The schoolboard work session begins in 1 minute. Please take your seats. Again, the schoolboard work session begins in one minute. Heat. Hey, Heat. Good morning. I now call the March 31st, 2026 special
administrative briefing and work session of the Maring County School Board to order at 9:00 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 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 put students first, and we will leave a legacy of success. I would like to ask the school board attorney to explain the rules for this public workshop. >> Good morning, Attorney Powers. >> Good morning.
>> Is my microphone working? >> I don't believe mine is either. >> Well, you're working. Thank you. >> I'm working. Okay. Okay. >> This work session is a public meeting as defined in 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 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 Jang, can you please provide the proof of publication for today's meeting? >> The notice for the March 31st, 2026 special administrative briefing and work session was published in the Ocala Gazette on March 13, 2026. Proof of publication has been attached to Bodocks
under proof of publication. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Martinez Young. Uh Dr. Brewer, did you have anything for your administrative briefing this morning? >> Good morning, Chair. I will um provide an administrative briefing during our scheduled work session on April the 2nd which is this Thursday. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh we are going to be discussing Neiola policies today. So I will hand uh the reigns over to attorney powers and his legal aid, Miss Terry, to join us uh and give us all of the context and information we need to be successful this morning.
>> Well, thank you. Um we have we have um several sections as we always do with uh with our uh policies uh divided up by the 1000s, 2000s, etc. Um
those that are owned specifically by the board are the bylaws policies. Those are the ones that begin with 000000. So, we're going to take those three individually because those have not been reviewed by staff because those are ones that board typically has the ability to
to view and to make decisions on. Now, this year, these are not of any particular note, but we have first policy 143.1 residence areas. Before we get into each of these, I want to say if
there's nothing to discuss, we don't have to discuss it. If there's something that you want to ask a question about, some edit that you see, some note that you've made, please bring it up and we'll we'll make that alteration. So, as to residence areas, um the
revisions to this bylaw are based on um Niola's ongoing work with clients. The revisions align with Florida statute 101.36 which is board member residence areas. So there were some alterations in that
and um each of you should have received both the text and the uh I'm sorry both the uh uh electronic and the book version. So you can take a look at those and see
whether any of those apply or anything that you think needs to be altered. >> We're good. >> Okay. Next would be 147.1 travel and expenses. Uh the revisions and there's several
revisions throughout um our policies on this. It's not just to the board. It's um as you there's policies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 there's about 12 policies affected. Um primarily this is travel and expenses.
It primarily is uh replacing the term pro professional development with the term professional learning as that's more commonly and currently accepted. So that's going to be the source and really the sole source of that change.
Finally, as to the board bylaws, public participation at board meetings. As you recall, board, we just went through a long and lengthy discussion about how we would alter this. Um, and uh this
alteration that is suggested is only on bylaw. 0169.1 would be revised to remove the phrase after being warned that continued interference with the orderly processes of the meeting will result in removal
and replace it with provided the presiding officer has first issued a warning that continued interference with the orderly processes of the meeting will result in removal. The proposed revision is not based on any change in law. I just felt that that was something
that would um provide more clarity. Moving on into the 1000s, we have five policies based on 1000s. Each of these policies are ones which staff has looked at, reviewed, and staff has made recommendations in some and has chosen
not to move uh forward in in others. So um if you have any questions about any of that uh we can discuss Mr. Blackman uh staff council is also here and can explain a little bit what staff's thinking was if you have any questions
regarding that. So as to the 1000s is there any policy which anyone would like to discuss? I do need to put on the record the names of the policies. We have uh policy 1139 ech educator misconduct
1211 whistleblower protection 1215 smoking and tobaccof free environment 122 evaluation of administrative personnel and 1243 professional meetings. After
appropriate wait time hearing none, I'll move on to the 2000 section. The 2000 sections we have parent and family involvement in the school program policy 2111.
And this is one which we will need to discuss. So, I'll come back to this. 2125 School Advisory Councils for School Improvement and Accountability 2260 Non-Discrimination and Access to Equal
Educational Opportunity 2261 Title One Services 2261.02 O2 title one parents rights to know 222 2266 non-discrimination on the basis of sex
in education programs and activities 2371 hope scholarships 2421 career and technical education 2450 adult and community education and uh that's it going to the first
policy 2111 as to this update. Uh the policy under B, it says relationships with families and
B is effective communication. It's simply mixing uh missing text. So we need to either delete that or add the text we wish it to have. If I may add, uh, this was not presented to staff
for review. Um, this appears to be something a little bit different. So, I'm not able to provide staff input on this one. Can we go ahead and pull it and place it on the second um part two >> because we have a part two in a month anyways um for advertising purposes that
we'll have to meet regardless of how and board regardless of how effective we are today. We will still need to meet for a part two because of some advertising um for some of the policies. So, um can we just go ahead and pull it? You guys can review it and we'll put it on part two in a month >> and we've cross advertised so that
works. >> Okay, perfect. going through the remainder of the 2000s. >> I had a just a thought on the hope scholarship which um remind me which one that is. >> 2371. >> Thank you. Uh just a thought that
occurred to me yesterday meeting with a principal when we have all of our so a hope scholarship allows them to um take their seat and apply it to another school public school that has space
meaning under 90% capacity or a private school. Right? So, um, we because of the balancing that we're doing at the high school level this year, there will only be one high school public high school opportunity
for people to transition into for hope scholarship. Uh, and I don't know that we've like effectively messaged that. I just want to make sure that um as our our discipline officers are having those conversations in the coming year that
they're clear about the limitations from a public school perspective because as we near capacity at most of our campuses or at least at 90% we will not have allowable space for hope scholarship student to transfer into. So I just
wanted to the thought occurred yesterday to me Any other discussion in the 2000s? Moving on to 3000s which deal with instructional staff. We have 3120.04
employment of substitute replacement and part-time instructional staff. 3129 conflict of interest. 3129.01 01 tutoring 3130 Appointment Assignment Transfer and Promotion of Instructional
Staff 3211 Whistleblower Protection 3215 Smoking and Tobaccofree Environment 3220 Evaluation of Instructional Personnel 3242 Professional Learning
3243 Professional Meetings 3700 Teacher Bill of Rights. >> Um, regarding substitute teachers, one of the things that's come up that I think is addressed in this policy, but I don't know exactly where, is a minimum age requirement to be able to be a
substitute teacher. Um, we have students who are graduating from our high schools and they would like to substitute and they are unable to substitute because the age minimum for subst being a substitute is Did it change? Um then is the is the minimum for a pair
professional? >> We have a minimum and I only know about it because I have a personal connection to someone who was seeking employment postgraduation >> 18 years of age. I wonder then what is the pair professional requirement or if
e e um e >> ess thank you ess has a minimum that is not reflective of our policy then because I I do know for a fact this person was not allowed employment due to not being 21. Um and so I I would love
to see that addressed. I think that we are missing out on a pot of people who are graduating high school and kind of living in limbo land. Um, now I I'm not sure I would want to place them at a high school. Um, but certainly, you know, there are opportunities throughout our district. And so, if our policy is
not the holdup, then I'd love to figure out what is the holdup. Oh, I know what it is. It's not the age. It's number one under substitute qualifications. It's essentially an age because it says hold a high school diploma or equivalent and five years of
work experience. Well, how can I have five years of work experience and be 18? It's literally impossible. >> 60 credit hours. You could potentially have 60. >> Yeah, but if if I'm 18, I don't have 60 credit hours either. So, if I'm a high I mean, you could. I did, but those are few and far between. So, if I'm 18, I
just graduated from North Marian High School. I haven't quite figured out what I'm going to do with my life and I know that maybe I want to go into education and I want to be a substitute. We can't hire them because our own policy restricts it because they are 18 which
means they didn't start work at 13. And so I would love to see this board change our policy to reflect us able to hire our high school graduates as substitute teachers. And the the barrier it's not age but it
is age because of the five years work experience. >> So I apologize for thinking it was age. It was it was an age related barrier. >> So the fiveyear verifiable work experience or an AA degree or 60 college
semester hours. So you're asking for it to be any high school diploma holder as opposed to those that have already done dual enrollment and or AP Ace type work for any high school diploma holder.
>> Well, you can have some AP and AC. You could have all the AP and ACE work and you're not going to have 60 credit hours. >> True. >> I mean, you could have been a high school. You could have been a AC ace program completer, top of your class. You missed out on UF. So, you're going to do Santa Fe online and live at home
for two years so that you can get into UF because that's your dream school. And we can't hire that kid, >> right? And I just think we're creating barriers when we clearly need to continue to grow our own and we're passionate about growing our own and and this is a
barrier. >> I want to make sure that we read that out carefully because um can you highlight that again or bring it up? Okay. hold a high school diploma or equivalent and five years of verifiable
work experience. That's one way to get there. Or an AA degree or 60 college semester hours. Those are two other ways to get there. So, um the only one in which there must be five years of verifiable
work experience is if the person only has a high school diploma. So, >> and less than 60 hours or an AA degree. if they have if they have 60 college semester hours or they have an AAAS
degree. >> If they don't have 60 hours, then the only option for them is a high school diploma. So, if they were an ACE program completer, an IB student, an AP student, and they have credit hours, but not 60,
their only option to be a sub is option one, which is a high school diploma and five years verifiable work experience. >> Correct. >> So, sorry, can we have a question? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, so let's just use a hypothetical.
Say you have a recent high school graduate who has been a volunteer Sunday school teacher in the third grade class for the last two years and has verifiable kind of teaching experience of sorts. But we also still
now provide a training program for substitutes that they're required to go through. So that would fulfill that requirement. but because they wouldn't have the other pieces to this, they wouldn't be eligible. And I would say
there probably are even students that are leaving our career educator program at Vanguard High School >> who are not eligible for this. So the the question I I agree with you, Dr. James, but the question is are there any
other parameters that we want to put on it other than just being 18 years of age and a high school diploma holder? Is there anything else that we want to require? >> The other factor is that we we farm out our substitute teacher work to
>> um ESS. So we may have a minimum floor but that doesn't keep them from having something higher. Now, we can negotiate with them, but we can't mandate that they I mean,
they may wish for whatever reasons they have, liability reasons or whatever. They may decide that age 21 is what they want or only an AAA degree, period. Um,
so that might be something that is still a fly in the ointment for trying to make this work. >> And and well, maybe it makes sense because we have a part two for Miss Mar and staff to address some of the concerns we talked about today and bring
it back for round two um so that we can get HR's perspective on it. But board members are >> I would agree that it's going to take more more work and more research uh to see what we can do. I think it's
incredibly important to find ways to employ our recent graduates with parameters in this situation. And some of the parameters that I can think of are at not at the high school. I
think that that would be asking a lot of an 18-year-old to substitute in a high school in a high school. This is just off the top of my head. I I also think that it is an opportunity for us in terms of our career in technical
education to continue to strengthen this pathway so that anyone that is thinking of possibly going into the teaching field would need to potentially participate in a future educator type
elective would be another option to grow and expand that program because it's only at Vanguard right now. Correct. So there's an area. >> Yeah, we have it at other. We have it at Forest, Danellen, South Marian High School. We'll have the future educators.
>> Oh, okay. Will have but currently >> currently have >> currently have >> currently. >> Okay. So that's really good. The other thing is with verifiable um experience, board member Campbell shared the um
church teaching example, Sunday school that I very relevant and also too, you know, working in a in a daycare would be another example. Um, you know, being a camp counselor
would be another example. So, I think that there's work to do on this, but I love the the idea of it. It's just creating a pathway and having the the right guard rails so that not only are we protected as a district, but but the
student is too. a young adult. >> Madam Chair, my my thoughts on this is >> um >> we are we are I think charged with u creating different pathways for um for
our kids, our students um beyond graduation from high school. Um there are going to be some kids that are going to graduate that will not have taken any college semester hours and would not have had the advanced courses and all those things as well. Um that should not
negate them from participating. I I was thinking along the lines of what Mr. Thor was saying that there are having some some type of electives that if a they've taken these electives it would kind of put them in line to getting in that pathway of um becoming a substitute
teacher. I also think as well there should should be some guardrails that they should not be um at high school because they're dealing with their peers. They're dealing with their recent peers and that's going to create a huge obstacle um for them being successful because they still haven't
differentiated between student staff. So that that issue has to be resolved. Um, I do want to to tread lightly on this um piece and I'm saying it as a as a clergyman um just because um and and I
thank Dr. Dr. Campbell for bringing it up that they could have taught Sunday school from age 13 to to up. But just because a person can teach math don't mean they can teach math. That's that's from experience. Um, we need to make sure that that they're they're they're
able to to handle um a diff it's a it's a completely different setting. Completely different setting. So, I think we do need to create something. I do think there'll be kids that's going to graduate that um
that just got through school. Maybe we need to put some type of uh graduated with a certain GPA or something of such. make sure that they that we're getting good substitutes in that area. So, >> all right. Well, um I I mean we could certainly keep going. Anyone have any
other further? >> One final comment kind of to what U. Attorney Powers was saying. While ESS's policies may look different than ours, I don't want our policy to have to be accommodating to them. I want them to
have to be accommodating to us. So whatever we choose to do is what we choose to do and then it'll be up to our vendors to accommodate to us rather than vice versa. That's the only comment at least in my opinion. Yes, I I don't disagree with that and
and it's all in in the spirit of we all know that finding qualified teachers is difficult and so this is really exciting to me because it opens up opportunities for kids and they can really when they're if if they know about it, you
know, they can start in ninth grade, right? You know, with volunteer hours I think should also be considered. There's just a yes, there's a lot of exciting opportunities in this. So, I look forward to >> further conversation about future educ. >> Well, what we'll do then is plan to put
this on the work session in a month from now. Um, and staff can do some edits and get some input from HR and our also the person we contract with currently for substitutes because I think it's important not to frame our rules around a contract we have now when we could use a different person in the future. And
so, um, they'll work on that and we'll see this for a part two, um, in a month or so. Was there any others, I guess, right in the 2000s, attorney powers? >> 30,000s. >> Sorry, 3,000s. >> Okay. Um, as to the 4,000s, relatively
short. Um, 4120, employment of support staff. 4211, whistleblower protection. 4215 smoking and tobaccof free environment. U specifically 4120 is likely the only
one the board would consider um reviewing if it chose would be um it's incorporating the removal of the term highly qualified replacing it with state level requirements. Policy 4120 also removes references to highly qual highly
qualified paraprofessionals. So, um that's in keeping with requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. >> I have a question applicable to this potentially but may not be in policy. Um
it was brought to my attention which hadn't really occurred to me that when we do offer raises for MESP MEA IUPAT and then obviously our non-represented we do not give raises to part-time
employees and for the most part the only people that I understand fall into that are are cafeteria monitors. Um, I think maybe there could be there's maybe a few other people who fall into that class of work, but specifically cafeteria monitors who work a part-time
um, hours are not um, given a raise. So, some of them have not received a raise ever. Um, and some of them have been doing that work for a really long time. I don't know if that's represented in this policy or not. Um but as a board
member I think um especially because of the im the fiscal impact is really so small in the grand scheme of things I believe um I would love to see if there was a way to um adjust our procedures or policy with that to acknowledge
their work because they've essentially not received even a cost of living raise and because they're part-time employees which I'm not sure the board is aware of but uh Dr. table. >> So, Dr. James, that sounds as if it's a contract consideration that would be
offering a years of service scale to part-time employees as well. And >> we don't we don't do steps though anymore. So, it's not a step. It's not a years of service step. We don't do steps anymore. All we do is say >> hypothetically, we don't I mean, if you look at all of our salary schedules,
they have they have certain >> They're placement schedule though. >> Correct. placement schedules that align with certain years of service, >> right? But if you got the job um let's say you've been a cafeteria monitor for 20 years and this has just been your
your job. You were placed at year one and you've and whenever we stopped stepping is when you got frozen and you have received no increase in pay since the moment we stopped stepping which was in 2011, right? I around 2011, we stopped doing
steps, which is we're pushing almost 15 years now, and there's been no increase in pay other than to make sure they were at minimum wage, which we did obviously, right? Um, for everyone because we had to. And so, um, it's my desire as a board member to at least have a
conversation about that, but certainly if the rest of the board isn't interested, we don't have to. I'm sorry, just to belabor that thought though. If they're part-time, why wouldn't their step continue? Like
they just aren't I I don't know. Like they just they take a semester off and then come back. Like I don't if they're part-time, it's not like they're coming in as a full-time employee. They essentially their placement should happen should be a rotating placement
>> but there's no change in placement. The literally that the way we even show our salary schedule to me is misleading because it looks as if you're moving on a salary schedule that you're not. It's a placement schedule. You are placed there and you never move again unless you leave that position and come back
with additional years of service and a replace at a as at a higher placement. And certainly Dr. you can it's probably >> I mean I I I guess that you're you're correct in that that it is very misleading the way that it is presented because it does appear as if there are
steps and all of that but but my comment still is if you're a part-time employee you shouldn't be on a placement anyway because essentially every time you're not working you're coming out of employment. I I
mean, in some ways, it's I I don't know. I I think that they could just take a semester off or take three weeks off and then because they don't have vacation time, they don't have sick time. I mean, I but I I it would be continuous, I guess, their job. I It's part-time is
odd to me how we would place that. >> I think too, they're working every day. So, they're working part-time hours, but they're working every day. They're continuously employed 180 days a year, just like a teacher. They're working part-time hours, but they're not working every every other Tuesday and Thursday. They're coming to work every single
morning or every single afternoon or whatever that looks like depending on the time of day for the for their work schedule. Board member Thor. >> Well, classroom pair professionals aren't working eight hours a day. So, you can say that they're working part-time as well. >> Well, they're 30 hours or more, which is
considered full-time. And so, that is the delineator, I believe, from an employment standards perspective. >> But it's interesting. Yes. >> You know, um because pair of professionals get evaluated, >> right? >> Right. >> Do are other
part-time employees besides one that are part-time considered full-time get evaluated? Like do the cafeteria aids get evaluated? I mean, how do we know how they're doing >> and whether or not they deserve a raise?
Well, um, respectfully, evaluation does not determine raise in this county. It never has. So, pay for performance, you get a raise. But we don't take your evaluation and then base it on a raise. You could be an unsatisfactory employee
and if the MESP gets a 2% raise, you get a 2% raise. >> That's true. But you're also putting yourself in jeopardy by not being good at your job. So, >> well, unless you have continuing contract and and then Yes. Yes. I mean, there are lots of nuances, but but your performance at work has never stopped
anyone else from getting a raise in this district. >> Understood. >> I don't agree with that philosophy, but that's just kind of public education, >> right? Understood. But it it still makes me wonder whether or not our part-time employees are being evaluated because if they're not, then under what conditions,
other than something really drastic, you know, wouldn't you have to document if they're not doing a good job and document against what? You know, they're job responsibilities as reflected in their job description. You know, I I think this definitely warrants some
further conversation because if we have long-term part-time employees that are doing a great job and arguably taking on more and more responsibility, um you know, they why wouldn't we compensate them would be my question. >> Well, and I'd say certainly the children in the cafeteria don't behave the way
they did 20 years ago, right? >> And our options have changed. >> Yeah. Um, Reverend Cummings, did you have thoughts? I saw you. Okay. Do you have anything? >> I do. Chair. I'd like to know um when we bring this back um who all falls in that
category beside do we have another group besides cafeteria aids and how many people that impacts as a total? >> We can we can bring that back. I've asked those questions. We'll bring that back. But at Tony Blackman,
>> um I guess we absolutely can't bring that back as Dr. Brewer said, but if there's something particularly in this policy that >> part of this policy >> and that's what I started with is I don't know that this is even in the policy, but it may be procedure. Um but
seeing as it's tied to this type this classification of employee, I wanted to bring it up because it wasn't something I was aware of. >> Let me let me ask a question too. at some point I'm seeing to remember something. Wasn't there some part-time transportation folk as well?
>> Yeah, we hired part-time bus aids. >> Well, they're not eight hours. So, >> well, anyone but part-time is um and I'm no HR executive, but I believe it's 30 hours or more is full-time. And so, if
you are working a six-hour day times five hour, five days a week, that is full-time. So, it's the individuals who work less than a six-hour day, >> right? >> And I think there I know there were some in transportation at one point that um
we're not because once you're part-time, you're not eligible for the full range of benefits. Correct. >> Yes. And benefits to me is different and that's a different conversation. >> Correct. Correct. Correct. I I agree. That's a different conversation. But we're talking about if you're in a part-time position, you're not ever ever
eligible to get a pay raise. And so we need to talk about all those that fall into that >> map probably as well. >> Yeah. >> So again, it probably isn't even for a policy conversation. I don't know that we need to bring the policy back because this conversation is not reflective in
policy, but maybe um the superintendent, it could be put at some point in an HR update. Yes. >> Um as we get into negotiation season, maybe. or maybe it's more appropriate for a shade session when we're doing negotiations. I'm not sure. But >> I will comment part-time employees do
not require evaluations. >> And didn't at one point we had we were splitting like paras that were doing like part-time paras. I thought that were like um >> we have job sharing. >> Job sharing was what are they
considered? >> That's only that's only for teachers though. No, I thought it was errors as well. >> I don't know. I' I'd rather bring this back when we have full information. I just don't want to share >> correct
>> information that's not accurate. >> May I say something? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> And I think that as we review these policies, as these types of questions come up, it's it's natural, you know, doesn't fall under policy. This one
doesn't sound like, but it certainly has, you know, opened some discussion, you know, about ways we may want to try to improve some procedures and practices >> or not. But so, thank you.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Moving on to 5,000 students. I'll put the policies on the record. 5330.01 01 epinephrine, anaphilaxis, and selfadministered
um medication. Terry, make a note that we need to check the spelling of the >> anaphilaxis is spelled wrong. >> They've spelled aniflaxis wrong. >> 5330.03 03 um administration of epinephrine by
trained school personnel rescended 5350 student suicide prevention awareness and screening 5410.01 01 promotion, acceleration, placement,
and retention. 5460 graduation requirements. 5512 Smoking and tobaccof free environment. 5530 Drug Prevention. 5780
Student Parent Rights. 5780.01 Parent Student Rights Parents Bill of Rights. and 5830 student fundraising. >> Um, go ahead.
>> Student fundraising is the the question that I have and and there may be additional questions I because I mean I have a lot of tabs here, but I haven't they're not in any of the sections we've gone over so far. So, specifically on page two of this, uh, so
what some of this says, I have to figure out exactly what I wrote here. Uh specifically in the green section down towards the bottom of that page 144 in our binders. Fundraising by
students on behalf of school related organizations whose funds are not managed by fiscal officer may be permitted. And this it says the same thing at the top. School level fundraisers must be preapproved by the principal. The principal may permit fundraising by approved school
organizations. So, I'm curious as to why we're even delineating uh the school related versus the non-school related if they're both may be permitted and why it's in separate sections if
that makes sense. >> If I if I understand the question correctly, one is uh school managed funds and one is not school managed funds. So, we're thinking of booster clubs would be an example of non-school managed funds while the other ones would be perhaps like a um an organization or
a fundraiser for a student group. >> I mean, I understand that. I'm just curious as to why they're separated, why it's not just school level fundraisers must be pre-approved. The principal may permit fundraising by approved school organizations
and or you know, other whatever. It's like the policyy's long and so we could have just combined those two paragraphs if we're saying that a principal can approve any kind of fundraiser they want. >> I I think that the policy in this case is about oversight. Um the notes I have
are this policy governs student fundraising activities within the school district. It ensures that fundraising is conducted in a controlled ethical and educational appropriate manner. Um fundraising must be for school related purposes approved by the principal and
superintendent above a certain threshold and comply with federal dietary and financial regulations. This policy protects students from coercion, ensures transparency and accountability in fund management, aligns fundraising with
educational goals, and ensures compliance with legal and health standards. It also maintains the integrity of the school environment and prevents misuse of school resources. The revision has technical corrections, financial requirements, additional
oversight options, and cross references to other policies. These revisions are recommended but not required. >> And I respect all of that thought process and understand it. It's just each one of these basically gives the
principal discretion to say we may permit fundraising by approved school organizations. We may permit students to fund raise uh by approved school organizations off school grounds. We may permit students to beha to fund raise on behalf of school related organizations
whose funds are not managed and whose funds who are managed. It's like we just have separate paragraphs to explain the same thing over and over and over. That's Anyway, moving on. It's not really a question of of uh >> disagree happy if they have big text
that says they aren't going to do raffles. >> That's the thing that I have to deal with all the time. >> So, let me ask a question and I'm I'm kind of out of the loop on something with by asking this question. So, um,
are other organizations allowed to you their stu students doing their fundraisers while they're in school, such as, let me say, Girl Scouts >> or MCFL >> or MC YFL? >> Can they fund raise while they're in
school? >> They're not supposed to be. >> Wait, are they or is it policy? >> What's the >> Because policy I I can comment on. I'm not sure that I can comment on what's actually happening, but outside organizations, if what you're describing is for fundraising for outside organization during school hours, should
not be allowed. You're talking about um fundraising for uh student organizations or like booster organizations as common think. And I'm asking this because so um because sometimes the lines get very
blurred because when you think of MC YFL, a lot of those teams practice on our property and have things on our property. So it looks as if that organization is connected to Marian
County public schools such as uh Girl Scout troops or Boy Scout troops who may actually have meetings on our campuses. So that line could be very blurred and and it could be happening. I think it's happening. Be honest with you. I think it's happening now. >> I mean they pass out Sunny's tickets on
our fields for sure. >> Exactly. I mean because I mean as a Sunny's tickets for MCFL are passed out during practice. If the practice occurs on our campuses then they are absolutely distributing and fundraising. >> But but you're talking about something where they rent the facility from us and then part of their rental they may be
fundraising as part of that. Well >> theoretically renting from us but >> it all looks like it's us perception is it's all us. So how we address is that addressed in there because I don't see it addressed. might want to be handled in the uh rental facilities uh process
to determine what we do and do not allow because a lot of times people are going to take probably some sort of money for their events and so what is taking money for an event versus fundraising? Correct. >> I mean for context like when you rent this auditorium and you charge tickets for a private event here,
>> right? Because I my organization rents this place and we we do a concession stand. That's for us. Um, but the parameter there needs to be some clear parameters >> and maybe in the rental agreement, I'm just opining here, could indicate that when people are doing these events, they
make it very clear they're not part of Marian County Public Schools and there may be some sort of delineation in that way, but that could probably be handled in procedures through rental agreements, I would think. >> Speaking of rental agreements, when is can we can we put a note of a reminder that that is supposed to be coming back
to us? >> I'll give you the date is scheduled. I'm just I'm I I had a little squirrel moment to our rental facilities cost spreadsheet that we talked about like maybe more than a year ago now. Okay. Make sure it's in the hopper
thrower. All right. I'm just going to bring this up. when when we have students that are Marian County Public School students and they're practicing on our fields.
I guess I'm wondering if there is opportunity either in policy or procedure or as some kind of an expectation that if they're going to have the opportunity to use
taxpayer facilities at a very reasonable rate. Is it would it also be reasonable to expect those organizations to uphold our attendance policies. In other
words, have things built into their I'll use MCFL as an example. >> Great example. >> Something to ponder. >> Wow. >> I would a rental agreement. >> Yes. >> And I would Yeah. A rental agreement
where I apologize and I've said many times the staff when we're coming rental agreement certainly it's an ex bargain for exchange and certainly people can give different rates depending on what kind of return we get and a return could be a enforcement of our tenants policy. Just as giving as an example not saying that's what's happen
>> and as another hypothetical example also earn potential discount >> on the rental agreement maybe. >> Yes. >> For stellar attendance. Well, and currently when you offer the product for free, you can't negotiate Jack diddly, which is why we need to come back and
have the conversation, I believe, because I think there are things that we could absolutely negotiate for to support the work of Maring County Public Schools. Um, that would all presume that we're charging for our product, which which for MCFL specifically, we are not
charging. And so, you can't negotiate when you're already at the bottom. Um, but I agree with you. I I mean also I know I was with um Heather Guest at Belleview High School yesterday. They don't she doesn't even allow them to practice on her fields anymore because of how atrocious
the adults behaved on her campus which was completely in violation of schoolboard policy. Vaping, doing recreational drugs, things that were completely beyond our standard. And she said, "You're not allowed to be here anymore because
there's no benefit to her to have them there." Right? And so I agree like beyond just that there is a decorum level of expectation for for how adults behave that should be upheld if they're going to continue to be on our campuses as a reflection of our organization.
Absolutely. >> And to board member Cummings point someone driving by or walking their dog or whatever, they don't know that it's not us. So even though we may or may not be charging,
we still are allowed. It's within our uh purview to establish ground rules. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Especially if you want the free stuff, >> right? >> And we should. >> Okay. >> Totally agree. >> It sounds like there's consensus.
Sooner the better. >> That's in the rental conversation. >> Yes. I think rental agreement the 21st of May. So the 21st of May, we'll be talking about facilities, rental agreements, and maybe we can talk about our our our actual contract and some of the things we require as part of conversation, >> expectations,
>> just all of our policies. I I mean, we we want to every single schoolboard policy I I think that vendors should be at least aware of. Uh financial management, like there's all kinds of pieces that we have embedded in our policy that they shouldn't be hiring
people that, you know, they need to have background checks. Like there there's multiple things throughout here that if we're doing business with a vendor >> because what happens if if a vendor has an event at at our school and there's some problem. They're not going to show
that vendor's business. They're going to show where the actual incident happened and it'll be our schools, our properties that's going to be on the news. So, we have I think we we owe it to ourselves to make sure that they're in compliance
to our standards as well. >> Yep. >> May 21st. >> Mayday. Good conversation. >> Good conversation. >> Are there any others from the 5000s? >> Good. Here we go. >> Okay. From the 6,000s, there are two
that we are going to be bringing back we can also discuss today. Those two are policy 6320 purchasing and contracting for commodities and contractual services and PO 6345
change orders. In addition, we have 6325 procurement federal grants and funds, 6550 travel and expenses, 6605 crowdfunding, 6608 accountability and oversight of
fundraiser and crowdfunding dispersements. >> 6610 school internal funds and 6835 internal audits office. >> Okay. So, chair, I I have flags all throughout
the 6000s. A lot of this has to do with with money and what our conversation we we want to ensure that we're having. So, if we're bringing back the first one of those, the 6320, then I don't have to
bring up the question about outside counsel. If you want to bring that back, we can talk about that later. >> Well, no. I think I mean it has to come back for the second work session, but if there's things that need to be improved, I think it's important that we have those conversations now so the proper product can be brought back to the second session. >> It it's not just that it needs to be
improved. It's just ensuring that the board is fully aware of all the things that are being recommended here. So if we go to almost the end of the policy under contracts must be approved. >> Which one are you on? >> Um if you're in the book, it's 152 is the number at the bottom. SBA 152.
>> Gotcha. Council. Yes. So, just ensuring that we understand that I guess inflation is causing us to need to improve our rates that we charge or that we that we allow
outside counsel to charge. And so, it's going from 175 to 225 for attorneys and 125 to 175 for associate attorneys and then 75 for parallegals. Just wanted to make sure when I saw it, I'm like, "Okay, I put inflation with a question
mark." I understand. I I do understand we do require really low numbers right now and everything is costing more, but as we're making a change like that, I just want to make sure we're all aware that that's what we're about to put in policy.
>> And um I will speak to this also and say that uh as to this policy um board This has been a bit overdue. Um it is a small increase but obviously the number
of hours will be impacting us. However, um it's also a matter of the fact that it's a maximum rate. Um this is in keeping with it's not just a number picked out of the air. Florida admin code um 2-37.010
private attorney services. Um the state actually has a list of what it will pay for private attorney services and that has um gone up as of a few years ago. Uh we've remained flat and not increased to
that amount. In fact, even at that slightly increased amount from I think 175 to >> 225, um it is exceedingly difficult to find council who will
work consistently at that. We are fortunate to have a couple that work for our risk management who have consistently been good partners with us and continue to do that. Um, our outside counsel does have to expand occasionally
into other areas. Um, we tend to minimize the amount that we uh seek outside counsel. Um but when we do need them, um it becomes difficult for us to locate
council who are going to work for, you know, essentially $150 less than what the rate would be that they would choose to pay another government entity. >> Madam Chair, let me ask a question because we we went through this um a few
years ago when Dr. the mayor was doing her thing um and sought outside counsel. Um and I'm asking this to attorney because I don't know is there like a um does the Florida bar or is there like an industry um base and I know every
attorney can charge differently but is there like a standard that we could kind of gauge ourselves on? I think tying it to a number, the only number we can tie it to is what the state has said it authorizes expenditure
for its um outside council attorneys. >> Is that a base or a max? >> That's a max and that's at 225. So, and that is um they I'm sorry, they they actually go up to $250 an hour. So um
and that's and right that's for specialized attorney services. Now specialized attorney services they go into admiralty, copyright, patent, trademark, media, bond and securities law things like that. All other attorney services um are slightly reduced from
that rate. There is no standard attorney rate. Um it is lit literally nearly every single case that goes where an attorney is seeking attorney's fees, they have to have someone testify in the local
environment based on the experience, based on what they typically and customarily charge and what others do. Um you have an expert who comes in and testifies that this is a reasonable amount or not a reasonable amount. Well, we would be doing this from the beginning. at the outset we would say
here's the rate we're going to pay um and and that's >> and how long have we been at this rate? How long we've been at this >> at the 175? >> It was before I got on the board. Um it's been how long? >> Over 25 years. >> Five years. So you can't tell me that
any industry hasn't had a pay increase or rate increase of their services for 25. Nobody does that for 25 years. >> Nobody. most of our own staff are have have experienced over that time frame
nearly double um a pay increase um as opposed to you know what we're >> the wording is also important too because it says shall not exceed >> right >> so we could even go wherever we land going up to whatever is seems to be the
common practice now maybe look at other schools whatever and then if it goes up some more again have that verbiage in there shall not exceed. And if it's folks that have been doing business with us a long time and there's a good business relationship, hopefully they'll give us a break. At least there's the
opportunity there. >> Well, it also, as much as I don't like to say this about my own chosen profession, um it begs for someone to say, um, I would give you a a lighter rate and then
charge more hours. You know, I mean, it's like the mechanic if they're if they think this is a $1,500 job. >> Sure. >> You and they're it's going to take them three hours and you say, "What? That's $500 an hour." Okay. It'll take me 10 hours and I'll only charge you,
>> you know, 150. So um and and ideally we have staff with an enough ex or um we have outside counsel with an enough expertise and time management and dedication to our cause to be able to
deal with these things expediently. And we don't and that's why that's why your general counsel, which is me, reviews all of those bills and ensures that we're not seeing signs of bill padding or something like that. Unfortunately, we we don't. Um and uh we do know that
sometimes uh firms will use the associate attorney um or parallegal services and they use those judiciously in such a manner to improve to be able to give us the services without without having to charge necessarily more. So it
gives them a little leeway as well. >> And we pay our bills. >> Absolutely. And having a having a solvent paying client is a godsend. >> So the reason for the conversation I don't I don't disagree with all the things that have been discussed for sure
and I understand inflation is inflation. understand you get what you pay for and so we want to ensure that we have the ability to pay for the experts that we need but to the point that this rate does predate you know 20 plus years that
also predates having an full-time uh board attorney that doesn't have outside practice and predates having a full-time staff attorney. So, we do have a much larger legal department. If we're even including both of you together in
the same legal department, and you're not. We have much larger legal department than we ever had in the 20 plus years of having this rate. So, I I respect it completely get on board with it. Just wanted to make sure we had the open conversation about it because there
are community conversations about how much we spend on legal. I think the community also can understand how latigious the society has become >> and anybody can sue for anything and that has changed in the last 10 to 15
years as well. So I think community perception is one thing but just wanting to have the conversation because if we're talking increases on legals fees we need to have the conversation as it gets embedded in policy >> and fortunately because of u Mr.
Blackman's presence in um disciplinary hearings and staff and student discipline um and and also with our um completely handling EEOC and FHCP complaints and things like that. Uh we
have it it is vanishingly small compared to 10 years ago the amount of outside council fees we would have had to incur. So most of the outside council fees um that we incur are related to risk
management and in general I believe that we are getting a pretty extreme value for those and that comes from the relationship. All right. I will remember how >> um this doesn't go along with the rest
of the conversation, but I personally am excited to see that we've added um with outside counsel. We've also added consultant. Um I've been um asking for that for quite some time. Um, we've had attorneys that have got around um, our
price point by going into the category of being a consultant and charging us whatever, you know, they deem reasonable, which may not be reasonable for us. So, um, looking forward to adding that to our policy. So, thank you.
>> All right, I will, um, I'm going to let Dr. Campbell take over because I think she has, um, indicated she has some notes. >> Uh, sure. On the next one, procurement. It's just a semantics question. I I have a couple of questions. Uh so this is policy 6325.
Uh if you're following along in the notebook, it's um SBA156. So it's going to be on procurement methods. I I just I'm I'm curious in the phrase or the verbiage of calling a micro purchase anything under $15,000.
I think I brought this up before. We're obviously raising that from 10 to 15,000 by this policy, but still calling that micro. And I don't know that I agree with it being called micro at $15,000. I just I know whenever you're a multi-billion dollar budget that may
sound micro, but to the average citizen it doesn't. So that's just a semantics question. Um then also I believe in that same policy. Let's see. >> Mr. Blackman, do you do you want to comment on that? >> I was just going to add that was a Neola recommendation change. I can double
check on exactly why they recommended that change, but that was not provided by staff. >> Okay. >> And um I can say revisions to policy 6325 expand the record retention period for federal awards. While federal law only requires such records be retained
for three years. Florida Green Book and general records schedule state and local government adopted by the Florida Department of State require that records be retained for five fiscal years from certain events, which doesn't seem to really apply to what your question is. So that's the only notes that I have on
6325. >> And then the other question is almost at the end of the policy under contract price analysis. It's it is a $100,000 increase there on a acquisition threshold. That was the other question.
Um so that's page whatever 159. Um again, anytime we're raising these amounts in policy, I want to make sure we're actually having conversation about them instead of just okay, moving on. Uh so
if if we agree with that, that may have been a Neola recommendation. It may have been a district recommendation that we increase that threshold >> as a neo recommendation. >> Okay. >> This thresholds I was moving from 35.
>> It's going from 250,000 to 350,000. >> 350,000. Okay. >> It's I mean a $100,000 increase on anything. I was like, okay, well, let's just make a little flag on it and see why we're doing that. I mean, the other one was a $5,000 increase. Still considering 15,000 micro is odd to me.
Um, but this one is a $100,000 increase and I just want to make sure we're okay with that. >> Do you have a a substitute word for micro like smaller purchases or >> I believe it has it has some technical meaning um when they call them micro
purchases. I don't think that >> micro versus macro. >> Sure. um >> might not be a very common sense meaning but >> well I mean micro purchases may be made without soliciting competitive quotations considers the price of
reasonably based research blah blah blah blah so I mean it's maybe anything under 15,000 doesn't need to have competitive bid to it I don't know I mean that that's going to mean all the t-shirt orders and all the you know things like that so I just and
and that's possibly true it um any I don't know it's just anytime we're making these dollar increases. I want to make sure that we agree with the policy change as we're doing them. So, if you all agree with it, then that's that's fine.
>> This appears to be federal uh the federal nature of their change. Okay. Uh and we're matching and I can do some more research to confirm this is preliminary research matches the federal requirement. So, it's just kind of keeping things up to date with them. Okay. >> I will do some additional research on the matter.
>> Okay. That's Yeah, that's fine. code is F2.101. >> Okay. Well, in a in a later policy, we have something where we're wanting to go actually it's in travel and expenses where we're wanting to go to the state rate instead of the federal. So, if we're using federal here, then what's
the state? If you could find out that as well, maybe state is alignment with federal. But if we're trying to go more to the state rate versus the federal, then maybe not >> because it's federal grants on this one. >> Okay. >> The other one is our choice to choose. We have to do it at least I believe the
state rate. I know we're not to that one yet, but we were at a higher rate and I believe the recommendation is to drop it to a lower rate. >> Dr. Campbell, do you want to see this one brought back or I >> I mean maybe just the questions answered. It doesn't necessarily have to have us have a labor discussion on it.
It's just clarification. It if it's federal and we're aligning with what federal law says, terrific. Moving on. Or if it was, you know, something that has more we have more purview over do we want to increase those amounts?
>> Yeah, we we'll have to do a deep dive Mr. Blackman and I because uh Niola did not give uh reasoning there. >> Sure. >> Change. >> Uh next policy is 6345 and that's change orders and I know you said we're bringing that back. I did have several questions within it so we can either
talk about them now >> now. Uh do you want to start them Dr. James? Um, so what I'm obviously going from $25 to $50,000 um change order would increase to that amount that the superintendent would
have the authority to approve without board approval. Uh, then I'm curious to know why we were taking out this is right in the very first like second paragraph I guess under changing construction costs why we're taking out that the notification would happen at the immediate board meeting following
that approval. I'm not sure why that would be happening differently. Uh I also and and just I kind of tongue and cheek like whenever we got to the next page is talking about superintendent's authority to approve priority change orders up to 25,000. I'm like well why aren't you
making that 50,000 too since we're moving everything from 25 to 50. Um and then the other thing >> why don't we stop? Can we stop? >> Sure. Go ahead. I can provide the answer for the well the 50,000. >> This is not a Niola based one at all.
>> This is local >> entirely driven by board requests of staff and staff working through these with Mr. Blackman to the best of their ability. >> Attorney Blackman, if you can provide context for the 50,000 ch the change to 50 as well as the um the striking of the
for approval to the board. I don't have the exact time the last time there was an update for the amount but my understanding is it's been some time and then additionally construction c construction costs have elevated quite a bit especially in the post2020 world. So
the idea was 25,000 is no longer really the amount that makes sense. Now we could pick another number or we could keep it at 25,000 but staff thought it might be a bit more efficient. The idea here is to create some efficiencies and the idea being 50,000 might be a a more normal number. Other counties have like
a couple hundred thousand. Certainly, we weren't asking for that, but that was the reason why there was 50. Now, the reason why it's not the next board meeting is because the issue, I'll be honest, the issue that I had with it is if something were to happen prior to being able to publish or right before
the board meeting, you're technically out of compliance. Let's say something happens on Friday and the board meeting is on Tuesday, you don't have enough time to bring it. This would allow the flexibility to be able to bring it on the one following. Now, maybe there's some rewarding of that, but the idea being is maybe I'm just obsessed about
making sure everything is complied with, but you could see how quickly one could become out of compliance depending on when a change order were to go into effect. And we certainly don't want to adjust our change orders to we want to do them based on efficiencies, and we want to do them based on what makes sense for our schools and and uh building. We don't want to do them
because we got to hold on this one. So, we wait for that for the board meeting so we can be in compliance for the next board meeting uh notice. And I don't think that makes sense either. So my recommendation personally would be that not striking through it but rather approved approved to the board at the board meeting that follows his or her
approval as as aligned with publishing >> guidelines because I can see what you're saying is if like technically the board the board meeting that is after is four days after but it's not properly published so it's really two board meetings after. Um however the way this appears is that we're not telling the
board at all which is I think what um I interpreted from what Dr. Campbell said and so and I would be in agreement with her. So I would simply say do not strike it through and say aligned with publishing guidelines or some other nuance language like that >> or as soon as practicable. >> I think that
>> I don't I don't like that >> you could say um >> I do not like as soon as practicable because then it can just be non-practicable for six months because and and this is not a reflection of Dr. Brewer, but we had a period of time where I personally felt like there were things happening in this district in
facilities that were not being told to the board. And I don't ever want to put ourselves in a position again on with our own policy that puts us in that position. That's just my personal perspective. >> And and just so the um public is aware, the board is aware as well, the requirement to make the board aware of
this is a requirement in statute. So there's we wouldn't be able to avoid telling the board about this even if one wanted to. Another option could be on a monthly basis or within a month. So the board is made aware, but that gives us flexibility and makes it so it has a definite time frame to it. Um, but it
also allows some flexibility. So we're approving things in a matter that once again focuses on efficiency. >> Yeah. I mean within 30 days or whatever, >> within 21 days even and maybe we go 30 days just because it's cleaner, but within 21 days basically we have a board meeting every two weeks
>> because it's not just about publishing, >> right? So I mean it's like But we only have one meeting in November and December. And so you might get yourself in a pickle there. >> Maybe we could look up the definition of practical because all I think that that term legally is the umbrella
where if it can't be defended that it wasn't practical to bring it to us, then we have grounds as a board. >> I I mean I'm very comfortable with that language because I mean attorney P will say as well, we deal with the word reasonable all the time and that means something to us. However, I realize that
not everyone feels that way. So, we're comfortable with whatever the board wants to do. I'm I'm comfortable with whatever's soon as practical. I'm also comfortable with a definite time frame as long as we're able to do things in a way that is best for our schools and the taxpayers.
>> As a drafting start, we had just uh placed as aligned with publishing guidelines. So, um the meeting that follows his or her approval as aligned with publishing guidelines. If that doesn't work, then let me know. I'm >> you'd like to see other >> that works for me.
>> Yeah, >> that works for me too. >> Okay, so let's >> go with it. >> Pinch it down and let's let's reread it. Such change orders shall be binding upon execution by the superintendent. The superintendent shall report each change order that she approved to the board at
the board meeting that follows his her approval as aligned with publishing guidelines. >> That work for everyone? >> Yes, it works for me. Dr. Kimbo, >> sure. It it that part of it works for me just from a semantic standpoint and
grammatical standpoint because throughout this entire book, we're changing she he to they. I don't want this one policy to stick out. And so it's it's all throughout this these changes. So just that's going to be something you can work on later.
Um but just know that this whole policy has a she he through the whole thing. and all the other policy changes we've been making today have been taking that to a singular I know it's not a correct anyway >> I I didn't realize we were changing things today >> yeah yeah no they it's all that way
>> it's all Nola's recommendations all over >> and has made the recommendation I'm assuming it for brevity purposes >> everything >> all >> we dare not digress into the conversation >> I I understand but I'm like let's if we're going to be consistent let's just do it >> if we were in here. Let's go ahead and
fix it if we can. >> Let's just um real for the purpose. So, let's stay focused on the um change that Miss Brown has provided. >> Um I believe Dr. Campbell, board member Conrad and myself are agreeable to what Miss Brown wrote there, but I know Miss
Thor and Dr. uh Reverend Cummings, I'd like to hear from >> Oh, I said that was good. >> Okay. I said I I can go with it as long as we believe that that term right there is going to cover us in all the nuance situations. That's that's all I care about. >> Well, and I do think it's vague enough
that it allows us as a publishing guidelines may change for us to continue to adapt the approp it it can change. >> You want to make the they there changes and >> yeah, there's some all throughout the green section too whenever we're in the
changing substantial completion date. There's a couple there as well. Uh yeah, >> but yeah, I mean don't get hung up on that. >> No, don't get hung up on it, but just know that those are policy changes that we've made all throughout. Uh I was curious under the request by the cont. So, first of all, I while I was tongue
andcheeking the top saying superintendent authority approved priority change orders up to 25,000. I think that needs to stay the same and not go to 50,000. So, I was kind of joking about that. Uh but the other one is the request by the contractor. Do we
want to embed in policy something about including the remedy of sorts? So, if they've requested the extension to the substantial completion date, I know that we now have >> We're not on date yet. Did you move to a date section? Because this is
construction cost because I got lots of thoughts about dates. >> Okay. Well, in the same policy. >> Yeah, in the same policy. I just didn't know you left the first page. Construction cost. >> The first page. So I just want to I think let's button up the the money thing first if that's okay. >> Go ahead.
>> Um well just board what are your thoughts on changing the 25 to 50. >> I will say I I probably look at the information currently as we all as chair have been but I don't think there's it's going to change much about what's reported because most everything is
still over 50. Like it's over 25 but it's also over 50. So most of it's still going to be anformational only item because there's not a lot of stuff that's falling between 25 to 50 because if it's a change order from an additive change order, it's it's it's I just
think I'm and I don't have a fact, but maybe um Miss Usher can bring that back to us because this will come back against some data of how really impactful changing that 25 to 50 would be from a change order perspective. Um I yeah I mean I think we we'd be splitting
hairs on it personally but I can go with whatever is agreeable to the board. What does the rest of the board take on the 25 or 50? >> I'm agreeable with the 50. >> Okay. Uh Reverend Cummings >> because I because I agree agree with the reasoning. I don't I don't think there's
going to be a big change. >> Reverend Cummings or board member Thor. >> I don't have a strong feeling about it. If it's recommended 50, then I can go with it. >> Okay. Okay. It sounds like the majority of us are then fine with 50. Um, so I
think is we're good to move forward with 50. Dr. Campbell, did you have things you wanted to add on that? >> I I'm just I'm pondering. I I mean I think that I I think I'm okay with it. I think we'll talk, but we're going to have additional conversation about it. So, let me continue to ponder it. Even
even I'm like I'm like it doesn't really matter because no matter what when we do our agendas we still pull those amounts anyway. So we're going to have discussion on them. So I don't have an issue with it going to 15. >> Well we don't
>> we we we still notate them for information only. That's what I'm saying. >> We would stop is what this is policy is saying. If it the number were to fall south of 50,000 it would no longer be anformational item. >> No longer. Okay. ask about >> right >> we still have to notify the board I'm
sorry me what's the question >> it's hard to hear it's really hard >> so so currently if a change order is under 25,000 it is not read into record as anformational item >> the board would need to be notified of even if it's under 25
>> you did like 80 cents recently >> yeah we did yeah >> had a couple >> now now how the board's notified there may be some flexibility to that but the board must be notified even if it's under 25. So the board should be getting the same notification. This is all about the superintendent being able to prove
something so we don't have to worry about getting >> so so what's the purpose in changing the number then? >> The purpose >> that the superintendent has the authority to make the change without us weighing in on it. And so that's that's what this is >> or redesignate. Okay. >> Right. So that's what this is talking to. This is like they can approve that
all of a sudden some contractor now charges $49,000 more than what we approve that what we thought was going to happen and the superintendent has that complete purview without the board ever having to see it. It just becomes anformational item as opposed to the board actually having to approve that and that's where I'm like >> vote on the change order
>> correct >> and this has nothing this would not be voting >> and ultimately it will be the superintendent's designate is how the language is written. So sure, >> it'll typically be I would presume the head ofities, >> right? That's why I'm I'm still pondering it since it's coming back to us. I I
>> yes, >> I I don't know how I feel about that. >> Well, and and one thing I'm just remembering that I know that we had talked about trying to get into this policy was a um a threshold that wouldn't have to come to the board. So for instance, we have done recently
multiple like 80 cent additive change orders. So we can we can handle that through procedure. I believe we be appropriate with the board's um I think consensus which would be uh it shouldn't be in policy necessarily because you you have
to be notified of every single change order. You have to be even if it's 25 cents. Now how you're notified of that there probably is some flexibility. We could do it via email potentially and on a quarterly basis or a monthly basis, but or we could do it on one item on the board meeting and have like a document
attached with every single item on there. There's a lot of ways we can do it to prohibit having so much information kind of flooding a board agenda. But that would be something we would kind of have to handle separately and apart from this. So you you would you have to be made by statute you have to be made aware of every single change
order. So even if it's 25 cents, I have to tell you. >> Sure. But this the what we're talking about in changing of this policy is what we want the board to have authority over versus what we want the superintendent or her design to have authority over. And if we're comfortable with saying
they can approve $50,000 without us ever knowing it, then that's I mean not without us ever knowing it, but they can approve it and then we're notified after the fact. And that's where what is and maybe the for apart from construction what is our threshold right now that you
have the authority to approve >> $50,000. >> Okay. So then that answers the question that I mean then that answers >> literally $50,000 except for facilities where it's 25. Okay. >> Like any other >> the question >> any other contract it it's $50,000 and
the chair just signs it. >> Okay. Then that answers the question. >> If I may um this is about efficiency. That's the goal of this, which is obviously as construction costs have gone up. The goal is if there's some change that needs to be done now, we can say yes to it. And obviously the board
still has oversight by reviewing it. And if the board's not content with what's happening, the board has all sorts of oversight capabilities as as well as the board's well aware. But this is the idea of we don't want to delay things, especially if I'm just going to give an example. I'm making up all the facts that are beneficial to my point. But let's say if we don't order now, the
price is going to go up in a week or two weeks. then that could be an example of an inefficiency. Now, obviously that's a pretty advantageous fact pattern. But the point being though is the board is still made aware of all items and the board can't exercise its oversight capabilities and if the board's discontent with how things are going,
board knows how to let us know what the board's interested in. So, this is about trying to make sure and there's also there's a cumulative total as well for this. So, it's not like we can just piece a whole bunch of items and suddenly there's a substantial change that the board's made aware of millions of dollars. uh this is a there's a limit
to that. So, but anyways, the whole idea behind really this entire section change is is hopefully to provide some levels of of efficiencies while still providing the oversight at the board would like to have as well. >> As to that next section,
superintendent's authority to approve priority change orders up to $25,000. >> Sorry. So, did we settle on 50 board going once, going twice? An edited version of this will still come back to us in part two. So either way, we'll see
this in part two. >> Okay. But yes, I think I think >> I almost said 50 was maybe >> that would be in alignment with all the other approvals. >> Thank you for the clarification. It was a hanging ch.
So moving on to date >> as to superintendent's authority to approve priority change orders up to 25,000 that also can move to 50,000 provided that we add language which requires the board chair also to sign
off. So we have in this, you know, district the and in most districts the the dual submarine keys, you know, the ones where you get to both people have to be turning that key. So if the board chose, we could we could make that
priority change order um up to $50,000 if it were to include both the board chair and the superintendent. That's just something to think about and decide. Was there any further thoughts on that board or
>> we can leave it exactly as it is? >> I think when you bring it back I like the recommendation of what you just said that it's not just that at least the the board chair would have some authority there as well. Um I guess apart from just
I mean it's interesting that the recommendation did not come from staff to change that one to 50. that we're talking about changing it. So, that's interesting to me. Anyway, I'm fine with that. And um I'll I'll get with Mr. Blackman
separately, find out if this is a change that staff would recommend or staff would like prefer to have it at 25. I don't mean to speak out of turn as to >> staff will take the higher amount but it it's it's not a matter of they were when
I went through this process with staff and we sat down and we talked about this there was a real reticence to be asking for too much. They try to keep things within the lower end of the spectrum. So um if the board believes that there's there's a that's a good idea certainly
we're not going to say no to it. The real thing we need to do is just put a design build policy in place and then that way we wouldn't have change orders ever again. >> Okay. >> Are we are we going to $50,000 and being consistent across the board 50 across
everywhere? >> I believe that's what the recommendation from the board has been or the majority of the board >> because I didn't I'm I'm looking like I it was strange that the staff didn't recommend >> right Reverend Cummings. I I can't hear what you're saying.
>> It was strange that staff did not recommend it from going to from 25 to 50. I would have just me personally just let's keep all the numbers you >> same. Sounds like they were being >> well and staff to be honest staff may
not wish it because of the fact that this now means that anything up to 50,000 requires superintendent and board chair whereas 25,000 and below may be more commonly what they're dealing with and they can just process those without
board chair. So that's something for I mean I believe there's there's I think that Mr. Blackman and I can present you with two options. >> Just know once we give it up, we're never getting it back. So, and that's fine. We're in a hyperbuilding
mode right now for the next 8 to 10 years. So, that's that's fine. Um, and so I I mean, I think that >> we can get it back whenever we want. It's our policy, not theirs. >> I I understand, but it's more difficult to go backwards than it is to go forwards. There's not a single
recommendation in here to reduce the amount. So, and that's fine. I mean, you But how how rarely do you ever have an amount being reduced versus being increased? >> It's being abused. We have the right to bring it back. >> Completely agree. But if it's being
abused, it's going to be more difficult to even identify the abuse because they're going to be presented to us but in big batches of things potentially even by email now instead of being read in a board meeting. So I I respect that
we are in a hyperbuilding phase. I respect that staff wants to work more efficiently, but every dollar sign that we give authority over the board's responsibility is the budget and the budget includes the facilities
budget. A deep dive audit in facilities budget doesn't happen like we have our audits on our schools. So, well, we don't approve an internal audit of the facilities department like we do on our schools every every board
meeting. So, I mean, I'm just again, we we don't have to belabor this point. It's coming back to us. I just want us to really be cognizant that every time we give up that authority, and that's fine. It's it's fine if the board agrees that we need to be okay with that. But
our job is budget, not hers. So that's >> and I believe that my discussion with Mr. Blackman will probably also include an option which allows superintendent's authority to approve the priority change orders up to 25
or up to 50 with the board chair. So it's bifurcated. So if it's 25 to 50 then the two of them would sign it. If it's um as to what they requested in the first place, they have their request.
Otherwise, if it's slightly more, then it does require some board oversight. Can I just respond to one quick thing? When I mentioned email, of course, that's a potential suggestion, but additionally, it might be just for a certain threshold. So, for instance, items under $25 might come into an email
form versus things above there would still go to the board and agenda. There there's a lot of options. I was just presenting different ideas. I didn't want to mean to suggest that that was what we were intending on going forward with right now. >> Okay. Um if we want to move to the latter half of this policy under
changing substantial completion date. So I know that there was some discussion that several of you wanted to have. >> I can start. >> Go ahead, Dr. James. Um so right now what we're looking at is a 10% or 60 days essentially circumventing the
authority of the board right now as at it as it exists because of the absence of policy on this every change order with any time extension comes to the board for a vote not for an information item right um and that's a correct
statement so um it's not an information only item but every day even to the singular day is a time extension. So I have a variety of concerns but those have been pretty well maintained for the last couple of years. So what I
will say is this paragraph two says that if the substantial completion date is from is not from is not this contractor's fault. Then the superintendent has the
authority to approve 10% of the total days or 60 days whichever is less. Which basically means if our staff don't do their job up to 60 days or 10% whichever is less
that doesn't have to come to the board >> for a vote. >> So >> is that a correct statement? Let's start there. Now, I would I would um ask what you mean by um if you go back and ask why was there a delay? Because why there's a delay does matter. The delay is because what in this scenario?
>> Well, in paragraph two, it just says not the fault of the contractor. It doesn't say why. And and for context board, what I will I'm going to paint I'm going to give one example and I'm not going to I'm not going to like belabor this for this whole day. Vanguard High School
elevator shaft 200 plus day delay. We can't even go after after um liquidated damages because the contract didn't even have the proper terms in it and had a TBD basically different
acronym as the expected delivery date for substantial completion. So we couldn't even go after and I haven't even brought this up because it's not even at this point it's not even worth belaboring but the point is the wellb bro in their negotiations well bro correct right contractor only was
taking ownership of like 80 days and our legal council was in agreement that like 80 days 80 to 100 days was probably what they were responsible for. We were responsible for 100 plus days of the delay. Now this is going back two plus
years. So, Miss Usher is holding a bag that she's really not even responsible for because all of this contract and all this stuff preceded her work in our district. My point is this is a glaring example of why if our staff is
responsible for a delay, it should come to the board every single time. If the contractor says, "We got a hurricane and we're now 20 days delayed and that's all valid." I'm in complete agreement. We don't need to we don't need to be in the
weeds on a 20-day delay of a 200 day project, which is 10%, right? Um because of a hurricane. I'm totally in agreement with that. But when our staff is the reason for the delay, I think that should come to us every single time.
>> And so I don't disagree with you, Dr. James. And I'll say that the purpose, so I think an extra line might do what you're asking for. So in the first paragraph, the request for by staff is only supposed to be if it benefits the efficient operation of schools or the delay is beyond the control of either
the school district or the contractor. If there's something to do with the staff not doing their job and the delay is because of them, I agree with you. It should come before the board. Now, you may parse and say, "Well, who's going to determine that?" But the board has oversight when this comes before the board and certainly just as you're doing
now has the ability to bring up these issues. But we only know, just to interject, we only know about Vanguard because because we know about it. So the absence of making the board aware would then leave the board unaware. And I know
that sounds very Kla Harris of me, but that's I'm I'm because I'm talking in circles, but what I'm trying to say is like we only know because we know. And so if you don't if we get to a place where we're not saying anything, then we're not going to know. >> And I don't disagree with you. However,
if it comes out that their delay was because of staff and they didn't tell you, then that's something the board will eventually find out about. And there will be >> How would we find out? >> How would you call? >> Well, if there's a delay, I mean, if there's a one or two day delay, you
probably wouldn't find out, but I'm being realistic. >> Do you know about it? >> I mean, maybe the quarterly facilities report it would be buried in. I mean, maybe. But obviously in most scenarios what you're probably concerned about is the larger I do agree smaller delays
you'll probably never find out about and I I mean I don't know longer delays >> but the system right now correct me if I'm wrong board the only you none of you knew about all of those details about the elevator shaft except for me did you know board member Thor >> I had a tour of Vanguard because it's in
my district and that elevator shaft well when I saw it it was flooded from the hurricane so that was one issue also trying to do the work that was required in that old shaft and bring it up to
today's standards was also a huge issue. Um Vanguard High School accommodated for it as best they could really >> that is something that we experience with relative frequency due to the age of our schools. So, I'm a little
concerned about I'll just call it what it sounded like to me, an accusation. >> It's basically >> attorney powers can provide it all. >> So, I would love to get more context and information about that because that to
me will help me determine my input on as a school board member where we should be going with our policy. Attorney Powers, would you like to comment on this or I will tell you that just Miss Usher and I met with Wro just recently as of the week before spring
break and there are still conversations taking place. Um but Attorney Powers, do you want to add any context? >> Um broadly that completion dates have to be made on a have to be put on a change order. Correct.
>> Completion dates have to be placed on a change order. Um, so all change orders have to come to the board. So that would normally be captured. So in in this case the change order it was a
matter of I guess when it was submitted but I I'm >> we've never we've yet to see a change order for it >> and there won't be at this phase because of the fact that that was a case in which in the original contract there was
TBD to be determined and someone let that get into the construction contract which led it to a question of whether there was any date or whether 2062 could
be you know still out there. So >> why would that have been put in there to be determined that >> because they did not apparently at the time have and they they were pushed to give an actual date. They gave an estimate as to date but then they were
allowed to leave TBD within the actual exhibit of the contract and that is what caused the problem. So that that's what made the fact that that the board would never in that sort of
one-off case hopefully a one-off case the board would not be informed. the board will not have that case brought back before it because there's not a there's not a change order to be closed or completed. It's it's not uh there's there's not a updated timeline timeline
uh an updated date because the date is always to be determined. So, it's over essentially. >> Wasn't Wasn't that TBD put in there because >> Sorry. Wasn't that TBD put in there? I'm just trying to remember something about
this that it was put in there originally because of the availability of the parts that they need to get to get to fix it. >> That's updated and upgraded and >> correct >> bring it up to federal requirements. >> Right. And I think that's why it got put in there. But it should have got it
should have came out at some point >> once we knew when those parts and and material were available. And it it it just probably somebody didn't see it. >> Well, and to your point, that's why I have been pushing for when we know
there's a delay to bring a change order to the board with a new end date. Because if that had occurred, when the hurricane happened or when any of the delays had occurred and we had established a new date based on the guidelines, then it's really easy to place quote unquote blame on who is responsible for the delay. Because if
you do them incrementally based on issues that arise, then it's it's very easy to notate, okay, well, there was a hurricane, it flooded, we're now 20 days delayed, and you put that in and then you change the date. But this this school district until very recently has
been in a habit of no change orders and then at the end we just see a change order for us x amount of days that somehow is supposed to encompass and it's it's a Monday morning quarterback opportunity for the contractor because then they can go through and say well these days were because of this and
these days were because of this to avoid liquidated damages. And so I think our process has improved for incremental change orders as we are made aware of them. And and again all of this predates Miss Usher. So this is none of this is hanging on Miss Usher by any means and the department that is existing right
now because this project was like I mean like two years ago basically. So, but my point is and my my heartburn is around the the absence of accountability if our staff is responsible for the delay and
then who is the judge and jury on the responsibility which I is the superintendent but the superintendent we are the judge and jury for the superintendent and so my concern is releasing that power I guess is the best word to say or
oversight to be able to have um awareness of those delays because 20-day delay for a 200 day project, 20 days is is significant considering especially if our staff are responsible for the 20 days. That's my it's you
know, mother nature is mother nature. My concern is when our staff are responsible. >> So, Dr. James, if I may, I think the problems you're describing are the ones we're trying to address. Maybe we don't necessarily maybe the numbers can change but the idea being is we want the board
to be made aware almost immediately. The same language is being used here and we can we can actually make this language reflect the language from the previous page which is being made according to publishing guidelines whatever it is that when a delay does happen and like you said 10% or 60 days whatever is less when a delay does happen it has to go
before the board at the next scheduled meeting at that meeting we can indicate why the delay is occurring too and that's also your chance to provide some oversight what we didn't want to have happen >> I'm not trying I'm really not trying to go back and forth forth. But the first
sentence of paragraph 2 is different than the second sentence of paragraph 2. The first sentence says if it is 10% or under 60 days, it's not coming to the board. It is not unless I'm just missing it, but I don't think I'm missing it. If
it's over 10% or 60 days, then it comes to the board. But there is a circum circumventing of the board with under 10% or 60 days. >> I'm sorry. No, it's supposed to be anything beyond that comes to the board for approval.
>> Correct. >> And then the next line, superintendent shall report each change order as she approved to the board. Superintendent's approval of change order shall be entered in official minutes. So it's supposed to be every change order. Every change order regardless of the board approves it or not, has to go to the board for your review. Regardless, only
the ones that go beyond 10% or 60 days, whatever is less, um those have to be approved prior to going forward. The idea being is we all expect some delays and we don't want we want efficiency at the same time. We want to make sure there's accountability and it's trying to find that balance between efficiency
and accountability. The board has expressed a desire to have oversight and accountability. This is trying to do that while trying to maintain some level efficiencies. Hey, there's a 5-day delay. We're not going to stop the whole project while we're waiting to see if a five-day delay occurs. However, there's a 20-day delay on a on a 100 day
project. You need to look into that. And that's kind of the idea behind this the goal. It's trying to balance those two interests. >> But the board is not approving the change order. It is being brought to the board simply for information only >> for the first >> correct >> section for the first 10% or 60 days
whatever is less. Those would be only for your review just as you would only review them under 50,000 uh for the change orders. So the idea is you follow that same sort of timeline. So you're you're made aware and obviously at that point they should be happening regularly. if they're happening, the board should see it and at that point
you go, "Hey, there's a problem with this or I don't necessarily understand why that delay is happening." Maybe that's our staff's fault. That would be your chance to bring that up and identify the issue. >> But and and to what your point is, if they're coming incrementally, this is not a culmination of days. These
>> It should be. Yes. If it's not, I will rewrite it to make sure it does. It should be an accumulation. It should be 10% total. if that's not in there. >> Total days allotted in the initial contract.
So the singular change order that's coming forward can be approved without coming to the board if it is less than 10% or 60 days of the total days allocated in the initial contract. So the first change order is
five days because it's staff mess up. The superintendent signs off. Now the new substantial completion date is not 200, it's 205, >> right? And so now are we are we we have another five days.
Are those five days then a part of the 200 or the 205? >> They're part of the 200. And if if I need to rewrite this to bring back to the board, I'm happy to. But that would be my intention. It should be accumulation. There should be accumulation amount just like there's an accumulation amount in the other one as well. But the total amount should be 10%
total. So on a 200 day project, you would not be more than 20 days without the board having to then force. So maybe five days, five days, 10 days. All future ones have to go to the board. Otherwise, people could do something where they do approve 19 days, 19 days, 19 days. And I I I wouldn't agree to
that at all. I don't think that makes sense. Once again, this is balancing your oversight and then efficiency and trying to find that right balance. >> Lord, who else has thoughts on this? Dr. Campbell. >> I have I have two thoughts. Um the first one is it sounds like potentially to
remedy one of your concerns Dr. James would be to say um the superintendent believes that the extension is based on external factors and is not the fault of the contractor. So potentially if we were to delineate the difference in an external factor versus an internal
factor that might remedy it. Not sure. The other piece to it I'm just doing the math here 60 days. So again, you're never going to reach 60 days unless you have a project that is two plus two
years. Like I'm just trying to do the math. I mean, I guess a high school we potentially give them a full two years to get it done. 36 and I'm assuming these are based on calendar days as opposed to business days. So 365 days in a year. If they have to go beyond, if
they're a month late, that's still way below 60 days. If they're two months late, it's potentially still below 60 days. So, I'm just I'm trying to figure out
the balance of even using 60 days as a number because the only thing that we would be a 60-day on I would say is something that has potentially two years of a contract, 18 months. Madame Chair, an option for
discussion would be that we could make it so that the superintendent and board chair together have to approve any delay up to 60 days. So, um that's another potential option.
>> Who else has thoughts on this topic? >> And I'll just respond. I agree 60 days is unlikely to be the number that's ever met. 10% is likely always going to be the number >> because even at 18 months you're still probably 54 days if you're >> I mean >> I can't imagine. But the idea being is
at some point the board may want to cap on the other side of that just in some future project that we can't consider. But I I do agree 10% is 99% of the time going to be the relevant number. >> 10% still is a lot. >> A lot. I mean 10% is a big number on a long project. So, like if you're two
months behind and your substantial completion date is August and we need to start school, a two-month delay that and that would never come to us. >> And this is beyond is not even the responsibility of the contractor. This is all our staff. So, let's even
preface. No, no, but this this particular paragraph is not even about the contractor being at fault, right? This particular paragraph is specifically about >> our staff. Well, without including the external factors. >> Our staff's opinion on matters. Our staff's opinion that, hey, there's this,
you know, skinks, just a random animal that external factor. >> Yes. So, that would be the example of there's some sort of efficiency or something. We're saying, hey, we need to do this, right? There's a delay in shipping. There's no fault of this. we need to go and do that because we need to prove it because what we don't want to have happen and I know the way
business was different but how was expressed to me what we don't have happen is the contractor be concerned that the contract's not going to be extended uh and it's just you know 15 days and well what do we do we stop work or there's other concerns we want to be able to say yes that's okay let's move forward right obviously if it goes
beyond 10% that's the kind of level that it needs to be approved and there may be delays it also gives us some protection that we can say hey we don't want delays because now we're going to have to go to a board once we extend that 10%. >> 10% is still a lot. So, I'm I'm struggling with the 10% number, but I'm
also struggling with the thought process of not incorporating external factors because I I agree with what you're saying there. Sanskinks, that's an external factor. We have no control over that. We have no control over the federal government having to give us a permit and they clo they shut down for however long they shut down. So, like
that's an external factor. But let's say that we needed something done in a school and I don't want to use I sort of want to use the North Marian windows scenario please just but but okay let's use it and I don't I don't know I don't want to go back in time and really
rehash that necessarily but let's say that the contractors originally bid and put into place saying that a certain something would happen and then when the contractor showed up staff had actually removed all the things that they thought were going to happen right let's say that staff was completely responsible
for the windows being removed with the whole thing being taken out that whatever and the frame is completely gone and all of that. Well, now the factors have changed and so that's not necessarily the case but like that's I'm I'm trying to use that but so now the factors of the original contract
agreement have actually changed and that's an internal factor because we did it. It wasn't an external factor. External factor would be that the frame came in incorrectly or whatever. Well, that might be the contractor's fault. I mean, so like there's there's the I know
we're going to be talking about this later. So, I kind of wish that we would kind of move on from this and just see if there's anything else that we the only other question that I had about the request by contractor was I think we need to include in our policy what the remedy is that we're asking for at least
saying something about with some kind of consequence associated with it. If they're requesting it, we're attaching a consequence. That's and I we have that in practice, but we don't have it in policy. That was the only thing else I want to talk about this, but we're we need to have an extensive conversation about where we're going with this
policy. And I think staff can hear us now. All the different concerns we have that we're bringing up. >> Well, I'm not sure everyone's had an opportunity to talk. >> Yeah. No, I want to extend the opportunity to talk about it to board member Thrower or Reverend Cummings. Did you guys have thoughts specifically on the change order and the discussion we've had?
>> I've already said my comments. stated that, hey, um, we need to make sure that no m we're not going to get to the 60 60C. I don't I don't see the need for the 60 days. So, um, and 10% is a lot. So,
>> I'm on the same lines, Dr. Camp. >> War member Thur, did you have anything you wanted to add? What I would like to add is that as we continue to move through and improve this policy in practice that we be very
careful about slandering staff, especially staff that is no longer here to have any opportunity to defend themselves. Um there are so many variables when it comes to construction and and conditions
that again if we want to have our staff feel confident, competent, empowered, and supported, we need to continue to be really mindful
of how we're working through this policy. to get to where we want to land. >> Board member Conrad, did you have anything you wanted to add? >> Um, I just
to go with board member Thrower's comment that she just shared. Um, I think the other side of that coin is transparency. Um, I I 100% want to support our staff. Um, I think most people know that about me.
Um, but when we have a a two-year-old problem that most of the board either has not been aware of or they were just recently have been made that there's a problem and we need to figure out um as a board through our policy, how is the
board going to stay informed on these issues? Um, and that falls into transparency. um even if it's just through information. Uh and so um I too feel like um the 60 days at 10% is a big
number. I'm I'm struggling with that. That's a long time um in um school calendar. You know, you're thinking about uh what our staff and our students have to work around and deal with. Um so anyway, I I would like some compromise
on that to come back. Um, but I do I definitely think that um there's room for improvement in this area because it's not been done efficiently. >> If I may real quick, one of the um
examples brought to me was one school during a construction process asked for the the contractor to delay because of PM3 testing. >> And in that situation, we said, "Of course, yes." I think everyone at this table would say, "Of course, yes." That makes sense. Um, but if we're in a
scenario where there's not the ability to say yes quickly, then what do we do? And so that's that's an example of being provided some flexibility to be able to make these quick decisions because if we're told, hey, we got to wait for the board to approve it, the contractor may say, well, I don't want to be out of
compliance and I want to turn around and demand to work during the time that I was contracted to work. Now, I don't think that's what anyone wants, but that's the kind of things we're trying to avoid here. Um, >> Dr. Attorney Blackman, I appreciate that you have brought that up because that right there says that our staff doesn't know
what the other side of the house is doing and that is not okay. So, there should never be a contract put in place that says we are going to have people working during specific testing windows if it's construction related because facilities should know what academics is
doing in that scenario. So, I will not accept that as a as an option here because I I appreciate uh but I I have been in a school when a maintenance worker from our tech services walked in to do some major repair that had a work
order in and it's testing day and it's like h we are here to help every student succeed. every single employee, every single department. I understand they have a job to do, but our job is
students. And so I I appreciate that, but sorry, I'm getting a little hot about that. But I completely disagree with that even being a conversation because if our facilities department and our tech services departments and all of them are not aware of the testing window
that this board approves, then why are we even here? So, >> well, and if uh I and I could be wrong, but I think you're talking about Howard Middle School and how they moved to work on the weekends. Um >> I'm not sure which example. >> So, but as an example, Howard Middle School moving to weekends um to work on
the roof and the gutter job as is is an example of that. Um the de, you know, there was a delay and then basically the contractor said, "Okay, well, we're we're backing out of our window and so now we have to work on weekends basically." And they got it done, right? but they had to work weekends and it got
extended. We meet every 21 days like in a 21 I do not see how there's ever a time if we are not staying on top of our schedules that that a change order we know the testing schedule is the testing schedule. It's literally already said it's it's given out at the beginning of
the school year. So if if all of the parties are talking, and they are now, there really should not be there really should not be periods of time when all of a sudden we wake up on Monday morning and go, it's PM3 testing. I just don't see that as a reality. Everyone should be able to backwards plan out of that at
least 30 days to get a change order to the board timely so that no one is inconvenienced. >> And we can absolutely continue to do what we're doing. uh I would point if that's what the board's uh consensus is, I would only point down to the last paragraph and ask about that third one
which is an example come to emergencies and I could explain that to the board and what was intended by staff with that paragraph. The idea behind this is as it was explained to me, this would be an extreme situation and this would be kind of situation that no one can necessarily
anticipate. uh you know, you're you're getting into uh a situation and you find asbestos and and pardon me that I'm not a facilities person. I don't know construction, so the example is not the best. I apologize, but you get in there and you realize, hey, we have to move forward now on doing this or else we're
going to risk getting the kids back to school on time. You know, that we could say, hey, go ahead and approve that in an emergency situation. But only that, uh talking with Miss Usher, she would expect this to happen once or less per year. This would not be something that would be regularly done. This is
something that is rare. Um, but if not, then we run the risk once again of having to come back and delay things that that you know, you know, you could even change it to the board chair could sign as well as attorney powers recommended before. Like you can create other other oversight opportunities so
it's not abused by any means, but having that opportunity I think is important to making sure those unforeseen circumstances are dealt with um accordingly. >> Member, >> thank you. Um and this is just another great example this whole conversation of something that we have struggled with as
a district for eons and it's internal communication you know um I remember as a classroom teacher you know having someone show up to I don't know it was probably change out the fluorescent light >> the light bulbs >> yeah and it you know how is that person
supposed to know what my lesson plan was that day I always considered it an intrusion you know during my teaching time almost no matter matter, you know, what it was. So, as we continue to strive forward on this and certainly being, you know, mindful of our past to
improve our future, uh, then then I'm going to be all for that conversation. Now, what that looks like, if facilities needs to literally have an academic calendar that they also have as part of their process of when they schedule things that are non-emergency in nature,
uh, you know, so be it. There's I agree with you uh Chair James that there are all kinds of ways to improve and and board member Conrad uh to to improve transparency to reduce variables to help keep everyone on the same page in an
organization of our size. >> Well, and this is going to come back regardless. Obviously, we also based on this conversation want it to come back. So, this particular one will come back. Certainly, staff can have conversations based on the board's robust discussion today. And I I would encourage if staff
want to hear uh me in any further length describe my hesitation around this, I'll certainly have meet with staff one-on-one to, you know, share my concerns as a board member before we meet again on it. >> So, we've not received any specific
uh requests for alterations. So, when it comes back, that's going to be what we're going to have to do. Well, unless staff spend a little time talking about it and want to provide an alternative recommendation. >> Understood. >> I think we're there. >> Yeah. Can I get and I want to point out one and I apologize I mentioned before,
but under request by contractor, the point of this is that if the contractor ever requests something that we don't agree with, we cannot do it without first coming to the board. And that that's why that paragraph is there. Now, and you look at the request by staff, a contractor could request staff to bring
it. And if staff agrees, contractor says they're skinks, right? That would be an example of a potential window. Uh so I just want to just ask the board if there's what I I've heard the conversation, but if we could button it up so I can say what sort of guidance to the staff would you like me to relay to see what we can work on or anything at
all? Perhaps there's no window that the board wants to have for this and that's okay too. >> Um if I were attempt to summarize, I would say that we felt like the 60 days was probably never going to happen, but I can appreciate the staff saying that there needs to be some level of a cap on it. Um I think I heard the majority of
the board be in disalignment with 10% and they want the number to be lower than that. So they want to see at least an alternative option for 10%. Um I um obviously discussed even having hesitation around any days if it's staff
responsibility but bringing some options to the board regarding that. I personally think and I the attorney mentioned duplicating the language on um uh about bringing how it's brought to the board the the four or five words we
added in a previous policy um >> board chair >> um no that's not what I'm talking about um I'm talking about the publishing um pub and the next publishable meeting or as aligned with publishing guidelines. So adding that language to wherever it
says bringing it to the board. Um so that it's clear it's coming to a board meeting and not just an email. Um and then is that summarized kind of where we were at? uh board >> and and I would just add a component of of communication you know um formal
communication to the board if you're you know if if the chair is approving if that's where the discussion goes along with the superintendent but the rest of the board is notified >> and I will say oh >> I was going to say I like that board member Conrad just because again you
know a lot of times we're the ones getting the phone calls you know when school opens and the elevator's not working or you know something else so that we at least have some knowledge. >> Yeah. >> Um and board I for context I'll just say the emergency change order thing. Um I
believe that that really because of the relationships with most of our contractors that's already happening. Um OciOla Middle School this summer was an example. There were some things that came up this summer with Ocula Middle School that needed to be addressed and because of the relationships facilities
has with contractors. Contractors are like, "Yeah, the board's going to get it. We're going to keep moving forward because the work has to happen. But this is really just putting into policy what is already a practice due to the quality of relationships we have with our contractors >> and because of the urgency that we have
speaking back to there's only 180 days in the school year and we have testing windows and everything else. You know we me as a board member I don't want to be the holdup. If we need to have a special meeting real quick to you know then by all means because schools need to open.
We're trying to open new schools, you know, all this stuff. Um, so if you can't do that piece of it, keep doing something else until we can get that meeting and make it quick. >> Can I say can share and something that's important especially in the month of May
where while elementary will have a few days of fast testing when we're looking at our secondary schools with end of course exams, AP exams, ACE exams, IB, it's the entire month. And so some of these projects depending on the school campus and the actual like if it's a roof damage repair whatever it is could
could look differently and we wouldn't want to just halt all all projects um depending on the school site. I I agree with that. But I also think if if um our school calendars are at the
forefront of the the thought process and planning with facilities, there's the opportunity, you know, elementary school also gets out at 2:00. So there's the opportunity to, you know, start work for facilities, you know, in the afternoon and, you know, like a second
shift. Um they could work after school gets out or on the weekends. I think that can be part of the plan. you know, you're planning when when someone's looking at taking on a job and you say, "Hey, this can't be done from 7:30 to two, you're g, you know, it has to be
done outside those hours." Um, I know we just had to do that with our personal business. You something had to be done in the middle of the night because we couldn't close the road. So knowing those things and having um the academic calendar um in front of the facilities
department really would help us plan to be more successful in that area. >> So um board does that summarize our concerns on change orders? All right. Um I'm going to pause us for five minutes to take a bathroom break. We'll come back at 111.
All right, we are back at 11:13. Um, attorney P, I think we are at the travel and expenses policy. Dr. Campbell, did you have questions on this? >> Correct. Yes. My only question is just the difference in the state and the federal rate. It looks as if right now the state rate is the same as the federal rate or at least what I saw last
night. Um maybe I'm wrong on that and I'm assuming the reason we're wanting to go to state versus federal is because of a cost savings, but I don't know that they're out of alignment right now. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Um so I mean if there are no other questions on that one, that was my predominant question.
It we're just trying to go from federal to state. The recommendation was to uh it was less uh it cost less to reimburse in the state rate than the federal rate. If there's been a recent change, it's escaped me, but that was the purpose of the request by staff was to decrease the
amount of money being reimbursed for travel. >> Okay. >> And it aligns with the board's travel expense as well. >> That's fine. Whatever's less is what I wanted to say. And so potentially it's state or federal, whichever is less. No, I understand right now it's state, but
again, I I think that we might need to have the policy say state or federal rate, the lesser of the two, however that needs to be worded. >> I like that. >> Just because >> then we're not having to check it every >> currently. State minimum wage by
constitution is more than federal minimum wage. And so obviously that's a little bit different because that's a constitutional amendment. But if there was a way for us to say whichever is less, then that's what I would say on that. That's the only comment I had on that policy. >> Okay. Any thoughts on adding um state or
federal, whichever is of the lesser? >> I'm in favor. >> I can agree with that. Dr. Campbell re attorney Blackman, did you have >> Would you The one of the goals of this was to make sure it matched the board's travel. Would you want I know we're not here for that one, but it's something to consider if you want to match the board
travel as well. >> You have board travel. Yes, absolutely. >> Whatever whichever is less. >> Whatever is less. Yeah. >> So, if you need to bring that one back to us, then that's fine. >> Well, we didn't advertise it, so it wouldn't be able to come back for round two. It would have to be at a separate
policy update. But >> um >> but but the noted for future policy discussion. >> Yes, >> absolutely. >> Um uh Reverend Cummings or board member Thorough, are you okay with whichever is less being added? All right. Sound >> Sounds good. Uh Miss Brown, did you
capture that? Yeah, where wherever it states it throughout, I believe, >> state or federal, whichever is less. >> Yep. um on the policy 6605 crowdfunding. My only question on this one and just since it's coming back to us is just asking I'm assuming that the public
education foundation as I know direct support organization is another policy in here but uh that they would abide by all of our policies and just ensuring that this doesn't impact them specifically about the fees being charged by the crowdfunding.
Um, so I I had a question out to the community foundation specifically about gift for Marian and how much those fees are. Uh, but that's just a question out if we could have the public education foundation just weigh in on that quickly to see say that this is not going to impact us and and we completely agree
with this. That was the reason I asked the question about crowdfunding. >> Dr. Campbell, can you ask us what the question is or the concern is for us to verify with the foundation? It specifically said I think 15% was the fee. Let me find where it actually said
it's a B at the very last sentence. >> Platforms must not exceed 15% fee structure. That's the question. So as long as the public ed foundation is not needing anything that and and that they're abiding by this policy, it's just a quick question to them to ask. Uh and
>> one of the things we are running into, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just need to inform you is that very often when there is a two or three-year contract with someone who's doing crowdfunding um multiple term uh in the first term they get with they get in under the
radar at 15 and in the second year the renewal is at 20 and the third year it's at 25. Um so we've been catching those and saying you can't do that >> right. So, I I mean I I think that there
there there even could be some questions on several I don't want to open up a can of worms. It a lot of it has to do with uh athletics and things as well. I mean, what those crowdfunding kinds of sites are,
but that's booster clubs potentially, however we're getting around that. Nevertheless, my main question was about public education foundation on this one. if we could just have a quick question of from them that that doesn't impact them. Uh and then also ensuring that to
attorney P's point that any multi-year contract also has to abide by that even in years two and three. >> All right. So we will pull this for round two and make sure that those updates are provided to the board for round two. >> Yeah. Um I did not have question on well
I see that we pulled the other one uh 6610. I did not have question on that. I'm scrolling. Sorry. Going uh 6835 the internal audits office.
My my question on this was is this internal audits policy. Is this all the internal audit that we have within the district, Miss Corgan's office, or does this have to do with our external auditing our auditing firm that we have
hired as our internal auditor? So like RSM, I think is the their name. We have hired them as the board's internal auditor, but they're not actually an office within. So that's this whole policy. I was just curious who this
policy is referencing. And that's on page 179 in the notebook policy 6835. So I know that statute was changing on internal audits. I mean I know that that was a a part of and there's a new statute number whatever here. I just
because the district shall employee obviously that we are definitely going to be doing that. Uh and the chief auditor shall report to the school board. My question is, is that Miss Corgan's office or is that
>> the auditor the the uh RSM? >> Yes. >> Reports directly to the school board. >> Correct. >> Right. Normally they're in the past they've gone through the school board attorney. >> Sure. >> But they do not they they provide a >> Okay. >> And you answered my question. My
question was, is this policy referencing the board's internal auditor, which is RSM currently, or is this policy referencing the office that we know that Miss Corrian holds within the school district that presents all the internal school audits to us on a regular basis?
That's my question. >> This is for RSM, right? >> Okay. >> And I'll note that the only alteration is the professional development, professional learning. >> Understood. that I but that was that was the question so you have answered it.
Thank you. Um gifts to the school district. Oh, that that one's fine. I I'll fix that one later. >> Okay, >> we're moving into 7,000s. >> Yes, 7,000s. >> Okay. 7,000s property
7230 gifts to the school district. 7434 smoking and tobaccof free environment 7540.02 2 Digital Content and Accessibility 7540.04 Staff Technology Acceptable Use and
Safety 7540.08 Artificial Intelligence Tools and Applications and that's all. So as to the 7000's property, open the floor to discussion of any item there.
>> Dr. Campbell. So 7540.02 page 188 in your book if you're following along there. Actually it's page 189 specifically. Just ensuring that this then um that under no circumstances shall a
staff member post on their personal web pages blah blah blah or private digital accounts, progress reports, grades. Understood all of that. Uh boards uh or district approved affiliated apps and services. I made a note of Class Dojo and remind and all of those kinds of
external apps that the staff will not be allowed to use um at all. And that may already be our practice that we're having, but I just wanted to make sure that we were understanding that's what that is all
about. Um I would I would say um I do not think that we are we've you know the Google classroom component is being chattered about amongst staff right um my daughter
actually came home the other day and said mom why are you taking away our Google um so that means somebody in her school told her that it was my fault but nonetheless so this to me dojo I don't think we're talking about dojo
at all. Um I haven't heard people complain yet and I know for sure the complaints will come when we say there's no more dojo and >> okay but what this policy will is saying though is employees are required to use
the board's website or district approved affiliated apps and services. So if the board is approved I mean the district has approved class dojo and remind and all of that they have not. >> Okay. Well, then >> I I do have a question and this is an a
little bit because I know a lot of >> parents and teachers that do use this. >> What what would we need to do to get that >> approved because many districts hold the whole district uses class dojo or >> we we are actively working on an
agreement that is between technology and legal right now that will replace class dojo. We have notified all the school administrators that because of the safety behind the data security between behind um class dojo that we cannot
protect our students and our teachers with that platform. So the program that we are entering into would be the appropriate tool for them to use and we would begin the professional learning for that this summer. >> So that you're right about the time frame on this Dr. Campbell. If we do
approve this, we will violate our own policy until July because we will not have a replacement program until at that time. >> Okay, that was >> what it was. And the consideration is with a platform like Dojo for example,
every communication that is on there is a public record and it is also subject to disclosure and discovery and we've had requests discovery requests in risk management and it's causing difficulty because very often those are not
maintained or kept and they're not centrally located and they ask someone may ask for all communication regarding X topic. and we don't get the dojo. So, um that's the importance of having an agreement.
There's also this policy which uh it's part of the um digital content accessibility. Um, the US Department of Justice final rule provisions under title two of Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and local government
entities including public schools to make web content and mobile applications accessible to individuals with disabilities. And part of that is it has to all communication has to go through district approved and monitored sources.
>> So the the I think um I mean I don't have any issues with what's written here. Um my concern would be do we put it in the packet that's going to be at this point though respectfully we're probably pushing into May before we have the hearing on this because we're we're going to be end of April for our part
two and then from there how many day how far out are we on approval the board meeting where we would approve the >> what's our timeline >> right >> after our 14-day notice and then another 28 days after that.
So, let's just put into practice that we're not going to have the hearing on approving these policies until June >> and then we're good. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> I that was the reason I brought it up because I just I I appreciate the way that we're going to be putting this into policy, the way it's worded and all, but
just wanted to ensure that we knew the implications of what was happening. Uh let's >> Hold on. Go ahead. >> I Mr. has something to say and I do too. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I'm so sorry. Thanks. You know what they say about curiosity, but are you at liberty to share what the replacement dojo is going
to be? >> No, >> not yet. >> Not yet because we don't have it through all of the channels yet. But I'll know that you'll be the first to know. >> I'd ask the question because everybody's going to be asking. >> Yes. Now we know. >> And my ask Dr. Brewer is the communication piece because not always,
but a lot of times information is shared with administrators and it's not at the top of their priority list. As a teacher, this is a main stay. Uh it's such an easy and for for me it was a positive you know an easy way and a positive way to communicate with
families and so um that change will be accepted better the sooner that that discussion is rolled out that and the reasoning why we are not able to use it anymore that it's not just a blatant decision by the board that there there are safety reasons why we're switching
>> before they leave for summer. >> Correct. Not during summer because some people leave and don't check I love I love that life for them but they leave and do not check their email again until they return in August and if you've planned all summer about using a resource and then you come back and it's not there that was devastating.
>> Correct. >> It's frustrating. >> Just I want to um explain something with class dojo for instance when we have public records requests we have completed them and we've asked for them and we will do that but one of the things we can't do is the parent controls their side of the conversation. If the parent deletes their account, all
their messages are gone. And I think that's one of the concerns we have as well. Then we have a one-sided conversation and have come across that issue. >> And that would be a great fact to share. >> Agreed. >> Faculty as well. >> Was there any further conversation on this um item? Okay. So then we're moving
on to 7540, right? >> Yes. >> Uh I did not have questions about that one. I did have question about 7540.08, which is the artificial intelligence tools and application. Okay. >> Uh noticing that staff is rejecting all
of Niola updates and and that is fine. We do have a pretty decent policy in place. My question was actually to Dr. Brewer if we are rolling out or implementing something like the traffic light norms for acceptable use as we saw
Miami Dade has and something like that. What what I don't the reason that Miami Dade rolled it out I know I've already expressed this publicly before was because a schoolboard member's child student was
wrote their entire paper put it into AI to ask it how to you know like was there anything that they would edit or whatever and got some feedback that way to try to then redo it. It wasn't that it wrote the paper for them, but the the teacher gave it a a zero because there
was any AI used at all. I think our policy certainly allows AI use. I don't know that that's what's being practiced right now. And so that was my question because it also allows employees to use AI to potentially create not their
entire lesson plan, but like a an an you know, an additional not assignments necessarily, but you know, how can I enhance this? How can I create an interactive learning something today around this whole idea? We have all of that built in here. I just want to ensure that we're actually practicing that.
>> Yes. And I this was our first step for sure and our instructional technology department is working hard now that this is developed to actually complete do the professional learning with our teachers and um our administrators because um you're right, it's it is being used. We
just want to make sure it's in the um doing it the right way. Okay, that concludes my questions in the 7,000 section. >> Okay, >> I think we're good to move on to the 8000s training powers. >> Okay,
>> as to the 8000s, that's operations. We have 8141, mandatory reporting of misconduct. 8330 student records, 8405, school safety and security. 8420 emergency management, emergency
preparedness and emergency response agencies. 8470 Registered Sexual Predators and Sex Offenders. 8500 Food Service Program. 8510 Wellness.
8600 Transportation 8600.04 bus operator qualifications and certification 8700 anti-fraud 8710 insurance risk management and claims settlement
>> chair. My one loan question was on policy 8500 and it just has to do with the competitive food sales page 238. Uh just asking if we're now resolving our whole vending machine issue. Uh
because yes, that's that was what my question was and it seems as if this policy will help us remedy that. >> Page >> we have a >> page 238. We have a bid on the April 14th board agenda um that addresses
vending and we're very excited. Mr. White House has worked very hard um to make this happen >> and there should be no changes from this one and the previous one that the board um reviewed under the the resolution that was passed. So,
>> right. So just because it it is striking that the food nutrition services should be the sole provider of food and beverage items sold. Um and so anyway, just wanting to ensure that this is going to help us get there that vending machines and it doesn't look as if we're
not allowing fundraisers of donuts or whatever all to happen. It it looks like this will remedy the issue that we've been having this year. So that was my question. >> Okay. Anything else from the 8000s board?
>> I need just a moment for housekeeping. So talk amongst yourselves. >> Yeah, because also in that same policy on the vending machines, we are striking the no food or beverages are to be sold or distributed which will compete with the district's food service program. So
I mean if the vending machine has a protein bar in it and you like that better than something else, then it's on the menu that day. And that was one of the issues was the submitting machines were competing and that was one of the reasons why we thought it might be conflicting with board policy. The idea was to allow it
to compete however to be smart snacks um compliant obviously. >> Right. >> That concludes my questions in the 8000 section as well. >> And it it should also define exactly when donuts can be served and as well. There's limited amounts of time and
there's certain time periods in which it can occur. Um and then what can happen of course after school hours as well. Miss Belchure did a very deep dive on this as well to um to make sure that everything was correct with the with the federal law.
>> Will staff have diet cokes in their vending machine? >> Staff can have anything. Not anything anything that's >> machines because that's what the question was that I had been. Will they be having diet cokes in them? >> They can. >> They can. >> And the staff lounges they can. >> Okay. They can have sugar. >> Have access to it here. What about Code
Red? >> That's right. >> Code Red. >> Code Red. >> Mountain Dew. >> Maybe they don't make it anymore. Uh, back in the day, they were in the student vending machines. >> That might be a market. >> Code Red. Mountain Dew. >> Well, >> paid for a lot of uniforms.
>> And I can resend that to you. But there still is a criteria even with the caffeine. Remember we brought that up. But there are some Monster drinks and other um similar products that do meet the our threshold of caffeine and so but I can send that criteria back out to
you. >> Okay. Any other 8,000 comments? >> Okay. Then moving on to the 9,000s, community relations, booster clubs, and other outside support organizations. Policy 9211 9215 direct support
organizations 9700 relations with special interest groups 9700.01 advertising and commercial activities. >> So chair both of the first two policies the 9211 as well as 92
15 I think was the number. Yeah, both of these are Niola updates that staff that they're rescending, but staff is wanting to keep them. So, I just wanted to have a conversation about that to have more clarity as to why Niola would be rescending the policies, but yet staff
is keeping them. And that's fine. I mean, Niola is not our policy. They're our policies and then Neiola just makes recommendations. But do we know the reason why Niola was rescending the policies? I I I do have a pretty broad uh understanding why they wanted to
reorganize kind of how everything was was done and none of it was required by statute to be clear as well. and they said that in their notes. And when reviewing this with Miss Corgan and with staff, the idea was that we already had a really robust policy that was
very particular about oversight and felt that the neolan probably wasn't doing as sufficient of a job or at least to our standards of what we preferred. We have written in additional requirements um in some of the policy in the past about what we require for instance for
credit card purchases and things like that and staff just preferred to keep it the way it was. But we did um it's escaped me exactly the couple lines but there are a couple lines that were kept or we took and moved in that we thought that Neola had a good recommendation. So
you might see a couple of those in there but for the most part it was keep things the way they are. Um, >> I don't think I saw any changes to the first policy at all. >> It might have been in a previous one. I could uh >> and >> I can have those updates at a later
time. I have them all >> in 9215. We didn't pick up any of their language that I can see either, unless I'm mistaken. Um, and direct support organization that our booster clubs set up as direct support organization. I I I
was assuming the only direct support organization we have is the public education foundation. >> That's my understanding as well. >> Okay. So that this whole entire policy is just about them and our relationship with them. Um so our policy is much less robust than
it looked like what Nola had been recommending on that specific but I >> they wanted us to remove I think it was 9 to11 if I remember correctly. I have to double check though, but it's they they wanted to remove an entire policy that we had that was that was a very
robust policy and I think that's where some of the language has gone and it looked like it would be we're removing it not taking the recommendations but we already have something similar in our current policy >> right they wanted to rescend the whole policy and so that I understanding the justification of that that they wanted to actually just redo how the policy was
done and our policy is better than what they were creating perfectly fine on the 9215 though on direct support organizations There are a lot of NEOLA recommendations that staff rejected all of those and so some of it's a little bit difficult to
read whenever you're trying to read through pink that's also stricken through. It's like so I didn't read all of that. I just wanted to I guess understand why Niola would be making so many recommendations that we're rejecting.
I believe they were combining direct support organizations and outside organiz or um direct support organizations combining the definition and the goal was to keep the support organization in its own separate policy and treat them differently. Um >> got it. So they were potentially
combining 9211 and 9215 together and that's what all of this language is is essentially the pickup from 9211 possibly. >> That is my understanding but there is a lot to hear. So I if I need to I can go through and double check everything.
>> Yeah. I I mean I I just wanted to make sure there's some recordkeeping requirements and some uh limitation of liabilities and compliance measures. Just looking at headlines, non-discrimination, different language like that that I
don't believe is captured in the 9215, but maybe it is. And one of the items that was brought to my attention during this process was that the district support organization that we have here in the district has a more aggressive auditing pum process as well as compared to and so the idea would be if you were
to give a they they have a more stringent process than what is required for other um organizations. So they said we have this strict process we want to just keep our strict process. That was also relayed to me as well as part of this review. >> Okay.
I don't think I have additional questions about that. I just wanted to make sure to ask the question why there would be so many recommendations that we're rejecting. Um, so I I think that covers it.
All right, board. Anything else? >> Okay. >> All right. Hearing nothing else, that concludes all of the policies which we've brought here for you today. Um, Miss Brown, can you provide me with a list of ones we're going to be bringing back?
Okay, we've got we're going to be bringing back policy 2111, parent and family involvement in the school program. 3120.04, 4, Employment of Substitute Replacement and Part-Time Instructional Staff.
6320, Purchasing and Contracting for Commodities and Contractual Services. 6345, Change orders. 6605, Crowdfunding, and 8710, Insurance Risk Management and Claim
Settlement. So, we'll be bringing those back to you along with a a few other policies we have. Now, um if there is another that that we went over a little bit today and we find
that there might be a an error or something we need to change, we have cross advertised. So, in most instances, we'll be able to still discuss it at the next meeting. So, um keep that in mind. Board members, do you have any questions
of me or of Mr. Blackman? >> No, >> I don't think so. All right, board. Is everyone good with where we're at? Okie dokie. Uh, we will move into meeting reminders. Uh, actually, is there any public comment on
our policies? Hearing none. Uh, moving into meeting reminders, we have an administrative briefing and work session scheduled for April 2nd at 9:00 am. There's a schoolboard meeting April 14th at 5:30 p.m. Another administrative briefing and
work session scheduled for April 16th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. And then the IICORCO meeting um is also scheduled for April 16th at 4M. Aren't those normally on Wednesdays? >> Thursdays. Okay, sorry. Um, the date
just looked weird. Um, okay. and we will move into comments. Anything from legal? Um, Miss Brown or Attorney Powers? >> I don't think we have anything additional. >> Okay. Uh, Miss Martinez Young. >> No, Madam Chair. >> Uh, anything from the superintendent's office? >> Nothing other than our students are
doing their fast writing assessment today. So, you can Well, >> uh, thank you, uh, Attorney Blackman for your participation today and being a part of the discussion. Uh, Reverend Cummings, >> have the joint meeting tomorrow. We do have a joint meeting tomorrow at 9:00 am
at the Livestock Pavilion. >> Mention that one. That's why I'm >> Yes. Sorry. Yes. Tomorrow at 9:00 am at the Livestock Pavilion. We have the joint workshop with the county commission, um the city council for the city of Okala and then obviously the town of Reic and some of the other smaller municipalities. >> No comments.
>> Member Thor. >> I just want to say thank you. The the policies discussion continues to become a lot more efficient and and refined. You know, we're slowly wrangled this beast and I'm really grateful to have attorney Blackman on board with Attorney
Powers and Terry. I think that it has been a fantastic hire and a really great addition to our team. So, thank you attorney Blackman for your work and thank you uh board member Campbell for, you know, pointing out years ago that it had been a while since we had formally
discussed and looked at updating our policies and you know, the work has paid off. It was it was agony there in the beginning because there was just so much to cover, but we're really getting we're really getting good at it. So, >> yes, >> appreciate it. >> Dr. Campbell.
>> Oh, no. I'm I'm good. I've talked enough today. >> Member Conrad. >> Um, just real quick, I wanted to say we've wrapped up our community meetings. Um, and just want to say thank you to our district staff. I thought they went very well. Um and it was interesting
um to see because many comm community members attended all all of the meetings and so um to me it was interesting to see kind of the evolution of the understanding um as we moved through uh each meeting. So, um I won't say it was
enjoyable, but it was informative. Um and I think overall so beneficial for the community as a whole. And so just just very appreciative for the work that was done. Um after that, uh and the last thing I I want to say is one of my favorite things. We discussed this at
one of our recent meetings about um oh, it was our focus forward meeting. I was trying to remember what what did we discuss that um about this board is um everybody's unique gifts and talents um that they they bring not just to the
school system or the district but to our community. And so last night I was um at a funeral and Mr. Christian was was playing um throughout the service. And so it just reminds me, Mr. Christian, thank you for all that you do, not just
for the school board and for the school district, but in and throughout our community. So, um he's always quietly down down in the front directing and getting everything working, but um just a great reminder of it takes all of us um to get the job done with our each
have we each have unique abilities. But, um this afternoon, well, it's almost afternoon, 11:45, um just wanted to focus a little bit on Mr. Christian. So, thank you for what you do and for sharing your gifts with all of those um connected to you. >> That's all. >> Great. Thank you. I look forward to a
productive meeting tomorrow with our fellow government entities to have some productive conversation as well as informed updates about where we are um with um facilities and building and our understanding and um I've been assured we're going to have a much more
productive meeting than our last one. So, I'm looking forward to that. Um and then we will see each other again on Thursday for a workshop on Thursday. Um there being no further business, I will ask for us to adjourn at 11:46. >> You chairing