not working. You can record it. >> Yeah, it timed out, but it looks like it's working now. So, >> yeah, there we go. >> Didn't get the me. Well, >> it popped up before it actually started on here that it was. So, I don't know.
>> Would I get a message that it's Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, it is. >> Okay, great. All right. So, I'm going to call us to order at 11:04. This is the policy subcommittee meeting on um May 28th. John says he needs the link.
So, let me just send that to him. >> Tell him to go to the town website. >> He said he missed it. You know how if you don't go to the calendar right before >> Yeah, you just do previous. >> Yeah, you have to try a little harder to find it. Um let me send it to him.
Okay. While we wait for him, um, we do have the minutes from April 30th. We want to jump ahead and approve those. Do I make a motion to approve the minutes from the April 30th policy subcommittee meeting?
>> I will second. Any discussion? >> No. >> Okay. So, >> no. Did you have any changes because >> No, they look good to me. Um, so we'll do a roll call vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. All right. So, those are approved two to zero. John is here. I
just promoted him to panelist. So, we probably should say for the record it helps for the recording that um in attendance we have Kate Chuck Pepper, chair, member Jen Shaner, and superintendent of schools John Robu. >> Thank you, John. You're muted.
>> I gonna give you a little lesson on how to find the old postings after they start. You just press little previous button. >> Okay. >> I was like, where is it? I'm like looking for it. I'm like, ah. >> It is not user. It is not intuitive. >> No. >> No. Well, and I I what I usually do is I pull and I put it into my calendar
invite and then it wasn't there. I was like, "Oh, run." That's all right. I'm here now. So, >> that's all right. We jumped ahead and did some of our later on. >> So, >> it's all right. Um, so the first policy that we have on the agenda for this morning is policy GB, staff conduct. Um
and just a recap um the subcommittee had discussed some MASC revisions earlier in the year and moved those forward to the full school committee and then when the school committee discussed those revisions we decided to table a vote on that policy so that we could have
further discussion in the subcommittee um about the policy. So that's where we are and Jen I think you had >> well I I think I was one did I I forwarded this right? This is Hopkin um John. This is their um staff conduct
um policy that they have approved. Um and it's pretty robust. Um so I like it um because I think it it it's you know we want we expect our students and our teachers um although it's interesting that it does say teachers in here. We
might want to actually change that to staff now that I noticed that. But um you know we want to hold everyone to pretty high standards. Um I think especially these days um so it it's it's pretty robust. You know I don't know if the you know NEA would want to take a
look at this or if you've showed it showed it to them or you know kind of what your thoughts are. >> So um yeah you shared that with me. I I think my initial comment was it's definitely very robust. Uh there's a lot of good things in there. Uh, I guess my my a lot of what was in there is is um
replicated andor live lives in like our staff staff handbook and the things they need to sign off on. So it some of it was duplicative, but I don't necessarily think that that's a bad thing. Um, so I think it's >> the employee handbook would be reflective of our policies, right? So, >> right, but like t typically like you
have a policy that's kind of like the guiding force behind it and then then where where things live. So, um, it's it's it's really up to the committee how they want to go. I I mean, I would support the, you know, um, utilizing, you know, maybe that as a model to recreate our staff. I don't know that
that part's been done, but um, I think I think a lot of things that were in the Hopington one made sense to me. I, you know, I didn't I didn't say anything was glaring, let's put it that way. Um, but again, it's just one of those things where I think the committee needs to decide whether or not we have policies
that are in and of themselves like that lengthy and that robust or do they refer to other things. And I think, you know, it's just a choice. It's as a superintendent, it's sometimes it's easy to have that kind of a policy include everything in it versus saying, okay, I
have to now refer to the handbook and I have to refer to something else. Um, but I guess what I was saying is our current staff policy is like the general one and then everything that was kind of addressed in that Hopington one is was addressed elsewhere too. So again, I
think it's just it's a preference really. Well, the committee's preference how how they want to do a policy like that. So, I mean, I think the the Hopington policy
is extremely comprehensive. Um, my my concern is just about consistency. So, you know, I don't want to end up with a policy that enumerates I mean, this has 21,
you know, different expectations or examples of inappropriate behavior. um you know which always makes me a little wary that you you know fail to include something and that ends up being a challenge further down. It does say,
you know, examples of inappropriate behaviors include but are not limited to the following, >> right? I know. Um, and then just sort of consistency. So, you know, how does this work with, you know, our other, you know, handbooks and policies and
whatnot? Um, but I I guess I would on this one defer to John because John, you're the one who has to carry it out and implement it um in managing our staff. And so,
>> yeah, and I think I think both things are true, right? I think is it a little bit, you know, we're listing all these things. Is there you always run a risk of saying there's something not in there that should be or vice versa, right? But if there's a qualifying sentences, yeah, include but are not limited to,
then you know, it makes a little bit easier to point to, hey, it's right here in the policy. You know, you um, you know, number 16, you interfere with the performance of another employee and it's right there, black and white. It's not up for interpretation. Um, I don't agree that all policies
should be written like that. I think this kind of a policy probably lends itself to having a little bit um bigger level of specificity than a typical policy would for those reasons because I think you know when you get to a situation where um you know if we have a
situation and we read a staff conduct and it's very vague it becomes you know an interpretive thing right so I may interpret it one way the union might interpret it a different way um so a little bit more clarity helps to to negate some of that. Um, so I think I
mean I I would I would I would be okay with kind of adopting um something very similar to Hopkin. Obviously we'd have to make it our own and probably go through the 21 things one more time just to make sure everything makes sense to what we have, but >> when I looked at it before and looking
at it again, it seems seems appropriate. I mean obviously um you know we have to look at the policy that they referenced. Obviously, that's probably not the same policy. We have the GB C gifts policy. Um, but I think everything else makes sense
to me to be honest with you. >> Okay. >> I think it's a matter of us, you know, just actually taking the time to >> We actually do have that policy, John, just so you know. >> Yeah. I just Yeah, I just used that as an example just to make sure I didn't I didn't cross reference it myself. stuff. Um, yeah.
So, I I think I think I think putting forward this policy like this for us is would probably be helpful. Um, I don't I mean, do we run it by the union? I guess we could, but typically I don't know that we do that for other policies. So, I don't know if you want to get in the habit of of that. >> That's probably a good idea.
>> So, um, okay. So, I'll make a motion that we approve uh policy GB staff conduct as submitted. um to this subcommittee by me um for
approval and adoption. >> Does it have does the motion have to have something about like you know utilizing I mean it's obviously we'd have to change from Hopington to Marblehead but is that inherent in the motion? I guess >> it's not because since you said as submitted so we would >> I submitted I didn't I sub maybe I sent
the wrong one because I made changes and put Marblehead in. Did I not send that document to you? Oh, I I haven't I haven't seen that. >> What I've had it says it has Hopington. >> Okay. I mustn't. All right, then. I apologize for that. Um All right. So, I'll withdraw my motion and I'll make a
motion that we adopt policy GB staff conduct as uh submitted to the policy subcommittee with editorial changes to update specific to Marblehead. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Um are we ready to vote?
>> Yep. All right, Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> So, I'm not I'm not sure if this counts as the first reading. Um, I guess it doesn't really matter, but >> I mean, we've done pretty significant
revisions to other policies, you know, and just move them forward as revisions and not done the whole new policy through reading. So, >> okay. >> I would concur. It's a re it's re it's a significant revision, but it's a revision. So, I mean, it's not a brand new policy. So, >> right.
>> Yeah. >> So, we can put it on our next agenda as a discussion item so that it >> I'm going to send I'll send you my copy. You can do with it what you will. The one I updated I think I made I left in one H for Hopkins. So, I'll clean that up and you can use it or not use it, but
I did create I think it's in the same font and everything as ours. So, >> okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> I'll send that to Kate. >> Okay. Excellent. Right. So the next um the next item on the agenda is ECAF
security cameras in schools. And this is an MASC revision that we had discussed at a meeting earlier this year um when John wasn't in attendance. And we had a question about um John, there's some ad language added to
the policy. Um so that a sentence that previously read law enforcement and emergency response officials shall be granted access to video recordings or the security system after giving prior notice to the school superintendent or designate. We changed it to read that
they shall be given access as the situation requires. That's the MASC recommended change. Um, and there was a question about whether that's permissible or or how the process works. >> Uh, yes, it is. And it's already in
practice, we already do that. They have access to if they need to access our camera system. Um, they they can and they do. Uh, you know, when you usually it's like, hey, this situation is developing. You need to, you know, whatever. And they and they can come in look at our our video on the back side,
too. But I believe I don't know if it's not like in every single cruise or anything like that from what I understand. I I'll work with Dennis King about how they how they operationalize that on their side, but they definitely have access and they should. Um, >> this is I'm sorry. This is because I don't see it in the
>> Oh, it's ECAF. I can stick a link to the document in the um chat. >> Thank you. >> If I can find the chat. >> There may not be a chat. I don't think there is. I don't see one because it's a webinar. That's probably
what Oh, >> can you put it in the Q&A section? >> Oh, yeah. You could do it in the uh We don't have that either. Um let me just see here. What is the um >> I think that it's letting me Are you able to see it on my screen? Okay. >> Can you just tap that? I have no problem
with that. I just wondered I I don't know if this came up earlier. Was there something up above about the fact that this is not available to parents or anyone? Is that in there? I guess it's I don't see it. >> I thought it was in there at some point
because that's not true. >> It is not It is not confidential. I just want to make sure. >> I don't see it. Okay. >> It does say the paragraph that starts in pursuit of the subjective.
>> Yeah. um the last sentence, you know, that they may be used in any area where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, obviously, we don't have it pointing towards or near the bathrooms and certain areas, you know, obviously
the locker rooms, things like that. Um I just video recording used for security um shall be the sole property of the school district stored in their original format. Access well sh this was my question. Access to video recordings from security cameras shall be limited to school administrators.
School administrators, law enforcement and emergency officials shall be granted access. That's not true, John. >> No. Access. Access. It's absolutely true. It's it's if there's a situation where a parent needs to see something on the video. We It's not access to the
video camera. We pull the video out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, it says access to video recordings from security camera shall be limited to I don't know. I Whatever. I mean I the bottom line is it like parents have the right to see it. So if that's how it's construed, it's simply
not true. But that's okay. >> Yeah. So operationally it's so what what happens is if there's a situation where a parent wants to see a video like on the from the bus or from something that happened in school like it's it's it's in concert with something that's going
on with a child normally like we don't just like gaze. It's you know like you're watching a YouTube video all day. Um but what we need to do is student privacy. So a lot of times we have to make sure if there's other students in there we have to you know figure out how to bring them out and all that stuff. So that absolutely happens when it needs to
for it's usually around disciplinary stuff. >> So it's a little bit >> I don't know that it's private like I think it's part of public records but okay but like I mean the press can push for I think I think um >> no I think last time I looked at this it
was fall under student privacy stuff. um which >> yeah which supersedes that um the last time we we dealt with this last year about a a similar situation. So I guess we just leave it in there and if it ever came to a question and you wouldn't you know whatever you wouldn't
be able to use this policy to say to a parent I will not show you you know a video of your child because we have a policy that says I don't I have only we have access to it because that is not true >> right actually if you read the first sentence of that paragraph
it it's John's responsibility to make sure we have proper procedures in place for useing disclosure etc. in accordance with capital regulation. So >> that's fine. >> That would cover. >> So you are fine with this, John? >> Yes, I think yeah, that change at the
bottom makes sense and it actually aligns with what we're already doing. So yes, I am. >> So are we ready for me to make a motion? >> That'd be great. >> I'll make a motion to approve the revision to policy ECAF, security cameras and schools. >> I will second that.
Um, would this one be okay with you for a consent agenda, Jen? >> Uh, yeah, I think so. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> I made the motion. Kate second. >> Okay. So, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor.
>> Kate in favor. Motion carries. Two to zero. >> Okay. >> Okay. So then next um next up on the agenda is FF naming new facilities and spaces. I just kind
of wanted to close the loop on that because Jen I think you were >> going to work on a proposed update. I don't know if that happened. Okay. >> All right. >> So and is there an update? There's not an update for that. We just we were just discussing it. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I mean it's up to you if you
want to carry on with that. I just I feel like I just feel like there's like a mishmash with the that policy and whatever that other one we have another one for memorials. >> The memorial I just you know I I it's not a huge deal but you know we we did the naming of um M for Mr. Kulovich
>> um and last year. Um so that was kind of a you know kind of a big one. I believe there was a request earlier this year for the >> Dana right? >> Yeah. for Dana Greg Greg Greg Dana. >> I don't I think that's still out there.
I'm not sure if that was approved. >> Um >> so where it's where it stood was um they came and asked for approval and then where we left it was well we need to know what the rendering looks like, how much it's going to cost, how it's going to get funded. Um and that it was actually just brought back to me
yesterday to see if we can get on the June 11th meeting just to kind of close and loop. They um I said send me a rendering so I could share with the committee. Um they you know the funding for is is um almost all secured. So it's I think it's just closing loop on that. Um
>> is it some kind of lettering or plaque or what? >> Yeah, it's a plaque. It's plaque. It's similar to the um similar to the one we did for Kulovich inside. >> Yeah, >> the one that we put inside very similar to that. Um >> I do think you know this is nitpicking but at some point and you might want to bring Henry into this. We ought to also
make sure we've got some sort of quality control over that if we if that's the desire the school administration that we have some consistency you know with this stuff going forward. So >> they're similar in low time it just probably makes sense to do that. But
that being said I do think that you know with all the free time you'll have next year I'm sure um because you won't have a lot going on um that you as a policy subcommittee who's ever on it may choose to take a look. I think it's I think it it's going to require some research and
see what other schools do and um but I just think it it could end up being that we're being asked to name like every you know classroom, every building and you really are going to you know be and then when do you say no like okay now it's too much or now at some point
>> I think you had mentioned John at one I think down in Swansea or somewhere district you had it was only for a set period of time. Yeah, we had we went through this and it took a while because it was it was the memorial ones and then it was just naming like certain things. So, um they either did
>> I I can look into I'll find a policy, but it was kind of cool because you can only do it within a certain amount of years of one another. So, it wasn't like you had one every single time you had a meeting. It was like, you know, you can only name an auditorium once every five years or whatever. So, it wasn't like this because it was getting really silly
after a while. Um >> the amount of requests. So, but I I agree, Jen. I think the memorial one and the naming new I mean, naming new facilities and spaces is definitely different than memorial. Um, but we need to look at both of them to make sure that it's a little bit more um
streamlined and so we know what exactly, you know, falls under each one because right now is it's very vague in my opinion. Um, >> definitely some work needs to be done on that cuz right now I mean, >> you know, we have the we have the memorial bench that's going in that was approved. I mean that's that should be
getting put in shortly. We have the Gregory Dana plaque. We have the Kulovich one. Uh we had the conversation about the stuff for the gardens, but I don't think anything ever materialized that they're supposed to be doing. >> And I do know in the facility subcommittee last week we were talking
about the village courtyard. I don't know if uh you were briefed on that, John. Um but there were two parents or yeah, two parents who were there and which is great, really exciting stuff to clean that up. But they were talking about from like you know a funding perspective. Do they if we do bricks or
pavers, do we sell, you know, sell naming rights to so it includes all that sort of stuff, >> right? >> You know, because all of a sudden you look around and you get, you know, you get names everywhere and every Brooks brick's got a name and >> I mean what and what happens is like for
instance say like um you know we do a sign just like a regular not like a plaque but a sign somewhere that says some has somebody's name on it and then 20 years down the line the person's gone, the family's kind of gone. the signs falling apart. Do we maintain it? Do we replace it? Do we replace it? It
there's all that stuff. I've I've run into all that stuff and it's we need to we need to yeah tighten that up for sure. >> In fact, I also remember too years years ago at Eve when my kids were there, there was a beloved um secretary who passed away and she had been there for
long. She was wonderful. And the family um as I recall, they they donated a gazebo uh like a wooden gazebo that went on the front kind of the front lawn of Ev. It was lovely. Kids, you know, could play or whatever. But it eventually we, you know, abandoned the school, but it
became der, you know, it became deteriorated. It was wood. It was rotting. And it was like, okay, you know, who who's responsible for maintaining this? So, it sounds great when it goes in. And then, you know, um it was just I mean it we ended up it it was removed during the process of
leaving the school, but anyway, it's just you know, you'd feel bad for the family. You know, they they they donated, they spent the money and stuff. So, >> all right. Well, carry on with that. >> Yes, we will keep working on that. >> Okay. >> Um, so next on the agenda, we have our
tech related policies. And this is sort of driven by there's three new MASC tech policies. And so, you know, specifically, we had asked John to take a look at those and to work with Stephen um around those and how they
work or would work with our existing policies. Um, and then John, I think we had also asked for you to just sort of generally look at the tech policies and, you know, are they current reflective of current practices and whatnot.
>> So, I I ran all those policies by Stephen um as our tech person just to say, are these these make sense to you? Uh, he's the expert in that area. I think um he he had he he he felt that they were um in line with what we have
in place and what needs to be in place. Um there was just there was one sentence in there that just said something about signing off all staff must agree to sign an appropriate digital form. We do that through their um it's a different it was on policy GB E I guess. Um so we do that
separately but that was that was really the only thing that he he felt needed to be changed. felt everything else was in line. I think part of the conversation um is, you know, technology is changing so quickly, like how do we keep up with the policies to make sure and I think
the way the policies are written right now, they seem they seem um appropriate um to what to what we need to have in place like the social networking policy and the uh you know the policies that are on here um inter internet acceptable
use policy for staff and faculty. Um, Ste Stephen seemed to feel that they were all um appropriate to what we need, but I'm I'm certainly open to further discussion. I wasn't sure um all of the concerns or all the things that we're we're going to talk about, but um and and obviously if I need to go back and
pull Stephen back in, we certainly we can certainly do that. He's just he's he's not in today, so I probably would have had him jump on the meeting, but it's out today. >> So, okay. I was just looking at our so these are K policies, right? KDC, community use of digital resources. Yes.
>> And then it's there's some G the one of them is a G because it's staff related, but it's mostly K policies. >> Um, okay. So, these would be No. Yeah, we don't have one. Got it. Right. Okay. Um Um, so >> I'm sorry. I I apolog not to jump in.
So, I had to look at those and I had look at the the other ones the policies that are under the ones. So, I had to look at all those. So, I I jumped on. I apologize, but you seem to think they were all the ones I said were appropriate. >> So I am okay with approving these as the
well second reading. So we already approved GBE or do we need Right. >> We did a first reading of GBE. Um so this would be the second and then these K1s we haven't discussed before. >> So I'm okay with um going forward with
that. I just wanted to bring up um that I had a parent contact me recently with concerns around the student technology, personal technology, and I don't know what policy that falls under, right? Because we have it for staff. Um maybe
it's acceptable use policy, JNDB. Um, but I don't think it is like I just I was trying to find because we have it in the handbook, right, that they can't use um personal devices or whatever, but I don't know what actual policy that falls
under. >> Okay. >> And I'm going to send that parent, you know, back I'm going to refer the parent back to the superintendent. But what the parent was saying is that it that our policies are not, at least in the handbook, because that's what they're privy to, are not keeping up with the
technology that's available. This particular student had a, you know, it's almost like a um a watch that just allows the parent to con to for them to contact the parent or 911. It's not a device that can be they can't talk, they can't text. So, I don't think that our
policies are keeping up with the reality of today's technology and what's available for students. Mhm. >> So I don't think that falls under this, but I am going to refer back to John and say I I think you should look at it. >> Yeah. So I think no, I I appreciate that
clarification. You and I had the initial conversation about that parent situation, but I I wasn't the tying back to the policy is the part I the part I missed because I was looking at these and the ones that were looked had Steve look at were fine. I think um to your point, Jen, I will do a little bit more
digging as far as where in what policy the student piece falls under. Um, but it's definitely in the handbook for sure. I I'll look back at the handbook and see if it refers if it refers to a policy. I don't remember it referring to a policy, but that doesn't it didn't. >> Um, I will, like I said, you know, have that parent get in touch with me. We'll
have that conversation. But, um, >> no, I I think it's good. I think it's good, even if, you know, we don't have a absolute resolution today on on what policy. I think it's good that we need to continue to have a conversation because it is important to have a policy that aligns with the handbook for staff
and for students. um so that when things like this come up, we can we can make sure we're pointing to the right thing for sure. So I I I think that's a great um thought, Jen. So we'll definitely continue to have that conversation. I think um I think uh that needs to align
for sure. >> So I'll look at that again. I I Yeah. >> And John, if you don't find anything, you know, if or what you find doesn't work, you know, I'm happy to do some research, >> you know, what other districts have for policies and >> Yeah. I can do the I can do the same. I
think um you know again I just after that email I I looked at the handbook and I you know I said well this is where it is in the handbook but yeah we have to definitely tie that back to something because I think for pretty much everything we have is tied back to a policy somewhere right. So yeah >> it should
>> y should and if it doesn't then yeah we we should add one in for for certain. So I I know Kate you'll put that on your list too to keep me focused on my >> list. Yeah, put it down >> your ongoing list and >> well I think this parent will keep you focused too John >> that's fine that's
>> and actually to be honest with you I mean not that like this particular parent is does this for a living does in the tech world does um um digital uh policy so might actually be >> a resource not >> specific to public schools but just generally like
>> you know if you write your policy this way there's certain technology that you know that students can have that would fall outside that you just need to like keep up with it. So, >> yeah. And I think I think that's that's valuable. I also think it's valuable to make sure that it's written in such a
way that any of the new we don't have to change every single time a new gadget comes out, right? Because because quite frankly, right now, I mean, we say devices, but you know, we have the meta glasses now that are an issue that's not specific in any policy, but we we've had to deal with that already. And I'm sure
by this time next year, there's going to be other crazy things that come out. So you know we >> well on the flip side there's a push to ban all everything in schools any I mean literally all like computers like it's crazy but it I don't know what's going to happen but I I can understand it you
know I mean I also can understand parents >> you know you you know really wanting to be able to have access to their kids during the day. I get it. Well, yeah, and there's I mean there's that, but there's also, you know, so we had some conversation, you know, one of the one of the school
improvement plans last week was um talking a little bit about uh you know, the screen time in the classrooms and that's definitely got me a focus moving forward with all the I mean, it has been, but it'll be more focused moving forward as to how we get consistent about you know, Chromebook usage and
devices and how we monitor it and all the above. This it's it's a it's a moving target. It's a it's a beast, but it's, you know, and then that's in addition to AI stuff. I mean, AI is parallel conversation, but definitely something that's not going away. So, >> yeah.
>> Yeah. >> So, uh Kate, do you um do I need to do three separate motions or one motion? >> I think you could do one motion, you know, to just move them forward for their next readings. >> So, I'm going to make a motion to approve the second reading of policy
GBE, personal use of technology. The first reading of policy KDC, community use of digital resources, and first reading of policy KDCB, district website and social media. >> Perfect. I will second. Um, all right. We can go to a vote. Jen
>> in favor. >> Kate in favor. The motion carries. Two to zero. Okay. So, we will move those on to the full school committee. >> Yes. You do the third reading. Oh, is that rain? Oh my gosh. >> Yeah. Just
>> What's that noise? just pouring. Yeah, >> that's why I got up cuz I had a window open and >> Oh my god. Because I've got my landscapers out there and they are poor guys stuck in the rain. >> Well, it's it's sunny and raining at the same time. So, that's nice. >> It's moving through at least. But,
>> um Okay. So, you'll do So, I guess it'll be the third reading at school committee for the first for GBE and then you'll have the second, right? >> Right. That's correct. >> All right. So, next on the agenda is KBG, which is the school advisory
council policy. It's a new policy and we had a first reading at our last meeting and we added a line to the policy saying that packs are subject to the Massachusetts open meeting law. and the
May MASC newsletter came out with a revision to include language specifying that the taxs are not subject to the OML. So, I wanted to discuss that and >> Oh, >> yeah. >> I didn't see that. Oh, that's weird. I didn't get an email about the um
>> um I can forward it to you if you'd like. >> I'm on the website news, right? MC bulletin. >> This was April. Must have been April. uh April or early May. >> I can't see. Oh, no. This is a newsletter.
See, hang on. >> Um it's a if you search policy newsletter on the website, it's the first one that pops up. Wonder if they didn't send a email about that. I'm usually pretty good at
see. All right. So it would be Oh, it is May K. All right, let's see. Clean vision. They're not subject. There must have been a there must have been some um there's a very
ruling or something. There's a kind of complicated decision that they link to analyzing it for like several different communities and finding that they're not as long as they sort of operate in the way that
>> these ones did, they are not subject to the open meeting law. >> Um I guess I don't All right. So, I don't know if you can see this, Sean. I just opened it. I uh Well, interestingly, they allow us to
edit, which is interesting. So, where Oh, oh, I'm sorry. At the bottom, it's a weird um paragraph, though, right? It says shall then work independently to create bylaws following guidance put forth by
desi as modified with respect to paragraph B application of open meeting law. Where is paragraph B? >> I think that they are referring to the desi guidance.
>> That's very unclear. It's not it's not very clear language. Um and it actually wouldn't even apply to us because we have an established CPAC. >> So where does it it must be in the desi that says they're not subject to open meeting law
>> under that under that last line there's a link to a decision. >> Yeah I know. And when I when I click on it, it um >> Oh, is it not taking you for me? It takes me to a um
>> No, it eliminates it. Deletes it. >> Oh, >> replace and hold. Oh, replaced and hold formal elections. I don't know. It was It's an edit. All right. Well, whatever it it is what it is. Yeah, it's fine. Um,
if we don't want to add that, we can just we're just I assume we're adopting I didn't see it in the email, but I'm assuming we're going to adopt the MASC version. >> That's yeah, that's what we had discussed at our last meeting, and it's just that we had added that line that they were subject to the open meeting
law. So, >> my thinking would be that we just take that line out. Okay. The MASC version that we discussed. >> Okay. So, this will still be a second reading because we're even making a change. Okay. So, do you want me to make a
motion? >> Yes, please. >> Uh, make a motion that we approve for second reading policy KBG, school advisory councils, as outlined in the MASC recommended policy. >> Okay, I will second that.
>> All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay. So then let's see what's next. >> JC >> JIC. So this is a new
policy MASC is recommending um on harassment of students. Um and this is one of the ones that John John you had looked at. I know. I didn't know if you had any thoughts about it.
>> No, I think uh all the ones you sent me I I gave you my my thoughts on they all seemed um you know the changes or the proposed changes were good. Any you know I made a couple minor changes on some of the ones listed but >> more more uh
language than you know intent. So >> okay >> yeah I think >> it's new to us right? Um, but is it it's unless I'm reading this wrong. Um, it is from 2022. >> It is.
So, it's new to us, I guess. >> Yes. So, it was developed by MASC, I think, in 2022. It's included in the March 2023 policy newsletter. Okay. The recommended new policy. And as best I can tell, we
never >> adopted it. >> Adopted it. >> So this isn't a revision. It's a >> So this is a first reading of a new policy. >> Okay. So um I'll make a motion to approve policy JICK. Harassment of students.
I will second that. All right. Go to a roll call. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay. So that'll go on to the school committee. All right. So the next new policy that's
on for first reading is JLCDC selfadministration and self-care of medications. Um, the only question I had on this, not really a question, but later on in our revisions, there is JLC
CD >> JLCD is administering medicines to students. >> And there's a section in there that references self- administration. >> So, I just I didn't know if that was
sort of redundant. the one that's in the existing policy that we're revising lists B I don't have well I do actually have it um basically lists um diabetes food allergies and asthma or something
>> whereas this new one under self- administer is doesn't necessarily spec I don't think it specifies medications it just kind of gives like the parameters of how students approved to self- administer so I just didn't know if I mean we can leave it alone but it are they they like clashing with each other
there. >> Um, that's a good question cuz I sort of read them not as clashing and more as, you know, the nurse can approve them for those specific
reasons and then this new policy sort of governs how how that is carried out. But >> it just seems weird to me that you'd limit it to like three like different disease because I mean anything could you know tomorrow they could be like okay you know there's a cream to put on for you know ADD or I don't know like
that you would self-administer so I that's playing a good example but whatever you know like there could be some self-administering of other kinds. It just seems weird to limit it to like certain >> I think I think my understanding is just because those are the one like epipens
and you know are the ones that are allowable you know are currently allowable but you you're right Jen I think there's there's likely if there aren't any now there will be and then we have to revise the policy again so I think I think we had mega did we have mega look at these I know we had to look at the other ones yeah I just was I was
just concerned like does does it mean both policies JLCD and JLCDC that the only self-administering medications are for these three things and nothing else. And I just I don't but I don't think that's what JL this new
one says. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me >> So it doesn't specify in the new one, right? >> But >> so should we add a qualifier to the other one just saying like um included but not limited to maybe?
>> That's what I was wondering. You could ask you could ask um >> you could ask the attorneys. Mhm. >> I'm I'm not looking to, you know, run up costs, but uh that wouldn't be a huge I mean that would be something John Fos could do in like 10 minutes
cuz like the new one we're looking to that we're looking to approve, the one that we're on right now, JLCDC says, opens up by saying the school nurse may permit self-care and self- administration of medication by a student provided the following requirements are met. So that seems like it could be open, you know, to
any medication that then follows the protocols below. So, >> right, >> not just those three illnesses. So anyway, I just I'm nitpicking, but
>> um I mean this is a first reading, so if we want to move it forward and kind of but discuss that issue with >> probably a good idea and then we can I can run it back by um Megan too in regard to those three those three items
because it could just it could honestly mean in school those are the only ones that are allowed to do at this point. You even though that other policy does >> if I were a parent I'm just trying to play devil's ad. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. I'm a parent and uh my student has migraines and so the
doctor says and they're in high school or something that when they're she's feeling or he's feeling a migraine and they should take a ibuprofen. I mean I don't know but let you know immediately. If I were a parent, I could come to this and say here's the doctor's note. They're going to carry the bottle of ibuprofen and when if she feels a
headache coming on, she's going to take it. Well, that's not in the other policy, but it could be in this written authorization from the caregiver. Establish a plan for safe storage if necessary. Like all I don't know. >> Yeah, because we Yeah.
>> So, let's do the first reading. We'll run it back by Megan and then um we can adjust it >> just based upon school help, you know, guidance and stuff because I'm sure I know there's I know there's conversations about like kids not being able to carry around certain medications.
>> Right. Right. So anyway, could you could see a parent coming back saying, "But you have a policy that allows it." >> Correct. >> Um, all right. So, I will make a motion to approve the first reading of policy JLCDC, self- administration and self-care of medications. >> I will second that.
All right. We can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> Do you have a another meeting, John? >> At noon. Yes. >> Okay. because um the rest of these we
might be able to just um I don't know we might just Okay, >> I had set it up so that like the next couple were ones that I thought we might want John's input on and then it goes into much more >> okay
>> sort of you know run-of-the-mill >> um so the next policy on the agenda is JIC student discipline um and there is MASC recommended revision that's a pretty substantial
change from our current policy. Um, which when I was looking at the MASC version, um, our policy that's in the policy manual has a note on it from 2018 saying that the policy needed to be rem
um, reviewed. So rather than mark it up, I just brought this MASC version for discussion. >> It's student conduct, right? >> Yes. Or student >> Oh, no. Ours says >> discipline. >> Yep. >> And the MSC version says student
>> discipline. >> Discipline. >> So yeah, they're very different. So, >> yeah. >> And does MC have a student conduct? >> It's a good question.
>> Let's see here. There's the index. Here we go. Yes. JK. Do we have a JK? So, RJK, RJK is student conduct and our JIC is student conduct. So that's
>> that's probably why. >> Okay, here we go. >> Probably. Um, so >> I wonder if RJK No, it said it needed to be reviewed. >> Mhm. >> In 2018. >> Yep. >> So, um, maybe we should approve if John,
you're okay with it. We approve this one and then you go back the the future committee goes back and reooks at our student comments. I don't think that matches theirs either. >> Probably doesn't. Yeah. >> So, >> that makes sense. >> Um, so I just don't know if you've
looked at this, John. Talks about suspension, notice of suspension, emergency removal, inschool suspension, principal's hearing, >> long-term, short-term. I mean, have you reviewed this? >> Yes. >> Are you okay with it? >> Yep. It's in alignment with everything.
Um, I had uh um Lisa Marie look at it as well. >> Okay. So, do you want me to make a motion, Kate, to approve the revision? >> That'd be great. Thank you. >> I'll make a motion to approve the revision of policy JIC student discipline to the MAS MASC recommended
version. >> I will second that. All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay. So, we will bring that one forward to the school committee and then we will
add to the list to go back and look at JK and see how that compares to what MASC has. >> Okay. So, next we have JICFB which is bullying prevention.
Um, and if you look at the, you know, it looks like a ton of changes. A lot of it is actually sort of reorganizing what had been there previously into, you know, I think a more
clear form. Um, and then a lot of a lot of sort of updating language was another big component of the revision. But do this, John? >> Yes. And it align it aligns with our bowing plan um prevention plan and I had
obviously somebody look at that one as well. She kind of oversees a lot of that piece along with the principles. So yeah definitely when I first looked at I said wow it's a lot of chain but it's not it's like like like uh Kate said it's more more adjusting how it's written and
actual content. So >> okay. So >> I was I was fine with the changes. >> I'll make a motion to approve policy JICFB revision bullying prevention. I will second that. Right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor,
>> eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay, so the next one is JKKA and it is a MASC rewrite of this policy on timeout, seclusion, and restraint of students.
Um, and the revisions are in order to comply with new DESIE regulations. Um, and this policy and related procedures are supposed to be in place by sometime in August, I believe. >> Yeah. So, we've been working on these
for a while now. All the seclusion and things. Um, Lisa Marie again has been working with the principles and the maintenance staff to make sure all the areas and whatnot are compliant and uh that we're using the right protocols and policies and all this policy, you know,
kind of outlines protocols we're supposed to use. So, I feel comfortable um that we we've already kind of operationalized most of these anyway, but we're ready to be fully operational for August. >> Okay. >> So, when you say working on these, you
mean you're not working on the policy. You're working on it adhering to the policy. >> Yeah. Yeah. Making making sure that the spaces are what they're supposed to be and and and m and having the conversations with the admin, the staff around what's allowable, what's not. Um because things changed over the last year or so.
>> Okay. And this policy just kind of codifies it. So, >> and updated training and all of that, I'm assuming. >> Correct. Y >> thing there on training. Okay. >> Yeah. And we do all that. We do it um at the beginning of the year on our PD days and and when needed when new staff come
in. So, >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion. Are you ready, Kate? >> I am. Thanks. >> I'll make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JKAA, timeout, seclusion, and restraint of students. >> I will second that. Um we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor.
>> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay. All right. The next one is policy IGA, curriculum development. Um, which MASC their recommendation was
to combine policy and IGD. So there's some language being removed and then what's being added is actually the policy IGD language so that this becomes curriculum development and adoption.
>> Yeah. >> You okay with that? >> Yeah, it made sense to me. It's it's good when MAC kind of notices there's redundancies and things and they kind of look at where they can combine or merge and yeah, it makes sense. Had Julia look
at that. She's fine with it. >> So, um I'll make a motion to approve the adoption of uh is it No, it's a revision, I guess, of policy JA and combine it with policy IG.
>> Okay, I will second that. All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. Okay. Next, um it's some revisions to policy
IGB, Student Services Program. Um so there's some language being deleted. Um and then just sort of some updates to, you know, titles and
sort of descriptions. I think it's really just deleting sort of extraneous language and um I don't know John >> yeah I was I was good >> okay >> with that I think there was some slight edit on that one to me but it was minor
>> did did did you give it to Kate to reflect >> and I incorporated all his edits into the document so they were all minor >> I'll approve the revision of policy IGB student services program. >> Um, I will second.
All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries. Two to zero. >> All right. Um, John, whenever you need to drop off. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Well, I had a couple things before John goes.
>> Okay. Um the next one which is I H I I Hammer I HA parental notification relative to sex sex education >> deleted at the bottom John is the superintendent of schools will distribute a copy of this policy to each principal by September one of each year
and we deleted the policies in the student handbook. I don't know if I agree with that. Like I think parents should know how they can how they're going to be receiving not. Like in other words, why would we take it out of the handbook?
>> I think that was a recommended change, but um >> yeah, we can revisit that. I think um >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> I mean what like do we send so we send notification? >> Yeah, we say we say this is what's this
is what's taking place that you have an option to um >> opt out. >> So if they're dis displeased and yeah, we move forward. Yeah. >> I don't know. I mean, I it's not like a hill I'm going to die on, but I don't know why you wouldn't want it in the handbook.
>> I saw it as just duplicative since we're sending, you know, written notice, but I don't feel strongly about it one way. >> It's fine. It's fine. We can adopt that. Okay. Um so we can hold if John's got to go, let's hold the vote on that. Um I had another question uh to to the Oh,
alternative high school programs. That's the next one which was IHB ph. >> Mhm. >> I had a question on the wording. What? I don't know what I meant by that. >> I don't know what my question was. >> It was probably similar to my my
question, Jen, on that my question on that on that one when I read it was like it almost sounded like I have to like we have to create an alternative high school blah blah blah. That's the way I first read it and I was like, "Yeah, >> seems kind of weird." But then when I kind of read it again and I interpret it differently, it I interpret it more like
we need to make sure we have programming >> appropriate to meet students needs that may need an alternative kind of way to learn, which we do that anyway. So I think it's two different ways to look at it. Like for instance, like if we this policy would uh make a lot of sense if we can do the 18 to 22 year old program,
right? That's like an alternative place or a so, you know, a separate a separate social, emotional, behavioral alternative, you know, environment, which a lot of school districts have. We don't we don't have that. >> It just seems to me that all this is
under, you know, special education and free appropriate. I just whatever. It's fine. But >> all right. So, we can we can vote that separate. Um, if you go down to policy JJ, which is student fundraising activities, this has been a bugaboo for me for a while, and I'm not going to
again die on this hill, but um, wait, what did I say it was? uh JJ E student fundraising. It does say in here um paragraph 1 2 3 4 5 for safety reasons and because the school committee
recognizes committee members receive requests for support for many worthy causes activities such as canning and doorto-d dooror sales are strongly discouraged. We absolutely do that. So it's been a bugaboo with me for years, but I'm just I mean we do not
adhere to this policy. >> Okay. Yeah. And I and I don't know from whence it comes, but I know there was a whole situation years ago where like we're setting not necessarily we here, but we in general we're sending, you know, younger >> boosters do it. I I think they still do
it. The boosters always did it every year. >> Yeah. And I think when you look at, you know, high school, you know, middle school, high school boosters or whatever, saying, "Hey, we're going to do our, you know, we're going to fundra for our cheerleading squad or whatever, whatever." I think that looks vastly different than sending like elementary kids around door to door selling candy
bars, right? I think that was >> say that. >> No, I know. But I I think that's what I think that's where that was born from. I think >> Well, I just, you know, I just throw it out there because we do have our kids go door to door. So, I just I don't like
it. I've never liked it. I I mean, I know it's Marble. I know we're, you know, a safe community, but I just I've never liked it. So, I'll leave it at that. I'm fine. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm not a honestly I'm not a huge fan of it either. I I really am not. But I think, you know, um I mean, we can revisit it for sure.
>> Yeah. I mean, we can approve it. It's fine. I just think I think you we can approve the policy changes because there I just you might want to look into, you know, are you actually how do you want to adhere to it? >> Um I had one other two more JLCD. Uh no, I did that. Uh J uh JLCA,
>> it references physical exams of students. So, it's first of all referencing it like school doctor. I'm like, "Okay, do we have a school physician?" I mean, I know we have sort of a local pediatrician. >> Yeah, that's that's what they call a school. So, we have we have to um have a school physician that um oversees us
having um you know, medication orders. >> So, this policy, which is not the part that's being updated, in paragraph 1, two, three, four, JLCA says, "A school physician will make a prompt examination of all children referred to him or her by the school nurse." Uh really? >> Yeah. >> Do we do that?
>> Yes. Yep. Well, I was supposed to. Yeah. So, what happens is and how this operationalizes is generally in the special education realm when for instance um like school personnel can't um diagnose ADHD, right? So, you might say, well, you need to go to your
pediatrician and have them do the screening and stuff. And that would be something where we would send them and then there's a there's a rate that they would charge us like it was something middle like $45 or $55 for the visit. and then they would do their thing. That's that's where that kind of lives.
Um, >> it doesn't say that though. >> Yeah, but that's Yeah, I just I know it was it's very similar in previous uh I think that's just from MAS. >> I just want to make sure we're adhering to our policy, right? Like so in other words, you know, Johnny shows up and
he's got an ear ache and a sore throat. Is the school nur like I don't know. I I guess it's if if the school nurse were to refer the child to the school physician, they'd have to examine him. But I guess functionally most the time the nurse would just call the parent and say not refer to the school physician
tell them to go to their own pediatrician. >> Yeah. >> Their own doctor or whatever. >> Yeah. It just it's it's one of those things. I think it's a Massachusetts thing where we have to we have to have a school some school physician that's tied to the schools that we you know we pay a phenomenal fee for them to be able to write medication orders and do mainly
ADHD screenings. But it's also good when like knock on wood like when the pandemic was around they they were school physicians were really instrumental in working with the nurses and CDC and stuff. >> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Um the only last one I'm going to mention just to you Kate and to you John before I leave is
there's been a little scuttlebutt in the community recently around the IMDb the flag policy or the flag and banner policy. So I just want to make sure you didn't want to make any changes that that's just going to stay as it is because then I've been
hearing some things around town about that. So, I just want to make sure that's going to stay in place. I haven't You haven't come forward with any requests. Is that correct, John? >> Uh, no. There was there was some conversation about um uh that we didn't have the Jewish American Heritage Month
um banner as one of the listed ones. >> Okay. >> Um that kind of came up in one discussion. Um the only other thing that was unresolved was back I don't know January or whatever when I had met with the students and they wanted to uh do the uh the two hands that came together
to Black Lives Matter. Um that was the only band of it. That was the only you know band that came up. >> Um >> and I think the only thing for me would be >> um those those two items. I mean I haven't heard anything no no one else has said anything. Um, I just kind of
let everything be for I mean with the budget and everything else I was like I'm not even having this discussion right now. Um, we told the students, you know, just fight because you know, um, but the Jewish >> thing you might want you might want to consider, again, I'm stepping off, is that like if you were going to come
forward, say with the Jewish Heritage Month or whatever, or the or the um, hand black lives matter. um you might want to limit it because I don't think this policy does it to like you know once a year or so you know like you know maybe it's the August meeting or I don't know something or September like
>> so that this isn't you know kind of coming out throughout the year. So >> yeah we we had talked about that when we were part of when we were developing the policy to put that constraint on there we decided not to for I can't remember we had so many conversations on that policy but yeah no those are the only two those are the only two things that
kind of bubbled up this this year and like I said it was and you'll decide if you want to go for because that's the pro that is the policy that you >> Yeah. So, uh you know, we'll bring it forward uh you know um either one of those two will bring forward to the committee when it just was doing a crazy bunch of stuff. I'm like I I don't need this
>> really. >> Yeah. Like no, let's figure out tears and I was trying to figure out who was going to cut and more pressing at the moment. >> Okay. >> Um and I think that's it and then just Well, we have a bunch more we need to go through. So,
>> yeah. If if honestly if anything else pops up or I you know we need to have further conversations just let me know. I got to run back over the high school so >> Oh really? >> Everything all right? >> Yeah. This is know they're doing the athletic signing stuff today so I want to
>> I like to see good stuff. So run back over. So >> all right. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Appreciate it. Thanks Jen. Thanks for everything. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Have fun. >> Thank you. Have a good day. Bye. >> All right. Where are we? Right. >> Um, so I think we need to go back
>> to IHA. I think that's where we >> sort of left off. >> Um, parental notification relative to sex. Okay. So, I'll just make a motion to approve the Can we do this? I guess we got to do them one at a time. >> I think so.
>> Uh, approve the um updates to policy IH AMA parental notification relative to sex education. >> I will second. Um, we can go to a vote. Ben >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero.
>> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy IHBH alternative school programs. >> I will second and we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero.
>> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JB uh equal educational opportunities. Okay. I will second that. Any discussion on that one? >> No. >> All right. >> I look through it.
>> All right. So, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Okay. In favor? Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JFAB, educational opportunities for military children.
>> Um, I will second. Any discussion on that one? Nope. >> All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JFABF,
education opportunities for children in foster care. >> I will second that. Any discussion on that one? >> No. >> All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. I will make a motion to approve
the revisions to policy JFBB school choice. >> I will second. Any discussion? >> Um, no. The only thing is, was that at the last meeting? >> We did the hearing at the last meeting. Yes. >> Okay. And that was approved. I didn't go back and watch the meeting. So,
>> no, we voted not to offer it, >> not choose not to participate. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just The reason I ask is it did come up at the event, the not the event, the information session I was at yesterday. >> Okay. We were asked like why don't you bring in you know tuition for students etc. So um it just occurred to me I'm
like I I assume you had the hearing. So >> yes we did. >> Okay. >> All right. So we can go to a vote on that one. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JH student absence
ab absence and excuses. Yeah. >> Um I will second. Did you have any discussion on that one? >> I don't have any discussion on that. this has been a bit of a you know I mean how it operationalized particularly at the high school there's still some kind of
you know um angst you know I think in the parent community so I just you know I never liked it I didn't think I vote I think I voted against it I can't remember but um >> um I just think it's I don't I don't like the way it's operationalized in the high school but I'll leave it at that
might be something you might want to >> talk it's on my list of things to >> oh to think about look at >> for next year. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I know it's a tough one. Um but I just wonder it might take some research in some other um >> Yeah. I think we can maybe look at how some other districts handle it to
>> and correct me if I'm wrong. I thought I saw something from John that we got some sort of or it may have been in the middle school or the high school that we've we have done a good job in reducing absenteeism. >> Yeah, I think it was district as a whole um
more than 5% improvement. I guess you can say the policy some respects the policyy's working. So >> yeah. >> No, but anyway. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> So we can go to vote on that one. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero.
>> Uh where are we? I'm going to make a motion to approve the revisions to policy uh JHD. >> Mhm. >> Exclusions and exemptions from school attendance. >> I will second that. Um any discussion on that one? >> Uh nope. Okay, we can go to a vote. Jen
>> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JIC student publications. >> I will second that. Um, any discussion? >> No.
>> All right, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Okay. In favor? Motion carries two to zero. I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JFA, prohibition of hazing. >> I will second that. Any discussion on
that one? >> No. >> Okay, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JH searches and interrogation. >> I will second.
>> Interrogations. >> Yep. Second. Any discussion on that one? No. >> Okay. We can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JJ co-curricular and
extracurricular activities. >> I will second. Um any discussion? >> No. >> All right. We can go to vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JJ student
fundraising activities. Um, I will second. Did you have any else on that? Okay. >> No, just that, you know, comment I made before, but >> Yep. Um, >> okay. So, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero.
>> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JJB uh intercolastic athletics. >> I will second that. Any discussion on that one? >> No. >> All right. Um, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries. two to zero.
>> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy JL, student welfare. >> I will second. Any discussion on that one? >> No. >> All right, we'll go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero.
>> I will make a motion to approve revisions to policy JLC, student health services and requirements. >> I will second. Any discussion? >> No. We can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to
zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the provisions to policy JLCA, physical examinations of students. >> I will second. >> Um, no. >> No further discussion. >> Discussion. No.
>> Okay. Um, go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. I will make a motion to approve uh the revisions to policy JLCB, immunization of students. >> I will second. Any discussion?
>> No. >> We'll go to a vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revision of policy JLCC communicable diseases. >> I will second that. Any discussion?
>> No. >> Right. We can vote. Jen >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to revise policy JLCD, administering medicines to students. >> I will second that. Um, any further
discussion on that one? >> Okay. Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy EEA
bus driver examination and training. >> I will second. Any discussion? >> No. >> Can vote? Jen >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero. >> I will make a motion to approve the revisions to policy ECAB, access to
buildings and grounds. >> I will second. Any discussion? >> Um, no. Did John was okay with this, right? Or did we? >> He was. Yeah. That one to him. >> Yeah. Okay. Um Nope. All set. >> Okay. So, we can go to a vote. Jen >> in favor.
>> Eight in favor. Motion carries. Two to zero. >> Okay. >> Um >> Did you Did we get through everything or did >> we got through everything? We did the whole >> I thought so. I just Well, including the latest May. >> Yep. This included the May one.
>> I didn't see that. Okay. Um, so we are up to date with all of this. >> Um, that's great. I do think that, um, yeah, you might want to definitely have the technology stuff just, you know, keep an eye on. >> I think it's worth kind of taking a more a closer look at it and keeping an eye
on it as things develop. >> For sure. >> We didn't talk about consent agenda. Are you okay with sort of the more minor >> all the revisions? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> I won't be there. So, >> right. >> Um, whoever is there, um, can vote that.
Yep. >> You can do it that way. Okay. >> Great. All right. Awesome. Good job. >> Thank you. >> Down to the wire. Um, okay. I will make a motion to adjurnn. >> I will second. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, we can vote on that. Jen
>> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries two to zero and we are adjourned at 127. >> 17. Excellent. Thank you. And I will get the minutes to you because Josh probably Joel will get them to me and then I'll just pass on if you want to work with him or not in the future. That's up to
you. But I'll >> Yeah, if you can send me contact information that'd be great. >> Awesome. All right. Thank you. It's a match.