The schoolboard work session begins in 2 minutes. Please take your seats. Again, the schoolboard work session begins in two minutes. The schoolboard work session begins in 1 minute. Please take your seats. Again, the schoolboard work session begins in
one minute. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Good morning. I now call the April 27th, 2026 special administrative briefing and work session of the Marian County School Board to order at 900 a.m. Please
silence your electronic devices to avoid disturbing others. Mirroring and modeling how our students begin each day, I ask that you please pause for us with us for a moment of silence. Please join me. I will now read our board commitment statement. We are the Marian County School District Leadership Team. When we
come together to work, we are efficient, effective, and productive. Our three most important characteristics are dedicated, transparent, and individually responsible. To work well together, we must demonstrate respect, confront reality, and be accountable. We will always put students first, and we will
leave a legacy of success. I would like to ask the schoolboard attorney to please explain the rules for this public workshop. Good morning, Attorney Powers. >> Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. This work session is a public meeting as defined by Florida's Sunshine Law. The board is dedicated to full transparency
in its meetings and its work. In compliance with the Sunshine Law, the board has adopted uniform meeting procedures, including the right for citizens to participate. The board will allow public comment regarding any work session item listed on today's agenda at the appropriate time. Speakers must fill
out a request form located in the lobby and hand it [clears throat] to the board clerk. After the board and superintendent have completed their discussion on a particular agenda item, the board clerk will call the speaker's name in the order received. Each speaker will have three minutes as required by
Sunshine Law. The board must maintain orderly conduct and proper decorum throughout this meeting. Speakers may criticize subject matter and decisions in a respectful manner, but not people. Finally, speakers must be very careful not to violate the privacy rights of others, especially students and their
family members, by mentioning their names or other identifying information. Thank you for your attention to these important rules. >> Thank you, Attorney Powers. Miss Martinez Young, can you please provide the proof of publication for today's meeting? >> The notice for the April 27th, 2026
special administrative briefing and work session was published on the district website on April 16th, 2026. Proof of notification has been attached to board docs under proof of publication. >> Thank you, Miss Martinez Young. Uh Dr. Brewer, did you have a special uh briefing you wanted to start us off with today? Otherwise, we'll get into the work.
>> Good morning. Just briefly just want to thank you all for attending um and celebrating the incredible work that Hillrest students provided last week for their annual art show. It's simply amazing. Um and thank you all for being there. This week is our final stretch as
we are preparing for those last minute reminders of benchmarks as our students begin statewide testing next week. So those are are exciting um it's an exciting time for our students to showcase everything they have learned. So, we're looking forward to testing next week. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you very much. All right. Well, we have um Miss Terry Brown, our parillegal here with Attorney Powers. So, welcome, Miss Brown. And we are going to be doing a part two of policy updates today board. We have a smaller list um to review. I also want to welcome staff attorney Blackman. Um he's also sitting
up here with us today. So, we will get started and I will hand the floor over um for transparency to the community. We currently cannot get into Board Docs, not because of us, but because of Board Docs. All of the documents are uploaded to Board Docs, so you will be able to review them at your leisure once board
docs is back up. But the board all has them printed and um any changes we make, we will be sure to transcribe so that we can update them um opposed to doing our live updates that we normally do. Is that good? All right, Attorney Powers and Miss Brown, feel free to take it over.
>> Thank you. Um, I would like to first point out that uh all of the policies that were we discussed last time, those are all still open. If there's any tweaks or anything else anyone notices that need to be made. However, there are six primary policies that we are still pursuing
today. Ones that we've either brought back or ones that changed and made in the interim. So I'm going to go in order of um those starting with PO211 that is parent and family engagement in the school program. This policy was
missing language in several sections and staff used Nola's template to update its policy. And I'll just uh wait and allow everyone to take a look at that policy. And I'm sure you've already reviewed it, but if there's any commentary, I want to give
appropriate wait time so that everyone can have an opportunity to look at it. [clears throat] >> Uh, board member Thor, thank you. Um, I'll just say that it just feels like sad, ironic timing that we're updating this policy in the midst of losing, you
know, family engagement liaison. And this just continues to illustrate how important that connection is. And um I hope that as we move forward as as a board that we can have some conversation about as we continue to move further
into sightbased budgeting, how we can continue to empower our principles to make the decisions that they need to make on the behalf of their schools, especially when it comes to uh relationships with families. >> Absolutely. Thank you, board member
Thur. Anyone else? Okay. I I think >> moving on to policy 3120.04. This is employment of substitutes, replacements, and part-time instructional staff. Administrators um
are returning this policy without changing substitute qualifications. And uh Mr. Blackman also is here to answer questions relating to this particular item as well, if you have any. I would love for you guys to expand
on why we're not making any changes. >> I discussed with staff and asked a question about if they had a recommendation to remove the requirement for 5 years work experience or the 6C college semester hours and they recommended to keep it
the way it was. However, if the board chooses to change it, the recommended language would be would be adding a line after that first qualification and say applicants applicants who hold a high school diploma but do not otherwise meet
the minimum qualification may seek a waiver pursuant to the superintendent's administrative procedures. Those would need to be developed. Um, but the issue we kind of ran into as we were discussing this was probably not any old 18-year-old would
be appropriate to be a substitute as we as we discussed obviously here as well. >> Um, and so the question would be what kind of barriers would be appropriate and I guess the those would be something that staff would be comfortable having a little more flexibility kind of figuring those out and would prefer to have them
in administrative procedures in time. and if we're comfortable, we could add them in policy. But that was a general recommendation. >> I don't disagree with that. But what I want to see is as an example, students who are leaving our um educator academy
at Vanguard High School to be able to substitute in Marian County Public Schools. That's what I'm looking to see be able to be possible. And as our policy exists right now, it is not. Now I mean I think principles have uh ability already to um select or not
select certain substitutes as the way the as the way it is already the work is already being done. Um but if we wanted in an administrative procedure to ensure that students who are 18 are not subbing out of high school I have no problem with that either. Um but I I think we are limiting ourselves and we have some
really great candidates working and living in our community going to College of Central Florida to get a bachelor's degree. What better way to grow your own than start them as a sub and then you get a parah position and then you hire them as a parah and then they move into um a teaching role at your school. So that's what I'm looking to accomplish
with this personally. Board member Cummings >> chair. Good morning. I do concur that um that 18 year old they have to be five is it five years of equivalent experience or something that says the kid had been working at 13. Correct. >> Correct. It's impossible. So it's
impossible to do both. >> Yeah. So I thought we talked about trying to have a workaround in the policy so that that would not hinder us from >> Yes. And so I think what recommendation from staff is is they'd like to say the statement Mr. Blackman um just said you
will you go tell that Miss Brown. >> Um I'm sorry Mr. Christian would you be able to just have a conversation? Thank you. Sorry it's very distracting. So, um, will you read your statement again? Um, Attorney Blackman,
>> basically staff would prefer to keep it the way it is. However, if the board would like to make the changes, the recommended language would be so kind of in the alternative applicants who hold a high school diploma but do not otherwise meet this minimum qualification which would be the five years work experience
or the 60 credit hours because those are the two ways one can do this may seek a waiver pursuant to the superintendent's administrative procedures which we would need to develop. But Dr. James' point about perhaps completing a program at Vanguard might make sense. Maybe it's
limiting them to elementary. Maybe if a principal recommends this individual, that person can sub at that school. These are just some ideas that I'm bringing up on my own. These are not necessarily recommended procedures, but giving the board some ideas of what's possible. As we kind of work through those issues, we'd be able to
essentially or eventually, I should say, enshrine those items into board policy, but we'd want a little flexibility to determine and seek a little more review from staff and principles and determine what they believe would be best suited for their schools. Yes. >> Ultimately, the principal has that right
anyway, didn't they? >> To exclude someone. They have a right. Okay. So, this would be the the right maybe to approve someone that would otherwise not be included. >> So, obviously, as as one would realize, 18-year-old subbing for and and being in
control of other 18-year-olds could potentially cause some issues. >> U you could sub an 18-year-old right now. That's if you completed 60 college credit hours at graduation, which I'm I'm think some of our kids do complete, >> right? >> Sorry, board member there.
>> Thanks. That that's right because some of our students graduate with an associates degree. Um, so I 100% agree that we need to complete this pipeline. Otherwise, why do we have it? you know, uh we want anyone that that finishes
with some type of industry certification or specialized um pathway um to be able to go right into the workforce. And I would also say that maybe it's not paid work, but most of our students have quite a few hours of
volunteer hours. So, especially if those volunteer hours, I know they get that as part of the future educators program. um you know volunteering at some of our elementary schools. Uh Oakrest specifically comes to mind. Um but I I am very much in in support of this. I do
think that the parameter of uh elementary school in the in the beginning um would be prudent. Um we do have PE techs that are pretty young, you know, that are in our elementary schools
already. So, uh, someone may have the interest in working with middle school and high school at at a young age, and there's something to be said for that potential relationship, too, you know, in a mentoring capacity. So, I I just would love to have staff come back with
some parameters and and guidelines and and let's get this done, >> Madam Chair. Also, >> yes. Also, don't we have um and I know we do at at Denellan High School, the um >> I guess that's like the little kid. >> Yeah. The early childhood program, the early childhood program. So, if a kid if
a student had went through that and um wouldn't that qualify them or put them in a position to be a substitute teacher? >> Well, as it exists currently not currently, right now it doesn't. My goal would be that there's an administrative procedure done that encompasses
students who we all know are graduates and are have experience working with children in some capacity, whether they're working in a childare center in a private setting, whether they're working in the early childhood program um at like the Denellan or they're in
the educator academy um or they've worked in their church daycare for the last 10 years since they literally were allowed to be in there. I mean, there's lots of ways that students could demonstrate um an ability to manage a group. I mean, I personally in my professional career seen kids who are 18
conduct themselves and manage a classroom better than whole grown humans. So, I don't want to disclude groups of um our graduates who have the ability to go to work for us just because, >> right? And when may I speak? >> Yeah, sure. >> And when camp was was more prevalent,
there was a whole pipeline for that. you know, CITs, counselor in training, junior counselor, counselor. >> Well, that's how Camp Kuanas is. Like Camp Kowanas, you go through 8th grade and then all of those kids who are junior camp counselors at Camp Kuanas literally were Camp Kuana's kids all through their life and then at at 9th
grade they start being a camp counselor. Um, and so yes, to that point, board member Campbell, >> thank you. So my only question about this is right now we're currently at the mercy of the contracting agency and so
we can adjust our policy and procedures all day long but if their requirements are different than ours um that that's my only cons I completely agree with everything that's been said. I want us to move forward with the direction that we're talking as long as our contracted
vendor agrees with those and we'll follow what we ask. Attorney Blackman, >> we spoke with um the contracted entity and they will have they will they will do whatever it is that we say. They don't have additional barriers. So, if our policy says X, they will follow X.
>> Okay. Well, then it sounds like we're all in agreement that we'd like to move forward with the um additive language, Attorney Blackman, that you read into the record and then we'll work towards an administrative procedure. Uh board member Thor. >> Thanks. Um I I I do want to ask what the
hesitation um was on the uh management side to to not do this. I guess I always want to try to think of the downsides and to honor um what what the hesitation is.
>> The general downside I think is a a concern that let me back up. When you have five years work experience, it provides some level of verification, some level of maturity that's occurred. Additionally, 60 credit hours provides some barrier that will
say these are the these are the individuals who are most dedicated and serious about this sort of thing. So the idea being is if you bring any 18-year-old in that has a high school diploma, there is concern, right, that these individuals may not have the sufficient maturity, especially in a
when they're responsible for kids and they're responsible for uh high school kids as well when they're very similar aged um maybe a month or two apart from some kids and and in their ages. So the idea being is there's just a level of concern and the barrier I think gives some level of comfort but there's also recognition from the staff that maybe
there is other ways we can do things which is why we provide an alternative language to say okay let's let's let's be creative. Um but then let's also make sure there's still certain levels and barriers in place that will kind of encourage the the right kind of person to be subbing the responsible kind of
person to be subbing in these classrooms because they are alone with other kids in these classrooms. We talk about other techs and individuals. Substitute teachers not always but usually are by themselves with other kids and we got to make sure that they're responsible. >> I have a quick clarifying question. Do we have age restrictions or work
experience restrictions for pair professionals? >> Yeah. Or are we hiring pair professionals who are 18? >> We have age restrictions for cafeteria monitors and all those of other things. Well, it's a question I'm asking. >> Paris do have to have the AA degree
>> or they have to pass the pair protest. >> Right. >> Right. >> But do they have an age restriction? >> Because I don't think the answer is yes. I could be wrong, but I think you can graduate because we have kids taking the pair protest in AJ's educator academy and then they are directly going into
work as a prayer professional who we can all admit spend time supervising children by themselves because they cover a class. So, we're already doing it. And so I would just say like let's continue to expand that work to make sure that the people who are the right
fit for our workforce and we can grow our own have an opportunity. >> Thank you for saying expand that work because I think we're leaving a lot of talent on the table potentially currently by not having future educator
academy pathway programs at every single one of our high schools. Um honestly you know >> agreed. Absolutely. We just have to copy paste AJ. >> As a matter of fact, um when you go into that, Madam Chair, and ask that question about do we have per do we have buses
that are 18? >> We got them everywhere. This is the only thing they aren't. This is like this is one of the few things where you have the five years work experience restriction. So, >> right. >> Yes. It I think this has been a great conversation for us to expand on how we can improve our processes through an
administrative procedure to try to capture some more of our graduates into our workforce. We good? >> Yes, Dr. Campbell. >> And with that being said, uh if we are holding a career day signing event like
we have in years past, my hope is that we are employing multiple people from Marian County Public Schools. That has been one of our um lacking areas through the years when we have all of these other employers showing up and signing our employees and signing them for
different areas. And so if we are hiring our own even 18year-old graduates, I would love to see them a part of career signing day. >> Okay. We have one tomorrow. So that's exciting. Move with Marion. So that would take place tomorrow morning
at Vanguard High School. >> Yes. For for those that are teachers. Yes. That's the teacher. Yes. >> Substitutes, the students that have been doing their internships and teaching. >> Yes. Um, so if we're doing that on the whole for more than just those folks um that are directly graduating from Marian
County Public Schools in our class of 2026 would love to see. >> And I think what she's saying is like they're they're graduating and they're going to they're becoming a working in our tech services or getting hired as a bus aid or they're working in a as a pair professional like um the people we're hiring and signing. >> Maybe we haven't done that and I mean I
know we used to do it. It used to be held at First Baptist Church and there used to be members of the military that would be showing that they were going to the military and then we would have different employers that were up there physically having the students sign their contracts. Maybe we haven't done that in a while. I just remember that being an impactful event and if we were
to bring that back, I always questioned why we didn't have any a single graduate that was actually signing to work with Marian County Public Schools as the largest employer in the county. >> Good idea. All right. Are we good to move on from this one? All right. Right. So I assume you all will get the language from Mr. Blackman.
>> Ma'am. >> Okay. Sounds good. Moving on. >> Moving on to purchasing policy PO6320. This is the Keystone policy. It deals with most of our purchasing efforts. We've been in communication with purchasing specifically regarding um
types of school-based agreements. Certain types of agreements are ones which carry a greater risk uh and liability and lower uh immediate visibility. >> [clears throat] >> These include but aren't limited to DJs, photo booths, photographers, uh
inflatables or party rental equipment, things like that which do have an increased liability. Um this would require that any such agreement like that which is already this standard is that they should have a contract agreement that those have a district
template agreement. Um, so it puts into puts into policy what has long been um practice, though practice has not always been consistently followed depending upon where we were. So um I've been in
contact with uh uh Rick from purchasing who concurs and also I believe Mr. Blackman may have had some conversations as well. So I'll allow uh any inquiry that you like uh regarding that. This would change the following change the vendor approval process to say the
following types of school site or school school sponsored event vendors must enter a district template agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, DJs, photo booths, photographers, inflatables, or other party event rental agreement or equipment, yearbook
vendors, regardless if on school property or at a school sponsored event, or any type of food or beverage trucks coming in or on schoolboard property. >> Okay. I mean, I think that's the way we're already supposed to be operating,
>> but because it hasn't been in policy, there are times when principles may be >> there have been exceptions. >> Yes, that would be a good way to put it, Dr. Campbell. So, this is simply putting into policy what is supposed to be practice already. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Would you guys agree with that? >> Yes, it's my >> All right. Any questions from the board about this policy? Okay, moving on to uh procurement policy 6325. This says to federal grants and funds.
Um we had paused on this last time. This changes the micro purchase limits on page three. I believe it was Dr. Campbell who indicated that some of these did not really particularly seem like micr purchases. Uh I think it was a $15,000 um limits. uh also changes a cost or
price analysis requirement for every procurement threshold from 250,000 to 350,000 uh on page six inserts the record retention period and that's page seven. So I just wanted to bring this back up because the board did ask that
we or did not sort of settle on um finality with this particular policy. >> Okay. And board for whatever reason those are not highlighted on that page three and page six. So, if you're struggling to find it, you have to look for a shade, not necessarily the
highlight for whatever reason. >> I'll open it up to the board for discussion. I don't know that I have any thoughts. >> Board member Thor. >> Thanks. As far as the um said micro purchases, those have been microed down to $5,000.
>> 15. >> Up from 10 to 15. >> Oh, from 10 to So, they're up. >> Yes. >> Okay. I misread that. I If I thought micro if we were at macro, I figured if we were going to micro it'd be less. >> Yeah. And >> yeah, they're increasing their definition of what micro is. [laughter]
>> Okay. >> Which was the point of the conversation. And yeah, that was the point of the conversation. So, and it's just to the board's purview really. Classifying anything as a micro purchase that is $15,000 just seems a little odd to me. I
understand that micro and macro may mean different things in the procurement arena when you're talking about school districts and how much money is funneled through. But just even considering something being micro at $15,000 just threw me for a loop.
>> And the reason for Neil's uh having inserted this policy uh update was specifically as to retention of records. The revisions to this policy um their notes indicate that it expands the record retention period for federal awards. Uh while federal law only
requires that such records be retained for three years, the Florida green book and general record schedule um of state for state and local government agencies adopted by the Florida Department of State requires such records be retained for five fiscal years. So there's a
combination of both Florida and federal law that have to be followed here. And that may have something to do with the definitions as to micro uh transactions. There may be differences under federal law and state law or they may be
anticipating those differences. Uh at this point though, I don't believe that anything as to the microurchase limits are anything that's intended to to to be surprising. I think it's more a matter of definitionally they're just moving to
change language statewide. >> Board member Thor. >> Thank [clears throat] you for that explanation because it sounds to me more like a industry standard that we have to wrap our heads around because as I continue to read through, you know, the definition of of
of small purchases, $50,000, you know, and my mind at my home of $50,000 would not be a small purchase, but it is not my home. Um, you know, we I don't have a billion dollar budget. So, I'm just trying to think of it in terms of our
financial >> Sure. And we do have the right to alter as we see fit because um unless otherwise defined by state or local law and I know of no such definition. Districts are responsible for determining and documenting an appropriate micro purchase threshold in
accordance with 2 CFR 2000.320 based on internal controls evaluation of risk and documented procedure procurement procedures. Um, this the micr purchase threshold used by the district shall be authorized or at least not prohibited under state, local, or
tribal laws or regulations. An eligible district may self-certify a threshold up to 50,000 on an annual basis and must maintain documentation to be made available to the federal agency or pass through entity. So, it depends on how deep of a dive we want to take, but uh
it appears that the recommendation was 415,000 uh and that it was an increasing recommendation. I don't see anything that would that would give me any pause or cause any alarm. >> Good to know. >> All right, Dr. Campbell. >> And according to Florida statute, as I'm
looking it up, according to Florida statute, which number is this? I'm sorry. uh 287. It's in chapter 287 part one. Anyway, uh the actual it's 287.017.
Purchasing categories and threshold amounts. The following categories are hereby created. Category one is 20,000 by Florida statute. They don't even have anything less than that. So, u anyway, I I looked up specifically what micro purchases would be classified as.
Um, I I mean fine, we can move it to 15. I don't know that I'm comfortable with saying even 20,000 is micr purchase, but that Florida statute 287.017 seems to think so. >> Okay. Are there any other board member thoughts on it?
>> I I would just say as long as we don't see what Florida statues say. >> Yep. Board member. Sorry. >> See where we landed on that. >> Well, that's what we're working. >> Oh, okay. All right. So, we're gonna we're going to make that switch to 15 then. Okay.
>> Uh and then the other question is on page six. Do we want to have that go to 350,000? That's a that's definitely a question we can >> Yeah, because that changes the cost or price analysis requirement for every procurement threshold. And that change
would be from 250,000 to 350,000. So, as I'm still looking at Florida statute 287.017, it goes categories 1 through five and category 5 is 325,000. So, it doesn't go as high as 350. So, I I still I I might
be able to split the difference and say 300 >> or even 275. I I don't know that. I I think I'm more comfortable in the 300 range. >> All right, give me a number and I'll put it in our policy.
>> It's never a bad idea to match statute. It'll be a little under. So I can get behind the 300. >> I can't I can too. >> Looks like >> that way it's consistent.
>> Does staff have a reason behind the switch to 350? This was a Neil recommendation and my understanding is it reflects the federal um changes >> federal >> that's absolutely correct >> okay >> and this is as I might point out for
federal grants and funds for >> so federal and state are different >> back to the actual start of what this is the title of it why am I looking at Florida statute then >> we might be on >> right yeah
>> yeah this is procurement for federal ederal grants and funds and uh specifically though sometimes state law does control use of federal grants and funds but I think that for the most part the language is intended to be similar
though rarely do I find it to be identical. >> So board I'm just looking for a summary. Are we adopting the Neola changes? >> I'm still more comfortable with 300. >> Okay. So, we're going to adopt the 15,000
and we're going to change the 350 to 300,000. >> But there had to be a reason why the feds were recommending 350. Correct. >> Was recommending that. I think it's I think though this is not typically what I like
to say. Uh being in the middle of the pack is is generally a good thing and if this is the recommendation for an item like this that I see no particular reason for it to be higher or lower. Um but it is something that there's a
number of districts are all recommended to do the same thing then being middle of the pack is not a bad place to be. Now, we can alter that and go to 300,000. I'm not sure what benefit we gain, nor what detriment there could be. So, I I I think that it's just a matter
of there are some things that are updating and this may make it so we have to update it a little more frequently if it changes again, which isn't a bad thing, but that's that's up to you. >> I'm I'm good with the 300. >> I I don't see any anticipated impacts other than making sure that we remain
compliant. So what I hear is we're going to take the first change to 15, offer a adop a different change to 300k for the second item and then um leave the third statement on the last page uh
about the fiveyear cycle maintaining records for five years never a bad thing. board member throw. >> Thank you. And and may I just raise one point as far as staff is concerned and I don't know that this would be a a case or not. It's why I'm asking um for the
folks that are in charge of administering these grants just in terms of making sure that there isn't confusion about, you know, oh well, if it's that 350 according to the feds, you know, that would be the number they would have in their mind. But then, you know, because how often do people always look back at board policy? Oh, wait a
minute. board policy says three 300. I I just don't want that dynamic to happen. So, and I don't know what the possibility of that is, if it's a very real possibility or if I'm in the weeds. >> That that could well be. Um I would just
say also that people from that are dealing with federal grants that I mean that that should be their daily business. So, they they should be aware of that. But um it I don't anticipate but I'm not in federal grants and programs so I don't anticipate that there are any uh that there's any
gotchas there but it may be that altering it from the 350 recommendation is going to cause them some difficulty. It may not. Um I I can't answer that. Um I did not have any I did not have any
feedback other than Nola decide Niola indicated this was a recommendation that they would make >> which is what you brought to us. >> Right. >> Okay. So are we good with what we've summed up?
All right. Everyone know where we are? Okay. We're going to move on then. >> Okay. Moving on to uh uh policy 6345. This is the policy on change orders to increase the authority of the superintendent to authorize change
orders um from 25,000 to 50,000 together with board chair. Um and we had some discussion about this last time. Um I believe that attorney Blackman and myself are both prepared to speak to this if you have questions. So, I'll allow you to pick up from where your
discussion left off on change order policies because there were some specific items that you weren't certain on yet. But actually just by one small change we wanted to add that's not reflected in the documents here is a correction that
to make everything match with the $50,000 threshold across our policies is not to have this say um the contract amount for 50,000 or less because that would be $1 off. We'd rather it say less than 50,000 because the threshold should
be 49,999. I agree completely because that strikes for clarity because at $50,000 there's some things that are triggered. So less than 50,000 is the appropriate language. And then the next one would say 50,000 or more just to kind of clarify we're
keeping that proper threshold in the and and this is bit clean up but I just want to make sure the board's clear. This is something we identified and wanted to correct today. And then on the last page it would be something similar saying less than 50,000 and and less than 50,000 again. So beyond that though,
there have been some changes made since the last time this was brought before the board. And I've discussed this with staff to try to present something that reflected the concerns that the board had. Uh and I'd be happy to address whatever concerns the board might continue to have with this updated policy.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I guess um for purpose of clarification, not only for myself but for the community, any change order comes before the board as it exists right now. It's about who has the authority to sign the change order. Is
that correct? >> That is correct. Everything needs to be noticed to the board u either um it it can be done prior to board's approval in certain scenarios >> information items. >> Yes. But it has to be provided um an update to the board even if it's you
know five cents. >> Correct. So as the system exists right now, the superintendent has a threshold where she can make unilateral decisions in the best interest of the board and those decisions then come before the
board in an informationonly setting because that's the way the work has established. That's not necessarily the way the work will have to continue to be the information would have to be conveyed to the board. But that is the way it is right now. So, what we're looking to change is instead of it being
any change order that's 25,000 or less, now we're going to change that to 50,000 or less. Is that correct? >> Less than 50,000. >> Sure. Sorry. Less than any change order less than $50,000, the superintendent will have the authority to change at at
her will. That's in the best interest of the board and it would come before the board in anformational only item. and also up to 8% or 200,000 in in as a cumulative total for a project is less. That's correct.
>> So there could be multiple change orders of $50,000 or less that the superintendent has the authority to decide on. >> That is correct. >> Of less than 50,000. >> Sure. Less than 50,000
>> 49,000 >> $49,999. >> Sure. we all know what we mean. So, first I think it's important to make sure how do we all feel about that because that's kind of the first item on the first page. So, the shift from 25 to 50,000 as
well as a cumulative total of 8% or 200,000 will no longer have to get a board signature at all. It is simply information that's a decision that's being made and then coming to us as an information only item.
So board, what is your take on that? >> I'd be happy to reiterate any justification if the board would like. >> I'm sorry. >> I mean, I think >> I'd be happy to um provide the reasons why this was updated if the board would like. I said it last time, but if it helps frame the conversation, I'm happy to do.
>> Sure. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. My understanding going back at least 10 years or more, it's been 25,000 and it's stayed that amount. In that time, especially in the postcoid world, there's been increases in the amount. Um, especially in construction costs.
And the idea being is this is going to hopefully correct it more towards what it used to be and keep it in line with that. That's the whole purpose. But if the board does not want that, this is not something the staff is. We believe it might help with efficiencies, but certainly it's not something that's
absolutely critical. It's just less things it could hopefully create efficiency, so less things have to go, less delays hopefully in projects and we can get things done quickly. That's the idea behind it. >> That also takes into account the fact that there are there's a lot more
projects going on today than there were five years ago or 10 years ago. So, um, little efficiencies are a godsend when you're dealing with that. And this is specifically about additive change orders. >> Correct.
>> That's what we're talking about right now. It's additive change orders. We're member thrower. >> I'll just say for all the explanations just stated, I'm I'm comfortable with it. >> Okay. Reverend Cummings or >> Okay, Dr. Campbell.
>> I'm going to disagree. Um, I understand the justification behind it, but the responsibility of this board is budget and even facilities budget. And so I think it's imperative that $50,000 at the end of the day will
buy light bulbs for an entire, you know, whatever. Like it it um that extra $25,000. How many times have we said no? I I guess is is >> hardly ever, right? only when I've pulled them to discussion basically. >> Well, but I mean I'm just I'm trying to
to rationalize would we say no to the increase? And I I'm not certain. >> Well, it's like semantics, right? Because like that's what I was going to say is it's going to wind up in consent agenda and get approved anyways. And it's just basically I don't agree with changing it. I I would I would agree
with you, Dr. Campbell, but I think it's semantics because it's going to just land in consent agenda and get approved anyways. We're not going to pull an item that's $49,985 to deny it. So, we're really just delaying the process because ultimately
it's the work has to continue. It's going to get approved. >> But are we also just giving a blank check and so every item can have a change order of $49,000 and then we just it just continues to happen and we don't
see them. We don't have any need to see them. But we So I I I agree with you. And so my push back would be what are we doing as it exists right now for things that are over 25 that are $49,000 that are coming before us? And the answer is nothing. The answer is they sit in
consent agenda and they're approved. >> Yeah. And with the information items, we actually emphasize and give more attention to those because the chair reads those during board meetings where in consent sometimes those are not addressed at all unless they they are pulled for discussion. So that would be
my thought between the two. >> So the the reading of the information items I continue to agree with, but that is a new practice that that has not happened for six years. I mean the whole you know that we've been here. So, uh, I I appreciate that practice and I'm grateful that we are now making that as
a part of the record. I just I'm just going to disagree and we don't have to have consensus. So, moving forward. >> No, I just need three of us to agree. So, >> so you got two votes yes and I'm a no. >> I'm not comfortable with changing it um
either. Um, I do understand the reasoning um the efficiency and the workflow. Uh, but I do I do feel it needs to come to the board. >> And I guess and I would be in alignment with board member Conrad and board
member Campbell. What I would say is next time we talk about policy, I'm not against bringing this up. Bring me all of the ones that are between 25 and $499.99 and show me how how this change would have such impact. So I don't mind if with the next time we talk policy
because I imagine staff would want to us to re readress it. I don't mind it being in the next policy packet, but I would like staff to How many are we talking about? I I think it's probably not as many as we think. How many change orders are we talking about that are more than 25 and less
than 50 that we are cogging the wheel by them having to be on a board packet for approval versus the superintendent just being able to approve? Because that's really the difference. They're going to get approved either way. I mean, as a matter of practice, they're getting approved either way. So, it's just about
the timeline. And so, I would love to know how many really is that. >> And so, if you're asking for that data, I just want to make sure because this is our last opportunity prior to this going >> I'm I'm in alignment with with Conrad and Campbell and I'm going to say that
we're not the majority of the board is currently saying that we're not going to move forward with this change. We can continue the discussion, but what I'm saying is let's bring it up in six months when we talk about policy again and revisit it if it's something that's really desirable from staff and
let's have some data to to talk about what is really how many are we talking about >> board member th and great points and if we're asking for more information how difficult would it be to get that information sooner than later rather than wait >> six months
>> well that's just when we talk about policy next I mean I'll talk about policy once once a month forever and ever. I don't care. That doesn't matter to me. I mean, it to me, I think it's not a bad thing for us to sit down once a month or every two months on a on a Monday morning and have a policy board meeting. I or a board work session. I
don't disagree with that practice. That's up for black men in powers to figure out if that work would work. As it exists right now, we typically talk about policy twice a year. >> And I guess what I'm saying is is our our staff is asking for this. It's a it's all money is money. This is
relatively minimal. They're they're asking for efficiency. We're asking for more data because in the end all budget is our per p per p per p per p per p per p per p per p per p per p perview. It doesn't matter if it's a penny. So I'm looking at both sides of the coin. Um and if it's if they can get us that
information, you know, relatively quickly and make the justification, then let's put it to bed. >> Let's bring it back before six months." >> Oh, yeah. I mean, again, I'm cool with having a policy discussion >> and if this is going to >> six times a year, >> this madam chair, if this is going to um
slow down or or or clog up the the process of us moving things, we need to get get deal with this. >> And I I and what I would say is I'm not sure how how cogged up the wheel is, which is
why I'm looking to understand >> we have a lot of projects right now, more than we've had in >> Sure. But I think most of them cost more than $50,000. Most of those additive change orders because this is all we're talking about right now. We're not talking about initial initial contracts. We're not what we're talking about is
additive change orders and additive change orders. Maybe we can get it while we continue to have this discussion. I imagine Dr. Brewer's sending an email. I think a lot of our additive change orders are going to be more than that number. So, we'll get the number and we'll see.
>> Yes. Well, and the the point really is that we ensure that those contracts at the GMP rate are as close to as possible. And so that just means they're going to put more in the GMP and so be it. Then we want the deductive change orders, not the additive change orders.
Uh because we want we want them to be as accurate as possible whenever they're bidding out the job. >> Well, and sometimes the additive change orders come because it comes after a deductive. So deductive change order comes for the sales tax because we do that mass deductive now instead of the multiple change orders for for ODP and
so then we take a little too much out so then we have to add it back and that's really I think the primary way I'm seeing additive change orders come before the board is like a a course correction from taking too much out for sales tax. Um so and really we've only transitioned to that process in the last six months to limit the amount of change
orders that we had to see for ODP. So anyhow, >> I have a [snorts] clarification. Um, so is that indicating that the board would like for me to restrict the uh that particular language as to the uh 25,000 to 50,000 because there was a lot of
other things within this policy. >> We're going to keep having the conversation. So right now we're on page one. in page one where we're talking about changing construction costs for additive change orders. Specifically, I hear three board members saying to keep it at 25, but I think between now and
the rest of this policy and two more, Dr. Brewer is going to work vehemently to get that answer so that we can make a decision. Okay. So, let's go to page two. Page two talks about priority change orders and changing it up to $50,000.
So, um priority change orders in the name of the board. she would have the ability without the chair to do 25,000 and then um up to $50,000 with the chair um which would with the purpose of
expediting work in progress. Uh only one such change order per project can be approved by the superintendent prior to confirmation by the board and the change order causes the project to exceed the approved budget plus reserves. I bet this does not happen very
frequently, but the idea is here that we're moving it um the superintendent can now do it without the chair um which she has been able to do for 25 and then with the chair up to $50,000. >> Did you have any context for why this is
necessary or is this more of just about getting all of the language the same? This is this was and if I remember correctly actually possibly I think it was suggested by someone um I apologize I don't remember who but the idea being is making it reflect more of the process where the superintendent and board chair
may work together on certain um um contracts and in this situation it would be if we're going to go above the 25,000 amount to kind of have that extra layer of um review to it or the board chair could approve it and it is more just a matter of trying to make everything be
similar but then also providing an extra layer in there as well. So, this one would have the board chair as you described. >> Yes. And it still comes to the board for action at the next regularly scheduled board meeting
by board action. So, I don't I guess um I don't know how the chair is approving something if it's confirmed by board action. That seems counterintuitive. >> I was confused by that at the beginning of this. That language seems a little bit. So the third sentence,
maybe it's the second sentence. Such approval shall be confirmed by board action at the next regular or special board meeting. Um I don't know how the chair can the chair would not be able to approve something if board action is required. >> Correct.
>> So wouldn't you just remove together with the board chair and go with >> Yeah. for individual >> because I think yeah your goal here was to up the number with the chair's approval but the chair can't be approving it if it's requires board action >> agree >> could be consultation with but I also
defer to attorney powers if there's something that would be defective in that process by >> we just removed board action I think that's >> it's a change order though >> right but it would will have been approved by the board um chair and the
>> but I think this is this is reliant on the page one changes. So if page one changes don't go above 25,000, then it doesn't matter how the board chair feels about it. >> It still would require board action. >> Priority items as well. Does that make a difference?
>> I mean it's a different type of change order, but it ultimately it's still I mean it's an additive change order. I mean it's not a deductive change order. It's an additive change order which is exceeding the budget plus the surplus or the reserve. So, if we in page one are saying an additive change
order can't go above $25,000 without board action, >> then I don't know how we can make it different for this. I >> think the intent was to allow something because it's a priority to go through with a sort of a a temporary approval until the board takes action. But,
>> but it still comes back to the board. >> I I don't if it's come back to the board for board action, that's not that's not really appropriate. So >> yeah, because whether the board agrees or not, it's already been done because it was a priority as >> correct. And I would say it's inappropriate for the chair to speak on behalf of the entire board for an action
item. >> Yeah, I would agree. I think that's just going to muddy the waters. So I don't think that's >> I mean I would I would recommend that all of the changes that were added and struck from this unless the last sentence is not necessary from per the attorneys. I don't think it should change. Um because the I would say the
only way it can change to 50 is if in page one we change that number to 50. If we change page one's number to 50. Then you would change page two's number to 50. >> It would just be going under >> informationational item and it would
need to be presented as anformational item. >> Probably either way we go forward that should be reflected. >> Yes. Um, so if if the the board would like to strike the changes, I would still recommend that it be brought forward as anformational item because the like as the board already stated,
the has been agreed to by the superintendent. So I think either way that probably needs to be clarified. >> I um I guess my pause would be I'm under the impression that any change order that the board does not take place in is supposed to become before the board in
an information on the item. >> And that's what I'm trying to say. as opposed to board action it would be anformational item is what I was trying to say >> yes which isn't captured in here at all so yes I such approval shall and then insert the sentence from the previous
page that basically says approved at the board meeting that follows their approval as aligned by publishing guidelines da da da shall report each change order whatever the sentence in in paragraph two on page one [clears throat] where it basically says
you're informing the board. >> Do we agree with that then? >> Yes. >> Thanks. It it doesn't it kind of circle us back around to the beginning where we were talking about, you know, the difference between 25,000 and 50,000 in today's economic times and giving the
superintendent a certain amount of uh for lack of a better word uh power and an even better word professional discretion you know to make some of these decisions either up to 25,000 or 50,000 and then that comes before us as
anformational item. And if any board member is reviewing the the agenda and feels like they're noticing a pattern of some wonky things, well then we address it. But, you know, I I guess I'm still uh a little stuck on the fact that, you
know, in a in a budget of our size with all the projects we have going on and everything that needs to happen behind the scenes to get the work done, you know, is 25,000 still a realistic number, you know, or should we be looking at the 50,000? And if if that's not working for us, you know, who
replaces the superintendent, the board. So, I guess the folks that are doing the work need to be empowered and trusted to do the work until they prove otherwise. That's what we hired them for. >> Yes. >> Just I will just say um board member
Thor, I don't don't disagree with anything that you said. My concern really is with the the times that we're facing, the the budget cuts that we're facing, um the loss of staff. I I'm just feeling um
kind of tightfisted, I guess, you would say. Um just to really be accountable and be transparent um about where our funds are going. I do understand exactly what you're saying. Um I just I'm not sure it's the right time um to >> I hear you.
>> Well, and I mean respectfully, we're talking about construction change orders which can't pay for people. So um I mean different budgets. So, I I get I really get the big picture and honestly I want to be on board with you two to say it's really negligible. So, I really just want to understand how many are we
talking about and what the difference is because >> it's all coming forward anyway >> and it's all going to get approved anyway to if we're being frank like it I mean very very very rarely does a does a change order get pulled from consent to discussion >> and the fact is it's all coming forward transparently anyway. >> Yes,
Director Campbell. This is relevant but not completely to the topic because last night we also received our update from Dr. Brewer for the week that included the costs of the
two identical elementary schools. So why I believe this is relevant at the moment is because one of them cost more than $2 million more than the other and they are identical. So, I think that notice given to us just
last night is ample reason for us to have our keen eyes on every single thing that happens in construction. I'm appalled by what I've just seen. I was reviewing it just now. It came at
almost 10 o'clock last night and I wanted to make sure that I was reviewing it again with fresh eyes. I I'm I'm appalled to know that identical schools that one of them cost $2 million more than the other one. Actually, a little more than $2 million.
Uh so with all of that being said, I think it's imperative that we as a board take very seriously anything to do with additive or deductive change orders. Um we've been asking for this for a long time. These kids have been in these
schools since August. We just got this information last night. So that's all I'll say about that. Okay. So I believe the changes in this second section are going to be determinant on the changes from the first section. Do
we agree on that? If we change the number, basically we change the number on one, we're going to change the number on the other. Okay. So um because ultimately we have two more policies after this. So we can table those kind of changes and we'll come back to it potentially at the end of the meeting.
So let's talk about the last thing which is completion dates. There's obviously a lot of changes here board for completion dates. Um and so um the superintendent's authorized to approve and execute construction change
orders that will extend the substantial completion date if the extension is requested by appropriate district staff to benefit the efficient operation of schools or the delays beyond the control of either the school district or the contractor. They can approve changes to the substantial completion date for an
accumulative total of 8% or 30 days, whatever is less, for the construction to be completed. And if it exceeds that, then the superintendent shall bring the request to exceed the substantial completion date to the board for approval. And then if it's under that, they'll
bring it as an information on the item. That's what the third paragraph says. So my heartburn about this in general is that historically
the board has only ceremoniously approved time change orders. Like the project's been over. We've Monday morning quarterbacked our timeline. And then we bring a change order of 25 days to the board when the project is signed, sealed, delivered, concluded that the
board then essentially has to approve because well look at all these reasons and it's really easy to Monday morning quarterback how you were delayed when it's the end of the game. And so I know that our work is changing and so
if a hurricane comes for instance, we will then have change orders brought to the board. That's the way of work as it's going to be now. We will have change orders brought to the board to change the completion date by 10 days and those would come as an information item based on this new policy because it
is you know beyond our control and the superintendent is granting those change orders. Um and then obviously the second part of this is um if it's not for the reason above and it's a delay result of the inaction of staff or the contractor,
they'll bring the request to the board for approval with a written explanation and then obviously the emergency change order which is an emergency. So what are your thoughts on this board? I certainly feel more comfortable with
8% or 30 days than I did the 60 days. Um I I a clarifying point would be uh calendar days including weekends or is it work days because that's not incredibly clear because the contract is calendar days.
The contract includes weekends. So I'm assuming this would include weekends. >> I would assume if they're working over the weekends that would be included as well. Yes. >> Well, but I think that's um I don't I don't think Yeah. you I don't think we can just say if they're working on the weekends then it includes
weekends like >> stated >> I'm going to well whatever the contract would say is what I would assume to go off whatever the contract the contractor has is what I'm assuming would go under probably most scenarios sound like it'd be calendar >> yes
>> um but I don't want to say definitive contract >> but it would be based on because there's a line and then it says calendar days I'm almost positive we could probably pull up a change order and look at it but I'm pretty sure That's what it has on it. >> Thank you mass contract. >> So, how do you all feel about
essentially giving the superintendent the authority for 8% or 30 days uh in her own purview? It will come before the board as an information only item but it um would she would have the authority to make that decision assuming it's not the fault of the um our
staff um and it's just a delay from you know act of god or benefit the efficient uh operation of schools which i.e E would probably be like the testing scenario that came forward. I think that was Westport, right? Um and
so those would be examples where the superintendent would be able to make those change order decisions or her design without bringing it to the board. I can get on board with that. I think 30 days is a much more palatable number than 60 for sure. Um, the thing that's
not captured in here is the efficiency of us receiving the change orders because that's really a procedure, not a policy. And so I will just go on record to stress how important it is to me as a board member that when we know a delay is occurring that that is brought timely to the board, but that's, you know,
operational decision. How does the rest of the board feel about the recommendations here in the this third part? I can get on board with a 30 days of eight 8% too. Um
I guess whichever is less whatever it's a depending on eight yeah if it's if it's an 18month contract and okay anyway I just I'm thinking out loud but uh I I can get on board with the changes that are being made uh in
comparison to what we had previously. Okay. Anyone else? >> I agree. I I can get on I can get on board with um the 8% in 30 days. >> Okay.
>> I can get on board with it, too, especially considering there's 180 student days, you know. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Well, then, uh, Reverend Cummings, did you have a thought on it?
We're good. Okay. So, um it sounds like all of the recommendations on page two for the most part in that bottom half we're good with. We're going to just kind of put this to the side, do our last two, and then maybe try to come back and talk about the 50,000. Okay. So, we will move forward to the next policy. Attorney powers crowdfunding.
>> That's policy 6605 and that is crowdfunding. There was a recommended Niola update and that update has to do mainly with transparency and privacy which can be somewhat competing at times but specifically it's um uh Niola describes it as uh ensuring that
crowdfunding activities align with district's educational mission maintain financial transparency but it protects student privacy prevents misuse of school branding and resources ensures legal compliance and protects donors by
requiring the use of secure low fee platforms. The revision adds crowdfunding platforms and additional monitoring requirements. These revisions are recommended. They're not required under statute. Um but um recommended and
I personally after reviewing would recommend it as well. >> Okay. Board. I open it up. Was there anything from staff you wanted to add? >> No, >> nothing. >> Okay. Uh Dr. Campbell, >> the the reason that we brought this back is specifically I was asking about the
platform fees, the very last item and wanted to ensure that there wasn't a challenge with platform fees that might be in any kind of fundraising mechanism that the public education foundation might use. I was specifically considering the gift for Marian um
program that happens fundraising uh giving day and I've gotten confirmation from the community foundation that they're much under that 15% fee structure. Uh the only other question that I have and I guess it would be because booster clubs would fall under
different uh purview because they're their own separate entities. So there might be booster clubs that are participating in crowdfunding that the athletes raising funds in. We have multiple athlete crowdfunding
campaigns that occur, but because those dollars go direct into the booster club as opposed to going to the schools, they probably would not have to abide by this policy. That's the only question that I could could raise. Um, obviously the
crowdfunding activities using the district name and logo and mascot and all of that would have to be approved by the school, but again, if the resources are going into the booster club as opposed to going directly into school accounts, there there are lots of those crowdfunding
fundraisers that happen that I'm sure are charging more than 15%. >> Whether it does or does not apply, it should apply. So, one of the things we can do in certainly in working with our boosters is relay that and I will make
sure that I relay that to to staff because this is my understanding the standard percent that one looks to and we don't want sites that are lack of a better word predatory in their fees to soak up um the money that's being given
because certainly people associate booster clubs whether they're separate or not. associate them with a district and I'm assuming there should be an expectation that when you give money to something that has the district's logo on it that a vast majority of that money is going to benefit the the district. So
I'll be happy to relay that to make sure that that this would um the booster clubs would be following this as well. and staff has also contracted with a company by the name of Vertical Rays and that for crowdfunding that also very
specifically is indicated within its contract that it will not it will not exceed 15% at a maximum. So um that's that is something that can be demanded and it actually if it's in policy it gives us a little bit of a ability to to
stand firm on it. Oh, it speaks back to the other policy we've talked about today about all uh any outside entity vendor wise has to be approved through regardless of who they are. And so that would be speaking it. I completely concur. If we're able to wrangle all of
it in from all fundraising that happens uh because I know personally at least in the last couple of years there has been fundraising that's occurred for athletes where about 40% was taken out of of specific donations. And so uh perhaps
it's on the the user side. Sometimes those companies work in if you don't uncheck a box then you have to pay something extra and so sometimes it's like uh the donor is confused potentially and so the just as long as
we're getting that cleared up I think that's would be great that all the funds raised specifically to for our causes um goodness knows we need all the money that we can get from people who are willing to give it. So that concludes my question.
>> Okay. Any other comments from the board? All right. Then I think we're good with all the changes that have been presented. We'll move on to our last policy. >> Last policy is policy 8710. This is insurance risk management and claim settlement. Um this increases the superintendent's authority together with
a schoolboard attorney to settlement claims up to $150,000. It authorizes the superintendent to execute appropriate settlement documents approved by the school board attorney and to place any such document on the school on the board's next available agenda. This is one that we discussed
that I would be working closely with Mr. Rio Welch on in most cases. All right. What do we think board member there? >> Yeah, sure. I'll weigh in. I would just say that um in my years of of observation and participating in uh in
risk management, claim settlement, all of those things, I I feel like we've got a strong process, you know, capable people. Uh, I'm gonna continue to to to support them and I continue to support these changes. >> Okay.
>> You Dr. Kimble, I just see you. >> Sure. U, I I agree. I appreciate that it will be the schoolboard attorney uh as our employee who is is looking at this as opposed to the previous uh title that would have been in this that would have
been able to approve it. So I u schoolboard attorney has this close eye on anything uh that would be a settlement type of scenario and so I I fully support that. >> Okay. Okay. Well, that sounds like we're in
agreement on that then to move that forward. Were you able to get any information, Miss Dr. Burr? >> They're gathering the data so I can share that at a later time but won't help today's conversation. >> Okay. Um, so going back to board policy 6345
for the change orders, um, and making that determination on going from 25 to $50,000. I think at this point we're going to stick with the 25,000. Um, and then I hear the board asking for policy updates. I mean, I know for me, I would
rather have a policy update with 15 policies and meet for 90 minutes and really feel comfortable having reviewed these than to do policy updates once or twice a year that are like
>> Yes. And so I don't know if if if that is a way of work that we can shift to, but I for one would love to be able to meet like you know once every two months in the morning to just kind of do 10 to 20 policies and then you know button it
up. Board member Thur. >> Thank you. I I agree with that. You know perhaps quarterly and then if there's nothing to update or discuss then we would then not meet similar to how we have scheduled some other >> Yeah. basically seems to have worked out well.
>> Two things, Neiola updates twice a year, which is what why we've been following that schedule. Um, outside of that, we may have needs that we wish to do. Um, the only difficulty sometimes in scheduling that is that we have to uh plan for rulem and development as well. So, that gets kind of into the mix. We
have to we have to do it on a schedule. It's not just, hey, let's get a work we can get a work session together, but it has to be properly advertised. >> Well, we have to backwards plan from it, right? >> So, I mean, I think we're in the month of April right now. So we're essentially in the first month of the second quarter. So in the first month of every
quarter, we meet or we schedule a meeting for policy. We backwards plan that um and then we advertise it accordingly and then based on whether staff only has one or two to bring forward and we meet, we talk briefly, we update policy and we move forward in the process or if there's nothing from
anyone then we can cancel it. But now that we don't pay for advertising, it seems very um efficient to for all parties to be able to have quarterly conversations about policy. Um I know for me, like I've had things come up and it's I've had to wait months to be able
to talk about it. Um from a policy perspective, something that I think if we had been able to change quicker could have had impact for the school district. I >> I do want to clarify, we do still pay for a publication when it comes to rulem banking development. that something has to be published in the actual >> That's true. So, I apologize for that
oversight. Um, but nonetheless, I do think um certainly by the time we have to publish, you all and um the superintendent's office should have a good idea if we're going to need to need the policy update board. How do you feel about kind of at the um you know that
would be essentially January, April, June, and October, right? following just kind of a quarterly process to have a policy update. >> I really like I really like that idea. >> Okay.
>> I think it's much more productive. >> It is very overwhelming to be able to have hundreds of policies to review and then the expectation that we've somehow I mean no none of us can have, you know, with absolute certainty thor thoroughly reviewed every single word of >> a lot when when the legislature is busy
and they start throwing a whole lot of things at us. That's that's often very overwhelming. >> Yes. So, um so it sounds like we want to kind of get in a quarterly update of sorts for policies and then um we have kind of finished the work on policies
this morning. Is there any further discussion from the board on policies or from staff? Okay. Is there any public comment on Oh, board member. >> Just uh to button up when do you think we might have an answer on what you're
researching, Dr. Brewer? No, ma'am. >> Did you say >> when do you think? >> Oh, probably today. Probably within an hour once you've dismissed, once we've adjourned. >> I I think that we can come back and talk about it in June.
>> And I I think we we are fine with the $25,000 threshold. It's >> Sorry, I was doing math wrong in my head. It's July. >> You say June or July? >> It's July. >> Okay. That's what Okay. Yeah. July. >> Yeah. January, April, July.
>> July and October. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, uh any public comment on policies? All right. Hearing none. Um a few meeting reminders. We have a board
meeting tomorrow night at 5:30. We have a work session on May 7th at 9:00 a.m. A, um board meeting May 12th at 5:30. a work session May 21st at 9:00 am and a board meeting May 26th at 5:30m. Board,
we've also in the weekly update, you have a variety of documents that are um Excel documents that are searchable based on award ceremonies and others for your schools or any school. So you can filter through those and kind of see when is balorate for graduation.
obviously you have graduations already on your calendar and then all of the um auxiliary awards for you know kindergarten and fifth grade and any of that is all in that document. So um I would encourage you to use that tool as we head into May which is our busiest
month generally. Um and then we'll get into board comments. I want to start um I was going to do this tomorrow but it's always a little bit um we never know how long the night will go. So today I will bring it up. we have to um put out to bid for a new internal auditor. Um
attorney Powers, would you like to just give the um 32nd key uh elevator pitch on this? >> Um so Pervis Gray has been our external auditor for a number of years. In fact, believe it's 13 years because we had a 10-year contract with him um and a three-year renewal. Um however, at the
end of that, we do have to go through the RFP process in order to select a new one. Pervis Gray has been great. Um, but we do have to go through the RFP process. Again, in order to do that, we have to have a committee. The committee
has there's some specific language as to who it can and cannot be comprised of. So, there will be a need in the near future to select a committee to select our external auditor. Now, this is not RSM. This is our auditor that stands in
place for our um state auditor reviews everything that we have from financial risk and things like that. So um again it's been purpose gray and we assume it may continue to be but it's it that's going to be up to them up to
our committee to to to select a a group and to select an the RFP qualifications. So board, I bring it to you all because one of the committee members is a board member. So amongst ourselves, we have to choose one of us to be on the committee and then um attorney powers will send
out the rules and regulations for our recommendations for the rest of the committee members um to an email to all of us that we can submit those to him and get that started. But I would like um to have a quick discussion about who what board member we would like to
choose to sit on that committee. Um, I had a recommendation personally. I wanted to recommend board member Thrower. She's the only board member that won't be on this board when we use this person essentially because she's um chosen not for to run for reelection.
And so I just thought it would kind of appear as um the least bias I guess um because obviously if we if one of us is on and we pick the auditor, it could be perceived that way in the community. So that was my only recommendation. And I don't even know board member Ther is
interested. But um anyhow, so those are my thoughts. >> And before anyone uh agrees, I will say that the the the board member has to be the chair of that committee. >> So the yes, they're the chair of the committee. It'll meet a couple times just like any regular RFP committee does. They review I'm sure they're going
to review some papers, do some interviews, pick the person, bring it forward for board approval. >> Time commitment should be several hours, but not not multiple sessions. And by when does it have to be done? >> When does the contract expire?
>> We It has to happen right away. >> Okay. >> So, um I don't know if anyone has thoughts or recommendations off my recommendation if board member Thorough would want to accept or anyone else would like to put their name in the hat to be able to choose a board member. I >> think if board member Thor is willing to
then I think that would be the most appropriate person as well. >> Okay. >> I have a question. Um, just wondering as far as uh chairing it is one thing, but who is is coordinating? Does this go through Rick Collins? Does it go through legal? You guys collaborate a lot
together, so maybe it's the team. >> Well, when I did it 13 years ago, no, I'm kidding. Obviously, >> it predates both of us. >> A lot of this stuff that I'm saying I know the name, but they've just always been here. So >> Rick would help with the RFP.
>> Yeah. >> And so yeah, >> the drafting of the actual RFP and everything like that. Rick's got expertise and so Mr. Collins, we would call on him heavily to be assisting us with that. Um but uh that would not be work of the committee
>> and then it would kind of run like how the real estate did. All the beds would come into our office and be stored until they were open by the And in that place, we'd sit in place of what Mr. Collins normally does for RFPs.
>> Okay. I will the short answer is I'm perfectly happy to serve. Uh longer answer is I just have some questions and sure get an idea because again we've had Pervis Gray for 13 years. So this is new territory really for all of us. So >> yes. >> Yeah. Happy to do it.
>> Okay. >> Unless anyone wants to uh you know do a little arm wrestle or whatever. >> All right. Okay. Okay. Well, then that kind of concludes that. So, board, we will look forward to an email from Attorney P's office with um our next steps in recommending community members.
There's certain designations they can't work in certain fields, etc., etc. So, um they will provide us all the information and we'll provide our recommendations. Um that concludes my comments. Um anything from Miss Martinez Young? >> Sorry, I mic.
>> We will be having early re-entries on May 21st. Not sure of the time, whether it's 7 am or 8 a.m. depending on how many students, but as soon as I get that, I will send out an invite letting everyone know. So, just put it on your calendar. >> Thank you very much. >> Attorney Blackman, >> no, not at this time.
>> Dr. Brewer, >> no, nothing additional. >> All right. Um, Miss Brown or Attorney Powers? >> Uh, just as a reminder, truency court starts 8:30 tomorrow and, uh, we'll be going throughout the day. So, uh, if anyone wishes to come by for any length
of time, or you're perfectly welcome to do so, uh, do flag myself, um, or Miss, uh, Lauria Down, we're happy to, uh, give you some background information about the cases you'll be seeing. >> All right. Thank you. Um, and also, I wanted to say welcome back, Attorney Powers. >> Thank you.
>> It's a pleasure to have you back joining us. Uh, attorney uh, attorney Thrower, you just got an upgrade. Board member Thrower, >> I don't have further comments today. >> Okay. Reverend Cummings, Dr. Campbell, >> just wanted to update. I got an email
from Jordan Stefins, the uh director of finance for FSBA, just about the diligent board ducks concerns, and he was with them, shared our detailed feedback last week with them. Uh they expressed they would begin investigating specific issues we mentioned, particularly the recurring freezes and
access problems during our live meetings right away. Of course, that was last week and so we continue to have issues today. But, uh, just making you all aware, certainly FSBA is actively engaged to make sure that Diligent is being the partner that they are supposed
to be. And so, we will continue to push that along. And also, congratulations to all of our athletics district champs and so many different things and regionals heading this week. Uh, lots of different regional competitions. So, good luck and congratulations and hopefully we'll
bring home some regional titles as well. >> Awesome. Uh, board member Conrad. >> Sure. >> I have a few things, so everybody's been quick, so I'll try to be try to be quick today. Um we didn't have the opportunity to share but uh on the day that we
celebrated moving Apple um to Hillrest uh Miss Thrower, board member Thrower gave a beautiful speech and I just wanted to tell her um how much I enjoyed and appreciated um you really um set the
tone for the entire event. Um it was really one of the best speeches I've ever heard. Um, and I know it came from the heart. I you probably wouldn't refer to it as a speech. Um, but it was just absolutely beautiful. Um, I am just
going to miss your input so much um this upcoming year. So, I just wanted to share that. Um, on Friday, I had the privilege of bumping into dads on duty that serve at Belleview Santos. Just really thankful for the great uh community partnerships that we have.
just really a wonderful group of people and thankful for their dedication uh to serving in our school. So, I'm thank thankful for that. Um Dr. Brewer, I had a a question uh about some travel numbers that that were shared and so
recently for the magnet schools of America. Um you you sent out the the prices for travel, but I just was curious about the procedures. So, some tickets airfare was um I think the lowest was 2,200, but
some were like 4500. So, I just was curious on how that's submitted um and why aren't they all more at a at an average price and and the numbers that I shared um with you board are the estimated amounts that were submitted on their TDEs, which are their temporary
duty elsewhere forms. And so I can provide an update to the actual cost, but some um some might have done a higher average or an estimated cost than others. >> Okay. I just I was wondering if we had a more um unified
approach when we have staff that are traveling. Do we have one person that's >> lining up all of those tickets? So those eight or 12 tickets, is that how we do it? >> Yes. So each school is responsible for that. But we do have strict guidelines
um everything that includes the um the hotel that they have to use the flights. We we have to choose very economical um approaches. But they usually the magnet coordinator or facilitator works closely
with their secretary to arrange to almost be the travel agent if you will to ensure that everyone is on the same together and had the same prices. But I can provide an updated report to you now that the trip has
concluded. >> Thank you very much. I I appreciate you explaining that because when you're just looking at the numbers, it does not look like it's a streamlined process. >> And I wanted to include those numbers um even though that trip was in route because I knew that was a large I knew
that was part of your questioning and so I did not have I don't only had it I only had it had estimated expenses at that time. >> Okay. Thank you so much for that. That's all I have chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh well at that that will conclude our meeting for today. We
will be back tomorrow at 5:30. Uh, and so with no further business, we will adjourn at 10:27 a.m. Thank you. [music]