Good evening. This is April Chandler calling to order the Legislative Audit and Policy Committee meeting for April 29th, 2025. We will begin with public comment, although it doesn't look like there is anyone signed up for public comment. So, um, seeing as no one has signed up for PO public comment, we'll move on to our first agenda item, um, item 3.01, approval of the March 18th, 2024 draft minutes. Um, may I please have a motion to approve the March meeting minutes? Motion to approve the March 18th, 2025 minutes second.
Thank you. The motion was made by Ms. S Shernoff and seconded by Ms. Donahue. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say Aye. Aye. Aye. Um, seeing none opposed, the motion passes unanimously with all committee members present. Um, with that we will move on to our discussion items. We will begin tonight with item 4.01, office of the Auditor General, the Auditor General's quarterly report. This update aims to enhance the transparency of the Office of the Auditor General's functions, and to provide the committee along with other vested parties with periodic updates on audit management.
Um, Mr. Woods, the floor is yours. Uh, thank you Madam Chair and good afternoon committee members. Uh, today I will go over the office's, uh, quarterly updates. Uh, the purpose of this is to give, uh, LAMP and the community at larger, uh, an update into the audit activities of the internal audit. Here, the Office of Auditor Generals, uh, will cover completed inpro and upcoming engagements. We'll briefly go over the audit calendar. We'll go over a brief, uh, update on the My Concern Hotline since January one through April 25th. Uh, we'll go over our trainings that we've taken place, uh,
in conferences that we attended. Also for the initiatives that we're trying to perform this year, we'll go over what we've done, uh, to work towards those goals. So I won't get into a deep discussion over audit of student placement and policies and procedures, because we did give a brief at a prior meeting, uh, but I just wanted to put it up here because this is one of the completed engagements through January and April. Uh, next slide please. So, we are currently performing four audits. Uh, we are performing the IT third party risk management, uh, the LCPS staff support, advocacy
and resources, LCPS, transportation Management, as well as the Jefferson contracts. I'd like to go over each line item real quick, just to give you a brief update of where we are in each one of those engagements. For the first item, the IT third party risk management. We recently had our exit conference last Thursday with, uh, the stakeholders who were part of those who were audited. Um, and so this Friday we do hope to administer a draft report with our findings to those stakeholders for the staff support
and advocacy resources. Today we had our last, um, field work meeting. Uh, we are currently moving into the drafting of the report. We do have a draft report internally, but we have not had an exit conference. Uh, once we schedule an exit conference, we will provide those auditee with that draft report. So we hope to do that in the next few weeks. Uh, next up we have LCPS Transportation Management. Uh, this one is currently ready to move out of the planning phase. We have a site visit on Friday to, uh,
transportation's per Seville, um, location. That will be our second site visit. Uh, we went to their main location on sick land. And then we'll follow up that up with a visit to, uh, per Seville. That will probably conclude the site visits. And then we will review, um, and get into the testing. So that's are the next steps for that one. For the Jefferson contracts, we are now entering field work. Uh, the planning session is over and we are out here, uh, ramping up our testing of those contracts and contract management. Next slide. Yep. Oh, oh, sorry. Last slide.
So, currently the upcoming engagements include, uh, register registrar's, information management, and data integrity. Uh, the objective of that audit is to evaluate the controls and practices used in registered data collection. Uh, once we issue a draft report for the IT third party, we will begin that audit. And so we will provide the IT third party audit on Friday. And then we'll move on to start the work of the register Information management and data integrity audit. Similar, the school board
and staff communication audit is also coming up that it will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the framework design of communication and in information sharing practices between the Loudoun County School Board and the Loudoun County Public School Administration. Uh, once we issue the draft report to the stakeholders for the, for the staff support and advocacy resources, uh, we plan to start that audit. And so that one I can see is taking place. Uh, second week of May is when we plan to kick that one off.
Uh, security Pass and ID badging audit, uh, I foresee this one being carried over into the next fiscal year. Uh, the purpose of our objective of that audit is to evaluate the design adequacy of staff badging and access security systems. Uh, that one will not start until a later audit is completed, which would either be the Transportation Management audit, uh, Jefferson, or the Jefferson Contract Administration. Um, that's also contingent on if the committee approves that audit to be carried over in the next year's fiscal
year audit plan. Uh, next slide. So there's just a calendar look at, uh, our audits, where they are right now, when they started. Um, and so this is just a, uh, update for you all to take a look. I'll pause right here if you have any questions regarding the calendar or the, um, alright, we'll go to the next slide. So, between January one and April 25th, we have received two, um, concerns. Uh, we, those concerns are both open, uh, now,
and so we are looking into both of those, uh, currently. Uh, Next slide. So in the first quarter of 2025 or calendar year 2025, uh, the Office of Auditor General continues to strengthen its knowledge of the Institute of Internal Auditors, newly updated global internal audit standards, uh, all auditors in the office. Um, the two staff auditors and myself have all taken a 16 hour course, uh, titled Navigating the Global Internal Audit Standards.
These are the new audit standards that we will adopt beginning July one. And so all the auditors have taken that audit or that, uh, training to help us, uh, identify the new standards that we will be implementing. Also, the, I've also intended the, uh, vision University Executive Continuous Learning Cohort. Uh, this, uh, cohort is also another area where we are gaining valuable, um, experience in understanding the new, um, standards specifically related to the Quality Assurance and improvement program. Uh, and so that's, uh, really been helpful.
Uh, coming up in July, we will send an auditor to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, uh, conference, which will be held in Nashville, Tennessee. Um, that will be an additional 20 hours of training. And so that will take place in July or June. So, at the beginning of the year, we provided a annual plan or annual report. And in that report we identified or outlined some areas that were fiscal year 25 initiatives, which included quality assurance and improvement plan, conforming conformance readiness
assessment, which will address gaps in our current standards, and the ones in the new standards will adopt in June, in July. Also, the fiscal year annual Audit report plan, which will be a recurring annual, uh, initiative for the QAIP. Uh, we held our second meeting in March as a team to identify gaps. Um, we also, this school year, we started issuing post audit, uh, surveys to gain feedback from those we audit, uh, for areas of improvement. Uh, right now we've gotten lukewarm responses.
Uh, you know, we get a lot of surveys and, uh, CPS and I think maybe some people are, are tired or surveyed, uh, a little surveyed out. Uh, but we'll continue to administer those surveys and hope to gain, uh, feedback on how we can improve our process and learn business, uh, acumen of in the areas they perform. Lastly, we are currently, uh, performing our risk assessment. We have surveyed school board members. Uh, we have surveyed, uh, principals, and we have surveyed senior staff. We are currently reviewing those surveys, uh, to
compile a audit universe that we will bring forward to you all, uh, for your review and eventually approval of next year's, uh, audit plan. Next slide. Uh, that concludes our quarterly update. Uh, any questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woods. Um, I do find it so interesting your feedback on the surveys. Um, it struck me as a good idea, and then I was like, oh, that makes sense. Um, but I, you know, I do think it is imperative to, to try
to capture some, um, feedback on the audit experience. So I do appreciate the effort that you're making there. Um, are there any questions or comments from the committee? No. Okay. Thank you. Alright, Thank you. Um, with that we'll move on, um, to item 4.02, legislative update. This update aims to inform the community and the committee about updates that have occurred since the end of the legislative session. Um, Mr. John Sutton, uh, coordinator of government relations will be presenting. Uh, Mr. Sutton, the floor is yours. Uh, thank you Madam Chair and members.
Um, so, so I'll do a, there, I mean, there's not much news. Probably won't have any, any news until May 2nd. Uh, but I'll do a, a sort of a quick, uh, refresh and then give you some things that we're kind of looking at if, if, if that's okay. Um, so the governor completed about, uh, completed action about 916 bills sent to him during the 2025 general assembly session. The governor signed about 599 bills amended 159 bills. Um, and he returned the budget, uh, house bill 1600 with 205 amendments.
Uh, bill signed our proposals ranging from keeping school lunches free of artificial dyes, to filling transportation gaps, to tackling absenteeism, uh, and, and supporting students opportunities to take advanced math classes, things of that nature. Uh, the Virginia House of Delegates eventually signed off on about 41 of the governor's proposed changes to the 188, uh, billion dollar state budget and rejected 164, uh, without a floor debate. Uh, so, so basically, issues
that we're looking at at this point are, and this really goes to the heart of the matter of it, is, is the, the governor's proposal to take $300 million from the budget to sort of shore off anticipated short, uh, shore up anticipated shortfalls in what they consider to be waning federal support. A major concern in our mind is that a major casualty of those proposed efforts is the funding, uh, to a fully, um, lifted, uh, longstanding support cap on support for, uh, school staff. So a key priority for public schools across the state is that support cap.
So we'll be, we'll be waiting anxiously to see what's, what is going on there. In terms of, uh, another thing we're, I, I'm kind of keeping an eye on the school construction, although everybody agreed this year that we need to support school construction. Uh, the governor indicated that a proposed $50 million for school construction grants and loans above the current, you know, budget was the solution, which sort of brings the total roughly to about $610 million if it's adopted. This caused a little bit of consternation because it's really, it's really his, his way to avoid, uh,
uh, giving into the longstanding debate in the Commonwealth regarding, uh, counties and localities, pursuing options, uh, individual options to invest in school construction or renovation through local referendums. Um, the governor vetoed a proposal that would've allowed all localities and its residents, uh, by choice, uh, to explore 1% ta uh, sales tax for school construction. So that's, I mean, that was, that was kind of, that was kind of common, but, but still, uh, nonetheless, uh, favored vetoing that as opposed
to giving local, local jurisdictions the option. Um, another note, and I always, I always, we laugh about this, um, so, and I, uh, and other folks laugh about every nugget, every once in a while there's a nugget that comes along and you kind of, it kind of floats in and out during the session and you don't really think about it and it pops up and you're like, where the heck did that come from? Uh, so, um, I, we got a little surprise that slipped by us during the session, um, thing. And these little nuggets are things that don't seemingly affect us, but in the, in, in a way, can, can be kind of,
oh, wait a minute, that affects us. Uh, so the, the governor quietly amended house bill 1601, which, uh, um, delegate, uh, Josh Thompson, uh, came up with, uh, changing how localities handle their improvement process for new, uh, HEU Fs or data centers, uh, high energy use facilities. And originally, the bill required applicants to submit a site assessment before rezoning, which or special use permits, and that I impact, that examined impacts, uh, environmental factors, water resources, agricultural stuff,
parks, historic sites, uh, forests, residential units, and school buildings, our schools and our facilities. So the governor's new language, the now makes the impact assessment optional for localities. I mean, we'll all assume that the localities will do the right thing, and I, and still, still require those, but it, it allows them to decide whether to even require, uh, uh, impact, uh, impact work. So the provision of the bill will really not go into effect unless it's reenacted next session 2026.
But we're gonna watch that one because that, that can, that can affect, uh, that can affect what's being built or, or not being built around, around our school, uh, our schools and our, and our school, uh, buildings. Uh, and, and the greater community as well. So hopefully, uh, after May, uh, second, I can bring something to you of substance, something that'll really make us overjoyed, uh, uh, but, uh, at this point, we're just gonna have to wait till May 2nd. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Um, are there any questions or comments from the committee? Ready? Oh, okay. Thank you very much.
Alright, with that we'll move on to our action item for tonight. Um, 5.01 policy, 2310 committees of the school board. Um, this policy governs the structure, uh, efficiency and effectiveness of committees to support the work of the board and the school division. Um, tonight, uh, Ms. Natalie Allen, our chief of Communications and community engagement will be presenting Ms. Allen, the floor is yours. Thank you. And I'm going to ask for a little help from my friend Wes Allen over to my left as well on this one. But, um, as you all know, there have been multiple red lines
and we've taken, um, multiple amendments to this policy to create what is here. Um, so you'll see many changes. And do you want me to go through them line by line or do you wanna just kind of talk through them? What would you prefer? Why don't we just talk through them? Okay. Yeah, sounds good. Okay. Um, and so like the big changes truly are, um, around the, um, discipline committee and, um, appeals hearings committee. So you'll see that, um, in section seven.
And then we also, um, lemme make sure I'm getting everything right. Um, the joint committee with the Board of Supervisors, there's some language there, there's some new language around select committees. Um, and then we made sure that there was consistent language for each individual, um, advisory council and committee. And so those are all listed out for you there. Um, and then we also talked about school division administrative advisory committees, um, being specially established and named, uh, by the superintendent.
So those were the big changes, and we can just go ahead and talk through them, if that works for you all. Wes, anything that you wanted to add specifically? Thank you, uh, Ms. Allen. I, I think you've covered the, the main items, but I'm happy to do a little bit deeper dive for context if it'd be helpful. So, um, this policy you reviewed as a committee on March 18th, 2025, when this was up for review as an information item. And, um, as Ms. Allen reflected, there's three main proposed changes for your, your review.
The first is the inclusion of a school division administrative advisory committee, which is defined in section A and further clarified in Section E, starting line 3 22 of the most recently redlined version. Um, the second, as Ms. Allen referenced, was changes to the student, um, behavior and accountability committee. Um, and specifically with respect to their student discipline appeal hearings function, particularly when this came before the committee in March, staff incorporated proposed language in response
to the committee's initial input that such function be pulled out and assigned to a discreet student Discipline Appeals hearing committee. And then at the March meeting, and after hearing from Dana Scanlon, the director of the Office of School Administration, and after receiving initial input from the SAC committee, staff proposed an alternative approach whereby SAC will retain its purview over Student Discipline appeal hearings committee, uh, with the SPAC chair and another member of the SAC committee presiding over such hearings and the SAC chair recruiting a school board member
who does not serve on the SPAC committee to serve at such hearings on a rotating basis. Uh, Dana Scanlan and Hearing Officer Bill Daniel are here today to address any questions you have and share out further input from sba, who I understand met yesterday. Um, and then the third, uh, change, um, that we discussed was the inclusion and incorporation of the School Health Advisory Board as an advisory committee in Section D seven. You'll recall policy 2320 came before this committee. It's a separate and discreet policy, um,
2320 School Health Advisory Board. It came before this committee in March. Um, as we have believe discussed, there's no other advisory committee that has a standalone policy. So in order to treat all advisory committees consistently, staff proposed, including that here, the thought being the full school board could vote to rescind or re appeal policy 2320. Um, subsequently since the meeting in March, just two additional changes, um, that staff have proposed, uh, reading this with fresh eyes.
Um, one was in response to public comment and request from this committee to harmonize and ensure consistency among the level of detail and advisory committee descriptions as Ms. Allen reflected. And additionally, um, staff noticed a potential lack of clarity with respect to select committees in section C, uh, specifically with respect to, uh, chairship and membership and staffing for select committees. So there is some new proposed language there, um, which is reflected on the screen here. So at this time, staff is happy
to entertain questions, uh, again, we have Ms. Scanlan and Mr. Daniel here to address any questions pertaining to any proposed changes with respect to spac. And I believe I saw Ms. Shernoff posted some amendments earlier today on board docs for the committee's consideration. Uh, staff is glad to address those as the committee ceases fit. Thanks. Um, thank you to both Ms. Ms. Allen and Mr. Allen. Um, since we have Right, no relation, no relation, um, since Ms. Galen and Mr. Daniel are here, it seems logical to start with any updated reports from the
events that happened last night. Um, so please, um, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. It's nice to be here with you again today. Um, last month when I was here, Ms. Chandler did ask that SBA C have an opportunity to discuss and review the proposed changes, um, as they pertain to the SBA committee and its functions. And to have that opportunity to provide feedback, um, to your committee. They did discuss the proposed changes in March. Um, those changes were summarized in writing
previously provided to you. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about that. Um, as it happens yesterday, SBA C had its regularly scheduled, um, April meeting, and used that opportunity to review and discuss the relevant proposed changes, um, to the policy as they were updated on April 24th. And I was asked by the PAC members to share their feedback with you tonight. Um, specifically, PAC members continue to strongly believe that a standing committee for Student Disciplinary
Appeals hearings, uh, best ensures cons, consistency of decision making, and also best ensures that such hearings are conducted by school board members who are the most experienced and knowledgeable about student disciplinary matters. PEC members, um, continue to believe that for the purpose of providing learning opportunities to other school board members, the current practice of inviting a variety of school board members to serve as substitutes is sufficient.
SPAC members also expressed concern that the recommended changes might overly burden staff that is responsible for scheduling and for training members to participate in such hearings. Um, SPAC members, um, feel very strongly about this issue, and indeed opted to formalize their feedback via a motion that passed unanimously and which recommends that SBA C membership remain as it is currently composed for both the monthly SBA c meetings and for student disciplinary appeal hearings.
I'm happy to answer any questions as best as I can related to their feedback. Thank you so much for that, um, update. That's very helpful. Um, at this time, are there any questions or concerns from the committee? Ms. Donahue? Thank you, chair Chandler. Um, thank you Ms. Scanlon for presenting us with the, uh, with the committee's, uh, concerns, which I do want to, I do want to hear and consider, um, my question. I guess my main question is where I started with this, this is different from
how we do the special permission appeals. And I understand we are talking about student discipline. It is a different area, but people have raised similar concerns regarding the special permission appeals, that the fact that it is a rotating committee or rotating members who determine the special permission appeals could lead to inconsistent potentially unfair outcomes. Um, and I am left struggling with why,
because every member of SPAC has also served on that committee, on the committees that hear the special permission appeals, I believe, and I'm struggling with why they feel that these two categories of processes should be handled differently. So that's an issue that didn't come up in the discussion. Um, and I can't say at all whether they do feel that it should be handled differently. Um, I don't know if they would propose that a standing committee also be used for special permissions.
I really can't speak to that because that was not raised as an issue. Thank you for your candor. Um, I, I'm a little at loose ends. What was that Ms. Shutoff Speak really? I, I, I, it's not the first time I that I've raised that question and that thought. And, um, so I, I am a little disappointed that I still don't have any insight. I mean, that, that was, I thought the point of why we invited SPAC
to share their thoughts about this was because we want to have their input and preferably reach a compromise. Uh, I would find it preferable to, if we are going to make changes that it be through an agreement and be able to come to some compromise. And, um, and maybe this is just, um, I might be saying different comments, uh, in a week because I've only just had the opportunity to, to read, um, SBAs feedback. But, um, I am, I'm a little disappointed.
Um, so I, I'll stop there. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Shernoff. Thank you, chair Chandler. Um, I have a couple of thoughts and, uh, also a question at the end. Um, my first thought, I, I tend, I think Ms. Donahue and I tend to be pretty aligned in thinking of this as a compromise. And I will say that I can speak for myself that as a school board member, the more exposure and experience
and knowledge that we have, I feel like is better for oversight of the division. And I have felt that way consistently across all areas. And I feel that way about discipline appeals, um, when I have been able to sit on them. It is, it illuminates a lot of what goes on in our schools with our processes, with our protocols, how policy rules out, um, and how that impacts the lives of our students and our families and our buildings. And so I have found it to be very beneficial to have that experience and that knowledge. I also wanna play a little bit
of devil's advocate on the consistency side, because we're talking about a committee that stayed the same for two years. That may not always be the case. And in fact, both years I asked to be on SBA C, but the chair is the one who decides. So it could have switched. It didn't, but it could have. And it likely will, Definitely will, because, Yeah, it definitely will, because Dr. Dean's is not running again, so it definitely will switch. So someone new is going to be in there in January anyway.
So my thought is if we rotate on a monthly basis and everybody has that exposure, and we all get trained, which I realize would be a burden, um, on staff, but I, I think it's important that we have that training regardless of whether or not we ever saw a discipline appeal, because we do get emails, we get concerns. Um, I think that that would actually solidify the consistency argument, because then you would always have, hopefully you're gonna have someone who's done it before. And so for me, thinking holistically about how the board works across a larger span of time, not just in the here and now with how the committee is now,
I actually think that this option of one person rotating is, makes for more consistency. Um, maybe others don't see it that way, but that's how I see it. And so I still support that. I also am processing through the feedback as it was made aware to me this afternoon. So I've had a little bit of time to think about what was said last night, and I will go back and listen. And I do hope that when this gets to the full board, obviously we'll have one-on-one chance to be able to talk to each of them and sort of get a feel for, for really where they are, because it, it feels that they're very passionate about how they feel.
And that is important to me to hear out. So that's kind of where I am on this. I, I really haven't moved much. I originally thought rotating two members was gonna be a good option. I have come to the conclusion that that wasn't due to the feedback. And I do feel that this is a good middle ground option. My question, is it going to be a massive burden on staff, or would it be more predictable in a sense to know who's assigned to what month, as would be mentioned in my amendment later? So from a scheduling standpoint, I think it depends on how
the board conceives it as being organized. One thing that's very helpful, um, not just to staff, but just in order to get these hearings scheduled in, um, in accordance with our policy and, uh, legal requirements is to have a date and time at least once every month that is fixed, where we have the room, we know who is on board to serve in the event that there is a hearing often, well,
maybe not often, but with some regularity, those standing times, those appointments, so to so to speak, are canceled because we don't have, um, an appeal that month. But we know that if we get one, we have a time that we've all agreed we have a room, et cetera. Um, if that practice were to continue regardless of who was serving on each committee, then it would not be burdensome. So long as people kept that commitment,
and I don't mean to imply that anybody would not wish to keep the commitment, but you know, when, you know, the last Monday of every month is that whole afternoon is SBA afternoon, you just know when it's once every three or four months, and then it gets canceled, and now you haven't even thought about it for six months. Sometimes those things, um, fall by the wayside from a training perspective. Um, it is what it is. I mean, it's our job to train, it's our job to schedule. So that would not, in my view, um,
be a determining factor in the decision that you have to make. I appreciate that. And I know with special permission, not to harp on the point Ms. Donahue brought up, but we have our months assigned in advance. And so we expect to see those things to be scheduled in those months. And that is helpful as a board member to be able to say, I know I've made this commitment because of this month, so, um, I'm going to stick where I am on this and see where it goes with the full board after further discussion. But in committee, I'm supportive of the changes. And when we get to the amendments, I'll,
I'll discuss that part. Thank you. Thank you. Um, in reflecting on the totality of this, um, process, um, I, I can say I, my perspective has shifted somewhat. Um, when I started out, I felt a little hesitant about making a change in our committee to the way another committee does business. Um, even though it's clearly outlined in policy that we can do that, it's just kind of where I started, right. With a hesitancy about it. Um, and I will say I am a little bit surprised
to have gotten word of this occurrence this afternoon, um, because I, I also felt that we had gotten to a place of compromise, um, based on the conversations that I had had, um, leading up to this time. Um, it, I would propose that as a committee, our committee has two options, right? We send it forward the way we would like to send it forward, um, to the full board for a big debate, um, which sounds like it could be fulsome, um, or we continue to work on it here and collect more feedback.
Um, you know, I, I'm not sure, um, just in terms of, of thinking about it, um, I, Does anybody wanna talk through that piece further? Go ahead. Thank you, chair Chandler. Uh, I was struggling with that also because at whatever point we move on from talking about SAC, I wanted to address the proposed changes to select committees. Part of me has, part of me has the feeling that this,
this doesn't feel like we are done enough with it to send it to the full board. Like, I normally would want to feel more like, yes, this is, this is a product that is done and ready to be, you know, looked at and voted on. But to your point, these are also, I think both of those, both of those categories of changes with regard to SPAC and the select committee are also areas that I think would benefit from, you know,
hearing the input from our fellow board members. And that is much harder to obtain if we continue to work on this within committee. Not impossible, but not impossible, as you say, it's hard to have one-on-one conversations. True. Um, to that point, um, Mr. Allen, would it be okay if I asked you to, to give us some information about what my choice as the chair of the LAMP committee could potentially be in terms of collecting more feedback? Thank you, chair Chandler. Uh, there's a, a couple of ways, uh, you could do that.
Um, you could talk individually amongst your, your colleagues. You could, um, each of you, you wouldn't be able to do it in pairs, uh, at this point until it moves out of committee at the very earliest, uh, in terms of SPAC providing feedback, I, I think you're free to, uh, reach out again, one-on-one with, or colleagues or Yes, one-on-one with those colleagues. I, I feel like you have received two rounds of feedback, um, from the individuals on the SAC committee at this point.
I am at a loss readily for other, um, types of discussion, um, how you could get feedback. I was just gonna say, we have had policies come for information more than once too. So it's not to say that, you know, you couldn't have it on information and not find a resolution and the need to put it back again. So that's not completely unheard of either. And of course, we've had where folks, you know, bring it for information and then it gets sent back to committee. And so, you know, it might be that we just kind of expect that, um, ahead of bringing it to the, the full board.
But I understand the need to have a fruitful conversation as an entire school board And, and truly that may be the easiest path forward. Mm-hmm. But I'm trying to think through, I mean, with the, outside of a closed session, is there any way that we could have a working committee that could include both members, the, the members of both committees of retreat or, yeah, I guess so. Thank you. The, yeah, nothing would preclude as once it moves out of the committee to have a work session, we'd have to notice it
to the extent there's three or more of you, which there would be, um, as, uh, a work session, you could potentially, I don't know how the board meeting agendas look for the balance, uh, of the year, but that you could always make the request to have a work session to kind of do a deeper dive and discuss this and have relevant, um, admin and staff present to answer questions as well. But there's not a mechanism for us to invite the entire committee to come here to LAMP to discuss the policy. Not that I'm aware of. That would make it, you know, somewhat of a,
a full board meeting at that time. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for working through that with me. I just wanted to see if we could come up with any creative solutions. Um, is there any more, uh, conversation at this point I to ask That or just limited to this piece of the conversation since Ms. Scanlan and Mr. Daniel, are you, no. Okay. Thank you so much for providing that very helpful feedback. Um, with that, uh, we can move on to discussing the entirety of the, um, policy. Are there any motions?
Go Ahead. Oh, I miss Donahue. Sorry. Thank, thank you Chair Chandler. Um, sorry, I, uh, wanted to, since Madam Chair Chandler, uh, invited discussions regarding the proposed amendments, um, I wanted to solicit the thoughts from my colleagues regarding the proposed edits to the select committee portion. Um, as everyone here knows, this has recently become relevant. Um, the notion of how a select committee might be formed
and who selects membership and chairship, um, of such a select committee, uh, was, was there was not a lot of detail in this policy previously. So I, I do appreciate the, the effort to kind of flesh that out a little bit. Um, I wonder if, well, I wonder what my colleagues' thoughts are regarding these proposed amendments, if there is an opinion that this is sufficient to address any concerns
about any, if there's anything else that we would want to see. And I, I've been trying to think about this from the lens of having chaired the joint committee on collective bargaining, um, which was, I, I felt at the time could have benefited from a, a little bit additional guidance on the mission, the responsibilities, the extent of authority that that group had, um, Going into that process and reflecting, um, you know, reflecting on that now,
looking back, um, I, I guess my thought is that I would advocate there needs to be something in writing that even if we're going to say the, the chair of the school board has the discretion to appoint a select committee and appoint the membership and determine the scope of the responsibilities and mission of that select committee, it needs, I think it needs to be in writing for the, for the sake of transparency, for the sake of, uh, of having clear guidance for those individuals.
Sure. Ms. When you say it needs to be in writing, what specifically that the scope and the purpose would be outlined by the chair as well as who's appointed? That's my inclination. Yeah. My question too, and I, I would need to go back and listen, although I, I've listened to a lot of those meetings from the select committees, but there was some discrepancy about should, are we voting? Are we not? There were like those moments. And so it's, I do agree with you that maybe that those specific, maybe a little bit of language around that, now
that you say it would be helpful, um, I am fine with the proposed changes here from staff. I think a simple word about the scope and purpose could probably be added in terms of outlining that, outlining expectations before the committee begins, um, and intended outcomes possibly. Um, but I don't remember with the select committee if that was set forth beforehand, or it kind of evolved as part of the process. It felt like it evolved, but maybe it was set forth.
Well, I, I would say as I contemplate what's written in policy here now, um, the part that I'm challenged by is that we con the policy contemplates that the purpose can be fulfilled, um, and the committee can be discharged. But it doesn't seem to me as if we've set up a way to define the purpose Yes, according to how it is currently written. And I don't see how you can decide when something can be discharged if you have not first defined its purpose. And so the, the more I sit with this, the more I feel
that I would like extra time to work with it and to make sure that we're getting it right the first time. Perfect. Um, so, and unless there's any other discussion, I mean, I, I certainly think it's, it's 5 45. We can continue to work on it now, but, um, to be honest, it might be more productive for us to take this outside of committee, continue to work for it, work on it, and come forward at the next meeting with additional plans.
Yeah. Uh, Mr. Enough, Thank you Chair Chandler. I, I tend to agree now having this conversation about purpose of select committees and definitely thinking about, um, the upcoming select committee that we're about to embark on. I think that that would be purposeful. Um, and pun intended, uh, I would like to talk through some of the amendments today. Okay. So that staff has a chance to hear them, although I have discussed them with most of staff today. And, um, you all as well, since it was such a last minute, I apologize, was at a dance competition all weekend. And so I didn't get a, a great chance.
But, um, if it would be permissible in the next five to 10 minutes here to just walk you through those so you have time to marinate on it and think about it and understand my thinking. Um, is that Absolutely. Okay. I, I, I will say as the chair of the LAMP committee, i, I am going to decide to keep this policy, um, in committee so that we can continue to work on it. But I'm very much open to the idea of being able to consider, um, the perspective of the amendments over the course of the, the next few weeks before we move forward. Perfect. I actually think that makes it better.
Um, I went through this kind of with a fine tooth comb and there were just a couple things that I felt needed tightening up. I don't think any of it's earth shattering. Um, one was on line, so I am on the red line version from April 22nd. That was updated on April 24th. Is that correct? Or is it, is that right? Yes. So that's the version I'm working off of for everyone's, um, information. And the first one was just in the talking about the conversation and looking at the feedback. One of the pieces of feedback said, um,
I think this came from SBA was if it's gonna rotate, how often was a question. And so for me, I was just kind of going off the special permission process and thinking like we each get assigned certain months. Um, so that's where that word would be added on line 97. Um, and so it would read, um, the Sback chair will convene two of its members to preside over such student discipline appeal hearings, and the SAC chair will recruit a school board member who does not serve on the SAC to serve at such hearings on a rotated, rotating monthly basis. So it's just adding the word monthly. So that's something for us to consider.
And, you know, maybe Ms. Scanlan, we can talk about logistically if it would be better two months, not every month, um, yeah, quarterly we could leave that open, but it was more just to, to try and find an answer to the question and eliminate that from being vague. So were there any questions about that? Go ahead. I do actually have a question. In terms of that monthly qualifier, are there instances in which there's a trigger and it has to occur in a, in, in a more, um, timely manner? So yes, when we receive an appeal, um, a decision has
to be issued within 30 days. So the hearing needs to be conducted within at least say, 25 or 26 days in order to ensure that the decision is issued within the 30 days. Um, which is why we have, um, now we have one a month scheduled. There could one a month has worked for us. There could be an occasion where we would actually have to schedule one because the appeal comes in right before, um, say three days
before the day that we would typically have the appeal. And we can't squeeze it in in three days. That just doesn't give us enough time to get the information out to the committee and to the families and whatnot. But if we wait until the next month, we've gone beyond the 30 days. Um, so, but, but so far that hasn't occurred. It could absolutely occur, though I could foresee that happening. Also, appeals, um, tend to be feast or famine. So we might have a month when there's three or four or five appeals, um, we might have month or two
or three when there's no appeals. So that is the other thing that, um, we have to anticipate will happen that if you have these rotating committees and everybody picks or is assigned certain months, you could have, um, certain committees that go a year without getting a hearing, just because we don't have any schedule during that month. You're also gonna have situations where we have to, with, with very little warning schedule hearings that aren't on the calendar. Anything further?
Okay. We'll come back to it. Do you wanna move on to the next one? Sure. The next one is more just sort of for clarity. As we looked to align advisory committees with consistency as I read through them. Um, so now I'm on line 3 0 2, and as you look at, uh, CAC and GAC and SAC and leaf, every single one of those talks about giving input to the school board except for M sac. So it was more just adding in that language that they would give that input. Um, one of the sentences reads, M SAC is also dedicated
to building a school system that is culturally and socially competent and positioned to provide fair and equitable learning experiences for all students. Um, I understand that that's their recommendation, but they don't actually build the school system. So it's more of a technicality of language, um, to just say that they would provide input to the school board that advocates for dedicate, you know, to building a school system that is currently socially competent and positioned to provide fair and equitable learning experiences. It's more, like I said, it's more of just aligning it with the other language where each other
committee is giving an input. Um, any questions? And then my last one, um, it was on line 3 29. This has to do with the school division administrative advisory committees. And, um, I realized that we already have some of these committees, um, such as the business partnership and there's been teacher cabinet and teacher advisory committees that have happened that the superintendent would appoint. Um, because this policy is committees of the school board, it felt natural to me that the school board would approve them.
Um, I know that, uh, in speaking with Dr. Spence afternoon, that that gives a little bit of heartburn in terms of a log jam in terms of efficiency and creating responsive committees to an issue should an issue arise. So I would also consider the school board being notified, and that seemed to be a happy medium between him and I this afternoon. Um, but I'm curious what, what you all think as school board members, since these are committees that are established with a purpose, clearly to address something. Do we feel that as a school board we should approve that?
Or do we feel like that that's unnecessary and maybe just be notified or leave it completely as is? Um, I do recognize that they would be listed in a regulation, but again, keeping up with all the different changes that are constantly going on in the division, it, for me, it would be appropriate, I think, for us to at least at the minimum be notified if not have approval. So curious or thoughts on that? More was definitely looking for discussion on that, Which can occur later. I just wanted to put it on your radar. May I ask a question? Thank you. Um, Ms.
Chernoff, sorry to be asking a stupid question. So is, is your amendment to say advisory committees will be established and named as such by the superintendent with approval by the school board? Yes. That's the proposal. Yes. So he's, the, the authority still rests with the superintendent to establish such advisory committees. There's no app appro, they're Right. You said this amendment is approval, but you are saying like you would be open to having it say notice to rather than approval by
Yes. And speaking with Dr. Spence, it felt like if it has to go for through the full school board approval process, which maybe we want it to, I don't know, um, it would, if there's an issue that occurs that he needs a committee for and he's creating that to address it and hear feedback directly quickly, kind of like we do with town halls, right. We're addressing that in the moment. Although this would be called a committee that could be cumbersome in terms of executing that committee in a timely manner that since schools are evolving and living buildings,
and I hear that, um, I also still feel like because it's committees of the school board, we should at the bare minimum be notified if, especially if there is an issue that is timely, that he needs a committee for he or she in the future, who knows? Um, this is also for all superintendents forever. That's great. Um, but Until they modify, Yeah. So I do think that that's something, again, I'm one to want to be in the loop. I would think that transparency and notification are important for a school board. And you know, we did get into a discussion about a committee that he had once formed around nutritional services
because there was an issue with staffing concerns in the nutrition department and it was rapidly happening and evolving. And so that was created and, um, I would wanna know that as a school board member that would potentially have implications to decisions that we make. So that's kind of where I'm coming from with this. I, I think that makes, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I will say I am glad, uh, I don't, I don't know if it needs to be included in here, but I am the board liaison for the Loudoun Education Foundation, which is not mentioned anywhere in here. It is not an advisory committee.
Um, but I am its board liaison. I don't know if we feel that there is a need to address it here in some way. They're A separate 5 0 1 C3, so that's why it's separate. Right. But similarly, right, But similarly, Um, Mr. Refe is the liaison to those school, um, business Partnership Advisory council. Right. So, And I think it is important and useful for the functions, both of those groups and the board that there are liaisons. Mm-hmm. So, And that provision is in the policy, correct?
It doesn't have to be, but it can be is the way I read it. Yes. Well, in, in sort of thinking through, um, how each of these amendments could impact the rest of the policy, I do find myself looking at the definition, since we've never outlined this in policy before, I'm wondering if there would require any changes to be made or if there's some way that we can make it stronger. And I was curious if anyone, um, from staff had any thoughts about that. So related to the school division administrative advisory committee piece mm-hmm. If we're looking at, like, if there were
to be an amendment, um, as Ms. Shernoff is suggesting at line 3 29, then do we need to strengthen the policy under the definitions? Probably specific to number four. Yeah. So, um, I might change the language to, um, a committee created by or appointed by administration to which the school board appoints a school board member liaison versus just a committee of, um, LCPS administration. We actually talked about this in cabinet because obviously to give the same example,
the school business Partnership Advisory Council, there are business partners who sit on that advisory council. It's not just administration who sits on it and of could be interpreted both ways. Um, what, anything else? I Know, I feel like Right? I think so. Just keep on working through. Right, right, Right. Yeah. Um, are there any more comments related to Ms. Hoff's proposed amendments? Do you have anything else you wanna share? I also, um, in speaking with, um, Ms.
Ti regarding the CAC recommendations would either like to, um, seek further feedback from the committee on how they would like to be defined or add a word. Um, so having more time also, um, makes me feel a little bit more comfortable in terms of making sure that we get this right. Um, I know their recommendation is to add the word community at the end of their, uh, of the section that relates to them, to their, their work.
So I, I'll just flag that for, um, an, uh, to do for next time. Um, are there any more items for discussion related to the policy? Alright, seeing no further discussion, uh, is there any new business? No. All seeing no new business, uh, this meeting of the legislative audit and policy committee is adjourned. Thank you and have a nice evening and a safe ride home. Bye bye.