Um, thank you everyone for taking the time to uh have come to this special meeting. Um, our first item of business is to actually I don't have the agenda sitting in front of me strangely enough. Um,
let me see if I can open that up. But it's to approve Cammy. Can you tell us what we're approving the agenda? Okay. So, we need to approve the agenda. I'll make a motion. >> I make a motion to approve the agenda.
>> I'll second, Jill. >> Okay. And uh we have a first and second. The motion carries. Next item of business is >> Wait, we don't have to vote. >> Oh, yes. Let's vote, guys. I'm I'm
sorry. Sorry, I'm trying to find the agenda on my email, so I'm distracted. All those in favor say I. >> Those opposed say nay. >> The motion carries. So, the next item of business is to um approve the election
guidelines for the independent school district board of education election April 7th, 2026. I'll move to approve those guidelines. I'll second that car. >> All those in favor.
>> Wait, can we have discussion? >> Oh, we can have discussion. Yeah. >> Um, I just wanted to point out that on the very first change where it took and the district for one year, um, that my understanding is is they do have to be a resident of the district, but
there's no time requirement. That is correct. >> And why is that? I don't understand why they don't have to be a resident for a year if that is what is in state statute. >> As when I >> How long How long has it been in state statute?
>> I don't know the answer to that. >> I feel like we've abided by that for years now. >> Yeah. And so you must be a registered voter. It does address it. must be a registered voter living in the school district is how that is pulled in,
>> right? It's just that there's no time limit. I mean, you could literally move into the district and run for school board like the next day. I just I feel like that's a little problematic and just curious why that is the way it is.
>> It could also be, you know, deemed unfair. Um, and I don't know if we're going to speak to this publicly. I don't know if we want to. Um, but it it could in some way send a message that, you know, all of a sudden we're doing this because we're staging candidates or
something. And I don't I don't know how people want to go with that, but that's some of the thoughts that could >> come into play. >> So, to be clear, we are making that public because this is a public meeting. But what I would say to you is that this change is based on state statute. It's
not based on anything that the district is requesting. >> I want to I want to make sure We're clear. We're aligning with state statute. This is technically like not something that has changed. We did not abide by state
statute for years. And so that's where my concern is. >> We always abide by state statute. Um, and that is that is a precedent that the district has set. But state statute changes on the regular. And so I can't
tell you when this might have changed but >> but you are saying this is changed. It's not something that we are abiding by finally but this is a change per state statute. >> What I am saying is that legal has looked at this and they are saying this
is a recommended change according to state statute. I I'd be interested to see how we're going to publicize that because again, I'm not I I feel like if I were hearing this for the first time in the community, I would have questions and I just need to be very clear if we need to
do more research and find out when this change happened. I think it would be very important that we have that information prepared. I know that we can make mistakes where we we do that. We're human. But if this is something where we missed, we need to be very clear about about that and that this isn't something
that we are finally changing or that we are now recognizing that we haven't been abiding fully by state statute. I think that would be really >> this will if we want to continue this we would then seek legal guidance as to why these changes were made and we'd
probably have to do that in closed session if you want the if you're wanting that specific question and we can add that to our closed when legal is there >> because that's what I heard you say vice president mandate correct >> sure yeah I think that would be prudent
for sure is this something that we need to decide on like right now is it is it a time sensitive matter. >> Yes, it is. I I would just offer that I'm very concerned about this particular phrase and so I probably am going to have to
vote against the um can I ask please what so we just approved this so what happened within the last week and a half that we need to do it again was there something missed can we just get some clarification of why we're looking at this again right
with these changes. >> So, there were a couple of things that needed to be updated and this was one that wasn't included in the last approval >> and so it was just an oops items. >> We just missed it. It was just an oops, we missed it.
>> Legal. Yes, as we worked with legal. Thank you. >> So, we I mean I would just say there's only three changes there. Um, the second one certainly clarifies it. Um, the third one looks like a oops that we just the calculation was incorrect, but the
first one is just very concerning to me for content. And so that's why I wanted to bring that up. >> So if we don't approve that this morning, what happens if we don't do we have to approve the document in its entirety this morning to get it put out
correctly to the public? I mean >> yes that is my understanding >> if this is a state statute we have to approve it anyway and we can get can we get clarification afterwards on how it came into being and
we could publicize that if need be. >> So what I'm hearing is that the question is correct me Mr. Vice President Main is that why wasn't included before and it is not now or should it have been?
>> I'm open to either either of those questions. Honestly, I think it'll get us the resolution. I think it intertwines with Wendy's uh question too. I'm just I I need some clarity of peace of mind as how we figured out this error and then when was it changed? Error. Error might not be the correct
term. I I apologize, but when did we recognize we needed to make this correction and then when was that change per statute actually made? How long have we been not abiding by the statute? Because hearing Jill say what she just said, you know, brings other questions.
It's like, okay, so what how much discussion do we really need to have here if we don't really have a choice to approve this or not? I mean, I guess we could say no and be out of compliance with the state statute, which is not ideal. Oh my gosh, is that patch? Oh. Hi
Blake. That's not Patrick Mahomes. That's the other guy. Good morning. >> Badly worked. >> Okay. Anyway, so sorry. So yeah, don't want to make things too long or complicated, but I I I do have pause on
on the first one for sure. >> Is is that council in the room with you, Dr. Grant? No. Okay. Do we know that that statute number that we could refer to? Sorry. >> Oh, you're on mute. >> There we go. Yeah, I do not have the
state statute number, but this is also in line with MSDA. Jamie, is there anything? >> So, I'm trying to get my screen up. So, MSBA along with I think Missouri ethics they have sent
some information as well there are several guidelines for person qualifications. So that is what I have sent legal when I started working through the election
>> and this is the document they signed. Um, I would support Denise in that I'm not ready to approve this either. Um, is it possible for us to get that information and to know what statute it is and to see what Cammy has sent and then perhaps even Well, it's 8:00 so we
can't do Friday early. Um, maybe a Friday afternoon um to get it done just so we've got the 24 hours to post for sunshine law and do it again quickly as long as we can meet a quorum. >> Sure. I'm open to that.
>> Um could I ask that we ask the additional question that um does the statute set minimum requirement and we can have additional requirement or does the statute state that we cannot ask for anything more than what they're saying
because sometimes they set a minimum and we can still say you have to be a resident for a year. >> So So, what I'm hearing you say is you would like to add that the that uh they have to be a resident of the district
for one year. You want to keep that? >> I would like to keep that personally. I may not be in the majority, but that's my personal feeling. >> I would like to see some some uh commitment to some degree um in our city
uh for some time. I can't say that I support a year necessarily. While that is something that I had to abide by when I ran and all of us did too. Um that doesn't necessarily speak to, you know, the quality of the candidate. It just means we do have precedents that we've set and we've abided by for many years
now and it's I believe has served us well. I also don't want to prevent stellar candidates from joining the board because they haven't lived here for a year. So I'm open to learning what options we do have with Tenise. I can't say that I want to see a year though.
>> I move that we table this agenda item to a next scheduled um board of education special meeting to be determined at a time that is convenient to four or more of us.
>> To be clear, I I'd be happy to second before I do. I just need to clarify. Well, you have to second it before we >> Well, it would have to be second before discussion. Sorry. >> Yeah. So, I >> I do feel like um
>> Well, I think we need to either second or >> or if there's no second then we can't discuss it. >> I will second. >> Thank you. >> May I ask my question? >> Okay. So, now discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. When you said in your motion when you said next scheduled and I just wanted to be clear, did we
already have an agreement? >> No, I mean the next session board meeting like we would have to schedule it at a time convenient to four or more of us. >> So we already have a meeting scheduled for Monday morning. >> Okay. Then that would also be acceptable.
>> Monday Monday morning is scheduled but it is currently an open No, it is a closed session. So we would have to make arrangements to set a time for open session um so that we could do that and then
have a very clear end time so that we could go into our closed session. Our closed session is slated um for a very specific time because we have um we are doing a personnel hearing and so there
are lots of parties that will be a part of that process. >> Okay. Well, perhaps we could do 7 am and then be done by 7:30 for the close session portion. >> Um, so what I would I would want to kind of give you guys a little bit of background. I I recognize that the
district is not um necessarily saying this, but I feel like I'm going to say this. So, we had our election guidelines that the district had said we wanted to do. We sent them to legal. uh we were inadvertently sent the wrong
copy of that document. And so that wrong copy that was sent to us by legal was the copy that was in our minutes and that is what we approved. Once Cammy did investigation, she realized that they were not what they were supposed to say
because of that specific line in um you needed to have your petition signed because um or the day if you wanted to be in that drawing on the first day. And so she went back to legal and then they realized the mistake and then they have
been saying to us um it's important that we do not have these guidelines online. So they have been removed. So any candidates that want to um to run for school board on December or start their process on December 9th um they do not
have the guidelines currently. Um and so that is why we are having this meeting. legal has said you need to get this meeting done as soon as possible and so that's what we're trying to do here. Legal is the one that came back to us taking out the district part of that.
We did not do that >> and I understand that and I appreciate that and I think it um this gives us an opportunity to see the documents that Cammy has now referred to and thank you Cammy for catching that. I'm glad that you were so diligent and um realized that there was a mistake there. So thank
you. Um I think 4 days is not make or break. They have been posted previously. I think folks who are already considering are considering and those two items um are not going to make or break any candidates plans at this point. Um
especially if we you know it um they can make plans to collect all of the signatures on December 9th. And then also um the we're striking something. we're not adding something for the district um or the suggested changes to struct so that
doesn't change people who are already considering and under the old rules. So I think 4 days is okay for us to would there be a compromise if we approve the document without the one statement and then we come back on Friday if necessary to bring back the document with the
statement. what Jill was asking earlier. We didn't answer it though. I don't have the answer to that. I don't know. We might be legal to answer that. >> In the interest of transparency, I I feel that it would be confusing to the public to have to approve this document
three times. I would rather Well, yeah, I would rather only do it twice just because it looks like we're changing things right up until the um the beginning of filing. So I think just optics it would make sense to only do it twice. We have to do it twice. Ideally
it would have only been once but right I think it makes sense to only do it twice versus three times or more. >> I would concur with Wendy on that. Um I will make the comment that it sounds like if I'm understanding Dr. Grant correctly that we actually need to have
the close session portion before the open session because she mentioned that we will need to speak with the attorneys about this. So it may work out to do what we have scheduled for the 7:30 closed personnel, add the agenda item of
closed on this and then after that have open session to have the final vote. Um the only issue with that is with this short notice um we are leaving out some of our board members who work during the school day um and do
not have flexible hours and are unable to do that, unable to attend. Um, ideally we would make plans to be able to include them as well. I don't envision it being a long update. Is it possible to do a 7 to 710 close session,
710 to 7:20 open session and then go back to our closed? >> I mean, we are already in unprecedented times like this is not normal. So, why not is my thing. it would serve me, and I don't mean to sound selfish, but I'm
outside of a meeting, like an annual meeting right now for this that was scheduled for months. And so I this is a priority and I've explained that to them. They understand that they don't have to be that courteous and my job doesn't either. Um, so I want to definitely do my part and be present,
but if there could be some consideration to the timing of our meeting, that would be fantastic. >> Yeah. and early. I mean, I know um and Denise and I have another commitment with the city at 10. So, ideally, we would be done.
>> I'm fine with I'm fine with seven. That's you know, do a closed session for 10 minutes and then open. I'm fine with that. >> Yeah, I can't imagine that it's a long update and once we get reassurance from ad council, yeah, it'll move pretty quickly.
>> Any more discussion? Okay. So, we are voting on the amendment to >> to table this agenda item. >> Agenda item. >> We are we're not voting to table an agenda item. We're we're tableabling the meeting, right?
>> Well, that's the only item on the agenda with the board of education guidelines. >> Okay. >> So, just that item. >> Okay. So, all those in favor of tableabling this agenda item say I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> Those opposed say nay. The motion carries. Um, seeing no other business, uh, this meeting is adjourned, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I guess we need to move.
>> Wendy, we need a second. >> Second, Jill. Roll call. >> Cammy, turn on your microphone. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. >> We're confirming your computers. >> Motion that. >> Wendy.
>> And then Joe second. >> Harry. >> Yes. >> Anthony J. Mundane. Yes, >> Jill Ezar. >> Yes. >> Rover. >> Yes. >> Wendy.
>> Yes. Okay. They are. Thank you everyone.