they're very broadly written and short policies
>> okay >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> I don't even see ACR. >> That's why I said we're not going to take up ACR, but if you see it where it says composed elimination in that graph thing or the table that they did, it's included in there. It's just not on the
left hand side when you're looking at the paper. >> I mean, it's not even in the policy set. >> No, it's not even in your policy manual. >> Oh, it's no longer in our policy manual. So, maybe it was removed. >> I think it is, but it's not on glide. Then it can't be because then it was up
R. Hold on a minute. AC-R Yeah. So that one was already That means at some point that was already recommended to remove. >> Okay. >> Um and let me just look at our policy
tracker. I'm going to go back to A. Um, Miss Feliciano. Oh, sorry. I see where I can go to A now. ACR. Let's see here. AC ACR wasn't even in here.
Oh, here it was. Um, subcommittee brought this was back in March 6, 2025. Subcommittee brought back to revert to the original and add contact personnel name will be held to new updates.
12924 read and referred back. New policy add positions to the coordinator. Don't ask me how it got re it was already removed. So, we're just going to leave it. Yeah, it was a recommended um
it was a new recommended policy, but when the regulations changed, it did not move forward. >> We haven't moved it forward since then. So, it stayed as a first read and referral back. >> It we were just waiting. So, um Miss Ma
Oh, >> I was just going to say I think the context there was that some of this stuff had been previously brought forward to a subcommittee meeting and I think that that was lingering from there. I left that purposely from there because I didn't see it online either
and I wasn't sure if it had been voted on. Um, but back when attorney Makavoy first made his recommendations, um, that's where this first came up. >> Okay, perfect. >> But the other stuff hadn't been pushed through or changed, so I was unsure about that.
>> All right. Is there any further discussion? So the motion would be to uh recommend the removal of ACA after hearing all that. You know that there's it's not it's already covered basically in AC. Um
and there's nothing like different. Um so that was the recommendation. Is there um >> I make a motion recommend? >> No, it was already it I think it was already we already made the motion. So,
it's a vote to recommend to remove. >> So, move. >> No, I I just need the votes. Thank you, >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lefave. >> Yes. >> And Miss Sansi Williams?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, now which one's the next policy? >> ACAB. >> Okay. ACAB. All right. Motion is to um remove policy
ACAB, sexual harassment, the current policy. And again, it's already covered under policy AC. Is there a sec? Is there a motion and a second? >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. So motion by Miss Tensley
Williams, seconded by Mr. Michaelelsson. Any discussion? Uh, Attorney Mackoy, if I'm correct, that's it's going to be on the same basis of what we discussed. Correct. >> Well, it is primarily and I will just say on ACAB, the ACAB policy is
essentially kind of a a I think somewhat mur modified version of an MASC sample policy. Uh, the the policy the language in that policy does not comply with current regulator federal regulatory requirements.
um you will be comp in compliance with federal regulatory requirements through your adoption of AC and the district's ad uh adoption of which they've already been using for a number of years the the civil rights grievance procedure and the
title nine grievance procedure um that have been provided as administrative procedures to the district. It's just the ACAB policy it just it just doesn't square with the with the regulatory requirement. So if you were to the district was to receive a complaint and
we are required to produce our policy relative to investigations of sexual harassment if we have this we we certainly don't want to have a policy that conflicts with the procedures but if we were to produce this policy the US Department of Education's Office for
Civil Rights would say that we are out of compliance with regulatory requirements. >> Perfect. All right. So we'll go ahead and take a a vote to remove >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes.
>> Missy Williams. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. Okay. And then our final one would be it's a J. >> J I C K. >> J I C K. Who do we appreciate? All
right. With that being said, motion to remove policy JIC K. >> Do you want me to clarify the basis for this recommendation? >> I'll do it on the discussion part. Okay. To but to take it to take it, you know,
off the table and need a motion to recommend to remove JICK or harassment of students. >> So move. >> Is there a second? I will second that. >> All right. Discussion.
>> I would just I would just submit to the subcommittee that you know certainly the removal of this policy is in no way intended to you know eliminate the protections afforded to students to be free from harassment in the school setting. It's just this this policy this
is a policy I've encountered in other districts as well. It creates confusion for for the district administrators who are implementing these anti-harassment uh policies and procedures simply because the harassment of a student for
reasons other than their membership in a as a in a protected class of individuals is bullying. in the harassment of a student on the basis of their status as a protected class member, race, national origin,
sex, that is discriminatory harassment that's that's specifically addressed under policy AC and your grievance procedures. So having this kind of third policy which generally references harassment but then also kind of
references in you know discriminatory harassment. It just it creates confusion for district administrators as to you know what what policy they need to be following. And this does not this JI uh
CK does not necessarily follow you know any any specific statute or regulation. >> Sorry Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Thanks for that explanation Mr. M. Uh, so I my my question is going to be more
about the employee to student harassment and I I get that the studentto student harassment that's all covered with the bullying discussion but specifically on the employee to student I don't see that under any of the other policies in
>> the bullying the revised bullying policy clarifies the current requirements of Massachusetts law which provide that staff members can be identified as perpetrators of bullying of students. Um so staff members are subject to the bullying policy as well. Um you know if
they were to engage in harassment of a student for reasons other than on the basis other than the students membership in a protected class of individuals uh they would be subject to uh the requirements of the bullying policy and
mass general law chapter 71 section 370. Um if they were to engage in harassment of a student on the basis of their you know membership in a protected class they would be engaging in discriminatory harassment of the student in violation of policy AC which would be subject to
our civil rights grievance procedures. By eliminating this policy you're making it clear that it's going to be one or the other if a staff member is harassing a student. And we want to be clear about which policy we're going to follow. So if a student if the staff member is
again harassing the student for general reasons other than membership in a protected class, we want to make sure that the administrators understand that we are going to investigate that as bullying of the student by the staff member. Um not in some other way as some
type of undefined harassment investigation. And if we uh find that the student if the allegation is that the staff member is harassing the student on the basis of their membership in a protected class, we are going to investigate that in accordance with our
civil rights grievance procedure. Not again via some kind of vague process that may be construed from policy j. >> Okay. No, that that absolutely makes sense. Thank you.
Perfect. Thank you so much. Is seeing no further discussion. Uh we could go ahead with the roll call. >> Yeah. Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes. >> And Miss Tensey Williams? >> Yes.
>> Perfect. All right. So, that's the first agenda item that we had to go through, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. The next item, um, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Attorney Makavoy, um for being present to discuss
um those policies and um thank you for, you know, all your recommendations. >> Well, thank you for the opportunity to be here and uh thank you for the opportunity to work with Holio. You are the district I most enjoy working with. You have the most committed staff and uh
it's an honor to work with you all. I >> think I heard you say that at a school committee meeting in another district. No, I'm just kidding. >> I don't think you did. [laughter] Oh my god. It wasn't as true as I as as it is now. [laughter]
>> And thank you so much for all your time and all that you've done for for our district. We truly appreciate it. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you very. >> So, our next item on the agenda, and I believe we're still going to keep uh Mr.
Miguel and Miss Smith, but we're going to add Miss Gage. Correct. >> It's It's Miss Gage on item number >> finding and sick leave. So, the proposed changes to the employee handbook. >> Correct. >> We we don't need uh Miss Smith and Mr.
Mogel. >> Oh, >> thank you both for joining. >> Thank you so much, Robert. >> Thank you for having us. >> Good night. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. You too. >> Good night.
>> All right, we're going to go ahead and take up item one, child bonding and sick leave. The proposed changes to uh the handbook. >> Make a motion take up proposed changes to the employee handbook.
>> Perfect. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Um, so I I do have a quick question. Um, so what you're presenting here, this is like
everything like that's your whole proposed thing, right? Like that's nothing that's in the book yet. That's that whole package that you're going to add to the book. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay.
So go ahead and Miss Cage, I'm sorry. I'm looking for for the email that I got from Mr. McCulliff because this way I can I need visuals here.
Okay, I'm ready. >> Um, yeah. So the proposed change here is currently our sick policy uh we only allow up to three days to be used for
purposes of caring for a family member. Um and we have started to shift a little bit here. So we'd like to give them the added benefit of the 7 days of child bonding leave. So that would be free of
any use of acred time. So it wouldn't be charged to any acrual bucket. And then in addition to that, if someone is on this approved leave, they would be able to use up to 30 working days of sick time um during that period of approved
leave. So in total, that would be up to um just over 7 weeks for a non-birthing parent. Um, birthing parents tend to be a little bit different because they can use their sick leave for the portion
of time in which their body needs to recover from the birth of the child. Um, typically that's somewhere between 8 and 12 weeks. Um, so they would be eligible to use their sick time and then any portion just covered under that child
bonding, they would have still be able to access their sick time for the remainder. >> Um, go ahead, uh, Mr. Michaelelsson. I'm sorry. It's just I'm trying to look here, look there. Go for it. >> That's a lot. So, thanks for thanks for presenting this
and putting it together and explaining. Uh, my my big question with this is, you know, if if I was for my current job, right, >> I I could have exhausted all my leave options and then taken, you know, the
PFMLA time, too. I could have done all that together, right? What's to what is, right? What's to stop an employee from having banked sick time and exhausting that as opposed to whatever option you provided here?
Right. Because I would assume that like a 12-month employee can bank sick time the same way anybody else can. They can. Um, but currently our sick policy, which this is not proposing to amend, um, is that sick time may be used for personal
illness only with a granting of only three days for purposes of, uh, caring for a family member within the household. Um, so >> it sounds to me like that if if right to to the point that I'm trying to drive
home, right, if I wanted to spend my sick leave on caring for my my newborn, right, which is not an opportunity I would want to rob anyone of. >> Yeah, >> that's what the target would be. >> Yeah. >> Not this policy. So,
just to clarify, you're saying like add more days that they're eligible to use it, >> right? Because I have all this sick time for for something presumably I could I could cash it in at my retirement or I could actually get sick and have to use
it. But I feel like I feel like if I'm having a a baby that's like a once in a lifetime like a retirement like that should be in >> Yeah, I hear you. Um, this was actually recommended to us by our attorney because it's uh been hit their
experience that with implementing these policies, it's hard to predict costs associated with them because um you see usage tend to significantly increase once you implement policies like that.
So, it's hard to project out uh what the cost of the leave would be. So um he had advised us to start with a bucket and see how that plays out in practice and then consider increasing that bucket of
time um depending on what that data tells us. >> Okay. So we could certainly increase it if we wanted to, but we just have to understand that there is a cost associated with that. Um, which can
present some challenges. >> Well, that cost could be incurred at any point in time that that a catastrophic thing happened. At least at this point, you'd actually be able to forecast it up front, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, that satisfies my questioning
for now. believe Superintendent Sto has something to ask. >> Hold on. Mr. Sodto, >> um, there were two things that Mr. Michaelelsson said that I want to I want
Beth to clarify. First, you mentioned that where you work, you could bank your sick time and get paid out. that is not part of our policy here and you know uh
you know across all of our groups right um and the second thing you mentioned PFMLA while your company may have adopted that the city of Holio has not Beth and it's not just a school department Beth right um >> yeah that's
>> the city of Holio would have to adopt that >> law departments, >> you will see that provision in here that if we were to participate in a program like that that this would go away. Um it I don't have any knowledge that were
moving in that direction at this time though. Um it's really just there to protect us if we >> Okay, so here's my because I'm going back and forth by what I received in the email. And then what I'm look So basically what
we're talking right now is just what we're going to add into the employee handbook. So I have a question. What's in our in our in our employee handbook? Is that also based off of our current policies?
[gasps] >> Yeah. GCC CC-e family and medical leave and GDCC or no. >> Um so it's it's in alignment with that policy. I do think um
>> technically it wouldn't be if we're changing this and we're not even discussing those two policies. uh you have to change. So, so no because this is so we did talk to our attorney about that policy and I do think there might be a point in time where we h we
can do better at providing clarity in that policy. Um this is really amending what you can use your sick time for. So that policy does not outline what you may and may not use your acred time for.
Um, and again, we we discussed that with our attorney and it does talk about how you have to exhaust certain buckets of time before you can take an unpaid leave. Um, but that that policy in and
of itself is not intended to supersede or modify the governing rules that are associated with the specific leave type. Um, and again, it doesn't mean that we can't do better and make the language more clear around that, but it is not
none of this would amend that policy or be in conflict to >> Miss Lefay. >> Go ahead, Miss Tensor Williams. Um if there's a serious health condition,
uh the employee must give a 30-day advanced notice for the leave. Uh uh yeah, if it begins if it's foreseeable, such notice should be provided to the human resource resource department. And if the need for the leave is not
foreseeable, then the Hoyote uh public school should be notified as soon as practical under the fact that the circumstances of the situation and generally must comply with the district normal call in procedure for the absence
or tardiness. >> Huh. I'm sorry. Okay. That's that's under the serious health condition for sick leave. >> This is specific to child bonding leave.
>> Okay. So I I can't think of a scenario, but if >> I I can think of, >> you know, premature, maybe a premature birth, you think that, >> you know, you don't have to really submit the paperwork until 3 months from now because
>> your wife uh or your your spouse is due four months from now. um and for whatever reason um the baby comes much sooner that would be uh a scenario where an employee wouldn't have the opportunity
to provide 30 days no notice >> adoption that right Beth >> yeah and adoption is another great example of that where like you know uh there could be circumstances where you just couldn't provide that notice and that would be considered in the policy.
Okay, gotcha. >> I Oh, go ahead, Mr. Michaelelsson. >> So, one other thing that comes up is let's pretend I'm a 12-month employee, right? And I [clears throat] have a baby over the summer, right? I don't know. I
don't know how I know a lot of work goes in over the summer to to making sure the buildings and the everything's ready for the kids at the beginning of the school year, but I also think that different spots of administration, right? You're not going to be you're not going to be dealing with the cost of
finding a replacement for that person, right? You're not going to have a staff shuffle for all those things, right? Maybe for specific duties. It's going to be a totally different situation than if I were a teacher in front of students every day. Right now you got to worry about how the how the kids are going to
get curriculum on a daily basis. I think there's a a totally different dynamic at play with, you know, somebody in staff versus somebody who's dealing with children every day. And I think I think maybe figuring out a distinction here would be useful because
you know if I had my baby over the summer and maybe it comes down to could it be over the summer if possible kind of like could you take your Libro this summer that would be preferred if not you can take x amount of time during the school year and then you can take the rest of it over the summer. Something
like that. I I mean is that too ownorous? I mean we have run into situations where I know the general assumption is that um you know an administrator level position
that there's no cost associated with that. But what we have run into situations where principles um are aware of that and and they they do have to hire uh in some cases depending on how long the leave is, they
have had to hire, you know, additional administrators or double book the position and build it into their spending plan to be able to accommodate that, you know, like uh or stipen other employees to pick up some of the work >> that has happened. Beth, I don't know if
you want to elaborate, but I can tell you from experience >> that um just assuming that like there's no additional cost is not >> is not really accurate with what's happening right now in practice. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would just reiterate that
we use stipens a lot to fill to plug the holes during those gaps. Um, I think it'd be hard to do what you are saying because people's particularly with non-bargaining staff who this policy
really applies to, the jobs are so different that there's not like a common period of time in which it would be ideal to take it. Um, so it'd be difficult to put in those types of parameters. Um
>> yeah, we could have a situation in transportation, for example. One of our transportation staff who is responsible for routing, um they go out like we're going to have to go out and pay a consultant $25,000 to to help do the
routing. Um because they have the expertise to be able to do something like that. That's an that's another example. Um, but Beth's right, like the this this is uh applies mostly to non-bargaining staff. Um, and the the
jobs are just so different across the entire district. >> Yeah. And I I can use like myself as an example, like when I was on my maternity leave, um, we had to we did have to pay some stipens out to cover while I was
out. Additionally, like attorney fees went up a little bit during that time because they needed the expertise and things like that. So, um there are costs that are incurred and and this again was just kind of like our starting point. Um
and certainly there's movement that we can make in either direction um to cover the full leave, but >> there has to be an understanding around the cost piece, I think, which is what we're trying to get at. And then the
additional thing that I do want to name on this that I heard earlier in the meeting is that this is not to say people cannot still use their vacation and personal time on top of this. um they would still have access to that
bucket. This is really intended just to make an exception to the sick policy as it exists for purposes of child bonding. Whereas you could always use your vacation and personal time during a child bonding wave. So that's already in
practice, >> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> So So the way I'm hearing this is you can use 30 days of acred sick leave. You can use whatever vacation time you have. >> We're going to give you seven days.
>> And that's that's where that's where it ends for >> and then all of that is up from zero child bonding days and allowing three sick days, a maximum of three sick days to care for another family.
>> What's a what's a typical vacation for a 12-month employee? What what is >> uh if we have you know if >> two to five weeks is the range. >> Yeah. Two to five weeks. So >> first five years is two um then it goes
>> to three then four >> then four then five in increments of of five years I believe. Y. >> So, you could get anywhere from 9 to 14 weeks off, assuming you had a full vacation complement. Um, and a full sick
a full sick bank. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And assuming you've Yeah. you've been with the district, >> for those approvals. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sto, what what is the acronym uh for
FMLA? I forgot >> family medical leave act. >> Okay. Thanks. Medical medical leave act. Okay. [clears throat] Um
because I haven't re I haven't gotten a response yet. I you know what I need to fully understand what I received in my email um in regards to this specific thing. So, I'm looking at
the attendees. So, I don't know if Mr. McCulla has like a thumbs up if I'm going the right way with it. But if I'm understanding correctly, what Beth is presenting right now is
basically what we're going to do to amend the the handbook as policy subcommittee members. We it what was presented to us in the email is basically for us to consider changes to
policy GCC. Let me look at what I what I wrote here. >> GCC >> GCC CC- slash GDC CC dash E And I I think I think we've largely
addressed the concern the concern of being able to utilize additional leaves in in addition to the other leaves that were provided. I think that generally I feel good about um the amount of time you could get to
bond with a child based on you know all the discussion we've had surrounding this. But Mr. Sto, you go first. >> Yeah. I mean, I read the email and um first of all, the policies that
you're referencing are not on the agenda. >> That's what I want to make sure. >> Second of all, what I understood from the email was uh you know, encouragement to the committee to instead of having 30 days to bump that up to 60 days. Um I
also um >> in the handbook or the policy >> in this handbook which is which includes our our the use of sick time policy like our policy for the like what you could
use sick time. That's what this is right here. So there was a recommend you know an encouragement to go from 30 to 60. Um there was a recommendation to um to join the paid family medical leave. Um and
there was a recommendation to similar to what was done in the teachers contract to um frontload acrruels. Um, and and you know, you have the email in front of you, but those were the the
three big things that were actually, you know, relevant to this to this proposed change to the handbook. Uh Beth alluded or Beth mentioned earlier that the policies that you did mention talk
about um whenever you have to take uh unpaid leave. You have to exhaust all your time after discussing with the attorney. And if if the committee desires, we can actually have the
attorney draft uh you know, like a a detailed legal explanation to it. But Beth mentioned that the attorney said that that policy is not meant to dictate or overrule what you're allowed to use
your sick time on. It's it it it's independent of the uh the you know the sick policy that you have in front of you. Beth, did I word that right? >> Yes, you did. Um, and I would just name there there is further clarification on
that in the handbook as well that was entered last year. Um, and we are not proposing change on that. Um but basically talking about that it's expected that people use acred and
available time where appropriate um when they are on an approved we leave we leave. >> Give me one moment. I'm trying to process everything. Madam Chair, can you mind if I talk?
Is Is there a plan to frontload their sick time at the beginning of the year? Not necessarily. >> That's not currently in the um >> that's not current practice right now and that's not practice that we, you
know, we're proposing right now. Um >> yeah, I and I can just say I don't think it's been as big of an issue particularly with this group. Um the these tend to be roles that are not necessarily studentfacing.
Um so generally when someone is hired on where like we have our teacher facing staff, a lot of them are exposed to a lot more than they are typically exposed to. So that was kind of one of the driving forces in the front-loading of
their sick time. And we we don't see that issue as much with this group. >> Would would you be opposed to front-loading the sick time for a year for child bonding specifically? >> Interesting. Yeah, I hadn't looked at it
in that context, but certainly it's really like the committee decision and I I would be open easier for us to align all acruals. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it seems like it would be pretty
complicated to uh go through and change this but not change anything complimentary to it. Like for example, the front loading of sick days, right? Like to me to me, right? Like if you ended up in a situation where you
weren't pl maybe you do plan to get I don't know whatever you you're going to have a kid at the end of the year but I only have five sick days right now but I could have 10 by the end of the year right why wouldn't I just take all 10 of those and
>> yeah I hear you >> I'm not saying under all circumstances I'm saying under that specific circumstance It makes sense. >> All right. So, what I'm going to do is the following. So, this is what's being
presented to us to take and then obviously it's going to be recommended to go to the full board. This will give me time to really figure out what was sent in that email, breaking it down because policies are discussed in there, but we
never put policy those policies to be discussed in this meeting. Yeah. >> So from here to when that next meeting our next meeting is um I'm gonna like
look at look at it all and then if I >> if we can put it on the agenda to refer the two the the one policy that's a combined policy to the subcommittee because I'm also thinking if we're
updating handbooks right with new language or whatever was was proposed or changed, you know, due to contracts, >> then our policies should also reflect that we should have combined everything
as one. But I know that we're we're we're trying to we're trying to catch up. You know what I'm saying? and and it it's it's going to take a lot of you know but I just also want >> because we keep saying you know according to our policy but obviously
when we do this it's not going to be according to our policy because our policy is going to say something completely different because it's it's still based on what is the date of that policy by the way um this policy
>> gosh I have no idea when it was from but with that being said, um, I want to make sure that, you know, whenever we're bringing something that we're planning on adding even to student handbooks, whatever, you know, that if
there's a policy attached to it that we also bring forth that policy so we can do everything at one time. You know what I'm saying? But so this I'm just going to say for right now, let's take the vote to move it to the full committee. uh the recommended addendum
or amend or addendum to the hand employee handbook because we got to move this along as well. Um and from here to my cut off time of when I can recommend um bringing the policy
so that it can come back to the policy subcommittee >> um and make sure that our policy is going to jive with whatever we're writing into the handbook. >> Do you understand? >> Um Mr. Michaelelsson looks like he's
confused >> about what I'm saying. No, I I totally understand what you're saying. I >> what I don't want to do is I don't want to leave any I I completely understand that the policies in question, right? I
understand that those need some those need a good hard look. I understand that. Mhm. >> In terms of the policy we're talking about, right, the the addition to the handbook that we're talking about right now, >> my my opinion is that
>> we need to >> I think we need to I'd like to make a motion to frontload the sick days in this particular instance and put it in there. And if at the end of the year they have they are not employed by the school district anymore, they'll pay back those six taxes
>> strictly for this >> funding leave provision in the handbook >> only for this just for this explicit situation. >> Hold on. Oh the Easter which which of course is
unforgettable. The president wrote, "Oh civilization will die tonight, never to be brought." >> Yeah. But what if somebody's diagnosed with >> with a medical condition that requires treatment for a certain amount of time that they have to take
>> that's different. This is just for child bonding and really impacts mostly um people that normally that you know normally would be caring for a spouse
um because of a child >> because of the birth or adoption of a child. >> Okay. So >> that's the sick time. Yes. >> Which is what whatever they have
available or >> to award >> the remaining sick days for that or are they by calendar year or are they by fiscal year? >> Fiscal year. And I So I think we could say something like um in addition the
district shall advance the individual time if needed. Um, and then mirror the language after the teacher contract about like if they leave before they acrew it, they have it will be deducted from their final check.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, that is exactly in line with what I'm thinking. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And the the other thing I wanted to reinforce is that the policies you're referencing, Mildrid, the the labor relations attorney looked at that
and and essentially said that, you know, that that's not in contradiction of this proposed language here. So, um I don't think that you know like we could make this change here to the handbook and
based on what we heard from the attorney >> still maintain that policy >> that we already have and not make any changes to that policy. But also, you know, in light of reviewing it, >> Beth mentioned that maybe maybe we
should be a little clearer in that policy that this unpaid leave policy in no way is intended to uh supersede the policy around the use of sick time, the
the allowable use of sick time. Like that would make it a little more clearer than that other policy. But as it stands now, the the attorney uh advised us that you know these two things are independent and don't conflict with each
other. But you know that you know maybe there is an opportunity to clarify that in the in the existing policies that you're referencing >> Beth. Did I capture that right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So the the motion is to >> we're amending >> the recommended >> the recommendation that language. >> Yes. So >> where where is it going to read it? How is it going to read?
>> So under the under the furthermore >> furthermore where am I furthermore? >> Okay. So, um >> yeah, under that paragraph, Beth is going to include some language
uh describing the ability for uh to frontload time just for child bonding uh in the fiscal year. Um and mirror the teachers contract language that that speaks about
>> paying back that time if if you don't you know back >> when you do that could you do it like in red and I don't know if you want to capitalize it just so that >> um she'll do that >> what yeah what was originally brought forward and what is the recommended
change so that when the school committee members see it they could see what you're proposing and then what the committee um asks to amend >> you know what I mean >> yeah she put the language in there and
you can see it Um, for purposes of child bonding leave under this provision, the city may advance up to 10 days of sick leave that the employee is expected to acrew during the remainder of the applicable school year. Any advanced
sick leave shall be deducted from future sick leave acrruels as they are earned. If the employee separates from the employment before earning back all advanced sick leave, the value of any unearned advance leave shall be repaired
repaid to the city through payroll deduction from any amounts owed to the employee at separation to the extent permitted by law or otherwise reimbursed by the employee. >> You read a book and I have no idea where you read that book from. Yeah, I had
>> right in the link of the agenda. Uh, second to last paragraph. >> Oh, I'm going back into the agenda. I'm sorry. I was looking at the one that I >> in. It's in the document with the actual language that I had proposed for the leave. I did a track change Mildred and
I just added a paragraph after after the fourth paragraph. I just went back into the agenda and I'm not seeing that. So >> on the agenda, item number one, child bonding and sick leave, there's a link. I >> click there, right?
>> You click there and uh >> uh second to last paragraph is what was added. >> Furthermore, employees may use up to 30 >> right after that. Maybe you got to refresh, Mildred. >> Maybe. I think I have that >> top left. >> Um if you hit refresh, maybe
>> now I see it. So >> friends, you better refresh away, my friend, because there's a purple section. >> Yeah, I see it now. Okay, [laughter] >> I'm gonna make this is going to be a very long motion. So, it is very explicit. >> Okay.
>> Uh, hang on. Do I don't know that I I don't know that I want it to be 10 days, per se. They're remaining. They're remaining for the school year. I I put the 10 days to be clear that that's the
maximum, but I did put the language uh to acrew during the remainder of the applicable school year. So, it's a maximum of 10 days >> expected to approve. Yeah. >> But but it's only as many as you would
have acrewed by the end of that school year. >> Okay. So my motion is to add the following paragraph for the ability to frontload sick time. For purposes of child bonding leave under this provision, the city may
advance up to 10 sick days leave that the employee is expected to acrue during the remainder of the applicable school year. Any advanced sick leave shall be deducted from future sick leave acrruels as they are earned. If the employee separates from employee before earning
back all advanced sick leave, the value of any unearned advanced leave shall be repaid to the city through payroll deduction from any amounts owed to the employee at separation to the extent permitted by law or otherwise reimbursed by the employee.
>> That's your motion to amend it with that addition additional. Okay. So move. Oh, he Oh, he made the motion. So, um, we're gonna second that.
>> Okay. >> So, roll call. >> Sorry, I was trying to copy and paste all that. All right. Um, Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> MF. >> Yes. >> And Miss Cindy Williams.
Yes. >> Okay. Now on the amended motion on the amended >> what is what would I call this >> on the policy approval >> policy >> employee policy or employee handbook?
>> Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Faves. >> Yes. >> And Miss Kenzie Williams. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. That was a long one. Yeah. >> All right, we're done with that one,
right? Perfecto. Okay, next item. Let's move this along, peeps. My peeps. >> For the next item, um I have Maryanne Courier and Cynthia Carboni here. Thank you, Beth, so much. Sorry. Uh >> you uh were first on the agenda, but
>> All right. >> We appreciate you for speaking. >> Sorry, Beth. Thank you so much for discussion. >> Bye. front. >> Okay, let's welcome um >> Miss Carbone Carboni or is it Carbone? I
I don't want to mess up the name. >> Carboni, but I would answer to either. [laughter] >> Okay. And >> but I'm glad I've been getting that right this whole time. I would I pause to let you >> just I just want to make sure you know I can screw up everybody's name real easy.
All right. So, we're going to go ahead and take up item number three, which is the wellness policy. Um, go for it. >> Yeah. Uh, what you have in front of you is every >> uh every is it two years or three years
since the other school committee has it's every three years the school committee has to uh receive the uh wellness policy. Uh Cynthia is all over this and has worked closely with uh you
know our food service team and worked closely with other individuals to ensure um you know that we you know that that this has been updated appropriately. Uh Cynthia, you want to I'll kick it
over to you and Maryanne? So we were part of a cohort of several districts across the state that worked directly with both DESIE and the department of public health in creating this policy. So we had mentors that worked directly
with us and our school community health advisory council. So we were guided in the development of this policy that does stand as a model policy um for the state. So, because we participate in the
national school lunch and and breakfast um programs, uh we must maintain a policy that's compliant with both federal and state regulations. So, don't shoot the messenger. Um this policy is written very specifically so that we
meet the objectives of both the state and the federal government. Uh, and um that's it in a nutshell really. I'm just uh wondering if you have any questions for me. >> Miss Courier, did you have anything you
wanted to add? >> Just a second. >> I think the only thing that I would add is that um it it it is very much a team approach in developing this policy. um that there are a number of stakeholders that participate. So, it is
um vetted through a team. You know, I'm re I review it. Um again, we need to make sure that it it complies with all of the state and federal guidelines, especially around um the school lunch and breakfast programs. So, there's been a number of eyes on this, especially at the state level, um to ensure that we
are compliant with um all of the expectations. So there is a great deal of time has been spent on this policy to ensure that um we're meeting we're meeting everything that we need to meet. >> I'm talking to myself.
Been a long night. I was just gonna say, Mildred, I think Jensen has his hands on. [laughter] >> Go ahead, Mr. Micha. >> Um, I I think Lubold has some questions specifically about this. Can we suspend the rule? Can we make a motion to suspend the rules and allow her to speak
about it? >> So, I had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that we were going to have whoever has any comments or anything to say it at the beginning. I was not opening it up as a back and forth. Um I know this will be coming back to the
full committee. Um >> okay >> unfortunately no not at this time. >> Which handbook is wellness? Which handbook? >> Yeah. Just wanted to acknowledge that uh Miss Lubold has asked me some questions about food service and nutritional
quality and um you know how we make sure that the meals are nutritional and um I responded to her directly. Essentially, we have uh the regulations uh provide us with a strict set of guidance that
includes the amount of saturated fat you can have in lunches, the amount of calories that you can have in a lunch. Um and every week our food service team runs their menu through a software program that uh analyzes the menus and
make sure that it is in compliance with those guidelines. In addition to that, we have, you know, uh, several Sedexo staff members who monitor quality control. There are, you know, situations sometimes that come up and, um, you know, when [clears throat] they're
brought to our attention, we review on a case-byase basis, if if it was a a violation of staff protocol, um, and appropriate action is taken and training is provided in the in the event that that that that does happen. Um, but I I
just wanted to uh hope acknowledge that. >> Okay, good. So, at least we you got that sent back to her with her >> with her questions. >> Um, >> do you have anything else, Mr. Michaelelsson, to ask? Yeah, I I was the
benefit of having a long discussion with Miss Courier last night about this document and as I'm reviewing it again, I'm even seeing the things I asked you about specifically spelled out. So, it's very nice and I appreciate you taking the time to uh to do that. And thank
you, Miss Scotle, for being here. And uh that's that's all I have. >> Miss Tensley Williams, you're very quiet. Well, I'm listening, you know. >> Oh, okay. Do you have any questions? >> No, I don't. Thank you, sweetheart.
Thank you for asking. >> Well, thank you so much. So, >> in this one, the recommendation is for us to say yes. Great. We're going to bring it back to the full committee. The motion is to accept
>> uh make a motion to accept and approve >> approve the wellness policy like the subcommittee approves it. We're going to go ahead and bring it to the full board now for the full approval. >> Second that. >> All righty. Um
>> Mr. Michaelelsson, >> yes. >> Miss Lefave, >> yes. >> And Miss Ty Williams, >> yes. >> Thank you so much. the both of you also for being so patient. >> Of course. Thank you for your time. >> Our pleasure. Thanks everyone.
>> Good night. >> Thank you everyone. >> Good night. >> Okay. Um, am I still on mute? >> No. Good. So, with that being said, can we take up
Where's my P? I just had >> got rid of the agenda. No, I didn't. >> I make a motion to uh approve >> take package. Yeah, take take as a package approval of meeting minutes from January 27th, 2026.
Uh that'd be March 25th, 2026 and April 8th, 2026 subcommittee policy and governance meeting. >> Okay. So, okay, perfect. Is there Did we lose Did I lose anybody here? >> Oh, no. Mr. Stoodto dropped.
>> Oh, Mr. Stoodto, he went bye-bye. Okay. Um, >> any discussion? >> All those in favor? Oh, I'm sorry. Roll call. [laughter] >> Miss Lefave. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Michaelelsson. >> Yes.
>> Then Miss Lefave. >> Does this go like in alphabetical order or something? >> And Miss Tenzy Williams. >> Okay. >> No, I just um randomly sometimes it makes it easier so that it's not always the same people. >> Okay.
All right. So, we are done. There's nothing on old business. Um, >> so we will I will be reaching out to you all also to um
>> to schedule another meeting as we've got a lot of things on our docket that we have to go through. So, I'll be sending out some, >> you know, an email. Well, in Miss Tensley Williams case, I guess I'll be calling
>> um so that we can our next meeting. >> So, with that being said, is there anything further that anybody had to share? We're good. >> Perfect. >> Good job, Mr. F. >> So, is there a motion to adjourn? >> Second that.
>> No. Mr. Jensen would like to stay on Zoom for a while. >> Okay. See you later. >> No, we can't. And we all have to sit here and look at him. >> [laughter]