All right, we are live streaming, so I will call us to order um at 12:30 p.m. This is the June 22nd meeting of the school committee. First on our agenda is public comment. So if there is anyone in attendance who would like to offer
public comment, um please raise your hand. All right, I don't see any hands raised. So um we will move on in the agenda. The first um item under under our communication and discussion items um is
an amendment to the superintendent's contract. Um, so I'd like to give a little context here and then we can open it up to deliberation for the committee. Um, as I'm sure everyone knows, John is finishing up the first year of a three-year contract. And the contract
set his salary for the first year um, and then left the year salaries for years two and three to be determined. Um, and so that's why we're meeting and discussing this today. The contract requires the committee to set his compensation on or before June
30th. Um, and it provides that the year 2 salary cannot be lower than the year 1 salary. I would also just sort of point everyone to the fact that we approved a line item budget for FY27 that did
include a 3% increase um, in the salary. It would bring that number to 221450. That's a 3% increase, which is consistent with the increases our educators and our other administrators are receiving for FY27.
Um, but obviously this is something we need to deliberate and then make a decision on amending the contract. So, I'll open it up to the committee um for people's thoughts and we can go from there. >> I think for me, we already approved the budget with the 3%. This feels a little
bit just like an administrative like documenting what was already approved previously. Um, and so it all makes sense to me. I would just say that since I'm the new person, I did go back and I I saw on the
website you did because it does say that based on his evaluation. So I did look over his evaluation or the progress towards his goals um and um also what the um the um the the teacher contract said that they were getting for this
year. So I you know I see that as in line. >> Any thoughts from Al or Henry? >> I mean I I support I'm sorry I I support the 3% increase. >> Yeah. I think I think you know going back to to John's evaluation and and the
approved budget. I think it's I agree with Melissa. It's just administrative. >> I would agree. >> Can I weigh in? >> Of course. >> Just uh so I'd be remiss in just I just want to share this. I mean I I think uh given the climate, given what we just
went through with the budget, given that you know we talked about 3% it's in there. I'm not looking to um you know necessarily change that number. But just for the committee's edification, I I just thought it'd be important to share that um you know, I looked at just
I always have this conversation when when talking about my contract obviously. So, I looked at 17 Northshore communities just just to share that the 2526 um salary average for for superintendent was 246,000
and next year with a you know purported 3% that would bring it to 253,000 as an average of the 17 of 17 Northshore districts. So, just so folks are aware, that's 32,000 less than um the average.
My my S would be 32,000 less than the average in this area. Um so, obviously, if we were in a different situation, I'd be having a different conversation, I guess. Um but I just I think it's important for folks to understand that, you know, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow
and someone has to be hired, you're looking at that that range, not not where I am. So, just be very cognizant of that as we as we move forward. And, you know, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I'm not planning on getting hit by a bus either, but I just I just like to make sure folks understand like
kind of what the market value is. And even given that um I'm finishing up my 10th year as superintendent and now have my PhD, I you know, it's it's um I'm way below market value. Just so folks understand that. That's all I'll say.
>> Thank you. I do think it brings up a good point about and I you know in the camp uh leading up to my election this year you know I talked about a lot a lot about you know um you know understanding you know the data driven decision-m you
know um and I think you know salary is a part of datadriven decision-m so I think that in the f you know thinking about going forward it would be good to kind of take that data that John talked about so that you know it helps in our decision-m but I do agree that you know
if that's you know that was what was included in the budget I I I can't you know see changing that at this point from my perspective but I do appreciate John's point and I believe him. So >> I think next year as part of the budget
process we should look at all of that kind of at the same time so we're not >> forced into a decision after the fact. I I completely agree >> for sure. And I think just just for just for also this committee um you know when my current contract was getting
negotiated, I shared the same comps with the people that were charged with doing my my um my salary and I don't know um that they were those numbers were already looked at. So just um I don't want to I'm not calling anyone out. I just don't think that they were shared with the full committee. So um you know,
hence where we landed. But again, it is what it is and I'm happy with the, you know, I'm happy with where we are. I'm happy with the support I've gotten from the committee. I'm happy in Marblehead. I, you know, we got a great team. So, we're going to push forward and and we'll have further conversations down the line.
>> Sounds good. Um, so do we have a motion to amend the superintendent contract to set the year 2 salary at 221,450? >> I'll make that All right, we have a motion from Melissa.
>> I'll second. >> Seconded by Henry. Any further discussion from the committee? All right, we're going to go to a roll call vote. Al >> in favor >> and Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor.
>> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. The motion carries five to zero. >> Thank you. So, John, I'll work with legal to get that >> amendment done. >> I have the I have the addendum all done. We we do it for everybody anyway. So,
it's just a matter of um at some point I just have you sign it and date it and then I sign it and date it and then I'm done. I did it for everybody else already. So, >> that sounds good. >> Yep. And John, >> we can save a couple dollars. >> There we go. >> Congratulations on your PhD. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. It
was a long time coming for sure. Feel feel pretty good about that. I was able actually this weekend. So good. I >> have a little bit more work to do. I just minor revisions. There's always something, but finish that up in the next week or so and stick a fork in it. >> Excellent.
>> Congrats. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so moving on in the agenda, we have sort of our last batch of policy updates. So once we get these done, we'll be sort of done with this for um so first we have several policies
that are before us for a third reading. They're new policies. I thought I would just sort of go through I can provide a quick summary. If folks want to discuss we can otherwise we can just move to a motion and a vote. Um so the first one is policy GBE which is personnel use of
technology. Um, this is a new policy that MASC recommends and it sets forth expectations for how, sorry, my dog, for how staff will use digital resources, districtisssued accounts, and then some guidelines for digital communications with students and parents and guardians.
Um, John has been involved in reviewing this and the other technology policies along with Stephen Quietch just to sort of make sure that they mesh with how we operate. Um, John, did you want to add anything about that? >> No, I think um I think this is good.
It's it's updated. It's uh you know, according to Steve, it aligns with what what we have in place, too. And um this is always good because we always talk about this staff and not just, you know, we try to do it proactively versus reactively. So, folks are aware of this. So,
>> pretty happy with the way the policy looks at this point. >> Great. Any comments or discussion from the committee on this one? Okay. So, can I get a motion um to approve policy GB, personnel use of
technology? >> So, moved. >> Motion by Henry. >> I'll second. >> Seconded by Melissa. Any further discussion? All right, we will go to a roll call vote. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie
>> in favor. Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right. Next we have policy KBG, parent advisory councils. Um yet another MASC policy. Um state law
requires parent advisory councils for special education um and English language populations. Um, and so this is an MASC recommendation for a new policy setting forth our responsibilities with regard to both of those. Um, pretty
straightforward policy. Any discussion on this one? John, did you have anything you wanted to say on this one? >> No, this covers everything. I think there was some I think that most of the language stuff was around the E stuff that we had to change. So, I think yeah,
it look good. I had Julia look at that as well. So I feel comfy. >> Excellent. All right. Do we have a motion to approve policy KBG parent advisory councils? >> So moved. >> Motion by Henry. >> Seconded. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Ann Marie.
We'll go to a roll call. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Eight in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right. All right. So then we have policy JIC harassment of students.
Another MASC recommendation. Um I assume people had a chance to take a look at it, but it defines and prohibits harassment and then sort of sets out some parameters for the district to investigate and discipline if harassment occurs.
So um John, anything to add on this one? >> Uh no, it's just the Title N stuff changed a little bit over the last year or so. So that's that's captured in here. And then the um the last asterisk there on hair texture, hair type was
added a couple years ago. So I'm glad to see that that's in there as well. Um but everything else is in alignment. The only thing I had a question of is do we need to change where it says name and district to actual Marblehead? >> Yeah, we do need to plug Marblehead in. That's just the MSC template.
>> Yeah, I just noticed that. >> Yeah, thank you for catching >> other than that. Yeah, no, it's good. And then um yeah that align and that aligns with our uh bullying and harassment >> protocol and stuff too. >> Excellent. All right. Any comment or discussion from the committee on this
one? All right. Do we have a motion to approve policy JIC harassment of students? >> All right. Motion by Henry. >> Second. >> Second by Ann Marie.
Any further discussion? Okay, we will go to a roll call vote. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero.
All right. We have policy JLCDC, selfadministration and self-care of medications. Um John and I did a fair amount with this and a few of the other health related policies. um with our lead nurse.
And this one um establishes parameters for students to carry and administer medications beyond those that are already permitted. So students, I think it's by state law, but they can carry EpiPens, inhalers, and insulin related supplies. They don't need, you know, the
approval of au student school nurse to do that. So this allows you know other medications you know if you go through this process that the students can carry them. Anything to add on that one John? >> No I think um this I think this is one
of the ones that there may there may still be some other stuff coming down from the regulatory um side of things but I think Megan was just right now this makes sense and this it's it's in the right alignment. But I think there may be something coming down. I think I
remember her saying something. There's something else percolating, but it hasn't come through yet. So, I mean, we'll adjust it if and when we need to. But right now, this sets some good parameters around how and when because kids aren't just really allowed to just like carry Tylenol and take whenever they want to. >> Yeah.
>> Um, so this is one of those things that helps us out. >> Perfect. All right. Any comments or discussion from the committee? Okay. Okay. So, do we have a motion to approve policy JLCDC, self-administration and self-care of
medications? >> So, moved. >> Motion by Henry. >> Second. >> Seconded by Melissa. Any further discussion? >> All right, we'll go to a roll call. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie
>> in favor. Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right. So, then we have policy KDC, community use of digital resources.
Um, this is another one that John and I worked with Stephen on. Um, and it addresses sort of public use of district Wi-Fi, you know, appropriate use of use of digital resources provided by the schools. Anything you wanted to add on this one,
John? No, I think it's Yeah, it's mostly just like if someone comes in and jumps on our Wi-Fi. Um there's always some risk, you know, to to that. But, you know, um I dealt with this a few years ago in my last district, and it's, you know, the blocking the public from using
our Wi-Fi really becomes more of an issue than it needs to be. So, we just need to What I'll do is I'll continue to work with Stephen around what firewalls and stuff we have to kind of uh help to protect us. I feel comfortable with like incoming stuff. It's just, you know, what they access, what's on there.
That's kind of been the issue. Same thing with students. So, we'll continue to have those conversations, but I feel I feel good about um our ability to kind of detect stuff that's happening. So, >> Okay, great. Any comments or discussion from the committee on this one?
Okay. Do we have a motion to approve policy KDC, community use of digital resources? >> So, moved. Motion by Henry. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Ian Marie. Any further discussion? Right, we'll go
to a roll call vote. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> And then the last new policy is KDCB
district website and social media. And this one sets forth best practices um for operating the district's website, any district official social media accounts and it particularly focuses on what happens around comments commenting
on those features? Um anything to add on this one, John? >> Yeah, I think um you know there's been some conversation with the principles about like, oh, do we use Facebook or or whatever? Um I know Mary Maxwell's using Facebook at at Brown School. she felt comfortable doing that, but she set the
parameters where you can't, from what I understand, you can't land all comments on there, which is what I would continue to encourage other principles um to do. So, again, I feel pretty comfortable with this. Um Stephen sits in on our on our um our admin team meetings with the
principles, so he hears firsthand about what the what their challenges are and he tries to troubleshoot them. So, um you know, our school website, you know, he he just up, you know, updated that this year. There's still some tweaking that needs to be done, but that's just, you know, performative stuff. But yeah,
I think this looks good. >> All right. Um, any comments or discussion from the committee on this one? >> Okay. So, do we have a motion to approve policy KDCB, district website and social media? >> So moved.
>> Motion by Henry. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Al. All right. Any further discussion? We'll go to a roll call. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa
>> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay. So then moving on to the next set of policies. These are all updates to existing policies um that the policy subcommittee voted to bring forward to
the full committee for approval. And these ones are a little more substantive, which is why we're doing them as discussion items as opposed to consent agendas. Um, so the first one is IGA curriculum development. And if you look at it, they look like
really substantive changes, but it's actually combining policy with our existing policy IGD. So the new language you see in IGA is literally a cut and paste from IGD which is all of these I believe are MASC
recommended revisions. So >> John >> um yeah no I think that's good and just for Amy's um edification too does this kind of stuff once in a while they just kind of either combine or get rid of ones which I'm glad that they do sort of have seven billion policies so uh this
is one of the ones where it's made sense to just kind of smash them together. um you know to to make sure we're doing the development and the adoption properly. So just that's all I wanted to share. But yeah, it looks good. I I think we had Julia look at this too. >> Yeah,
>> I did on my end anyway. >> Perfect. All right. Any comments or discussion from the committee on this one? All right. So, do we have a motion um to approve the revision of policy curriculum development?
Motion by Henry. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Ann Marie. Any further discussion? Go to a roll call vote. Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor.
>> Melissa >> in favor. >> All right. Motion carries five to zero. All right. So the next one is policy JIC student discipline and the existing student discipline policy in our handbook has a note on it
from 2018 saying that it needs to be reviewed and updated. Um so what the policy subcommittee is suggesting we do is to replace the existing JIC with the MASC version of JIC. It's pretty significantly different um from what we
have right now. Um, and John was part of those discussions. I don't know if you want to add anything. >> Yeah, I mean I I went through these with uh um with Lisa Marie, too, because she ends up like making sure that even the notice of suspensions and stuff are all
good. And so I met with the principles and her um just to kind of go through this. I mean, it's all aligns with what we do. Um anyway, so it's good. I I love this the fact that they updated this one. It just is cleaner. It's a little bit long, but it outlines everything
really well. So, I actually appreciated this this revision to be honest with you. Yeah, I feel good about that. >> Thank you. Any discussion from the committee? >> Right. Do we have a motion to approve the updates to policy JIC student
discipline? >> So, moved. >> Motion by Henry. >> Second. >> Seconded by Melissa. Any further discussion? >> Yeah. Can I just mention one one other thing? the the MGL references down the bottom are important. I meant to mention
this earlier. So the alignment with 37H inch and a half and three/arters is really important because um for principles to kind of make sure they're taking the right steps for the right disciplinary actions. Um that was the other reason this is really clear because those three things are are are
vastly different for each each one. So um this is good. It spells it right out. So I just want to make mention of that too. >> Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? We will go to a roll call vote then. Al >> in favor.
>> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero. All right. Next is JCFB bullying prevention. Um, and this I know
when you look at the redline version, it looks like a really significant um, update to the policy. It's actually a lot of reorganization more than anything else. Um, and then the our version of the policy used outdated
terminology and language. So, it's a lot of updates around around that. And so, and this was one I know that Ann Marie, no, that Lisa Marie, excuse me, um, had really wanted the committee to look at and revise. So, I don't know if you wanted to add anything on that.
>> Yeah, it's it's just really the the langu There's a lot of old language in there um that the state has changed. So, it was good that we updated it and like you just mentioned, I had Lisa look through it and she she gave her blessing. Actually, she was sharing pretty much the same revisions, but it
also aligns with our bullying prevention plan and uh everything that we've worked with and principles on making sure they're following right protocol. So, this is this is beautiful because it outlines it very clearly, black and white. >> Excellent. >> Thank you for that work.
>> Any further discussion from the committee on this one? >> I just wanted to say because I I felt very confident because I I when I started reviewing it, I I'm like language is a little different. I I just worked with this policy in my previous
work and um then I I went on Desessie and I found all of the updates and I appreciate that there was so much work to make sure that it's consistent with what the most um up-to-date guidance is. So I do appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Is that what was driving um Lisa Marie's
interest in updating this? It just was old. >> Um it's both. I mean, we we get a lot of information from Desi that says you need to do X, Y, and Z. And um I don't know if you if you recall at the beginning of the year, we had um you know, that Desi came in to review a lot of our you know,
our our stuff or you did a program review last year and you know, they're always looking at that, looking at bullying, looking at harassing, looking at our reporting mechanisms and all the data. So, um, she had already kind of really updated our own bullying, um, handbook and stuff and it didn't align
with the the policy. So, it was kind of driven that way in an MS, you know, I redone it. So, it was actually a really nice trajectory. It would have been nicer if it was done earlier so we could, you know, but but it helped her not have to re reinvent
the wheel for the bullying handbook, but it worked out well. Yeah, I was a driving it backer really. Any further discussion on this one? >> All right. So, do we have a motion to
approve um the revisions to policy JICFB bullying prevention? >> So moved. >> Motion by Henry >> and seconded. >> Seconded by Ann Marie. Any discussion before we go to a vote? All right. Um Al
>> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right, we're almost there. JLCDC
administering medicines to students. Um just a lot of revisions that center around the nurses having a medicine administration plan and then record keeping requirements
related to that. Um, John, did you want to add anything on this one? >> Yeah, again, um, you know, uh, our head nurse has been really instrumental making sure that this language all looks good and it dovtales with the other one. Um,
and yeah, there was something. So, this is so this is self-caring of the medication. Yeah, this a little bit different than the other um than the other one we talked about earlier, right? >> Yes. This is sort of the medicine that is
administered at in the nurse's office. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. So, this Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. This align this dubtales with our, you know, our school physician too to make sure that they're, you know, we have the right orders and etc, etc. that there's this alignment there. So, I've been working with um Megan about that as
well. So, this is this has her blessing. So, it has my blessing. >> All right. Any comments or discussion from the committee on this one? All right. So, do we have a motion to approve the updates to policy JLCD
administering medicines to students? >> So, moved. >> Motion by Henry. Have a second. >> Seconded by Melissa. >> Any discussion before we vote. Right. We'll go to a roll call vote. Al,
>> can you say your vote again? Al. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. In favor. >> Thank you. Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right. Um that brings us to
policy KI visitors to the schools. And this is a proposed reddraft by MASC. Um the existing policy is really narrowly focused on classroom observations. And so this is a broader policy to address the range of visitors who access our
school buildings for a variety of reasons. John, anything you want to add on? >> Yeah, so um I think when we talked about this in the subcommittee, I wasn't loving this first paragraph because um realistically the school committee encouraging parents and guests to visit
the classroom reserve and learn about instructional programs taking place in our schools. That is absolutely 100% um in regard to special education students being recommended for special education placement. That's where that language comes from. I I honestly don't
think that it belongs in this in in the policy this way. >> Um because and and it's in Yeah, I just I I don't know. I don't I don't I wasn't there for the first part of the conversation, but I I was there
for part of the conversation. And um that that that language seems to be pulled from from special education language that's really specific to when parents can come in and visit and observe in a classroom. There's a form for that. There's a reason for that. It has to be very um specific to why
they're coming and sitting in the classroom. I I think that this gives parents cart blanch to come in and that's not I wouldn't support that. So that would be my two cents on that piece. >> Okay. Okay. So, your recommendation would be that we strike that first >> Yes. >> paragraph.
>> Yes. Because visitors to school or really visitors to school, all the all the the red line stuff is is perfect. It's exactly what we need to do. That paragraph again is specific. I'm sure that it's in a different policy around um it's it's definitely under special
education around when parents are being you know >> Yeah. >> Yeah. for special education placement. That would be my recommendation is to strike that first paragraph. >> Okay. What do committee members think on that? >> Can I just So just to clar clarify this
was the first paragraph is not wasn't part of the MASC. I believe that that first paragraph was part of our prior version of this policy and that when we discussed the MASC revisions,
you know, there was a a decision to keep that first paragraph in the policy. Um but it is not I can double check right now but I believe that it is not part of what MASC was recommending um for revisions and I do not feel strongly
that it needs to remain in the policy especially given the superintendent's view on the subject but I'd be curious what other committee members think. Uh yeah, I'm looking at I I'm seeing at the bottom referencing policy IHBA,
observation of special education programs, which John I think is that what you're referring to. >> Yeah, I believe so. I have to pull up the policy, but yeah, I think that's >> I don't see that. I don't see that specific language in there, but I do sort of see the I I I see what you're
talking about. Um yeah, I mean, I have to say I kind of agree with John on this. I don't The first paragraph kind of doesn't read like a policy in some ways too, you know. >> Yeah, I agree. It seems strange. Like I read I read it
and I'm like this doesn't belong here in this. I agree with John. >> Thank you. And I think I think it was we had some of our policies um that were created that were kind of Marblehead created policies back in the day. How many years ago? I don't know when. As
we've been going through some of these, it's it's clear that there was ones that were developed for some reason and not not under the guise of MASC and I think that that language is one of the I think it came from some other discussion. So yeah, that would be my recommendation is
to take that out. >> Yeah, I think without additional language in there, if if it if it stays in there, it's without additional language that says, you know, we're really talking about >> come in anytime you want and Yeah. Yeah. that feels very disruptive
>> and and it's and it's not it's not that we're not we don't want to be open and honest about what we're doing. It's just that's that's totally disruptive. That just means anyone can come in for whatever reason and there's no gatekeeping there and realistically the policy that Henry referred to I think is what I was referring to is it is there
specific language about how and when and why you you come in and observe a classroom. And actually, you know, the revised policy, the third paragraph, you know, observations of educational spaces and programs by all visitors will be governed by procedures developed by the
superintendent. So, the policy certainly leaves open, you know, the opportunity for people to come observe programs. It's just >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I guess I would move to
approve the policy um KI with the first paragraph stricken. >> I'll second that. >> Right. So, we have a motion by Henry to approve the policy with the first paragraph stricken and that has been
seconded by Melissa. Um any further discussion by the committee? Okay, we will go to a roll call vote. Um, Al >> in favor. >> Ann Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor.
>> Kate in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero. Excellent. All right. So then the last policy we have is policy LBC, relations with non-public schools. Um, and these are updates that better explain the steps required for approval of non-public
schools. And I will just share because I had to look into it when we were looking policy um for the state attendance rules, the compulsory attendance at school. The school committee has to
approve the programming of a private school that educates grades six and up if it's located in our town. basically to certify to the state that it's you know a program that should count for the attendance rules. So that's this policy governs how we would go about approving
such a program. So >> and this is not related to charter. >> It does not relate to charter because they're >> public. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So I think it would only apply to tower because they have a middle school
program. So we would approve their and presumably that's been And technically it's it's actually goes one step further. So if someone wants to create a private school in Marblehead, they have to get our kind of blessing to do that. So like they're creating a brand new um
I had this happen last like a grace gospel church school or something. They have to come and meet and show everything and get the blessing to be able to open it. So and no one no one's approached me. So I don't know if there's I don't know if there's anyone looking to in the school in Marblehead.
maybe in the old Eve building, >> but there's a process. >> So, well, we'll have our policy ready if someone wants to do that. All right. Any um comment or discussion from the committee? >> There maybe I missed it, but
>> is this just done once or is it a certain amount of time it has to be redone? Like John, have you when did you do this last for tower? That's what it seems to me. Unless that's it is just a once and you're done or like is there any ongoing maintenance of this needed?
>> No, it's it's it's it's my understanding the way the way I've I've read this policy and the way I understand it is like when someone's looking to open a school like a private school in within our within our district borders, they have to do this. It's not I don't believe it's an ongoing annual thing because once they're established they're
established and then we have to we have to reach out to them around child find and title one and all the things we need to anyway around what they can you know what they can access what they can't access from us. So that that's that's ongoing but I think I believe this is
like a hey we want to open up a school and then and I don't even know you know I think we could say no and I don't know I don't know what the ramifications are stopping them but Then I bring it to you. They bring it to me. I bring it to you and then you guys
say yay or nay and then they can >> Okay. >> Right. >> All right. Thanks, John. >> Yep. >> All right. Do we have a motion to approve the revision to policy LBC relations with non-public schools? >> So moved. >> Motion by Henry.
>> Seconded. >> Seconded by Ian Marie. Any further discussion? All right, we will go to a roll call vote. Al saw your word your mouth move but I didn't hear you. >> I didn't hear any words. Al
>> Oh, really? Um in favor >> and Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor. >> Melissa >> in favor. >> Kate in favor. Motion carries five to zero. All right, we are all set on policies. hopefully
>> take a break from those. >> All right. Um I wanted to just open up discussion from the committee. We've set um July 8th for our retreat. It was the afternoon of July 8th was the one time
block um that we were looking at that worked for everyone. Um Alicia from MASC is going to attend and do a training for us. I've got like a couple ideas I've been kicking around, but I wanted to see um what people on the committee thought might be helpful
to hear about from her. Um we're going to have Julia come and do a wayfinder activity with us as sort of a team building activity. So, I'm going to work on having a growth mindset and being open
to to doing that kind of stuff. Um, and but I also will, you know, we'll have some other just sort of agenda items. I've kind of been thinking sort of around where we are on goals and, you know, what we're thinking about for goals for next year, but I wanted to see if there were things committee members
wanted um us to do at the retreat so that I can be sure to include them. Well, I think uh it may be worthwhile to take a look at our goals in in the frame of the the district improvement plan that we approved. You
know, just make sure that >> they're aligned, that they're, you know, they're working together. I I think that that being a new document and something I would like for the community to be sort of more engaged with and I think
that starts with us. I agree. I like that idea. >> Yeah. My only point was going to be touching on the goals as well. So, I think as long as we have that in some way, that would be great. >> And then we're also doing subcommittees at the retreat.
>> Yes, we will also do Thank you for that >> subcommittee assignments and get that all sorted out so those can get moving. Yeah, I mean towards that end, you know, the strategic planning goal, there's a specific uh task in there around
agreeing to a statement that articulates kind of the roles between us and and administration. Um, so I I have a draft from MASC. So I I don't know, Kate, if we want to have people look at it beforehand and bring their edits to the
meeting or do it at the meeting. I'm open either way, but um yeah, I I think it's okay if we share it and people provide edits to someone, perhaps you or me, and then we just we can't disclose that until the meeting, >> but I think we're allowed to do that.
That's not going to violate OML, >> but I just want to verify that. >> I think you're right about that. But we could also just have people come to the I think it would sense to work on that document because what I was thinking about >> having is there an echo? um having
Alicia sort of focus on with the training is continuing to talk about sort of the division of responsibility between the school committee and the superintendent and um so working on a document like that might mesh really well with
>> that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Right. So if you want to circulate that to the committee people can review it and come with you know edits and revisions and whatnot. Yeah, that'd be great. >> Okay. >> Um, the other thing I wonder if it's
worth discussing at at this retreat or if this is just something that we do at one of our regular business meetings, but sort of readressing the theou with the town around the override and sort
of, you know, recommitting to transparent and responsible use of the funds that were approved. Yeah, I think that's great. We can either put it on the agenda for the override or for the override for the retreat or,
you know, I believe that the select board talked about targeting October for the first one of those, you know, financial update meetings. >> Yeah. >> But I think it's worth having some discussions as a committee about our >> component in all of this and how we're
going to carry that out. >> Yeah. I think while the while the iron's hot and people are asking questions, I think we have an opportunity to preempt >> and it'll be more simplistic for us because we don't have override funds in year one. So like let's spend the time to put the right framework in place to
make sure that we're giving people the information that is most helpful. Um >> yeah. >> Yeah. I think what I think there's still a perception that what voters approved was just more money across the board for
schools and >> yeah, >> it's more >> I know John has already had to remind people like no, you're one not the case. >> Yep. >> Yeah. It's it's it's that kind of I mean I'm trying to have the conversation whenever I can because I think it's
important for them to understand but you know um that we're not flushed with money all of a sudden that we're you know it just really gave us some breathing room and I don't have to cut 40 to 50 staff is really what's really come out but um >> you know I think and then I mean obviously with that departure we'll have
to figure out kind of how we tie in whoever's taking over for him. Um so those are all all conversations I guess. >> Absolutely. Okay. All right. Great. So, I will um talk some more with Alicia and sort of
work up the agenda for the workshop, but it'll include all of these things that we've been discussing just now. >> And then just on on my end, I mean, I'll do whatever you guys want. I mean, do I am I there for the whole shebang? Am I there for coming in and out? I mean, I I
don't want to styy any conversations that you're having being in the room. Um, but I also don't want to not be there if you're looking for thoughts or anything. So, I I'll let you have the answer right this second. I know Kate and I have talked a little bit about it, but just just let me know. I I my feelings don't get hurt. So, if you say,
"Yeah, thanks, Sean." But I don't want you there, I'm fine with that. You want me there, I'm fine, too. So, >> yeah, >> you can just let me know. >> All right. Great. Okay. So, if unless anyone has anything else they want to add on that, we will
move on. Um, I'm looking for a motion to meet in executive session pursuant to chapter 30A section 21A3 purpose 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining with the Marblehead Education Association unit A because an open meeting may have
a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the school committee and the chair so declares without intent to return to open session. >> So move. >> I'll all I'll second it. But did did you
have a um a link to this meeting? >> She emailed it around >> I emailed it around um I can send it again when we >> It was June 1720 a.m. >> Yeah.
>> You pulling that right out. >> I'll forward it to you. Forward it. >> June 17. Yeah, you know me because you know super attention. >> Oh, I think I think I found it. Yeah. >> All right. So, we have a motion to enter executive session made by I think I
heard Melissa first. >> Um and seconded by Henry >> and yes, I do have the link. So, >> okay, >> everybody's got the link. Okay. Um we will do a roll call vote. Al >> in favor >> and Marie >> in favor. >> Henry >> in favor.
>> Melissa >> in favor. Eight in favor. Motion carries 5 to zero. We will enter into executive session pursuant to chapter 30A section 21 A3 purpose 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining with the Marblehead Education Association
unit A because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the school committee and the chair so declares without intent to return to open session. So, I'm going to end